Recorded crime in Devon and Cornwall has shot up by more than 10 per cent in the past year, with sexual offences double that and thefts and shoplifting by 50 per cent.

No selfie from Alison Hernandez? – Owl 

www.radioexe.co.uk

But the police service says a rise was to be expected, after a dip during the height of the pandemic.

Hello, hello, hello (image courtesy: Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner)

And they claim the region remains one of the safest places in England and Wales, given that across those two countries the average rise in crime was higher at 12.3 per cent, 1.3 percentage points lowe than Wiltshire, which ranks as first place for the lowest total number of crimes in the 12 months to the end of September 2022.

When compared to pre-covid crime levels in 2019, Devon and Cornwall has seen an increase of just 1.4 per cent.

Deputy chief constable Jim Colwell said: “These figures are a good indicator of where we need to make improvements to tackle crime across Devon and Cornwall.

“There has been a 19.2 per cent rise in reported sexual offences compared to the same time the previous year. Tackling violence against women and girls remains a priority for the Force, and we are continuing to encourage victims to report crimes. We are committed to preventing these offences, ensuring that victims are fully supported and that crimes are thoroughly investigated.

“We continue to work on making improvements in bringing sex offenders to justice, including our work with the national Operation Bluestone Soteria team to review our response to rape and sexual offences. This work will ensure that we provide the highest possible level of service and standards of investigation when tackling violence and sexual offences against women and girls.”

Victim-based crime in Devon and Cornwall has risen by 11.8 per cent. Theft from the person and shoplifting saw the biggest increase and have risen by 49.1 per cent and 28.8 per cent, respectively.

This increase in theft may potentially be due to the cost-of-living increase and the financial difficulties people are currently experiencing.

Mr Colwell continued: “We acknowledge how distressing it is to be a victim of burglary or theft, and we will continue to develop our response in tackling these crimes.

“Despite increases, as a force we have some of the lowest crime rate of in these offence types. Whilst theft from the person has a 46.9 per cent increase, this number translates to 592 crimes within that 12-month period.

“Theft from the person has a crime rate of 0.3 per 1,000 population, and whilst we have seen an increase compared to previous statistics, our national position has dropped to being the fourth lowest in England and Wales.

“Whilst these figures are one measure of performance, public confidence in policing from our communities is equally important and we appreciate their support as we continue our work to tackle crime that affects our communities in order to keep them safe.”

Police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Alison Hernandez, said: “I am pleased to represent the people of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly with a police force area which has consistently achieved one of the lowest recorded crime rates in the country. This has been delivered through our largely law-abiding residents and visitors alongside many years of close collaboration between policing, partners and the communities we serve.

“However, these figures tell me and new Chief Constable Will Kerr, that there is much work still to be done, particularly in relation to the worrying rise in violent crime. We must continue our efforts to prevent violence and continue our work on focusing on young people to build this out of our community for the longer term.

“A more connected and accessible police force will ultimately deliver safer communities for us all and that is what we are focused on delivering. We have reopened six police stations to the public this financial year and plans for 2023-24 will see six more police station front desks reopened across Devon and Cornwall.

“Combine this community presence with our many hundreds of new police recruits and we are presented with a once in a generation opportunity to prevent crime at a neighbourhood level and create a policing model that will be the envy of the country.”

Dredging is likely to increase around the English coast, while pollution and sewage are piling pressure on coastal ecosystems, and an increasing number of people are at risk of coastal flooding, the Environment Agency has warned.

Fiona Harvey www.theguardian.com 

Three-quarters of shellfish waters around England failed to meet “aspirational” standards for environmental protection in 2021, the report by the agency’s chief scientist’s group found.

Dredging and pollution have come under increasing scrutiny, after a mysterious big die-off of crabs and lobsters was recorded around Teesside on the north-east coast in the autumn of 2021. A report published last week found that dredging was unlikely to be the cause of the die-offs, suggesting an unidentified new pathogen could have been to blame, but the findings have been criticised by some scientists.

The EA report paints a bleak picture of England’s coastal regions, with fewer than a fifth of the UK’s estuaries judged to be at good ecological status. Only 45% of the marine areas assessed met the standard in 2021, according to the report, published on Thursday.

More than nine in 10 of the estuaries sampled had nitrogen levels that were too high in 2019, as did nearly half of coastal waters. Nitrogen pollution comes from agricultural runoff and sewage, and can cause harmful algae blooms that kill off marine life and smother seagrass and saltmarsh.

The report found that there had been “widespread damage to coastal defences, properties and infrastructure” during storms, with about 100,000 people at risk of significant coastal flooding.

Sand dunes were being lost to erosion, and wetlands were drying out under the influence of the climate crisis, the report found. About 85% of England’s salt marshes, a major carbon store, have been lost since the 1800s, along with about half of seagrass meadows and 95% of the native oyster population.

Added to this, many people in coastal regions are enduring economic hardship. Alan Lovell, chair of the Environment Agency, told the Coastal Futures conference on Thursday morning that coastal towns were among the most deprived in the UK.

“We need to work together with coastal communities to identify the best possible way to keep them safe and prosperous,” he said. “We need a concerted effort to better protect coastal communities and economies while enhancing the marine environment.”

More than a third of the UK’s population live within 3km (1.9 miles) of the coastline, Lovell noted. He said there had been some progress in combatting the multiple threats to the coastal environment, including an initiative to restore 15% of coastal and estuarine habitats that are judged to be priority areas by 2043, but that much more needed to be done.

About 1,200 hectares (2,965 acres) of salt marsh and mudflats have been created since 2005, the report found, and there has been progress on overfishing, with about half of stocks fished at sustainable levels in 2019 compared with about a tenth in 1990.

Charles Clover, executive director and co-founder of the Blue Marine Foundation, said that was still far from good enough. “The ocean faces numerous threats, and this report highlights that one of the largest is simply removing far too many fish from the sea – collapsing stocks and preventing recovery. The report also stresses the important role that the seabed can have in storing carbon, yet in the UK trawling is allowed in most of our so called protected areas.”

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, called for urgent action and stricter regulation. “Our seas are facing a perfect storm of rising temperatures, sewage discharges, plastic and chemical pollution and destructive industrial fishing. This is an existential threat to both marine life and the communities that depend on healthy seas for their survival,” she said.

“What we need are legally binding targets to cut single use plastic in half by 2025, a full and immediate ban on destructive fishing in all marine protected areas, and stricter penalties for water companies responsible for the sewage scandal,” she added. “The time for rearranging deckchairs is over – we need a joined-up, ambitious and properly funded plan from this government and we need it now.”

