The London Playbook from POLITICO

PARTYGATE LATEST: The Telegraph’s Ben Riley-Smith has seen a copy of the questionnaire sent by the Metropolitan Police to Boris Johnson and No. 10 staff involved in the Partygate scandal. One line in particular makes for interesting reading: “The MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] approach during the pandemic has been to confirm the number of FPNs [fixed penalty notices] issued at particular events and to explain what those FPNs were issued for.” This raises the prospect that, even though the Met has said it won’t name those it fines, it will reveal the number who were fined at each event and explain how they broke the law. Johnson will not publish his answers to the questionnaire, No. 10 said yesterday, but the PM vowed he would have “a lot more to say” on the allegations against him once the police probe concludes.

THE plot thickens in the mystery of the missing £600m or so paid to the interior design company, Unispace Global Ltd, that bagged a handful of major PPE contracts via the government’s VIP lane between April and June 2020.

Profits of Doom ,www.private-eye.co.uk

The last Eye reported how the accounts for the company that had contracted with the Department of Health and Social Care for gloves, overalls and masks showed no sign of the money in its 2020 accounts, while less than helpful government spending data did not give the legal entity to which vast amounts of taxpayers’ money had been handed over. It seemed the money must simply have been paid to another, presumably related, company. So which was it?

Questionable accounts

The health department has since responded to the Eye’s freedom of information request for the details to say that in fact all the payments on the contracts were made to Unispace Global Ltd. At which point it gets serious. Since the contracts were concluded and fulfilled entirely within 2020, and the payments also made within the year, the nine-figure amounts should have been included in the company’s turnover for the year. The accounts, however, give the turnover as £64m, with the only source of income mentioned that of interior design (which in previous years generated more than this).

Last March the Unispace group, set up in Australia by brothers Gareth and Charles Hales, was sold to Hong Kong investment company Pacific Alliance Group, founded and chaired by the man called “China’s private equity champion” by Fortune magazine, Weijian Shan. It was under this new ownership that the questionable Unispace Global Ltd accounts were filed.

No comment

The Eye has repeatedly asked Unispace to explain the missing hundreds of millions of pounds and has not been given any response. One chartered accountant consulted by the Eye described the omission as “inexplicable”; another said he could see “no legitimate reason”.

In a normal country the failure to account for £600m of public money, for whatever reason, would attract searching official questions. But in one dripping with financial foul play but little interest in tackling it, there are no guarantees the money will ever be found.

Ministers are looking at turning used and out-of-date Covid face masks into NHS hospital curtains and bed sheets after ordering billions more than were needed during the pandemic.

Luke Andrews (Extract) www.dailymail.co.uk 

More than 36.4billion items of personal protective equipment (PPE) have been ordered by the UK Government since the start of the pandemic in March 2020. 

But ministers were condemned after it emerged earlier this month that £2.2billion worth of masks, visors and aprons are set to expire before they can be used.

Junior health minister Edward Argar revealed today that officials are ‘exploring’ recycling the gear to avoid huge amounts of waste.

New leaked emails seen by Good Law Project suggest that senior officials at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Cabinet Office knew that many more PPE suppliers were given the VIP treatment than the 47 names they reported to the National Audit Office (NAO).

goodlawproject.org 

In November 2020, the NAO published its investigation into Government procurement during the pandemic. A week after the NAO report was released, the Government’s Chief Commercial Officer Gareth Rhys Williams emailed the senior civil servants responsible for PPE procurement asking them to provide data on these VIPs, with a plea at the end of the message that the data “should total to the NAO PPE Spend numbers…..pls”.

The following morning, on 3 December 2020, the Director of PPE Procurement forwarded Rhys Williams’ email onto civil servants, asking: “Can you pls assist with the below request and calculate the spend with the VIP suppliers (see excel in attached email), in comparison to that with the non-VIP suppliers. And ensure the total adds to the numbers reported in the NAO reports?”

The demand that the VIP data match the data referred to in the NAO report caused dismay among civil servants. They seem to have been told to manipulate their data after the fact so that it matched what was given to the NAO. We’ve seen emails that suggest civil servants believed the figures supplied to the NAO may have been made up. We want to know the full story and understand what really happened.

We also want to know how the Government arrived at the figures they supplied to the NAO. The leaked VIP spreadsheet shows that the names of 21 VIP companies were not given to the NAO, 18 of which were only revealed by us last week.

Those 18 VIPs were collectively awarded £984 million in PPE contracts after receiving VIP treatment. 

In total, the 68 VIPs uncovered so far have been awarded £4.9 billion in PPE contracts, all without competition. This goes far beyond the figure the Government gave the NAO. 

On Friday night, following our latest investigation, the DHSC quietly snuck out an update on its website  to include one more VIP: a company called Technicare Ltd, trading as Blyth Group, were handed a PPE contract after a referral from the office of Gavin Williamson MP. 

Good Law Project approached the DHSC and Cabinet Office for comment, but both said they won’t comment on leaked information.

A copy of the emails can be seen here.

Defence minister James Heappey said earlier on Monday that the prime minister would argue that he is “not culpable” of the potential Covid offences being probed by the police.

“I certainly don’t think the prime minister should volunteer his culpability,” the minister told Sky News. “His argument is that he is not culpable. We should wait and see what the police come back with.”

“Don’t blame me, I’m the Prime Minister. One rule for them, another rule for us. – Owl

www.independent.co.uk 

Boris Johnson’s responses to his Metropolitan Police questionnaire into social gatherings at No 10 will not be made public, Downing Street has said.

The prime minister insisted he will have “a lot more” to say on the partygate scandal once the Scotland Yard probe is concluded.

The Met has sent the questionnaire to Mr Johnson and approximately 50 staff members as it investigates a dozen gatherings at No 10 while strict Covid rules were still in place.

On an official visit to Scotland, Mr Johnson was asked whether he and his lawyers had responded to the police questionnaire yet.

He told reporters: “All that process has got to be completed before I can say anything more, but I look forward to telling you a lot more in due course.”

The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “As we said on Friday, we will respond as required. As you know, I think the Met made clear that that was in seven days, so we will comply with that requirement.”

Asked if the responses would be made public, the No 10 spokesman said: “No.”

Mr Johnson’s allies have told the press that Mr Johnson plans to argue he was working in his flat on the night of the alleged “Abba party” in November 2020, shortly after senior aide Dominic Cummings left No 10.

