Views are invited from next month to help shape the future of a new public meadow of 25 acres set in East Devon.

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk

East Devon District Council (EDDC) is launching a six-week public consultation, from 10am on February 6, until 4pm on March 20, inviting comments on its proposal for land earmarked for the Clyst Valley Regional Park.

The draft proposals for the public meadow, near Broadclyst,  includes ideas for habitat creation, a multi-use trail, network of circular paths and a small car park.

A drop-in session has been arranged the Broadclyst Victory Hall, East Devon, on Thursday, February 16, from 3pm until 7pm, to see the proposals, ask questions and see a short, recorded, presentation.

The presentation will be repeated at 4pm, 6pm and once the consultation starts, will be available online for those unable to attend the venue.

The area is close to Cranbrook and is intended for walking, relaxing and nature spotting in East Devon.

It was bought by the council  for an undisclosed amount in 2022 and is expected to be ready to use this year.

EDDC urged people to make their views known – saying proposals had already been changed in response to residents’ suggestions.

Cllr Geoff Jung, EDDC portfolio holder for coast, country and environment, said: “We are thrilled to be able to progress plans for this new area of green space for local people to enjoy.

“It’s really important to us to listen to views and to accommodate these as much as possible.

“We had some really helpful informal consultation with local residents last autumn and we’ve altered our proposals as a result.”

An EDC spokeswoman said: “Local people are being invited to share their views on 25 acres of land, acquired by East Devon District Council for a new nature-rich, accessible green space.

“The new green space is an important milestone in the creation of the Clyst Valley Regional Park.”

The area covered by the proposed Clyst Valley Regional Park. Image: EDDC

A landowner who successfully overturned the right to wild camp on Dartmoor may have to return to court after the national park announced it was seeking permission to appeal against the decision.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Alexander Darwall, who bought 1,620 hectares (4,000 acres) of the national park in 2013, took the park authority to the high court, arguing that the right to wild camp without a landowner’s permission never existed. Earlier this month, a judge ruled in his favour, ending the decades-long assumption that the activity was allowed.

However, lawyers acting for the park argue the judgment could be flawed because it hinges on a narrow definition of open-air recreation, where only activities such as walking, horse riding and picnicking are permitted. They also argue that it fails to take into account the historic understanding of the law, which thousands of people including the park authority took to mean a right to camp and leave no trace.

Kevin Bishop, the chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, announced the decision on Friday: “The high court judgment raises important issues of public interest that are central to the purpose of our national parks. For this reason, the authority has determined to seek permission to appeal against the judgment.

“Our national parks are largely owned by private individuals, and we respect their rights. However, our national parks were designated by parliament for their national importance. They have twin purposes: to protect and conserve, and to provide opportunities for all parts of society to responsibly enjoy them.”

Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are for Everyone campaign, said: “We welcome this decision and applaud the national park for standing firm against an attempt to rob the public of the historic right to camp on Dartmoor. This decision reflects the spirit in which national parks were founded – for public benefit, and with public hope.

“The Dartmoor case has significantly catalysed public appetite for wider and more inclusive access rights, as we begin to see the real possibility of an emboldened right to roam in England. Today we celebrate a step toward a time when we have access to more of the countryside, including the right to sleep under the stars in our national parks.”

The judgment caused widespread outrage, with more than 3,000 protesters travelling to Darwall’s land last Saturday, and cross-party MPs speaking out against the decision in parliament.

The Labour MP Luke Pollard, who represents Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, near Dartmoor, said the park authority’s decision would have the support of thousands of people across south-west England.

“The right to wild camp under the stars on Dartmoor is part of our ancient inheritance on Dartmoor,” he said. “If the courts can’t protect this right then parliament will need to reaffirm it and lock into law. Labour will extend the right to roam after the next election but the Conservatives could do it today if they wanted to. Let’s keep the pressure on.”

The shadow environment secretary, Jim McMahon, revealed in an interview with the Guardian this week that Labour would extend the right to roam if in government, and that if any appeal against the ruling failed it would enshrine the right to wild camp on Dartmoor in law.

McMahon had met national park executives and right to roam campaigners and urged them to appeal against the decision, saying: “I urge Dartmoor to appeal the wild camping judgment, but where on earth is the government on this? Ultimately, if an appeal isn’t successful, it isn’t right that this right can be taken away by one landowner. So it’s parliament’s job to make sure it is enshrined in law.”

Darwall has argued that wild camping is not under threat because he has entered a permissive agreement with the national park under which he will allow camping on part of his Blachford estate and be paid an annual fee. Unlike under the previous understanding of the law, this permission can be revoked by the landowner at any time.

He and his wife, Diana, said it was “very regrettable that [the case] has caused unnecessary worry”, adding: “We are now in a much better place to cooperate and work with the DNPA in a positive way for the best outcome for everyone.”

Airline Flybe has cancelled all flights to and from the UK after going into administration.

www.bbc.co.uk 

A statement on the airline’s website said it had “ceased trading” and told any passengers expecting to travel with it not to go to the airport.

It added that it would not be able to help passengers arrange alternative flights.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said it would provide advice and information to those affected.

This marks the second time the airline has gone into administration in recent years.

In March 2020, it announced it would cease trading, citing the coronavirus pandemic as a contributory factor.

The company was rescued after being bought by Thyme Opco, a firm linked to US hedge fund Cyrus Capital and subsequently renamed Flybe Limited.

The airline resumed operations in April of 2022 with a plan to operate up to 530 flights per week across 23 routes.

Until the most recent collapse, it operated services from Belfast City, Birmingham, and Heathrow to airports across the UK as well as to Amsterdam and Geneva.

A statement published on the Flybe website early on Saturday said the High Court had appointed joint administrators for Flybe Limited.

“Flybe has now ceased trading and all flights from and to the UK operated by Flybe have been cancelled and will not be rescheduled,” it read.

“If you are due to fly with Flybe today [Saturday] or in the future, please do not travel to the airport unless you have arranged an alternative flight with another airline.”

It added that anyone who had booked a flight with the airline via an intermediary should contact that intermediary directly.

CAA consumer director Paul Smith said: “It is always sad to see an airline enter administration and we know that Flybe’s decision to stop trading will be distressing for all of its employees and customers.

“For the latest advice, Flybe customers should visit the Civil Aviation Authority’s website or our Twitter feed for more information.”

The Labour party will pass a right to roam act if it comes to power, the Guardian can reveal, after widespread outcry when wild camping was outlawed on Dartmoor.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

In the bill, which is currently being drawn up by the party amid widespread but careful optimism that the next general election will see Labour return to office, there could be a new law that would allow national parks to adopt the right to wild camp, as well as expanding public access to woodlands and waterways.

Jim McMahon, the shadow environment secretary, said the court decision earlier this month to overturn the long-held right in the national park – the only place in England and Wales the ability still existed – shows that there needs to be a rethink of land access.

