Government fraud investigators are looking into contracts to supply the NHS with PPE during the pandemic, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) have said.

Gavin Cordon www.standard.co.uk 

Giving evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Jonathan Marron, the director general of the office for health improvement and disparities, said they had “concerns” over 176 contracts worth a total of £3.9 billion.

He said that the actual amount of equipment at issue was worth £2.7 billion – with concerns ranging from the quality of the kit provided to performance of the contractor.

While some may be possible to resolve through mediation and commercial agreement, he said others may require a “more legal process”.

It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all

“We are working really, really closely with our internal fraud teams and the broader fraud authorities,” he said.

“That is part of what we are looking at, as to how we might bring resolution to these disputes. All options are on the table.”

The DHSC permanent secretary Sir Chris Wormald said the level of suspected fraud was no higher than with other government contracts.

“It is not unusual to be in dispute on some contracts. Some of them will be resolved entirely amicably, some of them will get to the other end of the spectrum where we believe there has been wrongdoing,” he told the committee.

“Fraud in contracting is a fact of life, regardless of the circumstances. It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all.

“What we haven’t seen is this set of contracts being more susceptible to fraud than the average.”

Mr Marron acknowledged that 1.1 billion items of PPE, worth £461 million, supplied during the pandemic had been identified as being unfit for any use.

However he said it represented “quite a small proportion” of the 19.8 billion items used in health and social care to the end of last month.

Conservative MPs are being warned not to join an “Owen Paterson-style cover-up” by blocking an inquiry into how Boris Johnson misled parliament about the No 10 parties.

Rob Merrick www.independent.co.uk 

A vote on Thursday will seek to send the controversy to the Commons privileges committee, with the power to force the release of reports, documents and photos – and recommend any punishment.

Crucially, the probe would not start until after the police investigation has concluded, to prevent the government arguing it would clash with the Met’s ongoing work.

And it does not accuse Mr Johnson of “deliberately” misleading the Commons – which, under the ministerial code, would require his resignation – again, to make it harder to oppose.

Mr Johnson is expected to order his MPs to defeat the motion, tabled by almost all Opposition parties – and threaten to remove the party whip from any who defy him.

But Labour says it will plaster the names of Tory MPs who block the inquiry across local elections’ leaflets and adverts, warning they will pay the price of standing by the beleaguered prime minister.

It is pointing back to the public anger after last autumn’s “cover-up”, when Mr Johnson attempted to fix anti-sleaze rules to clear his ally Mr Paterson, a former cabinet minister.

“Conservative MPs should reflect on the last time that the government tried to interfere on a privileges investigation, with the Owen Paterson case, and what happened there,” Keir Starmer’s spokesman said.

The motion points to four specific statements by the prime minister which “appear to amount to misleading the House”, which are:

* 1 December 2021 – that “all guidance was followed” in No 10.

* 8 December 2021 – that Mr Johnson had been “repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.

* 8 December 2021 – that he was “sickened” by the video of his former spokeswoman Allegra Stratton joking about a party, but “I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”.

* 8 December 2021 – that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”.

The Opposition parties’ argument is that the privileges committee probe is needed to establish whether the Commons was misled – which is not the role of either the Met police, or Sue Gray’s stalled investigation.

Mr Johnson has effectively conceded that it was, by accepting he broke his own Covid rules, having previously denied that any rules were breached.

Sir Keir said urged Tory MPs to vote in favour of “restoring decency, honesty and integrity into our politics”.

“The British public know that the rules were broken in Downing Street,” he said.

Voting to say otherwise won’t persuade the public that everything was fine but will further damage the reputation of any Conservative MP who is happy to say it was one rule for the public and another for this government.”

Severe flooding problems in Seaton will be discussed at a public meeting next week, when residents will talk to representatives of South West Water, the Environment Agency and the county council. 

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk

The Seaton Flood Working Group comprises a group of residents and business owners whose properties flooded last October. They are holding a meeting on Tuesday, April 26 at 6.30pm at Seaton Methodist Church, to hear what action is being taken to reduce the flood risk.

On the night of October 20 2021, torrential rain continued for about five hours, and watercourses and drainage systems were unable to cope with the volume of water.  At least 31 homes and businesses were flooded; others escaped the worst of it, but still had flooding to their garages, outbuildings and gardens. 

Flooding in Scalwell Lane, Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

The county council’s report on the flooding showed that Seaton was the second worst affected area in Devon, second only to Axminster. The report said the amount of rainfall ‘led to multiple watercourses overtopping at the allotments on Barnards Hill Lane, adjacent to the cricket club on Valley View and at the junction between Harepath Road and Valley View. The combination of these overtopping watercourses along with surface water runoff from neighbouring roads caused substantial amounts of water to reach lower lying areas of Seaton during peak flows particularly affecting Mead Way, Valley View and Summersby Close where at least five properties, a hospital and a primary school internally flooded by up to 100mm’.

Flooding at a house in Colyford Road, Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

Residents learned the importance of reporting these incidents when they met a customer service team from South West Water who came to Seaton in February. They were told that people who had not reported their flooding problems were ‘effectively invisible’ to both the water company and the county council, and that the Environment Agency also encourages reporting to help improve its flood mapping and modelling. Following this information, many more reports and photos of flooding at homes and businesses were sent to the three organisations. 

Doorway of flooded house in Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

During the meeting on April 26 the working group will hear from representatives of Devon County Council on highways, planning and land drainage issues; from South West Water on surface water and sewerage, and from the Environment Agency on its management of the rivers Axe and Lim’s catchment areas, including natural watercourses, soil erosion and farming-related issues.  

The meeting is open to the public, and people can also email questions relating directly to flooding in Seaton to seatonfloodworkinggroup@btinternet.com, or post them on the group’s Facebook page, to be raised with the three organisations being represented. Seaton Methodist Church has disabled access and audio loop facilities. 

A number of correspondents have pointed out that the former Budleigh Salterton care home “Shandford” is back on the market with guide price of £1.1M

Owl received reports from reliable sources that it was purchased by Julie Rhodes of Agency Assistance at the sale by auction in December 2020.

The  guide price at the auction in December 2020 was £750,000. If these two guide price are representative of sale prices. They indicate the owner is seeking a quick profit well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds. 