The prime minister, who has appointed his own lawyer, is also set to claim the three leaving parties he attended were part of his job. “Saying goodbye to staff is part of working life,” a source told The Times.

The PM has already claimed that he believed “implicitly” that the “bring your own booze” garden party at No 10 in May 2020 was a work event.

Defence minister James Heappey said earlier on Monday that the prime minister would argue that he is “not culpable” of the potential Covid offences being probed by the police.

“I certainly don’t think the prime minister should volunteer his culpability,” the minister told Sky News. “His argument is that he is not culpable. We should wait and see what the police come back with.”

Allies say he will not resign even if he is fined, in a move that would be likely to trigger Tory MPs to force a vote of confidence in his leadership.

Fifteen Tory MPs have publicly called for Mr Johnson to quit, while more are thought to have privately written to the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories calling for a no-confidence vote.

More are poised to do so if the PM is found to have broken his own coronavirus laws, or further damaging details emerge from the Sue Gray inquiry.

He will face a vote of no confidence if 54 Conservative MPs write to 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady and would be ousted if more than half of his MPs subsequently voted against him.

Police are investigating a total of 12 gatherings in Downing Street on eight dates in an inquiry called Operation Hillman, which is examining whether Covid restrictions were broken.

Mr Johnson is believed to have attended at least six of the events.

Adam Wagner QC, a leading legal expert on Covid rules, has suggested it could take “months” for Scotland Yard to conclude its investigation if Mr Johnson is “lawyered up”.

Letter published in the Sidmouth Herald

Herald Letters Published: February 14, 2022 www.sidmouthherald.co.uk

There have been fourteen Prime Ministers in my lifetime, Boris Johnson is the fifteenth, but without doubt he is the worst. 

I have never disrespected any previous Prime Minister or thought they were unfit for office – until now.

During World War II, I remember as a young child sitting with my parents listening on the radio to a man they called ‘Winston’. 

It was several years before I understood why my parents respected Winston Churchill, the leader who saw them through those dark days, reassuring them when possible but always inspiring them to face the huge challenges ahead.

Boris Johnson’s honesty and decency are in doubt but he is determined to fight every inch of the way and preserve his own skin before he will resign. 

Several Prime Ministers over the years have taken the decision to leave office with dignity – Anthony Eden after Suez and recently David Cameron after losing the Referendum are two examples.

It is disgraceful that Boris is focused on preserving his own  self interest at the expense of our system of Government. He even resorts to hurling reprehensible untrue slurs at Keir Starmer about Jimmy Saville. 

This is a very dangerous path to tread which should remind us of the excesses of Donald Trump. 

His response to how far he has fallen in the estimation of the British public is table a flurry of ‘levelling up’ plans (with no new money) and all kinds of projects to come to fruition in eight years’ time – surely we can not stand another eight years of Boris?

One can’t help noticing his flying visit to Ukraine, where he was given VIP treatment and a guard of honour at the airport, was a great escape from his position at home.

Whatever your politics, I urge you to consider the Prime Minister’s record and the implications for our tradition of high standards in public office when you decide whether to continue to support him.

