Key lessons for future emergencies

In Chapter 15, in Volume II, the Inquiry presents the key lessons that should inform the response in a future pandemic. Ten lessons have been identified across five themes and these should be considered in the development of future pandemic preparedness strategies (see the Inquiry’s Module 1 Report, Recommendation 4).

Multiple scenario planning

Firstly, planning both before and during an emergency must anticipate multiple scenarios and consider the short term and long term in parallel. While no plan will ever be 100% comprehensive, the more potential scenarios that are considered in advance, the better placed decision-makers will be to react quickly and decisively.

Better strategy

Secondly, there must be an unambiguous strategy with clear objectives and a framework to guide how decisions are considered and support faster decision-making. The potential impact of those decisions should be understood in advance of them being implemented.

Acting quickly and decisively

Thirdly, when faced with a virus with the potential for exponential growth, interventions must be imposed earlier and ‘harder’ than might be considered ideal. Even where the available evidence is sub-optimal, decisions still need to be made – putting off decisions until later is in itself a decision not to intervene.

Constructive working

Fourthly, leaders must work constructively within their own governments and across the four nations. Political differences should not be a consideration at a time of national emergency. Leaders should accept responsibility for their decisions and explain clearly to the public if and when they change their mind.

The importance of data

Finally, as part of pandemic preparedness, governments must understand what data they are likely to need during a pandemic and identify how these will be collected. The limitations of data should be understood and clearly explained to decision-makers, and consideration should be given to how front-line experiences can sit alongside quantitative data.

Specific recommendations

Across this Report, the Inquiry also makes a series of recommendations aimed at improving the end-to-end decision-making process during emergencies across the four nations of the UK. Although each recommendation is important in its own right, all the recommendations must be implemented in concert – both with each other and with the recommendations from the Inquiry’s Module 1 Report – to produce the changes that the Inquiry judges to be necessary. In summary, the Inquiry recommends:

• Broadening participation in SAGE: Open recruitment of potential experts and representation of the devolved administrations would ensure that advice to decision-makers draws on a wide range of expertise. The Inquiry also recommends extending the principles of transparency of scientific advice to other forms of technical advice provided to governments, so that the public can understand the range of factors beyond scientific advice that influence decision-making during an emergency.
• Improving the routine consideration of the impact that decisions might have on those most at risk in an emergency: This includes extending to England and Northern Ireland the implementation of the socio-economic duty within the Equality Act 2010 and the use of child rights impact assessments. These changes should aim to identify, during the planning phase, any risks to which vulnerable groups are likely to be exposed during a future pandemic and to ensure that those assumptions are revisited at the outset of an emergency, that the assumptions remain valid and that adequate mitigations are in place.
• Reforming and clarifying the structures for decision-making during emergencies within each nation: Clear arrangements for synthesising advice from across governments and presenting it to decision-makers should be in place from the outset of any future pandemic. Specific recommendations are made in relation to the arrangements in Northern Ireland to avoid a potential vacuum of decision-making powers, should an emergency occur during a period where power-sharing arrangements are suspended.
• Ensuring that decisions and their implications are clearly communicated to the public: The laws and guidance in place should be easily understood, including by having clear plans for making key messages available in accessible formats such as British Sign Language.
• Enabling greater parliamentary scrutiny of the use of emergency powers through safeguards such as ‘sunset clauses’ and regular reporting on the use of powers: The role of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 should also be re-examined to identify if, when and how it could be used in future emergencies – particularly during the initial phase. Communication of the regulations to the public should also be improved through the creation of a central repository of regulations and guidance.
• Establishing structures to improve the communication between the four nations during an emergency: These structures should aim to minimise the risk of confusion caused by similar, but different, rules being implemented in each nation, seeking alignment of approaches where desirable and providing a clear rationale for differences in approach where they are necessary.

A full list of the Inquiry’s recommendations for Modules 2, 2A, 2B and 2C is included in Appendix 3, in Volume II, to this Report.

Key themes

Scientific and technical advice (Chapter 9)

SAGE provided high-quality scientific advice at extreme pace throughout the pandemic, but some aspects of its operation were strained by the breadth and duration of the response. There was no systematic process in place to ensure that it provided sufficient breadth of scientific expertise: participants were recruited through existing networks and professional connections, relying on people who were able to free up time from their normal jobs. Initially, there was also no clear process for the devolved administrations to gain access to SAGE discussions and advice. As the pandemic progressed, the devolved administrations used their own existing advisory scientific committees or set them up. These fed information into SAGE while applying their advice to their own local circumstances.

The effectiveness of SAGE’s advice was also constrained by the limited information provided by the UK government on its overall objectives when advice was commissioned, which made it harder for SAGE to place its advice in the right context. This lack of clearly stated objectives contributed to the conservatism of SAGE’s advice in early 2020, with participants not believing that lockdowns would be a palatable policy response and, therefore, not modelling its implications until mid-March 2020.

More significant concerns were raised about the quality of economic modelling during the pandemic. Although structures for providing economic advice were set up in Wales and Scotland, there was little evidence in each of the four nations of substantive economic modelling and analysis being provided to decision-makers. This inevitably hampered the ability of decision-makers to assess and balance relative harms.

The process for providing advice on the economic and social implications of decisions was also much more opaque than that for scientific advice. The lack of transparency of this economic and social advice, together with the repeated use of ‘following the science’ and similar phrases in communications to the public, gave a misleading impression that decisions were being taken solely on the basis of advice from SAGE. This impression may have contributed to the wholly unacceptable hostility, threats and abuse to which some experts were subject. The Inquiry strongly condemns such behaviour.

Vulnerabilities and inequalities (Chapter 10)

Although the pandemic affected everyone in the UK, the impact was not shared equally. Older people, disabled people and some ethnic minority groups faced a higher risk of dying from Covid-19. For example, when taking into account age, people from a Black African and Black Caribbean background had the highest rates of mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. From the second wave onwards, the highest mortality rates were among people of an Asian or Asian British background. The increased risk of harm was also strongly influenced by socio-economic factors, with people living in overcrowded housing or working in low-paid employment at higher risk. This often overlapped with other factors such as ethnicity.

Vulnerable groups were also affected by the restrictions introduced to control the virus. The vast majority of children were not at risk of serious direct harm from Covid-19, but suffered greatly from the closure of schools and requirement to stay at home, and the consequent loss of interaction with friends and family and limited access to play. Children were not always prioritised. No government in the UK was adequately prepared for the sudden and enormous task of educating most children in their homes and failed sufficiently to consider the consequences of school closures for children’s education and physical and mental health. Module 8 is examining these issues in more detail.

Despite this harm being foreseeable, the impact on vulnerable groups had not been adequately considered in pandemic planning, and the existing mechanisms for assessing the impact of decisions were largely applied retrospectively. Decision-makers consequently had little understanding of the impact of restrictions on vulnerable groups.

Government decision-making (Chapter 11)

COBR is designed to deal with acute emergencies and proved inadequate for responding to a prolonged pandemic. While the COBR mechanism is appropriate for assessing the initial UK-wide response to an emergency, a clearer plan for how each government will make key decisions in a prolonged emergency is needed.

The UK Cabinet was largely sidelined in decision-making, albeit that as the pandemic progressed the coordination of advice and decision-making improved and became more formalised through the Covid-19 Strategy Committee (Covid-S) and Covid-19 Operations Committee (Covid-O) and the supporting Covid-19 Taskforce. Mr Johnson’s hospitalisation in April 2020 also exposed the lack of formal arrangements for covering the absence of a Prime Minister.

Decision-making authority in the Scottish Government rested with a small group of ministers throughout the pandemic. Although the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, was a serious and diligent leader who took responsibility for decisions, that also meant that ministers and advisers were often excluded from decision-making. The use of the informal Gold Command meeting structure diminished the role of the Scottish Cabinet, which frequently became a decision-ratifying body and not the ultimate decision-making body.

By contrast, the Welsh Cabinet was fully engaged throughout the pandemic, with decisions mostly being made through consensus. Mr Drakeford was recognised by his ministers as a careful and considered leader. He maintained positive relationships throughout the response.

The power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland are designed to ensure that each department has a significant degree of operational independence and individual ministers are afforded significant autonomy. This weakened the ability of the Northern Ireland Executive to coordinate the pandemic response and there was no one sufficiently empowered to hold departments to account. The Department of Health (Northern Ireland), which was the lead government department with responsibility for the response at the outset of the pandemic, largely operated in a silo – especially in the early stages of the response. The Northern Ireland Executive had only recently re-formed in January 2020, following a three-year period during which power-sharing was suspended, and it is unclear how decisions usually subject to ministerial approval would have been made in Northern Ireland had power-sharing still been suspended when lockdown decisions were taken.

The distinct power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland offered the opportunity to demonstrate that decisions were being made by all parties collectively for the greater good. Instead, however, on multiple occasions decision-making was marred by political disputes between Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin ministers. The attendance of the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill MLA, at the funeral of Bobby Storey in June 2020, and her initial refusal to apologise for this, contributed to tensions in the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. The four-day Executive Committee meeting from 9 to 12 November 2020 represented a low point in Northern Ireland politics during the pandemic. The confidentiality of discussions was undermined by leaks and there was inappropriate instigation of cross-community votes to make political points by the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster MLA (later Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee).