The chief executive of HM Revenue and Customs has told the public accounts committee that there are “no penalties for innocent errors” in an individual’s tax affairs.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/17044/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

www.theguardian.com 

Jim Harra has told MPs that officials would help “in any way we possibly can” with the inquiry by the prime minister’s ethics adviser into Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.

Harra said that he could not comment on an individual’s tax affairs, but signalled that HMRC could offer a more public comment on a minister’s tax affairs under certain circumstances.

Being careful to point out that he was not discussing anyone in particular, Harra also said: “Carelessness is a concept in tax law. It can be relevant to how many back years that we can assess, can be relevant to whether someone is liable to a penalty and if so, what penalty they will be liable to for an error in their tax affairs.

“There are no penalties for innocent errors in your tax affairs. So if you take reasonable care, but nevertheless make a mistake, whilst you will be liable for the tax and for interest if it’s paid late, you would not be liable for a penalty.

“But if your error was as a result of carelessness, then legislation says that a penalty could apply in those circumstances.”

He pointed out, to laughter from MPs, that “innocent” was not the term used in legislation.

“If you have been careless in your tax affairs, and as a result of that carelessness have made a mistake, then you could be liable to penalty.”

Unemployed Exeter residents could find work in Cullompton if the town’s railway station is rebuilt, a local MP has claimed.

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Liberal Democrat Richard Foord, whose Tiverton & Honiton constituency includes Cullompton, made the case for restoring the station during a debate in parliament on Tuesday [24 January].

Cullompton station closed in 1964, part of the now-infamous Beeching axe that slashed the rail network in Britain. However, work is now underway on bringing the station back to its former site by the M5 almost 60 years later.

The government awarded £5 million of business funding towards restoring Cullompton and Wellington stations in 2021. Following further work from local councils, the lead role for the project was handed over to Network Rail last year.

It is hoped the first passengers could board trains at Cullompton again in May 2025.

Nearby Okehampton station was the first beneficiary of the the government’s ‘restoring your railway fund’ – reopening in 2021 to great success. Mr Foord hopes Cullompton “will see the same railway renaissance as Okehampton has in the past couple of years.”

Outlining how there are “some parallels” between the two towns, he said: “Okehampton and Cullompton are both within commuting distance of Exeter and both have slightly more than 10,000 people currently living in and around each town.”

Mr Foord added: “It is a town with a tight labour market and currently has vacancies across a range of sectors, including retail, manufacturing and social care. In Cullompton, fewer than two in 100 people are unemployed, in contrast to the neighbouring city of Exeter, where unemployment is greater than three per cent.

“There are thousands of people in Exeter who are registered unemployed and looking for work who would be able to find jobs in Cullompton were they able to commute there.”

Cullompton is likely to see significant growth in the coming years, with plans afoot for a Culm Garden Village which Mr Foord says will expand the town “by more than 5,000 houses and perhaps an additional 12,000 residents.”

Stressing the importance of a new station, he explained: “We already have an air quality management area designation in the town of Cullompton; having a station in the heart of the town should serve to reduce traffic on the congested B3181.”

Railways minister Huw Merriman (Conservative) was then invited to visit the old Cullompton station site “to see how little work would be required to restore the station to its former glory and to transform a very friendly part of Devon into an environmentally friendly one.”

Mr Merriman responded by saying the Wellington and Cullompton project is “progressing to a full business case, and a decision will be made once that has been finalised.”

After many Cranbrook residents endured nearly a week of no heating while temperatures plummeted below zero last month, further misery and anger is being caused following claims that communal district heating provider E.ON has ‘ridiculously’ hiked up energy bills. One resident has reported that her heating bill for November/ December is £693.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

Another claimed their latest bill has risen ‘ridiculously’ from £60 to £625 in a month. Noticeable differences have also been reported by those with meters.

A resident says a new meter was fitted in their property around six months ago and they used around 650 units in just under six months. During the time when some Cranbrook residents were experiencing problems with their heating and hot water supplies, the resident claims their meter ‘shot up to 1700 ish.’

E.ON has insisted that there are no known issues with meters and that bills will have increased this time of year. However, East Devon MP Simon Jupp says that after hearing residents’ latest concerns, he is striving to get more information from the energy provider.

Cranbrook is part of a ‘district heating scheme’, meaning they are all heated by an energy centre, rather than a boiler, located half a mile away which can only be run by one supplier, which is currently E.on. All 2,000 homes are signed up to E.on under an agreement which is in place until 2090.

Mr Jupp said: “At a time when customers on E.ON’s heating network in Cranbrook and Tithebarn were facing outages with shambolic regularity and were sat in freezing cold homes, many people still saw their bills continue to go up. I am very concerned to hear reports from residents that they’ve been charged for heat and water they obviously weren’t able to use a lot of the time.

“I urgently raised this with E.ON who insist higher bills are because customers were using more heat and hot water during the colder weather. I have gone back to E.ON’s bosses with specific examples of unusually high billing so I can get clear answers for affected residents, who are quite simply fed up, and who can blame them?”

A closed meeting is said to be taking place between E.ON and its customers on January 25. Details have not been disclosed to DevonLive by E.On about why it has been called and the aim of the meeting.

Instead, an E.ON spokesperson said: “The details of the meeting have been shared with our customers. This is not an open event and all of our customers have been invited directly.”

Regarding the latest concerns raised over the hike in bill payments, the E.ON spokesperson said: “With the colder weather and darker evenings we have experienced over recent weeks, it is reasonable to expect that most customers will have been using more energy than in previous months to keep their homes warm and well-lit. Any customer who has a query regarding their bill should contact us directly to discuss this.

“We know these are incredibly difficult times and we continue to urge any customer who is struggling to get in touch as there are ways we can help.”

Last month, Mr Jupp intervened on behalf of Cranbrook residents when they were struggling without heating before Christmas. He expressed his concern at ‘E.ON’s ‘lack of pace’ to resolve the issue and slammed their response as “woefully inadequate”.

At the time, engineers believed the problems predominantly stemmed from an issue with valves situated within the heat interface inside some homes. Once supplies had been restored, E.ON said they would then assess what future actions need to be taken to prevent a repeat of this issue from reoccurring.

Last week, DevonLive reported the town had woken up to no hot water on January 16, after its communal heating supply was cut off. E.ON has said that the brief issue was an “isolated incident” caused by a fire alarm which cut off the energy centre.

It is likely that district and communal heat networks won’t be regulated by Ofgem until at least 2024, it has been announced recently. Householders who face issues of intermittent supply of their heating and hot water will remain at the mercy of their provider to find a solution, with no option to seek redress from a regulator.