While the right to roam has been narrowly defined as the right to walk from A to B, he said this was missing the point and not in the spirit of those who first proposed the idea.

He said: “What I am interested in is the right to experience, the right to enjoy and the right to explore,” meaning that people should be allowed to fully enjoy an area, including taking part in activities such as swimming, camping, climbing and birdwatching rather than simply walking.

Visiting Hay Tor in the national park, McMahon said: “It’s not just about the right to pass through and explore. I think we do need to go beyond that, to look at the enjoyment aspect of it as well, which really hits at the heart of the Dartmoor case. The current right to roam gives people the right to pass through, but what about actually experiencing it, and to enjoy it? Our policy needs to give people more rights to do that.”

As ponies trotted by on the moor, he said a Labour government would create more national parks and open more of the countryside for people to explore.

“There are still huge parts of England and Wales that are off limits when it comes to the right to access, whether that’s woodlands, cliffs, rivers, where the rights that we are afforded in open countryside aren’t then mirrored in those places. That needs to change.”

Only 4% of waterways give people an automatic right to canoe or swim, and McMahon plans to significantly expand this in government. He said: “This is a scandal. A Labour government would clean up the UK’s waterways for all to enjoy – if people don’t have a stake in their environment they won’t fight to protect it.”

Alexander Darwall, a hedge fund manager and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, took the national park to the high court last month, arguing that the right to wild camp had never existed. The judge this month ruled that the right to roam means just that – the right to walk or horse ride on the common, not to camp.

Darwall, the owner of the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor, offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land.

The court case has reinvigorated the right to roam movement, with 3,000 people last weekend travelling to protest on his land.

It’s a hot topic in parliament, too, with Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, calling for a new law enshrining the right to wild camp on Dartmoor.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, has her right to roam bill returning to parliament this spring, and Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and Honiton, has tabled a bill that would protect the public’s access to national parks.

Foord said: “Wealthy landowners should not seek to move in and overturn the ways in which our national parks have been used.

“If people choose to buy land in a national park, they must accept all the responsibilities that come with it. They should not be seeking to prevent respectful wild camping, or worse still, expecting taxpayer-funded organisations like the Dartmoor National Park Authority to pay the landowners for continued access.”

The park is in talks and deciding whether to risk appealing against the decision to overturn wild camping, which could mean spending vast sums on Darwall’s legal costs if they lose. It has to submit its decision by a week tomorrow.

McMahon called on the park to appeal against the ruling, and said the case showed the right to roam law needed to be clarified and strengthened.

He said: “Part of the reason we’re coming here, of course, is because of wild camping, but the case also poses an existential threat to what we’ve taken for granted, really, which is the access rights that we all enjoy, which were enshrined by the last Labour government in 2000. I think they’re under a fundamental threat if this is allowed to go unchecked. So then, the law needs to be basically clarified and strengthened.”

McMahon said a Labour government would enshrine the right to wild camp on Dartmoor in law if there was no successful appeal. He said: “Ultimately if an appeal isn’t successful, it isn’t right that this right can be taken away by one landowner. So it’s parliament’s job to make sure it is enshrined in law.”

Campaigners have asked the park authority to appeal. Lewis Winks, from the campaign The Stars Are for Everyone, said: “Dartmoor was the only place in England where the right to wild camping existed. We don’t want this to become a quirky historical anomaly, we want to see the same rights afforded to people in other national parks, so what happens today is of crucial importance to the newly reinvigorated right to roam movement. We need Dartmoor national park to step up and be courageous.”

In a statement, the Right to Roam campaign said: “We welcome the Labour party’s commitment to legislating for an expanded right to roam as part of their programme for government and look forward to engaging with them on the details.

“Last week’s historic protest on Dartmoor, attended by 3,500 people – following on from a year of mass trespasses organised by the Right to Roam campaign – demonstrates the huge public appetite for increasing access to nature.

“We call on MPs of all parties to publicly support a right to roam act to defend and extend the rights of all people to access nature.”

Mid Devon’s development company faces £1.6 million loss.

[After the 2019 election, the council was run by a Liberal Democrat-Independent-Green coalition. However, the Council Leader, ‘Independent’ Bob Deed, removed the three Lib Dem’s from the Cabinet in 2020, replacing them with Tories and in March 2021 removed the only Green from the Cabinet, ensuring a Tory Majority in Cabinet, and effectively creating a Tory Minority Administration. – Wikipedia]

Beware the “Blue rinse” “Indy” – Owl

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com 

A Mid Devon councillor has said going to the casino and betting on roulette would be a better way of making money than relying on the council’s own development company. It follows a meeting of Mid Devon District Council to discuss the business plan for Three Rivers Development Ltd (3RDL).

3RDL is a company wholly owned by Mid Devon District Council. And during the debate, Andrew Jarrett, Mid Devon’s deputy chief executive and Section 151 officer, said the company was looking at an estimated £1.6 million loss on its controversial development at St George’s Court behind Tiverton Town Hall.

He explained: “That includes all costs and projected income; sales, values and interest charges from lending from the council to 3RDL. That potential loss has been included in the financial update reports considered by the cabinet for many months, and most members will be aware of it.”

One councillor though questioned the point of the company. They said that there would be a better chance of making money from going to a casino.

Cllr Jim Cairney (Boniface, Liberal Democrat) said: “If you have a business that doesn’t make money, it folds. If you keep putting money into that business when it isn’t making money, it will fold at some point. Why are we not saying to the people running this business, ‘why are you not doing better?’. If my restaurant doesn’t make a profit, I go under, and I’m finished. I wonder why 3RLD is different.

“I understand it’s a long-term project, but surely we’d be better going to the casino, getting a bag of money and putting it on black and then we’ve got a 50-50 chance of making some money.”

Mr Jarrett took questions from councillors. Councillor Frank Letch (Lawrence, Liberal Democrat) said: “We’ve been going through a series of cutting £10,000 here and £20,000 there to try and make a balanced budget. These are diddly sums in a sense.

“What I want to know is, where in hell, if any money is going to be lent in the near future to 3RDL, where is this coming from? We are so strapped for cash we have to make changes to our budgets, increase fees to leisure centres, swimming and parking. I won’t mention the figure discussed, as it is big, but where will it come from? I am worried, as I don’t want it coming from my council tax.”

Mr Jarrett responded: “We’re talking about a treasury investment decision, not an expenditure decision. You will see in all the budgetary payments in the last months; the money will be coming from temporary treasury holdings the council holds because, from time to time, we are keeping business rate receipts and council tax receipts, and we have earmarked reserves. What the council decided in 2017 when it set up the property development company is that it could make a greater return if it lent that money to a third party, a property development company, which could significantly help the council’s bottom line thereafter.”

Cllr Ben Holdman (Castle, Liberal Democrat) asked: “At what point does the risk become unacceptable to the council?”

