Owl has been “on the wing” all day and out of contact. 

Owl has now literally fallen off the perch on catching up. Seems to sum up the state of the Tory party nationally and locally.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Conservative MP accused of watching pornography in the House of Commons chamber has been named as Neil Parish.

He has been suspended from the parliamentary party and is under investigation by Parliament’s standards commissioner.

Two female colleagues complained earlier this week after allegedly seeing him looking at adult content on his phone while sitting near them.

Mr Parish said he had referred himself for investigation.

If the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, finds that he has violated the code of conduct for MPs, possible sanctions range from having to make an apology to the Commons to suspension or expulsion.

Questioned by the BBC, Mr Parish said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and would await Ms Stone’s findings before commenting on the allegation.

When asked if he made and mistake and opened something on his phone in error, he said: “I did, but let the inquiry look at that.”

In a statement on his website, Mr Parish said he would “continue to perform my duties as MP for Tiverton and Honiton” while the investigation was ongoing.

In an interview with the Times, Mr Parish’s wife, Sue Parish, said the allegation was “very embarrassing” and described her husband as “quite a normal guy and “a lovely person”.

She said she did not see the attraction of pornography and understood why the women who made the allegation were upset.

“I’m a woman,” she was quoted say saying. “Hence why the women were so cross. It’s degrading. It’s demanding. But on the other hand it takes two to tango. There must be women posing for all this.”

But veteran Labour MP and former deputy party leader Harriet Harman told the BBC the allegations marked a “new low for the House of Commons”.

She said Mr Parish should stand down as an MP immediately if he watched porn in Parliament, adding: “It’s not right for him to go through the investigation processes if that’s what he’s done.”

And Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: “If Boris Johnson had any shred of decency left, he would tell Neil Parish to resign immediately.

“In any other workplace this would count as gross misconduct and the person responsible would lose their job.”

Who is Neil Parish?

• The 65-year-old, an MP since 2010, was a Member of the European Parliament for South West England from 1999 to 2009
• He left school at 16 to manage his family’s farm and, in 2000, was an election monitor during Zimbabwe’s parliamentary election
• He opposed Brexit in the 2016 referendum and voted against the introduction of same-sex marriage by David Cameron’s government
• Mr Parish is married and has two children and two grandchildren

It emerged on Wednesday that a female minister had reported seeing a male Tory MP viewing pornographic material while sitting beside her in the Commons chamber.

A second female Tory MP said she had tried but been unable to capture video proof of him doing so.

A Conservative spokesperson said Mr Parish has been suspended from the party whip pending the outcome of Ms Stone’s investigation.

Conservative chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris has already asked for the matter to be referred to Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.

Mr Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, in Devon, chairs the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

The investigation does not prevent him from continuing in that role.

Environment committee member, the SNP’s Kirsty Blackman, said she was “shell-shocked” and that Mr Parish “absolutely shouldn’t remain as chair”.

“I hope this does not detract or distract from the good work the committee has done and continues to do,” she added.

Conservative MP Pauline Latham also suggested Mr Parish should be removed as chairman of the select committee.

Meanwhile, fellow Conservative MP and former Home Office minister Karen Bradley said she hoped Mr Parish would “do the right thing and not come into Parliament” now an investigation was under way.

Mr Parish was quizzed by GB News earlier this week about allegations an MP had been caught watching porn.

“I think the whips’ office will do a thorough investigation, and we will wait and see that result,” he told the channel.

“I think from that then the decision will have to be made what action to be taken.”

The claims against Mr Parish follow a series of allegations about other MPs’ behaviour.

International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said on Friday that she had once been “pinned up against a wall” by a male colleague and subject to misogyny and “wandering hands” on numerous occasions.

Attorney General Suella Braverman told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour there had to be a discussion about “moral standards”, complaining that a minority of men in politics “behave like animals”.

And a Welsh MP alleged that a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet had made lewd remarks to her.

Owl has upgraded Mark Hawkins’ comment on East Devon leader attacks Tories’ Russian links to this full post below:

Before commenting on this piece it’s important to say that plenty of conservatives are decent, honourable, public spirited intelligent people.

Others, as we see here are touched by rather less warmth and fewer brain cells. It can be very difficult when one has had a sense of entitlement and a taste of certainty to realise the public chose to wake up and smell the gravy. It can provoke unreasoned, childish unpleasantness.

Most independent politicians in my experience have less personal ambition than those who choose the party route. I can name two very good local ones who have stood as Independents but were persuaded to join the conservative group because that group’s unchallenged dominance offered the chance to achieve more of their priorities. They both achieved within a relatively short time the previously unsought office of mayor.

Some of the current Independents have significant achievements in their principal careers. The majority were motivated to stand for local government because of a distaste for aspects of how things were, a consequence of a lack of electoral balance and of democratic accountability.

It took three electoral cycles for this movement to achieve success and a further year to overcome the mischief of careerists. These won’t be seen as achievements, more as establishing the opportunity to achieve.

I don’t know any of them well, but have never detected any sense of the politics of envy. No jealousy of legitimately gained success, financial or otherwise. Though I recognise a commonly shared distaste for illegitimately gained wealth, home and abroad, through plundering of the public purse and significantly flawed procurement processes which apparently benefit a targeted few.

