The Liberal Democrats will target only one of two forthcoming byelections in Conservative-held seats, the party’s leader Ed Davey has revealed, as he said both his party and Labour should focus their campaigns “where they think they can win”.

Michael Savage  www.theguardian.com 

Davey said that he would not make any formal “deals or arrangements” with Labour over how the parties approach the contests, despite pleas for greater cooperation between them. However, he suggested his party would not be putting significant resources into the London seat of Old Bexley and Sidcup, where Labour is the main challenger.

He said that his party would instead be concentrating on North Shropshire, the safe Tory seat vacated by the resignation of Owen Paterson following his official rebuke over lobbying. While rejecting calls for a pact, Davey said Labour and the Lib Dems had the same goal of removing the Conservative government.

“What I see is a party led by Keir Starmer, who shares our view – that we’ve got to remove Boris Johnson from 10 Downing Street,” he said. “They will campaign in areas where they think they can win and we’ll campaign in areas that we think we can win. We have to manage our resources carefully. It’s no secret that we haven’t put all our effort into some byelections. We certainly want to make our case in North Shropshire.”

North Shropshire is an ultra-safe Tory seat with a majority of more than 22,000. The Lib Dems came a distant third at the last election, but the party believes local election results this year show it is now the main challenger. Insiders said there had been no discussions with Labour, but predicted both sides would “organically” recognise that they stood the best chance in different seats.

Labour sources said the party would contest both seats. But the party has a bigger membership base in London, which can be deployed to help its campaign in Old Bexley and Sidcup, where the Tories are defending a majority of almost 19,000 in less than two weeks’ time. Anything other than a Tory win in both seats would be a huge shock, but the Lib Dems believe they can put up a decent challenge in North Shropshire after overturning a 16,000 Tory majority in the Chesham and Amersham byelection in June.

Despite the fact that the North Shropshire byelection was triggered by the sleaze row, Davey said that “health, health, health” was actually the main local concern his party would be focusing on. “I’ve already been there twice and I’m going there a third time this weekend. And we will be ensuring that some of our best campaigners are there. You know parties put resources where they think that there’s a chance, however difficult. This is definitely tougher than Amersham and Chesham. But in the circumstances, with the Conservatives in serious trouble, with Johnson under pressure in a way he’s never been in his premiership, and the fact that we’ve got some momentum locally with a fantastic candidate, I think, why not?

“Ambulance waiting times are the first thing that comes up on the doorstep. Health is top of the issues, and it’s ambulance waiting times, it’s A&E problems, hospital problems and access to GPs. They’re really coming up on almost every doorstep.”

Concerns over the lack of coordination among progressive parties were raised by a council byelection in West Devon last week. The contest took place in the constituency of former attorney general Geoffrey Cox, who was criticised for voting as an MP while he was in the British Virgin Islands advising its government over allegations of corruption. The Conservative council candidate won by a single vote from Labour, after a big increase in the Green vote. The seat had been held by the Lib Dems.

Some figures within Labour and the Lib Dems have called for more explicit cooperation and electoral reform. Officials in both parties pointed out, however, that such an agreement could never be enforced at local level. “Pacts of non-aggression don’t have great reputations,” said one senior Labour MP.

New analysis from better democracy campaigners Best for Britain shows that MPs with safer seats are more likely to hold second jobs.

www.bestforbritain.org 

Of the 643 MPs who take their seats in the House of Commons, 103 currently have second jobs where they have contracted hours or a contractual obligation to provide services and receive personal financial remuneration.

Of this number 87% won their seat with a majority of more than 3,000 votes at the last election and 64% won with a majority greater than 10,000.

The analysis further revealed that of the nine MPs who earn more from their second jobs than from the parliamentary salary, seven have majorities in excess of 17,000 votes and all are Conservative MPs. 83% of all MPs with second jobs are Conservative MPs.

The correlation between second salaries and larger majorities lends weight to the suggestion that MPs are more confident undertaking second jobs for larger sums of money due to their relative security in a future election.

