Rules only apply to the “little people”! – Owl

Boris Johnson has committed a “clear breach” of the rules surrounding jobs outside parliament after only informing a key watchdog of his new Daily Mail column half an hour before it was publicly announced.

Faye Brown news.sky.com 

Whitehall’s anti-corruption panel said the former prime minister – who has vowed to offer uncensored views – had not sought its advice on the matter within an appropriate timeframe.

Former ministers are meant to apply to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before taking up a new appointment or role for up to two years after leaving government.

An Acoba spokesperson said: “The Ministerial Code states that ministers must ensure that no new appointments are announced, or taken up, before the committee has been able to provide its advice.

“An application received 30 mins before an appointment is announced is a clear breach.

“We have written to Mr Johnson for an explanation and will publish correspondence in due course, in line with our policy of transparency.”

Earlier, a source close to Mr Johnson insisted that he had written to Acoba, but did not say when the letter was sent.

The Daily Mail, a right-leaning outlet and one of Mr Johnson’s biggest supporters, confirmed on Friday that it had hired Mr Johnson as a weekly columnist, calling him “one of the wittiest and most original writers in the business”.

In a video shared alongside the announcement, Mr Johnson said he was “thrilled” to contribute to “those illustrious pages”, and promised to deliver “completely unexpurgated stuff”.

Although he quipped he will only cover politics when “I absolutely have to”, the column gives him a powerful platform to take shots at Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with whom he has been publicly clashing.

But the announcement, which comes a day after the privileges committee concluded Mr Johnson lied to parliament with his denials of Downing Street lockdown parties, has drawn the ire of opposition MPs.

Labour MP Angela Eagle said “this is what no shame looks like”.

Former shadow chancellor John McDonell said he could not think “of a more appropriate vehicle for Johnson to peddle more of his lies” than in the newspaper, which he claimed was a “rag” that “contributes so much to dividing our society and lowering the standards of public life”.

There has been speculation about whether Mr Johnson would return to his journalism roots after he dramatically quit as an MP last week ahead of the damning privileges verdict becoming public.

Before he became party leader, Mr Johnson received a £275,000 salary to write for The Telegraph, which will likely pale in comparison to the sum he will pocket as a former premier.

POLITICO, which first broke the news of Mr Johnson’s new writing gig, reported he will receive a “very high six figure sum”.

News of his lucrative new job came as the prime minister was urged to “stand up to” his predecessor and force him to pay back the tax payer cash spent on his partygate legal fees.

Mr Johnson joins the ranks of his staunch ally Nadine Dorries, who writes a weekly Tuesday column for the Daily Mail.

The former culture secretary, who has also announced her exit from the Commons, used her most recent piece to suggest “sinister forces” were behind the decision to exclude her from Mr Johnson’s controversial resignation honours list – something Downing Street has denied.

The former long-standing Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was also once tipped to be on the list but was reportedly removed during the House of Lords vetting process.

Elephant in the room: Since 2020, Devon’s total running overspend on caring for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) service – effectively debt – has risen to around £127 million, and is projected to increase to £153 million by next March. The amount is more than the county has in reserves.

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

A small budget surplus was recorded by Devon County Council in the last financial year following an unprecedented cost-cutting programme.

It finished the 2022/23 financial year with an underspend £156,000 of its revenue budget of almost £630 million.

It comes less than a year after Devon’s finance chief warned councillors that Devon faced a £30.5 million overspend with a potential further £10 million on top because of soaring inflation.

That led to Angie Sinclair calling for urgent action to cut costs, with a group of leaders from each council department set up to go through the budget line-by-line to identify savings as part of a ‘financial sustainability programme’.

In a report to Devon’s ruling Conservative cabinet on Wednesday [14 June], Ms Sinclair said it meant the authority avoided overspending, while it also managed to increase income and make more use of funding sources.

But she warned that – in common with councils across the country – Devon continued to face financial challenges.

“Demand for services is higher than ever before, prices continue to rise and labour market shortages are still being experienced,” she said.

“This is being felt acutely within our adults and children’s services. This trend of rising demand pressure and rising prices is expected to continue into 2023/24 which will create a very challenging financial environment for the council going forward.”

Cabinet member for finance, Councillor Phil Twiss (Conservative, Feniton), told the meeting: “If we hadn’t responded, the alternative would have been a significant budget overspend and we would today be taking tens of millions of pounds out of our diminished reserves.

He added: “The work in the 2022/23 financial year has bought us time to truly start transforming our services, investing in new systems, and streamlining our operations.

“This is only the end of the beginning, make no mistake,  as recovery continues and DCC is put back onto a medium and long-term sustainable track.

“However, there is no sugar-coating that 23/24 financial year is clearly going to be very tough with very difficult choices to make on how we deliver services to the residents of Devon.”

