Another dollop of catch-up ketchup misses the target. – Owl

An official social media post boasting that money earmarked for transport improvements in the north would be spent on road repairs in London has been criticised by MPs and local leaders.

Ben Clatworthy, Aubrey Allegretti www.thetimes.co.uk

The Department for Transport (DfT) posted a graphic celebrating the new Network North project, which will pump £235 million into improving roads in the capital.

The poster also claims the money has become available because of Rishi Sunak’s decision to cancel HS2’s northern leg from Birmingham to Manchester.

The prime minister insisted the £36 billion saved by not finishing the project would go towards the Network North plans, which include more than 100 regional transport projects.

However, the money earmarked would only be spent between 2029 and 2040, during the period it would have been used to build HS2’s route from the West Midlands to Crewe and from Crewe to Manchester.

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, said: “When Rishi Sunak went to Manchester to cancel the northern leg of HS2 he claimed he would ‘join up our great towns and cities in the north and the Midlands’. Now he is promising to repair roads in London as part of a ‘Network North’, showing just how ludicrously out of touch he is.”

The DfT faced a backlash on social media while MPs and local leaders in the north were left bemused.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said: “Network North seems to include everywhere — except the north.”

Steve Rotheram, the mayor of the Liverpool City Region, said: “Unless Network North is shorthand for Network North Circular, I really fail to see how fixing roads in London will help to improve journey times between Liverpool and Manchester, get more freight onto rail, or make a jot of difference to a single person in the north.

“It’s more smoke and mirrors from the government. A PR stunt from a photo-op prime minister who is more interested in shiny graphics for social media than tackling the issues facing real people.”

Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield and leader of Nottinghamshire county council, told colleagues in a private WhatsApp group that sending a message that “we scrapped £9 billion of investment in the Midlands and north to invest in London roads” was “not helpful”.

Sarah Dines, a former minister and Tory MP for Derbyshire Dales, also complained that the news was “good for London but my constituents are revolting”. She posted a picture of a pothole with the caption: “Virtually everywhere in Derbyshire”.

Dines added: “We have had extra money in Derbyshire for potholes, but this is peanuts compared to London. I have had a flood of emails today. What do I say?”

Andy Carter, the Tory MP for Warrington South, Cheshire, and aide to Mark Harper, the transport secretary, was on the receiving end of the backlash after he announced news of the funding to the “Transport Support Group” of Tory MPs.

“Positive news for London colleagues — fixing potholes in the capital,” he said.

Carter told Dines he believed that Derbyshire had had a 30 per cent increase in road repair funding.

Critics of the decision to scrap HS2 questioned the claim that the London funding — £7.5 million made available between now and March, followed by a further £7.5 million in 2024-25, with the remainder extending until 2034 — was made possible by axing the scheme.

Henri Murison, the chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said: “Having cancelled the northern section of HS2, it is important to be straight with the public about where the money is really going.

“I do not critique previously promised essential road maintenance in London and short-term bus fare incentives across England. However, as Phase 2 of HS2 had already been delayed so much so little money can be saved to cover the immediate revenue and capital commitments included here that it seems implausible.”

Sunak has previously been forced to defend pumping money from HS2 into projects in the south of England.

He told the BBC: “I’m not apologising for the fact that Bristol and the West Country or the south of England is going to get more money as a result of this decision. It’s not a criticism that these things are not in the north.”

The government published plans for Network North, including a full list of projects, immediately following Sunak’s announcement that the northern leg of HS2 was cancelled at the Tory party conference in October.

However, some pages were quickly deleted including some where the government pledged to “revolutionise mass transit in Bristol”. A page about reopening Transport North East’s Leamside Line was also removed.

Harper said that “every penny of the £19.8 billion committed to the northern leg of HS2 will be reinvested in the north”.

He added: “Every penny of the £9.6 billion committed to the Midlands leg will be reinvested in the Midlands. The full £6.5 billion saved through our re-scoped approach at Euston will be spread across every other region in the country.”

Watch this “space”! – Owl

Will Goddard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

A temporary building at Greendale Business Park used as a vaccination centre during the Covid pandemic must be demolished by New Year’s Day after an application to keep it was refused. 