Two correspondents have raised the questions as to how much money has been received from the December sale, where Abbeyfield were the vendors; and how this money has been “returned to the Town”. They gather that a new “Shandford Trust” (Charity No 1192048) has been created but under whose authority?

The charity commission lists Christopher Haward Davis as Chair of trustees. 

To recapitulate the history of Shandford:

Shandford started as a care home in 1958 for local people funded by the people of Budleigh Salterton. In 2012, the trustees ceded it to Abbeyfield.

The closure is based on Abbeyfield’s declared aim of “freeing up assets” as it changes its business model to concentrate on larger homes; and County Councillor Christine Channon’s handpicked adviser, Chris Davis, who claims that Shandford was no longer viable. Owl understands Chris Davis’ report has never been made public.

A local community effort to take back control, failed despite the intervention of newly elected Simon Jupp MP.

During this process Owl received plausible arguments that showed that there were grounds to challenge the case for non-viability.

“It’s chaired by a Labour party politician”…“I’d bear that in mind.”

In a signal that the Conservatives will whip their MPs firmly against the motion, the Cabinet Office minister Jacob Rees-Mogg cast doubt on the privilege committee’s suitability to investigate Johnson’s conduct.

He said it was a “distinguished body of the House of Commons but it’s chaired by a Labour party politician”, and added: “I’d bear that in mind.” The committee is always chaired by an opposition politician.

Tories shaping up to repeat last November’s Owen Patterson “vote of shame”? – Owl

The Canadian government will ban foreign homebuyers for two years, AP reported Monday.

Shawna Chen www.axios.com

Why it matters: Canada’s housing market is one of the hottest in the world, with prices jumping by more than 20% last year, per the CBC.

Details: The ban is aimed at “[c]urbing unfair practices that drive up the price of housing, in order to level the playing field for young and middle-class Canadians,” according to a news release from Trudeau’s office.

• Some exceptions will be made for permanent residents and foreign students.
• The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year.

Rents have rocketed by 18 per cent in the south west since the pandemic struck, new data reveals. That’s as high as any other UK region.

Oscar Dayus www.bristolpost.co.uk

The average rent in the south west is now £1,202 per month, according to the New Statesman, citing Rightmove data. Only London, the east of England, and the south east of England had higher average rents.

However, it’s the increase where renters in our region will be feeling the pinch. An 18 per cent rise is the same as Wales and the north west, and more than every other part of the UK.

London actually saw the lowest increase, of five per cent, over the two years. The next lowest was the south east, where rents rose by 12 per cent.

Across the UK, average rents are up 15 per cent in the last two years. The House of Commons committee of public accounts concluded this week that more and more low earners now rent privately; it also pointed out that private renters spend a greater proportion of their income (32 per cent) on housing than anyone else, with homeowners spending 18 per cent and social renters 27 per cent.

The findings come at a time of stagnating wages and rising cost of living. Inflation that includes housing costs (CPIH) was at 6.2 per cent in March, and is expected to rise further this year.

In fact, wages are falling when inflation is taken into account. In the past year, regular pay is down by one per cent after inflation.

Speaking at a hearing before MPs, the chief executive and co-founder Hayden Wood apologised for the “way things turned out with Bulb”.

“We have estimated that the costs of all these energy supplier failures is going to cost in excess £2.4bn. That is about £94 per household. And that does not include the cost of the failure of Bulb, which is being treated separately under the special administration regime.”

Are we all being taken for fools? – Owl

Boss of collapsed Bulb Energy criticised for £250,000 salary funded by taxpayers

Jane Clinton www.theguardian.com 

The boss of collapsed company Bulb Energy has been criticised for continuing to draw a £250,000 salary, funded by UK taxpayers.

Once the seventh-biggest energy supplier, Bulb was effectively nationalised in November 2021 after collapsing amid the surge in global energy prices. That left the taxpayer with a potential bill of up to £3bn, making it the biggest state bailout since the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008.

Speaking at a hearing before MPs, the chief executive and co-founder Hayden Wood apologised for the “way things turned out with Bulb”. Bulb was placed into a rare “special administration”, giving it access to government funds to keep it supplying gas and electricity to its 1.7 million household customers.

Wood, who had provided management consultancy to the energy sector before he co-founded Bulb Energy, said: “My salary now in the last year is £250,000 a year.”

He added that the administrators for “both Bulb and Simple [Bulb’s parent company] asked me to stay on to help. The reason I stayed on was because we wanted to support customers [and] have a smooth transition into special administration.

“The things we are doing within the company is to try and minimise costs for consumers, minimise costs for taxpayers, and hopefully effect a sale of the company out of special administration to again reduce costs for government.”

However, the Labour MP Andy McDonald, a member of the business select committee, asked whether it was “morally justifiable” for taxpayers to be paying his £250,000 salary.

Wood responded: “I think everything we are doing right now is to try and complete a sale of the company so that we can minimise the cost to taxpayers and minimise the disruption to consumers.”

But McDonald said it was “staggering” that he was continuing to get paid “the same salary that you were pre-collapse”.

Wood said he had put “all his personal savings since 2015” into the company, which he founded in that same year with Amit Gudka. He said it had been an “extremely challenging time” for the energy market.

Charlotte Nichols, a Labour MP and committee member, quoted the former chief executive of Ofgem, Dermot Nolan, who said “for Bulb to blame anybody but themselves for its collapse is not reasonable”.

Wood said: “I completely agree. We at Bulb should take responsibility for how the business failed.”

He added: “Lessons will need to be learned and I hope that is what we can do.”

McDonald told the Guardian: “It is staggering that the chief executive of Bulb Energy continues to receive a salary of £250,000 a year at the taxpayers’ expense.

“There is no justification for Hayden Wood drawing such an enormous salary, particularly given the disastrous mismanagement of the company, which has led to the government bringing the company into public ownership, and is set to cost of the taxpayer as much as £3bn.

“The secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy must step in and put an end to this outrageous case of corporate welfare.”

A BEIS spokesperson said: “Bulb’s administrators have agreed to keep Mr Wood temporarily in place to ensure a smooth handover and sales process.