In the context of the UK’s current electoral system where an MP can win with a plurality of votes and where opposition votes are split between at least three parties, better democracy campaigners have criticised suggestions from the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary that voters can realistically regulate the practice by voting these MPs out.

Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain, said

“First past the post delivers disproportionate outcomes, doesn’t represent the majority opinion, and delivers safe seats for too many MPs emboldening those who put personal financial gain ahead of voters. 

“Opposition parties must work together to deliver a government at the next election that will bring our voting system into the 21st century and give the public democratic equality.”

Labour MP, Clive Lewis said,

“By claiming the public can pass judgement on this scandal at the ballot box, the Prime Minister is deliberately misleading people about the reality of elections in the UK where MPs can be elected on a minority of votes, and the opposition vote is split between at least 3 parties.

“First past the post has clearly given some MPs a brass neck and the leadership of opposition parties must accept that the only way they can give the public a realistic opportunity of unseating the worst offenders is by working together to secure a fairer voting system.”

Take action now

Be part of the campaign for better democracy and take action today. Find out how you can make a difference.

Join the campaign for Better Democracy here.

From today’s Western Morning News:

Devon’s economy should get more than £500 million in additional Government support if the county’s hardest hit areas are treated the same as Cornwall.

Analysis for Team Devon shows productivity in six local authority areas is at least as low as Cornwall and therefore should be eligible for the same level of investment from the Government’s planned UK Shared Prosperity Fund which will replace EU funding from April 2022.

In the Budget the Government promised that Shared Prosperity Fund contributions for Cornwall would “at a minimum match the size of EU Funds” but no guarantees have been given for Devon, Plymouth and Torbay.

Team Devon research shows that low productivity in East Devon, Mid Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay, Torridge and West Devon is at least as bad as Cornwall, and the population of the six Devon areas is 612,000, more than the population of Cornwall. Whilst relatively better than Cornwall, productivity in Plymouth, North Devon and South Hams is significantly below the UK average and all areas are struggling with skills shortages and low wages.

If Government simply guaranteed Devon’s local authority areas UKSPF contributions to at least match what they would have received from the EU, they would share around £83.5 million, £11.52 per head, for jobs, skills and business support spread over six years up until 2028. But Team Devon says that if the Government treated Devon the same as Cornwall, that investment would rise to £540 million, £80.19 per head, for the lowest productivity areas and up to £1.13 billion, £155.86 per head, for the whole of Devon, Plymouth and Torbay.

Team Devon is urging the Government avoid the mistakes of the old EU funding system and ensure UKSPF is targeted to help these productivity “cold spots”.

Cllr Rufus Gilbert, Devon’s Cabinet Member for Economic Recovery and Skills, said: “We have no quarrel with Cornwall, Cornwall’s challenges are very similar to those faced by Devon. We simply ask Government to treat the people and businesses of Devon fairly and to put right an injustice which has starved our economy of vital funding.

“For many years Devon, Plymouth and Torbay have missed out on hundreds of millions of pounds of vital economic support because the EU wrapped up the whole of Devon, poorer areas with better off ones such as Exeter which frankly gave a totally false image of Devon’s economy.

“Nor should anyone assume that Exeter, so long the driving force in the Devon economy, is fine as it is. It is vital that Exeter is supported to enhance the city economy, and helped to drive up productivity across the rest of the county.”

Cllr David Worden, Chair of the Devon Districts Forum, said: “Team Devon’s research nails the myth that the severe economic and social challenges facing the peninsula begin and end at the Tamar. If the Government’s Levelling Up policy is going to succeed it has to apply Shared Prosperity funding fairly whatever side of the Tamar you live and work. To do otherwise, risks creating an economic cliff-edge between our two counties.

Insights into events of the first few days of November when Boris Johnson flew back from COP 26 to attend a Garrick Club dinner and subsequently decided to  order his MPs to tear up the parliamentary standards rulebook. – Owl

George Grylls, Political Reporter www.thetimes.co.uk

Boris Johnson has denied he will take legal action over a “completely untrue” story that he joked about his marriage at a Garrick Club dinner.