Then there is the cost of providing “glossy brochures” in support of each submission in the “beauty contest” for funding under the various levelling up schemes, most of which fail. – Owl

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com 

Cash-strapped councils are estimated to have spent £12.5m compiling bids to launch low tax and regulation-lite “investment zones” that were binned by the government just weeks later, new figures suggest.

Labour, which compiled analysis about the waste suffered by local authorities, hit out at the “cost of Tory chaos” given the scheme was effectively ditched by the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, when he took over after Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership.

Initially billed as a major part of Truss’s growth agenda, the investment zones announcement saw a rush of interest – with 626 submitted from 90 councils across England.

But while many areas jumped at the chance to be granted slimmed down planning rules and have other regulations eased, as well as tax breaks to encourage investment, putting together the documents came at a cost.

Councils had to spend an average of £20,000 to £30,000 in each bid for central government funding, and sometimes lost staff hours while work was done preparing the submissions, according to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.

Taking the most conservative end of that estimate, the total cost to councils was calculated to have been £12.5m.

Using the same equation, Labour also said the 418 bids rejected last week out of 529 received for the second round of distribution from the levelling up fund amounted to a loss to councils of £8.4m.

The nature of the system that sees local authorities forced to bid for central government funding was criticised by Lisa Nandy, Labour’s shadow levelling up secretary.

She claimed struggling councils had been “forced to waste millions of pounds during a cost of living crisis on applications that now lie in a bin in Whitehall”.

Nandy said: “Many councils were rightly sceptical about investment zones but felt they had to engage with what seemed to be the only game in town. A huge amount of time and money has been wasted because of the Conservatives bouncing from one half-baked idea to the next with no serious plan for growth.”

She vowed that Labour would end the “Hunger Games-style approach to levelling up, which forces communities to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall”, and said the party had “set out a proper long-term strategy to grow the economy, create good jobs and shift power of out Westminster”.

The levelling up department was contacted for comment.

Previously, the Guardian revealed that all expressions of interest from councils in becoming investment zones were not being pursued by the government.

A drastically slimmed down and refocused version of the scheme is still being discussed between the levelling up department, Treasury and No 10 that will probably see the zones focussing on boosting research and development hubs at universities.

Sources have indicated Sunak wants to use the move as a sop to Truss and her allies to fend off criticism about a lack of commitment to her vision of growth.

The levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, will probably express his commitment to a reincarnation of the scheme in a speech to the Convention of the North on Wednesday, but an announcement about the future of the project is still thought to be some way off.

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk

Throughout the two main years of the Covid-19 crisis, 2020 and 2021, our officers at East Devon (EDDC) gladly took on the extra burden of assessing and then distributing government funds to local businesses, as well as delivering extra help to individuals really struggling to cope.

One of the central boasts of 45 years of Conservative rule at EDDC until 2019 was the artificial suppression of council tax rises. This went hand in hand with not bothering to review car park charges, maintain assets such as the Exmouth Pavilion theatre, or do anything about our public loos.It also led to a “pared-to-the-bone” approach to Human Resources.

Yet despite this, in the middle of the pandemic, our officers were obliged to take part in “Levelling-Up” bids to government for “oven-ready” projects, with just weeks to get the paperwork in. Yet this was always a classic, all mouth no trousers, Boris Johnson approach to the serious matter of funding regional infrastructure. Nevertheless, our terrific officers burned the midnight oil to submit bids.

Devon County Council (DCC) is the highways authority and so (using much work by EDDC) submitted a bid for new works in the approach to Exmouth around the station. We were pleased with this, as it had the potential to fit in with out own Placemaking work in Exmouth of the last two years, soon to bear the essential fruit of well-consulted concepts, so that progress can be made with as much local support as possible.

DCC also included completing the Dinan Way road extension in the north of Exmouth, a piece of transport infrastructure first promised half a century ago as the exponential growth of housing in that area really took off. Ordinarily the funds for this might have come from the Highways Agency, but DCC saw an opportunity, won the signature of local MP Simon Jupp, and got the thumbs up last week at last. The Democratic Alliance administration will continue to work together with all parties to improve Exmouth.

However, the other scheme submitted – for works in Axminster and Seaton – lost its key signatory in the very week it was handed in. Neil Parish, the former MP, left office at a crucial time, having personally promised me (the day before he resigned) that he’d do all he could to get these projects approved too.

His replacement, Richard Foord MP (Lib Dem), moved like greased lightning the minute he was voted in to sign off in support himself. He also – quite rightly – backed the Cullompton relief road, a seriously overdue and desperately needed scheme in Mid-Devon.

Last week, it was announced that Axminster, Cullompton and Seaton were all unsuccessful. I offer no further comment.

However, to the people of Axminster and Seaton I would wish to assure them that we’ll be resubmitting bids at the next possible opportunity – there is meant to be a Round Three of Levelling Up. And we will read the feedback from government with genuine respect and in a spirit of seriousness.

On another front I’d like to thank the many friends and colleagues who went across to Dartmoor at the weekend to protest about the loss of the ability to wild camp. This seems to me about the difference between landowners who are genuine stewards of the land which they have the good fortune to own, and those who do not understand such obligations.

All of my four children took part in DofE or Ten Tors expeditions, as did most of their friends. The officers of the Dartmoor National Park authority will, I am sure, strive to negotiate with the landowners for maximum public access.

The protesters behaved immaculately. Now, following their example, it would be a good gesture for the Totnes Conservative Association to return the £5,000 donated to them by the landowner.

Councillors in Devon have rejected a proposal to use cruise liners as temporary accommodation for refugees and homeless people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Several Torridge district councillors questioned the practicality of the idea.

A report said cruise ships could become unstable in shallow water, so dredging would be needed and a quay wall reinforcing.

The council’s Community and Resources Committee voted against the proposal.

Labour group leader Cllr David Brenton brought the suggestion to the council’s attention in December.

He cited the district’s desperation to find a home, even if only temporarily, for those in dire need, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

‘Step too far’

A report by council officers said cruise ships could become unstable in shallow water, so dredging would be needed to enable vessels to moor, and the quay wall at Appledore’s Middle Dock would need reinforcing.

Mr Brenton told the committee he had no intention of using big ships in the area, just vessels for up to 100 people.

But independent Councillor Claire Hodson said: “We need to focus on what we’re doing.

“We do not need to go chasing what might be. We have plans in progress to add to our housing supply.”

She added: “I commend Cllr Brenton for coming up with an idea, but we are a small authority.”

Conservative Councillor Simon Newton said it was a “step too far”.

