79 organisations have joined together to write an open letter to the Prime Minister urging her to change the Government’s trajectory on environmental deregulation, which is set to harm our people, planet and prosperity.

Truss has no mandate to pursue any of this – Owl

www.wcl.org.uk

Dear Prime Minister

Your government’s recent moves toward environmental deregulation will hasten the decline of our natural world.

Together, The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposals to weaken planning protection could put paid to the chances of meeting legally-binding climate and nature targets, create uncertainty for vulnerable businesses, shatter the long-term sustainability of our economy, and unleash environmental losses that could reduce quality of life for millions of people. Coupled with a potential rowing back on the Agricultural Transition, they also mark a radical departure from the manifesto commitment to “the most ambitious environmental programme on Earth” under which the Conservative government was elected.

Laws that protect the bedrock of our environment—air and water quality, soil health, heritage, and wildlife—must not be weakened. Doing so could hasten the torrent of pollution that blights our rivers and streams and increase the damaging presence of pesticides across a range of habitats. It could lead to losses of green spaces and heritage assets that are precious to communities and important for people’s mental health and wellbeing. It could further pollute the air we breathe, with consequences for public health and the costs to the NHS. Of course, the consequences for wildlife could mean that species and habitats are lost from our shores. Animal welfare regulations that ensure better quality of life for millions of farm and companion animals are also at risk, and with them the UK’s reputation as a welfare world leader.

The argument that these laws impose unnecessary burdens on business, as suggested in the growth plan announced on 23.09.22, is unfounded and short-sighted, based on an old-fashioned view of business needs. Progressive businesses in key growth industries understand that a healthy environment is a prerequisite of a healthy economy, that their customers want to see them working to advance the protection of the environment and that nature recovery and decarbonisation are market opportunities. As the Treasury’s Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity conclusively demonstrated, economic security depends on environmental security and any growth agenda that does not include sustainable management of nature will be unsuccessful.

The removal of regulations and the review of other environmental policies, without a clear plan for what will replace them, is extremely disruptive to businesses and communities and could not come at a worse time. Laws like the Habitats Regulations are not some useless legacy of European law—they are among our most effective conservation laws. Changing the rules would create years of delay and uncertainty at a time when stability and environmental action are needed most. Any sense that costs would be saved is an illusion. The costs of environmental damage would be multiplied and simply shifted to the communities who suffer the consequences.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill sets an unreasonable and unnecessary timeline for removal of EU-retained laws. DEFRA is responsible for hundreds of retained laws that remain essential for our environment. Removal when there is no clear plan or mandate for an alternative could set back environmental delivery by years. The Government should be focused on implementing them better and investing in our environment. DEFRA’s EU-retained environmental laws should not be part of this process of mass deregulation.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposals to weaken environmental planning rules in “Investment Zones” around the country would be similarly misconceived. The Habitats Regulations protect precious natural habitats and our most vulnerable wildlife. Simply stripping away the rules would not solve problems like the chronic pollution of our rivers; it would be a smokescreen for continued environmental harm. Rather than weaken environmental rules, environmental recovery, environmental monitoring and investment in natural infrastructure should be key tenets of any proposed investment zones.

While reasonable and positive reform can be achieved, it has to be based on careful consideration, grounded in evidence and consultation. Change for change’s sake is not a public priority. Support for existing UK environmental standards and protections is resolutely high in constituencies up and down the country, so any changes must be based on clear proposals for change and evidence of what that will deliver. It is particularly concerning to see the un-evidenced push for environmental deregulation accompanied by suggestions that the Government could weaken Environmental Land Management scheme, despite clear evidence that this sustainable approach will deliver for farmers, the public and for nature and climate.

On behalf of the millions of people who care for and depend on our natural world, we hope you will step away from deregulation, and the attack on nature it would constitute. There is an opportunity to instead focus on achieving huge benefits for our economy, for communities and the Government’s green legacy, by delivering on great green goals.

This Government has made some bold and impressive environmental promises. We applaud the aim of passing on nature in better condition. Our hopes for the future are raised by the legal target to halt the decline of wildlife by 2030. We were delighted to hear your pledge to lead a delegation to global COP-15 nature talks in Montreal, where the UK can play a leading diplomatic role. We all support the target to achieve net zero. These goals are all jeopardised by a deregulatory agenda

It would be totally inconsistent to set world-leading targets, while sweeping away the regulations needed to achieve them.

Yours sincerely

Beccy Speight, CEO, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Hilary McGrady, Director General, National Trust

Craig Bennett, CEO, The Wildlife Trusts

Abi Bunker, Director of Conservation & External Affairs, The Woodland Trust

Tanya Steele, CEO, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) UK

Miriam Turner and Hugh Knowles, Co-CEOs, Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

Sarah Fowler, CEO, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT)

Sarah McMonagle, Acting Director of Campaigns & Policy, CPRE The Countryside Charity

Laura Clarke OBE, CEO, Client Earth

Mark Lloyd, CEO, The Rivers Trust

Sandy Luk, CEO, Marine Conservation Society

Pat Venditti, Interim Executive Director, Greenpeace UK

Hugo Tagholm, CEO, Surfers Against Sewage

Allison Ogden-Newton, CEO, Keep Britain Tidy

David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs & Campaigns, RSPCA

Neil Redfern, Executive Director, Council for British Archaeology

Tompion Platt, Director of Operations & Advocacy, The Ramblers

Darren York, CEO, The Conservation Volunteers

James Blake, CEO, Youth Hostel Association (England & Wales)

Rebecca Wrigley, CEO, Rewilding Britain

Nick Measham, CEO, Wildfish

Andy Knott MBE, CEO, League Against Cruel Sports

Paul Davies, CEO, British Mountaineering Council

Andy Atkins, CEO, A-Rocha UK

Dr Tony Gent, CEO, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

Andy Bool, CEO, Mammal Society

Rose O’Neill, CEO, Campaign for National Parks

Gill Perkins, CEO, Bumblebee Conservation Trust

Kate Ashbrook, General Secretary, Open Spaces Society

Steve Andrews, CEO Earthwatch Europe

Kit Stoner, CEO, Bat Conservation Trust

Matt Shardlow, CEO, Buglife

Julie Williams, CEO, Butterfly Conservation

Dr Hazel Norman, CEO, British Ecological Society

Dr Richard Handley, President, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)

