England’s largest councils today call for the next government to set out a long-term plan for housing, as a new report reveals a dramatic rise in rural renting over the last decade.

Summary

“Constant tinkering of the planning system over the last decade has led to unstable and un-coordinated planning system.” 

Need to increase housing delivery of all tenures, with the report finding that schemes such as Help to Buy and First Homes have led to fewer properties for social rent being built than otherwise would have been.

Councils should also give autonomy to local councils to set their own thresholds and types of affordable housing that are most needed in their area as part of their Local Plans

Report recommends that the next government introduces ‘strategic planning’ back into the system. Such an approach would alleviate local concerns about overdevelopment and a dearth of infrastructure in some areas.

“This report does not suggest that we alleviate these issues by concreting over our countryside. Instead it sets out a number of important yet easily deliverable recommendations that, taken together, could accelerate the delivery of new homes of all tenures where there is most need.“

Press release

County Councils Network

The new research from the County Councils Network shows that the number of households in private and social rent has increased by over half a million in county and rural areas over the last decade, outpacing the increase in renting in London and the country’s other major cities.

Seen as the traditional location of home ownership, shire counties have seen a decrease in people purchasing homes over the last ten years, with house prices locking more and more people out of ownership. This has led to more people entering the rental market, including those in social rented accommodation – adding to pressure on local housing.

Download Housing in Counties here.

Warning that the planning system is a ‘state of flux’, councils are calling for the next government to set out a long-term plan for housing. This should include a renewed emphasis on delivering homes of all tenures, a greater focus on social housing, and a review of key policy areas, such as Right to Buy. In the short-term, the government should also pass the Renters’ Reform Bill as soon as possible to give extra protection to renters.

The report provides a ten year long deep-dive into housing trends  into 38 county and rural areas which home 25m people in England, and finds:

• Households renting either privately or through a social housing via a registered social landlord or a local authority in rural and county areas has increased by 19% between 2011 and 2021, a total of 550,000 extra households. This is higher than anywhere else in the country, including London and England’s major cities. Rented properties – both social and private – make up almost one third (31%) of all housing in counties now.
• There has been a dramatic rise in private renting in county areas and rural areas, with 450,000 extra households renting in 2021 compared to 2011 – a 31% increase, which is higher than London’s increase of 25%. Almost half of this increase (45%) were households in the South East and the East of England, suggesting more and more people have been priced out of London to the surrounding counties.
• At the same time, there are almost 200,000 fewer households who purchased a property in county areas over the last ten years, suggesting affordability is a worsening issue in rural and county locations.
• Property prices in county areas are the most unaffordable in England outside of London, with the average price now over £309,000. Despite strong wage growth over the last eight house prices have risen at a faster rate – and the average county property price is now 11.1 times higher than average annual wages.
• County communities face these challenges despite councils in those county and rural areas overseeing 606,000 extra homes delivered between 2018 and 2023, higher than the rest of the country combined. Of these, 42,000 were affordable homes – more than double than the rest of the country combined. However, England has not delivered the government’s stated target of 300,000 homes a year in any 12-month since the pledge was made in 2019.
• This rise in renting and unaffordability of properties has numerous impacts on county and rural councils. Waiting lists for council housing in those areas has increased by 10% between 2018 and 2023 (an increase of 40,000 households), temporary accommodation use is up by 52% over the last five years (an increase in over 6,000 households) and homelessness has risen 18% over the last three years (an increase of 4,500 people).

The report argues that despite best intentions, constant tinkering of the planning system over the last decade has led to unstable and un-coordinated planning system for local authorities to work with. With a general election expected to take place this year, councils are calling for stability and for the next administration to set out a long-term plan for housing, with local government a key player in discussions.

This long-term plan should include increasing housing delivery of all tenures, with the report finding that schemes such as Help to Buy and First Homes have led to a less properties for social rent being built than otherwise would have been. Therefore, both these policies should be reviewed.

The report recommends that any future national planning policy should promote the delivery of homes all tenures, rather than a focus on houses. This is especially true for large sites, which are more prevalent in county locations and city outskirts.

Councils should also give autonomy to local councils to set their own thresholds and types of affordable housing that are most needed in their area as part of their Local Plans, in recognition that different areas have differing needs.

The study also recommends that the next government introduces ‘strategic planning’ back into the system. This would bring together both planning and infrastructure authorities in 20 county areas in England where both types of council co-exist, in order to collaboratively plan for housing, infrastructure and employment in tandem and across a wider area. The report suggests that such an approach would alleviate local concerns about overdevelopment and a dearth of infrastructure in some areas, further removing a blockage to housing delivery.

Cllr Richard Clewer, Housing and Planning Spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said:

“It is widely accepted that the housing crisis is one that is worsening, with rising unaffordability locking hundreds of thousands out of getting onto the property ladder. This new data reveals the impact of this in rural and county areas: with the rise in people renting in these places outpacing even London and the major cities, whilst home ownership rates have gone into decline.

“This growing unaffordability impacts on council services too, tipping more people onto local authority housing waiting lists, into homelessness, and into temporary accommodation where costs are increasingly becoming exorbitant.

“This report does not suggest that we alleviate these issues by concreting over our countryside. Instead it sets out a number of important yet easily deliverable recommendations that, taken together, could accelerate the delivery of new homes of all tenures where there is most need.

“These challenges are in part due to a planning system that has been in a state of flux for a long time. The next government should set out a long-term plan for housing, incorporating the recommendations we have put forward and with councils a key consultee, ensuring buy-in from the sector.”

South Hams district councillors have called for a halt on the proposed Devon and Torbay devolution deal process until after the general election, whenever it comes, and county elections in May 2025.

Alison Stephenson, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Cllr John Birch (Lib Dem, Totnes) said the deal is “more of a power grab than devolution”  but the government is “on its last legs” and the political picture may look different both nationally and locally by the middle of next year.

The district councillors made the call as part of their response to the consultation on the deal and also raised concerns over lack of voting rights for the districts and the “extra layer of bureaucracy” which they said would “hamper the improvements of local services.”

The proposed county combined authority or CCA will be decided later this year, led by Devon County Council and Torbay Council, and could be implemented before Christmas. It will sit above the county council, district and parish councils.

It aims to give more power to local authorities on adult education, skills and transport and more cash for more affordable homes. With the deal comes £16 million to be spent by April next year, but future funding is unknown.

South Hams Council supports devolution in principle but has criticised the deal. Cllr Jacqi Hodgson (Green, Dartington and Staverton) said the council should say no to the deal now.

“What’s the point of kicking it into the long grass? More money will be wasted,” she said.

“The government has sucked the money out of us and under this deal is offering it back in dribs and drabs with strings attached.

“It is curtailing how we work. A lot of what is being offered cuts across us as a housing authority and Devon as an education authority. It’s muddling up and messing up local authorities in a way that is not necessary.”

But council leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem, Stokenham) warned members not to “throw their toys out the pram and storm off” but to take a neutral view and keep their negotiation powers to get a better deal.

“Let’s take a mature position. We need devolution and I would be amazed if there were any councillors who didn’t believe in it. This may be first tiny step but we can influence it to get the kind of devolution we want.”

Cllr Nicky Hopwood (Con, Woolwell) is concerned where it leaves the South Hams, as Plymouth is not going to be part of deal.

“We share a joint local plan with Plymouth. Does it mean we will get nothing for housing, because we do relatively well now with Homes England?”

She said it isn’t right that Torbay Council gets three seats on the CCA as districts like East Devon are bigger than Torbay.

