Petition – Community Hospitals Richard Foord MP on behalf of Axe Valley residents

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Axe valley, and the towns of Seaton, Beer, Colyford and the surrounding area, who are objecting in the strongest possible terms to the disposal of an entire wing of Seaton Community Hospital. The petition has been signed by over 9,000 of my constituents, because they object to the fact that the hospital, which was funded by generous local donations, is being ripped away from them, and in part potentially sold off by NHS Property Services, and disposed of for potential sale for housing.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Axe Valley in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency,

Declares that community hospitals play a vital role supporting health and wellbeing in rural communities;
further that the hospital in Seaton was built with active support and fundraising efforts by residents across the Axe Valley;
and further that plans to turn the wing of the hospital building over to NHS Property Services puts the future viability of the hospital at risk.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take action to return the facility to the local community, so it can be repurposed to provide better care for those living in the area.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

www.theyworkforyou.com /debates/

Planning applications validate by EDDC in week beginning 1 January

Full list of Tories who turned on Sunak to back Rwanda amendments

Kevin Foster (Torbay) rebelled once and  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) twice.

Katy Clifton www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak’s authority has been dealt a fresh blow as two Tory deputy chairmen resigned to join a major Conservative rebellion over his Bill aimed at reviving the stalled Rwanda deportation plan.

Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith stepped down in order to vote for two amendments that right-wing MPs claim will help to protect the government’s flagship asylum policy from legal challenge. Jane Stevenson also quit her role as a parliamentary private secretary in the Department for Business and Trade to back the amendments.

Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith backed the changes tabled by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and veteran Tory Sir Bill Cash “not because we are against the legislation, but because like everybody else we want it to work”, they said.

Around 60 Tories voted in favour of changes to the Safety of Rwanda Bill put forward by Conservative backbencher Sir Bill, which seek to ensure UK and international law cannot be used to block a person being removed to Rwanda.

The amendment was rejected by a majority of 461, but the rebellion gives an indication of the scale of unease within the Conservative Party during an election year.

The scope of the rebellion would be more than enough to sink the Bill and overturn the government’s working majority of 54 if it were repeated at its final Commons hurdle – third reading – which is expected on Wednesday.

Former prime minister Liz Truss, former ministers Suella Braverman and Sir Simon Clarke and former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith were also among those to back the amendments.

Mr Jenrick had aimed to change the Bill to severely limit individual asylum seekers’ ability to appeal against being put on a flight to Kigali. The Commons later rejected his amendment 525 to 58, majority 467.

Here we take a look at all the Tory MPs to back the amendments:

Sir Bill Cash’s amendment:

MPs voted 529 to 68, majority 461, to reject Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash’s amendment, which aimed to ensure UK and international law cannot be used to prevent or delay a person being removed to Rwanda.

Here is a look at the 58 Conservatives who backed the amendment:

  • Lee Anderson (Ashfield),
  • Sarah Atherton (Wrexham),
  • Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen),
  • Bob Blackman (Harrow East),
  • Ben Bradley (Mansfield),
  • Suella Braverman (Fareham),
  • Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South),
  • Paul Bristow (Peterborough),
  • William Cash (Stone),
  • Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham),
  • Christopher Chope (Christchurch),
  • Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland),
  • Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw),
  • Philip Davies (Shipley),
  • Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales),
  • Richard Drax (South Dorset),
  • James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Proxy vote cast by Marcus Jones),
  • Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green),
  • Michael Fabricant (Lichfield),
  • Nick Fletcher (Don Valley),
  • Kevin Foster (Torbay),
  • Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford),
  • Chris Green (Bolton West),
  • James Grundy (Leigh),
  • Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North),
  • John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings),
  • Darren Henry (Broxtowe),
  • Philip Hollobone (Kettering),
  • Adam Holloway (Gravesham),
  • Eddie Hughes (Walsall North),
  • Tom Hunt (Ipswich),
  • Robert Jenrick (Newark),
  • Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham),
  • David Jones (Clwyd West),
  • Danny Kruger (Devizes),
  • Andrew Lewer (Northampton South),
  • Marco Longhi (Dudley North),
  • Jonathan Lord (Woking),
  • Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Proxy vote cast by John Redwood),
  • Karl McCartney (Lincoln),
  • Robin Millar (Aberconwy),
  • Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot),
  • Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool),
  • Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills),
  • Lia Nici (Great Grimsby),
  • Neil O’Brien (Harborough),
  • Matthew Offord (Hendon),
  • Tom Randall (Gedling),
  • John Redwood (Wokingham),
  • Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury),
  • Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield),
  • Greg Smith (Buckingham),
  • Henry Smith (Crawley),
  • Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East),
  • Desmond Swayne (New Forest West),
  • Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk),
  • Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire).