Stuart Singleton-White, Head of Campaigns, Angling Trust

Professor Jeremy Biggs, CEO, Freshwater Habitats Trust

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, Director, FOUR PAWS UK

Ian Dunn, CEO, Plantlife

Jill Nelson, CEO, Peoples Trust for Endangered Species

Dr Andrew Terry, Director of Conservation and Policy, The Zoological Society of London (ZSL)

Mike Daniels, Head of Policy, John Muir Trust

Chris Butler-Stroud, CEO, Whale & Dolphin Conservation

Dr Ruth Tingay, Co-Director, Wild Justice

Peter Hambly, Executive Director, Badger Trust

Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director, CHEM Trust

David Bunt, CEO, Institute of Fisheries Management

Dr Mark Jones, Head of Policy, Born Free

Tom Hunt, National Coordinator, Association of Local Environmental Records Centres (ALERC)

Ali Hood, Director of Conservation, Shark Trust

Martin Janes, Managing Director, River Restoration Centre,

Rosalind Forbes-Adam, Founder, Woodmeadow Trust

Dave Morris, Chair, National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces

Sue James, Convenor, Trees and Design Action Group

Rachel Thompson MBE, The Trails Trust

Terry Fuller, CEO, The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Matthew Morgan, Director, Quality of Life Foundation

Graham Duxbury, CEO, Groundwork UK

Liz Milne, Chair, Association of Local Government Ecologists

Helen Griffiths, CEO, Fields in Trust

Sonia Kundu, Chairperson, Rail to Trail

Jayne Manley, CEO, Earth Trust

Dr Jo Judge, CEO, British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums

Jamie Christon, CEO, Chester Zoo

Charles Watson, Founder and Chairman, River Action

Jamie Agombar, Executive Director, Students Organising for Sustainability (SOS-UK)

Jonathan Baillie, Chief Strategy Officer, On the Edge

Sue Morgan, CEO, Landscape Institute

Robin Nicholson, CBE, Convenor, The Edge

Mark Rowland, CEO, Mental Health Foundation

James Alexander, Chair, Finance Earth

Antoine Argouges, Founder & CEO, Tulipshare

Sean Clarke, Managing Director, Aardman

Charles Clover, Executive Director, Blue Marine Foundation

Pascale Moehrle, Executive Director, Oceana Europe

Sue Riddlestone OBE, CEO & co-founder, Bioregional

Chris Sowerbutts, Co-Founder, Lightrock Power

Jess Davies, Principal Investigator, QUENCH network coordination team (University of Lancaster)

Dr Richard Benwell, CEO, Wildlife & Countryside Link

[Drafted before Kwarteng was sacked but “investment zones” still firmly on the Truss agenda.]

Kwasi Kwarteng, the new chancellor, has announced plans which strip away the protection of the planning system from swathes of the countryside. These new ‘investment zones’ will threaten many of our most loved landscapes.

www.cpre.org.uk

Planned ‘investment zones’ are a huge threat to our countryside and landscapes

Responding to the announcement Tom Fyans, Interim CEO of CPRE, the countryside charity, said:

‘This government’s obsession with driving growth at all costs is alarming and will not end well for the countryside or our rural communities. Investment zones are deregulation on steroids. Successive governments have already severely weakened planning controls and the outcome has been a decade of disastrous design. CPRE’s own research in 2020 revealed that 75% of all new homes were mediocre or poor quality.

‘There’s a massive shortage of genuinely affordable homes in England. If the government wants to help increase development, then it must be the sorts of homes that people actually need. These new zones will be a failure if they simply allow house builders to build more large and expensive properties rather than the homes local people need.

‘This government is presenting a false choice between being green and boosting economic growth’

‘By weakening the Habitats Directive, the government is kicking away the key foundation of its own 30 by 30 pledge and it will critically undermine any meaningful attempt to tackle the nature emergency.

‘This government is presenting a false choice between being green and boosting economic growth. The Chancellor needs to invest in the energy efficiency of our homes – the best possible way to tackle the dual energy and cost of living crisis while kickstarting the economy is to retrofit our leaky homes.’

Time to act: what CPRE is doing

If these plans go ahead, developers will be given free rein to industrialise our countryside, changing the face of rural England for generations to come. We cannot allow the wildlife and landscapes that make our country so special to be robbed from us, our children or our grandchildren. We need to act fast to force the government to change direction.

CPRE and its supporters have defeated plans like this before. But this time the challenge is even greater: our environment is already suffering and we have never faced a government so reckless to the needs of nature.

‘The chancellor’s plan to use deregulation to hand power to developers is the exact opposite of what the countryside needs’

If ministers want to see booming high streets and more money in people’s pockets, we need to see investment in genuinely affordable homes and thriving communities, not trying to bypass the democratic planning system so that developers can cut down our woods and pour concrete over our fields.

Can you help?

We will throw everything we can at this campaign and ensure that as many MPs as possible hear the message loud and clear: industrialising the countryside is no answer to the challenges we face.

Read the exchange of letters following Kwarteng’s resignation and decide whether Kwarteng alone should be held to account for the failed mini-budget or whether it is matter of “joint enterprise” between him and Liz Truss

The new Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt is busy shredding it, so where does this now place Liz Truss? – Owl

[PS Jeremy Hunt has a lot of “form” recorded on East Devon Watch. He has been very busy during and after the pandemic “reinventing” himself.]

Kwarteng MP for Spelthorne (no longer Chancellor at this point) to PM:

“…your vision of optimism, growth and change was right..

..For too long this country has been dogged by low growth and high taxation – that must still change if this country is to succeed…”

Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, replies:

“You have set in train an ambitious set of supply side reforms that this Government will proudly take forward. These include new investment zones to unleash the potential of parts of our country that have been held back for far too long and the removal of EU regulations to help British businesses succeed in the global economy..