The pandemic response also exposed wider cultural issues. The very least the public should be entitled to expect is that those making the rules will abide by them. Instances where ministers and advisers appeared to break Covid-19 rules caused huge distress to the public. This was especially the case for people who had endured huge personal costs to stick to the rules, with many bereaved people unable to be with their loved ones when they died. Instances where rule-breaking was not swiftly addressed also undermined public confidence and increased the risk of people not complying with the rules designed to protect them.

Decision-making was particularly affected by cultural problems in the UK government and Northern Ireland Executive. There was a toxic and chaotic culture at the centre of the UK government during the pandemic, with the Inquiry hearing evidence about the destabilising behaviour of a number of individuals – including Dominic Cummings, an adviser to the Prime Minister. By failing to tackle this chaotic culture – and, at times, actively encouraging it – Mr Johnson reinforced a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making.

Public health communications (Chapter 12)

Communication with the public is a critical aspect of a pandemic response, since controlling the virus is dependent on members of the public understanding the risk they face and acting accordingly. The ‘Stay Home’ communications campaign was effective at maximising compliance with the first lockdown, at a time when this was the understandable priority. However, the simplicity of the message meant that the intended nuances in the regulations were poorly understood, with the focus on ‘protecting the NHS’ potentially discouraging people from seeking medical treatment for non-Covid-19 conditions or from seeking help when they needed it. The balance between simplicity and detail became increasingly difficult to strike as the regulations and guidance became more complex. The introduction of localised restrictions made it difficult for members of the public to understand what rules applied to them in different places and situations, and their confusion was compounded by variations in rules across the four nations.

In focusing on how to get messages across to the whole population, the needs of vulnerable groups were sometimes lost. In particular, the UK government and Northern Ireland Executive initially failed to provide British Sign Language interpretation for press conferences or to provide key guidance in alternative formats. These are not secondary considerations. Everyone should be able to understand the action their government is asking them to take, and improvements made later in the pandemic serve to highlight the difference that proper and timely consideration of accessibility issues can make.

Legislation and enforcement (Chapter 13)

The legal response to the pandemic laid bare the limits of the UK’s legislative framework and the practical consequences of devolution. Faced with a public health crisis, the UK government relied on older public health legislation and bespoke emergency laws, rather than the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. While this enabled rapid action, it came at the cost of fragmented decision-making, reduced parliamentary scrutiny and caused public confusion.

Ministers relied on secondary legislation to implement many of the most far-reaching restrictions in modern UK history, with little or no parliamentary oversight. Across all four nations, ministers routinely used a procedure allowing laws to come into effect before they had been approved by the legislatures. While this approach was understandable in the earliest days of the pandemic, the approach continued throughout the pandemic, even when there was ample time for parliamentary scrutiny. This weakened democratic safeguards – the use of emergency regulations must be subject to greater scrutiny in future emergencies.

Frequent, complex changes to the law fuelled confusion, misunderstanding and – at times – incorrect enforcement. Police were asked to enforce unclear, shifting regulations, often issued at the last minute with little guidance. Fixed penalty notices were issued inconsistently across the UK. In England and Wales, some individuals faced £10,000 fines; in Scotland, most fines were just £60. Disproportionate impacts on certain groups were evident, especially in England, Scotland and Wales. In some cases, enforcement was practically impossible or legally uncertain – as seen in Northern Ireland during the controversy over the size of crowds at the funeral of Bobby Storey.

Time and again, public messaging failed to reflect the actual laws in place. Ministers made statements suggesting legal obligations where none existed, or vice versa. The public – and even the police – struggled to distinguish between government advice and binding legal restrictions, and there was no single, easily accessible source that clearly laid out the rules applying in each area. The resulting confusion undermined trust and compliance, particularly as legal rules diverged across the UK.

Intergovernmental working (Chapter 14)

A lack of trust between the Prime Minister and First Ministers of the devolved nations coloured the approach to involving the devolved administrations in UK government decision-making throughout the pandemic. Although the devolved administrations were invited to COBR meetings, they perceived that the decisions had already been effectively made beforehand by the UK government. COBR meetings were largely discontinued after May 2020 and intergovernmental discussions were thereafter led by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office – Michael Gove MP (later Lord Gove). The devolved administrations had a positive view of Mr Gove and felt that he was genuine in his efforts to understand their perspectives, but ultimately these meetings were limited in what they could practically achieve without Mr Johnson in attendance. Clearer structures for intergovernmental relations during an emergency, led collectively by the Prime Minister, First Ministers and deputy First Ministers, are necessary to facilitate better informed decision-making across the four nations.

Devolution has been a feature of the UK’s constitutional arrangements for over 25 years and the public is used to the devolved administrations taking different decisions from the UK government. An effective, four-nations response to a pandemic should be capable of accommodating differences in response between the nations, and it is incumbent on politicians to work collectively in the public interest in any future emergency.

“A Labour MP has voiced strong opposition to his party’s proposed devolution bill, warning that its provisions could forge an “unholy alliance” between Cornwall and Devon.”

But the government isn’t listening to him and intends to press ahead. 

Given our experiences of Devon and Cornwall Police Commissioners, Owl believes a Devon and Cornwall Mayor will be nothing other than a complete disaster. Think of just the practicalities; it takes more than three hours to drive from the east to the west of the region and a couple of hours north to south.

Harry Taylor www.independent.co.uk 

Perran Moon, who represents Camborne and Redruth, argued that any plan for a mayoral strategic authority spanning both regions constitutes “blatant discrimination” and disregards Cornwall’s national minority status.

He cautioned that such a move would severely damage trust between Cornwall and Westminster for generations, potentially fuelling Cornish nationalism.

Mr Moon, elected in last year’s general election, also questioned the willingness of Devonian taxpayers to fund Cornish language lessons and road signs under the suggested arrangements.

Mr Moon said: “Because of our national minority status, Cornwall will never, Cornwall cannot ever, join a mayoral combined authority.

“No matter what ministerial pressure is applied.

“Whether through the withdrawal of economic development funding, or the prevention of access to social housing funding.

“None of this will make us compromise our national minority status, because frankly it is discriminatory to do so.”

The MP, who served on the Bill Committee debating potential changes to the proposed legislation, said he was upset Labour had brought it forward.

He said it did not take into account the national minority status awarded to Cornwall by the UK government in 2014.

It put them on a similar footing to the Scots, Welsh and Irish and, according to the Council of Europe’s framework, meant Cornish people have the right to “preserve… and develop their distinct culture and identity”.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill would create combined mayoral authorities to replace councils that would oversee key areas, including transport, skills and employment, and housing.

There are fears that those who do not take part in the reorganisation and get mayors will lose out on extra funding.

“I have to say that it is disappointing to me that a party I love could bring forward a Bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall, and what national minority status actually means,” Mr Moon said.

“To those who mock and disparage and denigrate Cornwall’s constitutional position on this island, I say this to you: if you try to ensnare us on an unholy alliance with a part of England, it will rebound negatively.

“The impact and the consequences of an unamended Bill will be felt across Cornwall for decades… the relationship with Westminster would decline, and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in.

“Regrettably it would not surprise me if the calls for full fifth national status for Cornwall will simply grow if this Bill passes unamended.”

Urging ministers to reconsider, Mr Moon continued: “We stand at a crossroads.

“I urge ministers to be bold, be flexible, and empower our communities.

“Do not impose their ideological, governance template on us.

“If unamended, the impact of this Bill is that Cornwall would be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest level of devolution, based solely on who we are.

“That is rank, blatant discrimination, and I cannot and I will not accept it.

“Ministers know all this, because we’ve had several discussions and meetings to look at the risks, and to that end, with a heavy heart, I have to say to ministers that in its current unamended state, I will not be supporting the English devolution Bill.”

It’s set to compete for votes in an upcoming by-election

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

A new political group is putting forward its first-ever candidate in an upcoming by-election in East Devon.

Independents for Exmouth said Lou Doliczny would be the party’s first-ever candidate as it competes on the ballot paper for votes in the town council by-election for the Halsdon ward.

The full candidate list for the Exmouth Town Council by-election consists of Paula Burtoft (Conservative), Lou Doliczny (Independent), Suzanne Isaacs (Liberal Democrat), and Tony Quinn (Reform UK).

The party, which launched this month, has been formed of three existing independent members on Exmouth Town Council – Dan Wilson, Nicky Nicholls and Louise Venables.

Even if Independents for Exmouth won the seat, though, it wouldn’t fundamentally change the make-up of the council.

At present, the Liberal Democrats have nine seats, followed by the Conservatives with six. The existing cohort of independent councillors amounts to five members, while the Greens have three town councillors in Exmouth and one Labour.

This means existing independent members Aurora Bailey and Ian Kirvan have not joined Independents for Exmouth.

The by-election will take place on Thursday 4 December, and residents will also have an opportunity to vote for the person they want to hold the Halsdon seat on East Devon District Council too.

Those candidates are: Paula Burtoft (Conservative), Fran McElhone (Liberal Democrat), Tony Quinn (Reform UK), and Tony Woodward (Green Party).

Note from Owl: These vacancies arise from the sad death of Councillor Andrew Toye, Lib Dem , who represented Exmouth for many years.

