The LibDems issue a manifesto for the Exeter City elections next week:

‘We want to make the council run by and for you’

Liberal Democrats have pledged to ‘unite and strengthen’ communities across Exeter if they make gains in the city council elections on May 7.

Guy Henderson www.devonlive.com

The party launched its manifesto for the polls at the weekend, saying: “Unlike other parties who sow the seeds of division, Lib Dems seek to unite and strengthen our communities. We want to make the council run by and for you.”

The party is fielding candidates in every one of the 13 seats being contested, and believes it can achieve significant gains.

Its online statement said: “These elections could well see the end of the Labour majority on Exeter City Council. The Liberal Democrats stand to offer hope, stability and experience of power, over the chaos entailed by other parties.”

Eight of Labour’s current 22 council seats are up for grabs at the polls, and one leading pundit said last week that it could struggle to hold on to its overall hold on the council.

The Lib Dems currently have four councillors, one of whom is having to stand for re-election.

The manifesto contains a number of pledges, including one on housing which says: “Following the lead of Lib Dem-led Teignbridge District Council, Exeter Lib Dems would build more affordable and environmentally-friendly council homes, prioritising brownfield sites. We would also seek to protect and improve our current housing stock and ensure the council works closely with other social housing providers.”

The manifesto also contains pledges on the environment, recycling, council tax and safer streets, on which it says: “No one should have to think twice about walking on our streets, yet this is the reality and unfortunately experienced by many on a daily basis.

“A joined-up approach is required across all levels of government.”

Each of the city’s 13 wards will return one councillor after the May 7 polls, with the exception of Heavitree, which will return two. This is as a result of one of its Green councillors standing down separately from the election process.

The full list of candidates standing in the 13 wards is:

Alphington – FINDLAY Lucy Jane, Labour and Co-operative Party; LUSCOMBE Kayleigh Michelle Suzanne, The Conservative Party Candidate; PALMER Jayden Simon, Reform UK; PICKIN JJ, Liberal Democrat; WOTTON Greg, Green Party Candidate

Duryard and St. James – HAWKE Jonathan Michael, Labour Party; HODGE David John, Reform UK; ISHAKOGLU Mithat, Green Party Candidate; MITCHELL Kevin John, Liberal Democrat; STANWELL-WISE Sebastian, The Conservative Party Candidate

Exwick – GILLETT Lee Matthew, Reform UK; HORNER Jamie Liam, Liberal Democrat; KNOTT Paul Graeme, Labour and Co-operative Party; LEGESSE Kalkidan, Green Party Candidate; LUSCOMBE David, The Conservative Party Candidate

Heavitree (two councillors to be elected) – BEER Tina Rose, Reform UK; BROCK Philip John, Liberal Democrat; MUTTON Dave, Labour Party; NEW Katherine Helen Judy, The Conservative Party Candidate; NEWBERY Jordan, Independent; NORRIS Lisa Jane, Reform UK; SMITH Stella, Green Party Candidate; SUTTON Rachel Helen, Labour Party; TERRY Helen, Green Party Candidate; TRUDGEON Colin John, The Conservative Party Candidate; WILLIAMS Nigel David, Liberal Democrat.

Mincinglake and Whipton – AYRES Martin, Green Party Candidate; CASEMORE Steve, Labour and Co-operative Party; PAYNE Anthony John, Reform UK; PAYNE Michael Geoffrey, Liberal Democrat; THOMPSON David John, The Conservative Party Candidate.

Newtown and St. Leonard`s – CHELVANAYAGAM Bernadette, Green Party Candidate; PYE Jonny, Liberal Democrat; SMITH Ruth, The Conservative Party Candidate; VIZARD Matthew James, Labour Party; WESTLAKE Jo, Reform UK.

Pennsylvania – ACZEL Will, Liberal Democrat; BAKER Gill, Green Party Candidate; BATTERSHILL Michael Stephen, Reform UK; BLACK Paula Joan, Labour and Co-operative Party; HANNAFORD Rob, The Conservative Party Candidate; HATCHER Myles Jefferson, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition.

Pinhoe – ALLEN Mark, Green Party Candidate; BALDWIN Ian Anthony, The Conservative Party Candidate; CAMPION Christine Anne, Liberal Democrats; MESSER Ashton Michael, Reform UK; WOOD Duncan, Labour and Co-operative Party.