… I know you will continue the mission that we share to deliver a low tax, high wage, high growth economy that can transform the prosperity of our country for generations to come….“

The sacking of the Chancellor is a symptom of the escalating incoherence of Liz Truss’ Government – not a sign that it is changing course to become more coherent, writes Nafeez Ahmed

bylinetimes.com

I have spent two decades studying the dynamics of social crisis and societal collapse. It’s now clear to me that Prime Minister Liz Truss is leading Britain into a convergence of crises that is likely to culminate in an unprecedented social and economic collapse that cascades across the government, economy, housing markets, energy, health, the judiciary and beyond.

Worse, these crises risk triggering a global financial crisis bigger in scale than the 2008 crash – one that, like that crash, could have potentially irreversible impacts on global civilisation.

The sacking of her Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, after 38 days in office, is unlikely to significantly reverse these prospects. In fact, it signals a systemic level of incoherence the only outcome of which, at this stage, can be continued breakdown. The danger is that, as this Government collapses, it brings the rest of Britain down with it.

Systems collapse when they are unable to adapt to change. The policies of the Truss Government are not only accelerating conditions of change beyond the capability of British institutions to adapt, they are generating crises across multiple institutions simultaneously in such a way that they are overwhelming the overall system’s abilities to respond.

When a system is overwhelmed in this way, we start to rapidly run out of options within the existing framework. The more it moves in different directions to quell the crisis, the more it inadvertently stokes the crisis. As a result, the system itself becomes an accelerator of its own collapse – and this is exactly the predicament that the Truss team has managed to pull Britain into.

These ingredients are critical preconditions for the collapse of complex societies. Such collapses have taken place over decades, in some cases centuries, in others. While collapse doesn’t necessarily entail the complete evisceration of a society, it involves a breakdown of institutional complexity. This results in a loss of societal capabilities, potentially entailing reductions in living standards and population.

Liz Truss’ agenda is accelerating the risk of such a collapse in a way that is unprecedented. While, to some extent, this can be explained by a penchant for disaster capitalism designed to benefit elites at everyone’s expense, the deeper problem is that the Truss Government appears to be fundamentally incapable of grappling with complexity.

It doesn’t realise that our systems are tightly coupled in complex ways; that these interconnections mean you cannot tinker with one element of the system without upending the entire system; that pulling the rug out from under critical institutions or public services can unravel social cohesion in a way that could generate chronic instability from which there is no easy recovery – leading to a spiral of escalating costs and diminishing returns.

Britain is on the brink of spiralling out of control.

Article continues with sections on The Economy, The Housing Market, Energy, The Collapse of Critical Services and finally A Vicious Cycle.

Read on here bylinetimes.com

“The Environment Agency does not appear to be in a position to underpin the move. After frequent deep budget cuts, the agency’s chief executive, Sir James Bevan, has said the regulator is no longer sufficiently funded and that it would have to pause or stop some of its environmental protection activities.”

Under Truss and Hunt expect more cuts – Owl

Rachel Salvidge www.theguardian.com 

The government’s pledge to raise the cap on the amount of money the Environment Agency can fine water companies for sewage pollution to £250m has been described as “hot air”, as the Guardian can reveal the regulator has failed to levy any such penalties since it was given powers to do so 12 years ago.

Variable monetary penalties (VMPs) were introduced in 2010 to enable the Environment Agency to directly levy fines for serious environmental offences without having to go through expensive and lengthy court proceedings, but to date the agency has not levied a single VMP against water companies.

Despite this, the environment secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, last week announced a 1,000-fold rise in the cap on VMPs, from £250,000 to £250m, and said the bigger financial penalties “will act as a greater deterrent and push water companies to do more, and faster, when it comes to investing in infrastructure and improving the quality of our water” and that “the polluter must pay”.

But the Environment Agency does not appear to be in a position to underpin the move. After frequent deep budget cuts, the agency’s chief executive, Sir James Bevan, has said the regulator is no longer sufficiently funded and that it would have to pause or stop some of its environmental protection activities.

The lack of VMPs is part of a broader picture of dwindling enforcement on the part of the regulator, which has told its staff to “shut down” and ignore reports of low-impact pollution events, saying it does not have enough money to investigate them.

The Environment Agency has also slashed its water-quality monitoring regime, has downgraded 93% of prosecutions for serious pollution over four years, despite recommendations from frontline staff for the perpetrators to face the highest sanction, and agency staff say that cuts and operational decisions have made it “toothless”.

Between 2010-11 and 2020-21 the amount of grant-in-aid the Environment Agency allocated to generic enforcement activity fell from £11.6m to £7m, according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO). This includes enforcement associated with the regulation of industrial facilities, storm overflows and fisheries, as well as response to serious pollution incidents.

Over the same period, the NAO says the number of prosecutions undertaken by the Environment Agency has plummeted, from 768 in 2009-10 to 17 in 2020-21.

“Punishments are only relevant if you have a regulator who is willing to impose them,” an Environment Agency insider said, adding that water company self-regulation was not working.

“The Environment Agency has been deregulating water quality for a number of years, and that shows no sign of slowing down. Increases in funding are still directed away from frontline regulation. It appears punishments such as VMPs will only be imposed if a water company chooses to report and punish itself.”

Richard Broadbent, director of the law firm Freeths and the former head of legal services at the nature regulator Natural England, said that “whilst reliance of regulatory tools are a matter of judgment for the regulator, they exist in order to be used, and a failure to do so for long periods may in time suggest a fettering of discretion.

“It seems odd for the government to tout the benefits of [an] increase in water pollution penalties when that is in connection with a regulatory tool the regulator does not favour, and does not directly assist it in terms of managing its operational costs,” he added.

The only way increasing the penalties would make sense would be “if the government combines it with a package of measures designed to give the Environment Agency the resources it needs to properly carry out its functions”, said Broadbent.