The eight district councils in Devon will share two seats and won’t be able to vote on major decisions, although the hope is that issues will be agreed by consensus rather than going to a vote.

Cllr David Hancock (Lib Dem,  South Brent) said local authorities which had adult education devolved to them had increased the number of people going through the system by 50 per cent and that meant better trained employees, better jobs and pay.

He said the skills’ budget would help the 20 per cent of people who are digitally illiterate to access services such as internet banking.

“I am positive about the adult education budget being devolved to the CCA. We need to show the government what a difference we can make to local residents and then we can ask for more and more again. This isn’t a great revolution into the promised land, but we need to keep going until we have got a genuine devolution.”

The consultation on devolution for the county ends on Sunday.

Writes Martin Shaw seatonmatters.org

Readers will remember that Labour decided some time back not to fight for our new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency in the General Election. Because of this, Labour will only be standing a ‘paper’ candidate, who has now been selected by the national party (because the party is not seriously contesting the seat, local members did not make the choice). Labour has announced that the candidate is Jake Bonetta (above), a former councillor, and in a big boost to Richard Foord’s Lib Dem campaign, he has written to all local Labour members to tell them that ‘Under no circumstances can we let the Tories win the seat, bringing them one MP closer to forming the next Government.’

Jake says that (rather than campaigning here) Labour members should join the campaign to win a seat in Plymouth: ‘our top priority must always be on our nearest “battleground seat”, Plymouth Moor View … we will be travelling [there] at least once a fortnight during the long campaign. .., it’s a great opportunity to continue supporting our Party in the seat that matters most, nearest to us. For those of you who can’t make canvassing in Plymouth Moor View, there will be plenty of opportunities to get involved in their campaign from home.’ 

Jake’s message is very responsible and should be welcomed by everyone who wants Richard Foord to be returned. Labour activists helped Richard win in the 2022 by-election, as he acknowledged, and could play a significant part in helping ensure that he, rather than the Tory carpetbagger, wins in the General Election.

New EU rules which introduce “polluter pays” principles to get pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to pay for the pollution they cause in rivers will not be adopted by the government in England, as campaigners say the country is falling behind.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

Lawmakers in Europe have signed off on an update to the urban waste water treatment (UWWT) directive, which is to further tighten restrictions on pollution. More nutrients from agricultural waste and sewage will have to be removed from waterways under the new rules. It also for the first time applies standards to micropollutants such as chemicals from pharmaceutical waste.

The update also introduces a crucial measure called “extended producer responsibility”, which means cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies will be asked to contribute to the cost of treating wastewaters if they are causing chemical pollution. The EU has specifically said it wishes to implement a “polluter pays” principle. This means costs for cleaning chemicals out of waterways will be partially covered by the responsible industry, rather than by water bills or public budgets. The new rule will require the most polluting industries to pay at least 80% of the cost for micropollutant removal.

The EU said this would “lead to cleaner rivers, lakes, groundwater and seas all around Europe”.

Chloe Alexander, a senior campaigner at the CHEM Trust, said: “The UK must urgently mirror EU measures to make polluters pay to remedy the problems they cause, as well as to ban the use of harmful chemicals at source, before they harm our health and pollute our environment. Currently, the UK public and environment continue to be exposed to a growing number of harmful chemicals that are getting banned in EU countries.

“The British public should not have to foot the bill for the huge potential costs of cleaning up our environment from chemical pollution caused by poor chemical management.”

England and Wales could end up lagging behind when it comes to water pollution, as other parts of the UK will adopt extra regulations on micropollutants. Northern Ireland, under the Windsor framework, has to adhere to urban waste water treatment updates as it is obliged to have some of the same environmental rules as the Republic of Ireland. The Guardian understands that the Scottish government is proposing to adopt similar regulations to UWWT as it is trying to keep regulations in line with the EU so the country could more easily rejoin the bloc in the event of Scottish independence.

Michael Nicholson, the head of environmental policy at the Institute for European Environmental Policy, said: “If the updated EU law on wastewater treatment comes into force in the next few months, as is likely, this would be a major step forward in tackling pollution from cosmetic and pharmaceutical products which enter our rivers and seas and endanger public health and aquatic life alike. It would also open up a significant divergence with the approach taken to clean wastewaters in the UK. The UK should take note and strongly consider following suit.”

The new rules will also introduce systematic monitoring of microplastics in the inlets and outlets of urban wastewater treatment plants as well as in the sludge, and there will be monitoring of “forever chemicals” such as PFAS. There are no plans for England to introduce any such compulsory monitoring at present.

Libby Peake, a senior policy analyst at Green Alliance, said: “The UK government acted quickly to ban some microbeads from wash-off cosmetics in 2018 and was rightly applauded for it. But that ban, which the government still refers to as world-leading, contained some gaping holes that plenty of microplastics continue to slip right through.

“In fact, the partial ban covers less than 10% of intentionally added microplastics. People will be surprised to learn that all sorts of cosmetics – lipstick, suncream, and so on – can still legally contain plastics in the UK, as can medicinal products, paints, detergents, and fertilisers. The EU is moving to ban a far greater range of these insidious plastic particles, and the UK should quickly follow suit.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We already have a polluter pays principle in law under the Environment Act. Many of our statutory schemes also equal or go beyond EU targets.

“On top of this we are taking tough action to hold polluters to account, quadrupling water company inspections, fast-tracking £180m investment to cut sewage spills and changing the law so that polluters face unlimited penalties from the Environment Agency, which are quicker and easier to enforce.”

Devon to get £95m in instalments until 2031/2032.

Four more local authorities have reached deals with the Department for Education to reduce their high-needs deficits but five council areas have seen their payments put on hold.

Does Westminster understand the needs of the regions? – Owl

www.tes.com 

Bristol, Devon, Wiltshire and Bracknell Forest have had plans accepted to reform their high-needs provision and bring down cumulative deficits on their Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) under the government’s Safety Valve programme.

But the DfE has said the Safety Valve agreements with Bath and North East Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Hillingdon and Norfolk are currently under review, with payments suspended until revised agreements are reached.

Under the programme, the DfE agrees to pay areas additional cash through the DSG if local authorities reform their high-needs provision, with the aim of tackling existing deficits caused by high-needs spending.

SEND: Councils’ high-needs funding deficits

Devon is forecasting a maximum DSG deficit of £153.4 million at the end of 2023-24, rising to a high of £160.9 million for 2025-26.

But the council is forecasting that this maximum DSG deficit will have reduced to £95 million by 2031-32 after action is taken.

The Safety Valve agreement sets out that the DfE will pay Devon County Council £95 million in additional DSG payments in instalments between this year and 2031-32 to help it get rid of its deficit.

The DfE will pay Bracknell Forest £16 million, Bristol £53.8 million and Wiltshire £67 million.

Action plans to reform high-needs provision differ between local authorities, but all four of the new agreements include action to improve early intervention and expand local special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision.

The agreements state that they are subject to review if DSG funding levels change from what was assumed, if there are significant changes to national SEND policy, if there is insufficient progress on reducing DSG deficit or if councils are awarded extra capital funding.

The review process for the five areas now under review will assess the impact of their changes in circumstances since the agreements were made.

The agreements for Hillingdon and Dorset were subject to review if they were awarded additional capital funding support. While Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Bath and North East Somerset’s agreements were subject to review if free school bids were successful.

Other areas with large deficits

The bailout programme is part of a range of government measures aimed at reforming support for pupils with SEND amid rising costs. Concerns have been raised that these measures will aim to “effectively ration education, health and care plans (EHCPs)”.