Priory – ASVACHIN Marina Yvette, Labour Party; NEWBY Rob, The Conservative Party Candidate; THOMAS Philip Alexander, Liberal Democrat; VICKERS Jack David, Green Party Candidate; WILLIAMS Nicholas, Reform UK.

St. David`s – AL-SAKET Yasmine, The Conservative Party Candidate; CLOW Susan, Reform UK; CURNOCK Charles Anthony, Liberal Democrat; LELLIOTT Rose Alexandra, Labour and Co-operative Party; RAPPERT Brian, Green Party Candidate.

St. Loye`s – COLLACOTT Joan Marilyn, The Conservative Party Candidate; JHAVERI Laila, Labour Party; OWEN Christopher John Lambert, Reform UK; RICHARDS Paul Stephen, Liberal Democrats; WHIPPLE Chloe, Green Party Candidate

St. Thomas – COCKBURN Robert-James Stuart, Reform UK; NEWCOMBE Vanessa, Liberal Democrat; REED Jack, Green Party Candidate; STONE Caroline Elizabeth, The Conservative Party Candidate; WRIGHT Laura Charis Adelaide, Labour and Co-operative Party.

Topsham – COOKSON James Elie, Labour Party; DAVIES Sue, Reform UK; GAINSFORD Tim, Liberal Democrats; KEEN Ann Barbara, Green Party Candidate; THOMPSON Cynthia, The Conservative Party Candidate.

A government consultation on the idea of a visitor levy as a new mayoral power ended in February.

Devon County Council leader Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge), supports the notion of a tourist tax, but only under certain parameters.

Not surprisingly the hospitality sector is opposed (see below). However, despite the large ££££ being quoted, the jobs supported are low paid and seasonal; and little of the money flows into the rural economy. – Owl

Devon’s hospitality sector against possible tourist tax

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

Hospitality businesses are “absolutely against” the notion of a tax on holidays being imposed with fears that the increased cost could deal a blow to the county’ s economy.

The exact parameters of a tourist tax have not been confirmed, but the topic has been increasingly discussed in recent weeks, and firms who work in the hospitality industry in Devon have expressed vociferous opposition to it.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has talked predominantly about the power to impose a tourist levy for regional mayors, and while Devon does not have a mayor, it does have a combined county authority, some of whose powers and responsibilities partly echo a mayoralty.

Plus, the direction of intended travel by Westminster is for Devon to have a mayor.

Jason Garside, the boss behind the firm that owns a trio of Torquay hotels, including the Victoria and Carlton hotels, barely takes a beat when asked his thoughts about the prospect of a visitor levy.

“I am absolutely against a tourist tax,” he said.

“I appreciate local authorities may be under-funded but our industry is already highly taxed. At a time when people have less money in their pockets due to the cost of living, anything that would add to our inflation would be unwelcome right now because we are living in a time of such uncertainty.”

Mr Garside acknowledged that the principle of the tourism sector contributing to the local economy was “absolutely key to a thriving seaside town”.

“But I would argue our £7 million pay roll already does that, with our staff spending money in the local area and with businesses in our local supply chains,” he added.

“While the pressures are immense of running a hospitality business, anything that adds to that would be unwelcome.”

The issue has been discussed by the English Riviera Business Improvement District, or BID, which Mr Garside sits on, and he said “lots of members are opposed to it for similar reasons”.

Polly Cochrane, a director at Sweetcombe Cottage Holidays, based in Sidmouth, feared a potential lack of understanding by hospitality and tourism businesses over the issue, which could make lobbying against it or shaping its implementation more difficult.

“It needs to be thought through properly, and if it isn’t done correctly and the money isn’t ringfenced, I don’t think that’s fair,” she said.

Ms Cochrane feared that based on the mooted £2 per person, per night rate, that could add £100 to a fairly common booking.

“If that’s being added to every holiday, that’s a huge uplift for us,” she said. “To add it on to every booking would be a lot and what it could mean is that people who do come don’t want to eat out because of accommodation costs, and so they might not spend in local restaurants and shops.”

She thought such a tax would have a “detrimental effect” on businesses like hers, which she described as a longstanding family business.

“We’re not people trying to get rich quick,” she said. “We’re a longstanding family business and we’re working with customers that my mum and grandmother took on and our guests have been coming here for years.”

In efforts to defend the prospect of a tourist tax, some proponents point out that Brits pay such levies when they visit some European nations.