Ash Smith, the founder of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, said: “Presumably, someone at Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] was tasked with coming up with something that sounded powerful and cost nothing. Raising the level of monetary penalties that are not even used would have been the perfect soundbite, but for the fact that no one trusts government ministers any more and even the most cursory look under the bonnet shows that there is no engine in the car Mr Jayawardena is trying to sell to the public.”

Smith described the announcement as “more hot air from a government that could very easily stop pollution from being profitable but simply refuses to do so and passed an Environment Act that allows illegal pollution to continue.

“The reality is that deliberately weak regulation and flawed privatisation has created a polluting for-profit-fest which has attracted ownership from all over the globe to extract money for nothing and take it offshore tax-free.

“We can expect more desperate threats and promises like raising penalties that won’t really be used, as the government tries carefully not to scare the shareholders or show what a massive scam has been perpetrated on the public.”

Defra declined to comment on the lack of VMPs, but said it was reviewing the Environment Agency civil sanctions regime more broadly to consider further opportunities for improving water company compliance with environmental law.

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “VMPs have so far had limited use against water companies. A reason for their limited use so far is the current £250,000 cap, which has prevented the Environment Agency from using a VMP if they think a higher fine is warranted. By raising the cap up to £250m we will enable the Environment Agency to issue VMPs in more cases, and with greater impact in disincentivising non-compliance.”

“We’re all fucked. I’m fucked. You’re fucked. The whole department is fucked. It’s the biggest cock-up ever. We’re all completely fucked.”

Remembering the wise words of Sir Richard Mottram, former permanent secretary at the  Department for the Environment, 2002

“It is widely understood by voters in the UK – and judging from polling, by a majority of people around the world – that the next few years offer a final opportunity to prevent climate-linked destruction on an unimaginable scale. Under Boris Johnson, Conservative environment policies were nowhere near ambitious enough. But under Ms Truss, they are already far worse…”

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

The latest schism to open up in Liz Truss’s cabinet is less surprising than it might have been, had divisions over tax and welfare policies not already emerged. But the decision by the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to oppose her publicly over solar energy plans is still a dramatic one that leaves her looking even weaker and more exposed. Having previously stressed his support for fracking, and oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, Mr Rees-Mogg used an article in the Guardian to deny that he opposes green energy. While Ms Truss wants to restrict new solar installations on farmland, Mr Rees-Mogg’s deregulatory fervour extends beyond fossil fuels to renewables as well.

Ms Truss’s anti-solar scheme is so ill-judged that all voices raised against it are welcome. But Mr Rees-Mogg’s enthusiasm for new oil and gas means that he must never be mistaken for a friend to green causes. He is right to point out that carbon-intensive imports are just as damaging to the atmosphere as UK-based industries. But while his backing for solar and wind may make him a more consistent free-marketeer than the prime minister – who is against red tape except when it blocks something she dislikes – the risks to the environment from all those like him who champion growth at the expense of nature remain huge.

Renewed enthusiasm for fossil fuel projects is one aspect of this government’s reactionary and dangerous agenda. Two more are the promises to scrap hundreds of environmental regulations governing areas such as water quality (already shockingly poor), and to remove wildlife protections from new low-tax investment zones. The decision to review a post-Brexit farming payments scheme that took six years to set up – and which has already led to enhanced protection for wildlife in pilot areas – offers further proof of the government’s disdain for all things green.

Ms Truss made this explicit when she targeted climate campaigners as part of an “anti-growth coalition”. So far, she shows no sign of paying attention to warnings from senior figures including William Hague that she is on the wrong track. But concern about the government’s new direction is spreading. Ministers are at odds not only with environmental campaign groups such as Greenpeace, but also with mass-membership charities beloved of many Tory voters, including the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Paul Miner, from the countryside charity CPRE, described the reversals on fracking and other issues as “a litany of betrayal and broken promises”.

Precisely how the anger prompted by these anti-green policies will manifest itself remains to be seen. Already, charities have called on members to contact MPs, and they will be emboldened by a speech from the Charity Commission’s chair, Orlando Fraser, affirming their right to engage in political activity. With another crunch UN climate conference fast approaching, and a new report from scientists pointing to a further decline in animal populations, conservation groups and their supporters are right to be alarmed.

It is widely understood by voters in the UK – and judging from polling, by a majority of people around the world – that the next few years offer a final opportunity to prevent climate-linked destruction on an unimaginable scale. Under Boris Johnson, Conservative environment policies were nowhere near ambitious enough. But under Ms Truss, they are already far worse. Her hang-the-consequences short-termism would never have won a general election. The Greenpeace activists who interrupted her conference speech were right that voters do not support the policies she has embraced. They and other groups should take heart from the support they have already received. Ministers may not care about the damage that they are causing, but the public does.

Perhaps Alison Hernandez should have spent more time on her job rather than on taking selfies. 

These things don’t just come “out of the blue”.

Time for her to go as well as Truss. – Owl

Bertie Adams www.devonlive.com

Devon and Cornwall Police has (October 14) been placed into special measures by the police inspectorate. The force has been moved into an “enhanced level of monitoring” for reasons including inadequate response times, poor crime recording – particularly against vulnerable victims and for violent or behavioural crimes – and inability to manage sexual and violent offenders.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) continuously monitors the performance of all police forces in England and Wales.

The monitoring process consists of two stages: Scan and Engage. All police forces are in the Scan phase by default, but may be escalated to Engage.

A statement from HMICFRS outlining the reasons for the decisions is below:

“His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has decided to move Devon and Cornwall Police into the Engage phase because:

• “the force’s crime recording has deteriorated since our last inspection. It doesn’t always record crimes against vulnerable victims, particularly violent or behavioural crimes, and anti-social behaviour;
• “the force does not answer, or respond to, emergency or non-emergency calls within adequate timeframes, and too many calls are abandoned. Identification of repeat and vulnerable callers is missed, and callers are not always given the appropriate advice on preservation of evidence or crime prevention; and
• “the force is unable to adequately manage registered sexual and violent offenders which means an increasing risk of further offending may not be identified.”