Mr Jarrett responded: “After receiving professional advice from me or others, that is down to the council to decide whether that risk is acceptable. It is not down to me to decide; I am just here to advise the pros and cons. I explain the associated risk and consequences of investment or not in the company in Part II of your reports pack.”

Cllr Luke Taylor (Bradninch, Liberal Democrat) asked: “How are the impairments written off, and does this mean there is a loss on our investment?”

Mr Jarrett responded: “You can assume from all of the financial transactions that we are making a return of about 13 per cent on all of the investments made in the company. However, one needs to consider potential, and it is estimated that the company has a projected loss of £1.6million and that is an estimate, which is less than the £2.2million that has already been made by the council for the operation of 3RDL, so there is a profit position at the moment.

“Is that what we estimated from day one of the inception of the company? No, it isn’t. It is less than what we’d anticipated, but it is very much skewed by one project that has been unsuccessful when set against the previous three and one entrained at the moment in Bampton, all delivering estimated profits. While one development has not been a success, you could argue the rest have.”

The district council gears up to hire a consultancy firm to pinpoint where improvements can be made

“Councillor Paul Arnott, EDDC leader, said: “We have received so many ideas and suggestions from residents, the local community and councillors on all levels on how we can improve Exmouth, shaping future developments and giving key sites a good facelift.”

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk

East Devon District Council (EDDC) said it was in the process of hiring a consultancy firm to identify areas in Exmouth where improvements can be made.

The consultancy firm will create a ‘placemaking plan’ – where residents highlight their priorities to improve where they live, and a council strategy is created setting out how the wish-list can happen.

The projects will be shaped by the views and ideas put forward as part of an eight-week consultation, held in the summer of 2022 by The Placemaking in Exmouth Town and Seafront Group – led by EDDC.

The district council said approved projects would ‘hopefully’ begin by summer 2024.

It said the ‘exciting new plans’ would  ‘regenerate and improve key sites across Exmouth town centre and its seafront’.

Councillor Paul Arnott, EDDC leader, said: “We have received so many ideas and suggestions from residents, the local community and councillors on all levels on how we can improve Exmouth, shaping future developments and giving key sites a good facelift.

“There were a number of key themes and characteristics that were highlighted as part of the consultation and I cannot wait to see the draft plans which will be based on everyone’s suggestions – making the area more attractive, welcoming and user-friendly with improved signage to the town centre and seafront.”

EDDC said the selected consultancy firm would take around a year looking at more than 1,400 responses from the Exmouth community – comments received through an online questionnaire, public workshops, and face-to-face street interviews.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “Once appointed, the consultancy firm will spend an estimated 12 months looking at the many options suggested, developing plans based on last year’s consultation results.

“Feedback will be welcomed on both a draft and final plan that will be published by the council, before decisions are made by EDDC. It is hoped physical delivery of projects can begin within 18 months.”

They added: “EDDC’s placemaking plans will be complemented by two separate levelling-up projects for Exmouth, which have secured 15.7million in funding through Devon County Council.

“This included funding for the Destination Exmouth project which will see improvements to the Dinan Way link road, helping to tackle congestion and remove traffic from the town centre.

“This will also help with EDDC’s plans to give the entrance of the town, for those visiting by road, rail or cycle, a much-needed facelift – making the area more attractive, welcoming and user-friendly, improving public transport.”

Exhortation from the Chair of Cons

Recorded crime in Devon and Cornwall has shot up by more than 10 per cent in the past year, with sexual offences double that and thefts and shoplifting by 50 per cent.

No selfie from Alison Hernandez? – Owl 

www.radioexe.co.uk

But the police service says a rise was to be expected, after a dip during the height of the pandemic.

Hello, hello, hello (image courtesy: Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner)

And they claim the region remains one of the safest places in England and Wales, given that across those two countries the average rise in crime was higher at 12.3 per cent, 1.3 percentage points lowe than Wiltshire, which ranks as first place for the lowest total number of crimes in the 12 months to the end of September 2022.

When compared to pre-covid crime levels in 2019, Devon and Cornwall has seen an increase of just 1.4 per cent.

Deputy chief constable Jim Colwell said: “These figures are a good indicator of where we need to make improvements to tackle crime across Devon and Cornwall.

“There has been a 19.2 per cent rise in reported sexual offences compared to the same time the previous year. Tackling violence against women and girls remains a priority for the Force, and we are continuing to encourage victims to report crimes. We are committed to preventing these offences, ensuring that victims are fully supported and that crimes are thoroughly investigated.

“We continue to work on making improvements in bringing sex offenders to justice, including our work with the national Operation Bluestone Soteria team to review our response to rape and sexual offences. This work will ensure that we provide the highest possible level of service and standards of investigation when tackling violence and sexual offences against women and girls.”

Victim-based crime in Devon and Cornwall has risen by 11.8 per cent. Theft from the person and shoplifting saw the biggest increase and have risen by 49.1 per cent and 28.8 per cent, respectively.

This increase in theft may potentially be due to the cost-of-living increase and the financial difficulties people are currently experiencing.

Mr Colwell continued: “We acknowledge how distressing it is to be a victim of burglary or theft, and we will continue to develop our response in tackling these crimes.

“Despite increases, as a force we have some of the lowest crime rate of in these offence types. Whilst theft from the person has a 46.9 per cent increase, this number translates to 592 crimes within that 12-month period.

“Theft from the person has a crime rate of 0.3 per 1,000 population, and whilst we have seen an increase compared to previous statistics, our national position has dropped to being the fourth lowest in England and Wales.

“Whilst these figures are one measure of performance, public confidence in policing from our communities is equally important and we appreciate their support as we continue our work to tackle crime that affects our communities in order to keep them safe.”

Police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Alison Hernandez, said: “I am pleased to represent the people of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly with a police force area which has consistently achieved one of the lowest recorded crime rates in the country. This has been delivered through our largely law-abiding residents and visitors alongside many years of close collaboration between policing, partners and the communities we serve.

“However, these figures tell me and new Chief Constable Will Kerr, that there is much work still to be done, particularly in relation to the worrying rise in violent crime. We must continue our efforts to prevent violence and continue our work on focusing on young people to build this out of our community for the longer term.

“A more connected and accessible police force will ultimately deliver safer communities for us all and that is what we are focused on delivering. We have reopened six police stations to the public this financial year and plans for 2023-24 will see six more police station front desks reopened across Devon and Cornwall.

“Combine this community presence with our many hundreds of new police recruits and we are presented with a once in a generation opportunity to prevent crime at a neighbourhood level and create a policing model that will be the envy of the country.”

Dredging is likely to increase around the English coast, while pollution and sewage are piling pressure on coastal ecosystems, and an increasing number of people are at risk of coastal flooding, the Environment Agency has warned.

Fiona Harvey www.theguardian.com 

Three-quarters of shellfish waters around England failed to meet “aspirational” standards for environmental protection in 2021, the report by the agency’s chief scientist’s group found.