But Ms Cochrane noted that the Professional Association of Self-Caterers (PASC), whose work she supports, routinely pointed out that VAT in the UK is more than the equivalent sales tax and a tourist tax put together in many nations on the continent.

In fact, only the Netherlands and Denmark have higher rates of VAT than the UK, PASC analysis suggests.

Elsewhere in Devon, there is significant unease about the prospect of extra burdens on already challenged hospitality businesses.

“I feel for each and every one of the South Ham’s business owners, who work tirelessly each year to create a positive visitor experience,” said Sam Dennis, the chair of South Hams Chamber.

“In the past 12 months, they have been hit with government-imposed increases in national insurance and business rates, council-imposed increases in parking fees, and now the possible introduction of a tourist tax.

“People will simply stop coming and will choose to spend their hard-earned money elsewhere. Businesses will close, jobs will be lost, and our fragile rural, coastal, economy will fall apart.”

Ms Dennis added that politicians had to “stop taking our visitor economy for granted” and to try and support the often small, family-run businesses that “ underpin our seaside towns and rural communities”.

Devon County Council leader Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge), supports the notion of a tourist tax, but only under certain parameters.

“I’d support it as long as the proceeds were reinvested in tourism,” he said.

“And I mean tourism in the broadest sense, such as investing in public toilets and extra rubbish collections, the things that get much heavier usage in the tourist season.

“When you go abroad, they’re out every evening making it look lovely, and that’s what we have got to invest in, but if the government simply wants it to boost their coffers, then I’d be opposed to it.”

He also stated that he would be opposed to any proceeds being used to fund mayors, or so-called strategic authorities.

“I would go to the barricades on that,” he said. “Mayors might not reinvest it in tourism, and that wouldn’t be good.”

One of the most vocal MPs on the issue has arguably been the shadow chancellor, Conservative member for Central Devon, Mel Stride.

He has taken to Facebook to urge Rachel Reeves to “axe the tax” and to take her “hands off our holidays”.

The government paper on the issue noted tourism directly accounted for an estimated £58 billion (2.4 per cent) of the UK’s economic output in 2023, contributing to a total output of £127 billion (5.2 per cent) across related industries.

Tourism was estimated to directly account for 1.2 million UK jobs in 2023 (3.9 per cent of all workers), and 3.9 million jobs across all tourism-related activities (12.7 per cent of all workers).

A government consultation on the idea of a visitor levy as a new mayoral power ended in February, and the government said it is currently analysing the feedback on how it should be implemented, which types of property should be included and excluded, and how revenue could be collected.

Devon’s tourism businesses will be hoping whatever is decided doesn’t happen in the county.

District planners have agreed the demolition of one of the last intact heritage Victorian villas in the conservation area of Budleigh Salterton, to make way for maisonettes.

Local Democracy Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk

A second bid to knock down a town house in an East Devon conservation area so it can be redeveloped has been approved, writes local democracy reporter Bradley Gerrard.

Plans submitted by Hugh McCormick to turn a house on Marine Parade, in Budleigh Salterton, into four maisonettes continued to face objections even though changes had been made to the proposal since it was previously refused.

A drawing of the proposed property (second from left) set to replace the existing one on Marine Parade in Budleigh Salterton. Image: 31/44 Architects.

In spite of concerns about the loss of a property whose character, it was claimed by some, fitted in with the conservation area, and fears that the proposed parking area wasn’t generous enough, East Devon District Council’s planning committee voted in favour of the scheme.

However, because the council had not made a decision on the plans within the required eight weeks, the applicant had already lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination.

That means East Devon’s approval will be sent to the Inspectorate, which will make the final decision on the scheme.

Ward member Councillor Charlotte Fitzgerald (Liberal Democrat, Budleigh & Raleigh) said she was “most particularly concerned with the access to parking”.

Cllr Fitzgerald said she had concerns about whether the size of the proposed parking garage would fit four modern cars in, and raised worries that Devon County Council’s highways department had seemingly changed its mind on the scheme, now supporting it.

“I can’t see why they’ve changed their view,” she said. “I’m very worried about accepting the parking at face value, and if the committee can’t take a satisfactory view, then perhaps a site visit would be in order.”

However, officers stated that parking spaces had to meet national standards, and noted that the highways department now believed there was enough space provided at the front of the property for cars to be able to turn around and therefore to exit the property by driving forwards.

Previously, the highways team had been concerned about drivers having to reverse out onto Marine Parade, something it objected to.

