On Monday Rishi Sunak suffered his first defeat in the commons with his attempts to delay compensation payments to victims of the haemophilia scandal who were given blood donated – or sold – by people infected with HIV and hepatitis C.
The Chair of the Haemophilia Society said the government stance was “on the wrong side of history”; a ‘huge error’ and hailed the Commons defeat as ‘victory for democracy’.
Simon Jupp dutifully voted with the defeated government
(The Home Secretary has a succinct way of describing what he smelt)
A Conservative MP [Simon Jupp] from Devon has accused South West Water (SWW) of carrying out “potentially illegal sewage spills”.
Despite making this accusation, our brave MP failed to follow through. He did not support a LibDem amendment to the compensation bill for victims bill on Monday which would have allowed people who fall sick due to illegal sewage dumping to claim compensation.
It was blocked by 250 Conservative MPs, letting water companies off the hook once again. – Owl
Brodie Owen BBC News, South West
East Devon’s Simon Jupp said the firm released sewage into bathing waters at Sandy Bay in Exmouth and the River Sid in Sidmouth on Monday.
The Environment Agency (EA) confirmed there was a “non-compliant” sewage spill for 90 minutes following a power cut at a sewage plant near Exmouth, while an open inspection cover led to sewage being discharged into the River Sid.
SWW chief executive Susan Davy apologised for the impact on bathing waters.
Mr Jupp said the EA had informed him about “potentially illegal sewage spills in my constituency”.
“SWW have questions they need to answer urgently about these spills,” he said.
“The particular one of concern is into Sandy Bay … this is not good enough.
“We need to look into that and there needs to be a full investigation.”
In a letter to Mr Jupp seen by the BBC, Ms Davy said she was “deeply sorry” for the impact on bathing waters.
She said the incidents occurred during an “exceptionally wet few days” and they would be “thoroughly investigated”.
“The recent wet weather has put pressure on all infrastructure, including the electricity supply we receive,” she said.
“Whilst we have electricity generator back up, a power blip impacted the operational control system.
“The team immediately mobilised, and it took 90 minutes before we could rectify the system issue.”
The EA said a power cut at the Maer Lane Treatment Works, near Exmouth, prevented the normal operation of the plant and led to sewage discharge that “did not meet permitted conditions”.
It said a separate spill in the River Sid was caused by an inspection cover at Eastern Town being lifted in heavy rainfall.
The authority had warned swimmers against swimming in the two areas after the “non-compliant spills”.
“This advice has now been removed as two high-tide cycles have passed since SWW confirmed the sewage discharge has stopped,” it added.
“This is expected to provide sufficient dilution to reduce the potential increased risk.”
Geoff Crawford, from End Sewage Convoys and Pollution Exmouth, highlighted that there had already been permitted discharges in the area outside of the two incidents.
Sewage companies are allowed to use overflow valves when systems become overwhelmed.
Mr Crawford said: “It means there was additional untreated sewage in the sea, but there is a much larger overflow taking place.
“To be permitted to [discharge] for well over 48 hours … is difficult to comprehend.”
Other comments on Simon’s twitter post include:
Latest on SEATON HOSPITAL protest at County Hall … campaigners dressed as nurses will join me when I present our 9,151-signature petition to Dr Sarah Wollaston, Chair of Devon NHS, on the steps of County Hall, Exeter at 9.30 THIS MORNING.
BELOW is the letter I shall give to her with the petitions
Martin Shaw
Secretary, Seaton Hospital Steering Committee
For years the British government from the prime minister down has lacked a coherent economic strategy, according to a thinktank’s health check of UK prospects.
Phillip Inman www.theguardian.com
“We are not on course towards setting any such strategy – indeed, we are not serious about the task,” says the report, titled “Ending Stagnation – a new economic strategy for Britain”.
Funded by the independent Nuffield Foundation and pieced together from original research by the Resolution Foundation thinktank and the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, the report is forgiving of politicians who have faced a succession of global shocks, from Covid to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
However, the authors document a series of failures that have left the UK as a laggard among G7 economies and ill-prepared for the task of providing a decent standard of living for most people in the years ahead.
Rather than creating an economy where the number of high-skilled jobs is on the rise, the report says workers will be £470 worse off by the end of the decade. This loss comes after 15 years of flatlined wages, costing the average worker £10,700 a year in lost pay growth compared with the pre-financial crash trend.
A loss of international trade is one reason cited for the lack of growth, which the report partly blames on Brexit.
By 2023, UK trade as a share of annual national income was down 2.2 percentage points on pre-pandemic levels. This compares with a rise of 0.5 points across the rest of the G7.
A loss of market share across EU and non-EU markets, including the US, Canada and Japan, is to blame, said the report. With a loss of trade comes a decline in high-skilled jobs, it adds.
“UK manufacturing will change rather than grow, as high-productivity sectors like chemicals and electronics shrink even as lower-productivity food manufacturing expands,” says the report.
“Wages in London, Wales and the north-east will be hardest hit by the resulting decline in productivity, which, across the country as a whole, means workers will be £470 worse off by the end of the decade.”
Only a handful of cities have successfully made the transition to a services economy. All England’s biggest cities bar London have productivity levels below the national average.
“A strategy to turn this around is what an industrial strategy in a service-dominated economy looks like,” says the report. “This is not a strategy for the few; the UK may be a ‘green and pleasant land’, but 69% of the UK population live in cities or their hinterlands, compared with 56% in France and just 40% in Italy.”
Easing the pressure from sky-high interest rates could come from raising the Bank of England’s inflation target to 3%. This would mean interest rates could begin to fall next year, easing pressure on mortgage holders and the Treasury, which has about a third of its loans with the central bank.
A wealth tax would also ease the pressure on the government’s finances and allow ministers to reward work rather than the hoarding of assets.
Council tax should be reformed and the burden increased on higher-value homes, allowing stamp duty on property sales to be permanently cut on low- to mid-priced homes.
The share of the public citing poverty and inequality as one of the most important issues facing the country has risen sharply, from 7% in 2010 to 19% immediately before the Covid pandemic.
The report says a toxic combination of low growth and failure to shift the highest levels of inequality among any large European country has contributed to the lack of progress on living standards for lower-income households.
Cuts to benefits under the post-2010 austerity drive of Conservative-led governments have also fuelled poverty. The report says benefit levels have failed to keep pace with prices in 10 of the past 15 years. Along with wider cuts since 2010, this has reduced the incomes of poorest fifth by just under £3,000 a year.
