“Labour didn’t deal with tax avoidance for 13 years in government! We have introduced new avoidance laws just this month” Nadhim Zahawi April 2015.

This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. – Rishi Sunak

Michael Savage www.theguardian.com 

Nadhim Zahawi was battling to save his political career on Saturday night after he finally admitted reaching a tax settlement with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) following an “error” over a controversial multimillion-pound shareholding in the polling company YouGov.

In a carefully worded statement, Zahawi appeared to confirm that HMRC had carried out an investigation into his financial affairs while he was serving as chancellor last summer. Zahawi, now the Tory party chairman, said that the tax authority had concluded that he had made a “careless but not deliberate” error.

“So that I could focus on my life as a public servant, I chose to settle the matter and pay what they said was due, which was the right thing to do,” he stated. Tax experts said the statement was a tacit acknowledgment that Zahawi had paid a penalty.

The admission raises questions for Rishi Sunak over what he knew about the settlement and when. It comes with the prime minister already under pressure after being fined for not wearing a seatbelt, with MPs also unhappy over his rejection of tax cuts and the government’s allocation of levelling up funds. In an attempt to protect Sunak, Zahawi added: “When I was appointed by the prime minister, all my tax affairs were up to date.”

Zahawi’s tax affairs were thrown into the spotlight last summer when he was appointed chancellor by Boris Johnson, the day before Johnson was forced to resign. The Observer reported that civil servants in the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team had alerted Johnson to an HMRC “flag” over Zahawi before his appointment, but it had been ignored.

Zahawi faced scrutiny on a tranche of shares in YouGov, the polling company he co-founded, which were held by a Gibraltar company, Balshore Investments, and sold for about £27m between 2006 and 2018. It was estimated by the thinktank Tax Policy Associates he may have avoided £3.7m capital gains tax on the sale of these shares.

Saturday’s statement immediately set off new demands for Britain’s most senior civil servant and parliament’s standards commissioner to launch separate investigations into the affair, after questions over whether Zahawi has made the correct declarations to officials and parliament concerning his financial interests.

Zahawi has still not disclosed the size of the HMRC settlement or confirmed he paid a penalty. It follows a Guardian report that he paid about £5m in relation to the sale of shares in YouGov.

Unlike his YouGov co-founder, Stephan Shakespeare, Zahawi took no shares in YouGov. However, a 42.5% shareholding was held by Balshore Investments, an offshore trust controlled by Zahawi’s parents. As YouGov grew in value, Balshore sold all the shares by 2018.

Zahawi said his father took shares “in exchange for some capital and his invaluable guidance”. He added that while HMRC agreed that his father was entitled to shares, it “disagreed about the exact allocation. They concluded that this was a ‘careless and not deliberate’ error.”

Zahawi said HMRC had agreed he had never set up an offshore structure, including Balshore Investments, and that “I am not the beneficiary of Balshore Investments”. When asked on Saturday night, his team would not comment on whether he had ever benefited from Balshore Investments in the past.

Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer and founder of Tax Policy Associates, said: “When I first reported this, he denied it, threatened to sue me and said throughout his tax affairs were in order. It is a disgrace.”

[Dan Neidle writes an extensive investigative article in Today’s Sunday Times and postulates a most likely scenario and the key considerations it raises. Including: Ministers shouldn’t dodge questions about their tax affairs — and they certainly shouldn’t set lawyers on the people raising the questions.]

Opposition parties are now demanding the publication of all of Zahawi’s correspondence with HMRC. They are also calling for independent investigations into whether Zahawi made the necessary declarations to officials and parliament.

Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, is facing calls to oversee an investigation into whether Zahawi should have declared any links relating to YouGov or Balshore under the ministerial code. The Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader, Daisy Cooper, has written to Case, calling for his intervention.

Cooper said: “Zahawi and his Conservative cabinet colleagues are arrogantly trying to brush this under the carpet. There are facts that still need to be established so there must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this. The British public has lost all faith in Conservative ministers to tell the truth after years of scandal.”

Meanwhile, Labour has also written to Daniel Greenberg, the new parliamentary commissioner for standards, asking whether Zahawi should have declared Balshore Investments in the public register of members’ interests.

Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said Zahawi’s new remarks raised more questions. “This carefully worded statement blows a hole in Nadhim Zahawi’s previous accounts of this murky affair,” she said. “He must now publish all correspondence with HMRC so we can get the full picture. In the middle of the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation, the public will rightly be astonished that anyone could claim that failing to pay millions of pounds worth of tax is a simple matter of ‘carelessness’.”

She added: “Nadhim Zahawi still needs to explain when he became aware of the investigation, and if he was chancellor and in charge of our tax system at the time.”

Several senior ministers have defended Zahawi, including the prime minister. At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Sunak said Zahawi had “already addressed this matter in full and there’s nothing more that I can add”.

Labour is calling for an investigation after claims that the BBC chair helped Boris Johnson arrange a guarantee on a loan of up to £800,000 weeks before he was recommended for the job by the then prime minister.

www.theguardian.com 

The party has written to the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Daniel Greenberg, after a report in the Sunday Times that Tory donor Richard Sharp was involved in talks about financing Johnson when he found himself in financial difficulty in late 2020.

Sharp introduced multimillionaire Canadian businessman Sam Blyth, who had proposed to act as the then PM’s guarantor for a credit facility, to the cabinet secretary, according to the newspaper.

The Sunday Times said Johnson, Sharp and Blyth then had dinner at Chequers before the loan was completed, though they denied the PM’s finances were discussed.

Sharp, a former Goldman Sachs banker, was announced as the government’s choice for the BBC role in January 2021.

A spokesperson for Johnson dismissed the report as “rubbish” and insisted his financial arrangements “have been properly declared”.

“Richard Sharp has never given any financial advice to Boris Johnson, nor has Mr Johnson sought any financial advice from him,” the spokesperson said.

Of Johnson’s private dinner with Sharp, an old friend, and Blyth, who is a distant relative, the spokesperson said: “So what? Big deal.”

Sharp told the Sunday Times: “There is not a conflict when I simply connected, at his request, Mr Blyth with the cabinet secretary and had no further involvement whatsoever.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC plays no role in the recruitment of the chair and any questions are a matter for the government.”

In the letter to Greenberg, the Labour party chair, Anneliese Dodds, called for an “urgent investigation” as she cited the MPs’ code of conduct that “holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”.

She told the standards commissioner she was concerned that Johnson “may have breached this section by asking for an individual to facilitate a guarantee on a loan whom he would later appoint to a senior public role”.

“The lack of transparency around it, like that of the issue raised around Mr Blyth, may give the impression that this was a quid pro quo arrangement,” she added.

It comes after Labour demanded an inquiry earlier this week into reports that Mr Johnson used Blyth, reportedly worth $50m (£40m), to act as a guarantor for an £800,000 credit facility.

Dodds raised concerns that neither alleged arrangement was properly declared.

She said: “The financial affairs of this disgraced former prime minister just keep getting murkier, dragging the Conservative party deeper into yet another quagmire of sleaze.

“Serious questions need to be asked of Johnson: why has this money never been declared, and what exactly did he promise these very generous friends in return for such lavish loans?”

The developer who wants to build 23 homes on the outskirts of West Hill is hoping to allay the concerns of the parish council and other local residents. 