The 72-metre-long structure was originally built under emergency regulations in 2021, and East Devon District Council later agreed it could stay in use by the NHS until the end of 2022, but that it had to be removed by December 31, 2023.  

Paul James of FWS Carter & Sons, which owns and operates Greendale Business Park, had applied to keep the building permanently for a range of purposes including commercial, residential and medical uses, but also said it could just be used by the NHS. 

Planning officers recommended that councillors refuse the application, as the building goes against its ‘local plan’, a guide for new development in the district, which does not permit the outward expansion of the business park.

They also had other concerns such as its visual impact on the landscape. 

The NHS said it needed a “surge vaccination centre”, in the event of another pandemic, but officers felt they had not seen enough information to be sure there was no other suitable site.

Some councillors agreed with the officers, but others thought it should be allowed to stay.  

Cllr Geoff Jung (Lib Dem, Woodbury and Lympstone) said: “A large regional centre made strategic sense but obviously it is not required now.  

“Existing local surgeries and pharmacies are now more than willing and able to provide the flu and Covid jabs and they welcome the beneficial income that this provides. 

“Is this site suitable for commercial use? It’s not supported by our agreed local plan, it’s not agreed by our adopted villages plan… because this large business park is considered to be an unsustainable location and increasing it would be detrimental to the local landscape.”

Cllr Ben Ingham (Conservative, Woodbury and Lympstone) said: “The NHS are the body best placed to advise on medical need and they say they need it.  

“The Covid inquiry stresses the importance of preparing for future pandemics and learning from the mistakes of 2020 when we could not respond to Covid-19 at short notice.  

“Our communities need it to safeguard our public health. It really is that simple.” 

Cllr Mike Howe (Independent, Clyst Valley) said: “There is no policy support for this at all.  

“If you want to barge a horse and cart through our local plan as it stands today, carry on ahead. We haven’t got the proof from the NHS.” 

Cllr Ian Barlow (Independent, Sidmouth Town) said: “I speak to the people I represent, and whenever you say to them, they want to remove the vaccination centre… they can’t believe it.  

“The whole point of planning is to plan for the future. What difference does it make what it’s for?

“If the NHS has quite rightly said they’d like to save some money. If they can do a deal, surely that’s the sort of thing we want to encourage. They’ve done a deal that this building is for the NHS, on short notice it can be cleared if it is required.  

“We didn’t know about the first pandemic. We will not know about the second pandemic.” 

Woodbury Parish Council also supported the application to keep the building. But, after a vote, permission was refused.

MPs may be getting a pay rise in April – and junior doctors in England have started another wave of walkouts over their salary, meaning people are inevitably drawing parallels.

Kate Nicholson www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

The union British Medication Association (BMA) claims junior doctors have had a real terms pay cut of 26.1% since 2008-9. How have MPs’ salaries’ fared in the same time frame?

Both roles are subject to extra cash boosts depending on their seniority. For junior doctors, the number of hours worked and where they work can cause further fluctuations in their overall pay.

So, HuffPost UK has just compared the base-level each role could earn every year at a minimum, based on the gov.uk website and the BMA’s website.

Comparing MPs and junior doctors’ basic pay:

2008: MPs – £61,820, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2009: MPs – £64,766, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2010: MPs – £65,738, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2011: MPs – £65,738, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2012: MPs – £65,738, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2013: MPs – £66,396, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2014: MPs – £67,060, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2015: MPs – £74,000, first year junior doctors – £28,274

2016: MPs – £74,962, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2017: MPs – £76,011, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2018: MPs – £77,379, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2019: MPs – £79,468, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2020: MPs – £81,932, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2021: MPs – £81,932, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2022: MPs – £84,144, first year junior doctors – £32,398

2023: MPs – £86,584, first year junior doctors – £32,398

The base-level pay for MPs over the last 15 years has gone from £61,820 in 2008 to £86,584 in 2023.

The base level pay for junior doctors in their first year (in the same time period) has gone from £28,274 to £32,398.

However, as they gain experience, junior doctors can earn more.

Between 2008 and 2016, they could earn up to £57,570.

Between 2016 and 2023, they could earn up to £63,152.

What has happened to MPs’ pay?