“Mr Wood is paid for this work under his employment contract with Simple Energy, the parent company of Bulb, in a separate administration process over which the government has no influence.

“The special administrator of Bulb remains legally obligated to keep costs of the administration process as low as possible. The government will seek to recoup costs at a later date, ensuring that we get maximum value for money for taxpayers.”

The amount of public money wasted on unused and faulty PPE during the pandemic cost every household in the UK more than £310, new analysis has revealed.

By Redrow www.thelondoneconomic.com 

In February, the government finally admitted that it had splurged a staggering £8.7 billion on overpriced protective equipment.

And Labour this week revealed that ministers are set to spend another £35 million paying private firms to burn or recycle surplus masks, aprons and gloves – with the government claiming it is cheaper to recycle PPE than store it.

The eye-watering total comes to £310 for every household in the UK, just as a cost-of-living crisis batters Brits.

‘Culture of cronyism’

Labour’s Angela Rayner accused the Tories of wasting “billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on useless PPE that they’re now either burning or giving away for virtually nothing.”

She told the Mirror: “The Government might not need to raise taxes on working people in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis if they didn’t waste this much PPE.

“Ministers have a duty to get value and results when spending the public’s money, but Boris Johnson has created a culture of cronyism and waste throughout his government.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Our priority throughout the pandemic has been saving lives, and we have delivered over 19.1 billion items of PPE to frontline staff to keep them safe.”

They added: “Having too much PPE was preferable to having too little in the face of an unpredictable and dangerous virus, given this was essential to keep our NHS open and protect as many people as possible.

“Now we are confident we have sufficient PPE to cover any future Covid demands, we are taking decisive action to save up to £93 million of taxpayers’ money per year by reducing storage costs for excess stock.”