Convinced? – Owl

Philippa Davies www.sidmouthherald.co.uk

Morrish Homes has applied for outline planning permission for a site off Oak Road – but the parish council is strongly opposing the scheme, and 96 objections have been submitted to East Devon District Council’s website. 

The concerns include the safety aspects of extra traffic using Higher Broad Oak Road, a narrow country lane, to reach West Hill, and Oak Road, also a narrow, tree-lined lane. Residents are also concerned about the potential loss of mature trees, and said the village school, doctor and dentist would be unable to cope with the extra demand. Many objectors feel that the site is too far from the village amenities, with some questioning the distances stated in the planning application.  

In response Morrish Homes has said: “There is a pressing need for more homes in East Devon and housing delivery in the district is falling short. The land at Oak Road is a suitable site for a well-screened, relatively low-density and beautifully designed development. Current planning policy indicates that the site is sufficiently close to services and amenities along a route that is already regularly walked and cycled. As we have demonstrated in our submitted surveys and reports to East Devon District Council alongside our planning application, traffic can be safely accommodated on the local road network.” 

The company said the walking distances to local amenities include 1.3km to a convenience store, 1.4km to the post office, 1.7km to West Hill Primary School and 2km to St Michael’s Church. It has offered to make ‘appropriate financial contributions’ to the local authority to ensure that public services such as education will be able to accommodate the new residents.  

On environmental issues, Morrish Homes said: “Independent ecologists have confirmed that any potential impacts on protected wildlife species can be successfully mitigated. The retention of native trees and hedges, extra planting and open space provision will support biodiversity and screen the development, maintaining the character of West Hill as a ‘woodland village’. We want to stress that no trees will be felled.” 

The company said access to the site will feature a new banked hedge sweeping into the development, and there will be additional planting to screen the new homes from view, which will also benefit local wildlife. 

MI5 repeatedly refused to investigate evidence that an alleged Russian spy was attempting to cultivate influence with senior Conservative politicians and channel illegal Russian funds into the party, a Tory member has alleged in a new complaint lodged with the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT).

See also: Landmark Ruling in Strasbourg as MPs Challenge UK Government over Failure to Investigate Russian Interference in Brexit

Carole Cadwalladr www.theguardian.com 

Sergei Cristo, a Conservative party activist and a former journalist with the BBC World Service, has lodged a complaint with the investigatory powers tribunal, filing the case after corresponding with the chair of parliament’s intelligence and security committee, Conservative MP Julian Lewis, who recommended he take the information to the authorities.

The committee’s Russia report claimed in 2020 that the security services had turned a blind eye to “credible evidence” of Russian interference and Cristo’s allegations offer potentially explosive new evidence that confirms its findings. Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said “allegations that the security services ignored evidence from a Conservative whistleblower exposing Russian infiltration at the highest levels of the party are truly shocking” and claimed the “Conservative party’s Russia problem” was an ongoing threat to Britain’s national security.

Cristo says that it was reading the Russia report that made him “suddenly aware that maybe the story I had was more significant than I thought” and, at Lewis’s suggestion, he wrote to Cressida Dick, then commissioner of the Met police.

He received a response from the counter-terrorism command (SO15) who said it was not a matter for the Met and advised him to take it to the IPT – which oversees the security services – which he has now done.

The allegations centre around the formation of a group called Conservative Friends of Russia in 2012, and its relationship with a Russian diplomat, Sergey Nalobin.

In August of that year, the Russian ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko, hosted a lavish launch party for the group in the gardens of his residence in Kensington with guests who included the former minister of culture, media and sport, John Whittingdale, and Boris Johnson’s now wife, Carrie Symonds. The Russian government also funded an all-expenses-paid trip to Moscow for a handpicked group of members including the future CEO of Vote Leave, Matthew Elliott.

Cristo says his suspicions about Nalobin, who was the political first secretary at the embassy, had been aroused two years earlier when he was approached by the diplomat and they met at the Carlton Club. When Nalobin learned that Cristo was a volunteer with the treasurers’ department of the Conservative campaign headquarters (CCHQ), he said he could “make introductions to Russian companies who would donate money to the Conservative party”.

Russian diplomat Sergey Nalobin at a function with Boris Johnson. Photograph: Twitter

“I knew straight away that what he was suggesting was illegal under UK law,” Cristo wrote in a letter to Lewis last year.

Alarmed by Nalobin’s efforts and the embassy’s sponsorship of the group, Cristo contacted Luke Harding at the Guardian and revealed Nalobin’s background and his disturbing relationship with the group. Harding and journalists at Russia’s The Insider found Nalobin had family connections to the FSB spy agency: his father, Nikolai, was a KGB general whose responsibilities included supervising Alexander Litvinenko, while his brother Viktor also worked for the FSB.

The resulting articles led to the resignation of the honorary president of Conservative Friends of Russia, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and the renaming of the group.

What Cristo has never previously revealed is his abortive attempts to get the security services to act. He says that he whistleblew to the Guardian only after his attempts to get the authorities to act failed. In 2011, he tried repeatedly to raise the alarm with MI5. After an initial meeting with a junior agent went nowhere, he wrote to the director general of MI5, which resulted in a further meeting with two agents in a government building in Whitehall.

Cristo offered to meet Nalobin again and question him while wearing a hidden camera about how the Russian government intended to make the donations. That offer was also declined and he was advised to cease contact with Nalobin.

He also took his concerns to senior members of the party after a discussion with Britain’s most famous Russian defector, Oleg Gordievsky, a former KGB colonel. Gordievsky studied Nalobin’s biography and told Cristo that he believed he was a spy.

Conservative Friends of Russia was reinvented as the Westminster Russia Forum and only finally shut down altogether last year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile Nalobin continued to cultivate close relationships with MPs and Conservative party activists for a further three years until the Foreign Office declined to renew his visa.

In 2017, the Observer published an article that referred to Nalobin’s interest in the rivalry between David Cameron and Boris Johnson and his forced departure from the UK. It resulted in a series of furious emails from the Russian ambassador who sought to “correct” the article. The Observer declined to do so. Last year, Nalobin surfaced in Estonia when news broke that he had been expelled for espionage and had been “directly and actively engaged in undermining Estonia’s security”.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has been accused of deploying more intelligence agents in London than at the height of the Cold War.

“I think this is important because none of this ought to have happened,” Cristo said last week. “If MI5 had taken action, Conservative Friends of Russia would never have launched and Nalobin would not have been allowed to get close to so many key Conservative politicians and party members.”

BBC Question Time presenter Fiona Bruce has said a Conservative claim of record spending on the NHS “doesn’t look so good” after a minister was confronted with a damning graph.

Graeme Demianyk www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

A special edition of the corporation’s flagship political programme from Hoddeson, Hertfordshire, was devoted to health as the sector faces multiple crises, most notably a stand-off with nurses and other staff over pay.

Bruce presented health minister Will Quince with a graphic using Institute of Fiscal Studies data suggesting NHS spending between 1955-56 and 2019-20 increased by an average of 4% – but the annual rise has been below that for all but one year since 2010.

Bruce said: “Let’s just look at a graph looking at funding of the NHS. This will be familiar to you, in terms of where funding was for the NHS before the Conservative government came into power and where it is now.

“As you can see, if you look at the average there, it’s pretty dramatic in terms of the drop in funding. So when you talk about record investment, that doesn’t look so good.”