“It also risks complicating a major project that we’ve now just got lined up funding-wise, and I don’t think we should be doing anything to try to complicate what is going to be a major project,” he said.

Mr Brenton was the only one at the meeting who voted against the decision to drop his idea, with eight councillors in favour of abandoning the ship.

 “As a result of the Tories crashing the economy and pushing UK inflation to nearly the highest rate in the G7, vital projects have been delayed and now many face being downsized or scrapped altogether.

“This is symptomatic of a broken system where communities are forced to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall for small pots of money with strings attached. It leaves them especially exposed to economic shocks – not least those brought on by Tory governments.” – Lisa Nandy, The shadow levelling up secretary.

But first win the “Beauty Contest” – Owl

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com

Councils are being forced to freeze levelling up projects or find millions from their own squeezed budgets to complete works because of soaring costs which have exceeded government grants.

At least £500m has been lost from projects funded by different government levelling up schemes due to inflation and rising costs, the Guardian can reveal. The true losses are likely to be even higher because for some funds the government will pay out on the delivery phase, which could be several years later.

The levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, will address the Convention for the North on Wednesday amid criticism of the latest round of levelling up funding from some MPs, including anger that London was getting more than Yorkshire and north-east England. The government has argued that per capita, the north and the Midlands have benefited more.

However, the number of projects funded by Whitehall-allocated schemes are now under threat because of the soaring costs – which have also meant councils taking on additional risk.

New leisure buildings, high street regeneration, museums and public spaces have been hit by rising costs, including in Calderdale, Preston and Greenock.

Analysis of data from the House of Commons Library shows that, based on the latest projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) at the time of the autumn statement, £576m has been lost from different levelling up funds because of inflation.

The analysis of the overall real-terms loss was done by Labour, which found there was about £137m lost from the levelling up fund from round one, £196m from the UK shared prosperity fund, £172m from the towns fund, £60m from the future high streets fund and £9m from the community renewal fund.

The analysis looked at inflation projections taken from the OBR’s autumn statement analysis, as well as looking at the real-terms value of the levelling up fund from the first round of awards based on inflation in the construction industry, given those projects are overwhelmingly infrastructure-based.

In Halifax, a new swimming pool and leisure centre are on hold for at least a year because of rising costs. Calderdale council received £12.2m for the project in October 2021 but costs could rise by a further £4m according to local reports.

Halifax’s Labour MP Holly Lynch said inflation was having a chilling effect on the first round of projects. “Too many of its first-round projects have had to be paused or shelved because of spiralling costs,” she said.

“The government wants the credit for these projects yet the economic landscape they have created is making them impossible to deliver.”

The council said the project was unsustainable in its current form because of multiple budget pressures after years of austerity and the impact of the pandemic. It said it forecast that it would need to make tens of millions of pounds more in budget savings until 2026 because of inflation.

Analysis has also been done by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which found £1 in every £13 could be lost to inflation if the government did not act to protect investment.

Jack Shaw, a senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: “Projected spend has consistently fallen short, meaning the true cost of inflation is likely much higher, and further delays will only increase the pain facing local authorities as the impact of inflation accumulates.”

In many cases, projects are going ahead but will need increased funding from local councils, which are already under budget strain. In Preston, the council has been hit by spiralling costs for its town centre redevelopment, for which it received more than £20m in 2019.

Some of the related projects now had “significant challenges with cost inflation”, said Preston city council’s chief executive, Adrian Phillips. In one scheme, the Grade II-listed Amounderness House regeneration, the council has had to use borrowing to plug the funding gap because otherwise it would not be able to proceed.

In another scheme backed by the towns fund, the council has had to significantly reduce the work and go back to the government to seek consent.

“The costs were so high and we had no flexibility so we are just reducing the area we can benefit,” Phillips said. The council has also had to find more than £1m extra for the refurbishment of the Harris museum, where scaffolding costs alone have risen to more than £1m, meaning potential delays to other capital projects.

Phillips is among many local authority leaders who have criticised the approach of bidding for central funding posts. “Funding from government is always welcome but you have to enter numerous competitive bidding rounds, they are time-consuming and costly for very limited funds,” he said.

“There are also ludicrous delivery timescales, set nominally by the Treasury, that are not optimal for bringing in partnerships. If it has to be spent by March 2025, for a major capital programme [that] is not flexible enough.”

Preston was also successful in the latest round of levelling up funding bids, gaining £20m to regenerate parks. “That is fraught with challenge in terms of cost inflation,” he said.

“The government have made clear you cannot go back for more. At times you do have to downscale and then go back for consent. It’s an enormously stressful process and the worst thing is when you promise something and are not able to deliver all of it.”

In other areas, there have been warnings from those who won funding in the latest round that they are already facing budget pressures. Councillors in Greenock, Inverclyde, said their costs had already soared since making their successful bid.

The council was awarded £20m to demolish and reroute the A78 dual carriageway to transform Greenock town centre, including new public squares and green spaces. But the council has said it is likely to need another £2m to deliver everything.

The Inverclyde council leader, Stephen McCabe, from Scottish Labour, told the Greenock Telegraph he was delighted with the bid’s success, but added: “Inflation will already have eaten away at the funding amount we bid for, so our project team will need to assess how this might impact on the scope of the project and whether additional funding will be needed to deliver the full plan as envisaged.”

Labour has said it would end the competitive bidding process by radically increasing devolved powers – and said the Conservatives were to blame for soaring inflation.

The shadow levelling up secretary, Lisa Nandy, said: “As a result of the Tories crashing the economy and pushing UK inflation to nearly the highest rate in the G7, vital projects have been delayed and now many face being downsized or scrapped altogether.

“This is symptomatic of a broken system where communities are forced to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall for small pots of money with strings attached. It leaves them especially exposed to economic shocks – not least those brought on by Tory governments.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Housing, Levelling Up and Communities said: “We are closely monitoring the impact of inflation on projects and working closely with councils and delivery partners to ensure public services are protected and levelling up projects delivered.”

The department said it had set up a project adjustment process to work on the scope and phase of projects to mitigate delivery problems. It said £65m of support was being made available to successful applicants in the form of commercial advisers, grants to buy local support, and a training package.

Panel approving Richard S harp as BBC chair included Tory party donor

The four-strong advisory assessment panel, which ultimately decided that five of the 23 applicants were fit for the job, was formed on the basis of three members being considered independent.

Now read on, looks all very chummy to Owl.

Mark Sweney www.theguardian.com 

The government-appointed panel that approved Richard Sharp as a prime candidate for the role of BBC chair included a Conservative party donor and prospective MP, as well as the wife of the former chair of the Spectator who worked with Boris Johnson when he edited that political magazine.