Local context:

[4 June 2020 Dr Cathy Gardner starts fund raising to mount a judicial review over government failure to protect care home patients. She wins her case at the end of April 2022.

Rishi Sunak’s “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme offered discounts across the four nations on eating out from Monday to Wednesday between 3 and 31 August 2020. (This was done without consulting scientific advice.)

20 August Record numbers of coronavirus cases have been confirmed in Devon with more than 1000 cases alone reported in the day’s Government update.] – Owl

Key events from January 2020 to May 2022 (continued)

The second wave (Chapters 6 and 7)

In the autumn of 2020, infection rates varied significantly across the UK, leading to more significant divergence in approach as all four governments tried to manage the increasing case rates at a local level. The UK government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive had all failed to learn from the experiences of the first lockdown. Local restrictions were introduced too late, were not in place for long enough or were too weak to control the spread of the virus.

Ministers are required to weigh up all competing factors in their decision-making and do not always need to follow scientific advice. However, the reasons for rejecting scientific advice – and the implications of doing so – must be clearly understood.

Throughout September and October 2020, Mr Johnson repeatedly changed his mind on whether to introduce tougher restrictions and failed to make timely decisions. For those restrictions that were introduced, such as the ‘rule of six’, SAGE had warned that they were unlikely to be effective, but Mr Johnson continued to reject SAGE’s advice to implement a ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown. The weakness of the restrictions used and Mr Johnson’s oscillation enabled the virus to continue spreading at pace, and ultimately resulted in a four-week lockdown from 5 November 2020.

Mr Johnson should have ordered the imposition of a circuit breaker lockdown in late September or early October 2020. Had a circuit breaker been utilised at that time, the second lockdown in England could have been reduced in length and severity – and might conceivably have been avoided altogether. In the event – with the opportunity to regain control having been lost – the second lockdown should have been imposed more quickly. Unlike the circuit breaker or ‘firebreak’ restrictions in Wales and the circuit breaker restrictions in Northern Ireland, the second England-wide lockdown was not timed to coincide with the school half-term holidays. Schools did, however, remain open.

The Welsh Government’s approach of targeted local restrictions was ultimately unsuccessful and led to the imposition of the firebreak. Despite receiving clear advice on 5 October 2020 that the reproduction number (the average number of people that one person with a disease infects) was above 1 and that further restrictions were needed to avoid hospital capacity being exceeded, modelling of the proposed firebreak was not sought until 11 October and the firebreak was not implemented until 23 October. From August to December 2020, Wales had the highest age-standardised mortality rate of the four nations. It is likely that this was the result of a combination of failed local restrictions, imposing the firebreak too late and the decision to relax measures more quickly than scientists advised.

Notwithstanding the imposition of circuit breaker restrictions, the decision-making in Northern Ireland was chaotic. Despite having been advised that a six-week intervention was required, the Northern Ireland Executive Committee opted for a four-week circuit breaker, which commenced on 16 October 2020. This ultimately proved inadequate. In the weeks that followed, Executive Committee meetings were deeply divided along political lines and beset by leaks, leading to an incoherent approach in which the circuit breaker restrictions were extended for one week, then lapsed for one week, before being reintroduced for two further weeks – with the one-week lapse in restrictions correlating with a 25% increase in cases.

The number of cases in Scotland in the autumn of 2020 did not reach the peaks experienced in the rest of the UK. By swiftly using stringent, locally targeted measures to deal with outbreaks, case numbers grew much more gradually and the need for a nationwide lockdown in the autumn was avoided.

Although it was not formally identified until December 2020, the more transmissible Alpha variant emerged in Kent during the autumn and drove a rapid rise in cases. The emergence of a more transmissible variant was entirely foreseeable, but all four governments failed to take decisive action in response. Rather than recognising the threat early on and introducing measures to control the virus, the governments continued to press on with plans for relaxing measures over Christmas while cases grew rapidly, only to change course on 19 December when levels of infection became critical. The mistakes of February and March 2020 were repeated – the failure to take sufficiently decisive and robust action in response had created a situation in which a return to lockdown restrictions had once again become unavoidable.

The vaccination rollout and Delta and Omicron variants (Chapters 7 and 8)

In December 2020, the UK was the first country in the world to approve a vaccine and commence a vaccination programme for Covid-19. On 2 December, temporary authorisation was granted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the Pfizer/ BioNTech vaccine and the vaccine rollout commenced on 8 December. Authorisation for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine swiftly followed on 30 December and the Moderna vaccine on 8 January 2021. This was a remarkable achievement and a decisive turning point in the pandemic.

This development enabled the four governments to take a different approach in their plans to exit their respective lockdowns, balancing the scale of infection against the additional protection from serious illness now being offered by vaccines. Plans were led by data rather than fixed dates and when the Delta variant emerged in March 2021, all four governments sensibly heeded the scientific advice to delay the planned relaxation of restrictions to allow time for the vaccine rollout to progress further. In this respect, the four governments had learned from the experience of earlier lockdowns.

Although the Omicron variant that emerged in the winter of 2021 was a less severe variant, it was much more transmissible and an estimated 5 million people in the UK were infected at the peak of the Omicron wave. Despite the enhanced protection offered by the vaccine rollout, the sheer volume of cases still led to more than 30,000 people dying with Covid-19 in the UK between November 2021 and June 2022. By the time the Omicron variant was identified, all adults had been offered two doses of the vaccine and the programme of booster doses was sensibly accelerated to offer further protection against serious illness and hospitalisation.

The approach of all four governments in the second half of 2021 carried with it an element of risk. The potential for a variant that escaped the immunity conferred by prior infection or by vaccination had been repeatedly identified as the biggest strategic risk. The sheer number of infections demonstrates that, if the vaccines had been less effective or the Omicron variant as severe as previous variants in terms of morbidity and mortality, the consequences would have been disastrous.

The report on the Covid inquiry module concerned with core decision-making and political governance was published last week by its Chair: The Rt Hon the Baroness Hallett DBE.

She pulls no punches in naming and shaming those in government who are judged to have failed to appreciate the scale of the threat and then to have failed to act appropriately, leading to the title “Too little, too late”. Facing a pandemic was, after all, one of the government’s top risk scenarios.

[The first module dealt with our preparedness, or lack of it.]

Scene setting

Through 2020/21 East Devon Watch chronicled the response to the covid pandemic both locally, nationally and internationally. Re-reading these posts is like following a car crash in slow motion from Boris Johnson going AWOL from early COBRA meetings to “jingle and mingle” in Whitehall. A summary of the key events through the fateful March 2020 is contained in this “Omnishambles” post  of March 2021 which prophetically ends with the phrase “too little, too late”

The South West entered the pandemic with the oldest population (so highest expected mortality) and lowest number of critical care beds per head of population. 

As the fateful Cheltenham Festival started on March 10, Devon emerged as a national hotspot for covid cases related to children going on skiing trips. Lockdown villagers go “stir crazy”, the outbreak is ultimately contained. We start to “Squash the Sombrero”. (In retrospect, what a jape it all was).

On March 14, four County Councillors on the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee led by Clair Wright and Martin Shaw issued a statement urging the government to bring forward social distancing. The  remaining councillors stay silent. 

On March 17 the NHS cancels all non-urgent surgery. Until now the government has been following a strategy at odds with WHO advice and markedly different from the rest of the world.

On March 20 Boris Johnson orders pubs and restaurants to close and on March 23 the first lockdown is announced.

Even after the lockdown was announced Abbeyfield continued to close the Budleigh Salterton “Shandford” care home to free up assets which had started in February.

Internationally – In April, the President of the USA, Donald Trump, was seriously suggesting a trial of injecting people with Dettol might be a solution. [The makers issued a stern warning that its product should not be ingested “under any circumstances”]. 

For the record

Having read the numerous press articles over the past few days Owl is of the view that the Watch’s record is best served by publishing over the next few days Baroness Hallett’s executive summary in full.

Module 2, – Core decision-making and political governance 

Executive summary

This Report concerns the core political and administrative decision-making across the UK in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing on the work of four of the Inquiry’s modules: Module 2 (UK), Module 2A (Scotland), Module 2B (Wales) and Module 2C (Northern Ireland). This has provided the Inquiry with the opportunity to compare and contrast the different choices made by the four governments in responding to the same emergency and to identify the most important lessons for responding to future UK-wide emergencies.

The Inquiry finds that the response of the four governments repeatedly amounted to a case of ‘too little, too late’. The failure to appreciate the scale of the threat, or the urgency of response it demanded, meant that – by the time the possibility of a mandatory lockdown was first considered – it was already too late and a lockdown had become unavoidable. That these same mistakes were repeated later in 2020 is inexcusable. While the nationwide lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 undoubtedly saved lives, they also left lasting scars on society and the economy, brought ordinary childhood to a halt, delayed the diagnosis and treatment of other health issues and exacerbated societal inequalities. The Covid-19 lockdowns only became inevitable because of the acts and omissions of the four governments. They must now learn the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic if they are to avoid lockdowns in future pandemics.

Key events from January 2020 to May 2022

The emergence of Covid-19 (Chapter 2)

The initial response to the pandemic was marked by a lack of information and a lack of urgency. When the first cases of Covid-19 had been confirmed outside China, the significant degree of scientific uncertainty – in particular, whether there was sustained person-to-person transmission and whether the virus could be transmitted by individuals without symptoms (asymptomatic transmission) – meant that the level of risk that the virus posed was not fully appreciated.

