A Tory MP has been accused of “staggering” levels of ignorance after suggesting Nightingale hospitals and the NHS could be run at full capacity with a full staff to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

Chris York www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, made the clam in a tweet on Sunday despite long-running concerns about personnel shortages in the health service.

The MP wrote: “Why not open and staff all the Nightingale hospital capacity they need for CV 19 cases and get the rest of the NHS back to full capacity for everything else?

“No need to scare us with the idea the NHS will not cope.”

According to a recent report by The Kings Fund, there is currently a shortfall of just under 84,000 workers across NHS hospitals, mental health services and community providers.

The report blamed “a prolonged funding squeeze combined with years of poor workforce planning, weak policy and fragmented responsibilities” while the Tories have been in power for the “workforce crisis”.

This has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic as frontline health workers catch Covid-19 or are forced to self-isolate. Earlier this month it was reported 30,000 NHS staff were off as the country braced itself for the second wave of the virus.

Redwood’s tweet was met with widespread disbelief.

Redwood has been contacted for comment.

Elsewhere, Boris Johnson has warned there will be “disastrous consequences” if new tiered coronavirus restrictions aren’t introduced this week.

Never the one to waste the opportunity of using five words when two will do, the PM used a series of obscure war references to warn of the potential “disastrous consequences for the NHS”.

Boris Johnson could not quite decide if his attempts to channel Winston Churchill in the fight against the coronavirus had reached the equivalent of the Battle of Britain, when national survival was secured, or El Alamein, when the slow advance to victory began.

At a time of crisis, how good is Boris Johnson at making decisions? – Owl

Tim Shipman and Caroline Wheeler www.thetimes.co.uk 

It was 8.15pm on Wednesday when the prime minister began summing up the conclusions of a closely guarded meeting of eight ministers that decided tier levels across England and the fate of millions. Several times the prime minister conjured up his hero’s spirit: “Is this the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?” he mused. After what one witness described as “several mixed metaphors”, Johnson settled on: “I think we’re at the beginning of the end of the second half.”

The prime minister’s verbal contortions illustrate the dilemma for a government unsure whether imposing new control tiers is the final fix before a vaccine and mass testing save the day, or another false dawn that heralds a long winter of discontent that will stretch to Easter and beyond.

Wednesday’s meeting decided which areas would be in which tiers. Its conclusions have enraged MPs and council leaders in largely Covid-free areas who have been coupled with virus hotspots. The real story of that meeting is that it might have been worse. The story of the next few months is that it still might be.

“We’ve got to sort this out,” Johnson said, opening the meeting, before handing over to Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who presented to the virtual meeting for 20 minutes. The data, Hancock argued, left little room for doubt where most of the country should be placed. With the virus falling, but not fast enough, Manchester was always going to be tier 3 — not least because of tense relations with its mayor, Andy Burnham.

Liverpool — the guinea pig for mass testing — would get a reprieve. “Liverpool had to be in tier 2 to show you can turn these things around,” said one minister.

Hancock focused on the difficult marginal areas. The word that kept coming up was “contagion”. Stratford-upon-Avon is largely clear of Covid-19, but it is near Solihull, which is “really bad”, and people travel there to work and shop. The same problem arises in Kent, where the Medway towns have infection rates double the rest of the county and many times those of rural areas.

Throughout the meeting, the ministers discussed breaking the Covid zones down to district council level, as many Tory MPs wanted. In the end, they all agreed this was impractical. “We kept running up against the contagion effect,” one said. “Clarity of messaging was also going to be a problem.”

The crunch concerned London. Hancock admitted that across the capital “the numbers are trending down”. In much of south London, infection rates are low. In Newham in the east, and around Ealing in the west, they are sky high. The health secretary proposed three options: the whole city in tier 2 or tier 3, or most in tier 2, with the worst pockets in tier 3.

Alok Sharma, the business secretary, had fought before the meeting to ensure all three tiers would allow non-essential retailers and services such as hairdressers to remain open and the former 10pm curfew be extended to 11pm.

He backed tier 2 and so — with caveats — did Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary.

It was Michael Gove who demanded the most draconian crackdown, going further even than Hancock by declaring: “It’s got to be tier 3 across the whole of London.” The Cabinet Office minister revived warnings from the Sage advisory group of scientists that hospitals could be swamped over winter. “He did a proper, three-minute-long speech which seemed designed to ensure his views got out there,” said one of those present.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor and the most outspoken advocate of keeping the economy open, was too busy with the spending review to attend the meeting, sending John Glen, the economic secretary to the Treasury, in his place.

Crucially, Glen was armed by Treasury officials with key data on the economic damage that would be caused by putting London in the top tier in the run-up to Christmas, the busiest shopping time of the year.

Glen questioned Hancock’s data, declaring there was “a lag” in the health secretary’s figures. He also argued that “tier 2 is like the old tier 3”, saying Sage had previously advised ministers that would be enough to reduce infections and a further crackdown was not needed.

The Treasury’s trump card was figures showing that if London was put in tier 2 the restrictions would mean 50,000 jobs were put at risk, many of them in hospitality. The kicker was that if the capital was placed in tier 3 the number of jobs at risk would rise to a staggering 550,000. The difference was potentially half a million jobs — about one in nine of all jobs in the capital.

Glen’s intervention, coupled with the knowledge that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, was “threatening to kick the f*** off if London went into tier 3”, led Johnson to make his decision: “I’ve listened to Michael, but we’ve got to think about the economic situation as well. My view is that we should have London in tier 2.”

In Downing Street they regard this plan as an attempt to “build a bridge from here to Easter”, to keep a lid on the virus until the twin battalions of what Johnson calls “the cavalry” or “the artillery” arrive in the shape of a vaccine or more widespread mass testing.

Tory MPs are in uproar at the plans, with 70 having written a letter of protest and about 50 planning to vote against their own government on Tuesday when parliament is asked to approve the scheme.

Labour will wait until tomorrow before deciding how to vote but the Tory chief whip, Mark Spencer, told Johnson on Wednesday night: “This is going to be difficult but we’ll get it through because the opposition won’t oppose it.”

But last night Johnson wrote a letter to the 70 rebels, pledging that some areas being put into tier 3 will be allowed to move into tier 2 in mid-December and announcing that the whole tiers system will be abandoned in February unless MPs vote to extend it.

Despite the climbdown, the Covid Recovery Group of rebels, co-ordinated by Steve Baker, a veteran of Brexit rebellions, is demanding that the government publishes impact assessments of the plans before the vote.

Senior officials do not think the economic document will calm things. It will combine Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and Bank of England figures into an “apocalyptic” analysis of how the economy is likely to shrink by up to 12% this year and be between 3% and 6% smaller than it would have been in the long term. “We aren’t going to sugar-coat things,” a Treasury source said.

Treasury officials, stung by public scepticism about their predictions over Brexit, will not present nationwide jobs warnings, but if the dire predictions about London were extrapolated across all the 23 million people who will be in tier 3 it would mean between one million and two million jobs are at risk.

In a virtual meeting with Tory backbenchers last week, Johnson told MPs that the OBR was “too gloomy” about the economy bouncing back.

Even before last night’s letter, he ordered that the first review of the new tiers on December 16 be “a real moment” in which millions will be moved from tier 3 down to tier 2.

“In two more weeks we will have more data on how the national lockdown has helped bring the numbers down,” a senior figure said.

“There are a load of places that are on the borderline between 2 and 3 and by mid-December the data should allow some to move down.”

The biggest of those might be Manchester. Edward Argar, the health minister, was asked repeatedly by MPs on a Zoom call on Thursday about what the exit strategy is for those areas in tier 3.

An MP from Greater Manchester who was on the call said: “He just couldn’t answer the question. Some of us believe Andy Burnham has pissed off Matt Hancock so much, we will be in lockdown in perpetuity.”

But it is now clear Burnham has been tipped the wink by ministers that his region will be downgraded to tier 2. An ally said: “We are about two weeks behind Liverpool so we see no reason why we won’t be in tier 2. We have been reassured that the review will be meaningful.” That is supported by senior figures in No 10. “December 16 is a big deal,” one added.

If this helps to placate Tory backbenchers, it will put the prime minister into conflict with the scientists. Sage minutes, shown to ministers last week, reveal that the experts remain implacably opposed to any loosening of the rules in the run-up to Christmas.

They predict that the R number, a rating of the virus’s ability to spread, could double from just under one to about two, leading to exponential growth. On Friday the scientists advised against singing, dancing, playing board games or hugging relatives at Christmas.

No 10 is furious with the Department of Health, where senior figures have briefed MPs that they would like to impose a fourth, higher tier — rebranded as “3-plus” — in January if Christmas sends infections up. A No 10 source said: “They have been pushing this for weeks. It is simply not going to happen.” Hancock denies this is his view.

Downing Street is similarly quick to leap on overly optimistic briefings by officials elsewhere in Whitehall that the purchase of hundreds of millions of quick- turnaround “lateral flow” tests mean a “test and release” scheme could be set up to enable theatres to reopen for pantomimes and for people to attend the traditional Boxing Day football matches.

Johnson told MPs at the 1922 committee: “We have cornered the market” in the tests, but a No 10 source said: “We are some way off that.”

The prime minister’s inner circle is cautious about predicting the end is in sight. Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, has privately warned senior members of the civil service that they will continue to work from home until at least Easter.

A Whitehall source said: “The strategy they are working towards is to try and get things back to normal in the spring but that will depend on how successfully they roll out the vaccination scheme.”

There are some grounds for optimism. This weekend Sharma signed a deal for another two million doses of the Moderna vaccine, bringing the total number to seven million.

Ministers hope the Pfizer vaccine, of which Britain has ordered 40 million doses, will get the green light from safety watchdogs and will start being given to the over-70s and the clinically obese by December 7. However, the logistics of distributing the Pfizer drug, which has to be kept at minus 70C, is “daunting”.

The Oxford University vaccine being made by AstraZeneca has also hit bumps, with claims that the trials were poorly structured. But Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, told No 10 officials last week that it is still on track.

Key people, including NHS workers, teachers and police officers, will get it first although it is understood that the government has the capability to deliver only one million doses a week. No 10 says that will be scaled up.

Military chiefs are preparing for a flood of requests from councils for help with mass testing and vaccine distribution. They will open a “clearing house” team in the headquarters of the army’s 14,000-strong Covid Support Force to process the requests. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, told MPs last week that he could not replicate the Liverpool testing regime nationwide because“I don’t have that many people”.

Normal life might be around the corner, but the liberation force will not be the artillery or the cavalry. Johnson had better hope that whoever it is can score a late winner in the second half.

Boris Johnson was facing a growing Tory mutiny over new Covid-19 restrictions last night as furious Conservative MPs accused the government of exaggerating capacity problems in the NHS in an attempt to win their support.

[See the two contrasting posts of yesterday: “Boris offers escape route for towns and villages” and “Support our curbs or Covid will swamp our NHS”. Distinctly mixed messages. – Owl]

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com

Ahead of a crucial Commons vote on the new three-tier system on Tuesday, an extraordinary row erupted over claims by Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove that the NHS, including the newly constructed Nightingale hospitals, could be “physically overwhelmed”.

Writing yesterday in the Times, Gove revealed that the earlier decision to impose a second national lockdown had been taken after ministers had been presented with a grim picture of rising Covid-19 cases and Nightingale hospitals at capacity.

“Every bed, every ward occupied,” Gove wrote. Attempting to force rebel Conservatives into line, he told elected members that they had “to take responsibility for difficult decisions” in the national interest.

In a desperate attempt to win potential rebels round, the prime minister wrote to all MPs spelling out that regulations putting areas in tiers would end on 3 February and be reviewed every fortnight until then. He also promised the analysis demanded by many MPs of the health, economic and social impact of Covid-19 and the measures taken to tackle them.

But as Tory MPs objected to Gove’s tone, the argument was stoked further as other Conservatives revealed to the Observer that health minister Nadine Dorries had told a group of them last week that the Nightingale hospitals were in fact largely unfilled because people regarded them as “dark and dingy”, and that it was proving difficult to find the staff to run them. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care denied she had used those words and said: “Each NHS Nightingale has been developing a clinical model that can be scaled up as and when additional capacity is required in the region. This model ensures that the right skill mix of staff will be available from NHS trusts in the region, NHS professionals and direct recruitment if required.”

A spokesperson for the NHS confirmed that just two of seven Nightingales – Manchester and Exeter – had begun to admit patients.

One senior Tory said: “Ministers like Gove cannot at one and the same time be saying we are on the brink of being overwhelmed unless we adopt far tougher measures, while admitting they are not using any but a tiny number of the emergency capacity beds we have, and that, anyway, they don’t have the staff. If it is as bad as he says, what have they been doing since March?”