As Sharp faces multiple investigations, amid allegations he helped Johnson secure a loan of up to £800,000 weeks before he was recommended for the job by the latter, the potential conflicts of interest among panel members responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for the job have come under scrutiny.

The four-strong advisory assessment panel, which ultimately decided that five of the 23 applicants were fit for the job, was formed on the basis of three members being considered independent.

The selection panel was made up of Sarah Healey, permanent secretary at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who oversaw the short-listing process before the final decision made by Johnson.

The independent directors included Catherine Baxendale, a former Tesco executive, who was shortlisted to be a Tory parliamentary candidate in 2017, and who gave £50,000 to the party when David Cameron was prime minister.

The panel also included Blondel Cluff, wife of Algy Cluff, the North Sea oil tycoon, who owned the Spectator from 1980 until 1985. Cluff remained as chairman until the end of 2004 working with five editors – including Charles Moore, the government’s first choice for BBC chair – and Johnson.

Blondel Cluff, who two years ago was the beneficiary of the government’s public selection process becoming chair of the National Lottery community fund, has previously lavished praise on the “optimism and drive” that made Johnson’s leadership “inspirational and unifying”.

The fourth member of the panel was the senior independent director Sir William Fittall, who spent almost 30 years in the civil service before retiring in 2002. He died last March.

The process for selecting “appointable” candidates, which included a presentation, broadcast interview scenario test and interview, had resulted in action by the public appointments watchdog concerned that ministers were breaching a strict code on political neutrality and independence.

In October 2020, Peter Riddell, the former commissioner for public appointments, tweeted that he had to push for panelists to be changed over concerns about ministers appointing people who were not independent of the Tory party, or who were “allies”. While the final appointment is ultimately made by cabinet ministers and the prime minister, Riddell said that ministers were attempting to “tilt the process” from the outset.

The move to replace panelists came amid growing concern that the government was seeking to “rebalance” the boards of public bodies, particularly in the arts, heritage and broadcasting sectors, by appointing allies and blocking critics, in part to help it fight “culture wars”.

The government also pursued a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful process to try to install Paul Dacre, former editor of the Daily Mail, as chair of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom, which has oversight of the BBC.

Dacre flunked his interview with the selection panel, which determined he was “unappointable”, and he pulled out after ministers were criticised for re-running the process to give him a second chance.

In the case of Sharp, Riddell wrote a letter to the chair of the culture select committee of MPs in early 2021 following the announcement of Sharp as the government’s preferred candidate for BBC chair.

The select committee, which publicly interviews preferred candidates ahead of an official appointment by ministers, comments on the “cosiness in the upper echelons of public appointments” and Sharp’s ties with Rishi Sunak and Johnson.

In the letter to the committee, Riddell said that his assessment was that the selection panel had run a “well conducted and thorough process” and that the “candidates’ potential conflicts of interest were fully explored”.

On Monday Riddell said that it was right that his successor, William Shawcross, whose daughter is Sunak’s deputy chief of staff, was investigating Sharp’s recruitment process since the panel was not aware of the role he played in helping Johnson seek to secure a loan.

In written evidence provided by Sharp to the committee ahead of the interview he did not raise his involvement with Johnson’s loan when responding to the question: “Do you currently or potentially have any business, financial or other non-pecuniary interests or commitments, that might give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest if you are appointed?”

Kevin Brennan, a member of the DCMS select committee, said in the Commons on Monday: “Helping to raise an £800,000 loan for the person ultimately responsible for your appointment should have been declared in response to that question.”

Sharp has agreed to appear before the committee on 7 February to face questions regarding the Johnson scandal.

[Richard Sharp has told the BBC that he is confident that the investigation by William Shawcross, public appointments commissioner, will find that was appointed on merit. According to the Times he has privately hired the crisis communication specialist Garfield Advisory to help him respond to scrutiny. – Owl]

The Guardian view on Tory millionaires: a party of the rich, for the rich

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

Written in an earlier time about misgivings over the accumulation of power and money, the words of F Scott Fitzgerald are apposite today. “They were careless people,” laments the narrator of his classic novel The Great Gatsby. “They smashed up things … and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.” The Tory party chairman, Nadhim Zahawi, paid, it appears, about £5m in penalties and outstanding taxes to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Mr Zahawi says his mistakes were “careless”. But how could the Conservatives ever have allowed somebody, as they did with Mr Zahawi, to become chancellor when he was in dispute with the tax authority, for which the chancellor is responsible? It is a conflict of interest that no one could miss – unless, perhaps, they too were being careless.

We all can be remiss. But not to the extent that we forget, apparently, to report an estimated £27m to HMRC. Rishi Sunak appointed Mr Zahawi to be Tory party chair and gave him a seat at his cabinet table. The prime minister claims not to have been apprised of the facts before defending Mr Zahawi at the dispatch box last week, or when he gave him his current job. A stronger prime minister would have done the right thing and sacked Mr Zahawi. Mr Sunak has referred the matter to his ethics adviser. But the occupant of No 10 does not need a report to tell him who should be in his cabinet. Mr Sunak is a weak prime minister: he has to go in to bat for colleagues for fear of them refusing to do the same for him. He risks the government losing trust in him.

Mr Zahawi was only chancellor for two months. But it speaks volumes about his character that he took the job. It would have been sloppy for Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, not to have known about Mr Zahawi’s tax problem before his promotion. That might explain why a story surfaced this weekend that claimed Mr Zahawi was denied a knighthood after the Cabinet Office contacted HMRC “as part of the normal due diligence”. Mr Case would also have been negligent not to have raised the prospective chancellor’s tax conflict with Boris Johnson, the then prime minister. It may be too much to ask for Mr Johnson, a serial liar, to find anything improper in the arrangement. But he should have vetoed Mr Zahawi for the role.

Reputations rarely survive contact with Mr Johnson. He thinks it’s fine for the current BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, to have helped arrange a guarantee on a loan of up to £800,000 for himself weeks before recommending him for the role. Neither man reported this arrangement, which they should have. Mr Sharp was privy to politically damaging information. The public perception of the BBC’s impartiality and independence has been harmed by its chair’s lack of judgment. Auntie’s board will look at the matter, and the public appointments commissioner will investigate Mr Sharp’s appointment after being urged to intervene by Labour’s Lucy Powell. However, don’t hold your breath. A wealthy insider, Mr Sharp has made his services too useful to be dispensed with easily.