Quince replied by not addressing the point of the graph – that health spending went up by a greater percentage in the Labour years – but by saying “we’re spending more on health and social care now than ever in our country’s history”.

Bruce followed up by saying “the average increase has been something like 3% but when you look at that, it’s more like 1.6%”.

But Quince persisted: “If you take, for example, 2010, it was around £100bn that we spent on the NHS. By 2025, it will be £166bn.

“And, if you look at when times were tough, for example, when we came out of the economic crisis in 2008-2009, the coalition government, despite having to make reductions in spending elsewhere, prioritised the NHS.”

It’s unclear precisely which research by the respected think-tank the graph refers to. But one study that does not include the latest annual figure states spending increased by 6% annually during the Blair-Brown years, dropped to 1% under the coalition, and was up to 1.6% under the Conservative government up to 2018-19.

In any case, many watching seized on the figures.

The IFS report said: “UK health spending increased in real terms by an annual average of 3.6% per year between 1949-50 and 2018-19.

“Spending increased sharply during the late 1990s and 2000s, growing by an average of 6% per year during the Blair and Brown governments as part of a wider growth in public service spending.

“Since 2009-10, health spending growth has slowed sharply. Between 2009-10 and 2018-19, real spending grew by an annual average of 1.3%. Average increases of 1% per year under the coalition government (2009-10 to 2014-15) were the smallest five-year average seen under any government.

“However, it is important to note that these increases took place over a period during which most areas of public spending experienced large reductions. Indeed, spending on areas such as education, defence, and public order and safety has fallen, while spending on health has continued to rise – albeit at a slower rate than has tended to be the case historically.” [Osborne austerity – Owl]

More than 3,000 protesters gathered in Cornwood, near Ivybridge, before marching on Dartmoor to show their anger at a new High Court rule banning wild camping on Dartmoor. Campaigners congregated at the War Memorial in Fore Street.

[Crockern Tor is said to be the home of the mythical Old Crockern, variously described as a spectral figure on horseback, galloping across the moor on a skeleton horse with his phantom hounds which were stabled at nearby Wistman’s Wood; or as a local god of the moor in pre-Christian times]

Amber Edwards www.plymouthherald.co.uk 

A campaign group called The Stars are for Everyone said: “3,000 people have come to become part of this historic movement. Here we stand. Defiant, hopeful, and powerful.”

Since the High Court’s decision, landowners have agreed to allow wild camping on most of Dartmoor without permission, they are said to be paid an ‘unknown sum’ by the park. However, Right to Roam campaigners have called it a “stitched up deal”.

The group is unhappy that the “already cash-strapped national park” have to pay the landowners for “granting such permissions”.

The protest event is taking place this afternoon [Saturday] between 1.30pm and 5pm. The village situated on the edge of Dartmoor will be filled by the sounds of drumming during part of the ceremony and musicians are also said to be attending.

The group posted on their Twitter page: “We’ll see you tomorrow for the first of many acts of resistance against this new enclosure. We summon Old Crockern to our side: the ancient spirit of Dartmoor. He has risen before to put the avarice of an arrogant landowner in check – may he do so again!”

An open invitation has been extended to all for the protest today (Saturday, January 21). People are being told that they are welcome to bring something small or large that they can make a drumming sound with.

On its event page, Right to Roam said: “Old Crockern represents the values that sit within our campaign and those that embody Dartmoor: inclusivity, freedom, growth, relationship and humanity.”

They added: “Our right to be in nature should not be the plaything of the landowning elite. It is not something to be stripped away by legal theatrics, nor negotiated for a doff of the cap. It is our collective inheritance; a birthright which brokers our connection to the land and the stars.”

Right to Roam is aiming to extend the Countryside & Rights of Way Act in England so that millions more people can have easy access to open space.

The Mirror reports that Tories have been accused of sending out “deliberately misleading” Green Party-style leaflets. Full story here. 

“ ..one final ingredient, the most important factor in levelling up, the yeast that lifts the whole mattress of dough, the magic sauce – the ketchup of catch-up and that is leadership and this brings me to the crux of the argument- this country is not only one of the most imbalanced in the developed world, it is also one of the most centralised…..” Boris Johnson just eighteen months ago (July 2021).

Has there been a benefit from the first round of Levelling Up funding to local public pride and optimism? Our latest MRP-driven evidence suggests not

Patrick English, Jemma Conner, Lottie Thornton, Matthew Smith yougov.co.uk

As the government today announces another round of Levelling Up funding, YouGov MRP analysis reveals that many people in the target areas of the first funding round are more likely to think their local area has declined than improved in recent years, and many believe that their community is the kind of place that “people are trying to get away from”.

After collecting over 100,000 survey responses between August and October last year, we then used a statistical technique named Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) to estimate the proportions of each local authority in England, Scotland, and Wales holding each respective opinion.

Our analysis suggests that there is little optimism or positivity about local areas among the very people the Levelling Up fund was designed to benefit.

In only four local authorities do people tend to think that their local areas have generally improved in recent years. While in 215 local authorities the most common opinion is that the local area has stayed about the same, in as many as 142 council areas people tend to believe the local area has generally declined.

As many as seven in ten of the top priority Levelling Up funding local authorities from Round 1 (64 council areas) are among those where people say the local area has gone downhill. In the other 25 people tend to believe their local area has stayed largely the same; in no top tier target authority do people generally believe their area has improved recently.

While ‘no real change’ may be the prevailing view in most council areas, taking the data a step further and looking at whether those with a different view are more likely to say their area has improved or declined reveals that in almost all places people are more likely to say the latter.

In the 215 local authority areas where the most common view is that the local area has remained much the same over recent years, in fully 208 those who take a different view are more likely to say it has declined than improved. In just seven is the opposite true.

The strongest sense of decline appears in areas like Stoke-on-Trent (49%), Havering (48%), Thurrock (48%) and Rotherham (47%).

There are notable regional differences, with people in local authority areas in Scotland and the South generally less likely to feel their local area has declined.

In London, however, there is a great deal of variation from area to area. The aforementioned Havering has the second highest rate of people sensing decline in the country, yet at the same time the only four local authorities where “generally improved” comes out on top are also in London: Hackney (38% generally improved), Islington (36%), Southwark (36%), and Tower Hamlets (34%).

The mean share of the local population in 2021 top priority Levelling Up areas who believe their locality has declined is 41%, slightly less at 37% in tier two, and slightly less again at 35% in tier three (those areas not earmarked for any round one funding).

Of all local authorities where “generally declined” is the prevailing view, nearly half (64) are in the top level of 2021 Levelling Up funding.

Residents of Barking and Dagenham, Boston, and Newcastle-under-Lyme are most likely to see their local areas as places people want to get away from

A separate question asked Britons whether they live in “the sort of place that people try to get away from” versus “the sort of place that people would like to move to”.

The results show 45 council areas where the local population tend to take the gloomy view.

The London borough of Barking and Dagenham, as well as Midlands towns Boston and Newcastle-under-Lyme stand out, with more than half of people in each area describing them as the kind of place people flee if they get the chance.

The wider grouping of 45 council areas includes several large urban areas like Sunderland, Wigan, Coventry, Bolton, Stoke-on-Trent, Wakefield, Croydon, and Wolverhampton, large towns such as Luton, Stevenage, Oldham, Harlow, and Hyndburn, as well as some more rural areas such as North Lincolnshire, Ashfield, Pendle, and Boston.