Tobias Ellwood, one of the Tory MPs threatening to vote against the government on Tuesday, said Gove had been “completely disingenuous because every one of our Nightingales is underused – they are largely dormant”. On Twitter, he added: “Let’s not place areas in higher tiers, due to local bed pressure when other beds lie empty.”

Johnson announced on Thursday that 99% of the population of England would enter the highest two tiers, with tight restrictions on bars and restaurants, and a ban on households mixing indoors. Only Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly will be in the lowest tier.

Many Tory MPs say the new system imposes excessively tight restrictions on areas with fewer cases which border regions with higher numbers of cases. They have called on ministers to produce more evidence for their decisions and also to publish analysis of the economic cost of imposing the new regime. They also want boundaries to be drawn at a more local level.

Charles Walker, the vice chairman of the 1922 committee of Tory MPs, said he would vote against the government on Tuesday and believed that Gove’s approach had backfired.

He said: “Michael Gove’s intervention has not helped the government’s case. I, like most MPs, have perhaps one or two emails a week from people saying ‘tighten the rules’ but scores from people running businesses asking how they can survive. Members of parliament who have deep concerns about the latest round of restrictions are acting in good faith by representing those who elected them. They are doing what they were elected to do.”

In his letter to MPs the prime minister called these “tough times” requiring “tough decisions”. He said areas could move into lower tiers from 16 December and the government would spell out what was needed before this could happen. A Cabinet meeting on 17 December would spell out what tiers would operate from 19 December. After the fourth fortnightly review on 27 January, parliament would have another vote “determining whether the measures stay in place until the end of March”.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, which will be placed in tier 3, accused the government of repeating scare tactics used by ministers during his recent rows with Westminster.

“Gove and the government have form on this,” he said. “They used the same scare tactics against Greater Manchester when they tried to browbeat us into accepting their original flawed tier 3 proposals. It didn’t work then and people should be sceptical of it now.” He said all MPs in tier 3 areas should “think twice” before voting for a system that would give their councils no extra support than those in tier 1 or 2, adding: “It will decimate their towns and cities and is a deliberate act of levelling down.”

The occupancy rate of Manchester’s Nightingale hospital, he said, was low, while locally the number of intensive-care Covid-19 patients had fallen to its lowest level since early November.

At least 10 Tory MPs are expected to vote against the government on Tuesday, with some two dozen or more said to be deeply uneasy and waiting to see if the government makes concessions. Former Cabinet minister Damian Green, the MP for Ashford in Kent, said: “Unless I see new convincing evidence, I will vote against.” Seven Tory MPs from Kent are due to meet Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock on Monday.

Tory MP Dr Ben Spencer said: “As a doctor, with all my body and soul we absolutely cannot let our NHS be overwhelmed and I agree with Michael Gove that MPs must take responsibility for difficult decisions. That’s why to make these decisions MPs need the harm/benefit analysis and the predicted impact of these restrictions on NHS capacity for their local areas.”

Steve Baker, deputy chair of the 70-strong Covid Recovery Group, which has raised deep concerns of the plans, said he was grateful for the “constructive approach’ and would study the details of Johnson’s letter before Tuesday’s vote. Labour has yet to decide how to vote and is pressing for more financial support for hard-hit areas and businesses.

Bharat Pankhania, senior clinical lecturer at Exeter University Medical School, warned that the risks to individuals were being ignored by those seeking tier relaxation. He said: “It is all very well talking about numbers and infection rates but what about the person who gets infected and ends up with permanently damaged lungs? They are done for life. These are the factors that we should be focussed on.”

Coronavirus expert David Matthews of Bristol University added that the government needed to be much clearer about its motives for imposing strict new measures. “It is imposing them because we don’t want cases to start rising again,” he said. “If unchecked, that would mean people will be left to die, untreated, in their own homes because there would be no hospital beds for them because there were so many other sick individuals. If a person gets seriously ill with Covid, they should have the right to have emergency treatment, dexamethasone, and oxygen in emergency care units. Keeping case numbers low is therefore essential.”

Meanwhile, hospitals have been told to prepare for the rollout of a coronavirus vaccine in as little as 10 days’ time, with NHS workers expected to be at the front of the queue. NHS bosses said hospitals in England could expect to receive their first deliveries of a vaccine produced by Pfizer/BioNTech as soon as Monday 7 December, with regulatory approval anticipated within days.

• Certificate of lawfulness for garage conversion to form a self contained habitable space ancillary to the main property 8 Betjeman Drive Exmouth EX8 5STRef. No: 20/2587/CPL | Validated: Fri 20 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Front and rear hip to gable extension with side dormer to form new first floor living space and associated works 59 Mount Pleasant Avenue Exmouth EX8 4QRRef. No: 20/2585/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of rear dormer window to allow loft conversion 72 Slade Close Ottery St Mary EX11 1SYRef. No: 20/2581/CPL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T17, Sweet Chestnut : Reduce crown height and spread by approximately 2m from existing 9m, maximum diameter of cuts 50mm T24, Sycamore : Reduce minor stem arising from main bifurcation at 4m above ground level back to growth point near bifurcation, diameter of cut 100mm. Western stem, north easterly and south westerly limbs: Remove two lowest branches arising from NE limb, diameter of cuts 100mm. Remove 2nd lowest branch from SW limb, diameter of cut 100mm Reason : See report A697-Elvestonne_061020,pdf7 Elvestone Fore Street Hill Budleigh Salterton EX9 6HDRef. No: 20/2579/TRE | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension 3 Petre Street Axminster Devon EX13 5FYRef. No: 20/2571/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension, raised terrace, retaining wall and steps 48 Jackson Meadow Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5GZRef. No: 20/2582/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the demolition of existing garages and construction of garden room, and 2 no. side and front hip to gable roof extension 81 Bradham Lane Exmouth EX8 4AWRef. No: 20/2576/CPL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of workshop/summerhouse 10 Higher Doatshayne Lane Musbury Axminster EX13 8BGRef. No: 20/2573/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed garage West View Payhembury Honiton EX14 3JARef. No: 20/2562/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Extension to side and rear, new front porch and raised decking. 8 Yawl Crescent Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3XLRef. No: 20/2559/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• County matter application for Section 73 planning application to vary conditions 1, 2, 3, 7, 19 and 20 of planning permission ref. DCC/4147/2019 to facilitate the extension to Uplyme Quarry.Uplyme Quarry (Shapwick Quarry) Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3SPRef. No: 20/2569/CM | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two and single storey extensions, studio, insertion of side rooflight and first floor side window (Revision of 20/1748/FUL) Astwood Kersbrook Budleigh Salterton EX9 7AERef. No: 20/2565/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• County matter application for the extension of Uplyme QuarryUplyme Quarry (Shapwick Quarry) Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3SPRef. No: 20/2568/CM | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side extension and single storey link extension to new garage to replace existing extension and garage. Chatterpark Courtlands Lane Exmouth EX8 5ABRef. No: 20/2564/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of first floor extension and single storey side and rear extension Headlands Southdown Road Beer Seaton EX12 3AERef. No: 20/2561/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of agricultural storage building and retention of access track. Land At South Of Cottshayne Hill ColytonRef. No: 20/2548/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of veranda 17 Marcus Road Exmouth EX8 4DBRef. No: 20/2549/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of single storey extension. 7 Honey Ditches Drive Seaton EX12 2NURef. No: 20/2537/CPL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey extension and alterations including recladding and rendering the external walls 98 Foxholes Hill Exmouth EX8 2DHRef. No: 20/2532/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side extension, porch, raised patio and roof extensions to provide 1st floor accommodation including side rooflights. 31 Churston Rise Seaton EX12 2JERef. No: 20/2528/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Replace slate roof & metal raised portico and install 2no.vents on single storey exetension on north west elevation and replace thatched ridge on main house. 1 Wytch Green Hawkchurch Axminster EX13 5XARef. No: 20/2530/LBC | Validated: Fri 20 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Alder, identified AL (6) on sketch. Reduce 40% to 4 metres. Garden Cottage Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4RERef. No: 20/2541/TCA | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two storey side extension 1 Vineton Place Feniton Honiton Devon EX14 3FGRef. No: 20/2540/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side and rear extension, side porch and first floor extension above existing kitchen Naavah Barn Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3LNRef. No: 20/2522/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1907 Ash . Cut back branches extending towards neighbouring driveway to a line approximately 1m west of highway edge. Maximum diameter of cuts 75mm T1908 Ash . Remove westerly stem back to main union T1909 Ash . Cut back branches overhanging roadway to west, removing two lowest limbs back to main union with trunk. Diameter of cuts approximately 250mm Salcombe Regis Camping And Caravan Park Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JHRef. No: 20/2526/TCA | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side/rear extension. 7 Maristow Avenue Exmouth EX8 3JFRef. No: 20/2523/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the replacement of openings, construction of single storey outbuilding and extension of drivewaycool 2 Bramble Close Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JSRef. No: 20/2517/CPL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 – Pine, reduce lower third of canopy by 1-2m on west, east and southern aspects. Northern aspect unaffected by works. Existing dimensions: E-W 12.5m, N-S 12m, height 11m. MDC 50mm Reason for works: For weight alleviation on heavy branches, signs of heavy limbs is present. 29 Northview Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6DERef. No: 20/2511/TRE | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness to establish lawful use of land and buildings at The Oaks for equestrian purposes involving grazing, stabling, livery, riding school and associated storage together with the commercial use of the indoor menage in connection with the equestrian use in breach of condition (C) of planning permission 77/C0741 in excess of 10 years The Oaks Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2DERef. No: 20/2506/CPE | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion, alteration and enlargement of storage building to form dwelling to replace mobile home granted certificate of lawfulness under ref. 18/1204/CPE Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZRef. No: 20/2518/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Balcony support structure repaired/replaced and canopy repaired on front elevation; overhaul french doors, front door with side lights on front elevation; overhaul and repair of all 12no. windows including new lead flashing and repaint; secondary glazing to 2no. bedroom windows at second floor and 1no. living room window at first floor; investigate damp of internal and external walls and roof; replace downpipe from family bathroom; gable end replace where necessary exterior slate tiles; new storage cupboard on ground floor; new fireplace and wood burner at first floor; first floor toilet converted into utility; kitchen new layout; overhaul bannister and family bathroom on second floor, remove WC walls to create larger bathroom. 12 Fortfield Terrace Sidmouth EX10 8NTRef. No: 20/2497/LBC | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Raising of ridge height to allow for first floor extension 2 Glebelands Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TBRef. No: 20/2469/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension and terrace and extension to garage Hillcrest Woodhouse Hill Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3SLRef. No: 20/2459/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• The proposals are for a first floor extension, building up the cat slide roof to form a usable first floor area. 2 Malt Field Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5NDRef. No: 20/2440/CPL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of land to include equine use and construction of field shelter and store. Land At Higher Metcombe Farm Higher MetcombeRef. No: 20/2442/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 8 (drainage strategy) of planning permission 19/1807/FUL (5 dwellings) to allow revised drainage scheme Land East Of High Bank Bridge View RockbeareRef. No: 20/2434/VAR | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from a restaurant to a mixed use as a restaurant (Use Class E(b)) and takeaway (sui generis) and installation of extractor fan equipment La Rosetta High Street Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0DWRef. No: 20/2415/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement windows on east elevation Stream Cottage Church Street Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SBRef. No: 20/2386/LBC | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement windows on east elevation Stream Cottage Church Street Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SBRef. No: 20/2385/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of render and cladding to rear extension. 12 Southbrook Meadow Cranbrook Exeter EX5 7DWRef. No: 20/2399/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed conversion of existing building to form 1 no. unit of holiday accommodation Land Adjacent Heather Bell South Common AxminsterRef. No: 20/2298/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of rear and side extensions, 3 no. front dormer windows, raising of roof, balcony and detached garage with office space above. Cooinda Coombelake Ottery St Mary EX11 1NGRef. No: 20/2273/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace existing window with door and replace existing double doors on (north west) rear elevation; remove section of wall leading from laundry room into kitchen; create new opening from kitchen into snug; block up double doors from dining room into snug and external ground level to be lowered to below ground floor level in the house to reduce damp 6 Cambridge Terrace Salcombe Road Sidmouth EX10 8PLRef. No: 20/2280/LBC | Validated: Tue 17 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of replacement garage The Forge Axmouth Seaton EX12 4AURef. No: 20/2255/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of garage and dwelling (revisions to scheme approved under application number 20/0856/FUL). The Laurels Church Road Whimple Exeter EX5 2SYRef. No: 20/2223/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of raised decking in rear garden 2 Mount Hill Beer Seaton EX12 3HXRef. No: 20/2126/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• To dismantle in a controlled manner cutting as close to ground level as possible 1 x multi-stemmed Yucca plant as a poor specimen and health and safety concerns as this plant is rather unstable. 4 The Orchard Honiton EX14 1BNRef. No: 20/2125/TCA | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, beech – dismantle and fell. Reason Ganoderma fruiting bodies at base of tree and thinning foliage indicating decay. Highfield House Bickwell Lane Sidmouth EX10 8TQRef. No: 20/1707/TRE | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, eucalyptus – reduce by 3m to a suitable pruning position to leave a natural form to leave a height of approximately 12m height x 7m spread. Oakfield Court Bickwell Lane Sidmouth EX10 8TQRef. No: 20/1708/TCA | Validated: Mon 16 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

“To really help the revolution get to full power before 2030 we need a concerted effort from local authorities to take up the charging point grants – only one in six do, according to AA research, and for those premises providing chargers to ensure they work.”