• Single storey front extension and alteration to fenestration. Parklands Awliscombe EX14 3NRRef. No: 22/0793/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and demolition of existing rear conservatory. 4 Hardys Court Hawkerland Road Colaton Raleigh Devon EX10 0HLRef. No: 22/0791/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Addition of dormer and cladding 6 Alexandria Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 9HBRef. No: 22/0787/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of a permanent agricultural workers dwelling Highwood Farm Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QJRef. No: 22/0780/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension with alteration to fenestration, removal of front porch & relocation of entrance, loft conversion to a habitable use with 7 roof lights and internal works 44 Douglas Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 2HERef. No: 22/0790/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawful development for a single storey rear, rear orangery extension, patio to the rear and a wider drive16 Windsor Mead Sidford Devon EX10 9SJRef. No: 22/0766/CPL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell two elm as per survey sheets Fell single cherry as per survey sheets. A La Ronde Summer Lane Exmouth EX8 5BDRef. No: 22/0775/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of approved application 21/1155/FUL (Replacement of existing extension with two storey front/side/rear extension and porch, reroofing cottage, balcony, replacement doors and windows and addition of rooflights) to allow for increase in width and height of extension, additional rooflights, amendments to window openings, changes to layout and addition of solar PV to roof. Horners Shorebottom Stockland Honiton Devon EX14 9DQRef. No: 22/0764/VAR | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey front/side extension and demolition of existing converted garage. 17 Redwood Close Exmouth EX8 5NSRef. No: 22/0769/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1509, Oak : Remove major deadwood from within the crown; remove low and overhanging epicormic growth which is within 0.5m of neighbouring fence and gate; maximum diameter of cuts 50mm Playing Fields Scalwell Lane SeatonRef. No: 22/0768/TRE | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of 3no. flagpoles with banners Exmouth Community College Green Close Exmouth Devon EX8 3PZRef. No: 22/0759/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 3no. flagpoles with banners. Exmouth Community College Green Close Exmouth EX8 3PZRef. No: 22/0760/ADV | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of attached barn to habitable use, single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Hackhams Farm Buckerell Honiton EX14 3EHRef. No: 22/0763/LBC | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey front extension, single storey rear extension and first floor extension with rear balcony with alteration to fenestration. 43 Halsdon Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 3DWRef. No: 22/0758/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed staff accommodation. Elmwood Residential Home Swan Hill Road Colyford Devon EX24 6QJRef. No: 22/0757/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of attached barn to habitable use, single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Hackhams Farm Buckerell Honiton EX14 3EHRef. No: 22/0762/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Monterey Pine – 1st branch at 2m – remove 2nd branch at 2.5m – cut 7m off branch leaving 1m in length 3rd branch at 3.5m – cut 5m off leaving branch 4m in length Reason – 1. The ends of them are unhealthy 2. They are covering most of the graden and are hanging very low 3. We want to plant some wildflowers to attract bees and other insects to the garden. The low branches shade the area. 24D Morton Crescent Exmouth EX8 1BGRef. No: 22/0761/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Consultation request for: Replacement felt roof with felt roof and upgrading insulation. Replacement asbestos roof with composite roof. Replacement asbestos wall cladding with composite cladding to match roof.Axminster Library South Street Axminster EX13 5ADRef. No: 22/0756/CM | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1. Goat willow. To carry out a crown reduction via thinning, removing up to 1 metre from branch ends. To formative prune rest of the crown making pruning cuts of up to 50mm diameter. T2. Bull bay/laurel leaved magnolia. To crown lift to approximately 1.8m above ground level and crown reduction in height and spread by approximately 50% making pruning cuts of up to 50 mm. in diameter. T3. Griselinia. To crown lift to approximately 1.5m above ground level and crown reduction in height and spread by approximately 50% making pruning cuts of up to 50 mm. in diameter. T4. Ash. To remove lowest two limbs extending over adjacent conifer hedge/adjacent neighbouring garden. Greystones Stockland Honiton EX14 9BSRef. No: 22/0748/TCA | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 3no. flags/banners to 3no. existing flagpoles Exmouth Community College Gipsy Lane Exmouth EX8 3AFRef. No: 22/0754/ADV | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Demolition of existing single storey UPVC extension and creation of single storey side extension 186 Exeter Road Exmouth EX8 3DZRef. No: 22/0745/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension including removal of part of an existing infill 39 Withycombe Road Exmouth EX8 1TFRef. No: 22/0750/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory with new sunroom and alterations to lean-to extension on north elevation to align roof levels. Springfield Kilmington Axminster EX13 7SBRef. No: 22/0744/LBC | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory with new sunroom and alterations to lean-to extension on north elevation to align roof levels. Springfield Kilmington Axminster Devon EX13 7SBRef. No: 22/0743/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a loft extension with rear hip to gable and infill dormer.33 Alexandria Road Sidmouth EX10 9HDRef. No: 22/0753/CPL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey rear extension, which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 3.56 metres, for which the maximum height would be 2.70 metres, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.70 metres. 13 Higher Spring Gardens Ottery St Mary EX11 1HWRef. No: 22/0755/GPD | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a side dormer and alterations to fenestration. Meadowbrook Talewater Talaton Exeter EX5 2RSRef. No: 22/0738/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a side dormer and alterations to fenestration. Meadowbrook Talewater Talaton Exeter EX5 2RSRef. No: 22/0739/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two-storey rear extension, single storey side extension with alteration to fenestration, demolition of existing extension and 6 x rooflights. Inglenook Rockbeare Hill Rockbeare Devon EX5 2EZRef. No: 22/0741/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak (T2 ), fell and Oak (T3) reduce to four metres as suggested within the arboriculture report. This is due to ring barking having been carried out by a previous owner of our property as well as possible herbicide impregnation into the bark and as such is resulting in the death of both trees. There is concern that as these two trees continue to deteriorate further branch drop will cause damage to either people or property as the trees stand on the boundary of Lower Broad Oak Road. As we discussed with the East Devon Tree Officer and Arboriculturist, we will be replanting two saplings to compensate for the two Oaks being lost. Dene Lower Broad Oak Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XHRef. No: 22/0737/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Two storey side extension. 10 Greenway Seaton Devon EX12 2SERef. No: 22/0752/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Lawful Development for a Proposed Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include two rear dormer.115 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DRRef. No: 22/0736/CPL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Installation of new roof lights and new double doors with alteration to fenestration.4 Diamond Cottages Sandygate Exeter EX2 7JNRef. No: 22/0734/CPL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of garden wall to rear garden, creation of off street parking with electric charging points, replacement of outbuilding, restoration of steps to rear door and associated landscaping. 16 Windsor Square Exmouth Devon EX8 1JXRef. No: 22/0722/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of 5A Mill Street from Hairdresser (Use Class E(c)(ii)) to Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis) and internal combination with 5 Mill Street Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis). 5 Mill Street Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1ABRef. No: 22/0726/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of garden wall to rear garden, creation of off street parking with electric charging points, replacement of outbuilding, restoration of steps to rear door and associated landscaping. 16 Windsor Square Exmouth Devon EX8 1JXRef. No: 22/0721/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed lime-based render. Fern Cottage The Strand Lympstone EX8 5JSRef. No: 22/0716/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed lime-based render. Fern Cottage The Strand Lympstone EX8 5JSRef. No: 22/0717/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Garage conversion to habitable use, internal changes with alteration to fenestration and additional shed. Longmeadows Lodge Feniton Honiton EX14 3BERef. No: 22/0695/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Garage conversion to habitable use, internal changes with alteration to fenestration and additional shed. Longmeadows Lodge Feniton Honiton EX14 3BERef. No: 22/0694/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Single storey side extension with glazed link, external alterations and demolition of existing outhouse. Upper Cottage Rocombe DT7 3RRRef. No: 22/0702/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of agricultural building Land At Hill Barton Farm (Wood Farm) FarringdonRef. No: 22/0685/MFUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Placement of tables and chairs on The Strand, Exmouth until 30 September 2023 Strand Gardens The Strand ExmouthRef. No: 22/0658/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of land to residential, construction of detached garage/store and associated works. Higher Leyhill Farm The Old Stable Broadhembury EX14 3JYRef. No: 22/0651/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension & conversion of existing garden room to a garden office, with alteration to fenestration. Torwood Cottington Mead Sidmouth Devon EX10 8HBRef. No: 22/0639/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of macrocarpa and 2 leylandii in South East corner of Little Glade. As discussed and provisionally agreed with arboricultural officer Robin Offer during site visit in October 2021. All three trees are very large and block out significant light from my property (Fir Grove), Little Glade and surrounding neighbours’. Myself, James at Little Glade and our mutual neighbour would all like the trees removed. On the site visit by Robin last year it was also suggested that the macrocarpa might be diseased and need significant work done to it anyway. There are no plans to replant as the removal of the trees will benefit a young oak and a mature scots pine adjacent. Little Glade West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TURef. No: 22/0624/TRE | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of an old barn and construction of replacement storage building. Dunkeswell Airfield (The Timber Compound) Dunkeswell Industrial Estate DevonRef. No: 22/0619/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed conservatory to the side of the property. Havencliffe Axmouth EX12 4ABRef. No: 22/0617/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of an existing agricultural building and erection of 1 no. detached dwelling and associated external works Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RTRef. No: 22/0611/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of new external porch, wheelchair ramp, solar shading and replacement windows. Sidmouth Bowling Club Headquarters Coburg Terrace Sidmouth EX10 8NHRef. No: 22/0552/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Extend existing garden boundary fence (existing fence approved under application no 21/0646/FUL) and erect small timber greenhouse in rear garden Flat 1 Sidbury House Church Street Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SBRef. No: 22/0473/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of externally illuminated identification flex face signs. Installation of internally illuminated projecting sign. Installation of customer information/directional post sign. Unit 3 Exeter Logistics Park Werstan Road Clyst Honiton Exeter Devon EX5 2GBRef. No: 22/0359/ADV | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Division of existing second floor apartment into 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats. 1 Cowley Place Cowley Exeter EX5 5DGRef. No: 22/0251/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Division of existing second floor apartment into 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats. 1 Cowley Place Cowley Exeter EX5 5DGRef. No: 22/0252/LBC | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Increase height of chimney and fit cowl on east roadside; replace external door and side panels with French doors on rear (east) elevation; increase size of window opening and replace window at first floor rear (west) elevation and create new opening at ground floor between kitchen and breakfast room Deepway Cottage Deepway Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SARef. No: 22/0092/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

A “perfect storm” of Covid and staff shortages has left social care unable to take a surge of patients, it has been warned.