Tes reported earlier this year that five areas were in negotiations to make Safety Valve agreements with the DfE. These were Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP); Cheshire East; Wiltshire; Devon; and Bracknell Forest.

It was subsequently reported that Bristol was also in negotiations. BCP saw its proposals, which would balance the DSG within 15 years, rejected by the DfE last week.

The council remains in discussions with the DfE about joining the Safety Valve programme.

BCP chief executive Graham Farrant said: “We always knew the council’s recent Safety Valve proposal challenged the DfE’s criteria, and we have acted with integrity in making clear that we will not sign up to a deal that would see our services fall below the statutory requirements as set by government.”

A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said conversations were continuing with the DfE and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to establish support in SEND transformation and how the high needs deficit will be resolved.

For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter

[Women Against State Pension Inequality]

Yesterday, Owl reported that the Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that the government’s  Rwanda policy could cost £3.9bn over 5 years. That is more than the £3.6bn it would cost to give all the WASPI impacted women £1,000 compensation each.

At the moment the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are saying that a payment less than this would be “consistent” with prior payments. (Another way of saying that £1,000/ head is unaffordable.)

Matt Davies www.inyourarea.co.uk

A landmark ruling yesterday means millions of women impacted by changes to the State Pension age could be set for compensation of up to £3,000. On March 21, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) said the DWP had failed to adequately inform thousands of women about the change, throwing retirement plans into disarray.

It affects women born between 1950 and 1960, with some told about the change to their pension age less than a year prior to them turning 60 (the age they thought they’d retire). It means they didn’t have enough time to alter their financial plans, the ombudsman found, with the report saying the 3.6 million impacted women should have received a letter informing them up to four years earlier.

It’s almost ten years since the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) launched its campaign, with the report coming after a five-year investigation into alleged failures at the DWP. The PHSO said it believes ‘we have explained our thinking about where on our severity of injustice scale the sample complainants’ injustice sits’, and ‘we would have recommended they are paid compensation at level 4 of the scale’.

If you are a woman born between April 1950 and April 1960, you can use the interactive tool in the original article to see when the ombudsman says you should have been notified of the pension changes.

This level of compensation would be £1,000 to £2,950, according to the PHSO website. It says: “A case at level four will involve the person affected experiencing a significant and/or lasting impact, so much so that to some extent, it has affected their ability to live a relatively normal life. In these cases, the injustice will go beyond distress or inconvenience, except where this has been for a very prolonged period of time.”

The PHSO used a severity of injustice scale to decide upon a payment it believes is appropriate and proportionate. It has six levels, with the PHSO advising a Level 4 payout of £1,000 to £2,950 to recognise the ‘significant’ and ‘lasting impact’ suffered. If the Government agrees, it could result in a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5bn to £10bn.

However, the DWP said Level 3 (less than £1,000) would be ‘consistent’ with prior payouts, but the Government has not yet confirmed any level of compensation. WASPI campaigners have demanded ‘a proper compensation package’ at Level 6 (£10,000 or more), meaning a possible bill of £36bn for the Government. The PHSO said it had asked Parliament to intervene and hold the DWP to account.

In its discussions with the DWP, the PHSO said: “Because of what DWP has told us during this investigation, we have reason to believe it will not take steps to put things right. Complainants have also told us they doubt DWP’s ability or intent to put things right. Given the urgent need for justice, we are presenting our report to Parliament. We are asking Parliament to intervene and identify a way to provide appropriate remedy. We think this will be the quickest way to put things right.”

MORE ON PENSIONS

Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the PHSO, said: “The UK’s national ombudsman has made a finding of failings by the Department for Work and Pensions in this case and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. This is unacceptable. The department must do the right thing, and it must be held to account for failure to do so.

“Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the department to account. Parliament now needs to act swiftly and make sure a compensation scheme is established. We think this will provide women with the quickest route to remedy.”

 “These builders keep getting away with it, they say they’ll build a certain amount of affordable homes, which they’re never really going to.” Mikaela Tibbins

“It’s almost as if they prefer to promise these things then take them away once you’ve got all of the stuff you wanted.” Bernie Hawes

[The company and its directors are registered at an address in Exmouth] See earlier post.

Zero-carbon estate in limbo after plans row

The Times print edition 22 March

 A brand new housing estate in a Cornish village has been boarded up after a stalemate between developers and council planners (Lara Wildenberg writes).

Bridge View was envisioned as 33 zero-carbon homes in Calstock, a village overlooked by the Tamar Valley railway viaduct. Yet today some houses are boarded up and 15 affordable homes have not progressed beyond the foundations.

The directors of Construction Partners, Michael Wight, 59, and Adele Fulner, 53, claimed that delays and unexpected additions from Cornwall county council had cost the company £1.2 million in interest. The sum had “eroded” their budget to finish the 15 affordable homes without selling any of the completed properties to fund them, and their application to reduce the number of affordable homes to ten was rejected.

The company also had to amend the plans due to the steepness of the site, with a complex surface drainage system and a 9m high and 300m long retaining

wall costing £750,000. As a result, the developers have refunded deposits.

“The planning system is broken and it shouldn’t be allowed,” Fulner told The Times.

Wight added: “It isn’t the case that’s been painted that we’ve tried to get out of it, we’ve just been eroded and eroded down to zero.”

Locals had little sympathy. Mikaela Tibbins, 57, who owns Over the Top Cornish Pasties with her daughter, said: “These builders keep getting away with it, they say they’ll build a certain amount of affordable homes, which they’re never really going to.”

Bernie Hawes, 55, owner of the Limekiln Gallery, said: “It’s almost as if they prefer to promise these things then take them away once you’ve got all of the stuff you wanted.”

In January the council said 160 households were on the waiting list for homes in the parish.

Cornwall council said it was committed to working with developers to ensure “the agreed number of affordable housing homes” are delivered in line with the planning permission.

East Devon District Council Leader Councillor Paul Arnott sends a formal reply to Devon County Council Leader Councillor John Hart about the proposed devolution deal for Devon and Torbay.

Will this see the end of the unaccountable business led HotSW Local Enterprise partnership? – Owl

eastdevon.gov.uk 

Dear John,

Assessment of the Proposed Devolution Deal for Devon and Torbay

This letter provides East Devon District Council’s response to the proposed Devolution Deal for Devon and Torbay. The proposed Deal was discussed at Cabinet on the 28th February. This response captures the key points from this discussion and highlights areas that we wish to see strengthened as the proposals move forward. This is aligned with the issues and concerns identified across the network of Devon Districts.

Overall Support for Devolution

We welcome the potential of the proposed Devolution Deal as a positive step towards increased local control. The transfer of powers and resources from central government aligns with the principle of subsidiarity, allowing decisions to be made at the most appropriate level. We recognise the considerable time and effort that has been invested in to securing the offer of this Deal.

The provisions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 mean that District Councils cannot automatically become full constituent members of the proposed Combined County Authority (CCA). Subsequently it is difficult to escape the impression that District Councils are starting from a position of being junior partners in the devolution proposals. We hope that this position can be corrected locally through the constitution for the CCA.

Our response focuses on three specific aspects to the proposed Deal;

1. Relationship with Design Principles
The nine design principles set out in the consultation document provide a useful framework against which to consider the proposals. A particular area of focus relates to the principle of subsidiarity and the importance of ensuring that specific activity happens at the lowest viable level.