Tellers for the ayes were Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) and Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge).

Robert Jenrick’s amendment:

MPs voted 525 to 58, majority 467, to reject an amendment from Conservative former minister Robert Jenrick that aimed to severely limit individual asylum seekers’ ability to appeal against being put on a flight to Rwanda.

The division list released after the Commons vote contained 59 names for the ayes and 523 for the noes, but updates to the list can occur. Conservative Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) was listed on both the ayes and noes. He voted with the Government on the earlier amendment tabled by Sir Bill Cash

Here are the 57 Tory MPs who backed Mr Jenrick’s amendment:

  • Adam Afriyie (Windsor),
  • Lee Anderson (Ashfield),
  • Sarah Atherton (Wrexham),
  • Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen),
  • Bob Blackman (Harrow East),
  • Ben Bradley (Mansfield),
  • Suella Braverman (Fareham),
  • Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South),
  • Paul Bristow (Peterborough),
  • William Cash (Stone),
  • Christopher Chope (Christchurch),
  • Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland),
  • Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw),
  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds),
  • Philip Davies (Shipley),
  • Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales),
  • Richard Drax (South Dorset),
  • James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Proxy vote cast by Marcus Jones),
  • Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green),
  • Michael Fabricant (Lichfield),
  • Nick Fletcher (Don Valley),
  • Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford),
  • Chris Green (Bolton West),
  • James Grundy (Leigh),
  • Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North),
  • John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings),
  • Darren Henry (Broxtowe),
  • Philip Hollobone (Kettering),
  • Adam Holloway (Gravesham),
  • Eddie Hughes (Walsall North),
  • Tom Hunt (Ipswich),
  • Robert Jenrick (Newark),
  • Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham),
  • David Jones (Clwyd West),
  • Danny Kruger (Devizes),
  • Edward Leigh (Gainsborough),
  • Andrew Lewer (Northampton South),
  • Marco Longhi (Dudley North),
  • Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Proxy vote cast by John Redwood),
  • Karl McCartney (Lincoln),
  • Robin Millar (Aberconwy),
  • Nigel Mills (Amber Valley),
  • Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot),
  • Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool),
  • Lia Nici (Great Grimsby),
  • Neil O’Brien (Harborough),
  • Matthew Offord (Hendon),
  • Tom Randall (Gedling),
  • John Redwood (Wokingham),
  • Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury),
  • Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield),
  • Greg Smith (Buckingham),
  • Henry Smith (Crawley),
  • Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East),
  • Desmond Swayne (New Forest West),
  • Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk),
  • Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire).

Tellers for the ayes were Conservative MPs Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) and Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge).

Cornwall Council finances on ‘cliff edge’ within two years

Cornwall at the end of the line and abandoned by Whitehall. – Owl

Cornwall Council will be on a financial “cliff edge” within two years if nothing changes. That was the stark message at a meeting of the authority’s economic growth and development meeting today (Tuesday, January 9).

Lee Trewhela www.falmouthpacket.co.uk

The meeting heard that while the council was not in danger of going bust – “at this stage” – like local authorities in Birmingham, Slough, Croydon, Thurrock, Woking and Nottingham, the financial forecast wasn’t good and there is a very real need for improved funding from Westminster.

As has previously been reported, by month seven of the current financial year Cornwall Council’s overspend had increased to £16m, with £20.5m of reserves needed to balance the 2024/25 budget.

The council’s net budget for the year is £763m, which is £55m greater than in 2023/24. This includes £18m increased demand in adult social care, £10m increased demand in children’s social care services, £10m relating to emergency and temporary housing, £8m for ongoing demand pressures for school transport and a £0.6m investment in Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service’s critical control centre.

There are an additional almost 300 special educational needs students year on year adding to the financial pressures on the council.

‘Imense challenges’

Phil Mason, strategic director for sustainable growth and development, said at this stage Cornwall Council is not in danger of issuing a Section 114 notice (which bans a council from all new expenditure and fundamentally demonstrates the authority has gone bankrupt).

However, he added the financial challenges facing the council in 2024/25 and beyond are “immense” based on current forecasts.

Children and family services are forecasting an overspend of £5.1m this year but that figure is increasing as is a £5m overspend in school transport services. Housing, particularly temporary and emergency provision, is expected to go over budget by up to £11m by the end of the financial year.

Mr Mason told councillors: “We’re starting to see some light in that dark tunnel in that the supply of accommodation in Cornwall and the need for that accommodation has seen some softening in terms of demand versus supply. One of the things we’re currently doing is renegotiating the price of buying nightly accommodation from those people who have contracts with us.”

However, he added: “The cost pressures despite all we are doing are not showing any signs of reducing to any significant degree. We think we are going to have to think about building those cost pressures into the base budget position, which will mean additional savings will have to be made elsewhere.”