Rebecca Thomas www.independent.co.uk

Care home leaders said residential homes may not be able to handle the usual influx of patients from hospitals during the Easter bank holiday weekend as “chronic” shortages, which hit a high in March, force providers to close beds.

Recent data published by Skills for Care showed vacancy rates across care services hit 10 per cent in March 2022, compared to 5.9 per cent in 2021.

The figures, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, represent the highest level recorded since the beginning of last year.

It comes as figures published on Thursday revealed A&E waits and ambulance delays in March were the worst they’ve ever been.

More than 390,000 people with potentially life-threatening conditions, including suspected strokes, waited more than an hour for an ambulance.

One in 10 patients waited more than two hours for an ambulance which should come within 18 minutes.

According to a letter, reported by The Health Service Journal, hospital trusts were warned of escalating pressures in the northwest and were told 1,700 care home beds locally had been closed due to staffing and Covid pressures.

In an interview with The Independent, Martin Green, chief executive for Care England, said his members were reporting “chronic staff shortages” made worse by more workers testing positive for Omicron in rent weeks.

He said care homes have not been able to deal with the influx of patients from hospitals which usually occurs ahead of a bank holiday.

Mr Green explained: “Hospitals make a decision to empty themselves, whether it be the bank holidays, Christmas, and that at a time when it’s also difficult for us to maintain staffing levels.

“Occupancy levels are much, much lower than they would be normally – they’re hovering around about 88 to 90 per cent but would normally be in the high 90s, which has had an impact on the viability of homes. Some not only reduced the number of beds that they’re opening, because of issues around Omicron because they cannot get the staff.”

He said one care home in Buckinghamshire recently had to reduce its capacity by 10 beds due to staffing problems.

In addition to staff absences, the Care England chief said current legislation is forcing homes to implement certain infection control measures which are leading to less beds and is costing homes up to £1m.

Councillor Louise Gittins said in an interview with The Independent that social care was already suffering from “massive” staffing shortages as recruitment was becoming more difficult, with one provider losing 100 staff since December.

She said the bank holiday will worsen these pressures, adding: “What will happen with the bank holiday, it will put pressures on things such as pharmacies not necessarily being open and where people aren’t about because of the bank holiday.

“It feels like the perfect storm at the moment. We’ve got high Covid rates, which is putting pressures on staff, in terms of absences.”

Responding to the NHS performance figures on Thursday, Chris Hopson, chief executive for NHS Providers, said hospitals were dealing with the “most sustained difficult and pressured period of time they can remember”.

He said: “We need to be honest about the four long-term fault lines which have built up over the last decade, exacerbated by Covid. Between 2010 and 2020, the NHS went through the longest and deepest financial squeeze in its history.

“It was therefore unable to grow capacity to match growing demand, leaving a significant capacity shortfall.

“Huge workforce shortages have built up, with 110,000 vacancies and only 27 per cent of staff saying their organisation has sufficient staff to do their job properly. And the government has consistently failed to solve problems in social care.

“Until these fault lines are properly addressed, the NHS is going to remain under real pressure.”

Levelling Up Secretary set to axe rules forcing developers to build “affordable” homes, in favour of a new levy for councils.

Where would this leave the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)? – Owl

By Ben Gartside www.telegraph.co.uk 

Michael Gove is poised to hit property developers with a £7bn levy that could pave the way for a massive expansion of new council housing.

The Levelling Up Secretary is preparing to axe rules which force companies to build a set number of “affordable” homes on their developments themselves, and will order them to pay into an infrastructure fund instead that can be used by councils for their own projects.

Mr Gove has held talks with industry about the proposals, and executives are preparing for them to be included in the Queen’s Speech next month if approved by Cabinet.

A formal consultation could be launched within weeks.

Developers expect the new levy to raise around £7bn if it goes ahead, assuming it costs the same as they spend under existing affordable housing rules.

It is not clear if councils will be able to use the money however they see fit, or if they will be required to earmark it for projects such as homes, roads, schools and GP surgeries.

However, large amounts of money are likely to be funnelled into local authority schemes to tackle the housing crisis. This could include an increase in the building of homes owned by councils, industry insiders said, or sold to residents through council-run developers known as Housing Delivery Vehicles.

The proposals have been met with consternation from developers. One executive said that while the move is designed to simplify planning, it may have the opposite effect. 

They said: “While the current system can be arduous and there have been complaints around efficiency, it ensures infrastructure is built and doesn’t create issues about cash flow, and means infrastructure can be built in advance of a development. 

“It also means communities neighbouring the development won’t necessarily feel a direct benefit – there is no obligation for councils to create infrastructure, or for it to be built in the same area.”

The proposals involve axing Section 106 of the 1990 Planning Act, which allows councils to order developers to build infrastructure in return for permission to start work on new estates.

This typically includes a requirement for a certain number of affordable homes, which can be run by social housing groups, sold through a shared ownership scheme or simply offered for sale or rent at a below-market rate.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that 10pc of homes should be affordable on major developments, and 52,100 such properties were built in 2020-21.

Section 106 has long been criticised as an unwieldy and bureaucratic imposition on developers that holds up projects.

Mr Gove is now proposing to scrap it and replace the system with a “consolidated infrastructure levy”, which would charge developers a fee set as a proportion of the value of their housing project. This money would then be spent by councils themselves.

Council housing boomed in the postwar years before a massive sell-off driven by Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy policy.

Only 3,370 local authority properties were built in the UK in 2019-20, down from almost 195,00 in 1969-70.

However, there are signs of a renaissance with new projects started by London councils reaching a four-decade high last year.

One property investor said that Mr Gove’s plan risks leading to a rise in “s——y quality” council housing. They added that the overall number of properties built is likely to be lower than under current rules because developers can move more quickly than the Government.

The idea for scrapping section 106 was initially touted by Mr Gove’s predecessor Robert Jenrick in 2020 as part of a white paper that was subsequently dropped. 

Conservative MPs have become increasingly frustrated with the delays around Section 106 agreements, and have encouraged Mr Gove to rework the policy. 