It is surely legitimate comment to question the advertisement, for a significant salary, for a campaigns director. If I were a local conservative voter on the minimum wage or universal credit I would want to know why a group which believed itself to possess the collective talent to manage our community’s affairs felt it necessary to employ someone for three times my family’s income to make the case they should surely be capable of themselves.

In the incumbents I have recognised a desire to put the community first and on occasion right wrongs. The presumably anonymous author of the spiteful assassination belittles their achievements, so I will note a few, in a couple of cases noting the shaming distortions of their critic. Coming out of the first lockdown and working remotely they worked to resolve problems with the licensing issues in the Strand, Exmouth, whilst sustaining the appropriate duty of care to the officers on the ground. The tories on the three councils had the opportunity to resolve this over 10 years ago but left the area a hotch potch of ownership and licensing. Stuart Hughes should remember this, he was the lead councillor on the project. Now they seek to exploit it.

The new regime have also resolved recent mistakes in this area caused by the excessive corporate zeal of an outsourcing company, inappropriately tasked by the old guard, who are once again seeking to exploit their own mess.

The new regime have also worked with honourable members from all groups to resolve one of the more distasteful wrongs of the last administration and return Warren View sports ground to it’s rightful place as the home of a community football club. Many residents of Exmouth are well aware now of what really went on in 2016/17 so no need to dwell unless pressed.

Another success achieved in harmony with other groups is to address the functioning of the complaints procedure, which had been used to bully opponents of the dominant group and fallen into disrepute with them and the public. It is still not fully transparent, but I understand Cllr Twiss was a participant in the improved process, which must be a positive.

One endeavour of Cllr Arnott with limited success so far but which has apparently enraged one or two conservatives is his compassionate desire to achieve for the victims of John Humphreys some understanding of how the cesspit of that man’s past remained hidden for over thirty years from the first known offence and still remains substantially concealed. To achieve this requires the active participation of a number of organisations.

This was not mentioned in the conservatives’ anonymous character assassination.

According to Private Eye:

THE global nuclear industry is lobbying in overdrive, evidently with great success in No 10, the major European nuclear incumbent EDF well to the fore. Unfortunately for the French firm, its failings advertise themselves loudly. At home, France is suffering the highest electricity prices in Europe, which have blown clean through its price cap.

This is down to major operational difficulties with the large fleet of EDF nukes. Output is at historic lows and France, traditionally an exporter of electricity, is now importing.

Here, EDF’s efforts to build Hinkley Point C are coming unstuck again (Eyes passim), with more delays and cost increases – it’ll now be a mere 10 years later than originally planned. Blaming Covid and Ukraine, in fact EDF has badly misjudged the size of the construction workforce it needs.

Financial disclosures in France suggest EDF fears its Chinese partner in the Hinkley project may not stump up its share of the new cost overrun, and also that EDF has run out of cash on its Sizewell project, for which it now desperately needs the government to contribute. Why will EDF’s assessment of the problematic bedrock at Sizewell (Eye 1527) prove any better than at Hinkley? How any of this rationally justifies Johnson making a “big bet” on more nukes, and on EDF at Sizewell in particular, is anyone’s guess.

For example:

“One city care home manager says that the sector was thrown into a ‘nightmare’ by the ‘policy failure’, while a Portsmouth MP has slammed the government’s ‘callous neglect’ of vulnerable people.”

City care sector faced ‘nightmare’ due to government’s ‘failure’ as High Court rules policies allowing untested hospital patients to be discharged into care homes to be ‘unlawful’

[Anyone heard any “slamming” from either Neil Parish and Simon Jupp or even an apology? – Owl]

Emily Jessica Turner www.portsmouth.co.uk 

In early 2020, patients were rapidly discharged into care homes without testing – despite the risk of asymptomatic transmission – with government documents showing there was no requirement for this until mid-April.

In a ruling made today, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that policies contained in documents released in March and early April 2020 were unlawful because they failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission of the virus.

The government’s actions in allowing patients to be discharged into care homes at the start of the Covid pandemic has been declared unlawful as it did not take into account the risk of asymptomatic patients spreading the virus

They said that despite ‘growing awareness’ of the risk of asymptomatic transmission, there was no evidence that Mr Hancock or anyone advising him addressed the issue of this risk to care home residents in England.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by The News in 2020 revealed that 25 patients with the virus were sent to care homes from hospital as the pandemic hit.

The 25 discharged from Queen Alexandra Hospital and confirmed as having Covid were among nearly 400 released between March 1 and April 15 – with 206 placed in the community with no records held at QA of testing.

Steve Bonner is chairman of the Pompey Pensioners Association, a group calling on the city’s MPs to lobby government for change.

While he welcomes the High Court’s ruling, Steve believes it is crucial to ‘learn our lessons’ from what happened.

He said: ‘It’s belated, but better late than never.

‘It’s a situation that we shouldn’t have been put in – hospital beds being cleared and people being put in an area where there were vulnerable people being put at risk.

Andrea Pattison outside St Ronans Care Home. Picture: Habibur Rahman

‘With the benefit of hindsight, it was an extremely dangerous move and no doubt significantly increased the number of deaths.

‘We’re the group that were put most at risk by that sort of activity.’

At the time, then health secretary Matt Hancock promised that a “protective ring” had been put around care homes nationally.

Andrea Pattison, owner of St Ronan’s Care Home in Southsea and member of the Hampshire Care Association, said: ‘The sector has been fully aware that there was no “protective ring” thrown around care homes – we’ve lived and worked through that nightmare together, and our amazing staff and residents did an outstanding job in the crisis.