If the policy measures recommended by the report were adopted, relative poverty would be cut by 1.3 million people rather than increase by 1.1 million, as currently projected.
Young adults have seen generational pay progress grind to a halt, according to the report, highlighting how those born in the early 1980s were almost half as likely as their parents’ generation to own their own home by the age of 30.
After 15 years of average wages after inflation remaining almost stagnant, it says almost 9 million younger Britons have never worked in an economy that has sustained rising average wages.
Meanwhile, almost a third of young people in the UK are not receiving any education by the age of 18, compared with just one in five in France and Germany.
As a result, the report says, improvements in household disposable income from generation to generation – something that was taken for granted throughout the second half of the 20th century – have slowed or ground to a halt. The average income for those born in the early 1980s is almost £1,400 lower at 30 than those born 10 years earlier.
They’re “analogue capabilities that it makes sense to retain”.
On the essential commodity of food we have already had Thérèse Coffey’s emergency advice: “let them eat turnips”.
“People should stock up on battery-powered radios and torches, as well as candles and first aid kits in order to prepare for power cuts or digital communications going down, the deputy prime minister reportedly said.”
Don’t forget the turnips! – Owl
Jamie Grierson www.theguardian.com
According to the Times, Oliver Dowden described the supplies as “analogue capabilities that it makes sense to retain” in a digital age during a visit to Porton Down, the UK’s military laboratory.
Dowden made the visit to coincide with his first annual risk and resilience statement, which he had promised to give last year when launching the government’s UK resilience framework.
As part of the statement, he announced the launch of a national “resilience academy” to help people and businesses prepare for future pandemics, natural disasters and cyber-attacks.
The deputy prime minister announced the plans in the House of Commons, claiming the academy would help the “whole of society” prepare for the risks.
Dowden listed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, cyber-attacks, pandemics, the misuse of artificial intelligence and extreme weather among some of the risks the UK faces.
He said businesses would be offered training to deal with the impact of such threats, while a new website will provide the public with “practical advice” on how to be better prepared for future risks.
He told the Commons: “The government has a role in bringing all actors together and to give them the skills they need. Today, I can announce we are developing a new UK resilience academy that will improve the skills of those groups.
“It will provide a range of learning and training opportunities for the whole of society. For professionals, there will be a curriculum to build skills, knowledge and networks, and a centre for excellence for exercising. For businesses, there will be greater guidance and particularly assistance on threats to critical national infrastructure and cyber.
“And for citizens, there will be a unified government resilience website, which will provide practical advice on how households can prepare as part of a campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps individuals can take to raise their resilience.”
Dowden also said the government would develop a volunteer hub aimed at helping authorities draw on a single pool of volunteers who want to help in future events similar to the Covid pandemic, which he said “demonstrated the overwhelming community spirit” of the UK.
The Labour frontbencher Pat McFadden welcomed the measures but asked what the government was doing to bolster resilience in energy supplies and the “public estate”, as well as in elections.
He said: “Why is it that the government’s new policy is to roll back on the transition mandated by its own legislation for net zero, and prolong a reliance on international fossil fuel markets? For these failures, the British public has paid a heavy price.
“And how will the government increase resilience in the public estate? Schools’ capital budgets cut back under this prime minister’s watch while he was chancellor. School roofs falling in, disrupting children’s education.”
He also pressed ministers to implement recommendations of parliament’s intelligence and security committee, aimed at preventing Russia and other states from interfering with upcoming elections.
McFadden said: “With an election coming some time in the next year, I am sure the secretary of state would agree that we need to do all we can to ensure it is conducted in a free and fair manner.”
The deputy prime minister reminded the Commons that an election could be held in January 2025 at the latest.
Dowden said: “Indeed it is not just in this nation, in many nations around the world next year – or indeed in this nation it could be the year after – elections will happen.
“That is why we have instructed the democracy taskforce to make sure we are fully resilient.”
Background. The 2013 Tory administration set East Devon an eighteen year target to build a minimum of 950 houses/year (17,100 in total by 2031). This forms the basis of the latest government imposed targets.
Under government rules, EDDC also has to ensure a five year rolling plan to supply these houses. In 2020 Covid, unsurprisingly, resulted in a fall in housing completions and EDDC now has to play catch-up. _ Owl
Will Goddard www.sidmouthherald.co.uk
A new town in East Devon with 8,000 homes is to be built near the Devon County Showground at Westpoint.
East Devon district councillors have decided it is the best place for the settlement, which comes around 12 years after spades went in the ground at Cranbrook, around six miles away.
The new development will be on land between Exeter Airport and Crealy Theme Park, and 2,500 homes are expected to be constructed by 2040.
It is south of the A30 and north of the A3052, roughly west of Farringdon and east of Westpoint.
Councillors had three options, all within a small area at the western part of East Devon, but this location is seen as the most viable.
The chosen option on land to the north of A3052. (Image: East Devon District Council)
Cllr Geoff Jung (Lib Dem, Woodbury and Lympstone) thinks a new town is better than more development in existing communities. He said: “We are required by government to build 910 dwellings a year.
“A self-contained new community would be able to provide all the required facilities and connecting infrastructure in one location at a more acceptable cost, without the need to upgrade our district infrastructure throughout.
“Our already-failing infrastructure could not support our existing communities to grow substantially without the required increased education, health, utilities, sewage infrastructure, plus transport links that would be required spread throughout rural East Devon.
“Two thirds of our district is in protected landscapes. Plus, we have a heavily protected world heritage coastline, numerous floodplains and estuaries, so we have little choice.
“The only way to go is to complete Cranbrook new town and to build another community as well.”
The new town of Cranbrook is located six miles away. (Image: Chris Mills/Still Imaging) (Image: Archant)
But Cllr Jess Bailey (Independent, West Hill and Aylesbeare) said: “This is our open countryside, and our villages, which has evolved over hundreds and thousands of years. And we’re about to radically change it.”
She continued: “We’re being presented with it as being a really positive option because we won’t have to have estates on the outside of our towns, but we’re already getting estates on the outside of our towns.”
Councillors also had concerns about a potential impact on traffic in the Exeter area.
Cllr Kevin Blakey (Independent, Cranbrook) said: “It is going to be a dormitory for the city of Exeter, so transport is going to be a big issue there.