The New European published a story alleging that he made a “callous jibe” at the gathering of former Daily Telegraph journalists after flying back in a private jet from the Cop26 summit.

The weekly newspaper, set up by pro-EU journalists after the 2016 EU referendum, said Johnson joked that he had “buyer’s remorse” about marrying Carrie Symonds, who is pregnant with their second child. One guest quoted by the paper said: “It was a remarkable thing to say and there were a number of raised eyebrows around the table.” No 10 called the claims completely untrue.

Matt Kelly, the editor-in-chief, said he had received two calls from No 10 threatening to sue him for libel if he ran the piece.

Kelly said in a statement he had a call at 10.30pm on Thursday from — he later found out — Jack Doyle, Johnson’s director of communications. “His opening gambit was ‘Boris Johnson is going to sue The New European for defamation,” Kelly said. “I made it clear that this was not a threat that troubled me greatly and we stood by our story. After a few minutes, the caller eventually told me, ‘You just crack on then, mate’ and put the phone down.

“I texted him, asking him to repeat his threat of legal action and to send across the Downing Street denial. I also asked him, twice, to identify himself, which he refused to do.”

He established the next day that the caller was Doyle. No 10 had to reply to questions about the reports after Kelly’s account. No 10 denied Johnson had joked about his marriage at the dinner. “The prime minister has been clear that he didn’t make those remarks and they are completely untrue,” No 10 said.

Johnson left the Garrick with Lord Moore of Etchingham, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph. Moore was a vocal defender of Owen Paterson, the former MP for North Shropshire, and raised the issue of the disgraced backbencher’s ban for paid lobbying at the dinner, according to some reports.

The next day Johnson ordered his MPs to tear up the parliamentary standards rulebook in a failed attempt to save the former minister. Paterson resigned amid the outcry.

Senior Conservatives on Saturday urged Boris Johnson to ditch plans that would see many of England’s poorest pensioners paying more for their social care – or risk being forced by his own MPs into a humiliating U-turn.

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com 

The prime minister, still reeling from sleaze allegations and fury among “red wall” MPs over scaled-back rail investment in the north, is facing another potentially damaging Commons rebellion at the hands of an increasingly mutinous party.

The Observer has learned that several northern Tory MPs took part in an emergency call set up by care minister Gillian Keegan on Friday afternoon, during which she was said to have been “monstered” by backbenchers complaining that the plans were unfair and had not been fully explained or thought through.

According to MPs in on the call, former Tory chief whip Mark Harper challenged Keegan to produce more detailed analysis of the plans – which neither she nor two civil servants present was able to do. Harper then said it would not be good enough for her to produce details on the day of the vote, which is expected to be Monday or Tuesday.

Tory whips are understood to have been told by several senior Tory MPs that they are considering voting against the plans, or abstaining, unless they are amended to make sure pensioners would not be forced to sell their homes to pay for their care, as Johnson previously promised.

Jeremy Hunt, former health secretary and current chair of the health select committee, said it was “deeply disappointing” that the new plans were “not as progressive” as those put forward by Andrew Dilnot, the economist who drew up the original plans for a cap on individual contributions. He said it would now be up to government to improve entitlements once the cap had been introduced.

Damian Green, the former Tory cabinet minister, who was also on the call, told the Observer that the government should drop the plans and adopt a system that would guarantee that people could retain a percentage of their housing wealth.

“I would urge them to adopt a different approach,” Green said. “I think it would be infinitely preferable to guarantee that people can keep a percentage of their housing wealth rather than having a flat rate applying to the whole country.”

Tory WhatsApp groups were said to be full of comments from MPs – including many in red wall seats – talking about a potential rebellion unless the government backed down.

Last week, when MPs’ minds were focused more on troubles over sleaze and the decision to axe the eastern section of the high-speed rail line to Leeds, ministers announced changes to social care plans which would mean poorer pensioners would not, after all, be able to count means-tested payments by the state for their care towards a total cap of £86,000 for any individual. It is believed the change was made under pressure from the Treasury.

Critics said this meant that while someone who owned a £1m house would be able to protect more than 90% of their asset, someone with a home valued at £70,000, in a less wealthy part of the country, would lose almost everything.