Miles Brignall www.theguardian.com

A couple from Kent have described how it took them more than nine hours to drive 130 miles home from Bournemouth as they struggled to find a working charger capable of producing enough power to their electric car.

Linda Barnes and her husband had to visit six charging stations as one after another they were either out of order, already had a queue or were the slow, older versions that would never be able to provide a fast enough charge in the time.

While the couple seem to have been “incredibly unlucky”, according to the president of the AA, Edmund King, their case highlights some of the problems that need ironing out before electric car owners can rely on the UK’s charging infrastructure.

The couple, who love their new fully electric Porsche Taycan 4S, which has a range of about 250 miles, contacted the Guardian to describe how difficult it is to recharge a car away from home. Their journey would have taken two and a half hours in a conventional car, they say.

The pair are not the first owners who love their electric cars to complain that the UK’s charging network is poorly maintained, complicated and hugely difficult to navigate via its various apps and payment systems.

The latest electric cars require fast 50kW-100kW chargers to refill on the go but they are hard to find and are often out of action.

Their journey shows the scale of the challenge the government faces if it is to have a working infrastructure in place ahead of its ban on new petrol and diesel cars in 2030.

Linda Barnes says they knew they would have to stop for a fast charge on the way home but were unprepared for what happened next.

“We left Bournemouth with 45 miles of range left and followed the car’s navigation system to the nearest fast charger, plugged it in but nothing happened,” she says. “A parking attendant told us it had been out of action for weeks.”

After a tour of several chargers, they were left wondering if they might have to stay the night in a hotel. A nearby Porsche garage with a slow charger gave them a free boost to get them to the next motorway services. When they arrived there, a woman who was using it told them she had only got it working by calling the helpline and that the call centre was about to close.

At their next stop, there was a queue to use the 7kW slow charger, which was working but came with a “distinctly unhelpful” 45-minute time limit, at which point another driver suggested a nearby hotel that had charging points.

Rather than risk driving there and use up more power, the couple phoned, only to be told by staff that they had no idea what type it was or if it was even working.

When they finally got to a working fast charger at a motorway services – via two more that were not operating – they were met with eight shiny Tesla chargers but discovered they were out of bounds because they are only available to the brand’s owners.

Fortunately, there was another fast charger that was available and they were finally able to get enough power to get home with only 11% battery power to spare.

Linda says the sense of relief was enormous. “We ran through the entire gamut of emotions in those nine hours – resignation, range anxiety, annoyance and disbelief that this was happening – and finally elation when we realised we’d get home,” she says.

“At one point I thought we might have to spend the night in the motorway service area. We would have stayed in the hotel if it hadn’t been the night that the second lockdown came into force.”

Thinking that they had just been unlucky on their first outing, the next day Linda’s husband drove to their nearest town where there are three charging points in a car park. None were working.

“He then drove to a local pub where there is one in the car park – that was not working, either. Undeterred, he drove to the local BP fuel station but, sure enough, that was not functioning. There was no helpline number on the charging point and the assistant in the service station couldn’t help and said it was nothing to do with them.”

Linda says she now knows why most drivers charge their cars at home overnight and avoid using the public network. “Our car is lovely to drive and electric cars are the future. However, someone needs to get a grip of the charging infrastructure,” she says. “On the plus side, we have discovered that electric car owners are a helpful bunch and everyone we met tried to help.”

The AA’s King, a keen electric vehicle driver, says the couple were very unlucky with their first non-home charging experience: “This couple are very lucky to have a Taycan, which is the best electric vehicle I have ever driven. For most electric vehicle drivers, charging at home and at work gets them where they want to go and back.

“However, the reliability and availability of public charging does vary, with much criticism aimed particularly at charging on some motorway service areas but things are fast improving.”

He cites companies such as Gridserve, which has a state-of-the-art charging station near Braintree in Essex, and InstaVolt, which has won three customer awards this year for the reliability of its 500kW rapid charging network.

“Electric vehicle consumers want more interoperability, more chargers, greater reliability and a contactless experience. To really help the revolution get to full power before 2030 we need a concerted effort from local authorities to take up the charging point grants – only one in six do, according to AA research, and for those premises providing chargers to ensure they work. Driving an electric vehicle is great fun and can save you money and save emissions. Let’s make sure the future network can help save range anxiety,” he says.

Charging points: what you need to know

• There are more than 11,600 public charging sites in the UK, located at motorway service areas, supermarket and local authority car parks and, increasingly, pubs and restaurants. However, they come with a variety of sockets, power sizes, and a baffling array of payment methods – depending on the provider.

• Some are free to use but most have a fee, particularly the rapid chargers that will provide 80% recharges in 40-60 minutes. Some require users to sign up for an app and special payment card; the better sites let you pay contactlessly with a standard bank card – but there are not enough.

• Paid-for charging sites typically cost 30p per kWh, which is about twice as much you would pay if doing it at home. You will pay about £10 for 33kWh of electricity at a rapid charger – in most cases enough to drive about 130 miles.

• In something of a rerun of the Betamax v VHS video battle of the 1980s, there are three types of connector being used, so most drivers have to carry two leads around. The good news is that new cars sold in Europe are moving to one standard, CCS faster charging, which should make life much easier. Drivers connecting to low-power 7kW public chargers use their own cable, while the higher-powered 50kW and 100kW sites have built-in cables, similar to a petrol pump.

• Too often, chargers are simply out of order, a really big problem if you were banking on being able to use one to complete a journey. The various apps will often tell you it is working but the information can be out of date.

• This article was amended on 28 November 2020. An earlier version incorrectly referred to a ban on new “petrol and electric” cars in 2030, rather than petrol and diesel cars.

Most people in Britain were brought up in a country that offered the faint hope of justice. The police would investigate corruption, if only occasionally. Politicians would dodge and weave but avoid flat-out lies. Political parties had moral standards, however flexible, and if a minister disgraced himself or herself they could resign. Opposition politicians, journalists, satirists, charities and alliances of concerned citizens worked on the assumption that if they exposed wrongdoing there was a chance it would stop.

 Nick Cohen www.theguardian.com 

I don’t wish to romanticise the past. My small point is that we have not always been as shamefully governed as we are governed today. Countries change and not always for the better. Corruptions of public life in Britain that were once challenged now pass unpunished. The old codes that restrained the powerful have proved useless against politicians who say: “We can break them and no one can stop us.” Boris Johnson’s administration now lies as a matter of policy and a matter of course.

Do I hear you say that all politicians lie? Not like members of this government they don’t. Today’s ministers do not just avoid the question. They lie outright, loud and proud. To confine myself to the past week, ministers said the electorate “settled the argument” about a no-deal Brexit in the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election. The record shows Leavers promised voters “the easiest deal in human history” in 2016 and an “oven-ready” deal in 2019. They were still telling the Leave voters they cozened that we should be able to enjoy the benefits of being in the EU after leaving. If there is chaos at the ports and job losses, it will be because the EU willed suffering on us as a punishment, rather than because Boris Johnson foisted a hard Brexit on his country, with predictable and inevitable consequences.

It may seem like a lost age, but not so long ago allegations of corruption warranted police investigations. In 2006, a Scottish Nationalist MP alleged Labour was selling peerages in return for political donations. The Met questioned Labour fundraisers and ministers in Tony Blair’s government, up to and including Blair. What makes the past seem almost rosy is the sequel. The Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Labour did not turn on the Metropolitan police and force its chief commissioner out. Blair did not claim that the police were pursuing a political vendetta. He and his government took the investigation on the chin and accepted scrutiny as the price of governing in a democracy.

The police have prima facie grounds this weekend to investigate the billions in Covid contracts this government has sluiced out of the Treasury to friends and allies. Cronyism wasn’t a small error of judgment. It was such an accepted part of the spending splurge that the National Audit Office found civil servants had established a VIP fast-lane “to assess and process potential PPE leads referred by government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and Lords, senior NHS staff and other health professionals”.

If Cressida Dick, commissioner of the Met, and Lynne Owens, director general of the National Crime Agency, were to investigate, they would do so in the knowledge that the Johnson administration menaces everyone who holds it to account. The Electoral Commission investigates allegations against Vote Leave and Conservative MPs. The government proposes to abolish it. The Supreme Court rules that Johnson cannot arbitrarily suspend parliament. The government proposes curtailing its powers.

You can guess how a police investigation would be dealt with. Tory newspapers and websites – probably the Telegraph and Guido – would look for the smallest piece of dirt to smear Dicks and Owens as Remainers or liberals. The courtier intellectuals at Policy Exchange would develop strategies to stop the “activist” police officers pursuing “political prosecutions”. Ministers would endorse them and before you knew it the police would be under attack. Even if they want to investigate, the police must have noticed that the Priti Patel case ended with the guilty minister staying in her job while the honourable investigator resigned.

Do you still think nothing has changed? Let’s see what else I have. Staying with last week, governments once believed manifesto promises were sacrosanct. On Wednesday, the Conservatives tore up their manifesto promise on international aid.

When Labour was in power, journalists deplored its reliance on spin. Johnson wrote in 2006 that Blair was “luxuriating in power, while all 3,000-odd government spin doctors… squander untold millions burnishing his image”. (It wasn’t true but back then no one thought it worth their time exposing Johnson. Britain might not be in such a squalid state if we had.)

Last week, the Open Democracy website revealed a government led by Johnson, the enemy of spin, had set up an “Orwellian” unit to obstruct the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act and to compile blacklists of journalists.

In 2014, Ed Miliband forgot to mention the deficit in his conference speech. Johnson seized on the “Freudian slip” as proof Labour was unfit to govern. Last week, his chancellor, Rishi Sunak, issued a spending review and did not mention Brexit once, which certainly showed he was unfit to govern, The media did not pile into Sunak’s “Freudian slip” as they piled in on Miliband and not only because of pro-Tory bias.

Time is on the side of authoritarian rulers. The Tories know that, however furious the cries of anger, they have an 80-seat majority and the next election won’t be for years. The scandal will fade. They will endure.

I am not about to offer false optimism. People once believed the way they could win change was by shaming the double standards of rulers hiding behind masks of virtue. Now there are no easy ways of coping with rulers who have no shame, who feel no need to pretend to be virtuous because they can govern with impunity. The only answer is to tell yourself to keep pounding away in the faint hope that a kind of justice will come years from now. I accept this isn’t the most rousing of slogans.

• Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

Just in case you were getting a little confused by the mixed messages coming from a government with an 80 seat majority, Michael Gove spells out the “official/agreed/orthodox/canonical/doctrinal/holy writ” line, or possibly not. A day is a long time in politics. – Owl

Oliver Wright, Policy Editor | Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor | Francis Elliott, Political Editor www.thetimes.co.uk

Every hospital in England faces being overwhelmed with Covid-19 cases if MPs fail to back the government’s tough new restrictions, Michael Gove has warned.

Amid a growing Conservative backbench rebellion over the tiering system, the Cabinet Office minister is calling on MPs to “take responsibility for difficult decisions” to prevent further spread of the disease.

Mr Gove’s intervention, in an article for The Times today, comes as tens of millions of people in Tiers 2 and 3 were warned they were unlikely to be able to socialise indoors until the spring.

The prime minister’s scientific advisers have told him that it won’t be safe for a large number of areas to be moved into Tier 1 until the danger period for the NHS has passed. They conclude that at the lowest level the restrictions are insufficient to stop cases rising.

The prospect of months under onerous curbs will anger MPs in southern England, who claim that their constituencies have had unfair restrictions imposed upon them despite low and falling rates of infection.

Boris Johnson said he understood the frustration but that it was essential to control the virus until a vaccine could be supplied. “I know it is frustrating for people when they are in a high-tier area when there is very little incidence in their village or their area. I totally understand why people feel frustrated,” he said. “Our experience is that, when a high incidence area is quite close to a low incidence area, unless you beat the problem in the high incidence area, the low incidence area starts to catch up.”