“One of the worries for me is that the only option for transport is the road. There are no railway lines that are near it or can get near it, ever will get near it, unlike Cranbrook.”
Cllr Olly Davey (Green, Exmouth Town) spoke about how although many do not want more houses, some do.
He said: “If you ask people in East Devon if they want to see further development, they’ll say no. Why would they? They’ve got a home. It’s only the people that are desperately still trying to find a home in East Devon who want to see further development.”
Plans for the new town will now be developed further, and another public consultation is planned towards the end of next year.
From: Professor Martin Shaw (secretary, Seaton Hospital Steering Committee)
The campaign to save Seaton Hospital’s threatened wing comes to the Devon NHS’s Integrated Care Board meeting in Exeter tomorrow morning.
We will then go into the ICB meeting at 10.30, where THE BOARD WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS which we have submitted, given below. Our questions will be answered early in the meeting, after which we will leave.
Questions:
1. Were Finance Committee and Board members informed, before their meetings in September and October respectively, that Seaton Hospital was established on the initiative of and part-funded by the League of Friends, on the understanding that the building would be run as an NHS hospital, and that the building of the wing in question was paid for 100 per cent by public donations? Does the Board now accept that, in the light of these considerations, it should have consulted with Seaton stakeholders before making this decision?
2. Does the Board now accept that it was mistaken to quote the 2016-17 consultation on the withdrawal of the beds in justification of its recent decision? First, the consultation did not concern the future use of ward space. Second, its results showed that Seaton residents were overwhelmingly opposed to the withdrawal, and the last-minute switch of Seaton’s beds to Sidmouth, without proper justification, discredited the outcome in the eyes of the local community?
3. Will the Board agree to the request of the Devon Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee that the proposed disposal is not implemented until they have explored and discussed the long-term future provision of NHS/health and wellbeing services for Seaton and Colyton residents, and reported on this to the Scrutiny Committee, as it has requested, in January 2024?
Rishi Sunak has suffered a parliamentary defeat as MPs voted to establish a compensatory body for victims of the infected blood scandal.
Christy Cooney www.theguardian.com
MPs voted 246 to 242 in favour of an amendment to the victims and prisoners bill that will require the government to set up a body to administer compensation within three months of the bill becoming law.
The amendment, which passed with the support of around 30 Tory MPs, marks the first parliamentary defeat of Sunak’s premiership.
The scandal, now the subject of an inquiry, unfolded in the late 1970s and early 1980s, after about 4,800 people with the blood-clotting disorder haemophilia given blood donated – or sold – by people infected with HIV and hepatitis C.
The government previously said there was a “moral case for the payment of compensation”, and that preparations for the payment of compensation were being made, but that it wanted to wait for the outcome of the inquiry.
The inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, was originally due to publish its final report last month, but is now expected to deliver its findings in March.
Of those affected by the scandal, around half have already died, and campaigners say time is of the essence.
Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, and Caroline Nokes, chair of the women and equalities select committee, were among the senior Conservatives to give the amendment their backing.
There was a cheer in the House of Commons as the result of the vote was announced.
Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson, who tabled the amendment, said it marked an “important step forward in what has been an extraordinarily long fight for justice”, though added that it was “not the end”.
“There is still much work to be done to … bring justice to those who do not have the luxury of waiting,” she said.
Speaking ahead of the vote, Edward Argar, the justice minister, said the scandal “should never have happened” and that the government had “great sympathy” with the intention of the amendment.
“My thoughts, and I believe all those in this House, remain with those impacted by this appalling tragedy,” he said.
Heavy rain lasting more than 24 hours has resulted in multiple flood warnings and alerts being issued for areas across East Devon.
East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk
The Environment Agency (EA) said it expects river levels in many areas to remain high overnight, and into Tuesday (December 5).
Residents living near flooded areas are urged to be aware that water could be fast-flowing and deep.
The Environment Agency said: “Over the last 24 hours we have seen heavy rainfall in the East Devon area.
“This has meant that rivers in the area have risen and will remain high.”
Flood warnings are in place for the River Axe and River Clyst, plus alerts are in place for multiple areas across East Devon.
The Environment Agency said:
Flood alerts issued by the Environment Agency:
Not appreciating the scale of the flooding event unfolding on Monday morning, Simon Jupp, presumably on his way to Whitehall, took to twitter (X) to complain, in a petulant tone, about the “dithering” and “pitiful” service he received as his train halted beyond Taunton, then reversed back so he could continue his journey via Bristol.
At Bristol, after a delay, his service “joined” another scheduled service etc. etc.
(Had he been wearing the “Ministerial Team Transport” Hi Viz coat, he might have been treated to “bowing and scraping, and tugging of forelocks”, rather than as an incognito member of the public).
The PPS to the Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, says he wants to see a more resilient railway network in the South West and “won’t stop pushing for more investment from the back benches” (sic).
Welcome to Tory austerity Simon where tax cuts trump investment!
(See his twitter post and selected comments below, particularly from the self-styled “Sir Andrew Barnet” who claims to have been Knighted by Johnson for services to hairdressing).
Because his train was cancelled or delayed for more than an hour, Simon will be able to claim a full refund. Assuming he was travelling at public expense, will he be discounting his travel claim accordingly? – Owl
In fact he was very lucky to complete his journey, many didn’t!
Owl wonders whether he had been following the weather warnings of flooding for his constituents, Devon and, indeed Somerset?
[Monday: All trains in and out of Devon and Cornwall cancelled due to floodingGreat Western Railway are advising customers NOT TO TRAVEL between Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton and Westbury as journeys through the area cannot be guaranteed.]