MPs are expected to all get a 7.1% pay rise in April, taking them from £86,584 to £92,731 for their basic salary level.

Frontbenchers then get an extra boost, depending on how senior they are – but these rates have been frozen since 2014.

Since 2015, it has used the average increase in public-sector earnings for the three months leading up to October to work out the yearly raise.

By the time April rolls around, inflation is expected to have fallen to around 2%.

But, the IPSA can also block the expected increase to MPs’ salaries, as it did in 2020 when a £3,000 rise was seen as inappropriate at the height of the Covid pandemic.

The Westminster watchdog will make a final decision in the New Year on how much to hike increases for 2024.

What has happened to junior doctors’ pay?

Junior doctors went on their 26th day of strikes on Monday, in a walkout expected to last three days. Another six-day walkout is planned at the start of January.

It comes after the BMA’s talks with the government broke down in December.

Nearly half of NHS doctors are junior doctors, as the term encompasses both those who are just out of university and some who have more than a decade of experience.

Two-thirds of junior doctors are part of BMA, which is asking for an extra 35% to their salaries to make up for below-inflation pay rises since 2008.

That’s much higher than what the government has already offered.

Sunak said in July that a 6% rise and £1,250 added to their salaries would be the government’s “final” offer, and there would be no more negotiation.

More recently, the government offered an additional 3% rise – but the union rejected it, noting it was “unevenly spread across doctors’ grades”.

The union said: “The approach from [health secretary Victoria] Atkins and the team has been productive but ultimately that alone is not sufficient to make up for 15 years of declining pay.

“A year after our dispute started, we are still too far from turning the tide on plummeting pay, morale, and retention of doctors.”

Critics have spoken out in frustration about a report aimed at drawing a line under the 3 Rivers housing firm debacle in Mid Devon that they say leaves questions unanswered.

Bradley Gerrard, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

A working group of four Mid Devon councillors and one council officer presented a ‘lessons learned’ report to the scrutiny committee this week aimed at assessing what contributed to the failure of the soon-to-close housing firm, and what should be done differently if a similar entity is launched again.

The report highlights mistakes around the company’s set-up in 2017 and its subsequent operation. Its 10 recommendations lay bare various shortcomings.

The topic dominated public questions at the meeting, with concerns about the working group’s short timeframe to conduct its work, worries about its remit, the transparency of the evidence the report relied on, and claims of factual errors.

The report noted that the council and the company had different attitudes to risk, meaning that a development company was “not the most appropriate form of commercial enterprise for the council to initiate to supplement its income.”

It continued: “With hindsight, the challenge in bringing two organisations with fundamentally different cultures together required greater thought and consideration, and that challenge ultimately proved too difficult to achieve in this instance.”

It paints a picture of an authority trying to mitigate the risks associated with 3 Rivers, but not fully aware that these actions curtailed the firm’s flexibility and its ability to make quick decisions.

The separation between 3 Rivers, a commercial entity, and the council, a political body and lender, was “never wide enough to enable the board of 3 Rivers to take timely, independent, operational decisions.”

It outlines an instance where Mid Devon’s planning committee refused a 3 Rivers application, which the company successfully appealed, and was awarded costs.

It added that the decision to take on the “difficult site at St George’s Court” was “influenced by political considerations regardless of the fact that anticipated returns, though positive, were low”, and that “no advice” was sought from an independent commercial or banking lender as to the structure or viability of the business plan.

Specialised commercial property development skills at inception “would have significantly strengthened the board”, it said.

Councillor Gordon Czapiewski (Liberal Democrat, Tiverton Lowman), who chaired the working group, said it looked at council minutes, external reports, written submissions and letters from the public.

He outlined the 10 recommendations, which included that if a similar company was set up again, at least two board members should be unrelated to the council, that there should be “necessary distance” by the council from commercial decisions, and that an exit strategy should be in place from the beginning.

Cllr Czapiewski acknowledged it had not been possible to interview everyone who had experience of the company since its launch in 2017, or to scrutinise every single document, but that the relevant material was made available to the working group, including documents from confidential sections of council meetings when the press and public are excluded, known as Part 2.

Barry Warren, who chairs Willand Parish Council but was speaking in a personal capacity, asked who had set the timeframe for the working group to operate in and who had decided which materials were made available for it.