Once the scientific community and the scientific advisers for each nation became aware that the virus had spread from China, and that it was causing substantially more cases of moderate or severe respiratory illness in China than were being officially reported, the tempo of the response should have been increased and threat levels raised.

By the end of January 2020, when thousands of cases had been identified outside China and the first few cases of Covid-19 had been confirmed in the UK, it should have been clear that the virus posed a serious and immediate threat. However, the limited testing capacity in the UK and a lack of adequate surveillance mechanisms, combined with a failure to assume that there was asymptomatic transmission, meant that decision-makers did not appreciate the extent to which the virus was spreading undetected.

The political system across the four nations lacked urgency and treated the emerging threat as predominantly a health issue. The obviously escalating nature of the crisis made it surprising that COBR, the UK government’s crisis coordination committee, was not chaired by the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson MP, until 2 March 2020 and that neither COBR nor the UK Cabinet met during the half-term holidays in mid-February 2020. Mr Johnson should have appreciated sooner that this was an emergency that required prime ministerial leadership to inject urgency into the response. Mr Johnson’s own failure to appreciate the urgency of the situation was due to his optimism that it would amount to nothing, his scepticism arising from earlier UK experiences of infectious diseases, and, inevitably, his attention being on other government priorities. This was compounded by the misleading assurances he received from the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care that pandemic planning was robust, as well as the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic. As the pandemic unfolded, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock MP, gained a reputation among senior officials and advisers at 10 Downing Street for overpromising and underdelivering.

The devolved administrations similarly failed to engage with the threat posed to their nations and were overly reliant on the UK government to lead the response. Covid-19 received no attention in Welsh Cabinet meetings before 25 February 2020. After the first case was identified in Wales on 28 February, the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford MS, chose to attend St David’s Day celebrations in Brussels rather than the Welsh Cabinet meeting on 4 March 2020. In Northern Ireland and in Scotland, Covid-19 was only discussed under ‘any other business’ in meetings as late as 24 and 25 February respectively. It should have been equally apparent to the First Ministers and deputy First Ministers of the devolved administrations that, by this point, Covid-19 was the most pressing issue facing their governments.

Ministers and officials in the UK government had been given clear advice that, in the reasonable worst-case scenario, up to 80% of the population would be infected – with a very significant loss of life – but did not appreciate the increasing likelihood of this scenario materialising. At the same time, it was clear that the test and trace system was inadequate for a pandemic. The lack of urgency on the part of all four governments, and the failure to take more immediate emergency steps, are inexcusable.

The spread of the virus globally and, in particular, the escalating crisis in Italy were clear warning signs, which should have prompted urgent planning across the four nations. Instead, the governments did not take the pandemic seriously enough until it was too late. February 2020 was a lost month.

The first UK-wide lockdown (Chapters 3 and 4)

The Coronavirus: Action Plan, published on 3 March 2020, outlined the initial plan to respond to Covid-19, first by ‘containing’ its spread through testing, contact tracing and isolation of infected individuals, and then by ‘delaying’ its spread through introducing restrictions such as social distancing. Based on the strategy for pandemic influenza, the plan made a similar assumption that it would only be possible to slow, rather than prevent, the spread of the virus.

This approach was expected to lead to a degree of population immunity (otherwise known as ‘herd immunity’), where the spread of the virus through the population reduced its vulnerability to further infections. Despite a lack of clarity in media appearances, the UK government’s strategy was not to encourage the spread of the virus with the aim of achieving population immunity sooner – rather, population immunity was seen as the eventual outcome of an inevitable and widespread wave of infections.

At this stage, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) was advising the UK government that restrictions should not be introduced until the spread of the virus was nearer its peak. This was driven partly by concerns about the negative social and economic consequences of introducing restrictions and wanting to minimise the amount of time such restrictions were in place, but also by concerns expressed by Professor (later Sir) Christopher Whitty (Chief Medical Officer for England) and Professor Sir Patrick Vallance (later Lord Vallance of Balham), Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that the public would not maintain compliance with restrictions over a long period. This concept of ‘behavioural fatigue’ had no grounding in behavioural science and proved damaging, given the imperative to act more decisively and sooner.

It is clear that the Coronavirus: Action Plan was already out of date by the time it was published. Containment had failed, as belatedly recognised by the UK government. Although there were only 39 official cases of Covid-19 in the UK by this point, the known lack of capacity for testing meant that this was clearly a significant underestimate. As the country moved to the ‘delay’ stage, from 13 March 2020, anyone with coronavirus symptoms was advised to self-isolate at home for at least seven days. However, this first restriction was too little, too late.

The lack of testing capacity had, by this point, resulted in the stopping of community testing. This meant that the UK government and devolved administrations had no real understanding of the spread of the virus in the community. Some scientists – and some civil servants and advisers within the UK government – were increasingly alarmed by the lack of urgency and the failure to act more robustly. It became clear that any opportunity to get on top of Covid-19 had been lost.

Friday 13 March 2020 was a watershed moment in the UK’s response. SAGE had concluded that the number of cases was several times higher than its previous estimates and that there were potentially thousands of cases occurring each day. The pandemic was moving faster than previously anticipated, and modelling indicated that the capacity of the NHS would be overwhelmed by the scale of infection, even if self-isolation and social distancing measures were introduced. If NHS capacity were to become overwhelmed, then far higher numbers of people would die from being unable to access medical treatment, both for Covid-19 and for other medical conditions. The plan to wait to implement restrictions until nearer the peak of the virus was no longer sustainable.

Over the next few days, decision-makers concluded that stringent measures were needed to reverse the growth of the virus. The focus remained on a package of advisory measures including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing. The advisory measures came into effect from 16 March 2020 and became increasingly stringent in the subsequent days, with the closure of schools and hospitality businesses from 20 March.

By 23 March 2020, SAGE estimated that the number of cases was doubling every three to four days and intensive care units in London were on track to reach capacity within ten days. Almost 300 people had died, with more than 100 of those deaths occurring in the previous two days. The situation was rapidly escalating and it was not clear that the advisory measures in place would be sufficient to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. A mandatory lockdown had become unavoidable.

The measures announced on Monday 16 March 2020, and strengthened through the week with the closure of schools and hospitality, should have been implemented much sooner. Had more stringent restrictions, short of a ‘stay at home’ lockdown, been introduced earlier than 16 March – when the number of Covid-19 cases was lower – the mandatory lockdown that was imposed might have been shorter or conceivably might not have been necessary at all. At the very least, there would have been time to establish what effect the restrictions had on levels of incidence and whether there was a sustained reduction in social contact. However, with measures not introduced sooner, a mandatory lockdown was the only viable option left.

The Inquiry recognises that the lockdown decision was as difficult a decision as any UK government or devolved administration has ever had to make. However, the Inquiry accepts the consensus of the evidence before it that the mandatory lockdown should have been imposed one week earlier. Had a mandatory lockdown been imposed on or immediately after 16 March 2020, modelling has established that the number of deaths in England in the first wave up until 1 July 2020 would have been reduced by 48% – equating to approximately 23,000 fewer deaths.

However, the Inquiry rejects the criticism that the four governments were wrong, in principle, to impose a lockdown. In any event, the UK government and devolved administrations had received clear and compelling advice by this time that the exponential growth in transmission would, in the absence of a mandatory lockdown, likely lead to loss of life on a scale that was unconscionable and unacceptable. No government, acting in accordance with its overarching duty to preserve life, could ignore such advice or tolerate the number of deaths envisaged. The governments acted rationally in taking the ultimate step, a mandatory lockdown, in the genuine and reasonable belief that it was required. Nevertheless, it was only through their own acts and omissions that the four governments had made such a lockdown inevitable.

Exiting the first lockdown (Chapter 5)

Upon entering the first lockdown, neither the UK government nor the devolved administrations had a strategy for when or how they would exit the lockdown. These considerations should have been at the forefront of decision-makers’ minds from the moment imposing a lockdown was contemplated. Up until this stage, the four governments had acted in unison, with the same measures applying across the whole of the UK, but they each devised their own approaches to ending the lockdown.

The easing of the majority of restrictions in England took place on 4 July 2020, despite Mr Johnson being informed by scientific advisers that this was an inherently high-risk approach as it would create an environment where infections could grow more quickly and overwhelm the ability of test and trace systems to control further outbreaks. A more cautious approach should have been taken by the UK government. Mr Johnson acknowledged that a second lockdown would be a disaster, but the approach to releasing restrictions increased the risk of this being necessary.

In contrast, the governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland adopted a more gradual approach to the relaxation of restrictions throughout the summer of 2020. This more cautious approach was taken in the context of different epidemiological circumstances, but created a greater prospect of further lockdowns not being necessary or, if they were, of them not being necessary for so long. However, as there was nothing to prevent people resident in England from travelling across the internal borders of the UK, the approach adopted by the UK government risked undermining the effectiveness of the more cautious responses of the devolved administrations.

Nonetheless, in each of the four governments, insufficient attention was given to the prospect of a second wave of the virus, with only limited contingency planning in place for reintroducing restrictions if a second wave emerged.