There are notable regional divides in whether people view their area as the type of place people are trying to get away from or move to. Opinions across London, the South, and Scotland are generally more positive about their local area than they are on average in the North.

With many top priority areas from the first round missing out on the funding announced today, it remains unclear if the government’s strategy to Level Up areas in the North and Midlands is having, or will have, any discernible effect on local public opinion about opportunities and improvements in their communities.

Data tables can be downloaded here

YouGov interviewed over 115,000 British adults between 9th August and 21st September 2022, and used Multilevel Regression and Post-Stratification (MRP) to model the estimated outcomes at the local authority level (district, metropolitan borough, London borough, and unitary authority). MRP models first estimate the relationship between a wide variety of characteristics about people and their opinions – in this case, beliefs about their local areas – in what is called a ‘multilevel model’, which allows us to account for specific area (in this case, council) level effects as well as background information about respondents themselves. MRP then uses data at the local authority level to predict the outcomes at council level based on the concentration of various different types of people who live there. The model assigns each type of person a probability of (1) believing their area has “generally improved” or “generally declined”, and then (2) believing their area is the type of place people are trying to “get away from” versus “move to” (this is the ‘post-stratification’ component), and then estimates the area-level distributions using information about how many of those specific types of voters live in each area. In this instance, 1000 draws from the posterior distribution of the multilevel model were used to predict the council-level probabilities, which ran for 10,000 iterations across four parallel chains. MRP has been successfully used to predict the outcomes of both the 2017 and 2019 UK General Elections.

Sunak get another FPN months after the first.

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”

Nothing seems to have changed. – Owl

Rishi Sunak is under pressure to sack Nadhim Zahawi from the cabinet after it was claimed the former chancellor paid a penalty of more than £1m to settle a probe into his tax affairs.

Kate Devlin www.independent.co.uk

The Tory party chairman has faced mounting questions over his personal payments to HMRC, but the prime minister has so far stood by him.

Some senior Tories believe it is now impossible for Mr Zahawi to continue in his job, with one describing the situation as “unsustainable”.

The revelation that Mr Zahawi was forced to pay the penalty – part of a reported total tax settlement of almost £5m – comes as The Independent reveals how he tried to gag this newspaper from revealing that he was being investigated by the National Crime Agency and HMRC last year.

In an extraordinary exchange last July, Mr Zahawi repeatedly threatened to sue if any stories were published, saying:

• One hundred per cent I will take legal action

• There was no such investigation by the NCA. I have paid all due taxes and obeyed all financial laws and regulations.

• I repeat I will take legal action

Mr Zahawi also paid a 30 per cent penalty to HMRC, according to a report in The Guardian, taking the estimated total to more than £4.8m – though his spokesperson told the newspaper he “does not recognise this amount”.

Labour last night called on the prime minister to sack Mr Zahawi.

Angela Rayner, the party’s deputy leader, said: “Rishi Sunak promised a government of integrity, professionalism, and accountability but instead he’s propping up a motley crew of scandal-ridden ministers.”

She added: “The position of the man who was until recently in charge of the UK’s tax system and who this prime minister appointed Conservative Party chair is now untenable.

“It’s time for Rishi Sunak to put his money where his mouth is and dismiss Nadhim Zahawi from his cabinet.”

One Conservative former minister said told The Independent Mr Zahawi’s position was “unsustainable”, because the former chancellor would be asked about his tax affairs every time he appeared in public.

The party would be left with a “chairman that can’t do media [interviews]”, he said, a role that is especially crucial around the upcoming local elections, which are already predicted to be difficult for the Conservatives.

Another former minister said there was a risk the row would “hang over” Mr Zahawi and “overshadow” the role of party chairman.

“A judgement needs to be made about whether this storm can be weathered and a line is drawn or it hangs over the chairman and overshadows [his role as party chairman],” they said.

“It is a conversation behind closed doors that needs to be had – about if he can fulfil his duties,” they added.

Mr Zahawi was seen by many MPs to have done a good job in the short time he has been in the role.

At the weekend The Sun on Sunday reported that he had settled a tax dispute relating to an offshore company registered in Gibraltar to hold shares in the polling company that he co-founded, YouGov.

YouGov’s 2009 annual report showed a more than 10 per cent shareholding by the Gibraltar-registered Balshore Investments Ltd, and described the company as the “family trust of Nadhim Zahawi”. At the time Mr Zahawi was an executive director of YouGov.

A spokesperson for Mr Zahawi has previously said that his taxes are “properly declared and paid in the UK” and the minister “has never had to instruct any lawyers to deal with HMRC on his behalf”.

During the week, Mr Sunak defended his party chairman, telling MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions that Mr Zahawi “has already addressed this matter in full and there’s nothing more that I can add”.

The prime minister’s press secretary also said Mr Zahawi “has spoken and been transparent with HMRC”.

On whether Mr Sunak believed the matter was now closed, she said: “I don’t know whether the prime minister has reviewed it in full, but I do know that he takes Nadhim Zahawi at his word.”

Mr Zahawi’s spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

A HMRC spokesperson said: “We are unable to comment on identifiable taxpayers due to strict confidentiality rules.”

No 10 declined to comment.

The landowner who took Dartmoor national park to court to ban wild camping may be putting a rare beetle at risk by releasing pheasants next to an ecologically important woodland, against the advice of environmental experts.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

This is despite him having said he pushed for a wild camping ban in order to “improve conservation of the Dartmoor commons”, arguing that campers damage the national park with litter and disturbance.

Last week, the right to wild camp in England and Wales was lost after Alexander Darwall, a hedge fund manager, succeeded in his case against Dartmoor national park. It was the last place it was possible to wild camp without seeking permission.

Darwall, Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, brought the case against the national park authority, arguing that the right to wild camp on the moors never existed. The owner of the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land.

On Saturday, hundreds of protesters from the Right to Roam campaign are to march on his land in protest at having their right to wild camp taken away. They are outraged that landowners this week including Darwall have struck a deal with the national park in which they are paid to allow camping on small portions of their land. Campaigners have called it a “stitch-up”.

Natural England, the government body in charge of enforcing conservation measures in national parks, has warned the estate not to release pheasants near Dendles Wood, a fragment of temperate rainforest on the southern edge of Dartmoor, adjacent to the Blachford estate. It is protected as a national nature reserve (NNR) and site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and falls within the Dartmoor special area of conservation (SAC). The letter to the estate contained details on the necessary maintenance to retain these statuses, including not releasing pheasants.

In a conservation plan for the wood, released under freedom of information laws, Natural England says that “operations likely to damage the special interest” of Dendles Wood include “the release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animal” and “introduction of and changes in game and waterfowl management and hunting practice”.

The very rare blue ground beetle is put under pressure by the release of the birds, according to Natural England. The plan says “high pheasant stocking rates are a threat to this species”because pheasants prey on the beetles.

Dendles Wood is one of only a handful of sites in the UK where the large and distinctive beetle makes its home. It is found at just 15 sites in England and Wales, eight of which are in Dartmoor national park.

Despite this, local residents have found a pheasant release pen on land owned by the Darwall family that lies less than 250 metres from the edge of the NNR. Photos show the release pen has multiple entrances and exits for pheasants, meaning they are free to enter the surrounding woods. Volunteer rangers have said that pheasants are one of the most common birds to be found in Dendles Wood.