‘It’s heartening to see that this element of policy failure is now recognised as such by law.

‘What we need now is accountability and chance – there’s a lot of talk of reform but we need changes that recognises people’s dignity and treats them with respect.

‘We need better funding in the system’.

Portsmouth South’s MP Stephen Morgan says that ministers ignored ‘alarm bells’, despite claiming to have thrown this “protective ring” around city care homes.

He added: ‘This is yet another sad reminder of how many people in our city needlessly died because of government’s callous neglect of the services we all rely on.

‘Ministers cannot claim they weren’t warned at the time and now they cannot claim to have acted to save lives. They broke the law and people died.

‘The government owes it to bereaved families in Portsmouth to make sure that this never happens again.’

Dave Sheppard, Bluewater Care Home in Buckland, said: ‘We were very fortunate and we avoided Covid. Our infection control was really red hot.

‘We put extra staff on, we were extra vigilant – we even purchased an extra spray machine and we got an extra cleaner to clean every surface.

‘There was loads of pressure – all of it could have been better dealt with.

‘It was difficult for every care home and for the residents.

‘Policies were changing by the week, and sometimes by the day – what was perfectly okay one day was illegal three days later.’

Roger Batterbury, chairperson of Healthwatch Portsmouth, said: ‘It’s very upsetting to the many families that have suffered as part of the government’s decisions during the height of the pandemic.

‘Healthwatch Portsmouth has always advised the public to follow the science and Government guidance on testing and social distancing.

‘The news of the High Court ruling though will clearly make uncomfortable reading for many people and trigger still-raw emotions.’

One person who spoke to the Healthwatch Portsmouth chairperson earlier today and who has been through this and lost a parent was very angry.

Roger added: ‘Today’s High Court ruling supports his concerns at the time about the government’s disregard for safety in their decision and the impact it had on patients relating to the practice of ‘no prior testing for COVID on hospital transfers’ of patients to Care Homes.

‘At HWP we feel deeply for the people still suffering or for whom this has brought back difficult emotions, we would advise anyone affected by the impact of today’s news to seek help.’

Penny Mordaunt MP has been approached for comment.

Or at least ask questions about how they justify pressing on with the Shandford care home closure during March 2020?

In Wednesday’s ruling the High Court found that two government policies were unlawful: the March 2020 Discharge Policy, which led to an influx of patients into care homes to free up hospital beds, and the April Admissions Guidance, which provided care homes with advice on admissions of people from hospitals. 

This ruling concerns the movement of patients from hospital to care homes with no testing or isolation period.

Here is what Owl wrote on 28 March 2020 questioning the wisdom of moving frail and vulnerable care home residents from one home to another to meet a commercial objective as Covid-19 raged, infection rates doubling every three days:

Despite a national lockdown care home residents are being shuffled from one home to another.

“Abbeyfield appear intent on moving two frail residents from Shandford on Monday to other care homes, despite the country being in lockdown.  

Owl has been deluged by local comment since this story appeared on-line a couple of days ago. This is Owl’s attempt at putting these in context.

The country is in a form of lockdown described as: stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives, allowing limited movement outside the home for essential purposes.

This week the most vulnerable were sent a letter instructing them to stay at home and not to move outside for any reason. These would have included the sort of vulnerable centenarians, resident in the Abbeyfield “Shandford” care home.

Yesterday, the national restrictions were further tightened when healthy people contracted to move house, even as soon as this weekend, were advised not to.

Despite this national emergency, Owl understands, Abbeyfield are intent in moving the frail and vulnerable out of Shandford to meet their self imposed deadline to close the home. Apparently, at least two are scheduled to leave on Monday. When the safety of this has been questioned the reply given by Devon County Council is that this is in accordance with “existing protocols” . [To a correspondent via email]

Owl finds this incomprehensible. Unfortunately, Covid-19 has breezed through “existing protocols” which is why we are facing an uncontrolled epidemic with infections doubling every three days. Covid-19 is spread by person to person contact. Shuffling people around is recklessly irresponsible, “existing protocols” must be torn up and common sense applied or our collective attempts at achieving control will fail.

To date Covid-19 restrictions appear to have kept Shandford open for longer than Abbeyfield intended. Owl understands that Shandford could have been saved. Amica Care Trust had made approaches to take over the home. Simon Jupp MP had tried to facilitate this.with no success. A local “Save our Shandford” organisation could have formed the nucleus of providing a local source of fundraising. An attempt at creating a Community Interest Company to take Shandford back into local control has been frustrated by Abbeyfield’s refusal to disclose details of the 2012 deed of transfer, when local control was ceded to Abbeyfield. 

Owl has been told all monies will be returned to the Town when the site is sold. So Owl is puzzled by why Abbeyfield appears intent on “realising the assets” at the start of an economic crash, rather than transfer it to Amica or back to local control as a going concern.

To Owl this appears a scorched earth policy.”

James O’Brien on the government’s care home ‘protective ring’ is a devastating 2 minute listen

Use this link listen to his Tweet

• Russia says it has banned 287 UK MPs from entering the country in retaliation to sanctions.
• Russia’s foreign ministry said the bans are because British MPs are creating “Russophobic hysteria.”
• The list only includes 286 names, with one MP duplicated, and a number of no longer serving politicians listed.