GILLIAN NATUSCH

Sidmouth

• Erect garden shed Heronsmead Dalwood Axminster Devon EX13 7EHRef. No: 22/0248/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed agricultural building Hunthay Farm Axminster EX13 5RJRef. No: 22/0232/AGR | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension 13 Monkton Road Honiton EX14 1PZRef. No: 22/0234/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Single storey rear extension with 4 rooflights.Sunnyhayes Broadclyst Station Exeter EX5 3AXRef. No: 22/0221/CPL | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Approved
• T1, Monterey Pine : Reduce first primary limb growing south arising at approximately 5m above ground level (AGL) by 1.5m. Maximum diameter of Cut (MDC) 50mm ; reduce first primary limb growing west arising at approximately 7m AGL by 2m. MDC 70mm. Reason for works: The tree recently lost a large limb growing south west which has left the remaining limbs exposed to wind stresses. Reduction of the two limbs as above to reduce chance of further limb loss. 13 Hayes End West Hill Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1GGRef. No: 22/0224/TRE | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 & T2 Oaks crown lift pendulous foliage over garden side of No 51 Evergreen close (T1) and over road side (T2) to give 5.5m clearance from ground level , maximum size cuts 50mm diameter. Due to foliage hanging very low in neighbouring gardens when in leaf 47 Evergreen Close Exmouth EX8 4RRRef. No: 22/0214/TRE | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension including demolition of existing extension (certificate of lawfulness for proposed use)5 Littleham Road Exmouth EX8 2QQRef. No: 22/0211/CPL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear infill extension including 2x roof light with alteration to fenestration 35 Winslade Road Sidmouth EX10 9EXRef. No: 22/0210/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extensions, single storey front extension, demolition of existing side extension and conservatory and addition of first floor with alterations to fenestration. Coles Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 5DZRef. No: 22/0209/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Landscaping to create new level access footpaths and ramps with level decking area. Village Hall Lympstone School Hill Lympstone EX8 5JYRef. No: 22/0207/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Replacement windows & replacement porch on south elevation, facade repairs on north & south elevation, new internal floor finish 2 Drillers Cottages Gittisham Honiton EX14 3AQRef. No: 22/0202/LBC | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement windows & replacement porch on south elevation, facade repairs on north & south elevation, new internal floor finish 2 Drillers Cottages Gittisham Honiton EX14 3AQRef. No: 22/0201/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing prefabricated log sports hut with new sports pavilion. Village Hall Branscombe Branscombe Seaton EX12 3DBRef. No: 22/0203/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and internal remodelling 92A Granary Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6ERRef. No: 22/0192/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Judas tree: Fell T2 Prunus: Reduce in height by one meter T3 Birch: Remove first North facing limb T4 Birch: Fell T5 Prunus: Reduce overall to approx three metres form ground level The Bull Pen Kilmington Axminster EX13 7RJRef. No: 22/0199/TCA | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of conservatory roof from glass to slate with 2 x rooflights. Harcombe House Harcombe Sidmouth EX10 0PRRef. No: 22/0198/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• We seek planning permisson as the barn was damaged in a storm and has subsquently fallen down and needs rebuilding Old Pheasant Pluckers Cottage Tottiskay Farm Southleigh Colyton EX24 6JBRef. No: 22/0196/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Singles storey glazed side extension, internal remodelling and demolition of garage and alterations to existing car port. The Grove South Street Colyton EX24 6ERRef. No: 22/0194/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing agricultural buildings and construction of 5 no. dwellinghouses (alternative to residential change of use of agricultural buildings to 5 no. dwellinghouses under Class Q approval reference 21/1887/PDQ) Crosshill Farm Weston Honiton EX14 3PFRef. No: 22/0178/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey front extension and two storey rear extension with associated remodelling works. Glebe Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9RHRef. No: 22/0181/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Removal of existing wall and rebuilding of wall to form new entrance and driveway, existing pedestrian gateway to be closed off, Removal of greenhouse and erection of a garage with first floor habitable space with 2 roof lights and site to be relevelled. 2 Maunders Hill Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7JDRef. No: 22/0177/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey rear extension with alteration to fenestration. 38 Greenpark Road Exmouth EX8 4JTRef. No: 22/0179/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side extension with alteration to fenestration and to include integrated double garage. Rosario Ebford Exeter EX3 0QNRef. No: 22/0183/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two dwellings and associated access Land East Of East Budleigh Road Budleigh SaltertonRef. No: 22/0172/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful development for proposed construction of greenhouse.Yew Tree House Musbury Axminster EX13 8ARRef. No: 22/0180/CPL | Validated: Wed 02 Feb 2022 | Status: Refused
• Conversion of garage into annexe, removal of existing shed and erection of a new shed with extended parking. Orchard Cottage Harcombe Sidmouth EX10 0PRRef. No: 22/0169/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of garage/workshop north west of the main dwelling Owls Castle Stockland Honiton EX14 9LLRef. No: 22/0143/LBC | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace windows and door: 1no. window on ground floor and 1no. window and door at first floor west elevation; 2no. windows on ground floor south elevation and 1no. window on first floor east elevation. Corn Barn Dulcis Farm Kilmington Axminster EX13 7HDRef. No: 22/0145/LBC | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Side and rear first floor extension above existing garage to provide accommodation. Hayes Salcombe Hill Road Sidmouth EX10 8JRRef. No: 22/0146/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed permanent agricultural workers dwelling Hoppins Field Southerton Ottery St Mary EX11 1SBRef. No: 22/0125/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Replacement of gravel covered front garden and brick steps with gravel driveway and brick / stone steps to front door. 46 Granary Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6ESRef. No: 22/0122/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Amendments to application 21/0678/FUL to include minor internal alterations, addition of rooflight over stairwell and alterations to fenestration. 29 Eyewell Green Seaton EX12 2BNRef. No: 22/0072/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Holm Oak (T1) Fell because tree is causing damage to a wall directly beside the tree. Cedar Shade Residential Home All Saints Road Sidmouth EX10 8EURef. No: 22/0062/TRE | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of LPG gas tank to front elevation of the property. 6 Glebe Close Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7JWRef. No: 21/3291/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of part of the building and yard to a bus depot, using part of the existing workshop for bus maintenance and part of the yard for bus and staff parking and as a wash bay for buses 101 Harbour Road Seaton EX12 2NQRef. No: 21/2991/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use and alterations to detached double Garage to create ancillary accommodation for use by family 61 Jenwood Road Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4UYRef. No: 21/2343/FUL | Validated: Mon 31 Jan 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from field to beer garden and retention of existing pergola in front courtyard and provision of double tipi in beer garden The Agricultural Inn Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5DPRef. No: 21/2114/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Feb 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

WHILE official indifference to money laundering and economic crime persists, the opportunities provided by the UK government to the bad guys come thick and fast.

www.private-eye.co.uk

The latest offering from the British launderette is the innocuous-sounding “electronic money institution” (EMI), a type of company that processes payments without being a proper bank and with correspondingly less regulation and internal control.

A study by Transparency International found that 37 of the 260 EMIs set up in the UK had owners or directors from the former Soviet Union. Some of these connections indicate that EMIs are the latest manifestation of the money-laundering networks that grew in the Baltic states in the 1990s as the route into western financial markets and property (with the help of British lawyers, accountants and company service providers, as set out in the Eye’s 2018 special report, Looting with Putin). The researchers found 45 EMIs had senior figures who had already been linked to money laundering.

Suspicious transactions

A Plus Payment Solutions, for example, is run from a trading estate in Bletchley by Latvian Dmitrijs Krasko, who began his career at Latvian bank ABLV, which was shut down after the US Treasury banned it for “institutionalised money laundering”. Krasko went on to run a company formation agency and sign many of the dodgy company filings for UK “limited liability partnerships” of the sort the Eye identified as the money-laundering vehicle of choice back in 2013. An impressive 112 companies from the Krasko stable cropped up in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ FinCEN Files leak of suspicious transactions.

Krasko’s payment company was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority at the end of 2020, long after it would have been simple to spot the obviously suspicious hallmarks of money laundering.

So lax is the regulation of EMIs that these “institutions” are freely bought and sold. Active in this business is another veteran of the Latvian banking game, Julia Raubishke. Once of Baltikums Bank (fined by Latvian regulators and forced to close 90 percent of non-Latvian accounts, but with no suggestion of Raubishke being involved in wrongdoing), and also a veteran of the company formation game, Raubishke now heads an operation called Round Finance. It can be found advertising “A[authorized]EMI license (FCA UK)” companies for sale. Regulators are supposed to look at any new buyer, but Britain’s financial Clouseaus are not the fleetest of foot.

Financial services growth

Away from the Baltic, a string of other small banks also became important cogs in the laundering machine, none more so than Cyprus’s FBME, which closed in 2015 after the US called it a “foreign financial institution of primary money laundering concern”. The man in charge of its card services division from 2006 to 2012 (a hotbed of laundering using fake transactions), Guy El Khoury, now runs another EMI, AF Payments Ltd, authorised by the FCA in 2018.

It’s a good time for questionable payment companies. Chancellor Rishi Sunak has recently instructed the FCA to target growth of financial services as well as regulate them, while the payments companies shrewdly style themselves “fintech” and thus at that cutting edge Sunak is so keen on. With less than 1 percent of financial service companies coming under FCA examination in any year, and half-hearted attempts at reining in the UK’s shell company industry already failing, the money launderer’s British toolbox remains full of all the best gadgets.