These goings-on offer a parable about the corrupting role of inequality in society, a central theme of Fitzgerald’s book. What has made Britain ungovernable is not strikes and inflation but factional infighting within the Conservatives – which looks like a party of the rich, for the rich. Mr Sunak’s government seems too riven by disputes and too weak to implement big reforms. The impotence of Mr Sunak has replaced the chaos of Mr Johnson. With the Tories in charge, Britain has become a country with a government that cannot do anything of importance.

The impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service is being put at risk due to the rows involving Nadhim Zahawi and Boris Johnson’s financial arrangements, insiders have told i.

[“The many lives of UK Cabinet Secretary Simon Case” (www.politico.eu),  paints a picture of a highly-politicized player working at the center of the Whitehall machine — a civil servant who operates more as ministerial courtier than the traditional, faceless mandarin. As an ex-Johnson aide put it: “This is a man who would literally sell his mother to survive.”] – Owl

Jane Merrick inews.co.uk

Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Whitehall’s propriety and ethics team have been dragged into both affairs, because civil servants offered advice on the arrangements.

Whitehall insiders said as full official advice to ministers – with qualifications – cannot be made public, disclosures about Mr Johnson and Mr Zahawi’s financial affairs being approved is undermining the integrity of the Civil Service.

Caroline Slocock, a former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher when she was PM, said the entire process of upholding standards in public life needs to be made independent to prevent civil servants from being dragged into ministerial scandals.

In the case of Tory chairman Mr Zahawi, it has been reported that the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team raised the issue of his tax affairs directly with Mr Johnson before he was appointed Chancellor.

Mr Zahawi’s allies have insisted he flagged it with the ethics unit before the appointment.

Mr Case has been dragged into the row over Mr Johnson’s £800,000 loan from a Canadian millionaire when he was prime minister because the Cabinet Secretary was introduced to the businessman, Sam Blyth, by the BBC chairman Richard Sharp.

A Whitehall insider said there were “huge concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the civil service being undermined” under the current leadership.

They added: “Under the ministerial code there is a requirement for ministers to protect the impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service and not to put the Civil Service in a position where impartiality is threatened.

“Whether it is sustainable that civil servants can continue to advise ministers and prime ministers on issues which go to the heart of integrity if the prime minister and ministers are going to break that, and civil servants cannot do anything about it other than resign, that is a valid question.”

Ms Slocock, who is director of the Civil Exchange, told i: “I think that in the light of the Johnson premiership and recent scandals, greater independence and oversight is required of the system that enforces standards in public life.

“Ultimately, civil servants work for the Government of the day and the PM sets the tone. Civil servants advise, they don’t decide.

“As the Priti Patel affair demonstrated, it is the PM not the ethics adviser who decides whether or not the Ministerial Code is broken. Press reports suggest that the propriety and ethics team did raise a red flag on the Zahawi appointment as Chancellor, which was ignored.

“The Committee on Standards on Public Life recently proposed that the Code and adviser should be more independent, and I agree with them, and there is also a case for the ethics team being placed at arm’s length from Government.”

Ms Slocock joined calls from MPs for the register of ministerial interests, which has not been published since last May, to be updated and to include offshore trusts held by the ministers themselves and family members, and a record of all gifts and loans.

She added: “I don’t really understand why Simon Case was involved in sorting out the PM’s personal finances, which is suggested by Richard Sharp’s account of events, and hope that he will be questioned about that by Parliament.”

Sir Peter Ridell, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments, said Mr Case should have told the advisory panel overseeing the BBC chairman appointment what he knew about Mr Sharp’s connection with Mr Johnson.

More from Conservatives

Sir Peter, who was commissioner when Mr Sharp was appointed BBC chairman, told Times Radio: “That’s possibly one of the issues which will be examined, because I’m absolutely certain that his colleague who chaired the panel did not know.

“Yes, I think probably he should have made it aware to his colleague who’s chairing the panel.

“I think perception is really important. And yes, he should have said, ‘Look, I was involved at an earlier stage with an issue involving the prime minister… But I’m no longer involved’, and that would have acted as reassurance, so you’d recognise there was a potential conflict.

“Whether there was – which he denies – is a matter for the investigation to establish. But I think it would have been in everyone’s interest that there’d been much greater transparency early on.”

Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain said: “No wonder Conservative sleaze has taken root at the heart of Government. For months, there wasn’t even an ethics adviser. Then, when Rishi Sunak finally appointed one, it turned out the adviser wasn’t even independent at all – the Prime Minister has the power to block his investigations.

“Rishi Sunak promised to govern with integrity, but so far it’s been the very opposite. If he really wanted to restore standards in public life, the least he could do is make the ethics adviser truly independent, as well as handing over the appointment process to Parliament.”

(Also applies to Tory Cabinet members, especially Chancellors of the Exchequer.)

“Careless “and  “Carelessness” as explained in HMRC internal manual:

“Careless” means a failure to take reasonable care in relation to your tax affairs.

Carelessness can be likened to the longstanding concept in general law of “negligence”.

www.gov.uk

The Committee on Standards in Public Life, with great prescience, issued on Tuesday its review on standards entitled: “Leading in Practice” . –  Owl recommends it to EDDC’s CEO, Mark Williams,

“The Seven Principles of Public Life (the Principles) apply to all public office-holders and those delivering public services. They are the bedrock that underpins and gives meaning to the rules that govern public office, and they represent a common understanding of public service. However, the ethical values reflected in the Principles will not become the cultural norm within an organisation without active attention.” [First para of Lord Evan’s Forward]

www.oxfordmail.co.uk 

Strong ethical values must be “woven into every aspect” of the way government bodies and other public organisations operate, the Whitehall standards watchdog has warned.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life said while a “robust ethical culture” should be integral to the way organisations operate, too often it takes a crisis for leaders to act.

In a report highlighting best practice in the public sector, the committee said there should be “zero tolerance” for conduct that falls short of the required standards, with clear consequences when they are not met.

It noted there was no single ethics programme in Whitehall, and that while the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team was able to provide advice, it was a small group and limited in what it could do.

The committee chairman, Lord Evans of Weardale, a former director general of MI5, said establishing a values-driven culture required positive action by the leadership of an organisation and could not be left to chance.

“Doing things in the right way and in the public interest is critical for public confidence in the bodies that operate on the public’s behalf and supports the delivery of public services,” he said

“A robust ethical culture supports effective risk management – if people see thinking about ethical issues as part of their job and feel safe to speak up, this can pick up potential concerns before they escalate.

“Our evidence shows that an ethical culture does not emerge by accident. It requires discussion and action.”

In its report, the committee said the evidence it received underlined the importance of the Nolan principles of public life, established after the cash-for-questions scandal with rocked Sir John Major’s government in the 1990s.