He also questioned whether audio recordings had been listened to, and whether the working group would make a comment on the “loss of millions of pounds.”

Cllr Czapiewski said council leader Luke Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Bradninch) had set the timeframe in agreement with scrutiny committee chair Councillor Rachel Gilmour (Liberal Democrat, Clare & Shuttern), and that the working group had access to all the material it required.

He acknowledged that audio recordings were not listened to, primarily because much of the previous debate on 3 Rivers had been in Part 2 proceedings, and so weren’t recorded.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Warren said he had not been interviewed by the working group, in spite of being leader of Mid Devon when the authority decided to limit 3 Rivers to completing its two remaining projects in Tiverton and Bampton.

Another resident, Paul Elstone, asked why former council leaders were not interviewed in person, especially when the working group was “made aware of threats against them,” adding that evidence was available that conflicted with some statements in the report, and that the working group hadn’t stated who should have prevented the failings and how.

“Why was the root cause not addressed in the report, as that is something that is a serious omission,” he said.

He claimed he had seen an email that “can only be described as explosive” in terms of identifying a possible reason for the firm’s failure, and queried whether the working group had seen this.

Andrew Jarratt, deputy chief executive at Mid Devon, said a “six-figure sum” had been spent by the authority on external reports into 3 Rivers, including on one by its external auditors Grant Thornton investigating allegations of fraud and malpractice.

Cllr Gilmour, echoing the ‘lessons learned’ report, said these allegations had proved to be “unsubstantiated.”

Nick Quinn, another resident, also queried what he called some “factual errors” – including a suggestion that there were four directors of the company at launch when Companies House shows three – and questioned why the working group had not been given longer to complete its work, as well as whether the report would be debated by full council.

He was told that the working group “do not accept any statements are incorrect” and that it had “not been shown evidence to suggest that,” while also being informed it was “too late for further evidence” and that the report would not be debated by other council committees.

Councillor Rhys Roberts (Conservative, Cadbury), a member of the working group, acknowledged he would have “preferred more time” for the report as it would have “given us an opportunity to talk to more people who were involved and had knowledge of the company and were part of the decision-making process.

“But, given the timescale, I’m comfortable with the fact that we spoke to key stakeholders and decisionmakers, and were able to question them freely, with those people having no prior knowledge of the questions we wanted to ask.”

He added that nobody declined to speak to the working group and that information it requested from interviewees was freely given.

“This report comes on the back of numerous independent reports that have already been published about the company and its failures,” he said.

“It’s a catastrophic failure, a financial failure for the council, and that’s why we are spending so much time looking at the implications for the future so it doesn’t happen again.”

Another member of the public, Kate Clayton-White, said constituents wanted accountability, and so the fact former councillors were able to give statements to the working group anonymously was “preposterous.”

“I’m yet to hear anyone praise the way the council is handling this matter,” she said, adding: “This committee needs to scrutinise properly and make all its findings available with nothing hidden behind Part 2 confidentiality.”

Cllr Gilmour said some interviewees had requested anonymity, and so the working group had decided to grant it to all those who contributed to the report’s findings.

“Had we not done so, it is likely the statements would have been superficial and not helpful,” she said.

Last month, Mid Devon said it estimated that £3.7 million would need to be written off in the current financial year in relation to 3 Rivers, and that the value of confirmed impairments had reached £5.3 million as at March this year.

seatonmatters.org

Labour has published a full list of its 211 ‘non-battleground’ seats, i.e. the seats they don’t aim to try to win. They include the Honiton & Sidmouth seat (which includes Seaton and Axminster), and also Exmouth and East Exeter.

In these seats, voters who want to get rid of the Tories should back the Liberal Democrats. Voting Labour (or Green) will only split the anti-Tory vote and potentially let the Tory in. Remember that Simon Jupp has jumped ship from Exmouth to stand in our area – he thinks he can win. Let’s make sure he doesn’t – support Richard Foord, our excellent Lib Dem MP!

Read details here

[We now await the selection of the Lib Dem candidate for Exmouth and East Exeter and, crucially, whether the chosen candidate is someone Claire Wright will endorse as she has with Richard Foord for Honiton & Sidmouth. – Owl]