• UK Shared Prosperity and Rural England Prosperity Funds: While the proposed deal routes these funds through the new Combined Authority (CCA), our strong preference is for continued devolution directly to District Councils. The remaining CCA remit should be to broker conversations about strategic commissioning of countywide (generic) business support activity, and to maximise the effectiveness of local investment aligned to the economic support activity newly-returning to the county council as part of the winding down of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). However, since the LEP failed on both its democratic mandate and often in its local relevance, we would wish the CCA to set off firmly on the right foot by committing to retain local delivery methods for business support where this is currently in place via districts.
• Heat Network Zoning Coordination: The proposal positions the CCA as the Heat Network Zoning Coordinator. Given the localised nature of heat networks, particularly in the Exeter and East Devon areas, we believe that District Councils are better placed to manage this activity.

2. Resources

The proposed £16 million of additional capital is a welcome development. We support the emphasis placed on ensuring investment in housing delivery and the transition to net zero.

• Housing Delivery: We support the potential for a shared strategic investment pipeline with Homes England. However, we emphasise the importance of utilising existing housing functions and groupings like the Devon Housing Task Force. We expect the CCA to enable and accelerate delivery with and through Districts and local housing associations. We specifically want to ensure that the District Councils relationship with Homes England be retained and built upon. The aims of the CCA should be to build on best practice and expertise; to provide a stronger platform and empower the excellent work being done across the Team Devon landscape, not to duplicate or add extra bureaucracy. We understand that this is the intention, however we would wish to be involved more fully in the discussions around ‘operationalising’ the CCA.
• Transport – Investment in transport infrastructure is crucial, including projects like the new passing loop on the Exeter-Waterloo line. We recognise that operational highway matters will remain with DCC and Torbay respectively. However, in the duty to produce a joint strategic transport plan across the CCA geography, we would urge inclusion of the District Councils in the formulation of this in order to ensure that vital land-use and housing plans are aligned with transport plans and that sustainable transport options are embedded – both in terms of strategic intent and future investment.

3. Governance and Decision Making

We acknowledge the constraints of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. We believe that enabling District Councils to also become full constituent members of the Combined Authority will be an important step towards improving the representative voice of Devon residents and in strengthening local democratic accountability.

• Constitution of the CCA – We ask that all opportunities to enable Districts to become full constituent members are considered to ensure that districts can have a voice on reserved matter issues. This is of particularly significance given that many of these matters are of relevance to districts and existing partnership ambitions are already in place, for example around carbon reduction and the Devon Climate Emergency.
• Team Devon – The proposed Team Devon statutory joint committee is a positive step towards collective decision-making which we firmly support. This will help to inform voting intentions at CCA meetings. However, further details regarding its operation and role in relation to the CCA are necessary. We would particularly welcome the opportunity to develop the detailed terms of reference for this committee.
• Community and involvement of local towns and parishes – the voice of the Devon Association of Local Councils (DALC) is a welcome one within the current ‘Team Devon’ arena, and we would strongly support the inclusion and recognition of town and parishes in the implementation and operationalising of the CCA. Housing, transport, jobs, skills and sustainability are strategic issues with often local or hyper-local solutions. The CCA should aim to be the bridge that demonstrates strategic intervention and scale, while empowering our communities’ ambition and aspiration.

Conclusion

We believe the proposed Devolution Deal presents both opportunities and challenges. Our focus is on ensuring it strengthens local democracy and empowers effective decision-making at the most appropriate level. We look forward to engaging further in discussions to refine the details and maximise the benefits for Devon and Torbay.

Yours sincerely
Councillor Paul Arnott
Leader, East Devon District Council

Devon airline Flybe has finally been dissolved leaving £700m of debts unpaid. The Exeter-based carrier was at one time a million-passenger operation but it fell into administration in early 2020 and has now finally been wound up.

William Telford www.devonlive.com

Documents filed at Companies House reveal the firm, now called FBE Realisations 2021 Ltd, ceased to exist on March 18. A newer company using the name Flybe, based in Birmingham, is still in administration but ceased trading in January last year.

Administrators for FBE Realisations 2021 Ltd revealed in filed documents last October that there were more than 935,460 claims from unsecured creditors amounting to a jaw-dropping £684m. Following a hearing in the High Court a notice was sent to all creditors telling them they would not receive any money.

A further court hearing last month approved the dissolution of the company. Secured creditors were paid, however, with £29.2m going to lenders, and £3.1m to BRAL Trustee for a fixed charge on the airline’s training academy.

BRAL Trustees was actually owed £96.5m and was one of the largest unsecured creditors and ended up hugely out of pocket. Meanwhile 2,066 preferential creditors and four Redundancy Payment Service claims were paid, totalling £2.7m.

Investigations into all Flybe Ltd/FBE Realisations directors, shadow directors or de-facto directors, for their conduct in the three years before the administration, concluded and no action is being taken against them.

Flybe/FBE Realisations filed for administration on March 5, 2020, and ceased all operations. The airline, which once accounted for more than a third of UK domestic flights, had been struggling for months but claimed the onset of the coronavirus >Covid pandemic was the final straw. The company had been set up in 1979 as Jersey European Airways, was rebranded British European in 2000 and then Flybe in 2002.

The company was taken over by Connect Airways in 2019, but the following year it emerged Flybe was in financial trouble with mounting losses and it sought a £100m Government bailout. When this didn’t come it collapsed with EY Parthenon appointed as administrators.

Meanwhile, a hedge fund-backed company called Thyme Opco Ltd acquired the business and some assets from the administrators and renamed itself Flybe Ltd in April 2021, commonly referred to as “Flybe 2” or “new Flybe” by some observers. A nominal consideration of £1 was paid, with some surviving employees transferring to the new company.

The new Flybe was based at Birmingham Airport, with crew and aircraft at Belfast City and engineers at Exeter Airport. But it lasted just 10 months.

When it collapsed, administrators at Interpath Advisory tried to sell it as a going concern. They wanted to sell shares based on the value of lucrative Heathrow and Amsterdam landing slots, the most valuable assets.

Some of these slots had been transferred from the original Flybe. No money was paid when they moved over to the new company, However, moves by Interpath to sell “new Flybe” didn’t work and they decided to wind down the business.

Administrators for the original Flybe, at EY Parthenon, tried to pursue the new company for cash but when it ceased trading on January 28 last year and went into administration it left debts of £82.6m. It meant there was no hope of any payout for the unsecured creditors of the original company.

committees.parliament.uk 

As many as eight million people face being disenfranchised at the next election due to an electoral registration system which is neither effective nor efficient, says the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in a report published today.

• Read the report summary (HTML)
• Read the full report (HTML)
• Read the full report (PDF 592KB)
• Find all publications related to this inquiry, including oral and written evidence

The report finds that the current state of the electoral registration system, which governs local elections in England and UK general elections, needs urgent review.

The report finds that there have been notable issues with the practical implementation of recent electoral registration reforms, including voter ID which left individuals without the right ID being prevented from voting and only a limited number of forms of ID being permitted. The report disagrees with the Government’s view on the adequacy of the list of accepted photo ID and believes it should be widened to include other forms, such as emergency services passes and non-London travel passes.

Clive Betts, Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee, said:

“Elections are the cornerstone of our democracy and yet we are burdened by a system which is both ineffective and inefficient, where millions of people are disenfranchised because they are incorrectly registered or not on the electoral register. In the year of a general election, this is a damning indictment of the UK’s electoral registration arrangements and a threat to the rights of British voters.

“Our voter registration system is creaking. Recent changes such as voter ID have been tacked onto a Victorian era system which is failing voters, political parties, and election officials. We need a major review of our election arrangements to boost voter registration and to ensure our elections are seen as credible and legitimate. It is a major and fundamental defect in our democratic system that many millions of UK citizens face being unable to make their voice heard at election time.”