Dr Dan Poulter MP, who works part time as a psychiatrist in the NHS, said that the unwelcome change to the plans was the result of government not having set aside enough money for social care when its main announcements on extra NHS funding and care reform was made in September.

“The initial set of proposals for a £86,000 lifetime cap of social care costs were strong and addressed the injustice of people having to sell their homes to pay for their care, but there were always questions about whether the government’s sums added up,” Poulter said.

“So, while this this policy change is surprising, I suspect it may well have been driven by the realisation that an extra £5.6bn, while welcome, was never going to be enough to meet both the care and workforce challenges in the social care system as well as to properly finance the introduction of an £86,000 cap on care costs. Unfortunately, it will be poorer pensioners who have relatively modest assets that will be most affected by these changes.”

When she announced the plans last Thursday, Keegan said they would “reduce complexity” and ensure that people “are not unfairly reaching the cap at an artificially faster rate than what they contribute”.

Analysis by the Observer shows that almost three-quarters of the seats the Tories won from Labour at the last election will be among those hit hardest by these changes.

Of the 54 seats the Conservatives won from Labour in 2019, 41 have average house prices below that level. In the Burnley constituency, for example, the average house is worth £99,950. In Darlington, it is £135,000 and in Durham North West it is £120,000, according to recent figures from the House of Commons library.

Appearing before a committee of MPs last week, Dilnot said that about 60% of older people who end up needing social care would lose out under the government’s plans.

“The people most harshly affected by this change are those with assets of exactly £106,000,” he said. “But everybody with assets of less than £186,000 would do less well under what the government is proposing than under the proposals we made and that were legislated for. That was a big change announced yesterday. It finds savings exclusively from the less well-off group.”

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “Boris Johnson’s care plans are descending into chaos, with Tory MPs squabbling while ministers admit they haven’t even studied how the proposals disproportionately hammer those with modest assets.

“As civil servants confirm that these changes will clobber some of the poorest pensioners, many in the north and Midlands, Tory MPs must join with Labour in voting down this unfair care con and demand ministers come back with a fair alternative.”

Charles Tallack of the Health Foundation said the average house price in red wall seats of £160,000 meant they were “most likely to be affected by the proposed changes”. The type of people currently using care are also more likely to be worse off under the plans. The majority of people in care are women over 80, who have a median wealth of £156,000.

Devon has seen a “really good uptake” of the covid booster jab, according to a health boss.

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

Nearly a quarter of a million doses (240,000)  have been given out so far to around 58 per cent of eligible people, Dr Paul Johnson, clinical chair of the NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, told a monthly Team Devon meeting of local authority leaders.

He said many of the remaining 42 per cent will also have an appointment booked, “so the real figure of people coming forward for their vaccine at the booster stage is likely to increase.”

It marks a significant shift in tone from last month’s meeting, when Dr Johnson said he was “concerned” about the uptake of booster jabs, with just over 40 per cent of those eligible having received it at the time.

Since then, the criteria for booking appointments has changed. Whilst people still cannot receive a booster until at least six months after their second vaccine, they can now book their appointments after five months.

The eligibility age has been reduced too, with third jabs now being offered to people aged 41 and over. Those who are also more clinically vulnerable and the people they live with, as well as NHS workers, social care staff and care home residents, can also receive their booster.

Dr Johnson says the increase in the number of people turning up at large vaccination sites in Devon for third doses means extra resources having to be put in place, with the number “currently, in some circumstances, exceeding the capacity that we’ve got.”

But he added: “It’s a good problem to have, and it’s one that’s relatively easy to fix by just increasing the resourcing there.”

Locations offering boosters include the Riviera International Centre in Torquay, Home Park football stadium in Plymouth, Exeter’s Greendale on the Sidmouth Road, Newton Abbot Racecourse and Barnstaple Leisure Centre.

The meeting was also told that around 90 per cent of adults over 40 have now had the first two doses of the vaccine, above the national average. Dr Johnson called it “a really good result”.