If this becomes the norm it spells the beginning of the end for Seaton/Colyton Seaton/Beer and other areas. – Owl  

Joe Ives www.devonlive.com 

Controversial plans for 80 new homes on a ‘green wedge’ separating Bickington and Fremington have been approved by North Devon Council (NDC).

The development, which will provide affordable homes, is seen as a necessary evil by some members of the council’s planning committee but too much of an incursion into the land separating Bickington and Fremington by others.

In the end, the planning committee was split down the middle with its chair, Councillor Eric Ley (Independent, Bishops Nympton), breaking the deadlock and voting in favour.

The development will be built to the west of Bickington and will be accessible through another area of new housing being built off Mead Park.

The land, currently agricultural, is seen as an important ‘green wedge’ separating Bickington and Fremington. It was not in the council’s plans to be built on.

However, North Devon Council, whose housing plans are made in combination with neighbouring Torridge, does not have a five-year housing land supply. This means the two councils need to be more accepting about housing developments they might otherwise turn down.

As the councils are behind on housing targets, by law any development which is deemed sustainable, even if outside the local plan, is weighted towards approval. This is unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the adverse impacts outweigh benefits. Councillors voting in favour of the 80 home Bickington development argued that, regrettably, this could not be done.

New 80 home development. Credit: LHC Designs

Councillor Jasmine Chesters (North Devon Independent, Braunton West and Georgeham) summed up the mood, saying: “None of us want this application but none of us can find substantial reasons to turn it down.”

Councillor Jayne Mackie (Independent, Fremington) understood the concerns but said, in policy terms, there were no ‘clear’ reasons for refusal, adding: “We’ve got to look at some really hard decisions.”

Addressing the planning committee, Cllr David Knight (Liberal Democrats, Roundswell), like several others against the plans, said the new homes would create too much additional traffic on already congested roads.

He continued: “The volume of traffic is just too much and adding further developments in this area – there are no measures that can actually mitigate against this – we will just have stationary traffic.”

There were also concerns about air pollution caused by vehicles driving to and from the new homes.

Councillor Robbie Mack (Green Group, Barnstaple Central Ward) was particularly worried about the loss of part of the ‘green wedge’ field separating Bickington and Fremington. He told the meeting: “If you tighten the wedge any further there isn’t a wedge at all. It is just one park in the middle of southern Barnstaple.”

Cllr Frank Biederman (Independent, Fremington) urged councillors to reject the plans, asking members: “Are we here to support our residents or are we here to support the government’s ‘build, build, build at all costs’ policy?”

Councillors were more positive about the affordable homes stipulated as part of the approval. Twenty-four will be built; ten two-bed, seven one-bed, five three-bed and two four-bed homes. Around 18 of these are to be socially rented.

It means the plans reach the council’s targets for 30 per cent affordable homes – a situation that has become increasingly rare. Developers across Devon have a track record of providing viability assessments to demonstrate they can’t afford to build the number of affordable homes councils want.

Welcome to the DevonLive news brand dedicated to all things North Devon. Follow NorthDevonLive on Facebook and Twitter and sign up for our daily newsletters here!

Despite the promises, some councillors remained unconvinced that Cavanna Homes, the Torquay-based developer behind the proposals, will ultimately build the 24 affordable properties.

Councillor Joe Tucker (Liberal Democrats, Marwood) said: “This viability thing is basically a nonsense. A complete and utter nonsense. We’ve seen that already with one or two applications in this area.” He wanted firm guarantees that the affordable properties would be delivered.

Andrew Rowe, speaking on behalf of Cavanna, said the plans would ease the council’s housing supply problem and help deliver “chronically needed” affordable housing for local residents.

If the developers backtrack on their commitment to affordable homes, the plans will go back to councillors to consider again.

On top of the affordable homes, as part of planning permission currently granted, Cavanna will also have to pay just over £635,000 for education provision in the area and more than £45,000 towards expanding Fremington Medical Practice.

A further £68,000 will go on improving the A3125/B3233 junction and the A3125/Old Torrington Road junction.

Based on independent environmental data, Exeter is the cleanest city in England according to a new report by environmental data organisation Ends Report.

www.radioexe.co.uk

It ranked the country’s 55 largest urban centres to come up with an index based on more than 30 environmental factors grouped into five categories – air quality, climate, water quality, public realm and green behaviour.

The result: Exeter is tops!

Devon’s capital finished ahead of Worthing and Brighton in a top five, which is dominated by cities on England’s south coast.

Exeter ranked highly on several measures, including air quality, climate and water quality. It recorded fewer days of poor air quality than any other urban centre in the index, and boasted below average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

Exeter City Council is claiming the credit. It says it “has been focussing over recent years on the challenges of climate change, air quality, water quality, congestion, local amenity and quality of life long.”

London finished at the bottom of the ranking. While the capital performed strongly on climate and green behaviour – it has the lowest proportion of residents commuting by private vehicle, and a high level of electric vehicle charging device provision – the capital has overall poor air quality.

Jamie Carpenter, editor of Ends Report, said: “The Clean Cities Index is intended to start a debate about the state of the environment in our biggest towns and cities, and shine a spotlight on some of the wide environmental disparities that exist between them.”

A game of bureaucratic and accounting  musical chairs or will this provide real benefits and unlock more funds and staff? – Owl

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

An end to operating theatres so small “it’s like playing musical chairs” and more efficient services are just some of the benefits on the way for North Devon District Hospital Trust (NDDHT).

Senior NHS members held a meeting recently with members of North Devon Council (NDC) to discuss the future of North Devon’s hospital.

Top of the agenda was looming plans to merge the Royal Devon and Exeter (RD&E) NHS Trust with North Devon Healthcare NHS Trust. The two have been collaborating since 2018 but will be formally combining to form a new trust in April. 

Speaking at a Torridge District Council external overview and scrutiny committee, Katherine Allen, director of strategy at the current RD&E Trust, said: “North Devon will benefit from the strengths of a bigger trust – whether that’s access to resources, to research, resilience of small teams joining together to make more resilient services – but equally RD&E will benefit from a small hospital, being really agile, getting things done quickly.” 

Ms Allen said the merger would help to address the problems with staff shortages at North Devon District Hospital and save money for both organisations. 