The report recognises that certain groups, such as young people, renters, ethnic minorities, and those in lower socio-economic groups are significantly less likely to be registered to vote. The Committee were also told that some disabled people do not feel supported to register to vote, particularly struggling with the lack of variety in communication channels.

The report recommends a series of steps to help tackle under-registration, including involving schools and bodies such as the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs, Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency, and HM Passport Office in signposting voter registration. The report also recommends that registering to vote be signposted when national insurance numbers are issued to citizens who reach sixteen years of age as a way of ensuring that more young people are entered on the electoral register.

The report highlights the importance for local authorities and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to understand communication and access needs to ensure that people with disabilities are not shut out of the electoral process. The report finds it totally unacceptable that local authorities are contacting people without taking into account their communication needs.

The report also calls for the Government to move towards an opt in automated voter registration system to help ensure that voters are not disenfranchised.

The report notes the current strains on the electoral registration system, including the loss of electoral staff and expertise. The report also expresses concern at the pressures on the registration system caused by event led registration, a surge of applications in the pre-election period when voting is at the forefront of voters’ minds. The report warns that election officials may struggle to cope with these pressures at the next General Election, given that, following the Elections Act 2022, there are now additionally up to 3.4 million British citizens who live overseas who can register to vote.

The report references the Electoral Commission’s 2023 report, “Electoral registers in the UK”, which found that completeness of the registers in the UK is at 86%. ‘Accuracy’ looks at the number of false entries on the electoral registers and is currently at 88%. This means that potentially as many as eight million people were not correctly registered at their current address and people may be registered twice inadvertently.  The completeness of the electoral registers in Great Britain is 86%.   The Commission explained that ” if a UK general election was called now, around 14% of the eligible population would not be able to vote.”

The Committee’s report notes the example of Canada, where the system of electoral registration is broadly comparable to the UK’s as, unlike in many other countries, the UK and Canada do not have a civil population register from which electoral registers are derived. The Canadian system has resulted in electoral registers with considerably higher rates of accuracy and completeness than in the UK.

Just to confirm that Simon did indeed vote 10 times to remove the Lord’s amendments to the “Safety of Rwanda” bill.

In the coming weeks he is likely to do his masters’ bidding again and again. He doesn’t seem to have learned from voting down the Lord’s amendment to stop sewage pollution.

The Rwanda policy has been analysed by the Institute for Public Policy Research. They think it could now cost £3.9bn over five years. (See below)

To put this in perspective: this is the sort of sum being talked about to compensate the “Waspi” women hit by pension age rise.

(Which no one expects to happen any time soon).

Is it time to call in the Minister for “Common Sense”?

On second thoughts – possibly not. She seems too busy spending your money in other ways! – Owl

Rwanda policy could cost £3.9bn over 5 years

www.ft.com 

The true cost of Rishi Sunak’s plan to remove asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda could reach up to £3.9bn over five years, according to analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

The think-tank on Monday said the price of the prime minister’s scheme, when upfront payments to Kigali and operational expenses were included, could be up to £230,000 per person, depending on how long they stayed in the African nation.

This compared with an average of about £55,000 over two years that the government spends on accommodating asylum seekers while claims are processed in the UK, the IPPR said.

“Aside from the ethical, legal and practical objections, the Rwanda scheme is exceptionally poor value for money,” said Marley Morris, IPPR associate director and author of the report, describing the expense as “eye-watering”.

Sunak is seeking to pass legislation, which returns to the Commons this week, that declares Rwanda a “safe country” for asylum seekers to overcome objections from the Supreme Court, which last year ruled the scheme unlawful.  

The prime minister has made “stopping the boats” that carry migrants across the Channel from France a priority and hopes his deal to remove those entering the UK without prior permission will deter such crossings.

The final cost of the scheme, if Sunak’s bill succeeds, will depend on the number of people removed to Rwanda and the duration of their stay.

Total payments to remove the 20,000 or so migrants who have arrived irregularly in the UK since last July, when legislation barring them from claiming asylum was passed, would start at £1.1bn if they left the country immediately, according to the IPPR.

But this figure would rise to £3.9bn if 90 per cent stayed for five years or more, the think-tank added.

The Home Office said the IPPR had made several assumptions and modelling calculations that “it did not recognise”. The department estimated last year that the cost of relocating people to Rwanda would be about £170,000 per person.

“The best way of saving taxpayer money is by deterring people from coming here illegally in the first place, and our partnership with Rwanda intends to do just that,” the department said.

The UK has agreed to pay Kigali up to £490mn upfront and an additional £20,000 per person relocated, plus a further £80mn for set-up costs.

In addition, the UK must pay up to £150,874 per person to cover asylum processing and integration, and contribute £10,000 to facilitate the departure of each person who leaves Rwanda.

“Every single taxpayer in the country should be alarmed at just how much of the public purse the government seems prepared to spend on these inhumane plans,” said Imran Hussain, director of external affairs at charity the Refugee Council.

The IPPR estimates were based on Home Office data and a report released by the National Audit Office, the UK spending watchdog, this month. The think-tank also factored in extra fees, including staffing, legal and escorting costs.

For the scheme to break even, the IPPR added it would have to deter more than three-quarters of the asylum seekers at present coming to Britain. There were 36,704 irregular arrivals in 2023, according to the Home Office.

Last year Esther McVey wrote in the Daily Mail that she did not “want you to see a single penny of your hard-earned cash wasted on unnecessary public spending”.

Putting No1 first always makes sense (to Tories)! – Owl

Eleni Courea www.theguardian.com 

A cabinet minister who has criticised Whitehall waste has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in expenses to rent a London flat despite her husband owning a property a mile away.

Esther McVey, who was appointed “minister for common sense” last year, has received £39,000 in taxpayers’ money to rent the flat over the last two years. She lives there with her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.

The Daily Telegraph, which first reported the story alongside the campaign group Led By Donkeys, said McVey and Davies had been claiming expenses on the property since 2017 and could have received as much as £250,000 from the taxpayer.

Davies owns and lets out a flat about 25 minutes’ walk away in Waterloo. In his register of interests, Davies has declared an annual income of more than £10,000 from this property.

Davies told Led By Donkeys he would have been happy to continue claiming mortgage costs on the flat he owns, “but that option was removed from me”. After the 2009 expenses scandal, rules were changed so that MPs could not claim their mortgage payments back from the taxpayer.

McVey is the MP for Tatton in Cheshire and Davies represents Shipley in West Yorkshire.

They are not breaking any rules but it raises questions about whether the arrangement represents value for money. As a minister, McVey has repeatedly railed against Whitehall waste.

Last year McVey wrote in the Daily Mail that she did not “want you to see a single penny of your hard-earned cash wasted on unnecessary public spending”.

In February she told GB News she had written to independent government agencies asking them to spend more efficiently. “We want to make sure there isn’t any waste … You can’t put up taxpayers’ bills and ask the government for more money, and yet not get rid of wasteful spending yourself,” she said.

According to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the watchdog created after the expenses scandal, both MPs claim rent for a property in London.

Led By Donkeys has highlighted the cases of several parliamentarians who own and let out properties in London while at the same claiming expenses to rent flats in the capital.

The group said at least another eight MPs were claiming rent in London while also registering income from letting out their own properties in the city, claiming more than £1m in rental expenses since 2017.

Davies told Led By Donkeys: “If I owned the flat outright and I could stay there without incurring any cost then I would agree that I should do that, but that doesn’t remotely apply in my case.