18 The Cricketers Axminster EX13 5RGRef. No: 23/2525/TRE | Validated: Fri 24 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionWhistlers Hollow Land At Golden Lane Sheldon EX14 4QPRef. No: 23/2518/CPE | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionChestnuts 65 Salterton Road Exmouth EX8 2EJRef. No: 23/2522/VAR | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionLand North Of Barley Way Ebford Lane Ebford Devon EX3 0QXRef. No: 23/2520/FUL | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionSummerhill Higher Metcombe Devon EX11 1SJRef. No: 23/2517/TRE | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionRaymonds Hill Post Office Charmouth Road Axminster EX13 5SZRef. No: 23/2508/COU | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision51A Evergreen Close Exmouth EX8 4RRRef. No: 23/2515/TRE | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionLand At The Old Coach House WidworthyRef. No: 23/2503/DOC | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision3 Watering Court Fore Street Otterton Devon EX9 7HBRef. No: 23/2514/TCA | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionRose Hill Cotford Road Sidbury Devon EX10 0SQRef. No: 23/2510/TCA | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionFoxley 23 Marlpit Lane Seaton Devon EX12 2HHRef. No: 23/2507/TRE | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionMulberry House Pound Lane Woodbury Devon EX5 1JERef. No: 23/2500/TRE | Validated: Tue 21 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionRidgeway House Ridgeway Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1DTRef. No: 23/2497/TCA | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision5 Millford Avenue Sidmouth EX10 8DSRef. No: 23/2478/TCA | Validated: Mon 20 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionWoodlands Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0PDRef. No: 23/2488/FUL | Validated: Fri 24 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision10 Upper Church Street Exmouth Devon EX8 2TARef. No: 23/2483/FUL | Validated: Mon 20 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionApplelands Bickwell Valley Sidmouth Devon EX10 8RFRef. No: 23/2487/TCA | Validated: Tue 21 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionMontpellier Court Montpellier Road Exmouth EX8 1JPRef. No: 23/2484/TRE | Validated: Mon 20 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision24 New Street Honiton Devon EX14 1EXRef. No: 23/2481/FUL | Validated: Thu 23 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionKains Park Farm Kains Park Storage Awliscombe Devon EX14 3NNRef. No: 23/2455/FUL | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision21 Upper Churston Rise Seaton EX12 2HDRef. No: 23/2454/FUL | Validated: Tue 21 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionHuxham Barns Huxham Devon EX5 4EJRef. No: 23/2453/FUL | Validated: Fri 24 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionMelberry House Moor Lane Poltimore Exeter EX4 0AQRef. No: 23/2445/FUL | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision3 Hillcrest Gardens Exmouth Devon EX8 4FERef. No: 23/2439/FUL | Validated: Mon 20 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision10A Portland Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 2BSRef. No: 23/2446/FUL | Validated: Mon 20 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision30 Broadmead Exmouth EX8 4JURef. No: 23/2436/PIP | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionLand And Barns KerswellRef. No: 23/2329/FUL | Validated: Tue 21 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision10 Nationwide Rolle Street Exmouth Devon EX8 1EYRef. No: 23/2314/ADV | Validated: Wed 22 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionVillage Hall Clyst St George Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0RERef. No: 23/2256/PDR | Validated: Fri 24 Nov 2023 | Status: Awaiting decisionWater companies can make sewage pollution disappear from the official figures, a BBC Panorama investigation has revealed.
By Joe Crowley www.bbc.co.uk
Leaked records suggest one firm, United Utilities, wrongly downgraded dozens of pollution events, including at a famed English lake in north-west England.
The Environment Agency signed off all the downgrades without attending any of the incidents.
United Utilities denies misreporting pollution.
Water companies in England are set environmental targets by the regulator, Ofwat. One of the key benchmarks is the number of pollution incidents per 10,000km of sewer. These are typically sewage discharges into rivers or the sea, caused by blockages or equipment failure.
The companies have to pay fines if they exceed a given number of pollution incidents, and are given financial rewards if they come in below.
According to the Environment Agency’s figures, United Utilities was the best performing company in England in 2022. It recorded just 126 pollution incidents, or 16/10,000km of sewer.
As a reward for this good performance, the company will be allowed to raise £5.1m by increasing bills for its seven million customers next year.
But whistleblowers at the Environment Agency claim the company has been wrongly downgrading pollution incidents and that the agency is failing to conduct independent checks.
One insider told Panorama that United Utilities was “controlling the evidence” on pollution.
When pollution incidents are reported to the Environment Agency, it assesses the potential impact and decides whether to attend.
From 2020 through to the end of 2022, there were 931 reported water company pollution incidents in north-west England, and the Environment Agency only attended six.
“If they [United Utilities] say attend – which is incredibly rare – we’ll attend,” said the whistleblower. “If they say don’t attend, we don’t attend. They’re effectively regulating themselves.”
Panorama has obtained 200 reports about pollution incidents at United Utilities’ sewage works in 2022.
In more than 60 of these cases, the company appears to have wrongly downgraded the incidents to the lowest level, category 4.
They were all signed off by the Environment Agency.
Category 4 incidents are not counted in published figures because they are supposed to have had no environmental impact. Only more serious categories 1-3 are counted.
The Environment Agency guidance says category 4 should only be used where either pollution doesn’t get into the water course, or where it is of such insignificance that it doesn’t have an impact, for example a “trickle into a large water course”.
The incidents identified by the programme were all more than a “trickle” and appear to have had an impact.
Two experienced water pollution officers, who can’t be identified because they work for the Environment Agency, independently reviewed the documents for Panorama. They agreed that none should have been classified as category 4.
If the 60 cases identified by Panorama were wrongly downgraded, then United Utilities should not have been awarded its £5m bonus for reducing pollution incidents last year.
One of the apparent cover-ups was in a World Heritage Site in the Lake District. In June 2022, a fault led to raw sewage being pumped into the middle of Windermere. The incident went on for more than three hours.
The leaked documents show it was initially thought to be a serious category 2 incident, but the Environment Agency didn’t attend and United Utilities downgraded it to category
The Environment Agency insider said it was a serious incident, and that a huge volume of polluted material had been pumped into a water body: “The water company don’t want us to attend and then an incident like this gets downgraded to a low level or, effectively, gets kept off the books.”
United Utilities initially denied that sewage had been pumped into the middle of the lake and said that tests conducted on the shoreline showed the pollution had no impact.
But company documents obtained by Panorama prove the sewage was discharged into the middle of Windermere.
Mark Garth, the company’s director of wastewater treatment, told the programme: “I do accept that on this occasion sewage ended up in the lake as a result of that failure.”
Another potential cover-up identified by Panorama was at the Wallasey pumping station on the River Mersey in Liverpool last November.
Once again, the leaked documents show it was initially thought to be a serious category 2 incident, but the Environment Agency didn’t attend and United Utilities downgraded it to category 4.
United Utilities says it is false to suggest it misreports pollution incidents and that the final categorisations are decided by the EA.
“We work extremely hard to get on top of pollution and we’re extremely proud of our performance,” said Mr Garth.
“We continue to do that and covering it up or misguiding the Environment Agency in any way is absolutely no part of that performance.”