HMICFRS said more detail about Devon and Cornwall’s performance would be included in its next inspection report, which is due to be published early next year. His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Wendy Williams said:

“We move police forces into our enhanced level of monitoring, known as Engage, when a force is not responding to our concerns, or if it is not managing, mitigating or eradicating these concerns. The Engage process provides additional scrutiny and support.

“Devon and Cornwall Police has been asked to urgently produce an improvement plan and will meet regularly with our inspectors. We will work closely with the force to monitor its progress against these important and necessary changes.”

A full statement from Devon and Cornwall Police is below:

“Devon and Cornwall Police is continuing to make improvements to its service after His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) today announced that the Force has been placed under an enhanced level of monitoring in three areas of policing.

“The inspection which took place earlier this year has identified three distinct areas where the Force must make improvements: How crime is recorded; its ability to answer emergency and non-emergency calls and the management of registered sexual and violent offenders.

“HMICFRS will now monitor the Force under its enhanced Engage process which provides additional scrutiny and support on behalf of the public.

“In its inspection, HMICFRS also highlighted a number of strengths in the organisation stating that it understood the needs and expectations of local communities with a focus on vulnerability and works effectively with partners locally. Other areas highlighted as strengths were the Force’s effective management of demand and that it treats people fairly.

“Temporary Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, Jim Colwell, said: “We fully accept the findings of the HMICFRS inspection. I understand that these findings may cause concern in our communities and we are committed to delivering improvements. We have already commenced action in all three of these areas following the Inspectorate’s initial inspection in January”.

“Whilst there are improvements we must make; I am extremely proud that Devon and Cornwall remain the second safest counties in the country and this is testament to the hard work of all our officers, staff and volunteers. Protecting victims of crime remains our priority as we strive to meet our mission for world-class policing and to provide the best possible service for our communities.

“We take these findings very seriously and we will continue to work closely with HMICFRS, our key partners and our Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, to embed sustainable improvements in the areas identified. We remain committed to delivering the excellent policing service our communities deserve.”

Reacting to Devon and Cornwall Police being put into special measures, Luke Pollard, MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, said: “This is incredibly concerning news. We must have confidence in our police.

“I’ve written to the T/Chief Constable and the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner to seek a meeting to hear how our police force will be put back on track.”

@trussliz omg cant believe he was also part of the ant-growth coalition babe! SO right to get rid!!!!

From another regular Correspondent:

Wow!  So, Simon Jupp, supposedly East Devon’s MP, has accepted an unpaid job as a PPS at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.  He had supported Rishi Sunak for PM so this is quite a U-turn.

First: what is a PPS?

From Wikipedia which carries full references:

Although not paid other than their salary as an MP PPSs help the government to track backbench opinion in Parliament. They are subject to some restrictions as outlined in the Ministerial Code of the British government but are not members of the Government.

A PPS can sit on select committees but must avoid “associating themselves with recommendations critical of, or embarrassing to the Government”, and must not make statements or ask questions on matters affecting the minister’s department. In particular, the PPS in the Department for Communities and Local Government may not participate in planning decisions or in the consideration of planning cases.

PPSs are not members of the government, and all efforts are made to avoid these positions being referred to as such. They are instead considered more simply as normal Members. However, their close confidence with ministers does impose obligations on every PPS. The guidelines surrounding the divulging of classified information by ministers to PPSs are rigid.

Ministers choose their own PPSs, but they are expected to consult the Chief Whip and must seek the written approval for each candidate from the prime minister.

Although not on the government payroll, PPSs are expected to act as part of the payroll vote, voting in line with the government on every division.

What has Jupp done for us?

Jupp’s previous appointment, under Johnson, had been as a member of the Transport Select Committee in February 2020 and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in September 2021.

So, let’s list his achievements in his former posts and his suitability for the current post.  Or try to …

Transport Select Committee:

Can anyone tell me his achievements in this area – nationally or for East Devon?

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

– likewise?

All this correspondent recalls about Jupp up to now is that for many, many months he refused to meet members of the majority group on East Devon District Council and a rather unfortunate decision he made to stay at a property owned by former Councillor and Alderman John Humphreys when he was canvassing for the MP job in 2019.  Humphreys – now serving 21 years in prison for sexual offences against minors – was under investigation at that time, which at least some councillors and officers appear to have been aware of  – though obviously none of them alerted Jupp to this.  Nor is it likely Hugo Swire said anything, as he is on record in his wife’s book as being very much a Humphries supporter.

All Jupp’s utterances in the local press to date appear to have been rehashes of government press releases – has anyone got any evidence ofJupp’s original thinking?

The only campaign he appears to be passionate about is supporting the hospitality sector. He was photographed drinking non-local beers with such good examples of Tories as: “three homes” Robert Jenrick and “tractor porn” Neil Parish just before the first was sacked and the second chucked out of the party. Now, continuing his disastrous sense of timing, he has just joined “Team Truss”.

Now to his new responsibilities. 

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

From Wikipedia again:

A Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) is a Member of Parliament (MP) in the United Kingdom who acts as an unpaid assistant to a minister or shadow minister. They are selected from backbench MPs as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the minister in the House of Commons.

So, now he is actually FORCED to support the policies of his masters as part of the job!  

I have consulted the website https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ to check Jupp’s interventions in Parliament, seeing no sign of anything that deviates from being a loyal servant of whichever master is in charge.  Though there was one – when during a heatwave – he did ask if honourable members could remove their jackets!

So, Jupp is what is known as a “bag carrier”,  now obliged to vote with his government as part of his job.

It’s nonsense for him now to claim, as he does: “East Devon will of course come first”.

Is this what the Conservative voters of East Devon voted for?  

Come back Claire Wright – never more needed!  Remember her slogan as an Independent?

“Free to Speak, Free to Act”, unlike Jupp “Not free to speak, not free to act” as long as he is  PPS!

[Owls are night birds.]

Kwarteng replaced by Hunt (wasn’t the NHS stockpile of PPE and general preparedness for pandemic reduced on his watch?). 

PM makes a speech, takes only four questions from Telegraph, Sun, BBC and ITV.

Robert Peston asks if she will apologise to her party, not to mention the rest of us. Apparently not. 