Dredging and pollution have come under increasing scrutiny, after a mysterious big die-off of crabs and lobsters was recorded around Teesside on the north-east coast in the autumn of 2021. A report published last week found that dredging was unlikely to be the cause of the die-offs, suggesting an unidentified new pathogen could have been to blame, but the findings have been criticised by some scientists.

The EA report paints a bleak picture of England’s coastal regions, with fewer than a fifth of the UK’s estuaries judged to be at good ecological status. Only 45% of the marine areas assessed met the standard in 2021, according to the report, published on Thursday.

More than nine in 10 of the estuaries sampled had nitrogen levels that were too high in 2019, as did nearly half of coastal waters. Nitrogen pollution comes from agricultural runoff and sewage, and can cause harmful algae blooms that kill off marine life and smother seagrass and saltmarsh.

The report found that there had been “widespread damage to coastal defences, properties and infrastructure” during storms, with about 100,000 people at risk of significant coastal flooding.

Sand dunes were being lost to erosion, and wetlands were drying out under the influence of the climate crisis, the report found. About 85% of England’s salt marshes, a major carbon store, have been lost since the 1800s, along with about half of seagrass meadows and 95% of the native oyster population.

Added to this, many people in coastal regions are enduring economic hardship. Alan Lovell, chair of the Environment Agency, told the Coastal Futures conference on Thursday morning that coastal towns were among the most deprived in the UK.

“We need to work together with coastal communities to identify the best possible way to keep them safe and prosperous,” he said. “We need a concerted effort to better protect coastal communities and economies while enhancing the marine environment.”

More than a third of the UK’s population live within 3km (1.9 miles) of the coastline, Lovell noted. He said there had been some progress in combatting the multiple threats to the coastal environment, including an initiative to restore 15% of coastal and estuarine habitats that are judged to be priority areas by 2043, but that much more needed to be done.

About 1,200 hectares (2,965 acres) of salt marsh and mudflats have been created since 2005, the report found, and there has been progress on overfishing, with about half of stocks fished at sustainable levels in 2019 compared with about a tenth in 1990.

Charles Clover, executive director and co-founder of the Blue Marine Foundation, said that was still far from good enough. “The ocean faces numerous threats, and this report highlights that one of the largest is simply removing far too many fish from the sea – collapsing stocks and preventing recovery. The report also stresses the important role that the seabed can have in storing carbon, yet in the UK trawling is allowed in most of our so called protected areas.”

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, called for urgent action and stricter regulation. “Our seas are facing a perfect storm of rising temperatures, sewage discharges, plastic and chemical pollution and destructive industrial fishing. This is an existential threat to both marine life and the communities that depend on healthy seas for their survival,” she said.

“What we need are legally binding targets to cut single use plastic in half by 2025, a full and immediate ban on destructive fishing in all marine protected areas, and stricter penalties for water companies responsible for the sewage scandal,” she added. “The time for rearranging deckchairs is over – we need a joined-up, ambitious and properly funded plan from this government and we need it now.”

The chief executive of HM Revenue and Customs has told the public accounts committee that there are “no penalties for innocent errors” in an individual’s tax affairs.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/17044/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

www.theguardian.com 

Jim Harra has told MPs that officials would help “in any way we possibly can” with the inquiry by the prime minister’s ethics adviser into Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.

Harra said that he could not comment on an individual’s tax affairs, but signalled that HMRC could offer a more public comment on a minister’s tax affairs under certain circumstances.

Being careful to point out that he was not discussing anyone in particular, Harra also said: “Carelessness is a concept in tax law. It can be relevant to how many back years that we can assess, can be relevant to whether someone is liable to a penalty and if so, what penalty they will be liable to for an error in their tax affairs.

“There are no penalties for innocent errors in your tax affairs. So if you take reasonable care, but nevertheless make a mistake, whilst you will be liable for the tax and for interest if it’s paid late, you would not be liable for a penalty.

“But if your error was as a result of carelessness, then legislation says that a penalty could apply in those circumstances.”

He pointed out, to laughter from MPs, that “innocent” was not the term used in legislation.

“If you have been careless in your tax affairs, and as a result of that carelessness have made a mistake, then you could be liable to penalty.”

Unemployed Exeter residents could find work in Cullompton if the town’s railway station is rebuilt, a local MP has claimed.

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

Liberal Democrat Richard Foord, whose Tiverton & Honiton constituency includes Cullompton, made the case for restoring the station during a debate in parliament on Tuesday [24 January].

Cullompton station closed in 1964, part of the now-infamous Beeching axe that slashed the rail network in Britain. However, work is now underway on bringing the station back to its former site by the M5 almost 60 years later.

The government awarded £5 million of business funding towards restoring Cullompton and Wellington stations in 2021. Following further work from local councils, the lead role for the project was handed over to Network Rail last year.

It is hoped the first passengers could board trains at Cullompton again in May 2025.

Nearby Okehampton station was the first beneficiary of the the government’s ‘restoring your railway fund’ – reopening in 2021 to great success. Mr Foord hopes Cullompton “will see the same railway renaissance as Okehampton has in the past couple of years.”

Outlining how there are “some parallels” between the two towns, he said: “Okehampton and Cullompton are both within commuting distance of Exeter and both have slightly more than 10,000 people currently living in and around each town.”

Mr Foord added: “It is a town with a tight labour market and currently has vacancies across a range of sectors, including retail, manufacturing and social care. In Cullompton, fewer than two in 100 people are unemployed, in contrast to the neighbouring city of Exeter, where unemployment is greater than three per cent.

“There are thousands of people in Exeter who are registered unemployed and looking for work who would be able to find jobs in Cullompton were they able to commute there.”

Cullompton is likely to see significant growth in the coming years, with plans afoot for a Culm Garden Village which Mr Foord says will expand the town “by more than 5,000 houses and perhaps an additional 12,000 residents.”

Stressing the importance of a new station, he explained: “We already have an air quality management area designation in the town of Cullompton; having a station in the heart of the town should serve to reduce traffic on the congested B3181.”

Railways minister Huw Merriman (Conservative) was then invited to visit the old Cullompton station site “to see how little work would be required to restore the station to its former glory and to transform a very friendly part of Devon into an environmentally friendly one.”

Mr Merriman responded by saying the Wellington and Cullompton project is “progressing to a full business case, and a decision will be made once that has been finalised.”

After many Cranbrook residents endured nearly a week of no heating while temperatures plummeted below zero last month, further misery and anger is being caused following claims that communal district heating provider E.ON has ‘ridiculously’ hiked up energy bills. One resident has reported that her heating bill for November/ December is £693.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

Another claimed their latest bill has risen ‘ridiculously’ from £60 to £625 in a month. Noticeable differences have also been reported by those with meters.