Craig Mackinlay, the Conservative MP for South Thanet, which has the second highest R-rate in the country, said this morning that people naturally “self-regulate” when the local R-rate starts to rise. He told BBC Breakfast that he favoured this response to the “draconian” tiers system, which he plans to vote against on Tuesday.

Mr Gove’s intervention is the strongest defence yet of the government’s strategy. He revealed that the decision to impose a four-week national lockdown was taken after scientists warned that the lockdown rules were not enough to prevent the NHS from being “physically overwhelmed”. “Every bed, every ward occupied. All the capacity built in the Nightingales and requisitioned from the private sector too. The numbers infected with Covid-19 and requiring a bed would displace all but emergency cases. And then even those,” he writes.

Mr Gove said that MPs should not fall for “comfortable evasions” that things were now different or put their constituencies ahead of the national interest. “When the country is facing such a national crisis, the truth is that all of us who have been elected to parliament, not just ministers, must take responsibility for difficult decisions,” he writes.

“Covid-19 is no respecter of constituency boundaries and the hardships we are facing now are unfortunately necessary to protect every single one of us, no matter where we live.”

Mr Gove described the new restrictions that will see the vast majority of the country in tougher tiers as “grimly, inevitably, necessary” to prevent the NHS from being unable to treat emergency patients.

“The level of infection across the country remains uncomfortably and threateningly high. Across the UK, around 16,000 beds are filled with Covid-19 patients, which compares with almost 20,000 at the April peak. From the current high base, any sharp uptick in infection could see the NHS under even more severe threat again.”

He rejected suggestions that the measures were economically damaging, arguing that without them “the economy would grind to a halt” as a terrified population stayed at home rather than risked going without care.

Sage documents published yesterday concluded that while Tier 3 was effective almost everywhere, and Tier 2 in most places, Tier 1 had failed to stop cases rising exponentially.

Mr Gove accepted the previous tiers “were neither strong enough to reduce social contact sufficiently, nor applied widely enough to contain the virus’ spread. And that is the difficult lesson we cannot unlearn as this lockdown ends.”

The gathering Tory rebellion could leave Mr Johnson dependent on Labour support if he is to get the new measures approved. Justin Madders, a Labour health spokesman, said the party would wait to see the detailed regulations before deciding which way to vote. He suggested the government could be forced to make concessions.

“I think that that’s part of the debate we’re going to have about making sure that the public has got confidence that this is the right thing to do,” he told Times Radio. Labour is considering abstaining on Tuesday’s vote.

MPs told rural areas with low infection rates could be ‘decoupled’ from cities that have dragged them into strict restrictions.

[“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” – to quote Sir Walter Scott]

By Danielle Sheridan, Political Correspondent www.telegraph.co.uk

Towns and villages near Covid hotspots would be lifted out of the toughest restrictions under plans being drawn up by ministers to quell a growing Tory backlash.

MPs have been told that rural areas with low infection rates could be “decoupled” from cities that have “unfairly” dragged them into Tiers 2 and 3 under the Government’s regional approach.

It comes amid a major rift between ministers and scientific advisers, who say areas of England are more likely to go up a tier than down one.

Government scientists have said they expect few changes within the system in coming months, with Tier 2 areas more likely to go up than down and almost nowhere likely to move to Tier 1 until March. They are understood to have told Boris Johnson that he should consider moving Tier 2 areas to Tier 3.

The draconian advice comes despite new figures showing the reproduction ‘R’ rate of the virus to have come down to between 0.9 and 1.0 – its lowest level since August – meaning that Covid may already be in retreat.

Up to 100 Tory MPs are threatening the biggest rebellion of Mr Johnson’s premiership when the new tier system is put to a vote next week amid anger over a broad brush approach that has put low incidence areas into higher tiers because they are in the same county as a city with a high infection rate. 

Government ministers Nadhim Zahawi and Jesse Norman are among those to have publicly criticised the new tiers.

Labour has yet to decide whether it will vote for the tier system, meaning Mr Johnson could face defeat unless he can persuade enough of his own MPs to back down. The Prime Minister said on Friday that he understood the “frustration” of people who have ended up in tier two or three despite low infection rates in their town or village.

According to reports, the Prime Minister has pencilled in Easter Monday as the day when the strict Covid tiers will be lifted.

Ministers and officials are trying to win round Tory MPs by offering them hope that their constituencies will be “decoupled” from hotspots when a review of the tiers is carried out in mid-December. Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, is among ministers understood to have discussed the idea with backbenchers, with other ministers and officials also having private talks with MPs.

Seven Tory MPs in Kent are among those in discussions with the Government over “decoupling” low-incidence rural areas from hotspots in the county, which is in Tier 3 along with 41 per cent of England’s population.

Tom Tugendhat, the MP for Tonbridge and Malling, said: “Many of us are talking to his [Mr Hancock’s] team at the moment – we are seeing where we are going to get. I’d like the Government to come to the right conclusion. It’s an error.”

Many MPs have pointed out that both Slough, in Berkshire, and Scarborough, in North Yorkshire, have already been “decoupled” from their regions by being put into different tiers.

Former Cabinet minister Liam Fox, the MP for North Somerset, said: “Why should we be punished for Bristol not being able to get its numbers under control? We weren’t the ones having raves and protests. We are being victimised because of the city authorities’ failure to get this under control. It appears to lack consistency and logic. 

“I’ve made my feelings known within the party and expect these things will be reviewed before the vote on Tuesday. There have been hints by ministers that there will be decoupling.”

Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories, said: “The tiers have been applied in an unjust and unfair way, putting whole counties into lockdown when significant areas have very low levels of infection.”

Andrew Bridgen, whose North West Leicestershire constituency has been put into Tier 3 because of high rates in Leicester, said: “A lot of us were in lower tiers and now we are in higher tiers. If there is any hope of salvation, we’ve got to be decoupled from Leicester.

“Our figures are dropping. It’s all about hope – and if we are linked with Leicester, then we have no hope.”

Business minister Mr Zahawi said he had spoken to Mr Hancock and “made clear to him the very strong feelings” among his constituents in Stratford-upon-Avon, which is in Tier 3 because infection rates in Coventry and Solihull have “counted against us”. 

He said he was “pushing for” Warwickshire to be “reconsidered alone” so it can drop to Tier 2.

Mr Johnson said: “I know it is frustrating for people when they are in a high-tier area when there is very little incidence in their village or their area. I totally understand why people feel frustrated.

“The difficulty is that if you did it any other way, first of all you’d divide the country up into loads and loads of very complicated sub-divisions – there has got to be some simplicity and clarity in the way we do this. The second problem is that, alas, our experience is that when a high-incidence area is quite close to a low-incidence area, unless you beat the problem in the high-incidence area then the low-incidence area, I’m afraid, starts to catch up.”

Downing Street has insisted it is possible that some of the 99 per cent of the country in tiers two and three could drop down to lower tiers when a review based on the newest data is announced on December 17.

However, it emerged on Friday that while Mr Johnson faces a fight for the support of his own MPs for the tier system, he also faces a battle with his scientific advisers, who believe the restrictions should be toughened rather than relaxed.

One senior Government scientist said he was “not expecting big changes to the tiers in the next few months”, adding that he “would be surprised if we saw large numbers of areas get down to Tier 1” before spring heralds the rollout of a vaccine.

The adviser said he anticipated that some areas would rise from Tier 2 to Tier 3 after Christmas, while it was possible some areas could drop from Tier 3 to Tier 2 in time.

He added that “from now … into February is going to be the most difficult”, anticipating heavier pressures on the NHS after Christmas when rises in respiratory viruses and flu are typically seen, saying: “All those things conspire against being able to relax tiers.”

The same source called into question Mr Johnson’s reliance on mass testing to get areas out of Tier 3. The Prime Minister has cited the use of  it in Liverpool as the reason it became the first part of the country to leave the highest tier, and Number 10 has said hundreds of millions of tests will soon be available.

But the source said it would be “optimistic” to think that mass testing could reduce an epidemic by 15 to 20 per cent and that repeated testing in high-risk groups was likely to be more effective than offering it to the whole population less frequently.

On Friday night, Michael Gove defended the tier system in The Times, describing it as “grimly, inevitably necessary” to prevent the NHS from being unable to treat emergency patients.

Separately, newly-released minutes of a Sage meeting on November 19 show that scientific advisers believe the relaxation of rules on household mixing over the festive period will result in increased prevalence in a similar way to students returning to university in September.

“Now is not the time,” gibbered the prime minister, “to take our foot off the throat of the beast.” Its throat? A lot of people feel like they’ve been living in the beast’s colon for most of the year. Still, see you guys in tier 4 in January.

Marina Hyde www.theguardian.com 

Incredibly, the above was not even the worst line of Boris Johnson’s Thursday evening press conference. Johnson is unaccountably celebrated as a brilliant prose stylist but frequently spouts the sort of sub-inspirational shit you might see slapped on a photo of a crossroads on Instagram. This outing was a case in point, as the prime minister intoned: “Your tier is not your destiny – every area has the means of escape.” Wow. I want to say “#makesuthink”, but I’m going to go with: “Then tell us what the means of escape is! Why does everything have to be a bleeding ring quest?”

Unfortunately, the government doesn’t even trust its own MPs enough to divulge what precisely will set your area free. And, as I mentioned last week, many of you will be quite bored with taking lectures in personal responsibility from a man who doesn’t even take personal responsibility for an unspecified number of his own children.

For now: out of the frying pan, into the burns unit. Last month, before Johnson belatedly got around to announcing the national lockdown in a Halloween performance of quite terrifying ineptitude, over 50% of England was in tier 1. When the nation “emerges” four weeks later, it’ll be more like 1%. Boris Johnson has 99 problems, but the Isles of Scilly ain’t one.

Almost the entire country will now be in the toughest two tiers – which are themselves not the tiers you might have known and loved the first time round. There have been “modifications”. Furthermore, there is the situation of areas such as Kent, which went into this lockdown in tier 1 but which Johnson has deemed will come out of it into an even harsher version of tier 3. Like Taylor Swift’s, his tiers ricochet.

It is fair to say the reaction to yesterday’sannouncements is widespread WTF-ery. If you are able to follow all the news obsessively, these latest developments might not come as a shock. Since the beginning of our plague year, Johnson’s failure to grasp any of the nettles at any of the points they needed to be grasped has arguably long set us up for a bleak midwinter. And a bleak early winter, and a bleak late winter.

There’s a reason the Office for Budget Responsibility places the UK on the naughty step of charts comparing not just European death tolls but also economic damage, despite the country having had to endure some of the most stringent restrictions in the continent. And it’s not because it’s “just one of those things”. Johnson’s government has fallen between every stool. Worse, they were so hell bent on not having to learn from the first wave via any sort of inquiry, that many of the mistakes have since been repeated in the second wave. If there is a third wave, expect yet another runout for all your favourites.

As I say, lots of hyperengaged people may already feel they knew what “the end of lockdown” would look like. If, however, your main preoccupation has been with keeping your head/business/life above water, you might have taken a very different signal from the government over the past few weeks, when you’ve had a second to pay attention. You might have assumed that the thing which followed the lockdown would be – how to put this? – less lockdowny. You might have assumed, what with all the deceptive performative fussing over Christmas and so on, that we would return on 2 December to something better than we left on 4 November. You might even remember successive promises of Johnson’s to “turn the tide” in 12 weeks (March), and a “return to normality by Christmas” (July).

Alas, all of these little white lies are a function of Johnson’s character. From the very start of this pandemic, the prime minister has confirmed he is temperamentally unsuited to delivering bad news. Instead, he has opted to deliver bad news hopelessly belatedly, and good news self-defeatingly prematurely. The effect is to make people feel constantly cheated, even when the news is better than might have been expected had their expectations been managed more fairly or reasonably. Hence why, up and down the country today, people feel led up the garden path. If they watched Thursday’s Downing Street press conference, they will know to expect more of the same as we move forward. No sooner had Johnson explained how your tier wasn’t your destiny, than chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, explained that even the new tier 2 would only hold infections level. Tier 1 would result in a rise.

Naturally, there is a certain irony in seeing Tory MPs who voted for Johnson now outraged to discover that he won’t tell them the truth. Had you given a look to camera this morning every time an MP said something like “the prime minister needs to be straight with people”, you’d have had whiplash before breakfast.

Much worse are the ones still quietly making excuses for his character failings, like he’s some special case. Even at his lectern, Johnson seems to cast himself as the chorus to events, as opposed to the guy who decrees them. All the sighs and the winces and the “I wishes” – we are for ever being encouraged to see things as happening to the prime minister, as opposed to at his behest. He lacks the leadership qualities required to own his response.