Today’s Western Morning News reports a number of Devon MPs on the list including Luke Pollard, Johnny Mercer and Sir Gary Streeter, along with former Totnes Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston.

Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions shortly after the list was published, Boris Johnson said those on the list “should regard it as a badge of honour”.

Full list can be found here

From yesterday’s Politico London Newsletter

Today’s Times splash has astonishing revelations of the ways people misused and abused the COVID loan scheme that was set up to support businesses during the pandemic, up to the extreme of Border Force officials stopping people carrying suitcases filled with COVID loan cash at airports. In another example, a builder obtained the maximum COVID bounce-back loan of £50,000 by claiming his firm had turned over at least £200,000 the previous year — when prior to receipt of the loan his firm’s account balance stood at £2.72 in credit. The builder then admitted he spent the loan playing poker. Well worth reading the full investigation by George Greenwood and James Hurley here.

[Lord Agnew resigned in parliament (January) after £4.3bn write-off, saying oversight of loans scheme had been ‘nothing less than woeful’]

Sajid Javid used an offshore trust while working as an MP in the heart of the Treasury – but did not declare it in the register of members’ interests, The Independent can reveal.

Anna Isaac www.independent.co.uk

As the then chancellor George Osborne’s parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in 2011, Mr Javid – now health secretary – played a key role in selling the Coalition government’s austerity policies to MPs.

But at the same time, Mr Javid was using a trust, understood to have been located in a tax haven, to cut his personal tax burden. He also served in the Treasury while the government launched a consultation on policies covering non-doms and overseas trusts in December 2011.

Earlier this month, Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status before entering politics and to having had an offshore trust, but it is only now that it has been revealed that he did not declare the trust as an MP and PPS.

The ministerial code states that while PPSs, who act as ministerial aides, are not technically members of the government “they must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their role as a parliamentary private secretary, and their private interests”.

It was only on becoming a government minister in 2012 that former banker Mr Javid revealed more details on the extent of his overseas assets and how they were managed.

“If Sajid Javid held money in an offshore trust while he was part of the Treasury, it would raise further questions about decision making in this government,” said James Murray, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury.

“It is rank hypocrisy for senior ministers to defend the tax hike hitting working people this year, when they have spent so many years avoiding their fair share of tax themselves.”

Earlier this month Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status to cut his tax bill after The Independent revealed that Akshata Murty, the chancellor’s wife, exploited the same route to cut her tax bill in the UK. Ms Murty subsequently decided to pay tax on her worldwide income in the UK, but has retained non-dom status.

Offshore trusts and use of non-dom status are entirely legal methods of limiting taxes.

Mr Javid’s trust was not listed in his entry in the register of members’ interests in 2011, but he did declare a shareholding in Deutsche Bank, his former employer.

A spokesman for Mr Javid declined to say if the assets in the trust – which Mr Javid said in a statement he dissolved in 2012 – included these Deutsche Bank shares as well as other assets, including shares in different companies. They also declined to say whether this trust was operated as a blind trust or under a blind management arrangement, or say where it was located.

The health secretary did not collapse the offshore trust until the year after he entered the Treasury. He stopped making use of the controversial non-dom tax status in 2009, before entering politics.

“Sajid has been very open and transparent about his previous tax status in the UK and when he lived abroad. He has nothing further to add,” a spokesman for the health and social care secretary said.

When he dissolved his trust, Mr Javid, incurred a rate of 50 per cent tax, which he claimed offset any “accrued benefit” from the financial arrangement.

He also said that he had always declared the information required by tax, governmental, and parliamentary authorities.

“The public has a right to know which ministers have benefited from tax avoidance arrangements and how much money they have saved as a result,” Mr Murray said.

“While the Tories are raising taxes on working people as inflation and energy bills soar, Labour would make the tax system fairer. We would abolish the outdated ‘non-dom’ system, so that everyone who makes their home in Britain pays tax here on all their income,” he added.

The fresh examination of the timeline laid out by Mr Javid reveals he was at the government’s political front line, selling tough austerity policies to Tory backbenchers in the aftermath of the financial crisis, while exploiting mechanisms to protect his wealth.

During his time as a banker, Mr Javid – himself a former chancellor – was linked to Dark Blue Investments, an employee benefit trust in which staff were paid share bonuses via trusts to avoid tax. The supreme court ruled that tax ought to be paid on these bonuses.

Experts have queried Mr Javid’s use of non-dom status, given that he was born in the UK and therefore would have had to declare that he did not intend to live in the country in the long term.

The debate was held on Wednesday and the record can be found here

The purpose of these debates is simply  to raise the profile of the issue being discussed. A Minister has to be present and respond.

Here are just a few extracts:

Sir Geoffrey Cox (yes him, the rich baritone and defender of tax havens)

(Torridge and West Devon) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation at the moment allows landlords to buy up good residences in towns such as Barnstaple and Bideford, register themselves as businesses, apply for small business interest rate relief, pay nothing to the community, either in council tax or business rates, and provide very little by way of employment, and that that racket has to be stopped?

Selaine Saxby 

(North Devon) (Con)

…I believe that we also need to go beyond just tackling business rates on short-term holiday lets; we need to tackle the inequalities between mortgage relief on long-term and short-term rentals, which are viewed as capital assets. Their profits are taxed differently, as returns on capital. Both types of property were built as homes, and they should be taxed comparably. Without a register of short-term holiday lets, I imagine that many are paying no tax at all, which is another opportunity for the Treasury. This is a step that could be taken rapidly to make the private rental sector more appealing to landlords, which is ultimately a step that we need to take quickly in order to begin to provide more housing in the south-west….