Torbay Council split down party lines on the county’s future

Four separate unitary councils for Devon will allow the ‘powerhouses’ of Torbay, Exeter and Plymouth to flourish without leaving the county’s rural ‘rump’ behind – at least that’s what the bay has decided.

The crass Labour reorganisation plans are setting communities against each other – Owl

Guy Henderson, Local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Torbay Council was split down party lines when it came to deciding on its vision of the county’s future when the government sweeps away a layer of bureaucracy.

Local government re-organisation will mean the end of Devon County Council and all the county’s district councils, and every local authority has been asked to make a choice about the way forward.

After a long and sometimes acrimonious debate, Torbay endorsed a four-unitary solution for Devon.

The bay would continue on its current footprint; Plymouth would expand to absorb parts of the South Hams; Exeter would spread out into parts of Teignbridge, East Devon and Mid Devon, and a new Rural Devon Coast and Countryside Authority would administer the rest of the county.

Council leader David Thomas (Con, Preston) urged the opposition not to take a ‘wrecking ball’ to the published strategy by putting forward last-minute amendments.

“This is not a time for points-scoring,” he said. “It’s a time for leadership and a clear voice on behalf of Torbay’s residents.”

He said the bay’s health care and children’s services were strengths which would be protected by the strategy.

“It gives us stability and control,” he said. “It’s not about drawing lines on a map. It’s about creating councils that make sense to residents.

“Torbay is ready, Torbay is united, Torbay has a clear and positive vision for the future of local government in our county.

“Let’s not allow this opportunity to pass us by.”

But Lib Dem group leader Swithin Long (Barton with Watcombe) warned that the four-unitary model would leave rural Devon as a ‘basket case’.

He put forward an amendment saying Torbay should support Devon County Council’s preference for three unitaries – one for Plymouth, one for Torbay and one for the rest of Devon, including Exeter.

“It would be simpler,” he said. “It would preserve the integrated care organisation, and it would not lead to the breaking up of services.”

However, Exeter and Plymouth city councils have put forward their own proposals which envisage an expanded Torbay, contrary to the bay’s proposal. The majority of the 1,400 people who took part in Torbay’s consultation wanted the bay’s boundaries to remain as they are.

Cllr Cordelia Law (Lib Dem, Tormohun) said: “We owe Exeter and Plymouth nothing. They have totally disregarded Torbay residents’ wishes. Devon County Council have listened to us and their proposal ticks more boxes.”

Cllr Steve Darling (Lib Dem, Barton with Watcombe), who is also the bay’s MP, said having four unitaries would mean abandoning the rural heartland of Devon as a ‘rump’.

But Cllr Adam Billings (Con, Churston with Galmpton) told the meeting: “I don’t think it’s right for the people of Torbay to tell the people of Exeter that we know best, and we know what is in their best interests.”

Cllr George Darling (Lib Dem, St Marychurch) warned that smaller Devon communities could be swallowed by ‘hungry urban councils’ but Cllr Thomas said a large Devon council would be too big to be responsive or accountable.

He said the bay’s published model would have three strong urban councils working alongside a ‘focused’ rural Devon. “That would reflect how people live, work and access services,” he said.

Cllr Hayley Tranter (Con, Goodrington with Roselands) urged colleagues to back the published Torbay proposal. “It protects our unique integrated health and social care arrangements,” she said. “We are seen as a national exemplar.”

The amendment was lost, with 17 votes for (15 Lib Dems and two Independents) and 18 against (17 Conservatives and one Independent).

The motion to back the published option was passed, with the votes exactly reversed.

The government will examine submissions from councils across the country, and will announce its decision on the future shape of local government next summer.
 

“I know whenever I come back here next,” Nigel Farage told a jubilant crowd of hundreds in a leisure centre in Redruth, “Reform UK will become a dominant force, not just in Cornwall politics, but in British politics.”

Jamie Grierson www.theguardian.com 

That was in February and when the local elections arrived three months later it appeared Farage’s prophecy was in part coming true – Reform took 28 seats on Cornwall council, the highest number of any party.

But during his speech at Carn Brea leisure centre, Farage also warned his rapturous supporters “we have to convert theory into reality” – and reality in Cornwall is now biting.

Six months on from the local elections – after which Reform was unable to form an administration, leaving the Liberal Democrats and independents to set up a ruling coalition – the party’s presence in the county is in disarray following weeks of resignations, suspensions and infighting that mean Reform UK no longer holds the highest number of seats in the authority.

Critics say that along with the chaos in the Reform-led council of Kent, the farcical scenes in Cornwall, where Reform act as the official opposition are further evidence that the party is not capable of delivering beyond a protest vote.

Two key figures involved in the fiasco, the former leader and deputy leader of the Reform group in Cornwall, said interference from national figures in the party was in part behind their decision to stand down and could also be blamed for some of the infighting that has brought Reform into disrepute.

Rowland O’Connor, a seasoned figure in the party who won 16.5% of the vote in North Cornwall in last year’s general election, was the first to stand down in early October – not only stepping down as deputy but from Reform itself.

“I made a commitment to serve the people of my division as a local councillor and to represent their best interests on anything to do with council services: buses, transport, roads, hedges, potholes, bins, all the things that one would expect a council to be involved in,” said O’Connor, who represents St Columb Major, St Mawgan and St Wenn division.

“But the position I found myself in as deputy leader and also as a Reform UK councillor, was that the national agenda right was being emphasised.”

O’Connor said the two key propositions from Reform UK on a national level were challenging immigration and net zero. “The direct impact of immigration in Cornwall is negligible,” he said. On net zero, Reform councillors sitting on planning committees – like all councillors – are required to be apolitical in their decision-making, he added.

“There was an ongoing divergence between what time I was able to dedicate to serving the residents in my division versus trying to unravel the push-pull between national and local.”

Two days later, Reform’s leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, also resigned the role and from the party. Parsonage, who represents Torpoint, said as leader he would receive “instructions” over WhatsApp from “head office” ordering them to “put motions in to scrap all net zero target-related matters”.

“The trouble with that is you have to go in there with an open mind and with a view to assessing a planning application based on its merits, the regulations and the law,” Parsonage added. “So, effectively, you’re being asked to do something that you’re not allowed to do.”

O’Connor and Parsonage have formed the Cornish Independent Non-aligned Group with two other former Reform councillors, Anna Thomason-Kenyon and Karen Knight.

Parsonage’s wife, Christine Parsonage, who was elected as a Reform councillor for St Columb Minor and Colan, stood down at the end of last month on health grounds. Her short time as councillor, however, was mired in controversy after it emerged she lived more than 40 miles away from her division in Torpoint.

She was heavily criticised by members of Newquay town council in August for not attending their meetings as the Cornwall council representative for the area she represented. She later admitted standing as a “paper candidate” – a contender who does not realistically expect to be elected.

The five departures mean Reform now has 23 seats on Cornwall council, having previously held 28, compared with the Liberal Democrats’ 26.

Before the departure of Rob Parsonage and O’Connor, the former had come under criticism from within his own party. Curtis Mellows, the then chair of the Reform Cornwall south-east branch, did not hold back with his criticism of Parsonage online, calling him an “odious little man”.

“He’s got no leadership qualities whatsoever,” Mellows said. “He tries to make out he’s got experience in politics. Well, he proved he hasn’t. I told the head office this guy shouldn’t be there, and he’s going to be a disaster – and you’ve seen what’s unfolded in the south-west.”

In another twist, Mellows himself is now suspended from the party after making allegedly offensive comments about Prince Harry in a social media post.

Mellows said he had made formal bullying complaints about members of the party in the county, which were not dealt with by the regional or national figures. “I wouldn’t let the bullying drop and I kept on and on and on about it,” he said. “They’ve obviously decided to get rid of me, which is fine.”

Despite the election of a new leader and deputy leader for the Reform group, the infighting continues.

Only this week, the chair of the Camborne, Redruth and Hayle branch was removed, much to the dismay of branch members.

The waters are muddied further by the fact the chair who was removed from the branch against its members’ wishes is – and remains – the newly appointed deputy of the party in Cornwall, Roger Tarrant.

Members of the branch have been anonymously briefing the local press, complaining of the “removal of our popular and successful previous chairman, and the parachuting in of an unknown”.

So as Reform unravels, how are the parties in power responding? Leigh Frost, the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall council, said: “It’s quite astounding. In reality, everyone knew that this would eventually come. It’s no surprise.

“We had a lot of Reform paper candidates in the local elections in May. A lot of those people got elected on the wave, and are now realising what it’s like to be a councillor, what it means to be a councillor.

“Ultimately, some of them are realising it’s very difficult and don’t want to do it, and that’s entirely up to them.

“Others are realising that there’s more to it, and they want to do a good job for their communities, which is great, and sort of realise that Reform isn’t the answer to that.”

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “These claims are untrue. Reform UK councillors have complete autonomy to take a stand on local issues and are encouraged to come up with solutions to improve their communities.

“However, voters are right to expect their elected Reform UK representatives to remember the platform they were elected on, which includes opposing the net zero agenda and ensuring taxpayer funds are spent on local people, not illegal migrants.”

The newly appointed Reform leader in Cornwall, Paul Ashton, also rejected comments that local councillors had to focus on national Reform policies, such as immigration and net zero, rather than prioritising important issues affecting Cornish voters, such as affordable housing and public services.He said there was no directive from Farage or any other senior Reform figure that members had to toe the national line. “There is nobody from HQ breathing down our necks saying you’ve got to do this or you’ve got to do that.”