A resident says a new meter was fitted in their property around six months ago and they used around 650 units in just under six months. During the time when some Cranbrook residents were experiencing problems with their heating and hot water supplies, the resident claims their meter ‘shot up to 1700 ish.’

E.ON has insisted that there are no known issues with meters and that bills will have increased this time of year. However, East Devon MP Simon Jupp says that after hearing residents’ latest concerns, he is striving to get more information from the energy provider.

Cranbrook is part of a ‘district heating scheme’, meaning they are all heated by an energy centre, rather than a boiler, located half a mile away which can only be run by one supplier, which is currently E.on. All 2,000 homes are signed up to E.on under an agreement which is in place until 2090.

Mr Jupp said: “At a time when customers on E.ON’s heating network in Cranbrook and Tithebarn were facing outages with shambolic regularity and were sat in freezing cold homes, many people still saw their bills continue to go up. I am very concerned to hear reports from residents that they’ve been charged for heat and water they obviously weren’t able to use a lot of the time.

“I urgently raised this with E.ON who insist higher bills are because customers were using more heat and hot water during the colder weather. I have gone back to E.ON’s bosses with specific examples of unusually high billing so I can get clear answers for affected residents, who are quite simply fed up, and who can blame them?”

A closed meeting is said to be taking place between E.ON and its customers on January 25. Details have not been disclosed to DevonLive by E.On about why it has been called and the aim of the meeting.

Instead, an E.ON spokesperson said: “The details of the meeting have been shared with our customers. This is not an open event and all of our customers have been invited directly.”

Regarding the latest concerns raised over the hike in bill payments, the E.ON spokesperson said: “With the colder weather and darker evenings we have experienced over recent weeks, it is reasonable to expect that most customers will have been using more energy than in previous months to keep their homes warm and well-lit. Any customer who has a query regarding their bill should contact us directly to discuss this.

“We know these are incredibly difficult times and we continue to urge any customer who is struggling to get in touch as there are ways we can help.”

Last month, Mr Jupp intervened on behalf of Cranbrook residents when they were struggling without heating before Christmas. He expressed his concern at ‘E.ON’s ‘lack of pace’ to resolve the issue and slammed their response as “woefully inadequate”.

At the time, engineers believed the problems predominantly stemmed from an issue with valves situated within the heat interface inside some homes. Once supplies had been restored, E.ON said they would then assess what future actions need to be taken to prevent a repeat of this issue from reoccurring.

Last week, DevonLive reported the town had woken up to no hot water on January 16, after its communal heating supply was cut off. E.ON has said that the brief issue was an “isolated incident” caused by a fire alarm which cut off the energy centre.

It is likely that district and communal heat networks won’t be regulated by Ofgem until at least 2024, it has been announced recently. Householders who face issues of intermittent supply of their heating and hot water will remain at the mercy of their provider to find a solution, with no option to seek redress from a regulator.

Then there is the cost of providing “glossy brochures” in support of each submission in the “beauty contest” for funding under the various levelling up schemes, most of which fail. – Owl

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com 

Cash-strapped councils are estimated to have spent £12.5m compiling bids to launch low tax and regulation-lite “investment zones” that were binned by the government just weeks later, new figures suggest.

Labour, which compiled analysis about the waste suffered by local authorities, hit out at the “cost of Tory chaos” given the scheme was effectively ditched by the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, when he took over after Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership.

Initially billed as a major part of Truss’s growth agenda, the investment zones announcement saw a rush of interest – with 626 submitted from 90 councils across England.

But while many areas jumped at the chance to be granted slimmed down planning rules and have other regulations eased, as well as tax breaks to encourage investment, putting together the documents came at a cost.

Councils had to spend an average of £20,000 to £30,000 in each bid for central government funding, and sometimes lost staff hours while work was done preparing the submissions, according to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.

Taking the most conservative end of that estimate, the total cost to councils was calculated to have been £12.5m.

Using the same equation, Labour also said the 418 bids rejected last week out of 529 received for the second round of distribution from the levelling up fund amounted to a loss to councils of £8.4m.

The nature of the system that sees local authorities forced to bid for central government funding was criticised by Lisa Nandy, Labour’s shadow levelling up secretary.

She claimed struggling councils had been “forced to waste millions of pounds during a cost of living crisis on applications that now lie in a bin in Whitehall”.

Nandy said: “Many councils were rightly sceptical about investment zones but felt they had to engage with what seemed to be the only game in town. A huge amount of time and money has been wasted because of the Conservatives bouncing from one half-baked idea to the next with no serious plan for growth.”

She vowed that Labour would end the “Hunger Games-style approach to levelling up, which forces communities to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall”, and said the party had “set out a proper long-term strategy to grow the economy, create good jobs and shift power of out Westminster”.

The levelling up department was contacted for comment.

Previously, the Guardian revealed that all expressions of interest from councils in becoming investment zones were not being pursued by the government.

A drastically slimmed down and refocused version of the scheme is still being discussed between the levelling up department, Treasury and No 10 that will probably see the zones focussing on boosting research and development hubs at universities.

Sources have indicated Sunak wants to use the move as a sop to Truss and her allies to fend off criticism about a lack of commitment to her vision of growth.

The levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, will probably express his commitment to a reincarnation of the scheme in a speech to the Convention of the North on Wednesday, but an announcement about the future of the project is still thought to be some way off.

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk

Throughout the two main years of the Covid-19 crisis, 2020 and 2021, our officers at East Devon (EDDC) gladly took on the extra burden of assessing and then distributing government funds to local businesses, as well as delivering extra help to individuals really struggling to cope.

One of the central boasts of 45 years of Conservative rule at EDDC until 2019 was the artificial suppression of council tax rises. This went hand in hand with not bothering to review car park charges, maintain assets such as the Exmouth Pavilion theatre, or do anything about our public loos.It also led to a “pared-to-the-bone” approach to Human Resources.

Yet despite this, in the middle of the pandemic, our officers were obliged to take part in “Levelling-Up” bids to government for “oven-ready” projects, with just weeks to get the paperwork in. Yet this was always a classic, all mouth no trousers, Boris Johnson approach to the serious matter of funding regional infrastructure. Nevertheless, our terrific officers burned the midnight oil to submit bids.

Devon County Council (DCC) is the highways authority and so (using much work by EDDC) submitted a bid for new works in the approach to Exmouth around the station. We were pleased with this, as it had the potential to fit in with out own Placemaking work in Exmouth of the last two years, soon to bear the essential fruit of well-consulted concepts, so that progress can be made with as much local support as possible.

DCC also included completing the Dinan Way road extension in the north of Exmouth, a piece of transport infrastructure first promised half a century ago as the exponential growth of housing in that area really took off. Ordinarily the funds for this might have come from the Highways Agency, but DCC saw an opportunity, won the signature of local MP Simon Jupp, and got the thumbs up last week at last. The Democratic Alliance administration will continue to work together with all parties to improve Exmouth.