The company said the Wallasey incident was a category 4, because the pollution was diluted by the large volume of water in the Mersey and then the Irish Sea.
The Environment Agency declined to be interviewed for the programme, but said in a statement that some monitoring of water companies could be done remotely.
“We take our responsibility to protect the environment very seriously,” it said. “We respond to every incident and always attend those where there is a significant risk.”
The agency said regulations were being strengthened and that it would soon have new powers to deliver civil penalties that are quicker and easier to enforce.
It is currently conducting its largest ever criminal investigation into potential widespread non-compliance by the water companies, including United Utilities.
The broadcaster Chris Packham has filed a High Court legal challenge to the government against a decision to weaken key climate policies.
Lydia Patrick www.independent.co.uk
Packham, a veteran environmental campaigner, has applied for a judicial review of the government’s decision to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel powered cars and vans and a delay to the phase-out of new gas boilers.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said it rejects Packham’s claims and will “robustly” defend the challenge.
The measures and their schedule had been set out in the government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which was put before parliament in March.
In September, Rishi Sunak announced he would delay the ban on selling new diesel and petrol cars from 2030 to 2035 and that 20 per cent of households will be exempt from a new gas boiler ban, arguing that he does not want to burden ordinary people with the costs.
Following the announcement, Packham wrote to the prime minister, the energy secretary and the transport secretary to challenge the decision, arguing that Mr Sunak does not have the legal right to change the timeline of carbon budget pledges at will, since the actioning of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan is governed by statute.
Packham said he did not receive a satisfactory response to his letter and, therefore, filed the judicial review application at the High Court.
He added that the government’s response to his letter made clear that the decision was made without any public consultation, without informing the Climate Change Committee, without informing parliament and without providing any reasons for the delays to the policies.
The legal challenge cites the requirement to have plans in place to meet the budgets if the proposals and policies within them are altered.
Packham argues that the secretaries of state have breached this obligation by not confirming or outlining how they still intend to meet the latest budget.
The legal challenge also alleges that there was a failure to consult on the changes, particularly a failure to take into account ongoing consultations about off-grid heating and minimum energy efficiency in rental properties.
It also claims that the decisions were based on misinformation, such as the government’s argument that the UK’s “over delivery” on previous greenhouse gas reduction targets meant that some measures were no longer needed, that carbon budgets “impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families … that no-one was ever told about” and that the latest budget was “voted through with barely any consideration given the hard choices needed to fulfil it”.
Packham argues that this messaging is wrong, because under section 10 of the Climate Change Act, the financing and social impact of the policies were taken into account when setting the sixth carbon budget.
The legal challenge also alleges that there was a breach of the duty to inform the public of the reasons for the decisions to change the policies.
Packham said: “We are in a crisis which threatens the whole world, everything living is in danger, including all of us.
“We have the potential to reduce that threat, we have the solutions and we have plans and targets. We must not divert from these.
“To do so on a whim for short-term political gain is reckless and betrays a disregard for the future security of the planet.”
Packham argued that the emissions reductions from the vehicle and gas boiler policies were “intrinsically important to the UK’s ability to reach somewhere near its net zero commitments”.
Rowan Smith, a solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “If the government’s lawyers are correct, then the secretary of state would have carte blanche to rip up climate change policy at the drop of the hat, without any repercussions whatsoever.
“That’s why this legal challenge is so important: if successful, it will mean that the secretary of state has to keep to their promises to have in place policies that will enable carbon budgets to be met.”
It comes after a successful legal challenge by Friends of the Earth that the 2021 sixth carbon budget did not include sufficient detail in order to demonstrate how the UK would reach net zero by 2050 as the Climate Change Act 2008 says it must.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We strongly reject these claims and will be robustly defending this challenge.
“We have overdelivered on every carbon budget to date and these changes keep us on track to meet our legal net zero commitments. We routinely publish future emissions projections across all sectors and will continue to do so.
“Households will now have more time to make the transition saving some families thousands of pounds at a time when cost of living is high.”
An East Devon village can now have more of a say over future housing and other development in its back yard.
Will Goddard, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk
West Hill Parish Council had applied for its whole patch to be designated a ‘neighbourhood area’ for planning purposes.
It will now be able to produce its own plan setting out how the community would like to see it develop, after East Devon District Council’s cabinet gave it the go-ahead last week.
West Hill was previously part of a joint neighbourhood with Ottery St Mary.
The West Hill and Ottery St Mary parishes will now be split into two such areas, with Ottery St Mary also able to create its own separate neighbourhood plan if it wishes.
EDDC carried out a public consultation for six weeks and received no objections from the public or Ottery St Mary Town Council.
The existing joint Ottery St Mary and West Hill neighbourhood plan, created in 2018, will stay in place across both parishes until it is replaced.
New neighbourhood plans would see wide consultation with the community and be voted on by people in the relevant areas.
When the Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher sold off the water industry in 1989, the government wrote off all debts amounting to £5bn and granted the water companies a further £1.5bn of public money, known as a “green dowry”.
Miles Brignall www.theguardian.com
The parent company of Thames Water has been warned by its auditors that it could run out of money by April if shareholders do not inject more cash into the debt-laden firm.
In accounts signed off in July and published on the Companies House website last week, PricewaterhouseCoopers said there was “material uncertainty” about whether the main company behind the water supplier can continue as a going concern.
The disclosure was made in the 2022-23 accounts of Kemble Water Holdings, the company at the top of Thames Water’s byzantine ownership structure.
PwC made its assertion after noting that there were no firm arrangements in place to refinance a £190m loan at one of its subsidiary companies.
Thames Water is expected to face further scrutiny over its debt levels when it issues its results on Tuesday, and a possible investigation into whether it misled MPs earlier this year.
In June, it emerged that contingency plans for the collapse of Thames Water were being drawn up by the UK government amid fears that Britain’s biggest water company would not survive because of its huge debt pile.
Sir Robert Goodwill, chair of the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said it was considering a fresh investigation after the Financial Times reported that Thames Water had originally presented a loan from its shareholders to its parent as new equity funding.
Alastair Cochran, chief financial officer at Thames Water, told MPs in July that its “incredibly supportive” shareholders “have already provided £500m of equity this year, in March, which was fully drawn by the company”.
However, according to the Kemble accounts, the investment had come in the form of a £515m convertible loan reportedly charging 8% interest per year.