Furthermore, a proposed dormer window was removed from the plans, with a pair of gables instead, and rear balconies were also removed from initial plans. Windows facing east now serve a bathroom and stairwell, meaning they are onto habitable rooms, reducing the potential for overlooking into the neighbouring property.

And concerns regarding poor internal light to the rear ground floor bedrooms have been overcome by terracing the rear garden and lowering a retaining wall.

Councillor Steve Hunt (Liberal Democrat, Seaton) mourned the “loss of a beautiful villa” and that even though the council’s conservation officer had no objection to the scheme, “I’m not happy as I don’t see what is being maintained in terms of character” in the redevelopment proposal.

“Having windows in the same shape and some render doesn’t make it look Victorian, and that’s a harm to the conservation area, and it’s only providing an extra three dwellings which won’t make a difference in the context of our local plan,” he said.

Two residents also spoke against the plans, reiterating concerns linked to the conservation area.

Chris Boorman said he lived in a neighbouring property and urged the committee to refuse the plans because they “fail to address heritage issues, the conservation area impact, neighbour amenity, land stability and highway safety”.

“With great humility and respect, I’m concerned the committee report underestimates the issues,” he said.

“This is a repeat of the previous dismissed application and the committee says it is a fresh proposal but the concerns are largely unaddressed. This would see the demolition of one of the last intact heritage Victorian villas in the conservation area, apparently merely for profit.”

Fellow resident Robert Wiltshire said that “wise heads prevailed” when the previous application was refused, and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

“I have lived in a neighbouring property for 20 years and during an extensive retrofitting I have found no evidence of any [harmful]materials,” he said.

Mr Wiltshire claimed that suggestions of high levels of asbestos in the properties on the street had “no evidence” backing them up, and that other houses there had been subdivided, meaning that could be appropriate for this property.

But Gavin Spiller, the agent from Avalon Planning and Heritage, said the new application “addresses the concerns of the local community” and that the design had been amended through this new proposal to “take account of the property location in a conservation area and National Landscape”.

“It better assimilates with the surroundings,” he said. “It is a modern interpretation of a historic character with improved sustainability credentials to last for decades,” he said.

“The current property has asbestos, and the front and east is subsiding, and the appearance has a negative impact on the street. Furthermore, none of the technical consultees have raised any objections.”

Councillor Ian Barlow (Independent, Sidmouth Town) said he “completely sympathises” with it “not being good for Budleigh”, but that he could not see a reason backed by planning policy to refuse it.

His motion to approve the plan was supported by a majority of the planning committee. That means the Planning Inspectorate will now make a decision on the plan, noting East Devon’s positive stance on it.

Richard Foord MP told “The Telegraph” he would “raise” a request to ask Sir Philip Barton to give evidence to the foreign affairs committee.

Sir Philip was permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, but mysteriously left two weeks after Lord Mandelson was appointed.

Next up to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee will be Cat Little – the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary at 9.30 today, Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, will give evidence next Tuesday, April 28.

Olly Robbins’ predecessor to be asked if he was forced out over Mandelson

Nick Gutteridge www.telegraph.co.uk

Sir Philip Barton was permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, but mysteriously left two weeks after peer was appointed

Sir Olly Robbins’s predecessor is set to be called before MPs amid speculation that he was forced out of his job over the Lord Mandelson scandal.

Sir Philip Barton, a former Foreign Office chief, is expected to be asked whether he was pressured to leave his post because he opposed the peer’s appointment as ambassador to the US.

He will be invited to give evidence to the foreign affairs committee about the events in the immediate aftermath of the decision to hire Lord Mandelson.

Sir Philip was the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office – the department’s most senior civil servant – at the time the peer was appointed.

He ended his term early under mysterious circumstances in January last year, a fortnight after Lord Mandelson was confirmed as the incoming ambassador to the US.

That meant the former mandarin oversaw the first part of the hiring process, including the start of the vetting, before Sir Olly succeeded him in the post.

Richard Foord, a Liberal Democrat MP on the foreign affairs committee, told The Telegraph he would “raise” a request to ask Sir Philip to give evidence.

“I think it would be worth us inviting Sir Philip to appear again in relation to the appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to the US,” he told The Telegraph.

It is understood that parliamentary clerks are already looking at possible dates on which Sir Philip could be invited to appear.

Another member of the committee said they would want to ask Sir Philip whether his opposition to the appointment had caused his early departure.