…..Will my right hon. Friend the Minister commit to assist our planning departments to reverse building where appropriate, to stop building properties solely for holiday lets or second homes, and to have a clause that exempts people from living there full time? It is one thing for holiday parks, which are designed that way, but actual housing is being built with this restriction in place along the North Devon coast. Clearly that is needed on occasion, but as we have such a shortage of long-term housing, can we not focus on this, given that we are short of the other necessary resources—land, builders and materials?

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister also commit to work with the Treasury to look at taxation reforms and how to tackle the issue of empty properties? We have an abundance of them in North Devon, but it is simply not viable for the council to spend its time and resource on tackling this issue. If we could breathe life into empty buildings, we could take steps to regenerate additional housing, without building all over the beautiful fields of North Devon. I keep being told that the councils have it in their remit to convert space above empty shops into homes. Will someone please come to Barnstaple and make that happen? We have so many empty units with huge storage areas, rather than flats, above them, and tackling this issue could transform our town centre as well as provide vital accommodation.

Finally, please can steps be taken to tackle the issue of viability and barriers to councils being able to build developments with more than an 18% social housing component? I know that we English believe that our home is our castle, but far too many of the residents of North Devon worry about not having a home at all. That causes mental health issues, which are exacerbated further by having so many shortages in mental health services, as we cannot recruit to fill the vacancies.

Many Devon MPs made contributions (eg Ben Bradford, Luke Pollard, Gary Streeter and Anthony Mangnall) but, of these, Owl found the brief interjections from Simon Jupp and Neil Parish the least impressive. Readers can check this for themselves.

“East Devon deserves better” Simon.

She said that she was “minded” to issue an intervention notice, which would lead to the sale being blocked.

www.thetimes.co.uk

Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, is poised to intervene in a takeover by the local newspaper group Newsquest of its rival Archant.

Newsquest, which publishes titles including The Northern Echo and the Lancashire Telegraph, sealed a deal last month to buy the East Anglia-based company. Archant, which was sold by the private equity firm Rcapital, owns newspapers including the Eastern Daily Press and Norwich Evening News plus the regional Country Life magazines. It employs 760 staff.

Dorries said that she was “minded” to issue an intervention notice, which would lead to the sale being blocked.

In-depth analysis and comment on the latest financial and economic news from our award-winning Business teams.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport said in a letter to the groups that Dorries has “plurality concerns” over how the merger could impact competition where the two companies operate.

“The merger will see the two largest local newspaper groups in East Anglia combining,” the letter said.

“While news will still be available for consumers from other local and national providers (ie. radio, TV and online) . . . the majority of local newspapers will come under single ownership. Such concentration of ownership has the potential to impact the plurality of views available in local newspapers in East Anglia.

“This risk may be exacerbated by any potential restructuring within Archant’s titles, a possibility that has been subject to press speculation.”

The culture secretary has asked for reports by two watchdogs, the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom, before deciding whether a full investigation is needed by the competition regulator.

East Devon Tories have released a fiery statement accusing the leader of the district council of having “extremely left-wing views” after he suggested potential funding links between East Devon Conservatives and Russian oligarchs. 

Dare to question Tory allegiances and look what nonsense they come up with, not that clairvoyant Owl hadn’t foreseen this sort of thing in February.

Are they getting jumpy?

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Paul Arnott leads the East Devon Alliance (courtesy: Paul Arnott)

Conservatives retort he’s extreme left-winger

In their letter, they accuse East Devon District Council (EDDC) leader Paul Arnott (Coly Valley), head of the Democratic Alliance Group coalition running the council, of having a “remarkable chip on his shoulder” and of appearing to “believe  that any successful businessman can only have done it through dubious means.”

The response follows a column published by councillor Arnott published by the Exmouth Journal last Sunday [24 May]. 

In the piece, Cllr Arnott referred to a previous article he had written which questioned the fundraising tactics of East Devon Conservatives, saying that former East Devon Tory MP Sir Hugo Swire had a “fondness” for raising party funds “at exclusive auctions from close associates and family of Russian oligarchs.”

In his latest article, Cllr Arnott challenged the East Devon Conservatives to “confirm none of their past local campaigning has drawn on their Russian-sourced HQ funding, and confirm that future elections and campaigns will be wholly free of that dirty money?” 

He also asked them to join him “in an appeal to the PM that all Russian cash in their bulging funding pot is returned.”

The council leader also questioned how the local Tory group had obtained the funding for glossy leaflets and a newly advertised role for a campaign manager.

He added: “In some ways, independents such as me should take this as a compliment. The Tories have obviously lost all confidence in their local ability on the ground to run any kind of campaign.

“Lucky them, though. People like me standing have to raise every penny for leaflets on our own, with a tiny amount of help in my case from my group, the East Devon Alliance, with the odd sign or placard.”

In response, East Devon Conservatives published a blistering statement on Wednesday [27 April] stating they only receive money from membership fees and donations from local residents and local fundraising activities. “There is no national (still less international!) money provided for local Devon campaigns”, they added.

Defending their leafleting campaign and new campaign manager job they said: “East Devon Conservatives more often than not have employed professional campaign staff with money being raised locally and the recent job advertisement is nothing unusual. 