The estate also appears to be breaching the licence to release pheasants to shoot. It does not appear to have reported to Natural England the number or density of pheasants it releases near the wood, even though this is one of the conditions of the GL43 general licence under which landowners are permitted to release pheasants within 500 metres of an SAC.

The environmental campaigner and author Guy Shrubsole said: “It’s ironic that one of the reasons stated by the Darwalls for bringing their legal case against wild camping was its alleged impacts on Dartmoor’s ecology.

“The reality is that responsible wild camping leaves no trace. The same cannot be said of the 50 million pheasants that are released by landowners into the British countryside every year.

“Now the public have had their access rights sharply curtailed. The landowner’s pheasants, meanwhile, still have a full right to roam over a national nature reserve.”

The Dartmoor national park authority is consulting with its legal team with a view to appealing against the decision. Lawyers for the park have said that ecologically damaging actions by the estate could be a factor in any appeal.

Darwall was contacted via his lawyer but had no comment to make.

The state of the UK’s social care system has been branded “a tragedy” by a prominent economist who was the architect of the original plans for a care cap.

Aine Fox www.independent.co.uk

Sir Andrew Dilnot, who led a review into the future of funding social care under the coalition government and whose proposed and long-awaited reforms of social care were delayed in the autumn statement, said it is a shameful situation.

It came as leading public health expert Professor Sir Michael Marmot described the cost-of-living crisis as a “humanitarian catastrophe” due to the effects it will have on physical and mental health.

Sir Andrew accused the Government of having done nothing to address problems in social care and said the most vulnerable people in society are “not being looked after properly”.

Speaking on Tonight With Andrew Marr on LBC radio, he said: “The thing that makes me cross is not that they haven’t implemented my proposals, it’s that we have people who are amongst the most vulnerable in our society who are not being looked after properly.

“And we have fabulous people delivering care to them who are under unnecessary and inappropriate pressure. So, the problem is not whether they’ve delivered my proposals or anybody else’s proposals, they haven’t done anything.

“We have an enormous challenge as a society. We have fabulous people willing to deliver the care. And we’re not looking after either the people who need the care or the people who are delivering it properly and we should be ashamed of ourselves.”

Reforms including an £86,000 cap on personal care cost contributions and an expanded means test that is more generous than the existing one had been due to come into effect from October 2023.

Asked how he felt about the reforms being delayed by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt in November, he said: “I think it’s a tragedy. I mean, I think the way that the social care system is in the UK at the moment is a tragedy, and we could do so much better.

“And I often hear people saying, ‘oh, it’s huge amounts of money’. It’s not huge amounts of money compared to the NHS, and the knock-on effects in terms of misery for families and problems to the NHS are vast.

“It just astonishes me after 40 years of working in this kind of area that something which seems so obvious could still not have happened. And I, and people like me, have to take some of the blame. We’ve clearly not explained it clearly enough. But it is something to be really ashamed of ourselves as a country about.”

Sir Michael said evidence from September suggested one in six households without children were in food insecurity while one in four households with children were in food insecurity.

He told the same programme on LBC: “That means missing meals, not eating when you’re hungry. That will damage health, living in cold homes, that will damage health, the stress of the struggle to try and make ends meet will damage health. It will damage physical health, and it will damage mental health. So, the cost-of-living crisis is indeed a humanitarian catastrophe.”

Asked about his choice of words, he referred to the case of two year-old Awaab Ishak, who died after prolonged exposure to mould in his flat, which was maintained by a housing association in Rochdale.

He said: “I think when a two-year-old boy dies because of mould in his home, what would you call it? This is a preventable tragedy. I don’t want to bandy words around and cheapen words. But when a two-year-old boy dies because of mould in his home, this is a tragedy, and it’s the tip of the iceberg.”

Ministers have just disbursed some £2bn in the latest tranche of funding for levelling-up projects, as part of the overall £4.8bn programme. Rishi Sunak has promised that the spending will be “transformative”. The details of the announcement have been met with mixed reviews.

Sean O’Grady www.independent.co.uk 

Who is going to get the money?

A variety of schemes, including a northern Eden Project in Morecambe worth £50m, a new primates and conservation research centre at Twycross Zoo worth £19m, and converting the Old Town Hall in Whithorn, Galloway into a social enterprise training centre for £300,000. The money is scattered far and wide.

Is it fair?

Critics say the bulk of the spending is going to London and the South East. Ministers argue that, adjusted for population, the areas that do best are the North West, the North East, and Wales. Plus there are undoubtedly pockets of poverty in the South – some of the most deprived boroughs in the country are in London.

Is it ‘pork barrel’ politics – bribes to vote Tory?

Ever since Boris Johnson championed the policy, it has had a whiff of pork about it. The fact that some £19m is being spent on improving a high street in the prime minister’s own constituency has raised some eyebrows. There is even a grant of £230,000 to help keep a pub alive in the same North Yorkshire constituency. Indeed, the plight of The Countryman’s Inn in Hunton is a case in point. The village community group has purchased its local pub using cash from the community ownership fund. It will now be able to offer hearty meals and tasty ales to the people of Wensleydale and beyond, and not all of them are by any means rich. However, there are very many pubs throughout the country threatened with closure, and they are not going to receive a penny.

It highlights the seemingly arbitrary distribution of the “goodies”. Why, let us ask, should £5.1m be given to build new women’s changing rooms in 20 rugby clubs across Northern Ireland – a great idea – but nothing to improve the equivalent facilities in England, Wales or Scotland?

One might also ask why a solidly Labour city such as Leicester, with no chance of a Tory getting a seat, is doing relatively well out of the exercise, whereas Liverpool and Bradford – equally hostile to the Conservatives – have missed out again. There may be some political bias in the allocations, but it isn’t consistent.

What about the red wall?

It seems that Tory MPs and others in the Labour heartlands who turned to Johnson in 2019 are chastened and reportedly angry at missing out. “There are some really wealthy areas on the list,” said one. “It looks awful.” It cannot be entirely an exercise in party political favouritism if elected Tory politicians in marginal seats are complaining, but perhaps they are just hoping for more. None is more outspoken than Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands region: “Fundamentally, this episode is just another example as to why Whitehall’s bidding and begging-bowl culture is broken, and the sooner we can decentralise and move to proper fiscal devolution the better.”

Who are the losers?

It is a rule of political life that for every beneficiary of some official scheme – tax credits, a new university, an upgraded rail line – there will be many others who thereby feel hard done by. If residents in Morecambe and Cleethorpes are delighted at the largesse displayed by Michael Gove, it’s equally likely that folk in Blackpool and Skegness will feel slighted.

What does the opposition say?

Nationalists in Scotland and Wales, as well as Labour and Tory regional mayors such as Mr Street, resent the way in which ministers and civil servants in London make the final call as to who gets the cash. For the SNP, it is another betrayal of devolution. Welsh politicians resent part of their allocation being spent on HS2, which doesn’t go to Wales. Labour’s Lisa Nandy has been scathing about the competitive, demeaning nature of the bidding process: “It is time to end this Hunger Games-style contest, where communities are pitted against one another and Whitehall ministers pick winners and losers.”

Will levelling up even work?

As a modern iteration of what was once known as “regional policy”, perhaps not. Mr Sunak insists that the projects being funded will attract private-sector investment, but that is not guaranteed, and the money might not yield much except for a little civic pride. Regenerating one seaside town might simply attract visitors away from another, and much of the money is merely reallocated from other budgets, such as for transport or grants to devolved administrations. That might be said of the £3.3m being spent on electric-vehicle charging points in Northern Ireland.