In a letter last year, leading property industry figures including the heads of the British Property Federation and the Home Builders’ Federation warned against introducing an infrastructure levy.

Jules Pipe, London’s deputy mayor for planning, also signed the letter in a move that suggests the proposals risk sparking a backlash from some local authorities which would rather force developers to bankroll specific projects themselves.

The letter, written to Mr Gove at the time of his appointment to Housing Secretary, asked him to improve the existing system rather than scrap it.

It said: “In our view the most effective approach to enabling the delivery of affordable housing, infrastructure and sustainable development, is to improve existing approaches to securing contributions to meet policy requirements set by development plans.”

The Department for Levelling Up declined to comment.

Labour said that a fresh Partygate revelation on Sunday implied that Boris Johnson instigated one of the No 10 parties that he has denied attending.

[13 November 2020 is the date that Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, and communications director, Lee Cain, left their roles. Sources reported loud music and sounds of a party coming from the flat occupied by Johnson and his wife on this date – though Downing Street denies there was any rule-breaking.]

Andrew Sparrow www.theguardian.com 

The deputy Labour leader, Angela Rayner, spoke out after the Sunday Times reported that a gathering that took place in Downing Street on Friday 13 November 2020 took on the nature of a leaving party only after Johnson arrived and started pouring drinks.

She said: “While the British public was making huge sacrifices, Boris Johnson was breaking the law.

“If the latest reports are true, it would mean that not only did the prime minister attend parties, but he had a hand in instigating at least one of them. He has deliberately misled the British people at every turn.

“The prime minister has demeaned his office. The British people deserve better. While Labour has a plan for tackling the cost of living crisis, Tory MPs are too busy defending the indefensible actions of Boris Johnson.”

The revelation will intensify demands for a Commons debate this week about whether Johnson lied to parliament when he told MPs repeatedly that parties did not take place at No 10 and that Covid rules were followed at all time.

The opposition parties have been discussing how best they could force a vote on this, and one possibility is tabling a motion saying Johnson has been in contempt of parliament.

Johnson has already said that he intends to correct the record when MPs return to the Commons on Tuesday after their Easter break. It will be his first appearance in the chamber since accepting a fine for breaking lockdown rules at a gathering in June 2020 to mark his own birthday, and he is expected to issue a fresh apology for what he claims was an inadvertent breach of the rules.

However, Johnson continues to insist that he never intentionally misled MPs in his many comments on Partygate in the Commons chamber. The ministerial code says intentionally misleading MPs – lying to them – is a resigning matter.

Johnson is facing three more fines over Partygate, one of which relates to an event he attended to mark the departure of Lee Cain, his communications director, in November 2020.

According to the Sunday Times, this did not feel like a leaving party until Johnson himself turned up. “He said he wanted to say a few words for Lee and started pouring drinks for people and drinking himself,” a source told the paper.

This account has been confirmed to the Guardian by a source familiar with what happened. Nobody had organised a leaving do in advance – although it was usual at the time for staff in the press office to drink on Friday evenings – but apparently when Johnson encouraged people to join in, staff felt obliged to.

The police are investigating this event and another gathering on the same day in the PM’s Downing Street flat, where his wife, Carrie Johnson, is alleged to have held a party to mark the departure of Cain and his ally Dominic Cummings, who had been Johnson’s chief adviser.

In December last year, the Labour MP Catherine West asked Johnson directly at PMQs if there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November. Johnson replied: “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

On Sunday, the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, revealed that she had written to the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, asking if he would allow Johnson, and the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to be held to account by MPs for misleading parliament. Sunak also received a fixed-penalty notice last week for attending the birthday party for the PM – inadvertently, he claims – despite having told MPs he did not attend any parties.

In her letter, Lucas said: “It is … appropriate that MPs have a way of scrutinising what’s happened, and for [Johnson and Sunak] potentially to be found in contempt of parliament.”

Lucas added that the matter could be referred to the standards committee or the privileges committee, or MPs could hold a vote on a motion saying Johnson was in contempt of parliament. “The last would be quickest and therefore potentially most appropriate,” she said.

The opposition parties, who have been discussing tactics before a potential vote, accept that Johnson would probably win because of the size of the Conservative majority. But they believe it would be embarrassing for Tory MPs to have to vote to exonerate him.

On Sunday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexit minister, told Radio 4’s The World This Weekend that he thought Johnson had spoken “in good faith” about Partygate.

Referring to the birthday party penalty, Rees-Mogg said: “Many people would think that they were in accordance with the rules, when they were meeting people they were with every day, who happened to wish them a happy birthday, because that was the day it was.

“I think that was a perfectly rational thing to believe. Now the police have decided otherwise and the police have an authority. But he wasn’t thinking something irrational or unreasonable, that that was within the rules.”

New findings in a CPRE research report show a 1000% increase in short-term lets nationally in 2015-21, with most in rural staycation hotspots – all while 176,000 families wait on social housing lists.

[Owl missed this in January]

www.cpre.org.uk  13th January

Our analysis of data on properties on Airbnb and similar sites shows that a massive 148,000 homes that could have otherwise – or in some cases, previously were – used as homes by local families are instead being put up on short-term and holiday lets.

And this massive jump in holiday lets, taking local homes off the market for young families and others, is set against the backdrop of the steep decline in the completion of much-needed new social housing projects since 2013.

Holiday honeypots

Our data shows startling figures in locations such as Cornwall, Devon, South Lakeland and Northumberland, and is often combined with social housing waiting lists that are lengthening year on year.

In fact, in many of these rural areas these waiting lists could be drastically reduced or even eliminated if the number of properties advertised for short term let were available for local families.

Instead, the analysis shows that in South Lakeland, for example, which saw a 1,231% increase in short term listings between 2016-20, roughly half the families in need of social housing could be accommodated in properties exclusively available for holiday rentals.

And in Cornwall, which saw short term listings grow 661% in the five years to September 2021, there are roughly 15,000 families on social housing waiting lists and the same number of properties being marketed as holiday let.

This is why we at CPRE want to see changes made to protect the housing needed by people in rural areas and to curb the runaway spread of shifting to pricey short-term lets.