“We heard that zero tolerance of behaviour that does not align with the values of the organisation is essential for embedding good practice. Leaders must be clear that there is a line which, when crossed, results in consequences,” it said.

“Focusing on how to ensure that ethical values are woven into every aspect of how an organisation operates is critical to good leadership. Yet, disappointingly, it often takes a crisis for senior leaders to prioritise action in this area.

“Our strong view is that the ethical health of an organisation cannot be left to chance. Leaders must ensure that the principles of public life are integral to how public sector organisations operate and how the people in them make decisions and treat each other.”

Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said the findings should be a “mark of shame” for Mr Sunak.

“Instead of building a strong ethical culture he’s paying lip service to integrity, while preserving the rotten regime of his predecessors with sleaze and scandal running rife on his watch.”

A Government spokesperson said: “The Government takes propriety and ethics in public life very seriously.

“Within departments, judgments on matters relating to ethics and standards are the responsibility of permanent secretaries, who can draw upon the expertise of the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team.”

Yesterday a correspondent asked Owl:

“Where can I complain about the useless Stagecoach service to Seaton, Devon from Exeter?”

This correspondent is unlikely to be the only one seeking the best way to complain.

The facebook based TEABAG (The Exeter Area Bus Action Group) is doing sterling work holding Stagecoach to account.  Each week they have a special post to report specific services that go wrong that week but also do other posts regarding poor services.

Readers might like to add their experience of complaining about Stagecoach services to this page.

Another female Tory councillor quits amid ‘bullying’ claims

Philip Churm www.plymouthherald.co.uk

Plymouth’s former deputy lord mayor, Cllr Maddi Bridgeman, has resigned from the Conservative Party following an ongoing row with council leader Richard Bingley in which she says she has been “harassed, bullied, and publicly humiliated.” Allegations the local Tory group have denied.

Cllr Bridgeman has served her Moor View constituency as an independent councillor since being suspended from the Tory group in November while an investigation was underway.

However, in a resignation email to the Conservative Party she asked to make a formal complaint against leading Tories adding: “My reasons for my resignation and the formal complaint are that I have been harassed, bullied, and publicly humiliated whilst holding a senior position in public office, all because of my sex, I am a woman.”

The row began last year after former Tory leader Cllr Nick Kelly (Compton) was ousted by Mr Bingley.

Cllr Bingley, who represents Southway, had been criticised for comparing Cllr Bridgeman to Saddam Hussein’s notorious right-hand man Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and referring to her as a “cheerleader.”

Cllr Bridgeman asked for a public apology but says she has never received one.

The comments emerged in a recording, released online, in which Cllr Bingley also makes angry and offensive comments about Tory colleagues, including calling former leader, Cllr Nick Kelly a “weak, two-faced git.”

Cllr Bridgeman said she is devastated by the vitriolic attacks on her, which she describes as sexist and insulting, especially when being compared to the Saddam Hussein’s genocidal right-hand man.

She was suspended from the Tory group just days after an independent inquiry upheld complaints made by her about Cllr Bingley.

The inquiry into Cllr Bingley began last April and concluded that he had breached the code of conduct relating to “courtesy and equality” and “disrepute.” It resulted in a formal letter of reprimand from the monitoring officer.

Cllr Bingley was not punished by the Conservative group he leeds.

Last month, a report by the Conservative association criticised Cllr Bridgeman’s social media activity in which she referred to one councillor as an “inexperienced student.”

The report also condemned her for shortening Cllr Bingley’s first name, “Richard,” to “Dick.”

The Tory councillor for St Budeaux, Pat Patel, said: “In the British modern vernacular, ‘Dick’ means ‘penis’ and Cllr Bridgeman uses this derogatory term on several occasions referencing Cllr Richard Bingley.”

Cllr Bridgeman rejected the claims and highlighted many well-known people with the shortened version of “Richard” including Dick Emery, a 1970s television comedian, Dick Cheney, who was US vice president at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and former Plymouth councillor Dick Mahony.

The Conserative association report says Cllr Bridgeman’s claims of “misogynist and sexist nature are totally inappropriate and amount to unbefitting conduct.”

The Conservative Party group was contacted for a response and a spokesperson said: “We have a policy of not discussing private disciplinary matters.”

Front page of the Daily Star

“We were just off to Tesco to buy another 60p lettuce to pit against forgetful taxpayer and ex-chancellor Nadhim Zahawi when we thought why bother…. He’s already toast.”

Nadhim Zahawi remains Chairman of the Conservative Party. What message does that send? – Owl

The majority of voters want Nadhim Zahawi to be sacked as Conservative Party chairman, polling has shown in the first indication of public opinion about his tax affairs row. www.telegraph.co.uk 

More on “one of our (multi-millionaire) chums” – Owl

An investigation will be launched into the appointment of the BBC chairman following reports he helped Boris Johnson secure a loan.

Faye Brown news.sky.com 

William Shawcross, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, said he would review the competition which led to Richard Sharp’s appointment while Mr Johnson was prime minister.

He made the announcement in response to a request from shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell.

He said: “The role of the commissioner is to oversee the public appointments process and ensure appointments are made fairly, openly and on merit.

“I intend to review this competition to assure myself and the public that the process was run in compliance with the government’s governance code for public appointments.”

The Sunday Times reported Mr Sharp was involved in arranging a guarantor on a loan of up to £800,000 for Mr Johnson in late 2020, and that the then-prime minister went on to recommend him for the top job at the BBC.

The government’s paymaster general, Jeremy Quin, told the Commons on Monday Mr Sharp went through an “incredibly robust process” by an independent panel ahead of his appointment and is “absolutely confident” the “usual process” will have been followed.

But the SNP’s John Nicholson, who was on the Culture Select Committee Mr Sharp appeared in front of, said it was “all a bit banana republic” after he said they “grilled him about his £400,000 gift to the Conservative Party”.

“However, he did not disclose his role in getting the man appointing him a huge loan,” Mr Nicholson told the Commons.

Earlier on Monday, the chairman asked for the BBC to review any potential conflicts of interest he may currently have to ensure that “all appropriate guidelines have been followed” since he joined the broadcaster.

“We have many challenges at the BBC and I know that distractions such as this are not welcome,” he said in a statement read out on BBC News.

The review will not look at his links to Mr Johnson’s loan, but in a letter to BBC staff, Mr Sharp clarified some of the details surrounding the Sunday Times report.

He confirmed he introduced multimillionaire Canadian businessman Sam Blyth to cabinet secretary Simon Case “as Sam wanted to support Boris Johnson”.