No doubt his last defenders would claim that Johnson is simply giving people hope. If so, then he is demonstrably going the wrong way about it. Johnson has become a specialist in dashing hopes falsely raised (by him). Yet hope is hugely important, now more than at any time this past year, and a better leader – even an adequate one – should be able to inspire without misleading.

Alas, Johnson continues to confuse giving people hope with placating them with fibs, only to let them down later, like he was always going to have to anyway. The pattern is not unfamiliar. There are women in several London postcodes to whom the prime minister once gave hope, only to later turn out to have been making false promises. Hang on to your lunch, but perhaps we’re all those women now. We expect him to do this; we expect him to do that. So we became hopeful, after a fashion. When the time comes, of course, Boris Johnson doesn’t think he can be reasonably expected to do the things he suggested he could – indeed, he protests that he never really suggested them anyway.

So yes, this is the way he has always been. At the time of the leadership election, there were all sort of open-minded Tories who voted for Johnson, apparently convinced the personal was not political. That was a misapprehension. Your tier might not be your destiny – but in his job, your character always is.

• Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

• Join Marina Hyde and Guardian parliamentary sketch writer John Crace as they look back at a political year like no other. Thursday 10 December, 7pm GMT, 8pm CET, 2pm EST Book tickets here

Harsh benefit cuts are to blame for rising poverty in Britain, a former Conservative Cabinet minister has admitted – as he pleaded with Rishi Sunak not to repeat the mistake.

www.independent.co.uk

In remarkably candid comments, Stephen Crabb said the steep reductions in Universal Credit – begun by George Osborne five years ago – had failed to raise wages, as the former Chancellor hoped.

“Five years on, looking back, I would say we took too much money out of Universal Credit. We squeezed too hard,” said Mr Crabb, a former Work and Pensions Secretary.

And he admitted: “That’s what gives you a lot of the reasons behind the increase in hardship in this country.”

The backbencher spoke out amid rising criticism of the current Chancellor for planning to slash £20-a-week from Universal Credit payments next April.

The football star Marcus Rashford, who forced a climbdown on free school meals, has now thrown his weight behind the campaign to retain the increase put through at the start of the pandemic.

But Mr Crabb warned some ministers saw restoring the cut as a way to start plugging the £40bn black hole in the public finances, without there being “a political price to pay”.

He criticised a “missed opportunity” to help poorer families, when the bleak economic outlook for 2021 was already crystal clear.

“There will certainly be more people unemployed, there’ll be more families relying on Universal Credit and more people relying on it for greater periods,” he told BBC Radio 4.

“And the thing about Universal Credit is that the longer you are on it, the harder it is to make ends meet.”

Six million households face the £1,000-a-year cut to their incomes, if Universal Credit is reduced again – just as unemployment is expected to soar to 2.6 million, Mr Sunak has acknowledged.

In a further criticism of the government’s anti-poverty record, campaigners have attacked a near-doubling of the number of households hit by the overall cap on benefits.

There were 168,400 households subject to the cap in August 2020 – up from around 77,913 households in February, before the coronavirus pandemic hit.

The limit is set at £20,000 a year for families outside London, and £23,000 for those in the capital – with ministers rejecting pleas for it to be relaxed while the Covid-19 crisis continues.

There are 600,000 more children living in relative poverty since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, official figures show.

That total grew by 100,000 last year alone, leaving 4.2 million youngsters in the UK – or 30 per cent – existing below the poverty line.

Mr Crabb said the Treasury, under Mr Osborne’s leadership, “hated Universal Credit” until it realised it was a mechanism to slash benefits, in comparison with the existing tax credits system.

It only “got behind it” when it “spotted an opportunity for rolling out a cut to the welfare budget”.

East Devon councillors have backed making funding available to support the building of a long-awaited town centre in Cranbrook.

Daniel Clark eastdevonnews.co.uk 

District authority chiefs agreed to persist with work on a draft masterplan  – and continue to negotiate with a consortium of developers over their vision.

The masterplan approach seeks to use the East Devon New Community Partners (EDNCp)  as a starting point, incorporating plans for a library, youth centre, children’s centre and a hub for ‘blue light’ services.

But the proposal would also make the remainder of town centre land available for a mix of commercial, community uses and a leisure centre rather than for housing.

The location of an extra care facility would be changed, while provision may be made for a hotel.

East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet agreed on Wednesday that funding ‘in principle’ be made available to support the pro-active delivery of the town centre.

This would be based on the draft masterplan, although a detailed business plan to understand the streams of funding and the level required would need to come back for final approval.

Councillor Kevin Blakey, who represents the Cranbrook ward, said a figure in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’ would be needed.

Cllr John Loudoun, portfolio holder for policy co-ordination and regional engagement, added: “It is important that the residents of Cranbrook understand the administration’s intent and desire to try and finally deliver for them a town centre and a town centre that does actually work for them and not just the developers.

“This is a significant commitment to the residents and we want to sort this out once and for all for the better good.”

A draft supplementary planning document (SPD) and  delivery plan will now be presented to the authority’s Strategic Planning Committee in December.

Councillors on the committee were last month urged to by town representatives to accept the EDNCp proposals.

The developers’ offer would see work take place sooner, but would be less ambitious than a proposed masterplan council officers are in favour of.

But the calls were rejected, with members instead voting to continue negotiations with the EDNCp to improve its offer, and that work should continue on an SPD.

Public sector bodies must be more open about their use of algorithms in making decisions, ministers have been told.

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk 

A government advisory body said greater transparency and accountability was needed in all walks of life over the use of computer-based models in policy.

Officials must understand algorithms’ limits and risks of bias, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation said.

Boris Johnson blamed a “mutant” algorithm for the chaos over school grades in England this summer.

Ofqual and other exam regulators across the UK were forced to back down following a public outcry over the use of a computer program to determine A-level and GCSE grades after the cancellation of exams.

The regulator’s chief executive resigned after the algorithm used to “moderate” marks submitted by schools and grading centres resulted in nearly 40% of them being downgraded, in some cases by more than one grade.

It was accused of breaching of anti-discrimination legislation and failing to uphold standards.

‘Promote fairness’

The government was forced into another U-turn last month over aspects of its planning reforms after Tory MPs accused ministers of relying on a faulty computer-based formula to decide house building targets across England.

In a new study, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation said there needed to be greater awareness of the risks of using algorithms in make potentially life-changing decisions and more done to mitigate them.

Those running organisations, it said, had to remember they were ultimately accountable for all their decisions, whether there were made by humans or artificial intelligence.

Its recommendations include requiring all bodies to record where algorithms fit into their overall decision-making process and what steps are taken to ensure those affected are treated fairly.

While organisations should be actively collecting and using data to identify bias in decision-making, it said there was a risk techniques used to mitigate bias, such as positive discrimination, could fall foul of equality legislation.

It urged the government to issue guidance on how decision by algorithm must comply with the Equality Act.

Adrian Weller said there was an opportunity for the UK to demonstrate global leadership in the responsible use of data and ensure appropriate regulatory standards were in place.

“It is vital that we work hard now to get this right as adoption of algorithmic decision-making increases,” he said.

“Government, regulators and industry need to work together with interdisciplinary experts, stakeholders and the public to ensure that algorithms are used to promote fairness, not undermine it.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office urged organisations to consult guidance on the use of artificial intelligence.

“Data protection law requires fair and transparent uses of data in algorithms, gives people rights in relation to automated decision-making, and demands that the outcome from the use of algorithms does not result in unfair or discriminatory impacts,” it said.

Boris Johnson has been accused of trying to bury bad news after the government quietly ditched his pledge to give all homes superfast broadband by 2025.

Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

The prime minister came under fire from business and telecoms chiefs as the small print of the chancellor’s spending review revealed that planned spending on the roll-out of the technology had also been slashed from £5bn to £1.2bn.

Labour said Johnson had been caught “sneaking out” the abandoned target and the spending cut as the country focused on plans for new coronavirus tiers.

Up to 5 million people are set to lose out as a result and critics have pointed out that high-speed broadband is needed more than ever during the coronavirus pandemic as home working becomes the norm.

The Tory election commitment to deliver “gigabit-capable” broadband to every home and company across the UK within five years was a landmark pledge, bringing forward by eight years a similar goal of predecessor Theresa May.

Johnson repeatedly campaigned on the promise, which he said was a central part of his “levelling up” agenda to make rural and urban parts of Britain ready for a post-Brexit future.

The broadband pledge was first made in his speech on the steps of Downing Street when he first took office. He had ridiculed May’s own 2033 timetable as “laughably unambitious”.

The manifesto boasted: “We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.”

But buried in this week’s spending review was a sharp drop in planned spending. The accompanying National Infrastructure Strategy confirmed the target of 100% of homes with superfast broadband by 2025 had been watered down to a “minimum of 85% coverage” by that date.

The strategy said that the government would “seek to accelerate roll-out further to get as close to 100pc as possible”.

Shadow digital secretary Jo Stevens told HuffPost UK: “Not only is this broken promise another kick in the teeth for businesses and families up and down the country, it’s yet another example exposing his hollow promises.

“This year has underlined just how essential good broadband is for businesses, families and individuals. No one should be held back and penalised because of poor broadband connection. Sneaking this out in the spending review is not good enough – the government should be much more ambitious for our country.”

Johnson said in October last year he was not sure what gigabit broadband was but promised it would be “sprouting through every home like a kind of very informative vermicelli”.

Government insiders say that the main reason for the change was feedback from some industry providers that the works on the hardest to reach 20% of homes could not be achieved within the PM’s timeframe.

But without the cash, several firms say privately that they are more likely to focus on the more commercial rollout of the broadband network.

Some in Whitehall also claim that both the pandemic and the decision to exclude Chinese firm Huawei from future infrastructure plans have setback the scheduled works.

Craig Beaumont, of the Federation of Small Business, said: “Covid has shown that a good connection at home is fundamental for work and business.

“This is not good news for businesses in rural areas, nor those made redundant in the coming months who we hope will want to become self-employed and set up in business from their kitchen table.”

The broadband industry is entering the key deployment phase for the new gigabit capable network and many firms are demanding immediate clarity on the remaining £3.8bn and how they should recalibrate their build plans, recruitment and investment decisions.

The industry’s Internet Service Providers’ Association said it was disappointed to see only a quarter of the committed spending on broadband allocated across the next four years.

Andrew Glover, chair of ISPA, said: “The announcement scaling back the government’s ambitions for supporting broadband rollout in the hardest to reach areas is a blow to rural communities.

“This will not stop providers from continuing to press ahead with their commercial rollout plans, but it puts an even greater emphasis on tackling the regulatory and practical barriers that make rollout more difficult than it should be.

“As our experiences over 2020 have proved, our broadband infrastructure is fundamental to propping up the UK’s economy in periods of lockdown, so we urge the Government to ensure that this policy pivot does not lead to longer term digital exclusion of those in harder to reach areas.”

Sarah Lee, head of policy at the Countryside Alliance, said: “The spending review has prompted questions over when, how and whether rural communities will get gigabit broadband.

“This is a significant concern for rural communities and businesses who now more than ever need better digital connectivity. If ever the business potential of the countryside is to reach its full potential, indeed recover economically from COVID-19, it must have gigabit broadband sooner rather than later.”

Digital minister Matt Warman had told MPs on the digital select committee a few weeks ago that the 2025 100% rollout was “a stretch goal that we are more than capable of meeting.”

Kevin Brennan, a Labour MP on the committee, accused Warman at the time of spouting “meaningless drivel”. Brennan told HuffPost UK: “This is typical of Boris Johnson’s casual relationship with keeping his word – if he pledged a target to keep 50% of his promises few people would even believe that.”

A DCMS spokesperson said: “We remain committed to ensuring the UK’s hardest-to-reach areas benefit from our record £5 billion gigabit broadband investment. We will continue working with the industry to maximise rollout in rural areas to get as close as possible to nationwide coverage by 2025.”

Rishi Sunak’s spending review will cost lives and cause yet more cuts in local services. But he still found the cash for a red wall bung.

Richard Vize www.theguardian.com 

If there were any lessons about spending priorities during the pandemic it is that investing in public health services saves lives, but Sunak offered nothing. The core public health grant – this year at £2.4bn – has been slashed by a fifth in five years. The hollowing out of this vital public service has been a central factor in the UK having a Covid-related death rate worse than the US and Brazil and five times that of Germany.

Covid-19 suppression and preparing for future pandemics will remain a core task, and the failure to give councils the resources to do the job will drive up the death toll. When billions can be found for the NHS it almost feels like a calculated insult. No wonder a despairing Jeanelle de Gruchy, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, described Sunak’s refusal to increase the public health grant as “completely incomprehensible”.

Social care funding was increased by a derisory £300m. So far, more than 18,000 people have died in care homes with Covid-19. Perhaps social care providers should top up their funds by investing in Serco. Its part in the failing test-and-trace system has seen its underlying profits increase to around £165m and shares jump 18%. Or perhaps they could pick up a PPE contract in Matt Hancock’s local pub.