As our chief executive, Crispin Truman, says:

‘There simply has to be a government response to the fact that our rural housing supply is disappearing into an unregulated short-term rentals market that simply didn’t exist six years ago.’

‘A problem that’s quickly getting out of hand’

We’re calling for tighter controls on second home ownership, including higher council tax on second homes and the requirement for short term lets to have planning permission.

Additionally, the definition of ‘affordable’ must be changed in national planning policy, with rents being tied to local incomes rather than market prices.

And time is of the essence. As Crispin puts it:

‘It’s clear the government needs to act fast to avert a growing housing crisis. With the cost of living set to hammer people’s finances in the coming year, this is a problem that’s quickly getting out of hand.’

We’re frustrated at rural people being left behind and need action soon. We want to see the government’s forthcoming Planning Bill seize the opportunity to level-up housing and make changes to law and policy to require at least one new genuinely affordable home for every market home built.

Crispin summarises the risk of leaving the rural housing crisis, worsened through short-term lets, unaddressed:

‘Across our most traditional rural communities, from the beaches of Cornwall to the lakes of Cumbria, homes that used to be rented to local families sit empty for much of the year. Hard-working people are suffering and they will not easily forgive a government that promised to level them up if it leaves them falling through the cracks of a broken system.’

Concerns over Tory election candidate’s drink driving conviction

Genevieve Riviere’s election campaign includes photos posing with Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez – who is the national lead for roads safety – Tory MP Johnny Mercer, Michael Gove and even the Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

Concerns have been raised about a would-be Plymouth city councillor who is campaigning about law and order despite being a convicted drink-driver currently banned from the roads. Conservative candidate for Stoke Genevieve Riviere’s election leaflets and associated social media posts feature her alongside police and crime commissioner (PCC) Alison Hernandez.

Just six months ago, Ms Riviere was handed a 17-month drink-driving ban, fined £230 and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £34 victim surcharge. She now wants to represent the Conservatives in the Stoke area of the city and is promoting her candidature by being seen alongside leading Tories.

Last week, Ms Riviere met the secretary of state for levelling up, communities and housing Michael Gove, which Stoke Ward Conservatives promoted as “Genevieve Riviere putting Stoke Ward on the radar of the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove.” In February, she was pictured with chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak. And Plymouth Moor View MP Johnny Mercer appears with her in a photo at Smeaton’s Tower.

In her campaign leaflets, Ms Riviere describes how she believes in “combatting crime and anti-social behaviour,” and her Facebook page shows her meeting police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez in the ward. Ms Hernandez is the PCC national lead for road safety, and also chair of the South West Road Safety Peninsular Partnership – a road safety coalition campaigning to eradicate road traffic deaths by 2040.

One local resident who does not want to be named said: “This is supposed to be people setting an example. How can [Ms Riviere] be seen out campaigning with a police and crime commissioner who is trying to improve road safety?”

Asked about her prominence in election publicity of a prospective Conservative councillor convicted of road safety offences, Ms Hernandez responded only about general issues around road safety.

In a statement, she wrote: “It’s a fact that many ordinary people who are normally law abiding fail to consider their driving behaviour when behind the wheel, from speeding to drink or drug driving. It’s one of our communities’ biggest concerns.”

She continued: “It’s why I’ve invested in roads policing to help identify and rectify the potential serious damage that people can do on our roads to others. From educating us on speed awareness training to more serious prosecutions of prison sentences.

“I know life can be stressful and people aren’t always thinking of others which is why we must do everything we can to help remind people of the consequences. Through the Vision Zero partnership collectively we want zero road deaths and serious injuries by 2040 and we still have a long way to go to achieve that. I’m thankful the police are out there doing their job on our roads and catching people to prevent a serious incident occurring.”

In January Ms Hernandez spoke about the police’s Christmas drink-driving campaign in which 200 arrests were made.

“Drink and drug driving is a choice people take which endangers lives and it is completely unacceptable,” she said.

Ahead of that campaign, she said: “Those found guilty of this crime face losing their licence and even going to prison, which could cost you your job and livelihood.”

Because Ms Riviere’s conviction did not result in a prison sentence of more than three months, she is eligible to stand as a councillor. The court hearing was covered by PlymouthLive in October last year here.

She is not the only Plymouth Tory who has faced recent drink-driving convictions. Cllr John Riley (Cons, Moor View) was banned from driving two years ago. Cllr Riley is cabinet member for governance, HR, IT and community safety; a role which has responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour and the Safer Plymouth Community Safety Partnership.

Genevieve Riviere and the chairman of Plymouth, Sutton Devonport Conservatives were both contacted about this issue but said they had nothing to add to the statement by the police and crime commissioner.

Paul Arnott www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

There can’t be many of us who haven’t felt the financial pinch at some point in our lives.

My own experience was in my 20s, when an over-optimistic project I was involved in collapsed, leaving me about £5,000 in debt.

I had not a penny in the bank account from working that wasn’t owed – either to pay that back, or to pay rent to a chiselling landlord in a flat without heating. Ah, the1980s! Not very yuppy or loadsamoney where I was.

I would never call it character-forming; it was just incredibly stressful on an hourly basis. And being twenty-something, I was too proud to ask for help. Therefore, a luxury meal sometimes would be a bowl of white rice with the addition of a squirt of tomato puree.

I would visit my girlfriend’s family home to witness Billy the Cat being hand-fed slices of prime ham from M&S while my tongue hung out like a hungry dog’s. And above all I remember saving 1p and 2p pieces until I had enough to buy a Mars Bar.

Before I start to sound like Monty Python’s Four Yorkshireman, I should add that life looked up eventually. But the symptoms of poverty which I then endured seem never to leave our nation, despite it being one of the world’s greatest economies.

Strictly speaking, what a district council can do about this is “discretionary”; dealing with poverty is not a core “mandatory” obligation. But we feel we cannot just pass by on the other side of the road, because everyone in East Devon can see the looming acceleration of a Cost of Living Crisis.

What on earth has happened? Well, some won’t like this, but it is now empirically proven that since the self-harm of leaving the EU, our economy has shrunk by 4% according to the Conservative government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility.