However, the other scheme submitted – for works in Axminster and Seaton – lost its key signatory in the very week it was handed in. Neil Parish, the former MP, left office at a crucial time, having personally promised me (the day before he resigned) that he’d do all he could to get these projects approved too.

His replacement, Richard Foord MP (Lib Dem), moved like greased lightning the minute he was voted in to sign off in support himself. He also – quite rightly – backed the Cullompton relief road, a seriously overdue and desperately needed scheme in Mid-Devon.

Last week, it was announced that Axminster, Cullompton and Seaton were all unsuccessful. I offer no further comment.

However, to the people of Axminster and Seaton I would wish to assure them that we’ll be resubmitting bids at the next possible opportunity – there is meant to be a Round Three of Levelling Up. And we will read the feedback from government with genuine respect and in a spirit of seriousness.

On another front I’d like to thank the many friends and colleagues who went across to Dartmoor at the weekend to protest about the loss of the ability to wild camp. This seems to me about the difference between landowners who are genuine stewards of the land which they have the good fortune to own, and those who do not understand such obligations.

All of my four children took part in DofE or Ten Tors expeditions, as did most of their friends. The officers of the Dartmoor National Park authority will, I am sure, strive to negotiate with the landowners for maximum public access.

The protesters behaved immaculately. Now, following their example, it would be a good gesture for the Totnes Conservative Association to return the £5,000 donated to them by the landowner.

Councillors in Devon have rejected a proposal to use cruise liners as temporary accommodation for refugees and homeless people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Several Torridge district councillors questioned the practicality of the idea.

A report said cruise ships could become unstable in shallow water, so dredging would be needed and a quay wall reinforcing.

The council’s Community and Resources Committee voted against the proposal.

Labour group leader Cllr David Brenton brought the suggestion to the council’s attention in December.

He cited the district’s desperation to find a home, even if only temporarily, for those in dire need, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

‘Step too far’

A report by council officers said cruise ships could become unstable in shallow water, so dredging would be needed to enable vessels to moor, and the quay wall at Appledore’s Middle Dock would need reinforcing.

Mr Brenton told the committee he had no intention of using big ships in the area, just vessels for up to 100 people.

But independent Councillor Claire Hodson said: “We need to focus on what we’re doing.

“We do not need to go chasing what might be. We have plans in progress to add to our housing supply.”

She added: “I commend Cllr Brenton for coming up with an idea, but we are a small authority.”

Conservative Councillor Simon Newton said it was a “step too far”.

“It also risks complicating a major project that we’ve now just got lined up funding-wise, and I don’t think we should be doing anything to try to complicate what is going to be a major project,” he said.

Mr Brenton was the only one at the meeting who voted against the decision to drop his idea, with eight councillors in favour of abandoning the ship.

 “As a result of the Tories crashing the economy and pushing UK inflation to nearly the highest rate in the G7, vital projects have been delayed and now many face being downsized or scrapped altogether.

“This is symptomatic of a broken system where communities are forced to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall for small pots of money with strings attached. It leaves them especially exposed to economic shocks – not least those brought on by Tory governments.” – Lisa Nandy, The shadow levelling up secretary.

But first win the “Beauty Contest” – Owl

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com

Councils are being forced to freeze levelling up projects or find millions from their own squeezed budgets to complete works because of soaring costs which have exceeded government grants.

At least £500m has been lost from projects funded by different government levelling up schemes due to inflation and rising costs, the Guardian can reveal. The true losses are likely to be even higher because for some funds the government will pay out on the delivery phase, which could be several years later.

The levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, will address the Convention for the North on Wednesday amid criticism of the latest round of levelling up funding from some MPs, including anger that London was getting more than Yorkshire and north-east England. The government has argued that per capita, the north and the Midlands have benefited more.

However, the number of projects funded by Whitehall-allocated schemes are now under threat because of the soaring costs – which have also meant councils taking on additional risk.

New leisure buildings, high street regeneration, museums and public spaces have been hit by rising costs, including in Calderdale, Preston and Greenock.

Analysis of data from the House of Commons Library shows that, based on the latest projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) at the time of the autumn statement, £576m has been lost from different levelling up funds because of inflation.

The analysis of the overall real-terms loss was done by Labour, which found there was about £137m lost from the levelling up fund from round one, £196m from the UK shared prosperity fund, £172m from the towns fund, £60m from the future high streets fund and £9m from the community renewal fund.

The analysis looked at inflation projections taken from the OBR’s autumn statement analysis, as well as looking at the real-terms value of the levelling up fund from the first round of awards based on inflation in the construction industry, given those projects are overwhelmingly infrastructure-based.

In Halifax, a new swimming pool and leisure centre are on hold for at least a year because of rising costs. Calderdale council received £12.2m for the project in October 2021 but costs could rise by a further £4m according to local reports.

Halifax’s Labour MP Holly Lynch said inflation was having a chilling effect on the first round of projects. “Too many of its first-round projects have had to be paused or shelved because of spiralling costs,” she said.

“The government wants the credit for these projects yet the economic landscape they have created is making them impossible to deliver.”

The council said the project was unsustainable in its current form because of multiple budget pressures after years of austerity and the impact of the pandemic. It said it forecast that it would need to make tens of millions of pounds more in budget savings until 2026 because of inflation.

Analysis has also been done by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which found £1 in every £13 could be lost to inflation if the government did not act to protect investment.

Jack Shaw, a senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: “Projected spend has consistently fallen short, meaning the true cost of inflation is likely much higher, and further delays will only increase the pain facing local authorities as the impact of inflation accumulates.”

In many cases, projects are going ahead but will need increased funding from local councils, which are already under budget strain. In Preston, the council has been hit by spiralling costs for its town centre redevelopment, for which it received more than £20m in 2019.

Some of the related projects now had “significant challenges with cost inflation”, said Preston city council’s chief executive, Adrian Phillips. In one scheme, the Grade II-listed Amounderness House regeneration, the council has had to use borrowing to plug the funding gap because otherwise it would not be able to proceed.

In another scheme backed by the towns fund, the council has had to significantly reduce the work and go back to the government to seek consent.

“The costs were so high and we had no flexibility so we are just reducing the area we can benefit,” Phillips said. The council has also had to find more than £1m extra for the refurbishment of the Harris museum, where scaffolding costs alone have risen to more than £1m, meaning potential delays to other capital projects.

Phillips is among many local authority leaders who have criticised the approach of bidding for central funding posts. “Funding from government is always welcome but you have to enter numerous competitive bidding rounds, they are time-consuming and costly for very limited funds,” he said.

“There are also ludicrous delivery timescales, set nominally by the Treasury, that are not optimal for bringing in partnerships. If it has to be spent by March 2025, for a major capital programme [that] is not flexible enough.”

Preston was also successful in the latest round of levelling up funding bids, gaining £20m to regenerate parks. “That is fraught with challenge in terms of cost inflation,” he said.