“As far as I am aware, all workplaces cover the accommodation costs of people working away from home, and I am surprised … [you] … think that should no longer be the case. That, of course, will lead to only the wealthiest people in the country being able to become MPs.”

People in Axminster are ‘queuing out of the door’ at their local pharmacy amid a warning that Devon’s pharmacy workforce are ‘on their knees’. Branch closures and staff cuts are impacting the service.

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com

Speaking in Parliament, Richard Foord, Lib Dem MP for Tiverton & Honiton said: “At the end of January, the Government launched the Pharmacy First scheme, which encourages patients to consult pharmacists rather than GPs, or at least to take pressure off GPs.

“While that is good in theory, the reality is that the community pharmacy workforce are on their knees, with levels of trained support staff having been cut by 20%.

“We are seeing the closure of pharmacies in rural and coastal towns such as Axminster and Sidmouth, with a constituent telling me yesterday that queues at the pharmacy in Axminster are out the door. Will the Government please make time for a debate on recognising the value of community pharmacies?”

Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt said: “The Government do recognise the value of community pharmacies. There can be no Prime Minister better placed to recognise the importance of pharmacy.

“That is why we have not only enabled the Pharmacy First service to be stood up, but worked on it for a number of years. It is now available to all members of the public, but there were trailblazer programmes prior to that for people who were on benefits.

“Some 98% of pharmacies are now making use of the scheme, which also enables them to derive an income from it. That is progress to be supported and welcomed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will promote the scheme in his constituency.”

Paul Arnott 

Many readers may have seen last weekend The Times Newspaper listing Exmouth as “One of The Best Places to Live 2024”.

The article included a superb quote from the Sideshore’s Ella Slade who said she thinks the town is “going places”.

“I love being by the sea,” Ella said, “and Exmouth is a great place with a great community. It feels really young. It’s got character and personality and everybody puts their oar in to make the businesses work and the community the best it can be.”

The bit of Ella’s quote I loved was that “everybody puts their oar in”, which is true but also can be read in two ways. In my experience of doing all I can for Exmouth as District Leader for four years that is spot on.

There are people breaking their backs to make the town blossom, and there are commentators on the sidelines (you find everywhere to be fair) for whom nothing is ever right. That’s democracy, and long may the two ways of putting your oar in live.

As the district council we get a regular kicking from some locals, which is expected of course. (Before I was a councillor I’d considered the daft plans for a seafront hotel at sea level quite potty too, and said so.) But taking that on the chin without complaining does justify a right to reply. Many will remember the superb Monty Python routine from Life of Brian called “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

So, I scribbled a few notes of new actions East Devon District Council has taken in Exmouth this year alone. Let’s start with a lovely one. With the leadership of a wonderful team of volunteers aged 3-96, our Parks and Gardens Team at EDDC been involved with the lovely Exmouth Tiny Forest Group planting 185 broadleaf trees creating three small copses to surround the new Tiny Forest at the Carter Avenue Green Space. In the same week, we opened 28 new parking spaces for bikes on the front by the RNLI Lifeboat Station and in Phear Park.

We also concluded a very long consultation process which has been going on for two years about Placemaking in Exmouth. Now, the sideline commentators always say “they won’t listen”, “it’s all rubber stamped already” and astonishingly, “it’s all been done behind closed doors”. In fact, since I put my own oar in four years ago, we set up an open Placemaking Group with representation from all sorts of interest groups in Exmouth, including the Town Council which – unlike the old days under the Conservatives – meets in public.

Indeed, those meetings are all there on YouTube to watch if you wish, and the agenda and minutes are on our website. I’d like to thank the nearly 700 hundred contributors who either attended public sessions at the Ocean or filled in the consultation document in recent weeks.

Of course, the biggest recent intervention is the £1.5 million funding to urgently rebuild the sea wall at Sideshore. We could have crossed our fingers and hoped it would hold up, but my Cabinet decided that the works must be done instantly. Thanks to all Exmouthians for your patience as the path in front of Sideshore becomes a bit of a building site for the next few weeks. Better than the seafront being swept into the sea I’d hazard.

What then have the Romans/EDDC done for us? Loads. Can we do better? Yes, everyone can always do better. But as long as I have a say, East Devon District Council has Exmouth’s back.

An MP has said that “too many” of their colleagues in Parliament are not playing by the rules, as a Bill was presented to make codes of conduct more binding.

Claudia Savage www.independent.co.uk

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) presented the Bill to the House of Commons on Wednesday, using a 10-minute rule motion, that would put rules about MPs’ behaviour on the statute books.

She told the Commons: “Too many people across our great country and nation states feel that the UK parliament, the MPs and ministers that sit in this place, that make new laws on behalf of them no longer represents them.

“People across the country feel that while they play by the rules, too often, too many of us do not.

“They’re engaged every five years or so at a general election but rarely in between and while they are struggling to make ends meet, public money is treated by some as a personal fiefdom to bestow on their chums and benefactors.”

She added: “When people lose faith in democracy they seek political extremes.

“Polling from the Institute for Government recently showed two thirds of our constituents said that they do not think the current Government behaves to high ethical standards.

“Likewise polling from the UK anti-corruption coalition found two thirds of voters believe UK politics is becoming more corrupt.”

The Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct) Bill would seek to provide a statutory code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords, as well as local councillors.

The Seven Principles of Public Life, known as the Nolan Principles, state that those holding public office should exhibit selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Ms Abrahams said: “It’s absolutely right that under this the Nolan principles, currently guiding principles, also become codified.”

Ms Abrahams clarified that her Bill is “not party political”.

She said: “The reality is that when one party is seen as behaving in a way that lacks integrity, this does not affect just them, it affects the reputation of politicians on all sides.”

The member for Oldham East and Saddleworth concluded that by urging MPs from both sides of the House to support the Bill to “strengthen our standards in public life and to restore the public’s trust” in MPs.

The Bill is scheduled for further scrutiny by MPs on April 26 but is unlikely to make further progress in its current form due to a lack of parliamentary time to debate Bills tabled by backbench MPs.

[Worth mentioning that a “South Devon Watch” (now facebook based) had its origins at around the same time as “East Devon Watch”. Both aimed at driving revolutionary ideas forward and providing a critique of local Conservatism. (Use Georgina Allen in the EDW search to find relevant posts from around 2016 onwards.) 

The founders of the East Devon Alliance would also claim to have been part of this revolution by creating a mutual support group for like minded independents, pledging to follow the Nolan principles and seeking to become District Councillors. Within three electoral cycles the Tory stranglehold on East Devon District Council has been broken and the council is now run by a “rainbow” coalition.

The full history and evolution of change, including the pivotal role played by Claire Wright, was chronicled by “Old Owl” in three posts celebrating, in 2021, the first million hits on EDW. (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). 

So revolutionary ideas of how to do politics have already taken root in other parts of Devon and are flowering. – Owl]

A revolution in the way Britain does politics has begun in Devon. Tory MPs should be afraid

George Monbiot www.theguardian.com

This is what democracy looks like: hundreds of people queueing in the rain, seeking to take back control of a political system that treats voters like an afterthought. Last weekend, a remarkable democratic experiment reached its first conclusion. A process that began here in South Devon and is now spreading to other constituencies has allowed voters to reclaim the initiative from centralised and self-interested political parties. It directly confronts our unfair electoral system.

Ours is one of many constituencies in the UK known as “progressive tragedies”: places in which most people vote for parties to the left of the Tories but which, thanks to our iniquitous first-past-the-post system, end up with Tory representatives. The Conservatives have ruled here since 1924, often without majority support.