“We were told Philip Barton pushed very hard that the appointment should not be made until after the vetting process had been completed, and was essentially overruled,” they said. “We’d want to hear from him what happened.”

The Mandelson files papers, released to Parliament last month, revealed that Sir Philip had told No 10 he had “reservations” about appointing Lord Mandelson.

On Tuesday, Sir Olly told the foreign affairs committee that his predecessor had clashed with the Cabinet Office over whether the peer needed to be vetted.

Downing Street was said to view the security checks as unnecessary, but Sir Philip “had to be very firm in person” that they were non-negotiable, he said.

Sir Olly also told the MPs that his predecessor had been “nervous” about hiring a non-diplomat such as Lord Mandelson for the role.

“It is possible he was worried about exactly the same reputational risks that were detailed for the Prime Minister at the time that he made the appointment,” he said.

His remarks have raised questions over whether Sir Philip was effectively forced out of his job because he opposed the decision to hire the peer.

Rumours began to circulate in the summer of 2024 that Lord Mandelson was being lined up if Donald Trump won the US presidential election that November.

News that Sir Philip was set to stand down as Foreign Office chief then broke on Nov 4, the day before Mr Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris.

Sir Keir was presented with a due diligence report on Lord Mandelson, who was by then the “lead candidate” for the role, on Dec 11. The Prime Minister formally took the decision to appoint him on Dec 18, with the appointment announced two days later.

Lord Mandelson’s vetting began on Dec 23, and Sir Philip formally left his post just over two weeks later, on Jan 8, when Sir Olly took up the reins.

Asked why Sir Philip had left his post early, Sir Olly told MPs that he did not know, but suggested that ministers may have felt it was “time for a change”.

The Telegraph has been told that other witnesses are being lined up to be invited to appear before the committee, presenting a further danger for Sir Keir.

They include Morgan McSweeney, No 10’s former chief of staff, who pushed hard for Lord Mandelson’s appointment, and Lord Case, the former cabinet secretary whose advice that the peer be vetted before he was hired was ignored by the Prime Minister.

Dame Emily Thornberry, the committee’s chairman, said: “If we invite people to give evidence to the FAC, we will ask them directly and not tell the media first.”

It was separately announced that Cat Little, the top civil servant at the Cabinet Office, is set to give evidence to the committee on Thursday.

Ms Little was one of two officials, alongside Antonia Romeo, the Cabinet Secretary, to be alerted in early March that Lord Mandelson had failed his vetting.

The pair did not disclose the information to Sir Keir for a fortnight, because they were first seeking legal advice on whether they could tell him.

Many people are sick to the back teeth of the Peter Mandelson saga.

I can understand why- there is an unending stream of detail about who wrote what to whom, and when.

That’s as nothing compared with the speculation about what was said, for which there is no audit trail.

Yet I do understand why the Westminster political-media bubble has gone into a feeding frenzy and is feasting upon itself.

This is about transparency, versus what some might call the “deep state”.

The Prime Minister decided- despite Mandelson’s well-documented links with Epstein and in China – that Mandelson should become the UK’s ambassador to Donald Trump’s United States.

Mandelson’s appointment was leaked to the media months before it was to take place, which bounced No 10 Downing Street into confirming it.

By the time UK Security Vetting advised the Foreign Office against the appointment, it was too late; Mandelson was already weeks into the job.

Keir Starmer, or at least his former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, wanted Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

The most senior Foreign Office official lost his job last week – and the FCDO was condemned – for having withheld information that would not have been welcome in No 10.

This is all a bit close to home for people who follow politics in our area.

We remember the saga of Boris Johnson being forced to apologise to the House of Commons for lying repeatedly over social gatherings that took place in No 10, during lockdown.

Partygate had an added cutting edge to it – we had obeyed the rules, while our political masters had not.

Boris Johnson resigned in July 2022.

Johnson was forced out just two weeks after the Tiverton & Honiton by-election.

Johnson had faced a massive revolt from his own backbench MPs, some of whom were disgusted with his behaviour, but all of whom could see what might happen to their own political fortunes at the next General Election, when they looked at what had happened in mid- and East Devon.

This government has been trying to tighten up the rules on honesty in the public sector.

Last year, a new legal Duty of Candour, known as the Hillsborough Law, was introduced to Parliament, following the outrageous cover-up by South Yorkshire Police at that terrible football disaster at Hillsborough Stadium.