But there were some winners: Conservative MPs. Sunak found nearly £5bn for a “levelling up” slush fund, to be run from Westminster and doled out in lumps of up to £20m where bids are backed by the local MP. Projects need to be delivered during this parliament, ie by the next election. It is a shameless example of what the Americans graphically call “pork barrel politics” – local politicians bringing home the pork from federal funds to curry favour with local electors and businesses.

They have had a dry run with the £3.6bn towns fund, with Tory seats and targets being the big beneficiaries. The Commons public accounts committee could start drafting its inevitable inquiry report now on how the levelling up fund was abused to prop up Tory seats in the red wall.

Sunak’s pay freeze for most local government staff, teachers, police and many more punishes frontline workers who have put themselves at risk to protect the public from Covid-19 and keep services going. It is shameful that council staff who have been going into people’s homes to provide care are going to be rewarded with a real terms pay cut.

Sunak claimed in his speech that public sector workers had not lost jobs because of the pandemic. But thanks to his imposition of further austerity on local government, significant numbers of council staff can expect to join the ranks of the unemployed in the coming months.

Counties in England are already warning of cuts to statutory services. Hull city council fears being overwhelmed by Covid costs, while Leeds and Nottingham are planning hundreds of redundancies. And Croydon’s financial implosion shows the perils of pushing local authorities to take ever greater risks to generate income and improve their area.

Ministers have reneged on their promise early on in the pandemic to meet all councils’ costs. Levelling up should mean improving the life chances and living conditions of the most deprived communities, not cutting their services again.

Not even 60,000 deaths can teach this government the value of investing in public services, the limits of central control or the lethal consequences of a desperately unequal society.

And compared with the budgets to come, this was supposed to be the good news.

• Richard Vize is a public policy commentator and analyst

The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is facing questions over the transparency of his financial affairs after a Guardian investigation established that his wife and her family hold a multimillion-pound portfolio of shareholdings and directorships that are not declared in the official register of ministers’ interests.

Nolan principles again – Owl

Juliette Garside www.theguardian.com 

Akshata Murty, who married Sunak in 2009, is the daughter of one of India’s most successful entrepreneurs. Her father co-founded the technology giant Infosys, and her shares in the company are worth £430m, making her one of the wealthiest women in Britain, with a fortune larger than the Queen’s.

Sunak is bound by the ministerial code, which requires him to declare any financial interests that are “relevant” to his responsibilities, and which could conflict with his duty to the public. Ministers must also declare those interests of their close family, including siblings, parents, spouse and in-laws, which might give rise to a conflict.

But Sunak’s entry mentions no family members other than his wife, and only refers to her ownership of a small, UK-based venture capital company. Research by the Guardian shows that Murty and her family hold many other interests, including:

• A combined £1.7bn shareholding in Infosys, which employs thousands of staff in the UK and has held contracts with government ministries and public bodies.

• A £900m-a-year joint venture with Amazon in India, through an investment vehicle owned by Murty’s father.

• A direct shareholding by Murty in a UK firm which runs Jamie Oliver and Wendy’s burger restaurants in India.

• Five other UK companies where Murty is a director or direct shareholder, including a Mayfair outfitter that supplies the tailcoats worn by pupils at Eton College.

Sir Alistair Graham, a former chair of the committee on standards in public life, which acts as a watchdog for UK public office holders, said it was vital that Sunak declare the financial interests of himself and his close family given “the chancellor’s capacity to determine the government’s financial and business policies”.

“He seems to have taken the most minimalist approach possible to this requirement. Perhaps Rishi Sunak should carefully read the ‘Seven principles of Public Life’ to make sure he is fulfilling the two principles of ‘Honesty and Leadership’.”

Sunak and Murty have not responded directly to requests for comment. The Treasury said all the proper procedures for declaring interests had been followed, and that decisions about what to declare were not taken by ministers themselves but by civil servants and independent advisers.

A Treasury spokesperson said the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests “confirmed he is completely satisfied with the chancellor’s propriety of arrangements and that he has followed the ministerial code to the letter in his declaration of interests”.

Ministers are held to a higher level of disclosure than MPs. The code of conduct states they must provide a “full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”. This list “should also cover interests of the minister’s spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”. Advisers then decide what to put on the official list of ministers’ interests.

Sunak and family’s financial interests

After becoming chief secretary to the Treasury in July 2019, Sunak revealed for the first time that he was the beneficiary of a blind trust. He also included Murty for the first time, stating: “Mr Sunak’s wife owns a venture capital investment company, Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd.” There is no information about his own family or his wife’s parents and siblings.

Catamaran represents just a small part of the interests held by the chancellor’s wife. The source of her extraordinary wealth is a stake in Infosys, founded by her father NR Narayana Murthy (his children have dropped the “h” from their surname).

According to the Infosys annual report, Akshata Murty owns a 0.91% stake in the group; that stake is currently worth £430m. Each year, her shares entitle her to millions in dividends. Of all the family, only her brother, Rohan Murty, owns more of the company. The combined family holding is worth an estimated £1.7bn.

 Illustration: Guardian Design/AP, AFP/Getty Images, Getty images

Murty’s holding is not secret, and it is not clear why it was not declared in the register. The interest could be seen to present a conflict, because Infosys is a contractor to the UK government and publicly funded organisations.

Since 2015, the firm has won taxpayer-funded work worth £22m, according to filings on the government’s contracts website. These include a £5m deal with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, awarded in 2018, which runs until 2021.

Infosys has also worked for the Home Office and has signed a framework agreement with Whitehall, which means it can be awarded contracts without competition. The company employs an estimated 10,000 staff in the UK, some of whom benefited from Sunak’s furlough scheme.

The Murty family has invested part of the wealth created by Infosys through Catamaran Ventures, which takes stakes in growth businesses. It is understood Murty has no financial or legal interest in the Indian arm of Catamaran. However, the fund benefits other family members, including her father. One of its most successful deals is a partnership with the online retailer Amazon.

Together they own Cloudtail, one of the largest sellers on Amazon’s Indian marketplace, with revenues of over £900m last year. The investment could be seen as a conflict of interest, given that the chancellor is responsible for decisions about how to tax large digital corporations, such as Amazon, in the UK.

Murty set up Catamaran’s UK arm with Sunak in order to invest her private wealth. He transferred his shares to her just before entering parliament and she is now the sole owner. Through it, she has invested in a clutch of start-up businesses. What Sunak has not declared is that his wife also holds direct shareholdings – in her own name, rather than through Catamaran – in at least six UK companies.

She is an investor and director at the gentlemen’s outfitters New & Lingwood, which measures Etonians for their tailcoats, and sells silk dressing gowns for £2,500 each.

Murty also holds shares in a UK business which operates Jamie’s Pizzeria, Jamie’s Italian and Wendy’s outlets in India, the nanny agency Koru Kids, and gyms operator Digme Fitness, where she is a director. Both Digme and New & Lingwood have furloughed staff during the pandemic. Soroco, a software company co-founded by her brother, lists Murty as a director of its UK arm.

Before entering the Treasury, Sunak met the government’s then head of propriety and ethics, Helen MacNamara, to decide what needed to be declared, a government source said. MacNamara reviewed the interests of Sunak and Murty and confirmed at the time, and again recently, that she was satisfied with what had been registered. Sir Alex Allan, the former independent adviser on minister’s interests, also approved the disclosures, according to the source.

Allan resigned from his post last week following a dispute over the publication of a report into allegations of bullying by the home secretary, Priti Patel.

When Dominic Cummings stormed out of Downing Street earlier this month he left behind a time bomb more explosive than any pandemic recession or no-deal Brexit. Those pestilences will pass. If enacted, the Cummings-inspired white paper Planning for the Future will scar England’s face for ever.

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com

The paper promises to shift the appearance of England. It intends to throw open landscapes, especially across the south-east, to uncontrolled “build, build, build”. It will tip wealth yet further towards London and end any levelling-up of the north. It will abolish the ages-old distinction in British planning between built-up areas and the 70-80% of land that is still rural. It will leave poorer city centres to decline, result in villages doubling or trebling in size, and building dribbling from one town into the next. Fields and open spaces will disappear.

The white paper was slipped out with a minimum of publicity in August by Boris Johnson’s housing minister, Robert Jenrick. It was based on that latest Whitehall fad, an algorithm, prepared by various construction and development lobbyists and targeted at encouraging building where it was “most needed”, an outrageous euphemism for “most profitable”.

What has been dubbed the mutant algorithm has attracted the ire of the entire planning community and, more seriously for the government, of many Tory MPs who see their rural and semi-rural constituencies effectively being decontrolled. The unpublished algorithm – or is it a formula? – confuses housing need with demand reflected in price. Local planning authorities are told to zone some areas for “protection” – national parks, green belts and “outstanding” natural beauty areas – but elsewhere land is to be left free for building, with no need for specific planning permission. Planners expect that, among other results, this will put the overwhelming majority of farmland “into play”. One told me: “It puts every meadow under a death sentence.” No other modern country has decontrolled its land use to this degree.

As for the levelling-down of the north, the policy is little short of sensational. It reportedly requires housebuilding in Newcastle to fall by 66%, Manchester by 37% and the north-east generally by 28%. In the south-east outside London, development would rise by 57%, and in Kensington the algorithm reportedly posits a ludicrous 633%. Building round Cotswold villages is required almost to double.

The Local Government Association has professed itself baffled that Jenrick should so “seriously jeopardise levelling up”. The Royal Institute of British Architects predicts that the end of planning permissions will lead to “the next generation of slum housing”. The countryside charity CPRE could not see the point of cutting carbon emissions while directing housebuilding to new settlements reliant on cars, requiring “a massive loss of countryside”. The policy amounted to “build and be damned”. The planning lawyer and former supreme court judge Lord Carnwath has written to Jenrick protesting the document’s “levelling the foundations” of English planning, while “not beginning to make the case … for the disruption caused”.

The boundary between landscape conservation and nimbyism has always been hard to draw, but it is vividly illustrated in the catalogue of ministerial hypocrisy on planning. As prime minister, Johnson has told his own constituency it “needs” 446 new houses, while as MP he has objected to a scheme for 514. He now intends to remove his liberty to object. Meanwhile the home secretary, Priti Patel, has objected to 225 houses in her constituency, defence secretary Ben Wallace to 210 in his and the Cabinet Office’s Michael Gove to 44 in his.

One of Johnson’s many glib promises is to build 300,000 houses a year. This figure snatched from the air seems vaguely related to household formation, immigration and price, the latter two of which are now falling. The policy has nothing to say on vacancy rates, security of tenure, or the absurd VAT tax for new building but not for house conversion and downsizing. It has nothing to say on the million unused planning permissions or on the regular claims that London alone has brownfield land for another million people – planned homes waiting to be built. As for England’s 280,000 homeless people currently in urgent need of social housing, forget it. In other words, this is government modelling at its dumbest.

At the time of the 2012 Olympics, the English countryside ranked in polls as one of the things people most prized about England. Johnson and Jenrick do not care for this view. Those holding it are to be stripped of any control over the countryside, in deference to Whitehall and its Tory-donating developers.

Land-use decisions cannot be quantified. A good planner – a near defunct profession in England – is charged with enacting Alexander Pope’s maxim that we should “Consult the genius of the place in all”. Democracy awards this consultation to the community, not to wealth. How communities shape and develop their neighbourhoods is the most sensitive of political decisions. It is also one of the few remaining areas of local democratic discretion in England.

The reality is that Johnson’s targets and Jenrick’s models are meant to please the volume builders of rural executive estates. They do not care how land is curated, countryside protected and the north-south balance adjusted. They mock the idea that communities should “take back control” of their most precious resource, land. Fifty years ago, Britain had an admired global reputation for town and country planning. As in so many branches of our government, that reputation is collapsing.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Council leaders across Devon have said the placing of the region in the tough ‘high alert’ measures will cause irrevocable harm to local businesses.

But none has spoken out as strongly as EDDC Leader Cllr Paul Arnott about the impact of hospital cuts for the reasons he spells out so clearly:

“Non-Conservative councillors have been begging and pleading on this topic for years through the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee at DCC but the Tories consistently refused requests to go into battle to prevent the loss of East Devon’s community hospital beds.

“Now, our poor local businesses and employees – indeed our entire local economy – will pay the price for the failure of those Tories at Devon County who were not prepared to put the blue rosette to one side and tell truth to power.”

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The councillors have said that the news will be ‘desperately disappointing’ and for many people in the drinks-only hospitality industry, they must be feeling near desperation at the prospect of what looks like a further lockdown for them.