Market reaction says it all:

This homemade crisis is set to run and run.

An “early bird” correspondent writes:

As a correspondent has written, Simon Clarke, the levelling up secretary, Simon Jupp’s new boss, threatens to water down affordable home requirements across England.

Simon Jupp writes “As your MP, East Devon will of course come first”.  How many are now registered as in need of social housing in East Devon?  In March 2021 there were more than 2,618 households and I can’t believe all these needs will be fulfilled in the near future. (not if Goodmores Farm is an example in Exmouth. 16 affordable houses in a development of 298 houses.)

How can Simon Jupp reconcile East Devon’s needs and his new bosses dictats?

For centuries the River Aller has been carefully controlled by the landowners and farmers of Exmoor, largely confined to a narrow channel and at one point squeezed under a medieval packhorse bridge.

[An interesting companion project to the Lower Otter Restoration Projects which is concerned with reconnecting the estuary to the sea. – Owl]

Steven Morris www.theguardian.com 

Now in a pioneering project, said to be a first for the UK and inspired by schemes in the wilds of Oregon in north-west US, a stretch of the river is being liberated, the channel partly filled in, allowing the water to spill out and find its own way, creating smaller streams, more pools and boggy areas.

The idea of this “Stage 0” restoration project is to create the conditions for a landscape that is better for flora and fauna, with the slower water flow making flooding less likely.

“We don’t really know how the site is going to react,” said Ben Eardley, project manager for the National Trust, which is leading the work at its Holnicote Estate in north Somerset.

“And we don’t know exactly what habitats will be created. We’re just re-setting it and we’ll see what happens. Stage 0 floodplain reconnection resets natural processes – it’s like the ‘ctrl, alt, delete’ computer reset. We let the river decide where it wants to go really but instead of that single channel there will be a much more complex waterscape, pools, wetland, marshy, boggy areas.”

Just under 1km of the main river and “bits and bobs” of tributary – nowhere near homes or roads – are the focus of the project. Diggers are taking a shallow skim off the floodplain, 4,000 tonnes worth, to re-shape the valley floor, and using that earth to fill in the channel.

The river is being given some help. About 600 tonnes of timber sourced on the estate from the felling of non-native trees have been pinned or partially buried into the valley to help the river’s transformation. “The timber will help kickstart some of that complexity,” said Eardley.

Wildflower seeds such as ragged robin, devil’s-bit scabious and meadowsweet will be sown over the next few weeks. And next spring about 25,000 native trees such as willow, bird cherry and black poplar will be planted. The hope is that this restored landscape will be better for wildlife including dragonflies, brown trout, grass snakes, birds, bats, water voles and otters.

The reset has been trialled on a much smaller scale on the estate, at a spot called Mud Pool Meadow, through which a tributary of the Aller flows.

It was launched in 2019 but Eardley said the results had been “amazing”. “Even in the very hot weather this summer the landscape held on to the water. You put your hand into the grass and it felt soft and wet. There’s not much noise in the surrounding fields but at Mud Pool Meadow there’s a cacophony of insect sound. There are grasshoppers exploding out of your footsteps, butterflies everywhere. It’s early days but you can tell it’s much richer and more abundant and diverse.”

Another significant project at Holnicote is the re-introduction of beavers, with seven of the mammals living in two large pens.

Beavers are seen by conservationists like Eardley as “ecosystem engineers” that develop wetlands by thinning trees and building dams. An intriguing prospect is that if the “Stage 0” restoration works well on the Aller and the UK government allows the release of beavers into the wild, it could be a perfect landscape for them to thrive in.

The Aller project is inspired by the Fivemile-Bell restoration scheme in Oregon, where work has been done on rivers and streams to restore them to how they were before settlers drained the land. One effect there has been to boost the number of salmon.

Prof Colin Thorne, the chair of physical geography at Nottingham University, said: “Around two dozen streams and rivers in Oregon have been successfully restored as complex and fully connected channel-wetland-floodplain systems known as Stage 0, producing remarkable benefits to river health, heritage, wildlife, sustainability and resilience.”

The National Trust is working on the Aller with a number of partners including the EU’s Interreg 2 Seas programme, the UK Environment Agency and Somerset Rivers Authority.

Cllr Mike Stanton, the chair of Somerset Rivers Authority, said he was excited by the Aller project. “It offers Somerset new possibilities for reducing flood risks, improving water quality and creating bigger and better habitats for wildlife. We must and will learn from this initiative with respect to other places in Somerset.”

Coronavirus rates in parts of Devon remain the highest in England – but are on their way down. Latest infection rates, for the seven day period ending October 8, show that West Devon has the highest rates of any of the 315 local authority areas in the country.

Daniel Clark Content Editor & Politics Reporter www.devonlive.com

Plymouth (4^th) and Teignbridge (6^th) are inside the top ten. The South Hams, Torbay and East Devon are also inside the top 20.

But there are signs that the most recent Covid wave might have peaked. While rates in West Devon at 204/100,000 are the highest in England, they are down on the 251/100,000 they were at earlier in the week.

Rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Teignbridge have also fallen slightly back on where they were earlier in the week. Only in North Devon and East Devon do rates appear to still be climbing, rather than falling or plateauing.

It comes as the number of patients in hospital following a positive Covid test in hospitals across Devon have fallen. While numbers of patients in Exeter and North Devon as of October 12 have risen to 100 from the 90 as of October 5, numbers elsewhere have fallen.

At Derriford Hospital, numbers of patients in hospital have dropped from 98 as of October 5 to 84 on October 12. While at Torbay Hospital, the numbers have fallen dramatically from 61 down to 24.

LATEST COVID RATES

West Devon (204/100,000)

Plymouth (188/100,000)

Teignbridge (183/100,000)

South Hams (163/100,000)

Torbay (163/100,000)

East Devon (160/100,000)

Torridge (151/100,000)

Mid Devon (147/100,000)

…The logic for investors is simple. People aged 65 and over in the UK now control 51% of Britain’s wealth, up from 42% in 2008, the year of the financial crash, according to the Resolution Foundation. A large minority of older people can afford £100,000-a-year care home fees because they have houses worth far more that they no longer need….