He said the council’s ability to counter financial pressures by using reserves and “one-offs” is starting to become untenable, adding that the financial pressures on the council are now proving to be “more difficult and more stubborn to get down than we would have hoped”.

Cllr John Conway said: “We cannot afford to get ourselves in the position that Birmingham is in, that Somerset is likely to be getting in. We must make sure we balance the books. Talking about taking money from reserves – you can only do that once. We must make sure that year on year we keep ourselves more or less in the black.”

Pressure on government 

The council’s deputy leader and portfolio holder for resources Cllr David Harris stressed how much pressure had been put on central government for more financial support: “Our local government settlement was right at the bottom end of what anybody expected.

“There was nothing additional in there at all despite officers, the Local Government Association and me writing to Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”

Cllr Peter La Broy said the use of reserves made his “blood run cold because all we’re simply doing is creating a cliff edge and it makes the situation worse”. He added: “I wonder where that cliff edge is eventually going to be, because sooner or later if the funding settlement doesn’t change from government we will have to face that.”

He added that the funding Cornwall gets from the Government doesn’t recognise the areas where the council is facing financial crisis such as adult social care, school transport, children’s care, etc. “This is just not sustainable.”

Phil Mason responded that the “cliff edge” would hove into view in 2025/26.

Extra revenue on horizon

Cllr Harris attempted to inject some positivity into proceedings by saying there could be additional revenue of £20m, if and when the council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes is introduced, which was announced by the Government in May and is progressing through Parliament.

He said work was continuing to show the Government how Cornwall is different from other counties with the population spread over a huge area, which increases costs, surrounded by water and “literally the end of the line”. “All of these things count against us but we get no credit for it.”

He responded to Cllr Mike Thomas, who asked if council tax payments will have to increase for residents of Cornwall to pay for the financial burden: “Would I think that we would be in a position of having to make our council tax increases seven, eight, nine or ten per cent in two or three years time?

“I absolutely, sincerely hope not, so my answer is no, because I believe that between officers’ work on finding savings, additional income and a better way of spending our money and increased pressure on government we will come good.”

The committee approved the council’s business and financial plans for 2024-28 and the 2024/25 budget proposals, noting that final details are being presented to Cabinet in February.

UK water industry’s ‘urgent’ plan to tackle sewage pollution delayed by four months

“This Conservative government has wilfully turned a blind eye to corruption at the heart of the water industry and broken yet another promise.

“The result is stinking, toxic sewage destroying our countryside, and consumers facing higher bills while water bosses pocket millions in bonuses” Steve Reed MP,Labour’s environment secretary.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Plans from the UK water industry to “urgently” tackle the sewage pollution crisis have been delayed by four months, with no publication date in sight, the Guardian can reveal.

Government ministers last year demanded water executives send them a “plan for urgent change” to tackle outflows which spill untreated human waste into rivers and seas.

Last May the water industry representatives, Water UK, issued a mea culpa on behalf of private water companies for their industrial-scale sewage dumping through storm overflows. It then promised to swiftly release a £10bn national overflows plan.

The government and Water UK planned to publish the plans by late summer after requesting them in April.

Newly released documents, revealed after Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the Good Law Project, show the environment minister Rebecca Pow wrote to water companies asking for action plans which “strike the right balance between speed and affordability and deliverability” and asked them to submit them by 18 August for publication. She added that some water companies had still not provided data for their plans, and had first asked for these plans in April. By August she was still requesting information from water companies.

Dr Lucinda Gilfoyle, the head of environmental strategy at Water UK, also promised last May that there would be a national overflow plan published in the late summer which focuses on how investments will be used to deal with overflows and excess rain water. The plan was projected to cut the number of spills.

It is understood the plans to deal with sewage are unlikely to be published by March, which is when the overflow statistics for the year will be published.

Labour’s environment secretary, Steve Reed MP, said: “This Conservative government has wilfully turned a blind eye to corruption at the heart of the water industry and broken yet another promise.

“The result is stinking, toxic sewage destroying our countryside, and consumers facing higher bills while water bosses pocket millions in bonuses.”

The government also refused to reveal the details of plans which have been submitted by some water companies, stating this was because “there is a stronger public interest in withholding the information because the water companies intend on publishing the information you have requested in the near future. Releasing the information at this stage on an adhoc basis would divert resources away from ongoing work. The water companies need to ensure that it is finalised, quality assured and signed off before publication takes place.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “Last year we demanded a clear action plan on every storm overflow from water companies, prioritising those that are spilling at a high level and into bathing waters or high priority nature sites. These have now been received and are being evaluated ahead of publication.”

A Water UK spokesperson said: “Water and sewerage companies have submitted their action plans to Defra. Those plans include proposals to invest £11bn between 2025 and 2030, more than triple the current rate, to cut spills from overflows as quickly as possible.”