The Labour and Conservative leaderships conspire to sustain this system, in the hope of absolute majorities. But it works, like other such truncations of democracy (think of our political funding arrangements) much better for the Conservatives than it does for Labour. As Neal Lawson of the democracy campaign Compass argues, of the 11 general elections since 1979, “eight were won by the Conservative party and only three by Labour. But cooperation among progressive parties could have averted all eight Conservative majority governments bar 2015.”

Both within the Labour party and in the country at large, there’s an urgent desire for a fairer system. Unfortunately, this desire is thwarted by the Labour leadership. The result? As Lawson points out, of the 15 wealthy nations surveyed by the ParlGov project, voters in the UK are the most left-leaning, yet suffer the most rightwing governments. Sometimes it seems that Labour strategists would rather possess control than power.

This is not going to change in the near future. All pleas to work for the greater good, even when Jeremy Corbyn was leader, have been met with stony refusal. As someone well-placed in the party told me, our undemocratic system, and the prospect it offers of gaining an absolute majority, “is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. You know it harms you, but once it’s within your grasp, you can’t give it up.”

The simple and brilliant idea of a group of people in the South Devon constituency was to take these decisions out of the hands of the parties and return them to the people. The UK’s first “people’s primary” involved seven meetings held around the constituency. Candidates for progressive or vaguely progressive parties were invited to explain to voters why they would be best placed to evict the Conservative. After each meeting, constituents voted by secret ballot to choose their champion. When the aggregate result was announced, everyone in the constituency could see who other people believed was the most promising challenger.

Without this help, we have to guess other people’s voting intentions, and we often guess wrong. The people’s primary overcomes the prisoner’s dilemma, ensuring we are less likely to waste our vote. The decision the constituents make doesn’t prevent the other parties from standing. But, by selecting a common champion, it reduces the chances of letting the Tory back in.

Labour, thrown into chaos by the leadership’s attempt to control their choice of candidates, has yet to field a contender, so was unable to participate. The party leadership would have blocked its involvement anyway. Their loss. The Liberal Democrat and Green candidates battled gamely across two weeks of meetings. The Lib Dem, Caroline Voaden, won decisively. So now we know that our best chance of helping to eject the dismal Tory MP is to vote for her.

I chaired the first of these meetings. Tickets sold out two days after they were issued. The questions were searching and pertinent. Whatever the results at the general election, this is already a victory of sorts: bringing people back into the political process, showing how democracy could become a living proposition, rather than a dry and curling parchment locked behind a portcullis with chains.

Now the process has begun in five other constituencies, including those represented by Kemi Badenoch and Danny Kruger. The South Devon pioneers have identified 57 progressive tragedies in which the Conservatives are still predicted to win and there is some uncertainty about who the most effective challenger is likely to be. They’ve offered to share their model with these constituencies, but not with those where one progressive contender is clearly ahead of the others. In those cases they recommend a different system: stopthetories.vote.

All the big political parties hate these primaries. The Tory response is understandable: they know they can’t survive a fair democratic process in a progressive constituency. Most shocking and self-destructive has been the reaction of Liberal Democrat party managers. After the South Devon process had begun, a letter to candidates from the Lib Dem chair in England instructed them: “Under no circumstances are you to take part … any candidate who ignores this instruction, and participates in a primary, risks having their approved status rescinded and the withdrawal of party support and resources.”

The letter revealed an almost comical misunderstanding of what the primary process is and how it is conducted. It claimed that the primary could put candidates in breach of election law on both process and expenses. In reality, the process has been closely scrutinised by the Electoral Commission, and applies a long list of safeguarding rules. The spending (which is very small, as the primaries are created and run by volunteers) takes place before the champion is chosen, so, as the Electoral Commission has confirmed, doesn’t eat into the candidates’ capped election budgets. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by such reactions: any process involving a transfer of control, however beneficial, will be fiercely opposed by those who are losing it.

Out of adversity comes better tactics. The Isle of Wight East constituency, after the refusal of both Labour and the Lib Dems to play, is designing a new process that doesn’t rely on their involvement.

The primaries won’t deliver a perfect system. We’ll still be stuck with a centralised and coercive politics, unmatched to the needs of the complex system we call society, based on the illegitimate concepts of presumed consent and remote decision-making. We will properly reclaim that power only when our representative politics are accompanied by participatory and deliberative decision-making.

But it’s a start: a small, slow revolution in a country whose people have long been deprived of their democratic rights. Enough of command and control. Enough of tricks and truncations. Enough of lies and evasions. While they dissemble, we assemble.

The spiralling costs of Rishi Sunak’s controversial plans to house asylum seekers on RAF sites and in a “prison-like” barge have been laid bare in a damning report that found that the scheme will be significantly more expensive than paying for hotels – despite the sites housing far fewer migrants than planned.

Archie Mitchell www.independent.co.uk

The Home Office initially said that developing the four sites – including the Bibby Stockholm barge, two RAF sites, and former student accommodation in Huddersfield – would save taxpayers £94m.

But Whitehall’s official watchdog says the prime minister’s plan is expected to cost £46m more than the current system – which sees migrants put up in hotels while their claims are being processed – and £1.2bn overall over the next decade.

The National Audit Office (NAO) said the Home Office will have spent at least £230m developing the four major projects by the end of March – despite just two of the sites being open and providing accommodation for only 900 people.

The damning report, published on Wednesday, follows a warning last week from former home secretary Dame Priti Patel that the government’s asylum accommodation system is in need of reform and that there are “serious questions” to be asked of her former department.

The review said the government had spent more money unnecessarily and increased risk by pushing the projects forward too quickly, adding that the Home Office had pursued the policy despite “repeated” assessments that it “could not be delivered as planned”.

Labour said the NAO’s findings were “staggering”, accusing the prime minister of “taking the Tories’ chaos and failure in the asylum system to a new level”.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper added: “On top of the £8m a day on hotel rooms, the government is now paying tens of millions of pounds in set-up costs for new sites in Wethersfield and Scampton, which are still not in use, and millions more for sites that will never be used.”

Charities said the report exposed “bad policies being implemented badly at huge financial cost”, and claimed that the accommodation sites were creating additional “fear and trauma” for asylum seekers.

NAO boss Gareth Davies said: “The pace at which the government pursued its plans led to increased risks, and it now expects large sites to cost more than using hotel accommodation.”

According to the findings, the Home Office originally estimated that the set-up costs at the former RAF bases would be £5m each, but they increased to £49m for Wethersfield and £27m for Scampton.

So far only Wethersfield – which has a capacity of 1,700 – and the Bibby Stockholm, which has space for around 500 men, are housing asylum seekers.

But the two sites were housing just under half the number of migrants the Home Office expected them to accommodate at the end of January, with 576 living at Wethersfield and 321 on the Bibby Stockholm at that point.

The government is currently facing legal action over the conditions at Wethersfield, which has been condemned as a de facto detention centre and not suitable for long-term accommodation.

The Independent has previously revealed that nearly 100 asylum seekers, including suspected victims of torture and human trafficking, were moved out of the RAF base after the Home Office admitted the accommodation was unsuitable for them.

According to the NAO report, the Home Office is “now considering reducing the maximum number of people it accommodates” at Wethersfield, but has not confirmed the new number.

The department expects Scampton to start housing asylum seekers from April, with Huddersfield following in May, it added.