She added: “The most important thing is that staff and patients see very little difference. This is a corporate merger. The services will stay the same. North Devon patients will still access services in North Devon.

“That is the whole aim of this merger: to make sure that local access is maintained.”

One of the early plans of the new trust is to collate patient records between the RD&E and North Devon on a new digital platform. This is expected to go ahead in July.

The name of the new organisation has not yet been announced but has been decided. It will reflect the “history and provenance of both trusts,” Ms Allen assured the meeting.

A merger between North Devon District Hospital and the RD&E was proposed in 2003 but fell through. “What’s different about this time”, said Ms Allen, “is the clinicians are 100 per cent behind this, they understand the benefits, they can see the benefits of this merger for the patients.”

She warned that if the merger didn’t happen “we would lose momentum” and that NDDHT would be back in the same situation it was in 2017 with a worsening financial position and deteriorating quality of care.

RD&E have run some services in North Devon for decades, providing treatments for cancer as well as ear nose, throat and dental services.

In 2018 North Devon was struggling to provide some key services and asked for help. RD&E stepped up its role and the two trusts have shared many of the leadership positions with each other since then. “That has really stabilised local service provision and started the resolution of quite a number of our challenges”, said the strategy director. 

At several points in the meeting between councillors and health bosses, the  NHS representatives referred to the challenges posed by North Devon being relatively ‘“remote”, something that irked one councillor.

Councillor Christ Leather (Independent, Northam) said: “To me it’s been a managed decline of that [North Devon Healthcare] Trust over the years and I do hear about the remoteness of the hospital in North Devon. It’s not remote to the 180,000 people who live in the area. It might be a bit distant from Exeter but then the RD&E is remote for us in North Devon, so don’t keep on about how remote we are as if we’re at the end of the world.”

Cllr Leather also raised questions over just how much services would improve under the new trust given that the two organisations had been working together since 2018 yet North Devon District Hospital still received a critical report from the Care Quality Commission in November last year. The report said the hospital ‘requires improvement.’

Ms Allen argued the biggest problem is staff supply, which would be helped by the new merger.

She added: “The essence of our plan is we need support. North Devon needs the support of a larger partner and all the resources that brings and sharing of expertise to start to address some of the risks that are so publicly recognised in the CQC report.”

Another problem facing North Devon District Hospital is its ageing buildings, constructed in the 1970s. Zahara Hyde, a programme director at the NHS, told councillors of staff struggling with surgical theatres 40 per cent smaller than their modern equivalents.

Ms Hyde said: “It’s like playing musical chairs in there – not good and certainly not what we want.”

These theatres are due to be replaced as part of multi-million-pound redevelopments to North Devon District Hospital over the coming years. Works are set to take place between 2025 and 2027. 

The NHS boss described the redevelopment as “a big chunk of new coupled with a lot of refurbishment of the old.”

“We’re adding to the hospital is the best way to describe it. What we’re adding is new build but we’re using some of the investment to redesign some of what we’ve got left behind. 

“So it won’t have a whole new hospital, we’ll have a redeveloped site and the site will look very different.”

Owl gives a few helpful suggestions:

The good old standby: “It was not a party but a work related gathering”

“It is my judgement that all the rules were followed, and I make the rules”

“These rules weren’t rules but only guidance, and a statement that: ‘all guidance was followed completely in No 10’; has been made in the House and elsewhere”. (See full list below)

“I was just passing the open door and popped my head in for a moment”

“I was in my garden relaxing when it was gatecrashed by a rowdy group”

“I don’t run No 10, so not my job to say: ‘drink up and go home immediately, this is against the rules’”

“I believed implicitly that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside.” 

“An Englishman’s home is his Barnard Castle”

“Hard to tell where the office ends and my flat begins”

“It was just a child minding group in the flat”

“This is an opportunity for the Met to apply its discretion, wasn’t the whole country relieved when Dominic walked out?”

“Like fraud, it’s not really a crime”

Always worthwhile consulting Nadine Dorries, but whatever you do, don’t consult card carrying members of the “Law and Order” party, they are increasingly unhappy.

Seven occasions when Boris Johnson denied No 10 broke Covid rules

 Here are the moments Johnson denied rules were broken.

1 December – House of Commons

After the Mirror’s first story broke about Christmas parties in Downing Street:

“What I can tell the right hon and learned gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in No 10.”

2 December – Sky News

Asked why he would not explain his account of the allegations, Johnson said:

“Because I have told you and what I want to repeat … that the guidance is there and I am very, very keen that people understand this.”

7 December – BBC News

When asked about Downing Street Parties in December, the prime minister said:

“All the guidelines were observed.”

8 December – House of Commons

After the Allegra Stratton video is released by ITV News:

“I apologise for the impression that has been given that staff in Downing Street take this less than seriously. I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken. I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken.”

8 December – Downing Street press conference

Asked why he had not extended the No10 inquiry:

“ … all the evidence I can see, people in this building have stayed within the rules … if that turns out not to be the case … and people wish to bring allegations to my attention or to the police … then of course there will be proper sanctions …”

Johnson giving a Downing Street press conference

13 December – Sky News

Asked again about Downing Street parties:

“I can tell you once again that I certainly broke no rules … all that is being looked into.”

20 December – BBC News

After the Guardian reveals pictures of people, including the prime minister, at No 10 drinks in the garden on 15 May 2020

“Those were people at work, talking about work. I have said what I have to say about that.”

Paul Arnott www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

I’d like to take you back this week, to 2010. 

How many of you remember what you were doing that year? 

To me, family photos reveal it as the year before I was unwell and had a full head of brown hair rather than today’s wisps of grey.

At a national level, some other hints may help. A new programme stormed the ITV schedules, Downton Abbey. A young couple, Prince William and Ms Kate Middleton, became engaged. 

And we had a new PM, David Cameron. 2010 – does that ring a few bells now?

At a more prosaic level, 2010 was the last time that East Devon District Council changed the charges to use its car parks. Twelve years ago.

Moreover, in the intervening time, a high rate of VAT has been applied to those charges, so now a good chunk of the takings does not even reach the council, but ends up in the Chancellor’s coffers.

This Conservative strategy, together with artificially suppressing council tax for a full half decade, pleased their national masters – look, they said, we can provide services in a low tax setting. 

The problem is that the laws of mathematics cannot be influenced by political hubris. And now the pigeons have come home to roost.