Wetlands created by beavers have 45% more butterflies than those created by people, a Butterfly Conservation ecologist has revealed.

butterfly-conservation.org 

The study also showed that beaver wetlands have 29% more hoverfly species and 119% more hoverfly individuals.

Both groups of insects pollinate a range of plants, highlighting a potentially unforeseen benefit of beaver reintroduction.

The study was carried out by Butterfly Conservation ecologist Patrick Cook for his PhD at Stirling University.

Mr Cook hopes his results will help beaver wetlands to be seen as a new potential strategy to reverse decades of wildlife decline, but also warned that landowners need to be incentivised.

Mr Cook said: “Pollinators such as bees and butterflies are undergoing widespread and dramatic declines in the size of their populations. This has negative effects on the delivery of pollination, but it is also leading to the loss of some of our most charismatic species from the countryside. We urgently need methods to reverse these declines.

“Currently in the UK, most agri-environment subsidy schemes support human pond creation, with little financial incentive for landowners to accommodate beaver wetlands – despite the potential boost in pollination services. This position needs to change if we are to benefit from the buzz, flutter and hum of pollinators that beaver wetlands promote.”

Mr Cook and fellow researchers from Stirling University carried out six pollinator surveys from May to August 2023 on beaver wetlands at Bamff Wildland, a rewilding estate in Perthshire, and on manmade ponds at two neighbouring private farms.

The team counted the number of bees, butterflies, hoverflies, moths and flowering plants, and the number of species. 

They also recorded which insect species were visiting which flowers, and found that the beaver wetlands had a higher overall number of insect-plant interactions (336 interactions involving 38 species) than human-created ponds (231 interactions with 34 species).

Mr Cook added:  “Our work adds further important evidence of the beneficial effects of beaver wetlands for wildlife, in this instance pollinators.

“If we want to realise these benefits, we need to go beyond removing dams and incorporate these wetlands fully into agri-environment schemes to support landowners with beavers on their land.”

Beavers were once widespread across the UK and their dams helped shape the landscape, but they were hunted to extinction in the 16th century.

Numerous organisations have campaigned for reintroduction of beavers to the UK, and in recent years legislators in Scotland and England have granted licences.

The first official release of beavers into the wild in Scotland was carried out by the Scottish Wildlife Trust at Knapdale Forest in 2009. The first official release of beavers into the wild in England was carried out by The National Trust at Purbeck Heath in Dorset in March 2025. Other groups have released beavers onto private land.

[Note from Owl: beavers living wild in the river Otter were first reported c. 2008. Breeding families were confirmed in 2014. Only a public outcry, led by independent councillor, Claire Wright, stopped them being summarily culled (the Defra default policy) . A formal River Otter Beaver Trial was then conducted from 2015 to 2020 to study their impact (driven by the Devon Wildlife Trust). This resulted in the government giving them permanent “permission” to stay in 2020, the first wild beavers to return to England for around 500 years.]

However, farmers and landowners have raised concerns about potential negative impacts.

Professor Nigel Willby, Professor of Freshwater Science at the University of Stirling, said: “On occasion there may be valid reasons to remove a beaver dam. But we should remember that for every beaver dam removed a beaver wetland dies, along with a multitude of attached benefits, including for pollinators.”

Sophie Ramsay, manager for Bamff Wildland, added: “This brilliant new research shows once again that beavers are vital to the agricultural landscape as well as to biodiversity in general.”

The study, Beaver wetlands create a buzz and a flutter for pollinators, was published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, and was funded by the NERC Iapetus programme – a Doctoral Training Partnership funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) focused on environmental sciences.

Read the study here

With a cumulative deficit of around £167.5 million, the government, going full ostrich, seems to think this can all be swept away by savings from a little bit of reorganisation.

Forever hopeful! – Owl

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

Improvements made but pressure remain

A Devon council is predicting it will overspend by nearly £8 million this year as government grant cuts and spending pressures in key services combine.

Two key departments at Devon County Council – adult social care and children’s services – look likely to make up the bulk of the predicted £7.8 million overspend for this year.

Devon County Council’s cabinet heard that children’s services had overspent by just over £6 million so far, while adult social care had a more than 2.6 million overspend at the half-way point in the financial year.

Savings in other areas help bring the total down slightly, although the council highlighted the loss of a £10 million government grant was also taking its toll.

Westminster removed the rural services delivery grant from Devon this year, funding which was given to the county in recognition of the higher costs of providing services in the rural county.

Councillor James Buczkowski (Liberal Democrat, Cullompton & Bradninch) said it was an “important time to take stock”.

“The headline figure must be treated seriously but it is a £2.3 million net improvement from recent months, which reflects the discipline of our teams with their tighter controls and management of demand,” he said.

He acknowledged adult social care was a sector that faced “huge national pressures” and that this meant Devon was not alone in challenges here.

Concerningly though, Cllr Buczkowski said the overspend linked to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) was expected to be £57.4 million, which would take its cumulative deficit to around £167.5 million.

That’s in spite of Devon receiving a £95 million bailout through the government’s Safety Valve scheme last year, albeit the cash is paid out in tranches over eight years.

Special government rules mean that this overspend is essentially ringfenced, meaning it does not have an impact on the council’s day-to-day finances.

The government has pledged to look at how to deal with SEND overspends, which are estimated to be around £6 billion pounds across the country’s councils that have responsibility for education.

“At the mid-way point, it is a balanced picture, and while there is real pressure, there is real progress,” Cllr Buczkowski said.

“Savings are being delivered and we are demonstrating financial discipline.”

Leader Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge) thanked the council’s staff for trying to keep spending under control.

“I’ve sat in meetings [when in opposition] when things were a lot worse,” he said.

“Let’s hope for a balanced budget at year-end.” 

Under plans to be set out by Steve Reed, the housing secretary, councils will be prevented from refusing planning permission for housing projects of more than 150 homes and will have to refer the application to the government for a decision.

The government said that the new process would also be quicker as ministers would not automatically have to hold a formal inquiry into the development. Instead, they said, cases could be handled through written submissions, which would be “simpler and faster”.

Unless Steve Reed’s Ministry is seriously overstaffed, Owl wouldn’t bet on that.

“This has always been about how, not if, new homes are built, and the housing secretary is clear we are leaving no stone unturned to build 1.5 million homes. 

The message is clear: go big, go bold, go build.” (Government source).

[To save time, why not send your planning applications directly to: The Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF.?]

Councils to lose power to block large housing developments

Oliver Wright www.thetimes.com

Ministers are to strip local councils of their power to block or delay large-scale housing projects in the latest attempt to tackle England’s sluggish rate of homebuilding.

Under plans to be set out by Steve Reed, the housing secretary, councils will be prevented from refusing planning permission for housing projects of more than 150 homes and will have to refer the application to the government for a decision.

At present the law requires that councils only refer large-scale developments that they have approved in case they breach national planning guidelines.

Senior government sources claimed the change would put ministers “in the driving seat” and allow them to force through developments quickly even if they faced local opposition. However, it has been attacked by council leaders who said it would erode local democracy.

The latest government figures show that between April and June this year building work started on just 29,490 new homes, just a 2 per cent increase on the previous quarter. In the last full year 196,500 new homes were completed, down from 221,000 homes the previous year.

The figures are a long way off Labour’s election target of building 1.5 million homes by the time of the next election, which would require 300,000 a year over the five years of the parliamentary term. Some experts say that there is now little chance of the target being hit.

However, ministers remain committed and insist they will change the law as necessary to speed up planning delays.

In particular they are concerned that, while changes to England’s planning laws are to be made in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, many local authorities are still dragging their feet and trying to delay or block unpopular developments in their areas.

Government sources claim that almost 900 major housing schemes have been “stopped in their tracks” in the past year alone.

Reed plans to issue a legally binding instruction to councils to inform him of any development of over 150 units that an authority intends to block. This will allow him to “call in” the project and appoint a planning inspector who will examine the scheme and make a recommendation on whether it should go ahead.

Critically, the final decision rests with the secretary of state, allowing him to veto local opposition.

The government said that the new process would also be quicker as ministers would not automatically have to hold a formal inquiry into the development. Instead, they said, cases could be handled through written submissions, which would be “simpler and faster”.

“We know the powers at our disposal have their limits so it’s only right that we look again and put ministers back in the driving seat if councils are standing in the way of good developments,” said a government source. “This has always been about how, not if, new homes are built, and the housing secretary is clear we are leaving no stone unturned to build 1.5 million homes. The message is clear: go big, go bold, go build.”

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) welcomed the change. “It will help ensure more larger sites come forward and prevent unnecessary delays to sites appropriate for development,” it said. “If the government can reduce regulatory costs so more sites are viable, and ensure people are able to buy, the move could help drive housing supply.”

The number of new homes completed last year was down by 24,500 compared with the previous year

The Local Government Association criticised the changes, however, saying they would undermine democratic accountability.

“Councils are central to addressing the housebuilding crisis across the country and are ready to play their part, already approving nine out of ten planning applications which come before them,” it said.

“Councils know their communities best and should remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”

Last month the HBF warned the budget watchdog that its forecasts for economic growth from house building were too optimistic.