Even the total sum, £4.8bn, is tiny in relation to Britain’s £2,500bn GDP, and is far less than the 30 per cent overall reduction in central government’s support to local authorities since 2010, which was driven by austerity. Politically and economically, at a time of severe pressure on the public finances, levelling up feels tokenistic and random.

Politically, few of these laudable projects will be completed by the general election, by which time voters may anyway have concluded that repaved town centres aren’t much use if they haven’t the cash to spend in them.

A more rational approach might have been to recognise that some poor people live in richer areas, such as Kensington and Chelsea, while some rich people live in poorer places, such as Newcastle, and to focus the process on demographics rather than geography. But perhaps that would be too socialistic for this government.

How long have we been waiting for “promised” funding for essential infrastructure needed as a result of “Build, build, build” development running ahead of local capacity to absorb it? 

Is this really a cash pot from a bountiful government? How much cash has been taken away from local government by Conservatives since Austerity 1.0?

How much time and effort was required to make what should be a blindingly obvious case in the “begging bowl” centralised Whitehall culture?

This is essential spending not investment in growing the economy.

What about real “levelling up” cases such as the Axminster master plan?

Does this reflect that Simon Jupp’s seat is now considered to be on the “vulnerable” list? – Owl

Guy Henderson www.devonlive.com

Plans for new developments which would have brought hundreds of jobs to Torbay were in ruins today as the Government turned down the bay’s application for cash. Elsewhere there were celebrations around the country as places such as Exmouth picked up much-needed investment from the Government’s “Levelling Up” funds.

But Torbay’s innovative so-called “Fish and Chips” bid for fish market expansion in Brixham and a microchip technology park in Paignton was rejected for the second time. Now the bay’s MPs are to meet to discuss the way forward.

In Exmouth the money will go towards a major road extension and developments around the town’s railway station. East Devon MP Simon Jupp said: “This is excellent news and I am looking forward to seeing spades in the ground.”

In Torbay the money would have been spent on badly-needed improvements to Brixham’s busy fish market and on a photonics site at Long Road in Paignton.

It was the bay’s second go at securing funds from the Levelling Up pot, having missed the boat in the first round as well. The revised bid which has been turned down today was for an expansion of Brixham Harbour and a base for electronics and photonics businesses at Paignton.

Torbay Council had said that if the bad had succeeded, the proposed expansion of the commercial port at Brixham could see an annual £5m growth in the value of fish and shellfish landed and support 150 new jobs. The port has recently reported record figures, and is already the busiest in England.

However, fishing industry leaders have warned that the future prosperity of the market and the port as a whole depends on expanding the quayside area. If successful, the bid would have brought an extended fish market and more quay space for distribution vehicles. The council would have benefitted from increased fish toll income.

An electronics and photonics production park at Long Road in Paignton was also part of the bid, with more well-paid jobs generated in a sector in which Torbay is already a leader. But today a letter from Levelling Up Minister Dehenna Davison explained that the application had not met the criteria outlined for the Levelling Up Fund.

The Minister went on: “I appreciate how disappointing this news will be. The UK Government remains firmly committed to levelling up all parts of the UK and officials will provide written feedback on your application to support future proposals.”

Torbay MP Kevin Foster said: “I am disappointed to hear the bid submitted by Torbay Council for levelling up funding has not succeeded, especially given the potential boost for our fishing and photonics sector it would have brought. Anthony Mangnall MP and I will be meeting to identify what we can do as local MPs to ensure the necessary work is done locally to ensure a future bid succeeds.

“We will shortly meet with Government Ministers to identify if there were specific areas of concern which need to be addressed and what, if any, impact delays in Torbay Council getting work under way on other schemes where significant government funding has been made available had on this decision.”

After years of campaigning by East Devon MP Simon Jupp, Exmouth will receive £15.7m from the Levelling Up Fund. The multi-million-pound funding will deliver the Dinan Way road extension to improve journeys and cut congestion. Dinan Way currently forms a partial ring road around Exmouth but lacks a final connection to the A376, with traffic using unsuitable residential roads to get through to the main road to Exeter and the M5.

The funding will also deliver regeneration around the railway station, including improvements to pedestrian access to the town centre and the infilling of an underpass.

Mr Jupp said: “This investment will improve journeys in Exmouth, improve air quality, and help spruce up the area around the train station. I would like to thank the councils who worked together to develop the plans and the Conservative Government who backed our bid.”

And Cllr Andrea Davis, Devon County Council’s Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment and Transport, added: “This is brilliant news for the people of Exmouth and a boost to the town’s regeneration. It will not only enable Devon County Council to complete the Dinan Way link road which will reduce traffic going through the centre, but also fund improved walking and cycling routes, and bus services to Exeter.

“A big thank you goes to Simon Jupp, who has worked tirelessly to support this project. I want also to thank the team at Devon County Council who put such a compelling bid together.”

Austerity again compounding the problem – twelve, coming up thirteen, years of Tory misrule – Owl

The police department that returned a shotgun licence to a man who carried out a mass shooting did not have enough staff, an inquest has heard.

www.bbc.co.uk

Jake Davison had his licence revoked in 2020 but police returned it in 2021.

Davison, 22, killed his mother Maxine, 51, and then shot dead four others in Plymouth.

Three-year-old Sophie Martyn, her father, Lee, 43, Stephen Washington, 59, and Kate Shepherd, 66, all died on the evening of 12 August 2021.

Thursday was the third day of inquests being held into their deaths.

A senior police officer told the hearing there had been a backlog of licence applications when Davison first applied in 2017.

Ch Supt Roy Linden, from Devon and Cornwall Police, was questioned about the number of applications for firearms or shotgun licences.

He said in 2017 there were about 3,000 applications per year and the force had the highest number of holders of certificates for firearms or shotguns in the UK.

The counsel to the inquest, Bridget Dolan KC, who is asking questions on behalf of the coroner, said: “Were there sufficient staff to deal with 3,000 applications?”

Ch Supt Linden replied: “The simple answer is no.”

He said there was a backlog of applications within Devon and Cornwall Police, but the force was not unique in the country.

Ch Supt Linden added the problem had only got worse over time.

He told the inquest: “It’s still the condition today, I think they have probably increased.”

Before he gave evidence Ch Supt Linden addressed the families of the victims.

He said the force “recognises the trauma that has been caused by this incident”.

He added: “It’s our intention that this tragic incident will serve to drive improvements in firearms licensing both in Devon and Cornwall and nationally.”

The inquest hearing at Exeter Racecourse continues.

Sir Keir Starmer has urged Rishi Sunak to apologise for the “lethal chaos” in the NHS under his watch. It comes as he highlighted the case of a 26-year-old woman with cancer who collapsed at home in Plymouth and died while waiting for an ambulance.

Richard Wheeler, Martina Bet and Elizabeth Arnold, PA Political Staff www.devonlive.com

The Labour leader called on the Prime Minister to admit the NHS in England is “in crisis” before accusing Mr Sunak of deflecting and blaming others for ambulance delays experienced by patients. The call came during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

The Prime Minister did not offer an apology in response to Sir Keir’s demand but pressed Labour to support anti-strike legislation. Opening Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir gave a hypothetical example of a person suffering chest pains and waiting for an ambulance.