Therefore, over the last few years, EDDC has been reviewing our car park charges. We have found that compared to the rest of the south west they are very low and now another memorable year in history has made that completely unsustainable – 2020: the Year of Covid.

The effects of 2020 on what is a very well-run council have been many and devastating. 

Take just one example. The positive news has been the extraordinary rise in people coming to our great resorts to visit, both as staycationers, and for day trips. 

The bad news is, for example, that fish and chips these days are not wrapped in old newspaper, but in cardboard boxes the size of a large handbag.

The cost to us in frantically emptying our overflowing seafront bins has been huge and, as I have written before, our debt to our Streetscene workers, in a pandemic and short of labour post-Brexit, has also been huge. As have been the costs! 

So, in 2022, your council can no longer afford to pull the wool over our residents’ eyes. The car parks need to pay their way.

Therefore, for a small selection of prime seaside car parks, the hourly charge will rise to £2 per hour (subject to full council’s approval) but with a maximum tariff so a family can come down from Exeter for a day trip to Exmouth, Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Seaton or Sidmouth for a day out with safe parking for £8. 

The tourism economy will not suffer.

Crucially, and forgive me if I try to really stress this repeatedly, council tax payers (i.e. locals) can park all day and all night, for £120 per year. Getting on for 5,000 of you already take advantage of this, and we will promote the idea further. 

This really does need stressing, because while Facebook feeds will resound with ‘the b***dy council wants to rob us of £2 per hour’, the reality is that local people can park for £2.31 PER WEEK. 

A valued council colleague described this as ‘cheap as chips’, and having looked at all the charges across the south west, this is the case.

Other charges in prime or busy locations will go to £1.50 per hour, again with a maximum of £8 per day. And again, permits are available to keep the maximum cost at £120 per year, and we are busily introducing the software to enable people to buy for £10 per individual month. It’s already a popular and inexpensive (relative to other motoring costs) scheme.

We don’t expect thanks for all this, but this it is the long overdue and honest thing to do.

More than half the £1.7bn paid by the government to politically connected “VIP” companies to supply PPE in the pandemic was spent on equipment that has not been used, according to new figures.

David Conn www.theguardian.com 

The total value of unused PPE was £2.8bn for 1.9bn items, according to newly released figures from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

The DHSC did not explain why the PPE was unused but it was not all defective. Last week the department revealed that PPE worth £750m was never deployed because it had passed its safe use-by date. Huge quantities were stockpiled after the government over-ordered in the pandemic.

The proportion of unused PPE is significantly higher for contracts processed through the a so-called VIP lane – 59% of the £1.7bn ordered from them – than for other firms awarded contracts through the standard procurement route. Of the £10.4bn committed to non-VIP companies for PPE, 17% or £1.8bn has not been used.

DHSC released the figures and the names of companies whose PPE has gone unused in response to a freedom of information request pursued by Spotlight on Corruption. In June last year, 1.9bn PPE items were described by a minister as having been put in the “‘do not supply’ [to the NHS] category” but it is possible that some has since been cleared for use.

The department’s list includes 552,100 unused items, costing £8.5m, supplied by Meller Designs. The firm, which was awarded a total of £164m in PPE contracts, was co-owned at the time by David Meller, who has donated nearly £60,000 to the Conservative party since 2009 including £3,250 to support Michael Gove’s party leadership bid in 2016, a campaign on which Meller worked as chair of finance.

In November the DHSC revealed that Gove’s office had referred Meller’s company as a potential PPE supplier, and it was then processed through the VIP “high priority lane” for companies referred by Tory MPs, ministers, peers or health officials. On Friday the company declined to comment.

Another firm on the unused PPE supplier list is PPE Medpro. It was awarded two contracts worth a total £203m after the Tory peer Michelle Mone initially referred the company in May 2020 to her fellow Tory peer Theodore Agnew, then a Cabinet Office minister responsible for procurement.

The DHSC’s newly released list says that 25.5m items ordered from PPE Medpro, worth £124.7m, have not been supplied to the NHS, which appears to include the 25m sterile surgical gowns ordered in June 2020 for £122m. PPE Medpro have insisted that they supplied the gowns to the technical specification required. The DHSC has said it is in dispute with the company that it is seeking to resolve via mediation.

SG Recruitment, referred by the Conservative peer Peter Gummer who is a director of its parent company Sumner Group Holdings, told the Guardian that its PPE, 2.4m items costing £26m, was on the list because it had been awaiting checks but had now been cleared for use in the NHS.

PPE costing £1bn in total stated not to have been passed to the NHS – 476m items such as face masks, gowns and other vital equipment – was supplied by 25 companies whose contracts were processed via the VIP lane, Spotlight on Corruption’s analysis of the DHSC’s list has revealed.

The high priority given to these companies, some newly formed or with no track record in medical products, meant they were given a more attentive personal service at the start of the procurement process, previous reporting has found.

The DHSC publication follows a statement in parliament by the then health minister, James Bethell, in September that as of 10 June last year, “1.9bn items of [PPE] stock were in the ‘do not supply’ category”.

Bethell was replying to a parliamentary question from crossbench peer David Alton, who has pressed in the Lords for details of the waste associated with PPE procurement.

The VIP process was ruled unlawful in the high court last month following a challenge by the Good Law Project; Mrs Justice O’Farrell ruled that the government had failed to give equal treatment to all companies offering to supply PPE.

Jackie Weaver has given her support to government proposals in the levelling up white paper that could lead to an increase in the number of parish councils.

www.room151.co.uk 

Weaver, who gained overnight fame in February 2021 when her attempt to control an unruly online meeting of Handforth Parish Council went viral, told Room151 that, as larger local authorities contract, “there is only one thing that can fill the gap – and that is parish councils”.

She described parish and town councils as “hyper-localism”, adding: “It’s your parish council that really understands what is happening locally. I don’t think that happens at district or county level. It’s your parish council that will know what the interests are within that area.”

The levelling up white paper promises a review of neighbourhood governance in England that will examine the roles and functions of parish councils in England and discuss how to make them quicker and easier to establish.

Weaver, chief officer of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils, will be discussing the issue of levelling up at Room151’s Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) North conference taking place in Leeds on 22 March.

The footage from the Handforth meeting did not present a flattering picture of the lowest tier of local government, so why does Weaver think there should there be more parish councils?