It has called on ministers to use the budget to stimulate demand for new housebuilding by bringing back the Help to Buy scheme, which allowed first-time buyers to get onto the housing ladder with government subsidised loans. It has also called for ministers to reduce the burden of regulation on house builders, which it claims is putting up the cost of new houses.

MPs in Cornwall have called for Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez to resign “effective immediately” after the government announced they were axing the role in England and Wales.

Molly Seaman www.cornwalllive.com

The elected officials were first introduced in 2012 and their responsibilities include setting budgets for their police forces and appointing the most senior officer – the chief constable – for their area.

But ministers plan to abolish the role in 2028 when the next elections are set to be held to save at least £100 million and help fund neighbourhood policing.

Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall Ben Maguire called the PCCs a “failed Tory experiment” and joined MP for St Ives Andrew George in calling for Ms Hernandez to resign immediately.

Mr Maguire said the PCC for Devon and Cornwall should do “the decent thing” and resign before the next elections were due to take place.

Mr George added that the Police and Crime Commissioner job has been a “pointless role” and a “catalogue of embarrassment”.

They have reportedly said Ms Hernandez should resign sooner rather than wait until the role is officially abolished in 2028 as to not “waste millions more in taxpayer funds”.

Ben Maguire MP said: “It is great news that the Government has finally listened and decided to scrap the pointless Police and Crime Commissioners – a failed Tory experiment that has cost council tax payers hundreds of millions of pounds.

“Almost immediately after my election and many times since I have stood up in the House of Commons and called for this pointless role to be scrapped. This huge waste of taxpayer money would be so much better spent on bolstering frontline policing so we can tackle rural crime and antisocial behaviour.

“This is a huge victory for common sense and for the Liberal Democrat campaign. Now, Devon & Cornwall’s PCC Alison Hernandez should do the decent thing and resign immediately, rather than cling on as a lame duck, waste millions more of taxpayer money, and potentially undermine the leadership of the police here in Cornwall.”

Andrew George MP added: “PCC’s have always been a pointless waste of space and money.

“It is far better to scrap them and spend the money on more resources for our over-stretched frontline police.”

Policing minister Sarah Jones announced the move in the Commons today (Thursday, November 13), telling MPs that the model has shown little sign of improving confidence in policing. She said less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them in the 2024 elections, and two in five people are “unaware PCCs even exist”.

The minister added: “The reality is that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables. They have failed to inspire confidence in local people, in stark contrast to the mayoral model, which has clearly been ultimately more successful.”

Ms Jones told the Commons that measures including ending elections for PCCs and abolishing police and crime panels will save £100 million this Parliament. The changes are expected to make savings of £20 million a year, which could fund an extra 320 extra police constables, she said.

Ms Hernandez was first elected in 2016 to the job and has been re-elected twice.

She thinks a mayor would likely appoint an unelected deputy to do the work of the crime commissioner, but ends with: “Trying to bottom out Prisoners Building Homes, is where I’d be going next, because I think that’s the most innovative thing anybody has ever invented.” – Owl

Crime commissioner warns replacement may not be accountable to public

Alison Hernandez said she has been ‘disturbed’ at the way the Government has justified the abolition of crime commissioners

Carl Eve Crime Reporter www.devonlive.com

The announcement today by the Government that it would abolish the role of Police and Crime Commissioners has understandably been somewhat of a shock to those who hold that post, but Devon and Cornwall Commissioner Alison Hernandez has said she’s ‘disturbed’ as the justification which has been used to carry out the sweeping change.

Speaking to DevonLive Alison Hernandez, Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, confirmed there was an impending sense of doom after the Labour government’s previous announcement that it intended to establish mayoral authorities, saying that it was always known to her that the government’s aim was to transfer the powers of policing into mayoral models.

However, she observed that such a new system was not currently in place in the South West and there was no firm timeline as to when it would be. As such, while her role now had an end date of May 2028, nothing was even close to being prepared to take over the responsibilities of the Crime Commissioner.

Asked if this meant the Government had to get the regional mayoral system in place in the South West by May 2028, she explained: “I would like to say they have to have, but they don’t.”

She revealed: “They’ve come up with an alternative option for areas that don’t have a mayor – and this is my worry, because from what I’ve heard the minister say in her announcement, it will basically be four leaders of councils appointing somebody to do the day job that will probably cost the same as me, but will be unelected. So I don’t quite see the point in that.

“They [the council leaders] are not even directly elected. They’re directly elected to a ward and then appointed by the group. So you’ve got unelected people putting into an unelected position. I mean, it’s just jobs for the boys, really, putting an unelected person in place to do the job that I’m doing, probably costing the same as me without the democratic mandate.”

Alison said she would like to push for a Devon and Cornwall mayor, saying it would be better for the people of the two counties and the Isles of Scilly, “to be able to hold someone to account if their policing is failing them” adding that a Devon and Cornwall Mayor would effectively be like the Crime Commissioner “but with more powers.”

She said such a mayor would likely appoint an unelected deputy to do the work of the crime commissioner “but at least the accountability sits with the elected individual, but they’ll cover the whole patch.

“The South West is one of the least coterminous areas with other agencies than anywhere else in the country and we’re likely to have the least elected mayors being established, which means we’ll have less of a voice in government and less of an ability to secure investment from the government in our patches.

“So I’m particularly worried about that because that democratic deficit for a mayor is actually a voice of those people to government and to secure investment. A lot of money will flow through mayors, not through leaders of councils.”

Alison said she recognised that all force areas struggled with government funding, querying why so much money is “plowed into the Met” and other metropolitan areas like Manchester and Merseyside “and the rest of us suffer”.

She said: “We’d like to see more evening up of that funding. We’ve got a particular issue in the South West, which is the summer, which is not recognised in our funding formula.

“I will say the last government did implement the second homes doubling of council tax and that has been a game changer, so I do recognize there has been an effort to help areas that have lots of second homes to be able to have an investment. That was worth £6m to Devon and Cornwall Police last year. It’s not small fry.”

Speaking of her fears for the future, she admitted she was worried for her team who would be out of a job, but noted that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) may now see staff leave to find more secure jobs over the next two and a half years, which meant “we may even struggle to function and carry out my statutory duty.”

“As I am an executive politician, which means I have powers to make decisions and I’m a roll your sleeves up and get on with the job kind of person, I actually do have skills and abilities to be able to do some things myself, but I am nervous [of the future of the Office].

“That’s why I want to spend my time now influencing what comes next so that the people of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly must get what they need to feel confident in policing, and the fact that you’re not going to spend the same amount of money doing something just in an unelected way.”

Alison said that she fully recognised that her role is an elected one and that she is fully accountable to the public, adding: “That’s why I’m really clear when I have conversations about putting the council tax up every year, I’m really clear and transparent about what I expect that to be spent on.

“So that’s how we’ve opened so many police stations, that’s why we’ve got record numbers of police officers in the force, because I’ve always said I’ll only spend it on investment in our communities, and I’m really proud of what we’ve done.

“I’m just very, very disturbed that the two evidence bases that they’re using to get rid of us are extremely weak – one of which is our turnout, and I’ve already said they could just move the election to align with council elections. The second is the fact that the cost that they’ll save with that election and it’s just not there, I’m afraid. They just need to move the election and save the money that way – they’ll end up appointing someone that costs the same as me, but they’ll be unelected.

“Most local elections are round a 30 to 35 per cent turnout. I think our biggest issue is that they’ve left us in a standalone election.

“There are often multiple elections that happen at once, and that is a better way to save money. It means everybody can go out and choose who they want to represent them at different levels of government.

“We’ve got so many by-elections going on at the moment, people don’t even realise they’ve got a by-election!

“If you have elections out of sync, which Police and Crime Commissioner ones are, then people don’t take as much notice.”

For her remaining time, Alison said she has a number of key priorities she wants to see through.

She said: “One is making sure that we don’t let this disrupt our day-to-day running of my office and the force.

“I’ve spoken to the Chief Constable [James Vaughan] and we will endeavour to do our utmost and keep our energy going.

“While this is all happening, my team will continue to be the appeals body for complaints.

“We’ll continue to support victim services in the way that we do and we’ll still be a correspondence if people want me to help them in things, they can still reach out to me.

“I will endeavour to make sure we still carry on doing the job.

“But the one thing I really need to sort out is the Prisoners Building Homes program we established in Devon and Cornwall that has now gone national.

“The reason we’ve been unable to really work with that in the way that we’ve wanted is because I don’t have a power of competence like a council does. I can’t set up companies, but it needs to be set up into a company to actually manage it properly.

“Trying to bottom out Prisoners Building Homes, is where I’d be going next, because I think that’s the most innovative thing anybody has ever invented.”

Police and crime commissioners to be scrapped.

What now for our selfie girl? 

Will this announcement free Alison Hernandez up to bid for the (yet to be created) “Mayor of Devon”? – Owl

[As commentator “Indigenous” posted yesterday: “So, the completely pointless commissioners are finally being scrapped, good riddance. Don’t hang around until 2028 like a bad smell Hernandez, RESIGN NOW.”]

Police and crime commissioner (PCC) roles are to be abolished, it has been announced.

news.sky.com 

The 41 elected officials in England and Wales, who get paid between £73,300 and £101,900 a year, will continue until the end of the current term in 2028.