“The government have made clear you cannot go back for more. At times you do have to downscale and then go back for consent. It’s an enormously stressful process and the worst thing is when you promise something and are not able to deliver all of it.”

In other areas, there have been warnings from those who won funding in the latest round that they are already facing budget pressures. Councillors in Greenock, Inverclyde, said their costs had already soared since making their successful bid.

The council was awarded £20m to demolish and reroute the A78 dual carriageway to transform Greenock town centre, including new public squares and green spaces. But the council has said it is likely to need another £2m to deliver everything.

The Inverclyde council leader, Stephen McCabe, from Scottish Labour, told the Greenock Telegraph he was delighted with the bid’s success, but added: “Inflation will already have eaten away at the funding amount we bid for, so our project team will need to assess how this might impact on the scope of the project and whether additional funding will be needed to deliver the full plan as envisaged.”

Labour has said it would end the competitive bidding process by radically increasing devolved powers – and said the Conservatives were to blame for soaring inflation.

The shadow levelling up secretary, Lisa Nandy, said: “As a result of the Tories crashing the economy and pushing UK inflation to nearly the highest rate in the G7, vital projects have been delayed and now many face being downsized or scrapped altogether.

“This is symptomatic of a broken system where communities are forced to go cap-in-hand to Whitehall for small pots of money with strings attached. It leaves them especially exposed to economic shocks – not least those brought on by Tory governments.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Housing, Levelling Up and Communities said: “We are closely monitoring the impact of inflation on projects and working closely with councils and delivery partners to ensure public services are protected and levelling up projects delivered.”

The department said it had set up a project adjustment process to work on the scope and phase of projects to mitigate delivery problems. It said £65m of support was being made available to successful applicants in the form of commercial advisers, grants to buy local support, and a training package.

Panel approving Richard S harp as BBC chair included Tory party donor

The four-strong advisory assessment panel, which ultimately decided that five of the 23 applicants were fit for the job, was formed on the basis of three members being considered independent.

Now read on, looks all very chummy to Owl.

Mark Sweney www.theguardian.com 

The government-appointed panel that approved Richard Sharp as a prime candidate for the role of BBC chair included a Conservative party donor and prospective MP, as well as the wife of the former chair of the Spectator who worked with Boris Johnson when he edited that political magazine.

As Sharp faces multiple investigations, amid allegations he helped Johnson secure a loan of up to £800,000 weeks before he was recommended for the job by the latter, the potential conflicts of interest among panel members responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for the job have come under scrutiny.

The four-strong advisory assessment panel, which ultimately decided that five of the 23 applicants were fit for the job, was formed on the basis of three members being considered independent.

The selection panel was made up of Sarah Healey, permanent secretary at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who oversaw the short-listing process before the final decision made by Johnson.

The independent directors included Catherine Baxendale, a former Tesco executive, who was shortlisted to be a Tory parliamentary candidate in 2017, and who gave £50,000 to the party when David Cameron was prime minister.

The panel also included Blondel Cluff, wife of Algy Cluff, the North Sea oil tycoon, who owned the Spectator from 1980 until 1985. Cluff remained as chairman until the end of 2004 working with five editors – including Charles Moore, the government’s first choice for BBC chair – and Johnson.

Blondel Cluff, who two years ago was the beneficiary of the government’s public selection process becoming chair of the National Lottery community fund, has previously lavished praise on the “optimism and drive” that made Johnson’s leadership “inspirational and unifying”.

The fourth member of the panel was the senior independent director Sir William Fittall, who spent almost 30 years in the civil service before retiring in 2002. He died last March.

The process for selecting “appointable” candidates, which included a presentation, broadcast interview scenario test and interview, had resulted in action by the public appointments watchdog concerned that ministers were breaching a strict code on political neutrality and independence.

In October 2020, Peter Riddell, the former commissioner for public appointments, tweeted that he had to push for panelists to be changed over concerns about ministers appointing people who were not independent of the Tory party, or who were “allies”. While the final appointment is ultimately made by cabinet ministers and the prime minister, Riddell said that ministers were attempting to “tilt the process” from the outset.

The move to replace panelists came amid growing concern that the government was seeking to “rebalance” the boards of public bodies, particularly in the arts, heritage and broadcasting sectors, by appointing allies and blocking critics, in part to help it fight “culture wars”.

The government also pursued a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful process to try to install Paul Dacre, former editor of the Daily Mail, as chair of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom, which has oversight of the BBC.

Dacre flunked his interview with the selection panel, which determined he was “unappointable”, and he pulled out after ministers were criticised for re-running the process to give him a second chance.

In the case of Sharp, Riddell wrote a letter to the chair of the culture select committee of MPs in early 2021 following the announcement of Sharp as the government’s preferred candidate for BBC chair.

The select committee, which publicly interviews preferred candidates ahead of an official appointment by ministers, comments on the “cosiness in the upper echelons of public appointments” and Sharp’s ties with Rishi Sunak and Johnson.

In the letter to the committee, Riddell said that his assessment was that the selection panel had run a “well conducted and thorough process” and that the “candidates’ potential conflicts of interest were fully explored”.

On Monday Riddell said that it was right that his successor, William Shawcross, whose daughter is Sunak’s deputy chief of staff, was investigating Sharp’s recruitment process since the panel was not aware of the role he played in helping Johnson seek to secure a loan.

In written evidence provided by Sharp to the committee ahead of the interview he did not raise his involvement with Johnson’s loan when responding to the question: “Do you currently or potentially have any business, financial or other non-pecuniary interests or commitments, that might give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest if you are appointed?”

Kevin Brennan, a member of the DCMS select committee, said in the Commons on Monday: “Helping to raise an £800,000 loan for the person ultimately responsible for your appointment should have been declared in response to that question.”

Sharp has agreed to appear before the committee on 7 February to face questions regarding the Johnson scandal.

[Richard Sharp has told the BBC that he is confident that the investigation by William Shawcross, public appointments commissioner, will find that was appointed on merit. According to the Times he has privately hired the crisis communication specialist Garfield Advisory to help him respond to scrutiny. – Owl]

The Guardian view on Tory millionaires: a party of the rich, for the rich

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

Written in an earlier time about misgivings over the accumulation of power and money, the words of F Scott Fitzgerald are apposite today. “They were careless people,” laments the narrator of his classic novel The Great Gatsby. “They smashed up things … and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.” The Tory party chairman, Nadhim Zahawi, paid, it appears, about £5m in penalties and outstanding taxes to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Mr Zahawi says his mistakes were “careless”. But how could the Conservatives ever have allowed somebody, as they did with Mr Zahawi, to become chancellor when he was in dispute with the tax authority, for which the chancellor is responsible? It is a conflict of interest that no one could miss – unless, perhaps, they too were being careless.