“Most people will recognise that one of the reasons that went viral was because it is exceptional. If you saw something like that every month at your parish council meeting, would you even give it two seconds of your time? The criticism of most council sessions wouldn’t be that they are violent and aggressive, but they are dull.

“If you think that you have ineffective and dull council meetings, then do something about it. That is the beauty of your town or parish council. It is the intimacy and the immediacy of it. If you don’t like it, get in there and change it.”

A report last year from the centre-right thinktank Onward said that every neighbourhood should have a parish or town council. It estimated that currently 63% of England does not have this type of governance and called for automatic ballots of voters in these areas to test the views of local people.

Weaver said she had doubts about going this far. “I would prefer this to be community-led. The difficulty is if you create a parish council and there is really no appetite for it locally, then you are just creating another level of bureaucracy that probably isn’t going to be terribly effective.”

She said she wanted to use her unexpected fame to widen the general public’s knowledge and awareness of local government. The day before Weaver spoke to Room151, she had appeared on Good Morning Britain and the weekend before had come second in Celebrity Mastermind and taken part in two live comedy shows.

“I’m trying to find different ways of raising the subject because we have to reach a different audience. The things we have done before – newsletters, websites – are managing to hit the same targets as we have always hit. I want to break out of that and engage with different people.”

The Metropolitan police decided initially to not investigate allegations of lockdown-breaching parties in and around Downing Street in part because no one had admitted taking part and there was no social media footage, a legal document has shown.

And: “Downing Street… have already stated that Covid rules were followed”

Politics Live

In a response by legal campaign group the Good Law Project for a judicial review about the Met’s decision in early December to not launch an inquiry, the police force’s lawyers pointed to guidelines saying it did not investigate Covid breaches retrospectively, given their relatively minor nature and limited resources.

At the time the first decision was made, any details about the gatherings were “fairly vague”, the document said, detailing the reasons given by a senior officer, whose named has been redacted.

The officer, it said:

…. observed that the press reports did not identify who had been at the gatherings, no one had come forward to admit presence at any of the gatherings, and there was no evidence from social media showing these gatherings taking place, and from which those present could be identified.

It followed that if these events had taken place, the organisers could not be identified from the material available to the police at that time and nor could [the officer] draw any conclusions as to whether the gatherings breached the Covid regulations, and if so, whether those present at the gatherings had no reasonable excuse for their presence at the gatherings.

The force changed its mind last month, and is investigating the claims. But Jo Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said the reasons were “profoundly troubling”.

He said:

It points to a Met that does not want to investigate potential criminality in government or is excessively deferential to those in power.

Revealed: why the Met chose not to investigate Partygate – Good Law Project

goodlawproject.org 

We are today publishing our Grounds for seeking a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police’s initial refusal to investigate the Downing Street lockdown parties, and the Met’s response. The Met had previously insisted that some of the contents of these documents be kept confidential, but we are now publishing them.

We can reveal that the Met had an unpublished policy of not “normally” investigating retrospective lockdown breaches. However, where “not investigating… would significantly undermine the legitimacy of the law” that would point towards investigating.

The Met’s decision not to investigate is difficult to understand. It is hard to avoid concluding that the Met decided it didn’t want to investigate, and then scrambled to reverse engineer a justification for this.

Their justification is itself remarkable. It includes reference to the fact that:

• “Downing Street… have already stated that Covid rules were followed”
• “anyone who was at the gathering would be entitled to refuse to answer questions because of the privilege against self-incrimination”
• because the Cabinet Office was looking into possible breaches there was no need for the Met to investigate as well.

These are extraordinary points. They create a different set of laws for those in high office.

The Met would not accept your assurance that you hadn’t committed a crime. It would not refuse to ask you questions because of the privilege against self-incrimination. And it would certainly not decline to investigate you because you had appointed a subordinate to look into the matter instead. Yet these are all allowances gifted to the Government. 

Moreover, as the policy itself highlights, some reported breaches of the law potentially undermine the legitimacy of the law itself. It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of this than government officials, potentially including the Prime Minister, breaching the rules.

All of this is profoundly troubling. It points to a Met that does not want to investigate potential criminality in Government, or to a police force that is excessively deferential to those in power. It is a policy which dramatically undermines the rule of law.

Good Law Project is considering whether or not to continue with the judicial review. We wanted the Met to reconsider its decision not to investigate and, after we issued judicial review proceedings, the Met did just that. We believe it is in the public interest to have real transparency over the Met’s decision making, and the publication of those pleadings with this blog serves that end. 

We will make a final decision shortly.

The fee would have to be paid by anyone staying in a hotel, self catered apartment or campsite overnight

Ruth Mosalski www.walesonline.co.uk

Plans for a tourism tax for people staying overnight in Wales have taken a step forward.

The Welsh Government has confirmed a consultation will be launched this autumn when details will be released.

The fee would have to be paid by those staying in a council area overnight and would be up to councils to set. The Welsh Government says a tourism tax would raise money for councils to manage services and infrastructure in tourist hotspots.

It is part of Welsh Government policy, agreed through their co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. Some details had already been detailed by First Minister Mark Drakeford.

Finance and local government minister Rebecca Evans said: “Visitor levies are a common feature in tourist destinations internationally. They are an opportunity for visitors to make an investment in local infrastructure and services, which in turn make tourism a success.

“Without such a levy, local communities face an undue burden to fund local services and provisions on which tourists rely. From keeping the beaches and pavements clean, through to maintaining local parks, toilets and footpaths – the critical infrastructure that supports tourism should be supported by all those that rely on it.

“The introduction and subsequent use of such a levy would enable destinations in Wales to be enjoyed for generations to come and encourage a more sustainable approach to tourism.

“The levy would be proportionate by design, and powers to raise the levy would be discretionary for local authorities. This would enable decisions to be taken locally, according to the needs of our communities. The levy will apply to those paying to stay overnight within a local authority area. Opportunities for wider contributions on the cost impact of other types of visitor activities on local infrastructure will be offered as part of the consultation on the levy.”

Plaid Cymru’s designated member Cefin Campbell MS said: “Giving local people the power to introduce a tourism levy will make a difference to communities across the country, many of which attract a significant number of tourists. It will give local people and their representatives more power and resources to invest and deliver in their areas.

“Councils will be able to ask tourists to contribute in a small way to the areas they are visiting and the local services they use.