“I was not involved in making a loan, or arranging a guarantee, and I did not arrange any financing. What I did do was to seek an introduction of Sam Blyth to the relevant official in government,” he said.

“Sam Blyth, who I have known for more than forty years, lives in London and having become aware of the financial pressures on the then-prime minister, and being a successful entrepreneur, he told me he wanted to explore whether he could assist.”

Mr Blyth is a distant cousin of Mr Johnson’s.

Timeline

November 2020:

According to the Sunday Times the loan guarantee was first suggested by Canadian millionaire Sam Blyth during a dinner with Richard Sharp.

Early December 2020:

In early December, Richard Sharp put Sam Blyth in contact with the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case.

Late 2020:

Before the end of the year, Richard Sharp and Sam Blyth met with Boris Johnson for dinner at his country residence, Chequers. They insist the prime minister’s finances were not discussed.

January 2021:

At the start of January, the government announced Richard Sharp as the preferred candidate to be BBC chairman.

The statement was released moments after Mr Johnson said that Mr Sharp “knows absolutely nothing about my personal finances”.

Speaking to Sky News he said: “This is a load of complete nonsense – absolute nonsense.

“Let me just tell you, Richard Sharp is a great and wise man but he knows absolutely nothing about my personal finances – I can tell you that for 100% ding-dang sure.

“This is just another example of the BBC disappearing up its own fundament.”

The BBC reported that Mr Sharp “has agreed with the board’s senior independent director” that the nominations committee will look at conflicts of interest when it next meets and, “in the interests of transparency, publish the conclusions”.

Ms Powell said there also needed to be an independent investigation into the hiring process “to satisfy the public and parliament of its integrity”.

On the commissioner opening an investigation, Labour’s shadow culture secretary said: “The BBC Chair, Number 10 and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport clearly have questions to answer.

“This probe is welcome news and should shine a light on this appointments process and provide reassurance to the public.”

The party has also reported Mr Johnson to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, saying the former prime minister’s financial affairs are “dragging the Conservative Party deeper into yet another quagmire of sleaze”.

The Cabinet Office has insisted Mr Sharp was appointed “following a rigorous appointments process”.

This included assessment by a panel of experts and “additional pre-appointment scrutiny by a House of Commons Select Committee”, according to a statement released yesterday.

Since becoming a PPS Simon is no longer a free agent. He is obliged to toe the party line. Though you can see from his voting record that he has generally been doing that anyway. – Owl

As a result of COVID-19, some MPs were less able to vote in Parliament in certain periods, and this will be reflected by absences in their voting record.

www.theyworkforyou.com

How Simon Jupp voted on Foreign Policy and Defence #

• Consistently voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK Show votes 0 votes for, 5 votes against, between 2020–2021. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted against (5 votes, between 2020–2021).
• Generally voted against more EU integration Show votes 2 votes for, 10 votes against, between 2020–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs generally voted against (12 votes, between 2020–2022).
• Generally voted against strengthening the Military Covenant Show votes 4 votes for, 11 votes against, 1 absence, between 2020–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs generally voted against (16 votes, between 2020–2022).

Last updated: 18 May 2022. Learn more about our voting records and what they mean.

How Simon Jupp voted on Constitutional Reform #

• Voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs Show votes 0 votes for, 1 vote against, in 2020. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted against (1 votes, in 2020).
• Almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Senedd/Welsh Parliament Show votes 2 votes for, 11 votes against, 1 absence, between 2020–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (14 votes, between 2020–2022).
• Generally voted for an equal number of electors per parliamentary constituency Show votes 3 votes for, 1 vote against, in 2020. Comparable Conservative MPs generally voted for (4 votes, in 2020).
• Almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Scottish Parliament Show votes 2 votes for, 13 votes against, 1 absence, between 2020–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (16 votes, between 2020–2022).
• Has never voted on reducing central government funding of local government Details 0 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, in 2021.
• Generally voted against more powers for local councils Show votes 0 votes for, 2 votes against, 1 absence, between 2021–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs generally voted against (3 votes, between 2021–2022).
• We don’t have enough information to calculate Simon Jupp’s position on greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections. Show votes 1 vote for, 0 votes against, in 2022.
• Voted against a lower voting age Show votes 0 votes for, 1 vote against, in 2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (1 votes, in 2022).
• Voted against fewer MPs in the House of Commons Show votes 0 votes for, 1 vote against, in 2020. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (1 votes, in 2020).
• Consistently voted against fixed periods between parliamentary elections Show votes 0 votes for, 3 votes against, in 2021. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (3 votes, in 2021).

Last updated: 14 March 2022. Learn more about our voting records and what they mean.

How Simon Jupp voted on Business and the Economy #

• Consistently voted against reducing the rate of corporation tax Show votes 0 votes for, 2 votes against, in 2021. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted against (2 votes, in 2021).
• Consistently voted for stronger tax incentives for companies to invest in assets Show votes 2 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2021. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted for (2 votes, in 2021).
• Has never voted on new high speed rail infrastructure Details 0 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, in 2021.
• Consistently voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance Show votes 0 votes for, 3 votes against, in 2020. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted against (3 votes, in 2020).

Last updated: 8 December 2021. Learn more about our voting records and what they mean.

How Simon Jupp voted on Welfare and Benefits #

• Voted a mixture of for and against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability Show votes 1 vote for, 2 votes against, 3 absences, in 2022. Comparable Conservative MPs voted a mixture of for and against (6 votes, between 2021–2022).
• Consistently voted for raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices Show votes 2 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted for (2 votes, in 2022).
• Voted a mixture of for and against a reduction in spending on welfare benefits Show votes 3 votes for, 3 votes against, 4 absences, between 2021–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs voted a mixture of for and against (10 votes, between 2021–2022).

Last updated: 18 May 2022. Learn more about our voting records and what they mean.

How Simon Jupp voted on Taxation and Employment #

• Consistently voted for increasing the rate of VAT Show votes 2 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted for (2 votes, in 2022).
• Consistently voted against higher taxes on banks Show votes 0 votes for, 4 votes against, between 2021–2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted against (5 votes, between 2021–2022).
• Consistently voted against raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax Show votes 0 votes for, 5 votes against, in 2021. Comparable Conservative MPs consistently voted against (5 votes, in 2021).
• We don’t have enough information to calculate Simon Jupp’s position on lower taxes on fuel for motor vehicles. Show votes 0 votes for, 1 vote against, in 2021.
• Consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity Show votes 2 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2022. Comparable Conservative MPs almost always voted for (3 votes, between 2021–2022).

Last updated: 18 May 2022. Learn more about our voting records and what they mean.