If the Public Office (Accountability) Bill becomes law, officials would be legally obliged to always act with honesty and integrity -with criminal sanctions for egregious breaches.

Ironically, the Keir Starmer who has championed this ‘duty of candour’ legislation has lacked curiosity.

He has lacked curiosity about the candour of some of those officials, advisors, and one ambassador, with whom he worked most closely.

www.sidmouthherald.co.uk

Richard Foord’s killer question

On a question concerning how much pressure No 10 was putting on the FCO to approve Peter Mandleson, Richard Foord MP asks a killer question. 

21 April, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Oral evidence from Sir Oliver Robbins KCMG CB

(Former Permanent Under-Secretary at Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office)

Extracts from the transcript:

Q610   Richard Foord: Thank you very much, Sir Olly, for appearing before us. You have explained that a lot of these decisions were made before you were appointed as permanent under-secretary. I am curious to know: why did Sir Philip Barton’s tenure as permanent under-secretary conclude eight months before it otherwise would have?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know for sure. Philip and I have of course talked a lot, especially in that handover week, and I remain in touch with him and am proud to call him a friend. It is not completely unnatural that a new Government and a new Foreign Secretary respect and accept the permanent under-secretary that they have in post when they arrive, but after a while—I don’t know whether this was more Mr Lammy or Sir Philip—having eased the new Government in sensibly and supported them in their early months, one side or the other suggests it is time for a change. If you want to know more about that, I think you will probably have to ask Mr Lammy or Sir Philip………..

……Q612   Richard Foord: In that time when you were the designate permanent under-secretary, what conversations did you have with advisers or officials that might have led you to believe that Lord Mandelson needed to take up this role regardless of the outcome of developed vetting?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I can say with certainty that it was never put to me that way. As I hope I have said clearly to the Committee, I certainly did arrive to an atmosphere where this was not just, “Please get this done quickly,” but, “And get it done.” That was, I think, a pretty unmistakeable feeling. As I hope I have also been clear to the Committee, I don’t think I allowed that to cloud my judgment; certainly, the security team did not.

Q613   Richard Foord: I want to look at a couple of pieces of evidence, one of which was released in the tranche of documents—volume 1 of the return to the Humble Address. This is a December 2024 email from the No. 10 private secretary for foreign affairs, Ms Terry. She wrote on 20 December 2024 to Lord Mandelson: “I understand you haven’t received the attached forms yet which Morgan mentioned to you this morning…we are here to help as needed.” Why would it be necessary for the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to have a conversation with an ambassador who was about to take post about joining forms?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t privy to those conversations—sorry. Having got that out of the way, to try to be more helpful, the Chair said in her opening questions that Mr McSweeney and Mandelson were close; I therefore suspect that Morgan was in touch with him, congratulating him on his appointment and then telling him he would have some paperwork to do.

Q614   Chair: It was more than paperwork; it was conflict of interest forms.

Sir Oliver Robbins: I agree. Of course, when I arrived in post, this was a part of the process I then had to oversee. It was an important and occasionally difficult part of the process, but all I am trying to explain is that I suspect that when a friend talks to an appointee that they are congratulating, it is, “The officials will be in touch with some stuff you have to do.”

Q615   Richard Foord: Going back to the point when Sir Philip was still permanent under-secretary, it is reported by Sam Coates that Morgan McSweeney, the chief of staff, rang Sir Philip and said in terms stronger than those that I can use before the watershed—

Chair: I think you should.

Richard Foord: Well, I will just say that it was, “Just approve it,” with a term stronger than that.

Chair: “Just fucking approve it.”

Richard Foord: Does that accord with your impression when you took over from Sir Philip?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I recall Philip saying to me—certainly, Philip’s handover to me has contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about this DV process, which I hope I have tried already to be honest with the Committee about. I don’t remember Philip using those words. Also, I am proud to say Philip is probably not the sort of person who would report them verbatim.

Q616   Chair: Can I ask you, because it came up in the evidence you gave in answer to Edward, about Matthew Doyle? We probably should ask you who at No. 10 suggested that Matthew Doyle be given the post as head of mission somewhere.

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know what the origin of the suggestion was and I don’t know exactly who was behind it or how serious it was. It was serious enough for the No. 10 private office to ring up the head of the diplomatic service and ask for a forward look of available head of mission jobs. That is the point at which I thought I needed to lay down some markers.

(No overall control)

Labour has a huge majority on Plymouth City Council and will still be in charge whatever happens on 7 May.