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

With a spa, cinema and wood-panelled hall, Reigate Grange in Surrey, where Ann King was abused, is part of a growing trend for luxury care homes. Fuelled by global investors’ desire to capitalise on older people’s property wealth, luxury care applies a cruise-ship sheen to the grittier reality of dementia and the end of life.

The logic for investors is simple. People aged 65 and over in the UK now control 51% of Britain’s wealth, up from 42% in 2008, the year of the financial crash, according to the Resolution Foundation. A large minority of older people can afford £100,000-a-year care home fees because they have houses worth far more that they no longer need. A person in a £1m home who survives for the typical two years of a care home resident would still leave £800,000 in their will.

When Welltower, a US real estate investment trust, announced a deal this summer with the property billionaire Reuben brothers to co-own the UK luxury chain Avery Healthcare, David Reuben remarked that he was investing “at the precipice of unprecedented growth of the UK seniors population”. A joint press release described it as a “multi-year growth opportunity”.

Indeed, the Alzheimer’s Society forecasts that the number of people with dementia in the UK will increase from about 900,000 to 1.6 million by 2040, a huge “market” under the current UK healthcare system in which the NHS often does not fund dementia treatment.

Underlying profits are running at about 30% of revenue for a luxury chain such as Barchester, owned by the Jersey-based Grove Ltd, whose owners have been reported in the last year to include three Irish billionaires, Dermot Desmond, John Magnier and JP McManus, the annual LaingBuisson report into UK social care suggests. “There is plenty of money there and it will continue for a few decades,” said its author, the industry analyst William Laing.

Laing said there was so much property wealth that care companies could easily raise prices higher than the £2,000-a-week King paid at Reigate Grange, and still fill beds. He forecast an increase of 27,000 care home residents in the coming decade – requiring 400 new care homes, many of which are likely to be high-end. The elite market will not be much affected by recent policy changes limiting care fees to £86,000 a person because the “hotel costs” fall outside the cap and can comprise 70% of fees.

But does more money buy better care? Higher fees should, and in some cases do, allow operators to hire more care workers and to pay and train them better. But Laing has bad news: “There is no correlation between how much you pay and the care you receive.”

Signature Senior Lifestyle says it pays staff above average and everyone undergoes mandatory training. Overall, homes that are run for a profit perform less well on average in inspections by the Care Quality Commission regulator (77% good or outstanding) than not-for-profit homes (86% good or outstanding), his research shows.

Avery Healthcare’s current CQC ratings are 80% good or outstanding and 20% requiring improvement – the same as the average for all care homes in England.

Barchester said it was “committed to delivering the highest quality care” and 82.7% of its homes were rated good or outstanding by regulators. Avery was approached for comment.

Signature said CQC “rates our homes significantly above the sector average; 97% of our homes are rated as good or outstanding, of which 14% are rated as outstanding – placing them in the top 5% of care homes across the country”.

It said it split the fees “between offering luxurious accommodation and meeting the specific care needs of the people that choose to live with us”, adding its staffing level was higher than an average care home with “a far higher level of clinical expertise than average, with dedicated nursing and dementia managers”.

Figures this week have, meanwhile, exposed a desperate staffing crisis across the whole care sector. While 500,000 new staff are needed by the middle of the next decade to keep up with rising demand, the workforce shrank last year by 50,000 people, leaving 165,000 vacancies in England alone.

Average pay across the sector is £9.50 an hour, although luxury care firms often pay more. A fifth of care workers are considered to be in or on the brink of poverty. Care home residents’ groups have warned: “Lives and dignity are at risk.”

At the start of this summer, Richard Foord was happily working in the academic sector, having retired from the army, enjoying family life in Devon. 

A hundred days on, he has won an historic by-election which helped trigger the downfall of Boris Johnson and become the LibDem spokesperson for Defence as the war in Ukraine rages. He has seen the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the proclamation of King Charles III. He has witnessed the government acquire a new leader, followed by an immediate economic crash triggered by the “fiscal event”. Arguably few new MPs have ever entered Parliament at such an historic time.

Richard will be talking about his first hundred days, in conversation with East Devon District Council Leader and historian, Paul Arnott.

 The event is to be held at Axminster’s Guildhall starting at 10.30am (doors opening 10.15am) on Saturday 22nd October 2022.

The event is non-political and open to the public. No charge, though contributions to cover hall hire welcome.

This old Etonian has been denigrating the: Office for Budget Responsibility; International Monetary Fund; Office for National Statistics and the Bank of England in only the way an old Etonian can. (All because they are not fawning over the other Etonian, Kwasi Kwarteng’s unfunded, unpublished “Growth Plan”). So much scrutiny is so tiresome. – Owl

Andrew Woodcock www.independent.co.uk

Downing Street has administered a slapdown to Jacob Rees-Mogg after the business secretary publicly denigrated the government’s official economic forecaster and suggested the chancellor might ignore its findings.

Mr Rees-Mogg’s broadside against the Office for Budget Responsibility was greeted with incredulity by economists, with one saying that its input was vital to the credibility of any statements made by chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

And today, Liz Truss’s official spokesperson said the prime minister had full confidence in the OBR’s ability to forecast accurately.

The spokesperson also said that the IMF – which came in for another tongue-lashing from Mr Rees-Mogg – played an “important role”, which was valued by Mr Kwarteng.

The business secretary’s highly unusual criticism of the independent budgeting watchdog came just days after the OBR delivered its initial assessment of the impact of the chancellor’s 23 September mini-Budget to the Treasury.

His comments sparked speculation that the findings are damning and that an effort is underway to undermine faith in them before the eventual release of their final verdict on 31 October.

Speaking on ITV’s Peston on Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg said that the OBR’s “record of forecasting accurately hasn’t been enormously good”.

He added: “The job of chancellors is to make decisions in the round rather than to assume that there is any individual forecaster who will hit the nail on the head…

“There are other sources of information. The OBR is not the only organisation that is able to give forecasts.”