Mr Sunak responded by defending Government steps to improve waiting times and claimed Sir Keir is “in the pockets of his union paymasters” rather than prioritising patients. But the Commons then fell silent as Sir Keir raised the case of Stephanie.

He explained: “Her mum rang 999, desperate for help. She only lived a couple of miles from the hospital, but they couldn’t prioritise her. She was 26 when she died waiting for that ambulance.

“A young woman whose life was ended far too soon. As a dad, I can’t even fathom that pain. So on behalf of Stephanie and her family, will he stop the excuses, stop shifting the blame, stop the political games and simply tell us when will he sort out these delays and get back to the 18-minute wait?”

Mr Sunak replied: “Of course Stephanie’s case is a tragedy. Of course people are working as hard as they can to make sure people get the care they need. But he talks about political games – he is a living example of playing political games when it comes to people’s healthcare.

“I’ve already mentioned what’s been going on in Wales. Is he confident in the Labour-run Wales NHS that nobody is suffering right now? Of course they are because the NHS everywhere is under pressure. What we should be doing is supporting those doctors and nurses to make the changes that we are doing to bring the care to those people.

“But I’ll ask him this: if he is so concerned about making sure that the Stephanies of the future get the care they need, why is he denying those families the guarantee of emergency life-saving care?”

Sir Keir countered: “So that’s his answer to Stephanie’s family? Deflect, blame others, never take responsibility. Just like last week, he won’t say when he’s going to deliver the basic minimum service levels people need.

“Over the 40 minutes or so that these sessions tend to last, 700 people will call an ambulance. Two will be reporting a heart attack. Four will be reporting a stroke. But instead of the rapid help they need, many will wait and wait and wait. So if he won’t answer any questions, will he at least apologise for the lethal chaos under his watch?”

Mr Sunak faced shouts of “apologise” from Labour MPs, replying: “He asked about the minimum safety levels, we will deliver them as soon as we can pass them. Why won’t he vote for them first of all?”

The Prime Minister added Sir Keir will “just say anything if the politics suits him”, claiming the Labour leader will “break promises left, right and centre”. Mr Sunak, who in November carried out an “across-the-board” review of pledges he made during the Tory leadership battle, added: “If we are going to deliver for the British people, people need to have strong convictions “But when it comes to (Sir Keir) he isn’t just for the free movement of people, he has also got the free movement of principles.”

Still no date for Tiverton and Tipton

A Devon MP [Richard Foord] has urged the government to get on with rebuilding two flood-risk schools after bad weather in recent days.

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

Heavy rainfall saw several Devon schools hit by flooding. Both Tiverton High and Tipton St John schools, which before Christmsa were added to the government’s school rebuilding programme, are on flood plains.

Flooding at Tiverton High last week reportedly closed off its rear entrance and 50 per cent of a playground, while Tipton St John Primary has also been hit by flooding in recent years.

It has led Tiverton & Honiton’s MP to ask when the proposed new schools will be built. It has yet to be confirmed when rebuilding work will begin, with 239 schools recently added to the list of 400 now provisionally chosen across the country.

Richard Foord MP (Liberal Democrat), who triumphed in a by-election last year in which the poor state of Tiverton High was one of the main talking points, said: “Tiverton High and Tipton St John Primary are recognised as being unfit because they are built on flood plains at increased risk from heavy rainfall.

“The government has provisionally placed both schools on the list of 239 schools to be rebuilt over the next five years but has not confirmed when this vital work will commence.

“This is simply not good enough,” he said. “We’ve already waited years to see progress on rebuilding Tiverton High School; we cannot afford to wait another decade whilst our children’s education is continually disrupted by flooding.

“That is why I am calling for the Department for Education (DfE) to stop stalling and get to work on breaking ground so we can get the new, safer and modern school buildings that our communities deserve.”

In response, the DfE says schools provisionally selected for the rebuilding programme will be prioritised according to the condition of their buildings and other relevant criteria. Works will only then be scheduled once due diligence checks are completed.

They added work will start at a rate of roughly 50 schools per year over the next five years, with work on the first schools expected to start this April.

The DfE says it will be in touch with schools this month to explain the next steps.

“I’m from Devon, I live near the sea in Sidmouth, and I love where we live…..I voted for a crackdown on sewage spills.” 

Well Simon it is true that you didn’t actually vote to pollute our water, but you did vote against imposing a legal duty to stop it, instead voting for something very much more “light touch”.

This Mirror article, published in August 2022 when sewage discharges onto beaches became a live issue once again, fact checked the arguments made by Tories.

August 2022, Simon, was when Owl reported you as “Missing in Action” when Richard Foord was interviewed by the BBC for a full three minutes on Budleigh beach. That’s your patch isn’t it? Where was your concern for the environment then?

Here is a brief summary of the the various votes:

In October 2021 Johnson’s Conservative government, with the votes of Simon Jupp and Neil Parish, succeeded in voting down a Lords amendment designed to stop private water companies from dumping raw sewage into the UK’s waterways. The amendment would have placed a legal duty on companies “to make improvements to their sewerage systems and demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage.“

Of course we now know that Neil may have been preoccupied fiddling with his phone to know what he was really doing.

No excuse for Simon Jupp.

In November 2021 what Simon voted for was a watered down version which changed a legal duty into a nebulous progressive aim of a “reduction of adverse impact of storm overflows’ and make it enforceable under a different Act.

”Now in December 2022 the Government announced abandoning the principle of a legal target for river health, and postponing a deadline for agricultural run-off reduction by three years (from 2037 to 2040).

What goes in our rivers end in the sea. Oh, and who privatised the water companies?

Weekly column: South West Water must clean up their act

www.simonjupp.org.uk

As your MP, I want South West Water to clean up their act – and I’m holding them to account, using legislation brought in by a Conservative government.

The government brought in the toughest ever crack down on sewage spills. That’s set out in law through the Environment Act, which I voted for.

The Environment Act and Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan ensures water companies will face strict limits on when they can use storm overflows. These should be genuinely exceptional circumstances to avoid sewage backing up into homes.

That’s what I voted for. A proper plan to crack down on an issue that has been around for decades under all previous governments. Under the Conservatives, we’re tackling the problem and taking on water companies who fail to act.

I would never vote to pollute our water – despite some claims suggesting otherwise. I’m from Devon, I live near the sea in Sidmouth, and I love where we live.

The government’s crackdown has forced water companies to embark on a £56 billion programme of investment.

Working cross-party with East Devon parish, town, district and county councillors, and environmental groups, I’m continuing to hold South West Water to account about their plans to invest in East Devon.

Last month, I chaired a meeting of the region’s MPs with South West Water’s Chief Executive. We were updated on what the company is doing to get a grip on sewage spills. Things are moving in the right direction, and not before time. South West Water’s storm overflow use halved from 2021 to 2022 across the bathing season and pollutions are at their lowest level in 10 years.

I’m continuing to press South West Water to urgently fix specific local problems as and when they do crop up, too. I’ve previously secured compensation for Clyst St Mary residents after foul flooding in the village.

At the moment, I’m working with Sidmouth Town Council and will be meeting with Escape Exmouth so we can work together to scrutinise South West Water on your behalf.

In all of this, the key thing is having the right data. Ministers have increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 5% in 2016 to almost 90% now. That figure will reach 100% cover by end of this year. Following new data coming to light as a result of increased monitoring, the regulators – the Environment Agency and Ofwat – have launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water company sewage discharges ever, at over 2,200 treatment works.