“This measure will help support a sustainable rather than an extractive tourism sector, which will help bring the greatest benefit to communities and the local economy.

“Such levies – often known as tourism taxes – are commonplace in countries across Europe and beyond. This is about mutual respect between our communities and the visitors they welcome. It is a new policy which is the fruit of a Welsh co-operative spirit.”

A rare example where development without planning permission has not got through the “retrospective approval” route much exploited in East Devon – Owl

Steven Morris http://www.theguardian.com 

A Cornish beachside hotel that built nine meeting rooms without planning permission claiming they were needed for the G7 summit has been ordered to demolish them because they have caused “very significant harm” to the landscape.

The Carbis Bay hotel built the rooms in three single-storey buildings before hosting last summer’s meeting of world leaders. It said it had pressed ahead without planning permission because of the urgency of the project.

The development led to protest marches on the beach with objectors pointing out that precious habitats and views had been ruined.

There was also anger that the hotel claimed the rooms were needed to provide space to host bilateral G7 talks when the UK government said it had not asked for extra work to be carried out.

The planning inspector Peter Jarratt highlighted objectors’ argument that the development “flew in the face” of the G7’s claimed green credentials.

He said: “There has been a significant public response to the unauthorised development and to the submitted retrospective planning application for reasons including the inappropriateness of the development and to the failure of the applicant to follow the due planning process. Many representations – some 350 to 400 – were received by the council.”

The National Trust, the South West Coast Path Association, the Cornwall branch of the Countryside Charity (CPRE) and the Cornwall Wildlife Trust all submitted objections.

“The construction of the meeting rooms in three single-storey buildings … has significantly and adversely affected the character and appearance of the area,” Jarratt said.

“I have found very significant harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. Although it is to the hotel’s considerable credit that it has hosted the G7 summit and now wishes to adapt the meeting rooms to holiday accommodation, the economic benefits arising from the development, despite attracting significant weight, are insufficient to outweigh the harm to the landscape.”

He upheld an enforcement notice from Cornwall council ordering the development to be removed. It is expected that the bill for the demolition work and restoration of the landscape will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The hotel declined to comment.

Half- term verdict on Simon Jupp: “Simon needs to try harder” ? – Owl

Steve Houghton www.devonlive.com 

Almost one-and-a-half billion fewer pints were sold in British pubs in 2021 than in 2019, according to data from the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA).

The BBPA said pub beer sales were down 38 per cent in 2021 and there was an on-trade loss of £5.7 billion from beer sales alone – equivalent to 1.4 billion pints.

In 2020, trading was down 55 per cent compared to pre-pandemic levels.

BBPA chief executive Emma McClarkin said: “Every unsold pint is a stark reminder of the dislocating effect Covid restrictions had on our sector and the communities our pubs sit at the heart of.”

The BBPA also said there had been a shift in consumer consumption patterns. Between March 2020 and October 2021, beer receipts dropped 11 per cent while receipts for wine and spirits rose eight per cent and 13 per cent.

The BBPA attributes the shift to long periods of restriction pub trading, where beer is the most popular drink, and a rise in at-home drinking.

Ms McClarkin said the BBPA backed planned reforms to the alcohol duty system to “incentivise lower-strength products” and “differentiate beer from stronger wine and spirits”.

“I invested because I am sick and tired of [the environment secretary’s] complete refusal to make any decisions which deviate from ‘business as usual’ when we are facing a devastating climate crisis that will lead to the death of millions if we don’t take immediate action.”

[George Eustice survived the reshuffle – Owl]

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

The constituency office of the environment secretary, George Eustice, has been bought by supporters of Insulate Britain, who have donated his rent to a legal fund for activists.

Supporters of the group, which made headlines last year by obstructing major roads and calling on the government to retrofit all British homes to make them energy efficient, formed a coalition of investors.

They acquired the property at 13 Commercial Street, Camborne, Cornwall, last October for £51,000. Since then their company, Cawton Ltd, has received £2,820 in rent from the House of Commons, which has been donated to help pay the legal costs of Insulate Britain defendants in court cases.

Cawton Ltd is an anagram of Act Now – one of the Extinction Rebellion protest group’s three key demands.

Sally Wright, from St Day, in the MP’s Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, said: “I invested because I am sick and tired of [the environment secretary’s] complete refusal to make any decisions which deviate from ‘business as usual’ when we are facing a devastating climate crisis that will lead to the death of millions if we don’t take immediate action.

“I’m glad we are using his rent to pay the fines of the people who are risking their livelihoods, reputations and personal safety to give the rest of us hope that change is possible.”

Insulate Britain said Eustice had taken many actions recently that they disagreed with, including authorising the use of a bee-killing pesticide, and encouraging MPs to vote against an amendment to the environment bill that would have forced water companies to end the practice of dumping untreated sewage into rivers and seas. The government was later forced to U-turn on this after public outrage.

Eustice has previously spoken out against the activists, calling them “highly irresponsible”, and welcomed the powers sought by the Home Office to allow police to act pre-emptively to stop the protests happening.

Since November last year, Insulate Britain says, 28 supporters have been charged with contempt of court for defying injunctions banning their protest blockades during a campaign of civil disobedience last autumn, according to the campaign group. Of these, 25 have been found guilty and 13 have been jailed, with 12 receiving suspended prison sentences. So far, they say, the courts have awarded costs of £84,000 against Insulate Britain defendants, with a further claim of £159,216 from lawyers acting for the government due to be decided next week.

Another investor, Brenda Shrewsbury, 65, from Budock Water, Cornwall, said: “The rent from George’s gaff is tiny compared with the costs faced by the individuals that have been persecuted by the government for demanding action on home insulation, but I hope that this move will inspire others to do what they can. We need to come together and act now on the climate emergency.”

The group has decided to donate future rent money to local food banks and community initiatives to help people hit by the cost of living crisis and facing the choice of whether to heat their homes or eat.

A spokesperson for Eustice said: “We live in a free country and investors are free to invest in property irrespective of their political views. There is no law that requires a landlord and tenant to share the same political opinions.”

An exclusive weekly piece from our top climate crisis correspondents, as well as a digest of the biggest environment stories – plus the good news, the not-so-good news, and everything else you need to know.

We thought you should know this newsletter may also contain information about Guardian products, services and chosen charities or online advertisements.