“From time to time, we issue newsletters to residents and not just at election time. We believe residents should be kept informed.”

The rebuttal then goes on the counter-attack, criticising EDDC’s recent decision to double car parking charges in 21 council-run seaside car parks, describing the move as “arrogant and insensitive”. The council also raised fees by 50 per cent in five other ‘prime location’ car parks. 

The council leadership has defended the rise, the first in 12 years, saying it was needed to raise £1.1 million extra a year to help pay for essential public services.

The Tory statement also criticises the council’s leadership for its handling of rent charges for businesses wanting to offer outdoor seating at Exmouth’s town centre square, the Strand.

The issue was resolved last month after the council backtracked on its initial proposals, eventually reaching “mutually agreeable rents” between the vendors and the council.

The statement slams the independent group for hiring new council staff “whilst apparently lacking the resources to pay for them” and for spending thousands of pounds on an unpublished Local Government Association report on an employment dispute. [See this EDW post for the explanation of this particular attack levelled in the Tory leaflet “Keeping in Touch; and this post for the most hypocritical.]

[Their announcement concludes: “Being a so-called independent should mean that you are open to working with everyone, yet the mask slips all too often with the East Devon Alliance Party.

“Cllr Arnott would be wise to concentrate his columns on his council’s achievements rather than attack others. We understand that may mean we see fewer of his contributions.”

Owl fact checks the PM’s reply

Source: www.theguardian.com 

Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem) asks if the PM will apologise to the families of people who died in care homes, and to care worker staff, in the light of today’s court ruling.

Johnson says he wants to renew his apologies, and sympathy, to people who lost relatives in care homes in the pandemic.

He says the government did not know much about the disease at that point. It did not know how easy it was for the disease to spread asymptomatically.

On the court judgment, he says the government will study it carefully.

Fact check from report of judgement:

The judges said the risk of asymptomatic transmission had been highlighted by people including Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, in a radio interview as early as 13 March.

“Non-symptomatic transmission would mean that one elderly patient moved from hospital to a care home could infect other residents before manifesting symptoms, or even without ever manifesting symptoms,” they said.

A woman [Cathy Gardner] whose father died from COVID in a care home has said government claims a “protective ring” had been thrown around residents at the beginning of the pandemic were “a lie”.

news.sky.com 

Dr Cathy Gardner said her father Michael Gibson died at the age of 88 at a care home in Bicester in April 2020 and took legal action against Health Secretary Sajid Javid, NHS England and Public Health England.

High Court judges ruled government policies on discharging patients from hospital to care homes at the outset of the pandemic were “unlawful” because they failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission of COVID.

Dr Gardner told Sky News she “realised something was badly wrong” and wanted to “hold the government to account” because they had “not protected my father” – and strongly criticised claims made by the then health secretary, Matt Hancock.

She said: “They haven’t protected my father and other residents in care homes and I wanted to hold the government to account.

“When secretary of state Matt Hancock said that he’d thrown a protective ring around care homes right from the start – I heard him say that on television and my chin nearly hit the floor because all of us who were involved in any way with care homes at the start of the pandemic knew that was absolutely not true.

“It was a lie. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.

“They didn’t do anything to protect my father, there was no help given to care homes and the death toll in those first few weeks of the pandemic was catastrophic.

“I think they never imagined they were going to be found out. You only have to look at the parties (in Downing Street) to realise they never think they’re going to be found out.”

‘We don’t believe they did anything’

She added: “I think at the time Matt Hancock made that statement about the protective ring, the death toll in care homes was already horrendous.

“I think he was under attack and he felt that he needed to say that they’d done this even though blatantly they hadn’t to those of us who were there at the time and knew.

“They should have taken steps to protect the most vulnerable people. Measures should have been put in place. We don’t believe they did anything.

“There’s no evidence ever been provided that they did anything. Matt Hancock unfortunately made a statement which is untrue.”

Dr Gardner said she holds “many parts of the government responsible” and believes the “focus” at the time was “very much on the NHS”.

She added: “I was really shocked when it was suggested to me that my father had COVID.

‘I never blamed the care home’

“He got ill in March 2020, it was so early. The idea that he caught COVID in his care home just seemed almost impossible to me at the time.

“I never blamed the care home, never – and I don’t blame myself – I trusted that he would be safe in the care home and they did their absolute best.

“But the government had the responsibility and they had the legal duty.”

Dr Gardner’s High Court action was taken with Fay Harris, whose father Donald died – and they had asked two judges to make declarations that unlawful decisions were made.

Lawyers for Mr Javid, Public Health England and NHS England wanted the women’s claim dismissed.

A government spokeswoman had said in a statement outside court during the hearing that “we worked tirelessly to protect the public from the threat to life and health posed by the pandemic and specifically sought to safeguard care homes and their residents”.

Heart felt congratulations from Owl!

Covid: discharging untested patients into care homes was unlawful, says court

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

The government policy towards care homes in England at the start of the Covid pandemic has been ruled illegal, in a significant blow to ministers’ claim to have thrown a “protective ring” around the vulnerable residents.

The high court judgment was sought by two grieving daughters, Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris, who lost their fathers to the virus in care homes in spring 2020. Michael Gibson died aged 88 in Oxfordshire on 3 April 2020 while Don Harris died aged 89 in Hampshire on 1 May 2020, both after outbreaks in their care homes.