The accounts highlights the complicated web of companies behind the water supplier. In early 2023, Kemble Water Holdings issued £515m of convertible loan notes to its shareholders, translating into £500m after fees, and this money was then “cascaded” through various parts of the group before eventually ending up with Thames Water Utilities Limited – the regulated company that supplies water and sewerage services to about 15m households in London and across the Thames valley area.
Last week the Liberal Democrats called for a public inquiry into both Thames Water and Ofwat.
A spokesperson for Thames Water told the Guardian that the water supply business was ringfenced and that customers’ supplies would be unaffected by any behind-the-scenes changes to the business structure.
“We are in a robust financial position and are extremely fortunate to have such supportive shareholders,” said the spokesperson. “Our shareholders have already invested £500m of equity in 2023. In addition, they have agreed to provide a further £750m in new equity funding across AMP7 [the water industry asset management plan period running from 2020 to 2025].
“This further funding is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, including the preparation of a business plan that underpins a more focused turnaround that delivers targeted performance improvements for customers, the environment and other stakeholders over the next three years and is supported by appropriate regulatory arrangements.”
Kemble Water Holdings declined to comment.
Laura Trott didn’t provide proof of claim that taxes had gone down since 2010
A treasury minister has been urged to correct the record in Parliament after claiming that people’s taxes are falling.
Anna Mikhailova www.dailymail.co.uk
Laura Trott, the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, recently told MPs that ‘taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000’ since 2010.
Questioned about her statement, she did not provide proof to back up her claim.
The House of Commons library has calculated that personal taxes will in fact have risen by about £1,200 between 2010 to 2024.
Labour has written to Ms Trott demanding she correct the Parliamentary record.
The letter by shadow Treasury minister James Murray says: ‘The tax burden in our country is set to increase by £4,300 per household between 2019/20 and 2028/29.
‘Even limiting ourselves to personal taxes, the tax burden is still projected to rise by £1,200 per household.’
It repeats the request for Ms Trott to give an ‘urgent clarification’ of her comments, and, if she cannot do so, to ‘correct the record’ in the Commons.
Last month Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced cuts to National Insurance, which will come in in January.
The Prime Minister told the Mail on Sunday the cuts are just the ‘start of a journey’, fuelling speculation that the Spring Budget will see cuts to income tax.
The Treasury responded by saying that Ms Trott was referring to increases to tax allowances since 2010.
Small is beautiful – Owl
One airport in the UK has been crowned its best – with its distinguishing feature being short delays.
Exeter airport’s delays average just 14 minutes when it has them, even as it handles over one million passengers every year. Staff were particularly praised in customer reviews, with one saying they “make the place”.
Charles Harrison www.express.co.uk
But at the other end of the scale, Manchester airport was labelled the “worst”, according to travel guide A-Z Animals’ analysis.
The northwest airport has far more passengers heading through its two runways, but struggled to impress with its quality of service and the severity of delays.
Exeter Airport doesn’t have a huge range of spots to eat and shop at, but what is there is of good quality. The Coastline Cafe offers various breakfast options and later more classic pub food, while Moorland Kitchen offers all-day brunch. There is also an Executive Lounge to relax in for just £20 a head, and of course a WHSmith.
Reviewers of the airport on SkyTrax were glowing about the staff, describing them as “on the ball, very polite and thorough”, with others saying there was a “relaxed atmosphere and very friendly staff”.
One wrote: “All four members of staff at security were great. Helpful, friendly and professional. Lovely atmosphere. At the café a lovely women served me. Smile on her face.
“The shop and café are small. I’m not here to shop or sit drinking. I’m here to have an ideally stress free start to my holiday. The staff make this place.”
However, reviewers were far less reasonable when it came to Manchester Airport. A-Z Animals said of Manchester Airport: “Security lines, poor design, construction, lack of staff, and overcrowding were the culprits in making it the worst airport in the UK. Hopefully, the construction will help ease the problems.”
Reviewers on SkyTrax, however, did not mince their words. “It’s a disgrace to the UK” complained one, and “Appallingly depressing” said another.
One wrote: “A shocking airport which I will not be using again. Car parks are miles away. Buses are irregular. I have never walked so far at an airport in my life.”
However, opinions seem to be divided as another ranking, by payingtoomuch.com, ranks Manchester as the best, scoring it particularly highly in its accessibility.
They scored the aiport a 10/10 for accessibility, as well as 6.8/10 for lounges and relaxation. More positive reviews on SkyTrax acclaimed its speed at dealing with high volumes of passengers, with one describing it as “quick and efficient”.
The airport flies more passengers than anyone outside of London to over 200 destinations.
A Manchester Airport spokesperson said: “As part of our commitment to delivering great customer service, we continually survey passengers. In July and August this year – our peak months, during which we served millions of people – 93 percent of those passengers rated their overall satisfaction with the service they received as good, very good or excellent.”
They added: “Since April this year, we have welcomed more than 10.4million people through Manchester Airport, who have travelled to more than 180 destinations with nearly 50 different airlines – and 95.65 percent of them have got through security in under 15 minutes. Almost three quarters got through security in under five minutes and 99.8 percent in under 30 minutes.”
It was the brilliant application of science that produced the first ever vaccines against coronaviruses to be fully developed, approved and deployed. (And Johnson can be credited with choosing Dame Kate Bingham to lead the roll out programme).
The Key Question for Boris Johnson to answer (and “Dr Death” who is credited with fuelling the second wave), however, is: what would have happened had science failed, as so easily could have been the case?
How would we have fared under their “Plan B”?
The graph above plots daily deaths in both the first and second waves.
We can now see that although the peak daily death rate is broadly the same, the second wave lasted longer and killed 60% more individuals than the first.
Vaccine roll out began in early Dec 2020 and the top four priority groups received a first dose by mid Feb 2021, that is care home residents and carers, frontline health and social care workers, those aged 75 years and over, and those clinically extremely vulnerable aged 70 and over.
By April 2021 most of those aged 55 and over had also been given their first dose.
Bearing in mind the lag between vaccination and individuals gaining significant immunity, the main effect of the vaccination programme was to lower the impact of subsequent waves.
Political decisions had already “baked in” second wave fatalities.
Owl concludes that the government’s handling of the second wave was worse than the first.
Covid inquiry: Eight uncomfortable questions facing Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson appears before the Covid inquiry next week, and his government’s response during the first year of the pandemic will be in the spotlight.