And they have slammed the historic under-funding and reduction in hospital capacity that is one of the reasons why Devon has been placed in Tier 2, despite some of its districts having the lowest rates of anywhere in England.

Explaining why Devon has been placed in Tier 2, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said that the case rates are 121/100,000 overall, although there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. He added that the case rate in the over 60s is 85/100,000, though significantly higher in Exeter at 155.9/100,000), and there is pressure at the RD&E Hospital.

The Tier 2 measures mean you must not socialise with anyone you do not live with or who is not in your support bubble in any indoor setting, whether at home or in a public place. You can socialise though in a pub beer garden, but pubs and bars must close, unless operating as restaurants and hospitality venues can only serve alcohol with substantial meals.”

Cllr Judy Pearce, Leader of South Hams District Council said: “ I am really disappointing that South Hams will placed under Tier 2 restrictions on 2 December. In spite of low and decreasing infection numbers locally, pressure on local hospital facilities has been quoted as a reason.

“Local authorities from the South West have been lobbying to increase hospital capacity for years, but governments of all hues have never listened to us. There will be irrevocable harm to local businesses in the run up to Christmas as a result of our District being placed under Tier 2 restrictions and this concerns me greatly.”

Teignbridge Council Leader, Cllr Alan Connett said: “I’m hugely disappointed for Teignbridge, and even more saddened for the businesses that will be adversely affected by this decision. Whilst this news brings some hope for many of our businesses that they can open up again, our drinks-only hospitality industry must be feeling near desperation at the prospect of what looks like a further lockdown for them.

“We want to help these businesses as much as possible to diversify their offer, to enable them to work within the rules and reopen wherever possible, and also through our businesses grants and other support, so I’d encourage them to get in touch. We want to help and will where we can.

“We’re very unlucky that we’ve been placed in a higher tier than many expected, and it does feel like a slap in the face for everyone who has worked so hard to keep our infection rates low, keep our high streets and businesses Covid safe and stick to the rules.

“But what we need to focus on now is keeping our rates down, helping get our NHS through this critical period, and supporting our local communities to recover.

“It’s not going to be easy – we’re already seeing big increases in claims for universal credit, council tax relief and hardship funds, and our economy is being hit hard.

“By continuing to work together, we may be able to get into Tier 1, and we can support our businesses and traders by shopping locally wherever possible. Let’s keep Devon safe and strong.”

Cllr Neil Jory Leader of West Devon Borough Council said: “I know it will be desperately disappointing for many people that, as part of a wider Devon grouping – including Plymouth and Torbay – we have been placed in Tier 2. Everyone has been disciplined in keeping to the regulation resulting in falls to infection rates over recent days.

“I really hope that will continue and ask everyone to keep following the guidance so that, hopefully, we can keep driving the rates down so that we can look forward to next year with a sense of optimism and hope”.

Cllr David Worden, leader of North Devon Council added: “Although it wasn’t unexpected, we’re obviously disappointed to be placed in Tier 2, knowing what an effect it will have on our community. Our numbers are starting to come down but we are still above the average for Devon and we need each and every person in North Devon to strictly adhere to the guidelines, keep their distance, wash and sanitise hands regularly and not mix with other households so we can get back to Tier 1 at the earliest opportunity.”

Cllr Paul Arnott

Cllr Paul Arnott, leader of East Devon District Council added: “We are scheduling urgent meetings of senior councillors and officers to respond to this very bad news. The expectation of local people and businesses had been that we’d be out of lockdown on 2nd December – but now this. We will do all we can to respond as fully and positively as possible.

“It must be said that it is deeply distressing for Devon to be marooned in Tier 2. Despite campaigners – including me – warning the government for many years that to continually shrink our local hospital capacity was dangerous, we now find ourselves in Tier 2 mainly because of inadequate current and projected NHS capacity. The RDE is down a thousand staff, and more locals beds no longer exist.

“Non-Conservative councillors have been begging and pleading on this topic for years through the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee at DCC but the Tories consistently refused requests to go into battle to prevent the loss of East Devon’s community hospital beds.

“Now, our poor local businesses and employees – indeed our entire local economy – will pay the price for the failure of those Tories at Devon County who were not prepared to put the blue rosette to one side and tell truth to power.”

Cllr John Hart, leader of Devon County Council, said he was disappointed by the announcement and renew his appeal to people to abide by the guidelines to give the county the best chance of dropping into Tier 1 when the first review takes place in two weeks’ time.

He said: “Devon has done well so far in keeping case numbers relatively low and I would like to thank everyone for their actions during the latest lockdown, so I’m disappointed that we have been placed in Tier 2.

“It’s even more vital now that we all stick to the guidelines and maintain social distance, wash our hands regularly and wear masks where required so we can get cases down and get into Tier 1.

“And working with MPs and Team Devon partners I will be strongly lobbying the Government to provide tailored support for our hard-hit hospitality industry, which is losing out significantly during what’s usually their most lucrative period.

“I’m pleased local shops will be able to re-open in the run-up to Christmas and begin to help our economy recover, but in Devon, hospitality businesses are crucial and they need targeted support.

“In the meantime I would renew my appeal to people to stick to the rules to keep themselves and their families and neighbours safe and minimise the pressure on our local health services.

“I welcome the opening of the Nightingale Hospital in Exeter today but, as Boris Johnson has conceded, the South West still lacks hospital beds and this must be urgently addressed.”

Boris Johnson faces a potentially perilous battle to get England’s new coronavirus tiers plan through parliament after dozens of Conservative MPs protested at the curbs for their areas and demanded to see the evidence behind them.

Josh Halliday www.theguardian.com

Some MPs predicted that, without significant change between now and Tuesday, when the vote on the system to replace the current England-wide lockdown takes place, as many as 70 Conservatives could vote against the plan or abstain. This could mean relying on Labour for the vote – which takes place on the day the lockdown lapses under law – to pass.

Particular vehemence came from Tories who found their areas moved from tier 1 under the pre-lockdown system to tier 2 or, in the case of Kent, to the most rigorous restrictions of tier 3 starting at 00.01 on Wednesday 2 December.

Tier 3 rules force the closure of pubs and restaurants, which can offer takeaways only, and ban indoor social mixing between households or bubbles.

“We went into lockdown at tier 1 and came out at tier 3,” said Tom Tugendhat, the senior backbencher who represents Tonbridge and Malling in Kent. “This isn’t working for us.”

Jonathan Djanogly, MP for Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire, who voted against the current lockdown, said he could oppose the government again.

“My constituency went into second lockdown, against my wishes, at tier 1 and, with great cost to the local economy, has come out of lockdown at tier 2 – am I missing something here? I will need to have this justified before voting for it.”

Former Foreign Office minister Harriett Baldwin said she had voted for the lockdown on the basis it would allow time to develop better strategies to live with Covid.

She said: “Over 23 million of us were living under tier 1 restrictions before the lockdown – that figure will be under 1 million in December. There is no logic whatsoever in having a month of lockdown only for people to have to live under an even more severe set of restrictions afterwards.”

While the government may need to rely on the opposition for the vote to pass, Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North, said north-east England MPs were told during a call with the government that it was “unlikely” they could move to tier 2 before the new year. He said: “I can’t help but think the government have no intention of changing things for our region.”

Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who clashed with ministers over the pre-lockdown tier 3 ruling, said he wanted the city to be moved to tier 2 after a fortnight this month, adding that the lack of extra economic support for tier 3 areas was “completely wrong”.

Other Labour leaders were openly furious. Paul Foster, head of South Ribble council in Lancashire, whose area was placed in tier 3, noted jocular scenes in the Commons during the debate on the tiers between Jeremy Hunt and Johnson, as the former health secretary welcomed the PM back from two weeks of self-isolation.

“To all the business owners out there struggling to survive; to all the pub landlords; to all the restaurants and cinemas, this is no joke,” Foster said. “This announcement could prove fatal for some businesses and that is truly devastating for both they and our communities.”

For Conservative MPs, two issues seem to be key to the discontent: the tier allocation taking place by county rather than by smaller geographical areas, and a perception that the decisions were made without clear evidence.

Steve Baker, deputy chair of the new Covid Recovery Group, the primary home for Tories concerned about the scale of restrictions, said the “truly appalling” restrictions had to be fully justified.

“I am open to supporting measures where it can clearly be demonstrated that the government intervention will save more lives than it costs – as long as this data and analysis is published in full and in time ahead of any votes in parliament, so that MPs and the public have a chance to scrutinise it,” he said.

After Matt Hancock, the health secretary, announced the plans in the Commons, a series of backbench Tories stood up to complain about the decision-making process and the county-scale tier boundaries.

Others sought assurance on how areas could switch tiers. Julian Sturdy, the York Outer MP, called for the announced fortnightly reviews to take place weekly, which Hancock agreed could potentially happen.

Boris Johnson is likely to have to break his manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance to help repair Britain’s coronavirus-ravaged finances, economists have said.

Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor | Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor www.thetimes.co.uk 

During the general election Mr Johnson promised to retain the triple lock on tax increases, severely limiting the government’s room for manoeuvre as it seeks to stabilise national debt. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that the government would need to find £40 billion worth of savings or tax rises.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor yesterday declined to say that he stood by the triple lock on taxes, adding that he would not discuss future fiscal policy. By contrast,the prime minister’s official spokesman said that Mr Johnson stood by the manifesto pledge on the tax lock.

Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the IFS, said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of a package of tax-raising measures. I appreciate it would break a manifesto commitment but there are other manifesto commitments that are being broken too. Clearly Covid is a very big shock that wasn’t anticipated last year.”

Council taxes are likely to rise by an average of £70 per household after local government budgets were squeezed under “another bout of austerity” for some departments, the IFS added. It also raised questions about how to pay for the separate pensions triple lock.

Paul Johnson, the IFS director, said the £27 billion of tax rises implied by the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast understated the true challenge the government faced. Decisions not to top up NHS spending beyond next year, to scrap the temporary £6 billion increase in universal credit and to lower day-to-day public service spending by £10 billion a year look ambitious, the IFS said.

“Put these pressures together and . . . the chancellor would eventually need about £40 billion in today’s terms,” Mr Johnson said. “The chancellor will have to get debt at least to a level where it is not on an upward trajectory, and that will probably require some tax rises in the early middle years of this decade.”

Debt is forecast to rise as a share of GDP every year of the parliament, which is widely seen as unsustainable.

The IFS director added that the spending review was “pretty austere” because it lowered departmental spending from 2022 onwards by £10 billion compared with March projections, with the pain landing hardest on unprotected departments such as local government, transport and prisons.

Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation think tank, described the reduction in spending relative to previous plans, as “a way of the chancellor starting to change the path of the public spending tanker” to realign it with a smaller economy.

He said, however, that Britain’s coronavirus recovery could be better than expected as households spend their pent-up savings having a good time like in “the roaring Twenties”.

He also said that the prime minister could continue to claim that austerity was over because overall spending on day-to-day public services was “roughly back to pre-financial crisis levels”.

The IFS suggested that changes may be needed to the state pension. It is set to rise by 6 per cent above inflation by 2025, adding £6 billion to the cost to the exchequer, raising questions about the pledge to uprate it in line with the higher of inflation, average earnings or 2.5 per cent.

Households face a £1,200 cut in pay by 2025 relative to previous expectations, the Resolution Foundation said. Average pay is about £30,000.

Analysis of the OBR forecasts showed that household incomes will have grown by only 10 per cent in the 15 years since the 2008 financial crisis, compared with 40 per cent in the previous 15 years.

Mr Bell said: “The Covid crisis is causing immense damage to the public finances, and permanent damage to family finances too, with pay packets on track to be £1,200 a year lower than pre-pandemic expectations.

“The pandemic is just the latest of three ‘once in a lifetime’ economic shocks the UK experienced in a little over a decade, following the financial crisis and Brexit. The result is an unprecedented 15-year living standards squeeze.”

Devon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are 121/100,000 overall, though there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. The case rate in the over-60s is 85/100,000 though significantly higher in Exeter (155.9/100,000). Positivity is 4.2 per cent. There is pressure at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.” [Owl emphasis]

Full list below

By Dominic Penna  www.telegraph.co.uk 

Every area of England has been allocated a tier under the Government’s new rules for post-lockdown living after December 2.

Just one per cent of the population will be in the ‘medium’ Tier 1, with 57 per cent of people in ‘high’ Tier 2 and the remaining 42 per cent in ‘very high’ Tier 3, the strictest level of the tiered system.

The restrictions vary greatly between the tiers, with those in the highest tranche facing strict limits on their freedoms. 

Below is a comprehensive list of each region in the UK and which tier it will enter from December 2, along with the Government’s justification for its decision.

North-West

Greater Manchester: Tier 3

Reason: “While there has been continued improvement in Greater Manchester, weekly case rates remain very high, especially among those aged over-60, at around 260 per 100,000 people.