More than a quarter of all deaths among care home residents in March and April 2020 involved Covid-19 – more than 12,500 people. Lawyers for Gardner, 60, and Harris, 58, had argued in a judicial review the government did the “very opposite” of the claim by then health secretary, Matt Hancock, that “right from the start we have tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes”.

After an almost 22-month crowdfunded legal challenge to the legality of policies advanced by the health secretary, Public Health England and NHS England, the verdict was handed down on Wednesday.

Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham said: “The decisions of the secretary of state for health and social care to make and maintain a series of policies contained in documents issued on 17 and 19 March and 2 April 2020 were unlawful because the drafters of those documents failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission.”

As ministers and officials pushed to free up space in hospitals by discharging 25,000 hospital patients into care homes, government guidance issued on 2 April 2020 said negative tests were not required prior to transfers.

The daughters had argued the failure to protect care home residents was among the most “egregious and devastating policy failures in the modern era”.

During proceedings government lawyers denied any policy failure and told the court that scientists did not advise of “firm evidence” of asymptomatic transmission until mid-April 2020. They said fears of hospitals becoming overwhelmed were “far from being theoretical” and that ministers had to balance competing harms amid enormous challenges.

The judges said the risk of asymptomatic transmission had been highlighted by people including Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, in a radio interview as early as 13 March.

“Non-symptomatic transmission would mean that one elderly patient moved from hospital to a care home could infect other residents before manifesting symptoms, or even without ever manifesting symptoms,” they said.

“The judges found that it was irrational for the DHSC not to have advised until mid-April 2020 that where an asymptomatic patient (other than one who had tested negative for Covid-19) was admitted to a care home, he or she should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for 14 days.”

The court dismissed the other aspects of the case brought by the claimants, including claims under articles 2 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, and a claim against NHS England.

We already know that our “cold fish”: East Devon Tories, and two MPs Neil Parish and Simon Jupp; are opposed to any more subsidies for LED, the “standalone” company that runs EDDC leisure facilities. Indeed, they are currently attacking the Democratic Coalition in their latest Tory “In Touch” leaflet for doing so during the pandemic, despite having subsidised LED themselves ever since they set LED up in 2006.

If you haven’t read this odious little gem, it will be popping through your door soon.  See local Tories sink into nauseating hypocrisy 

Matthew Weaver www.theguardian.com 

Heating bill increases of up to 150% will lead to the widespread closures of UK swimming pools without an emergency government bailout, ministers have been told.

Campaigners say that even if financial help is provided, swimmers will have to accept colder pools and higher prices.

The sport governing body Swim England and ukactive, which represents gym and pool operators, met the sports minister Nigel Huddleston on Tuesday to make an urgent plea for emergency funds to keep pools open.

Speaking before the meeting, the Swim England chief executive, Jane Nickerson, said: “We need some acute support now. At the moment swimming is not viable unless it’s supported. Our real worry is that doors will just shut because operators will find they can’t afford to run their pools. We need a bailout now because you can’t suddenly make a pool energy efficient.”

The chief executive of ukactive, Huw Edwards, agreed. He said: “Fitness and leisure operators are reaching tipping point as rising energy costs bite, forcing them to consider price rises, service restrictions or permanent closure. Pool operators, in particular, are facing huge bills, with hundreds of facilities across the country just months away from closures and service restrictions.”

The fear of widespread closures comes after the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, who is building a private pool in his North Yorkshire mansion, ignored calls for a long-term strategy to keep pools open as part of his spring statement.

Nickerson said public pools were struggling to cope with a total energy bill of £1.25bn this year compared with £500m in 2019, at a time when the sector was still reeling from forced pool closures during lockdown. “Providers have run their reserves down to cope with the pandemic,” she said.

One of the biggest public pool operators, GLL, which trades under the name Better, says its energy bills have increased by at least 150% since April 2019. Its chief executive, Mark Sesnan, who attended Tuesday’s meeting, said: “We are heading for a crisis and it needs urgent action. The minister went away with a clear message that we need something to be done. Although he was clear that he would struggle to make a special case to the Treasury.”

Sesnan added: “People need to realise that this is a real and present danger to swimming in the UK. And it will be very difficult to maintain the current stock of pools. The business model has been completely disrupted. Just to meet the energy price increase we need an extra £1 for every person who uses a pool.”

He said the public would also need to accept “more realistic” prices of about £7 or £8 a swim, as well as reduced opening hours and more stringent temperature controls to save on heating bills.

Nickerson said: “Letting people swim in wetsuits is fine for someone like me doing lengths, because I can swim fast to keep warm. But you can’t teach children to swim in cold water – parents won’t take their kids if they see their teeth chattering.”

She added: “If you shut the doors on these pools now you are losing out on kids learning to swim. You won’t die if you don’t learn to kick a football, but you can certainly drown if you don’t learn to swim.”

She is also worried that price rises could make swimming unaffordable for many families. Nickerson said: “We don’t want public pools to become like private health clubs. It should be an activity for everyone, not just for those who can afford it.”

Edwards pointed out the wider health benefits of swimming. He said: “More than 1 million children missed out on swimming lessons during the pandemic and many people’s physical and mental health deteriorated without access to pools and gyms. We need the government to act with urgency to support pools and gyms so that our nation’s health inequalities do not widen any further.”

Pool closures, or threatened closures, have already been reported, including in Halifax, Newport, Shropshire, Falmouth, Croydon and Keswick.