We all can be remiss. But not to the extent that we forget, apparently, to report an estimated £27m to HMRC. Rishi Sunak appointed Mr Zahawi to be Tory party chair and gave him a seat at his cabinet table. The prime minister claims not to have been apprised of the facts before defending Mr Zahawi at the dispatch box last week, or when he gave him his current job. A stronger prime minister would have done the right thing and sacked Mr Zahawi. Mr Sunak has referred the matter to his ethics adviser. But the occupant of No 10 does not need a report to tell him who should be in his cabinet. Mr Sunak is a weak prime minister: he has to go in to bat for colleagues for fear of them refusing to do the same for him. He risks the government losing trust in him.

Mr Zahawi was only chancellor for two months. But it speaks volumes about his character that he took the job. It would have been sloppy for Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, not to have known about Mr Zahawi’s tax problem before his promotion. That might explain why a story surfaced this weekend that claimed Mr Zahawi was denied a knighthood after the Cabinet Office contacted HMRC “as part of the normal due diligence”. Mr Case would also have been negligent not to have raised the prospective chancellor’s tax conflict with Boris Johnson, the then prime minister. It may be too much to ask for Mr Johnson, a serial liar, to find anything improper in the arrangement. But he should have vetoed Mr Zahawi for the role.

Reputations rarely survive contact with Mr Johnson. He thinks it’s fine for the current BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, to have helped arrange a guarantee on a loan of up to £800,000 for himself weeks before recommending him for the role. Neither man reported this arrangement, which they should have. Mr Sharp was privy to politically damaging information. The public perception of the BBC’s impartiality and independence has been harmed by its chair’s lack of judgment. Auntie’s board will look at the matter, and the public appointments commissioner will investigate Mr Sharp’s appointment after being urged to intervene by Labour’s Lucy Powell. However, don’t hold your breath. A wealthy insider, Mr Sharp has made his services too useful to be dispensed with easily.

These goings-on offer a parable about the corrupting role of inequality in society, a central theme of Fitzgerald’s book. What has made Britain ungovernable is not strikes and inflation but factional infighting within the Conservatives – which looks like a party of the rich, for the rich. Mr Sunak’s government seems too riven by disputes and too weak to implement big reforms. The impotence of Mr Sunak has replaced the chaos of Mr Johnson. With the Tories in charge, Britain has become a country with a government that cannot do anything of importance.

The impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service is being put at risk due to the rows involving Nadhim Zahawi and Boris Johnson’s financial arrangements, insiders have told i.

[“The many lives of UK Cabinet Secretary Simon Case” (www.politico.eu),  paints a picture of a highly-politicized player working at the center of the Whitehall machine — a civil servant who operates more as ministerial courtier than the traditional, faceless mandarin. As an ex-Johnson aide put it: “This is a man who would literally sell his mother to survive.”] – Owl

Jane Merrick inews.co.uk

Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Whitehall’s propriety and ethics team have been dragged into both affairs, because civil servants offered advice on the arrangements.

Whitehall insiders said as full official advice to ministers – with qualifications – cannot be made public, disclosures about Mr Johnson and Mr Zahawi’s financial affairs being approved is undermining the integrity of the Civil Service.

Caroline Slocock, a former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher when she was PM, said the entire process of upholding standards in public life needs to be made independent to prevent civil servants from being dragged into ministerial scandals.

In the case of Tory chairman Mr Zahawi, it has been reported that the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team raised the issue of his tax affairs directly with Mr Johnson before he was appointed Chancellor.

Mr Zahawi’s allies have insisted he flagged it with the ethics unit before the appointment.

Mr Case has been dragged into the row over Mr Johnson’s £800,000 loan from a Canadian millionaire when he was prime minister because the Cabinet Secretary was introduced to the businessman, Sam Blyth, by the BBC chairman Richard Sharp.

A Whitehall insider said there were “huge concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the civil service being undermined” under the current leadership.

They added: “Under the ministerial code there is a requirement for ministers to protect the impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service and not to put the Civil Service in a position where impartiality is threatened.

“Whether it is sustainable that civil servants can continue to advise ministers and prime ministers on issues which go to the heart of integrity if the prime minister and ministers are going to break that, and civil servants cannot do anything about it other than resign, that is a valid question.”

Ms Slocock, who is director of the Civil Exchange, told i: “I think that in the light of the Johnson premiership and recent scandals, greater independence and oversight is required of the system that enforces standards in public life.

“Ultimately, civil servants work for the Government of the day and the PM sets the tone. Civil servants advise, they don’t decide.

“As the Priti Patel affair demonstrated, it is the PM not the ethics adviser who decides whether or not the Ministerial Code is broken. Press reports suggest that the propriety and ethics team did raise a red flag on the Zahawi appointment as Chancellor, which was ignored.

“The Committee on Standards on Public Life recently proposed that the Code and adviser should be more independent, and I agree with them, and there is also a case for the ethics team being placed at arm’s length from Government.”

Ms Slocock joined calls from MPs for the register of ministerial interests, which has not been published since last May, to be updated and to include offshore trusts held by the ministers themselves and family members, and a record of all gifts and loans.

She added: “I don’t really understand why Simon Case was involved in sorting out the PM’s personal finances, which is suggested by Richard Sharp’s account of events, and hope that he will be questioned about that by Parliament.”

Sir Peter Ridell, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments, said Mr Case should have told the advisory panel overseeing the BBC chairman appointment what he knew about Mr Sharp’s connection with Mr Johnson.

More from Conservatives

Sir Peter, who was commissioner when Mr Sharp was appointed BBC chairman, told Times Radio: “That’s possibly one of the issues which will be examined, because I’m absolutely certain that his colleague who chaired the panel did not know.

“Yes, I think probably he should have made it aware to his colleague who’s chairing the panel.

“I think perception is really important. And yes, he should have said, ‘Look, I was involved at an earlier stage with an issue involving the prime minister… But I’m no longer involved’, and that would have acted as reassurance, so you’d recognise there was a potential conflict.

“Whether there was – which he denies – is a matter for the investigation to establish. But I think it would have been in everyone’s interest that there’d been much greater transparency early on.”

Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain said: “No wonder Conservative sleaze has taken root at the heart of Government. For months, there wasn’t even an ethics adviser. Then, when Rishi Sunak finally appointed one, it turned out the adviser wasn’t even independent at all – the Prime Minister has the power to block his investigations.

“Rishi Sunak promised to govern with integrity, but so far it’s been the very opposite. If he really wanted to restore standards in public life, the least he could do is make the ethics adviser truly independent, as well as handing over the appointment process to Parliament.”

(Also applies to Tory Cabinet members, especially Chancellors of the Exchequer.)

“Careless “and  “Carelessness” as explained in HMRC internal manual:

“Careless” means a failure to take reasonable care in relation to your tax affairs.

Carelessness can be likened to the longstanding concept in general law of “negligence”.

www.gov.uk