The Beancounter’s test for paying compensation to Post Office Horizon victims

No, nothing to do with ethics, righting wrongs or moral obligation. 

It’s all to do with “value for money”

According to Paul Skully MP (Post Office minister Feb 2020 for just over 2 years) the Treasury says it will need to pass a “Value for Money” test.

As the Mirror reports: Rishi Sunak is facing tricky questions about whether the Treasury dragged their feet when he was Chancellor over paying proper compensation to the sub-postmasters who exposed the scandal.

Sixty eight year old Alan Bates told the Business and Trade Select Committee inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal yesterday (16 Jan 2024):

“There is no reason at all why full financial redress shouldn’t have been delivered by now. It’s gone on for far too long. People are suffering, they’re dying … And it just seems to be tied up in bureaucracy. And that seems to be the big problem.”

[Alan Bates himself has yet to receive a compensation offer].

Not being a beancounter, can anyone explain to Owl what “Value for Money” means in this context?

Is it something like: the more spent on compensation; the less there is for tax giveaways?

MP condemns ‘arrogant and evasive’ Post Office chief

The chief executive of the Post Office has been criticised following his “arrogant and evasive” performance in front of a cross party panel of MPs looking into the Horizon scandal.

He still doesn’t get it – what planet is he on? – Owl

Richard Vaughan inews.co.uk

Nick Read, who took over as head of the Post Office in 2019, came under fire after he failed to provide the Business and Trade Committee with answers over the tragedy that shattered the lives of thousands of subpostmasters.

Labour MP Kevan Jones, who was among the first MPs to campaign on behalf of the postmasters, told i: “It was an arrogant and evasive performance. Serious questions need to be asked as to whether he should remain in his role.

“The victims of this scandal will be watching his response and think the Post Office has an uncaring attitude and they don’t care – it has form on this.”

Mr Read drew frustration from MPs as he repeatedly refused to give his opinion on how the scandal was handled by his predecessors at the Post Office.

The businessman insisted that he had not “seen any evidence” that Post Office executives had misled ministers, the courts or Parliament at any stage.

Asked whether he believed the Post Office prosecuted the innocent knowing the case to be flawed, he said: “I sincerely hope not. But I have not had evidence to that effect.”

He also refused to say whether he thought Paula Vennells, the former Post Office CEO, who was forced to hand back her CBE last week, had misled Parliament in 2015 when she appeared before the same committee.

Asked if he would have said in 2015 that prosecutions against subpostmasters were sound, given he now was able to go back and read board minutes and documents from the period, he replied: “I don’t think I can give you a straight answer on that … I don’t think it’s my place to judge that.”

Instead, he repeatedly said it was for the public inquiry to look back at the scandal and how it was handled by former executives.

“My job is to make sure that redress is speedily delivered to our victims and most importantly that I run the Post Office of today. That is my job,” he insisted. “My job is not the investigative role that is being played by Sir Wyn, that is clearly his job. He initiated an independent inquiry. It’s now a statutory inquiry.”

His comments came after wrongfully convicted subpostmaster Jo Hamilton told the committee she felt as if she had been “gaslit” by the Post Office, which made her believe she had committed offences.

“They convinced me that it was all my fault and I wasn’t tech savvy at all,” she said.

Mr Byrne responded to Mr Read, telling him: “You have left us, I think, fairly shocked actually.

“You’ve not been able to supply the committee with key events in the timeline, such as when the Post Office first knew that remote access was possible.

“You’ve told us that you haven’t kept evidence safe about what money was paid to you inappropriately and therefore is owed back.

“And you can’t estimate the scale of compensation.

Scotland’s head of prosecutions, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, apologised to those prosecuted in the Horizon scandal who were “failed” by the justice system – as she said 54 people may have been affected north of the border.

Richard Foord puts the Prime Minister on the spot

He asks a very reasonable question but gets an evasive reply.

Photo of Richard FoordRichard Foord Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence)

There are times when a Government need to take military action without the approval of Parliament, including for operational security or the element of surprise. However, last week’s strikes were signalled very plainly in the media. The strikes could have been debated, voted on and supported by this House in advance of action. Tomorrow, I will table a Bill that would require parliamentary approval for the engagement of UK armed forces in armed conflict, even if it is retrospective. Will the Prime Minister support it?

Photo of Rishi SunakRishi Sunak The Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party

As I said, it was necessary to act with speed to allow our armed forces to maintain the vital security of their operations and to ensure their effectiveness. I believe that that is in accordance with the convention on the deployment of military force. As I said previously, we must maintain the prerogative powers that allow the Executive to act in such emergencies, but I am here in Parliament to explain the action in full and take responsibility for it.