By contrast, the party’s longstanding control of Exeter City Council is now vulnerable.

With Labour holding 22 of the total 39 seats, a few losses would see the council slip into no overall control. 

Thirteen seats are up for election in Exeter. Eight of the 13 seats are currently held by Labour councillors, five of them ‘portfolio holders’ at the heart of the council. They also include the ward of deputy leader Laura Wright (St Thomas).

Two of the seats are currently held by Green councillors and one each by the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Reform UK.

South West local elections 2026: All you need to know

Martyn Oates www.bbc.co.uk

You need to look very carefully at the map to find somewhere in south-west England with an election this May.

This is the biggest set of elections since Labour swept to power in Westminster in the 2024 general election.

Voters will have their say on the make-up of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and 5,000 council seats across the country.

Both councils in the South West with elections are currently controlled by Labour, but the two administrations are in very different positions going into this election.

Labour has a huge majority on Plymouth City Council and will still be in charge whatever happens on 7 May.

By contrast, the party’s longstanding control of Exeter City Council is now vulnerable.

With Labour holding 22 of the total 39 seats, a few losses would see the council slip into no overall control.

The dramatic upheaval in last year’s Devon County Council elections has given Labour much food for thought.

All seven of its county seats in Exeter were lost – four to Reform UK and three to the Green Party.

The Greens have also been making inroads in city council elections for some time and currently hold six seats.

Reform won a seat in a by-election last year and have another councillor who was formerly a Conservative.

The Conservatives themselves have just two seats while the Liberal Democrats hold four.

While there is no prospect of regime change in Plymouth, the parties’ fortunes will be keenly watched.

The Conservatives – Labour’s traditional rivals in Plymouth – are now reduced to seven seats.

There are also five Independents and two Greens.

Reform and the Lib Dems have one councillor each – although both were originally elected for other parties.

Indeed, while the Lib Dems dominate much of the region, it is decades since one was elected to Plymouth City Council.

What does the future hold?

These elections almost certainly mark the end of an era.

The government is redrawing the local government map of Devon to replace the county and district councils with new unitary authorities.

The future shape of the county’s local government is due to be announced in the summer with the first elections to the new authorities expected next year.

Exeter City Council is a district council so is bound to disappear.

As an existing unitary authority Plymouth could conceivably continue with its present boundaries – or it may be subsumed into something new and bigger.

Public loos across East Devon could be handed over by the district council to town and village ownership in a bid to ‘protect’ the assets, amid the government shake-up of how the county is run.

Local Democracy Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk

Smaller councils could be asked to take over the running of some of a Devon district’s “most valued community assets”, writes local democracy reporter Bradley Gerrard.

Plans being discussed by East Devon District Council could see the ownership of public toilets passed to parish and town councils.

The rationale for this decision comes in the context of an expected huge overhaul of the way councils in Devon work.

Vast changes – known as local government reorganisation (LGR) – will see fewer but much larger councils governing the county, and some existing local authorities fear potential casualties because of that move.

Concerns include the prospect of larger councils struggling to deal with smaller issues, such as public toilets, something potentially exacerbated by the fact decisionmakers in the new unitary councils will have larger areas to cover and more issues to deal with.

East Devon has been talking for months about possible transfers of assets to the likes of town and parish councils in a bid, it says, to protect them and also alleviate potential budgetary challenges in the medium-term.

The district council owns and operates 19 public toilet blocks across the district, according to the latest information on its website, which lists eight as already closed and five already managed by parish and town councils.

“It became increasingly evident that public toilets would play a large involvement, after all these are some of the most valued community assets in our towns owned by EDDC, and when looking at LGR, are some of those assets most at risk,” a report prepared for East Devon’s overview committee states.

“We also know from those discussions that there’s a strong appetite to take on, if that helps protect those assets.”

The full range of options are being kept confidential for now, and will be discussed in a part of the meeting known as Part B, when the council can invoke legislation to exclude the press and public where it deems information either confidential or commercially sensitive.

However, the summary document suggested the committee support the recommendations of ‘Option 3’ – namely “that public toilets be transferred to town and parish councils in current condition and with a dowry reflecting [the]appropriate share of [the]remaining approved capital budget”.

Under ‘financial implications’, East Devon would need to spend £1.7 million on its programme of works related to the toilets it owns, hence why it may be considering a transfer but with some monetary assistance in the form of the so-called ‘dowry’.