But opposition leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem, Kingsbridge) highlighted the “elephant in the room” – a growing overspend on Devon caring for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Councils across the country have been told by the government to put their overspends into separate ring-fenced accounts while it develops a new funding model – an arrangement recently extended to 2026.

Since 2020, Devon’s total running overspend on the SEND service – effectively debt – has risen to around £127 million, and is projected to increase to £153 million by next March. The amount is more than the county has in reserves.

“We haven’t underspent, we’ve overspent,” Cllr Brazil said. “We’ve overspent by tens of millions of pounds.”

He questioned whether discussions between Devon and the Department for Education about the debt would “save us,” warning: “Until we have a much more candid approach to our budget position and our revenue budget we will continue to go merrily on until we hit the buffers.”

Cllr Brazil added: “I just worry for the most vulnerable and needy people in Devon because they, inevitably, will suffer the most when we make the cuts.”

Meanwhile, Labour’s Carol Whitton claimed it was an “absolute disgrace that the [SEND] overspend is sitting there and has not been sorted.”

She was in “absolute support that there has to be more work done to control spending and to create a sustainable budget in future years” but believes there is a “lack of appreciation” of under-funding from central government.

In response, chief executive Donna Manson said a first formal meeting with government civil servants will take place about the overspend next week.

Cabinet member for children’s services, Cllr Andrew Leadbetter (Conservative, Wearside & Topsham) added he didn’t share the “pessimism” of the two opposition leaders and is “confident” a solution will be found.

An East Devon seaside town has reached “saturation point” with homes for older people at a point where it’s not “economically sustainable.” Plans for a new block of retirement apartments in the centre of Exmouth were thrown out by councillors, who argued more homes need to be built with younger people in mind.

Ollie Heptinstall www.devonlive.com

Churchill Retirement Living had applied to build 54 retirement apartments along with six retirement cottages, communal facilities, car parking, landscaping, and commercial space on the site of builders’ merchants Jewson on Fore Street. East Devon District Council planning officers recommended approval, deciding it would be “sustainable development” and help improve housing supply.

But the majority of the planning committee members voted against the plans due to the lack of a “mixed balance” of properties, a loss of employment land, and because the site hasn’t been marketed for the required time of at least a year. The committee’s decision came after several objections were heard at the meeting, including from Exmouth Town Council.

It raised concerns about the loss of employment land, perceived “overdevelopment,” and criticism about more housing exclusively for elderly residents. “It puts a very particular type of development – retirement properties – in an area awash with them when we’re in desperate need of affordable homes for young families and couples,” a statement from the council said.

Speaking in favour on behalf of the applicant, Rosie Roome claimed there was a “clear local need” for such a development, stating: “Retirement housing is not for everyone, but it is important to provide choice within the housing market.”

She added: “The proposal will have benefits throughout the whole housing market; freeing up larger properties for families which in turn frees up homes for first-time buyers.

“The proposal will create new jobs on site. There will also be an increase in local spending in the town centre as residents will be basket shoppers and use the services and facilities during the week when they are quietest.”

Ms Roome revealed there would be “no loss of employment” from the current Jewson store, with all staff transferred to nearby Withycombe Road. However, East Devon’s economic development officer Tom Winters told the meeting there will be “more economic harm than benefit deriving from this particular application.”

He explained there is a “chronic lack” of employment land in East Devon, while the district is “currently losing many employers because they cannot find sufficient space.” And whilst it was estimated the application would lead to 12 jobs on the site, Mr Winters believed guidance suggested “23 jobs is the right amount of jobs which should be accommodated at this type of site for this type of use.”

He added East Devon has the third highest proportion of pensioners of any local authority in the country. “That’s not economically sustainable.”

A number of councillors then criticised the plan, including Councillor Olly Davey (Green, Exmouth Town). “The local plan says there is a need for balanced communities, securing employment provision, reducing the need for commuting, and encouraging development for younger people and families.

“Well, Exmouth already has a high proportion of older people,” he said, adding: “I think a better use could be found for this site. A better use would be a mixed residential and commercial – say an office development.”

Cllr Davey also believed the level of developer contributions was lower than it should have been.

Meanwhile, Cllr Brian Bailey (Conservative, Littleham) said: “Exmouth is in a situation where we’re all getting older. The population in Exmouth is getting older and older on a daily basis.

“We have a housing need in Exmouth for one- and two-bedroom flats and houses,” he added. “We need those types of housing. Why are we getting this? We don’t need this. There is no demand for this.”

This was further echoed by Cllr Steve Gazzard (Lib Dem, Withycombe Raleigh). “Do we need any more [retirement homes]?” he asked. “I don’t think we do. I think we’ve got to what I would call saturation point in Exmouth for these types of developments.”

The committee rejected the plan by a margin of six votes to one, with three abstentions.