The NAO also found that:

• The Home Office rated its own performance as “red” as it recognised the challenges of the work, repeatedly revising accommodation targets “downwards”
• The department “prioritised awarding contracts quickly, and modifying existing contracts over fully competitive tenders”, with “overly ambitious accommodation timetables” leading to “increased procurement risks”
• Emergency planning rules were used so that sites could be found, and so that work could begin quickly before speaking to affected communities about the plans, in order to “reduce the risk of local opposition affecting negotiations”. In January, the Home Office was “still working with providers to develop specific measures assessing residents’ safety at large sites”
• The Home Office is “resetting” its programme and developing a “longer-term accommodation strategy”, which will see it reduce the number of spaces it intends to provide at such sites amid proposals to “identify smaller sites accommodating between 200-700 people”
• There are “uncertainties” about how the Illegal Migration Act is being implemented, making it harder for the Home Office to assess what asylum accommodation it needs. The report said the law changes will make it “more difficult to assess how much and what type of accommodation the Home Office will need” as it does not know how effective the deterrent will be or how it will affect the amount and type of accommodation required

The costs for Wethersfield, the Bibby Stockholm and Scampton are £777.2m for 2023-2027. Costs for a new site at Huddersfield are £358.4m for the period until 2033 – taking the total costs in the next decade up to £1.2bn.

On Monday, it emerged that Home Office minister Tom Pursglove had confirmed in a letter to Gainsborough Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh that the “regular occupancy” at RAF Scampton would be a maximum of 800 asylum seekers instead of the original 2,000 men destined for the site, which has been beset by legal challenges.

Ms Cooper said: “This report is staggering. The British taxpayer is already paying out eye-watering sums on asylum hotels, and now it turns out the sites they promised would save money are costing the taxpayer even more. Rishi Sunak has taken the Tories’ chaos and failure in the asylum system to a new level.”

Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said: “There would be no need to spend exorbitant sums of money on housing people in barges, military bases or hotels if cases were dealt with in a timely manner.”

A Home Office spokesperson said that the use of asylum hotels is “unacceptable”, adding that the department had acted to “reduce the impact on local communities by moving asylum seekers onto barges and former military sites”.

They added: “The cost of hotels will fall – and we are now closing dozens of asylum hotels every month to return them to communities … While the NAO’s figures include set-up costs, it is currently better value for money for the taxpayer to continue with these sites than to use hotels.”

Brexit is “the elephant in the room of British politics”, Sir Ed Davey has claimed as he seeks to boost support for the Liberal Democrats.

Hugo Gye inews.co.uk

The leader of the UK’s third party claimed in his speech to its spring conference that both the Conservatives and Labour were seeking to disguise the impact that leaving the EU has had on the economy.

But he again fell short of calling for the country to rejoin the EU, calling instead for closer relations which will “rip up red tape” for businesses.

Speaking in York at the Lib Dems’ first in-person conference since 2019, Sir Ed also warned the Tories that they could lose dozens of seats if they do not pledge to tackle water pollution, and pledged to prioritise political reform including a change to the voting system.

Addressing Brexit in his speech, the leader said: “I call it the elephant in the room of British politics. An elephant we always point to, even though other parties daren’t even whisper its name. So let me shout it, yet again: if you want to boost our economy, you have to repair our broken relationship with Europe.

He added: “You don’t need me to tell you what a disaster the Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe has been for our country. You see it every day in your communities: the businesses strangled by red tape; the farmers, fishers and factories, unable to sell to their customers on the continent; the empty shelves in local supermarkets.”

Lib Dem policy on the EU is to revisit Britain’s relations with the bloc in the coming years, but without a firm commitment to rejoin either the EU itself or its single market or customs union.

Ahead of May’s local elections, Sir Ed warned Conservative MPs that voters angry about discharges of sewage into Britain’s rivers would turn on them. He said: “People want a clean, healthy natural environment. They want an end to the Conservatives letting water companies get away with pumping filthy sewage straight into our rivers – the biggest environmental crime in our country today, and a crime that will cost the Conservatives dozens of seats if they don’t act.”

And he pledged to redouble the party’s commitment to changing the voting system – saying: “While the other parties still cling to the discredited ‘first past the post’ electoral system, our zeal for proportional representation remains undimmed.”

Sir Ed called the Conservatives “a bunch of mutinous pirates, only interested in who got to wear the captain’s hat”, joking: “We needed Hornblower. They gave us Pugwash.” But he also hit out at Labour, claiming that “their only goal seems to be ‘not as bad as the Conservatives’ – talk about a low bar!”

 “Too late” .. “march towards the sound of the guns” …“get on with it”. – Ben Wallace.

Yet still the pretenders manoeuvre. – Owl

The government has brought adult social care in England “to its knees” with years of uneven funding and a “woefully insufficient plan” to fill thousands of staff vacancies, MPs have said in a damning report on a system that provides long-term care for 835,000 people.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

The public accounts committee said “chronic underfunding, rising waiting lists and patchwork funding” has placed sustained pressure on local authorities, and the government is falling short on Boris Johnson’s promise in 2019 to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.

The Department of Health and Social Care “is not providing the leadership needed to deliver a social care sector that is sufficient to meet the country’s needs”, the cross-party committee concluded.

Meg Hillier, its Labour chair, said: “Years of fragmented funding and the absence of a clear roadmap has brought the adult social care sector to its knees. Waiting lists are rising, the sector is short tens of thousands of essential staff, and local authority finances are being placed under an unsustainable amount of pressure.”

The report comes with almost half a million people on waiting lists for care in residential settings or at home and an ageing population causing rising demand. There is also growing concern that some private providers are enjoying increasing profit margins because the government may not have a grip on value for money in a system that costs councils nearly £24bn a year.

The PAC wants assurances that £2.7bn in additional funding allocated in 2022 to speed up discharges from hospitals into social care and to increase the rates councils can pay for care, “is not simply going into provider profits”.

The committee also said that the government has given little assurance that changes to introduce a £86,000 per person cap on care costs, already delayed to October 2025, can be delivered on schedule. Meanwhile, more than 150,000 care posts are vacant and “the DHSC has still not produced a convincing plan to address the chronic shortages”, the committee said.

Nadra Ahmed, chair of the National Care Association, which represents independent care providers, said: “The intent has been there but the implementation has been quite woeful. The sector continues to become ever more fragile despite the government having published a plan.”

Helen Wildbore, director of Care Rights UK, which represents users of social care and their relatives, said: “It is older and disabled people paying the price – their safety, dignity and rights at risk as services get stretched to breaking point. We hear from people facing uphill battles to get access to care, to get their basic needs met or to have serious concerns with care resolved.”

A spokesperson for DHSC said: “We are committed to reforming adult social care and have invested up to an additional £8.6bn over two years to meet the pressures facing the sector, grow the workforce and improve hospital discharge. The report rightly acknowledges progress to boost care workers’ career progression and training to improve retention, including through a new accredited qualification. To drive forward our vision for reform, we are also investing up to £700m on a major transformation of the adult social care system, which includes investing in technology and adapting people’s homes to allow them to live independently.”

The findings coincided with the first preliminary session on the care sector at the Covid-19 public inquiry, after there were 50,000 deaths related to the virus in UK care homes.

Sam Jacobs, representing the Trades Union Congress, told the inquiry the pandemic hit “a chronically underfunded and fragmented social care sector delivered by many thousands of local authority and private care providers with little central strategic direction … served by an understaffed, underpaid and undervalued workforce.”

Jane Townson, chief executive of the Homecare Association, said a “glaring absence of social care expertise” in the government’s scientific advisory group meant it failed to “adequately consider the unique challenges and needs of the sector in the scientific advice informing policy decisions”.

“Decision makers frequently disregarded and undervalued the dedicated professionals working in social care, who put their own health and wellbeing on the line to continue providing care and support in the most challenging of circumstances,” she said.