“The pressure on the local NHS is decreasing in some areas but remains a concern; Manchester University hospital and Pennine Acute Trust remain under significant pressure.”

Lancashire, Blackpool, and Blackburn with Darwen: Tier 3

Reason: “While there have been improvements in some areas, case rates and the proportion of tests which are positive for Covid-19 remain high. Case rates in over-60s are very high (over 200 per 100,000) in six lower tier local authorities. There is still pressure on the NHS in this region.”

Liverpool City Region: Tier 2

Reason: “There is continued improvement across the Liverpool city region. Case rates, including for the over-60s, are decreasing rapidly with some notable improvements in Liverpool, Knowsley and Sefton. Cases have fallen by 69 per cent over six weeks.

“However, despite improvements, case rates in over-60s remain high at 150-plus per 100,000 people in all lower tier local authorities.”

Cheshire (including Warrington): Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are continuing to decline across Warrington and Cheshire, with a 27.4 per cent fall to 209 people per 100,000, in line with the Liverpool City Region.

“However, case rates in those over-60 years old remain high (175/100,000) though falling. Positivity is 8.1 per cent. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS foundation Trust has 150 inpatients with Covid-19.”

Cumbria: Tier 3

Reason: “The picture in Cumbria is broadly improving although case rates in Carlisle and South Lakeland are increasing – with increases likely due to a large school outbreak.

Case rates in over-60s are above 100 per 100,000 in Carlisle and Barrow-in-Furness. These case rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but Cumbria’s trajectory does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3.”

North-East

Tees Valley Combined Authority: Tier 3

Reason: “While case rates are now decreasing in all lower tier local authorities, they remain very high at 390 people per 100,000 across the region, with positivity also very high at 13.3 per cent.

“The case rate in over-60s remains very high at 292 per 100,000. NHS admissions in the area have remained high in November.”

North East Combined Authority: Tier 3

Reason: “The region continues to see very high case rates, overall 318 people per 100,000, although this figure is either stable or falling in all parts of the region. Case rate in over-60s remains very high at 256 per 100,000.

“NHS admissions in the area have remained high in November.”

Yorkshire and the Humber

The Humber: Tier 3

Reason: “The picture in Humber is improving with case rates now falling in three of the four lower tier local authorities.

“However, case rates in all ages and in over-60s remain very high (431/100,000 and 344/100,000 respectively). Positivity is 12.6 per cent. There is ongoing pressure on the local NHS.”

West Yorkshire: Tier 3

Reason: “This area is improving with case rates falling in all five lower tier local authorities. However, case rates in all ages and rates in over-60s remain very high (389/100,000 and 312/100,000 respectively). Positivity is 13.9 per cent.”

South Yorkshire: Tier 3

Reason: “This area is improving with case rates falling in all four lower tier local authorities. However, case rates in all ages and rates in those over 60 remain very high (274/100,000 and 223/100,000 respectively).

“Positivity is 11.0 per cent. There is pressure on local NHS Trusts.”

York and North Yorkshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Overall case rates (including for those over 60) in this region are improving in seven of the eight local authorities and lower than other parts of Yorkshire and The Humber, but remain high overall (202/100,000 in all age groups and 145/100,000 for those aged over 60). Positivity is 8.5 per cent.

“Rates in Scarborough are significantly higher than the rest of the region (334/100,000 in all age groups and 247/100,000 in those aged over 60) but falling rapidly.”

East Midlands

Leicester and Leicestershire: Tier 3

Reason: “Improvements have been seen in overall case rates in all but one lower tier local authority, but remain very high at 355 per 100,000, including in over-60s at 250 per 100k. The pressure on the local NHS remains very high.”

Derby and Derbyshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been improvement in this area, but case rates remain very high at 275 per 100,000, and in those over 60 it is 220 per 100,000. The pressure on the local NHS remains high.”

Lincolnshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been an overall improvement, but case rates remain high throughout the county, at 307 per 100,000 and in the over-60s it is 281 per 100,000.

“NHS pressures in Lincolnshire remain high and show signs of increasing, particularly for the units treating the more serious cases.”

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been an improvement, but case rates remain very high in the over-60s at 211 per 100,000. The overall case rate is 244 per 100,000 and positivity is 10 per cent. The proportion of hospital beds taken up by Covid-19 patients is high, but appears to be falling.”

Northamptonshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Although improvements in the overall case rates have been seen recently, there is a continued rise in rates of Covid-19 in the over-60s. [The] over-60s case rate is 154 per 100,000.

“There is some evidence that the local NHS is seeing the proportion of people with Covid-19 being admitted and subsequently occupying beds stabilising. However, Covid and non-Covid patients occupying beds in units treating more serious cases is high.”

Rutland: Tier 2

Reason: “This area is improving with a case rate of 125 per 100,000 and 118 per 100,000 for the over 60s, which while elevated is different from the surrounding areas. Positivity is 6.4 per cent.”

West Midlands

Birmingham and Black Country: Tier 3

Reason: “While case rates are improving – down 8.3 per cent – they remain very high (390/100,000). There is a similar trend for positivity. Pressure on the NHS remains high.”

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent: Tier 3

Reason: “While the situation is improving with case rates down 13.4 per cent, case rates and test positivity are both very high across this area (391/100,000 and 11.1 per cent respectively).

“The pressure on the local NHS remains very high, including in units treating the more serious cases.”

Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull: Tier 3

Reason: “The case rate remains very high (though falling) across this area at 236/100,000. The case rate in over-60s remains very high at 182/100,000.

“There is a clear upward trend in case rates in over-60s in three of the seven local authority areas. Positivity is 9.0 per cent. The pressure on the local NHS remains high.”

Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin: Tier 2

Reason: “The case rate remains high (though falling) at 200/100,000. The case rate in over-60s remains high at 139/100.000 and is falling. Positivity is 7.2 per cent.”

Herefordshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Herefordshire has a high case rate at 160.3/100,000. These rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but the slight downward trajectory – a fall of 1.9 per cent – does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3.”

Worcestershire: Tier 2

Reason: “While there has been a decline in case rates in all lower tier local authorities they do remain high (201/100,000),including in the over 60s (141/100,000).

“These case rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but the downward trajectory – with a fall of 18.3 per cent – does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3. Hospital admissions of patients with Covid-19 have started to stabilise.”

London

All London boroughs and City of London: Tier 2

Reason: “The trajectory of key indicators of Covid-19 in an area (including all age case rates, over-60s case rates, and positivity) have been increasing until very recently.

“The situation in London is not uniform throughout the city. Thirteen of the 33 boroughs have case rates which are 10 per cent, or more, higher than a week ago and ten boroughs where case rates for over-60s are above 150 per 100,000.

“Hospital admissions continue to increase in the East and North London in particular, although they are still well below the spring peak. Taken as a whole, the situation in London has stabilised at a similar case rate and positivity to other parts of the country in Tier 2.”

East of England

Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes: Tier 2

Reason: “The overall case rate is still increasing in two of the three lower tier local authorities. The overall case rate is high at 178/100,000 and it is 113/100,000 in the over-60s, although this rises to 185/100,000 in Luton.

“Positivity 6.9 per cent. There is pressure on the local NHS.”

Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea: Tier 2

Reason: “Overall the rate is 159/100,000 and rising. The rate in over 60s is 100/100,000 and falling. Positivity is 6.4 per cent.”

Norfolk: Tier 2

Reason: “The majority of Norfolk is improving. Case rates are 123/100,000 and positivity is five per cent. Case rates for over-60s remain over 100 per 100,000 in Great Yarmouth, Norwich and South Norfolk (with increasing trajectories in the last two areas).”

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture with decreasing case rates across five of the six local authorities, although the case rate is still high at 123/100,000 overall. Case rates in over-60s are also decreasing (58/100,000). Positivity has dropped to 5.2 per cent.”

Hertfordshire: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture across the majority of Hertfordshire – the case rate has fallen to 147/100,000 overall with drops in rates in 9 of the 10 local authorities.

“Case rates in over-60s are falling also (102/100,000) but they are greater than 100/100,000 in six local authorities. Positivity is 6.3 per cent [and] falling.”

Suffolk: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture across the majority of Suffolk. The case rate has fallen to 82/100,000 with drops in rate in four of the five local authorities.

“There has been a 40 per cent increase in weekly case rate to 128/100,000 in Ipswich, when compared with the previous week. Across Suffolk, case rates in over-60s are also falling (72/100,000). Positivity is 3.7 per cent.”

South-East

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton: Tier 2

Reason: “There is a mixed picture across this area although the overall case rate is now 152/100,000 and falling in almost all areas. NHS admissions were increasing rapidly until mid-November and are now stable.”

Isle of Wight: Tier 1

Reason: “The case rate is low and decreasing at 71 per 100,000 and lower in over-60s at 44 per 100,000. Covid-19 pressure on the NHS is low.”

East and West Sussex, and Brighton and Hove: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates in Sussex are at 120 per 100,000 with a total positivity of 4.5 per cent. However, the trend is increasing in several areas. NHS admissions have been fairly stable in the last month but there is increasing occupancy in units treating more serious cases.”

Surrey: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are stable or improving in all areas with the overall rate at 139 per 100,000.

“The most concerning lower tier local authorities are those that neighbour London (Spelthorne and Runnymede) with case rates over 200 per 100,000, and high case rates in the over-60s are observed in neighbouring Surrey Heath and Woking.

“Surrey Heartlands Health & Care Partnership (STP) report admissions to hospital from Covid-19 patients were fairly stable in the last month.”

Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead, West Berkshire: Tier 2

Reason: “An improving picture across the area with the exception of Slough and Reading. Slough has high case rates (326 per 100,000 overall and 219 per 100,000 for the over 60s) and relatively high positivity of 12 per cent.

“The case rate and positivity away from Slough do not justify inclusion in Tier 3.”

Slough: Tier 3

Reason: “The weekly case rate in Slough is much higher than surrounding areas at over 320 per 100,000 people compared with 155 per 100,000 in the rest of Berkshire and 138 in Buckinghamshire. Test positivity is also much higher at 12 per cent.”

Buckinghamshire: Tier 2

Reason: “A broadly stable or improving picture across Buckinghamshire with a case rate at 138 per 100,000 and positivity at 6.4 per cent. These case rates remain too high for allocation to Tier 1.”

Oxfordshire: Tier 3

Reason: “Positive improvements across key indicators across all areas in Oxfordshire, but case rates still too high for Tier 1. Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire And Berkshire West STP hospital admissions have been fairly stable in recent months.”

Kent & Medway: Tier 3

Reason: “Case rates are high and continuing to rise with large increases in case rates in almost all areas in the last seven days. Some of the highest case rates in the country are currently seen in Kent.

“Rising case rates in people aged over 60 are a particular concern. Positivity is also increasing in 10 of the 13 lower tier local authorities. Kent And Medway STP are reporting hospital admissions increasing.”

South-West

Bristol,  South Gloucestershire, North Somerset: Tier 3

Reason: “The overall picture remains concerning with very high case rates overall (325/100,000) and in the over-60s (208/100,000). Positivity is 10.4 per cent.

“Bristol, South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset are part of a wider travel-to-work area and thus form a natural geographic grouping, separate to the surrounding area.”

Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset: Tier 2

Reason: “There are very small increases in the case rates in this area, however overall case rates and those in over-60s remain high (154/100,000 and 102/100,000 respectively). Positivity is stable at 5.5 per cent.”

Dorset, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are falling across the area (131/100,000 in all cases and 99/100,000 in the over 60s).

“However the over-60 case rate is still high at 151/100,000 in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. Positivity is 5.2 per cent. In addition, the Dorset STP reports daily admissions to hospitals are increasing.”

Gloucestershire: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are falling across the area (131/100,000 in all cases and 99/100,000 in the over 60s). However the over-60 case rate is still high at 151/100,000 in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

“Positivity is 5.2 per cent. In addition, the Dorset STP reports daily admissions to hospitals are increasing.”

Wiltshire and Swindon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates continue to fall in Swindon but are increasing in Wiltshire. Overall case rates are 143/100,000 and 93/100,000 in the over-60s. Positivity is 6.2 per cent. Swindon and Wiltshire STP are reporting increasing admissions to hospital.”

Devon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are 121/100,000 overall, though there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. The case rate in the over-60s is 85/100,000 though significantly higher in Exeter (155.9/100,000). Positivity is 4.2 per cent. There is pressure at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.”

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly: Tier 1

Reason: “There are low case rates and test positivity in Cornwall and the case rates in all age groups are stable or declining. There have been no cases in the Isles of Scilly in the last seven days meaning there is strong evidence to make an allocation to Tier 1.”