The public needs the right data, too. South West Water told me that they are launching an updated website with better and more timely information. It’s a step in the right direction, but more investment to improve the situation is what’s actually needed to provide peace of mind.

Not everyone is aware of this but the government subsidises water bills in our region by £50 per household every year. Despite pressures on public finances, that support will be continuing in 2023/24 thanks to lobbying by MPs.

The public expect water companies to keep their bills as low as possible to ease the cost of living. This is not the time to reward failure. Water company bosses have to demonstrate a link between their performance and their generous bonuses, through Ofwat’s licencing conditions.

South West Water was fined £13 million last year alone because of missed targets and will have to reduce customer bills accordingly. I’m awaiting the outcome of Ofwat’s ongoing investigation into water company sewage treatment works and Ofwat’s separate enforcement case against South West Water.

Future fines handed out to water companies will be channelled directly into work to improve water quality, which is another major step forward by the government.

I voted for a crackdown on sewage spills. We can now hold failing water companies to account – including the one-star rated South West Water.

This column first appeared in the Exmouth Journal on Wednesday 18th January 2023 and in the Sidmouth Herald later in the week.

Last August Owl was surprised that Simon Jupp let Richard Foord hold centre stage on Budleigh beach to talk about sewage pollution. Obviously not so very important to the hospitality sector so close to Simon’s heart, or the queries and casework he devoted the month to.

Recycled chippings from thousands of festive trees thrown out from East Devon homes will benefit a pupils’ mud kitchen and forest school in Cranbrook.

[For eco-warriors there’s an even greener way of disposing of the Christmas tree – Just eat it!  Pickled veg, herb tea, vinegar, even flavoured gin … an organic tree has many uses once the baubles are banished. Something for next year perhaps? – Owl]

eastdevonnews.co.uk

More than 1,600 Christmas trees collected by the district council at the end of the festive season have been chipped and returned to the ground, or used to benefit a host of outdoor projects.

St Martin’s Primary School, in Cranbrook, recently took delivery of a truck of festive pine tree chippings for the upkeep of outdoor pathways, to protect tree roots, suppress weed growth, and clean-up muddy play areas.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “These chippings will now be used by the school and students in their forest school for a variety of purposes, including maintaining pathways, to protect tree roots and to retain moisture in the soil and suppress weed growth.”

They added: “The students’ mud kitchen also received a helping of chippings to improve the ground around the playground – this will help the children to avoid getting as muddy at break times.”

The real trees – thrown out after the festive season – were collected by EDDC StreetScene workers from drop-off points across East Devon from early January.

A total of 1,699 trees were picked up 245 from Seaton, 70 in Axminster, Honiton threw out 140, Ottery 205 and Sidmouth 235.

In Budleigh Salterton EDDC picked up 188 trees, 311 from Exmouth, 200 in Cranbrook and 105 from the village of Broadclyst.

Tom Wood, EDDC StreetScene operations manager, said: “Our tree team, supported by operational teams have worked really hard to process an enormous number of Christmas trees in a short space of time.

“It’s really pleasing to see these trees being recycled and put back into the ground across the district to benefit local eco-systems and the environment.”

EDDC said the donations of wood chippings to St Martin’s Primary School was made as part of an ongoing partnership with the EDDC StreetScene team.

Chippings from trees in previous years has helped to slow spread of Ash Dieback within the school’s estate, EDDC said.

In Exmouth, the council workers stepped in to help the Rotary Club take down the town’s main Christmas tree.

A collection by the Rotary Club around the tree in the town’s Magnolia Centre raised more than £1,000 for Exmouth Open Door Centre.

The Rotary Club of Exmouth praised the ‘kindness and support’ of the EDDC StreetScene staff for helping ‘with such good grace at short notice’.

East Devon: Plans are in the pipeline for a new cycle and walk route to connect Cranbrook to Exeter city centre

“What he seems to have missed entirely is the fact that those penalties are not actually usable. And it seemed wacky to say that he would make the penalties weaker.” Ash Smith, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution.

Alan Lovell, new Chair Environment Agency, has previously served as the chairman of Interserve Group, a construction company, a director at a distributor of construction materials and chairman of a company selling double-glazed windows….He promised to make the agency a “little more commercial”, which he said would free up money to spend. 

Difficult to see the relevance of this CV, no background in environmental regulation. – Owl

PS Remember the days when John Varley, Clinton Devon Estates, was on both the Environment Agency and Natural England boards? He is now off both.

Adam Vaughan, Environment Editor www.thetimes.co.uk

The Environment Agency’s new chairman has criticised plans to punish water companies found to have spilled sewage by increasing penalties to £250 million.

Alan Lovell derided the number, put forward by the previous environment secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, in October, as “crazy”, “massive” and “way in excess of what’s needed”.

Lovell, who started at the regulator last September, said that he was instead negotiating with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on “a sensible number” for maximum penalties.

His comments are the first indication that the government could scrap the Liz Truss-era policy of raising the existing £250,000 cap on penalties one thousand-fold.

In his first major public speech, Lovell said that while the agency had secured £102.5 million of fines for water companies in 2021, establishing wins through the courts took years and was too slow.

Instead, he said he wanted to move towards using civil sanctions, known as variable monetary penalties. The agency can impose these itself and they require a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case.

But Lovell said that the current £250,000 cap was “unfortunately not enough to make a difference to a water company’s behaviour”. As well as raising the limit, he said he wanted to speed up the process of imposing the penalties. To date, the Environment Agency has issued no variable monetary penalties despite having had the power to do so since 2010.

Ash Smith, of the Oxfordshire-based campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, said: “What he seems to have missed entirely is the fact that those penalties are not actually usable. And it seemed wacky to say that he would make the penalties weaker.”

Speaking at a school in Andover on Monday, Lovell said that while water companies had made a “lot of mistakes” they were “trying pretty hard” to improve water quality. Water companies have been under fire in recent months over incidents such as weeks-long sewage spills in the Thames Valley.

Lovell said it had been a “terrible mistake” by Ofwat, the water industry regulator, to allow companies to pay dividends after the sector was privatised in 1989. While investment had increased initially, he said most of the period since had seen “chronic under-investment” by the nine main water companies.

Lovell said that if water firms were breaking the law and not trying to comply with it, he agreed with his predecessor, Emma Howard Boyd, who said last year that executives should be jailed over serious pollution incidents. However, Lovell said: “My personal experience is that they [water executives] have got this message.”

Lovell has previously served as the chairman of Interserve Group, a construction company, a director at a distributor of construction materials and chairman of a company selling double-glazed windows. While he has been chairman of the Consumer Council for Water, he does not have a background in environmental regulation. He promised to make the agency a “little more commercial”, which he said would free up money to spend.

The agency had received a welcome boost in the past year to its annual budget of almost £2 billion, he said. But it was still not being funded in a “long-term sustainable way” and he would take “full advantage” of the general election and public concern over pollution to lobby for more money.

Lovell made clear that about 100,000 farms in England were also in his sights, and he was hoping to curb pollution washing off their land into rivers. He said the agency, which The Times recently revealed inspected only 2 per cent of farms a year, was stepping up action and inspections against farmers. But he said: “They are hard to reach, there are so many,” and admitted that the agency was still “not fully staffed up to do it”.