By Nick Triggle www.bbc.co.uk
A range of experts, scientists and ministers have already given evidence, and some of them have cast doubt on Mr Johnson’s decision-making. Mr Johnson is expected to apologise but also argue his government got many of the big calls right.
So what challenging questions might the former prime minister face?
There was a lack of urgency as Covid started to spread in the early months of 2020, scientists have told the inquiry.
Both Prof Neil Ferguson and Prof Graham Medley, who sat on the government’s scientific advisory group, Sage, have told the inquiry that by February 2020 they were worried the NHS was going to be overwhelmed.
Despite this, it was not until 2 March that Mr Johnson chaired his first meeting of the Cobra emergency committee on Covid.
WhatsApp messages released by the inquiry show Dominic Cummings, who at the time was chief of staff to the PM, wrote a day after the meeting that he still didn’t think Mr Johnson was convinced of the severity of the situation. He “doesn’t think it’s a big deal”, he wrote.
This week the then Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that, in hindsight, lockdown should have happened three weeks earlier. But he said the data – how fast Covid was spreading the UK – was not available until mid-March.
Mr Johnson will surely be asked about his response in those early days. Should he have acted sooner?
New data from scientists led to a frantic set of meetings on the weekend of the 14 and 15 March. Government scientists were worried the NHS was at “imminent” risk of being overwhelmed.
On the Monday, a set of voluntary measures were introduced, including asking the public to stay at home for 14 days if they – or anyone in their household – had Covid symptoms. They were also advised to stop non-essential contact, and all unnecessary travel.
Some at the inquiry have wondered whether those earlier, less restrictive measures were enough. It was thought reducing social interactions by 75% would be needed to stop the epidemic growing.
Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, told the inquiry last month that it initially looked like the public were firmly adhering to the measures. But with only a few days of data to study, the scientists were uncertain whether it would be enough, Sir Chris said in his testimony.
After what appears to be widespread agreement inside government that tougher measures were needed, the full lockdown was announced on 23 March.
But that lack of absolute certainty in the lead-up has come up repeatedly during the inquiry. We will never know for sure what would have happened if we had relied on the voluntary measures, as Sweden did. The former PM will no doubt be asked about it.
WhatsApp messages and extracts from the diaries of Sir Patrick Vallance, who was the chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, have made it clear that there were bitter divisions within government during 2020. In an entry in the autumn he accused No 10 of being at war with itself.
And in one of the most memorable exchanges of the inquiry so far, Mr Cummings was read WhatsApp messages he sent, saying he wanted to “personally handcuff” senior government official Helen MacNamara “and escort her from the building”.
“We cannot keep dealing with this horrific meltdown of the British state while dodging stilettos from that [expletive],” Mr Cumming wrote in one message from August 2020.
In her evidence, Ms MacNamara said the “toxic” environment in government affected decision-making during the crisis.
In particular, she said the “macho, confident” nature of people in and around Mr Johnson’s No 10 team meant the government was “unbelievably bullish” early on, with people “laughing at the Italians” when they started to impose restrictions.
The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has attracted a lot of attention in the inquiry. It was designed by the Treasury to help boost the hospitality industry after the first lockdown, by giving diners discounted meals in August 2020.
And while its role in that autumn’s second wave can sometimes be overplayed, key government scientists have told the inquiry they were not consulted about the scheme.
Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, who was deputy chief medical officer in the pandemic, told the inquiry he only learnt about Eat Out to Help Out from a TV report, adding it “didn’t feel very sensible to me”.
Sir Patrick said it was “obvious it would cause an increase in transmission risk” and that ministers would have known that.
The architect of the scheme was Rishi Sunak, who was then Chancellor. He will face plenty of questions about this when he appears the week after Mr Johnson.
But as prime minister at the time, Mr Johnson will have to explain what happened. His witness statement – which has already been handed to the inquiry – suggests the scheme was run past the scientists.
By September 2020, government scientists were setting out the merits of a circuit breaker – a short lockdown to disrupt the spread of the virus when it was starting to spread more quickly.
On 20 September, Mr Johnson called a Zoom meeting of scientists to discuss the government’s response to sharply rising Covid infections.
Present were key government scientists, including Sir Chris and Sir Patrick, as well as Dr Anders Tegnell, who spearheaded Sweden’s pandemic response – with no lockdowns, school closures or mask mandates.
The Downing Street meeting had also involved scientists who were critics of several lockdown-related measures.
It is not entirely clear what advice was given. Dame Angela McLean, who is the current chief scientific adviser, told the inquiry that a single, one-off circuit breaker would not have been enough.
No circuit breaker was introduced. Restrictions were tightened in the coming weeks, including the sliding-scale system of regional restrictions – tiers, as they were known – which the former Cabinet Secretary Michael Gove described as “inherently flawed” in his testimony.
On 31 October, Mr Johnson announced another lockdown for England during November, but with schools allowed to stay fully open this time. He told the public it was needed to allow people to have as normal a Christmas as possible.
Regardless of what happened in the autumn, the situation changed completely in December with the identification of the new, more transmissible Alpha variant. With England out of November’s lockdown and back in tiers, Covid began spreading rapidly.
Promising to save Christmas, Mr Johnson resisted calls to go back into lockdown until the new year.
This was despite the Covid vaccination programme having started, meaning the most vulnerable would soon have some protection against the worst effects of the virus.
It presented, some argue, the strongest case for a lockdown out of any of them, as it would have bought time for those people to get their vaccinations and build up immunity – and therefore would have had a tangible impact on the harm the virus could wreak.
In his testimony, Michael Gove, who was cabinet secretary during the pandemic and part of the core group of decision-making ministers, accepted that this lockdown happened too late.
More people are recorded as dying in this winter wave than were in the first wave. Did Mr Johnson’s desire to give people a festive period with limited restrictions cost lives?
Ethnic minority groups were disproportionately affected by both the virus and restrictions, said Prof James Nazroo, a sociologist at the University of Manchester, but Mr Johnson’s government was not tuned into this.
It took, he told the inquiry, a “colour-blind approach” and “disregarded existing economic, social and health vulnerabilities experienced by ethnic minority groups”.
One of the key problems was that, in the early months of the pandemic, there was no equality impact assessment, which governments use to consider the costs and benefits of policy for different groups.
Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch agreed that Mr Johnson’s government was slow to fully grasp the problems it was facing, saying too often ethnic minorities were lumped together under the BAME grouping, an acronym standing for black, Asian and minority ethnic.