Their powers will then be transferred to elected mayors “wherever possible” and council leaders, who will lead new policing and crime boards.

The transfer to regional mayors will bring other areas in line with London, where the mayor oversees the Metropolitan Police and holds its operational head to account.

At least £100m will be saved by the end of this parliament in 2029 through scrapping the roles – enough to fund about an extra 320 police constables a year, policing minister Sarah Jones said.

“The model has failed to live up to expectations,” she told the House of Commons.

She said PCCs do important work and thanked all those who have held the office, as well as their staff, but said the model “has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables”.

Ms Jones also said less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them last year, and two in five people are unaware they even exist.

She said there are no plans to create mayors in Wales in order to transfer PCC powers to them.

First elected in 2012, PCCs oversee non-operational aspects of policing, such as managing their local policing budgets and holding the chief constable to account.

Introduced by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government, they replaced police authorities.

Although candidates can stand as part of a political party, police and crime commissioners (PCCs) are required to swear an oath of impartiality before taking office.

Former Dorset PCC Martyn Underhill, also a former police officer, told Sky News he welcomed the news and said he stepped down in 2021 after two terms because “I didn’t think it was working”.

He said the mayoral model is a “better version” because they can bring in experts, but said he was concerned for the areas that do not have mayors.

Mr Underhill said he does not support elected people holding policing to account “because it becomes too political” – and said it was “rubbish” that PCCs are able to set budgets, because he was “dictated to by the central government”.

‘Tinkering around the edges’

Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused the government of “tinkering around the edges” as he said they are “failing on crime and policing”.

“It is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic,” he added.

He said his government had already begun transferring PCC roles to mayors, but questioned how that is superior to PCCs and said it “won’t really save any money”.

The Lib Dems’ shadow attorney general Ben Maguire said his party welcomed the announcement and had been calling for PCCs to be scrapped for years, calling it a “failed Tory experiment which cost taxpayers dearly”.

But he said transferring their roles to mayors “is not the answer” as he said it would give “even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability”.

Ms Jones thanked his “robust attack on a policy that his own party introduced as part of the coalition”.

Our selfie girl, Alison Hernandez, was first elected as Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in May 2016.

 What has she ever achieved? – Owl

Vital report says Devon and Cornwall Police ‘requires improvement’

Paul Greaves www.devonlive.com 

It needs to improve how it reviews vetting decisions, manages complaints and monitors the use of its IT systems

A new inspection report says Devon and Cornwall Police ‘requires improvement’ in key areas of integrity. It needs to improve how it reviews vetting decisions, manages complaints and monitors the use of its IT systems, the police inspectorate has said.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) assessed the effectiveness of Devon and Cornwall Police in three main areas as part of its integrity inspection programme.

It has been told that it ‘requires improvement’ in its vetting of police officers and staff, professional standards and counter-corruption arrangements.

Alison Hernandez, Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, said she was ‘disappointed’ but not surprised by the findings, made public on Wednesday, October 29.

HMICFRS found that the force:

• actively looks for evidence of disproportionality in its vetting decisions and is adequately staffed to meet demand;
• should improve how it explores and records information which might question the suitability of an individual during the vetting process. It also needs to implement an effective quality assurance process to review vetting decisions;
• has an established process for sharing some relevant adverse information between departments, to help uphold professional standards;
• needs to improve the way it manages complaints and conduct matters, and its timeliness in relation to handling public complaints;
• proactively looks for corruption-related intelligence as a matter of routine. The counter-corruption unit’s IT monitoring system automatically alerts relevant personnel if it identifies potential misuse; and
• should improve how it monitors the use of its IT systems so it can effectively monitor, audit and investigate potential misuse.

His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Kathryn Stone said: “The work of force vetting units, professional standards departments and counter-corruption units has never been more vital, with increased demand and focus on their activities.

“When police officers or staff are found to be involved in misconduct, it reduces public trust and confidence in the police service. We must make sure that the right people join the police service and those working to keep our communities safe can be trusted to do so.

“We were disappointed to find that the force requires improvement in all areas of our inspection. It needs to implement an effective quality assurance process to review vetting decisions. And it should improve the way it manages complaints and conduct matters, including the time it takes to respond to public complaints.”

The report said it was ‘positive’ to find that Devon and Cornwall Police proactively looks for corruption-related intelligence and had an established process for sharing some relevant adverse information between departments.

The inspector said the force’s progress will be monitored.

Alison Hernandez said: “Although disappointed, I am not surprised at the findings within this report.

“I have previously placed on record my own disappointment with the police’s performance in a number of the areas highlighted by HMICFRS and have already put in place a number of measures to address them.

“These measures include my authorisation of an extra £500,000 in the police’s budget to deal with complaints made by the public, and by putting in place stronger scrutiny and oversight processes.

“This enhanced scrutiny has included me taking a ‘deep-dive’ into the performance of the Professional Standards Department through my new Accountability Board, and the creation of a new Police Conduct Oversight Board, which provides me with oversight of police misconduct cases and public complaints.

“Through this oversight work, it is clear to me that under the leadership of Chief Constable James Vaughan performance has – and continues to – improve in nearly all areas. However, there is clearly still much work to do, and I am grateful to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for the work that they continue to do in ensuring that these matters – critical for public confidence – remain in the spotlight.”

As the deadline for submitting proposals to the government on council reorganisation nears, Labour controlled Plymouth and Exeter have formed an unholy alliance with Tory (minority controlled) Torbay to carve Devon into four unitary authorities. One for each of their urban areas expanded to include room for development, and one for the remaining “countryside”.

This is the most complex reorganisation proposal for Devon so far. 

It should be seen in the light of last week’s announcement that the government has taken the axe to Surrey, splitting it north/south into two unitaries: West and East Surrey. This is the first county split to be announced. As part of the deal, the Treasury (i.e. the taxpayer) will take on much of the debt of Woking, which was effectively declared bankrupt two years ago. 

The relevance is that Surrey and “ceremonial” Devon both have populations of around 1.2 million. 

In this split the three most populous settlements: Woking; Guildford and Walton-on-Thames  all lie in the western half. There is no special unitary treatment for these. 

This reorganisation has the benefit, if that’s the right word, of simplicity. Were Devon to follow this model then the obvious solution to the government’s guidelines would be a similar north/south division into just two unitaries with Plymouth and Torbay absorbed into the western half and Exeter into the eastern half.

Simples, but Owl worries that Plymouth’s and Exeter’s labour leaders are having a disproportionate influence on Labour minsters who have no feel for the countryside. Bad luck Devon with not a single Labour councillor to provide feedback after the last election.

A new plan for Devon to be carved up into four unitary authorities has emerged.

Miles Davis www.bbc.co.uk 

Under the government’s massive shake up of local government, all district and county councils will be abolished so that one authority will run all council services in any one area.

Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter have now revealed they are all working together on a plan to create four unitary authorities – one for each of their urban areas and one for the rest of Devon.

This new plan is directly opposed to schemes put forward by the district councils and by Devon County Council, whose leader described it as an “attempt to cling on to the vestiges of power”.

Currently, most of Devon is governed by a two-tier system where services like housing and recycling are run by eight district councils while issues like highways and social care are run by Devon County Council.

In Plymouth and Torbay, all council services are run by unitary authorities that are already in place – Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council.

The government has indicated it wants any unitary authorities going forward to have a population of about 500,000, external but has said there could be some flexibility around that figure.

Torbay, which has a population of about 140,000, has now said it wants to continue as a unitary authority after local government reorganisation and wants to keep its boundaries as they are.

Plymouth wants to expand its population – currently about 265,000 – by taking over parts of the South Hams.

Exeter City Council currently operates at district council level but wants to expand to take in towns like Exmouth, Dawlish and Crediton and become a unitary authority in the local government reorganisation.

Torbay, which is Conservative-controlled, announced its plan on Friday which was swiftly backed by Plymouth and Exeter, which are both Labour-controlled.

David Thomas, leader of Torbay Council, said in a statement: “By taking a collaborative, evidence-based approach, we can build a model of local government that is more responsive, efficient, and aligned with the way people live their daily lives.”

Plymouth City Council and Exeter City Council issued a joint statement which said urban areas like Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay were “the engines of growth for both urban and rural communities”.

Plymouth’s leader, Tudor Evans, said: “This model gives us the best of both worlds: councils that are big enough to be sustainable, but close enough to stay accountable.”

Phil Bialyk, leader of Exeter City Council, said the plan recognised “the unique characteristics of Devon’s urban and rural landscape and communities”.

Devon County Council previously announced it wanted to see a new One Devon unitary authority which would keep the same boundaries as the county council and retain Plymouth and Torbay as they are.

In response to the plan put forward by Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, the Devon County Council leader, Liberal Democrat Julian Brazil, said: “It’s just a blatant attempt by Labour and the Conservatives to cling on to the vestiges of power in Devon.”

The district councils – excluding Exeter City council – have put forward an idea known as the 4-5-1 plan.

That would involve one unitary authority for West Devon, Teignbridge, South Hams and Torbay, a second authority for North Devon, Torridge, Mid Devon, East Devon and Exeter with Plymouth remaining as a standalone unitary authority.

All plans will need to be submitted to government by 28 November with feedback expected from the government around March 2026.