Then we have the effects of the pandemic. That was not self-harm like Brexit, but the way we are coming out of it is. The recent increase in National Insurance (basically, just another income tax) is cutting into the budgets of already challenged households.

Then there is another surprising jolt, the Russian crime against Ukraine. Food supply diminishes, prices go up.

In the last two weeks households, especially for those on pay-as-you-go energy tariffs (already paying higher per unit rates), the pain is already here. For the rest of people in poverty, it’s turn off the heating or be faced with an unaffordable increase in your direct debit in the coming months.

Meanwhile, mortgage interest rates are starting to creep up again. A 0.5% rise in total recently, but where will they stop?

At East Devon District Council, despairing of Messrs Sunak and Johnson, we have launched an Action on Poverty Fund. This is not about direct cash handouts; that is not our role and in any case we simply do not have the money to do that.

Instead, we have opened a scheme where those brilliant people already working in their communities to alleviate poverty can apply for funding between £500 and £5,000 to help them develop the work they are already doing further.

We’re hoping that these groups will be able to then do more to encourage those in hidden poverty to seek help, to advise on budgeting, to help access welfare benefits, improve physical and mental health and diet, and aid practical ways of reducing energy and water costs, as well as helping people find employment.

The link for applications is:

www.eastdevon.gov.uk/grants-and-funding/grants-available-from-us/east-devon-action-on-poverty-fund

In addition, our local Conservative MPs, Neil Parish for the Tiverton & Honiton constituency, and Simon Jupp for the East Devon constituency, may appreciate your feedback to encourage them to prioritise poverty in their work for the East Devon public at Westminster.

Local groups, we look forward to your applications, and thank you for everything you already do.

‘They supported him, why don’t they leave now? They’re the party of law and order.’

Ian Hislop was met with cheers on Have I Got News For You as he said that the “entire Tory party” should resign for defending Boris Johnson amid the partygate scandal.

Isobel Lewis www.independent.co.uk 

This week, the prime minister and chancellor Rishi were given fines for breaking lockdown to attend illegal parties at Downing Street.

Johnson is the first sitting prime minister ever found to have broken the law. Johnson’s wife Carrie was also fined.

Appearing on HIGNFY on Friday (15 April), Hislop pointed out that voters had previously been told it was too soon to call for Johnson’s resignation before the Sue Gray report was released, and now were being told it was “too late”.

“He thinks everyone has forgotten about it and that they don’t care anymore,” Hislop said, curling his lip as he added: “Maybe by the time we go out, the party will have come to its senses and he will have resigned.”

“We’ve got another six parties to go. All the attention’s on this one and everyone’s going, ‘Oh god, woke BBC lefties, can’t you get over it?’

“And I’m thinking, ‘Yeah woke BBC lefty Lord Wolfson, the Tory justice minister who’s just resigned. I mean, there’s a snowflake. Tory QC, member of the House of Lords, pathetic.’”

Justice minister Lord Wolfson quit the government in protest at the prime minister’s failure to resign over breaking the law, saying the “repeated rule-breaking and breaches of the criminal law” in Downing Street could not be allowed to be treated with “constitutional impunity”.

Hislop continued: “He’s resigned. Why hasn’t Boris? Why hasn’t Rishi? Why hasn’t Carrie? Are you allowed to resign as his wife?

‘And why hasn’t the entire Tory party resigned, all of them? They supported him, why don’t they leave now? They’re the party of law and order.”

While Johnson and Sunak have apologised and paid their fixed penalty notices, it is yet to be seen if they will resign.

[These quotes above come from about 4 mins into recording, but well worth watching the whole of the first 5 mins 45 secs – Owl]

“As usual, it’s all talk and no action from a government incapable of getting to grips with the problems blighting households across our country.”

Ashley Cowburn www.independent.co.uk 

The government has admitted that a special “taskforce” announced last autumn to tackle the supply chain crisis existed for just days – and may never have convened.

Established the day before Boris Johnson began conducting a major reshuffle, the cross-governmental group tasked with “fixing” supply issues was placed under the supervision of Michael Gove.

Reports at the time claimed that Mr Johnson had joked to Mr Gove – who was then Cabinet Office minister – that he “didn’t want to have to cancel Christmas again” as the National Economic Recovery Taskforce (Logistics) was set up.

But in response to a parliamentary question from Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner in March this year, Michael Ellis, the current Cabinet Office minister, was forced to admit that the taskforce, announced on 14 September 2021, no longer existed.

“When the prime minister’s cabinet committee structures were refreshed, gov.uk was updated in October 2021 and this no longer included the National Economic Taskforce (Logistics),” he said.

The minister insisted that logistics and supply chains remained “a priority” for the government, adding that they were “discussed regularly by ministers in a range of forums”.

The Cabinet Office later said work continues to enhance the resilence of supply chains, but now through a committee focused on domestic issues.

Responding to a separate question, Mr Ellis declined to comment on whether the logistics taskforce had met “at least once” before it was removed from the list of cabinet committees.

“It is a long-established precedent that information about the discussions that have taken place in cabinet and its committees and how often they have met is not shared publicly,” he said.

Ms Rayner told The Independent this amounted to evidence that the government was “unprepared for the problems facing our country, which will only make the cost of living crisis worse.

“They lurch from crisis to crisis,” she said. “Instead of serious solutions, all they’ve got is gimmicks and fake announcements to grab cheap headlines, with no real plan to solve the problem. The consequences are clear – travel chaos and spiralling prices for ordinary people.

“Now they’ve been caught creating a fake taskforce to hide the fact that they don’t have a plan to protect supply chains and ease the travel disruption Brits are experiencing.”

But a government spokesperson said: “These claims are incorrect. Logistics and supply chains are a priority for the government, and are discussed regularly by ministers in a range of forums. “We are committed to supporting people with the pressures of the cost of living and we have already provided over £22 billion of help in 2022-23.”

Andy Prendergast, national secretary of the GMB union, said: “The logistics crisis has had serious consequences across the economy – yet it gets no more than lip service from the government.

“You’d have thought after seeing the public plagued by empty shelves and haulage chaos, the taskforce would have taken serious steps to address the problems.”

He added: “As usual, it’s all talk and no action from a government incapable of getting to grips with the problems blighting households across our country.”