“Using the term BAME masked what was actually happening within different ethnicities. From a health perspective, or even just from any sort of analysis perspective, that’s not particularly helpful,” she told the inquiry.
Mr Johnson’s government made a “terrible mistake” over schools, said Anne Longfield, who was children’s commissioner for England during Covid.
She told the inquiry that while the closure of schools for most children was probably necessary at the start of Covid, decision-making “lacked coherence”. Pubs and hairdressers, for example, were able to open after the first lockdown before schools, she said.
This was something that was repeated in Scotland later in the pandemic.
She said schools should be the “last to close and first to reopen”, and accused ministers of being indifferent to the policy decisions affecting children.
The most vulnerable children will be struggling with the impact of the pandemic for the next 10 or 20 years, she said.
Mr Gove conceded mistakes were made over children, saying there was not enough focus on the impact on them. Mr Johnson will be asked about them too.
Boris Johnson appears at the Covid inquiry from Wednesday at 10:00 GMT.
The head of Britain’s health security agency is facing a growing backlash after it emerged she suggested that discharging Covid-infected hospital patients to care homes would be “clinically appropriate” to protect the NHS from collapse.
Michael Savage www.theguardian.com
Care home providers and the families of those who died after contracting Covid while in residential care said the revelations confirmed their suspicions at the time, adding that it disproved the claim of ministers to have thrown a “protective ring” around the homes.
It comes after the disclosure of an email from Dame Jenny Harries, then the deputy chief medical officer, sent in March 2020 as Covid was unfolding. In a message to health officials, she said that discharging care home residents from hospital would have to happen if there was exponential growth of Covid – and acknowledged the move would be criticised by the families involved.
“Whilst the prospect is perhaps what none of us would wish to plan for, I believe the reality will be that we will need to discharge Covid-19 positive patients into residential care settings for the reason you have noted,” she wrote. “This will be entirely clinically appropriate because the NHS will triage those to retain in acute settings who can benefit from that sector’s care. The numbers of people with disease will rise sharply within a fairly short timeframe and I suspect make this fairly normal practice, and more acceptable, but I do recognise that families and care homes will not welcome this in the initial phase.”
Appearing at the inquiry last week, Harries – who has since been promoted to run the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and given a damehood – conceded that the email “sounded awful”. However, she had been taking “a very, very high-level view” of what would need to happen if the NHS was overwhelmed with an “enormous explosion of cases”.
It has now provoked an angry response from families of those who died in care homes and from care providers who complained at the time that they had not been prioritised on a par with the NHS. “In the face of a virus that would go on to kill 230,000 people in this country, Jenny Harries was employed specifically to find a way to protect people and make the best of the situation,” said Deborah Doyle, spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK.
“It’s clear that instead she took the ‘easiest’ and cruellest option of sacrificing care home residents, some of the most vulnerable people in the country. It was families like ours that paid the awful price for her failure and it’s absolutely disgraceful that she has since been promoted, made a dame and is head of the UKHSA.”
Prof Vic Rayner, chief executive of the National Care Forum, said the evidence heard so far “confirms the distressing experiences of our not-for-profit members, their staff, the people they supported and their relatives”. “On 19 March 2020, DHSC issued guidance to discharge people, regardless of testing status, into social care settings without ensuring that the necessary PPE, infection prevention control and clinical support was in place to keep everyone safe. Among the devastating revelations was confirmation that PPE paid for by social care providers was requisitioned by the NHS. The inquiry has laid bare that there was no ring of protection around care homes – instead decisions seemingly taken in abstraction of the reality of social care or available evidence were implemented with unforgettable consequences.”
Ministers are also facing political pressure over the revelations, with opposition parties stating that it now contradicts claims of prioritising care home safety. “The government said they were putting a protective ring around care homes, when in reality they were infecting care homes,” said Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary. Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem health spokesperson, said it was “simply staggering that the government knowingly spread Covid into care homes by allowing the discharge of patients with the virus”.
The UKHSA did not comment. However, an ally of Harries reiterated that she had been commenting on what would happen “if and only if” hospitals were overflowing with patients and the system had no other option.
Obvious choice! – Owl
No 10 has appointed a wealthy Scottish landowner accused by ramblers of restricting public access to his estate as a new environment minister by making him a peer.
Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com
The government made the surprise announcement on Friday afternoon that the king was giving the title of baron to Robbie Douglas-Miller, allowing him to enter the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a minister.
It gave no biographical details about Douglas-Miller, but he is believed to be a Scottish businessman whose family owned the Edinburgh department store Jenners.
Douglas-Miller has long worked on conservation projects and was awarded an OBE for services to wildlife conservation in Scotland. He is managing director of Moorfoot Capital, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Douglas-Miller also chaired a charity called the Atlantic Salmon Trust, where Scottish secretary Alister Jack sat on the board and King Charles was the patron.
He has attracted criticism from Ramblers Scotland for apparently making it difficult for walkers to access a site at East Lothian’s Lammermuir Hills, which is part of his Hopes estate.
The area became increasingly popular with walkers during the pandemic, but the estate brought in a new car park and put up a gate, with access reportedly allowed only three or four days a week and requiring permits bought in advance.
In a statement last March, reported by the National, Ramblers Scotland said: “Our members reported that there were only 14 permits a month to be sold, despite the car park having space for 20 cars, and these had immediately sold out.
“We do not believe it is sustainable to continue to create a car park which is only available on certain days and on purchase of a permit.
“This is an indirect obstruction to public access given there is no public transport to this site and it is a long walk from Gifford or surrounding settlements.”
Jon Moses, from the Right to Roam campaign, criticised the appointment. “The government have put yet another unelected major landowner … in charge of our environment and rural affairs. Defra increasingly resembles a genteel medieval court.
“Meanwhile its long awaited access reforms appear to amount to little more than taxpayer handouts to landowners in exchange for permission to access a few woodlands.”
The apparent approach of the new minister towards access to nature is in contrast to comments from Steve Barclay, the new environment secretary, to journalists at the Country Land and Business Association conference in London on Thursday.
He said he wanted to open up “responsible access” to the countryside to allow people to enjoy the fresh air.
Barclay said he wanted to “support farmers and landowners with access schemes”, adding “we are looking at the detail but I think people want to be able to access nature, but to do it in a responsible way”.
Defra sources said at the time that Barclay was passionate about social prescribing and getting people outdoors to help their mental and physical health.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was approached for comment.
East Devon Watch 