But asked on Thursday whether Ms Truss has confidence in the OBR’s ability to deliver accurate forecasts, the PM’s official spokesman replied: “Yes.”

The spokesperson said: “The OBR is the Government’s official forecaster and the prime minister has said on a number of occasions that she values their scrutiny and respects their independence. They are a highly-regarded body worldwide.”

Asked which alternative forecasts are available, the official said: “It is true to say that other forecasts are made and it’s important to consider all available evidence and views when making these sorts of important decisions, but the OBR remains the government’s official forecaster.”

Pressed on whether it was helpful for Mr Rees-Mogg to disparage the OBR, he said: “The OBR are very transparent and recognise those are the challenges when you are making forecasts themselves. But, nonetheless, their work is highly respected worldwide.”

Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank, said that it was clear that economists could never be entirely accurate in their predictions about the future.

But he said that, contrary to Mr Rees-Mogg’s implication, the OBR had previously had a record of painting an overly rosy picture of the economy, rather than being excessively gloomy.

“The OBR has historically been over-optimistic consistently on the economy,” said Mr Johnson. “The economy has actually done worse than the OBR has suggested”.

He added: “Of course they matter. It’s really important for credibility, which has become so important over the last few weeks, that we have these official forecasts and the chancellor responds to that by saying: ‘This is how I see my fiscal policy’.”

Earlier in the day on Thursday, Mr Rees-Mogg said that figures from the Office of National Statistics could not be relied upon and suggested that the Bank of England might be to blame for the market panic which followed the chancellor’s mini-Budget.

His views were given short shrift by economic experts.

Nigel Peaple, director of policy and advocacy at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, said the market turmoil was “caused mainly by the mini-budget (and) uncertainty about the government’s plans”.

Deutsche Bank’s chief UK economist Sanjay Raja said the mini-Budget was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

And Financial Times US editor-at-large Gillian Tett, responded to Mr Rees-Mogg’s remarks by telling Channel 4 News: “To use a non-technical term, that’s pretty much bollocks.”

Resolution Foundation chief executive Torsten Bell said: “If you spend the summer telling people you are intending to abandon fiscal orthodoxy, if you then announce a package that dumps fiscal orthodoxy, then if you say on Sunday you are going to keep doing it, then I don’t think it should be a surprise to any of us that this is where you end up.”

to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

From now on we can expect Simon to become an even more loyal supporter of this shameful government. Especially with its selective policies on levelling up and growth:

emphasising growth through investment zone tax breaks rather than long-term investment in the infrastructure we are all crying out for;

deregulation across the board to encourage “build,build, build” housing development at all costs [loose talk from Kwarteng having spooked the bond markets, causing interest rates to rocket and kicking the housing market over a cliff];

local government chronically starved of cash, with Devon County on the brink of bankruptcy.

Despite this “eyes and ears” appointment being unpaid, Simon has de facto accepted Truss’ shilling and joined the sinking ship.

Not a good time, nor a good cause, to start climbing the greasy pole.

From Simon Jupp MP’s web page:

I have been appointed a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It’s an unpaid, non-ministerial role. With a new PM, there’s a lot to cover – including levelling up, national planning policy, overseeing local government, and introducing more devolution with deals being discussed in Devon and Cornwall. As your MP, East Devon will of course come first.

Boris Johnson faces questions about whether $150,000 speech broke rules

Boris Johnson is facing questions over whether he followed rules on paid employment after leaving No 10 after receiving $150,000 (£135,000) for a speech to a group of US insurance brokers.

Rowena Mason  www.theguardian.com

The former prime minister gave a speech to the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers in Colorado Springs this week, only just over a month after leaving Downing Street.

Johnson did not seek approval from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before giving the speech. Sources close to the former prime minister suggested there was no need because it was a one-off.

Former ministers need to apply for permission to take up outside employment only if they have signed an ongoing contract with a business, such as a speakers’ agency. Cabinet ministers are also expected to wait three months before taking up employment.

Johnson was recently added as an available speaker to the website of an agency called the Premium Speakers Agency but his profile disappeared and those close to him claim he was mistakenly listed.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, challenged Johnson to prove that he has stuck to the rules.

“Boris Johnson might claim that this was just a one-off but the rules state that ex-ministers … joining agency circuits or scribing newspaper columns must submit an application before accepting them.

“The disgraced former prime minister and now part-time MP once again has questions to answer about whether he has followed the rules he was once responsible for.

“The anti-corruption watchdog was already toothless, but under the Tories, it’s been muzzled and neutered, leaving an open door to former ministers who want to line their pockets as soon as they leave office. Labour will clean up politics by ensuring proper and enforceable sanctions for rule breaking and banning former ministers from lobbying government for at least five years after they leave office.”

The Times reported on Wednesday that Johnson’s Colorado speech was greeted with a standing ovation. He made jokes about it having been expensive for him to have been born in the US – he renounced his US citizenship in 2016 but prior to that had faced hefty tax demands – and gave his assessment of the situation in Ukraine.

His appearance involved a 30-minute speech and a 45-minute “fireside chat” but no questions from the audience.

Johnson also set up his own office this week, likely to be the vehicle for accepting earnings, registering The Office of Boris Johnson Ltd with Companies House.

Johnson previously broke Acoba rules when he failed to declare a column from the Daily Telegraph after leaving office as foreign secretary.

However, there are no formal sanctions for a breach of the rules, leading to accusations that Acoba is a toothless watchdog.

John Penrose, Johnson’s former anti-corruption tsar, has suggested ministers should have to sign legal deeds agreeing to abide by Acoba’s rules before taking office.

He told the Guardian earlier this year: “Acoba isn’t fully legally binding at the moment, and it ought to be. So what [the Boardman review] has suggested is that civil service contracts should make Acoba’s decisions binding and, because ministers aren’t technically employees, the equivalent for them is that they sign a legal deed that says: ‘I will be bound by the decisions of Acoba.’ It’s a nice, simple way of giving Acoba the teeth and claws it needs.”

The mystery of who killed the economy?