Even before the increase in fuel prices, a report by Swim England last September estimated that 40%, or 1,868, of the 4,336 public pools in England could be forced to close by 2030. Nickerson said: “There was a massive building programme in the 1960s and 70s but those pools have come to the end of their lifespan.”

She said the energy crisis had increased the urgency of replacing those inefficient buildings. “The sector is looking at what it can do to save energy and retrofit buildings. But that won’t happen overnight. And they will also need grants to do it because the payback period is so long,” she said.

A government spokesperson said: “We are in regular contact with Ofgem, business groups and energy suppliers to understand the challenges they face and see how they can best be supported.”

Boris, remember you usually get “Owt for nowt”. Do you understand the urgency? – Owl

Boris Johnson is a big-picture guy. He doesn’t do details. But our prime minister appears to be running short of big ideas on Britain’s cost of living crisis. So he has asked his cabinet colleagues to come up with “innovative” suggestions.

Adam Forrest www.independent.co.uk 

The problem is, their innovative suggestions cannot involve Treasury spending. Mr Johnson told his cabinet he is only interested in cost-free ways to ease the burden of soaring bills and rising prices on hard-pressed families.

Hence the ridicule from opposition parties, who claim that the PM is “completely out of ideas” and that the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is unwilling to provide badly needed help. Is it possible to solve such a lack-of-money crisis without spending more money?

No 10 has hinted at the kind of cost-free things it wants ministers to consider. Whitehall departments are being encouraged to do more to promote existing support schemes that have not been widely taken up.

For instance, the government has estimated that around 1.3 million families could be taking up more support through the tax-free childcare scheme, which offers up to £2,000 a year towards costs.

No 10 has hinted that childcare rules could be changed in a bid to bring down costs – but there is no indication that the amount offered through the tax-free scheme will be increased.

Downing Street is flagging an estimate that 850,000 eligible households are not claiming pension credit, which can be worth over £3,300 a year.

Mr Johnson’s team also pointed at a move to freeze energy bill deductions from universal credit, designed to give claimants a bit more time to sort things out with their gas and electricity providers.

No 10 has not denied reports that the government is considering plans to cut tariffs on food the UK does not produce – such as rice – in a bid to bring down costs for British consumers.

Tinkering at the margins? Perhaps. Will it be enough to ease even the political pressure on the government? Probably not.

Increasingly restless Tory MPs fear that Mr Sunak’s failure to offer more help with bills and benefits at his recent spring mini-Budget will cost the party dearly at the local elections next week.

Backbencher Andrew Bridgen is among those who have said the chancellor may have to consider an “emergency Budget” before the summer recess – something Labour is now demanding.

But Mr Sunak made clear to cabinet ministers on Tuesday that there would be no new money available to spend on measures to tackle living costs.

No 10 says Mr Johnson will hold another meeting to decide on the “non-fiscal” measures “in the next couple of weeks”, with the PM apparently on the same page as the chancellor on holding down debt.

The local elections on 5 May could sharpen minds. If the results are terrible for the Tory party, then speculation about a backbench leadership putsch will hit feverish new heights.

Mr Johnson may find himself knocking on Mr Sunak’s door to ask if he can rustle up a few billion from somewhere to help him – and everyone else – through the summer.

The government plans to axe section 106 agreements in favour of an infrastructure levy, but Richard Harbord warns that consultation paralysis, levelling-up concerns and developer opposition could block any progress.

[Readers may remember the scandal unearthed through FOIs that the then Conservative controlled EDDC were so focused on “Build, build, build”, around 2016, that they had lost track of S106 payments, including uncollected payments. – Owl]

www.room151.co.uk 

There are rumours that central government is planning a reform to the current planning legislation involving the removal of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The understanding is that it would be replaced by a levy on developers.

Originally section 106 agreements required developers to build infrastructure whenever they constructed housing estates. They would be required to provide schools, doctors’ surgeries and any other relevant item that the increased number of residents would need. This became, in many instances, the payment of a cash sum to cover the estimated cost of such infrastructure or contribute towards it.

In many local authorities there are considerable Section 106 reserves where these deposits are held but not immediately used. It has also been used to secure a specified percentage of affordable homes (as defined).

This is not actually a new idea because the proposals in the subsequently scrapped planning white paper were for the replacement of section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a fixed tax on development value paid at the date of occupation.

The government says that it is developing models for a new levy. This, it says, will enable local authorities to capture value from new developments more efficiently. It would be used to finance affordable housing and community infrastructure.

The devil will, of course, be in the detail and consultation will follow. However, an interesting side issue is the government’s tardiness in responding to consultations affecting local authorities. Glacial response times could be another effect of the pandemic, but some are suspicious that there is an unwillingness to deal with politically sensitive issues.

Stuck in the consultation queue

My point is that once the new levy proposals go out to consultation, they may well be stuck in a queue and not reach legislation for some time.

Developers, it has to be said, are not over-excited with the new proposals, arguing that a fixed-rate levy lacks the local flexibility of a section 106 agreement. There is also a feeling that fixed-rate levies may disadvantage certain parts of the country over others and be against the spirit of levelling up.

A figure of £7bn apparently could be raised through the levy, although that sum is not quantified over time a time period. Local authorities will be eager to see how the money is to be distributed and what limits there will be on its use. The spirit of such levies is that they are raised and spent locally. We will not know until we see the detailed consultation.