However, he said there was “still work to be done” in younger age groups, with uptake in ages between 18 to those in their thirties “around about the 75 to 85 per cent of uptake, which is lower than we would like.”

From the Covid dashboard – the latest picture of confirmed infections:

“Arcuri’s decision to cooperate with the GLA monitoring officer reopens the prospect of Johnson facing an investigation for a potential criminal offence of misconduct in public office.”

Mark Townsend www.theguardian.com

A fresh inquiry has opened into Boris Johnson’s relationship with Jennifer Arcuri after the US businesswoman dramatically agreed to assist officials, paving the way for the prime minister to face possible criminal investigation.

Arcuri has formally offered to help the Greater London Authority (GLA) ethics watchdog by allowing it to inspect extracts of her diary entries chronicling her affair with Johnson and agreeing to be questioned for the first time by investigators over the relationship.

The contemporaneous diary excerpts, disclosed in the Observer last week by the journalist John Ware, reveal how Johnson allegedly overruled the advice of staff to promote the business interests of Arcuri and win her affections.

Arcuri’s decision to cooperate with the GLA monitoring officer reopens the prospect of Johnson facing an investigation for a potential criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

In a previous investigation into Johnson’s business relationship with the then 27-year-old Arcuri, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) did not have access to Arcuri’s handwritten diary entries in which she made “verbatim” notes of the highlights of his telephone calls and their conversations.

The police watchdog eventually concluded it would not be launching a criminal inquiry into whether Johnson abused his position as London mayor to “benefit and reward” Arcuri. Investigators also never interviewed Arcuri or received testimony from the tech entrepreneur.

Her evidence is potentially even more critical because the original IOPC inquiry was also hampered by the deletion of key email and phone records at City Hall that prevented the watchdog from “reviewing relevant evidence”.

The latest developments into allegations that Johnson offered to help Arcuri launch her tech business while simultaneously pursuing her for sex will pile more pressure on the prime minister, raising fresh questions over his integrity and lax approach to probity in public life after weeks of sleaze allegations have engulfed his party.

After the Observer last week revealed some of the explosive entries in Arcuri’s diaries, Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, wrote to the GLA’s monitoring officer, Emma Strain, asking that she urgently refer the new evidence to the IOPC to “look again” at its decision to rule out a criminal investigation.

Strain, in turn, contacted the Observer for assistance in obtaining Arcuri’s diaries so she could assess whether the issue was a “serious complaint” that appeared to constitute or involve a criminal offence being committed.

If Strain judges that the issue is serious, she will formally refer the matter back to the IOPC to decide if it will investigate Johnson over the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

After several days of weighing up whether she wanted to assist the GLA, Arcuri finally agreed and at 7pm on Friday sent an email to Strain, head of its ethics watchdog.

“I am prepared to show you or your investigators copies of the relevant pages,” Arcuri wrote. “However, I currently reside in the United States, so it would mean you or they [the IOPC] travelling here for that purpose. In that event, I would also be prepared to be interviewed, if that assists.”

If that is not possible, Arcuri has authorised veteran journalist Ware, with whom she has “entrusted” her diaries, to show investigators relevant pages detailing her business dealings with Johnson.

Arcuri handed the first tranche of her diaries to Ware after the 2019 general election and following his ITV documentary in which he accused the prime minister of having a “tenuous relationship to the truth” after Johnson’s repeated insistence that “absolutely everything was done with full propriety” regarding his relationship with Arcuri. Ware was sent a second tranche of material from Arcuri in May 2020.Ware approached Arcuri after recent comments by Johnson about public probity and she consented to allow publication of some of her diary extracts. One Arcuri diary entry reveals how Johnson offered to be her “throttle” in an attempt to accelerate her business career, claims that may reopen the possibility of Johnson facing a potential criminal investigation into misconduct allegations.

It recalled how Johnson told her: “How can I be the thrust – the throttle – your mere footstep as you make your career? Tell me: how I can help you?”

The diary entries also suggest that Johnson broke the rules governing ethical conduct in public office in his dealings with Arcuri.

Responding to the Arcuri revelations last week, a government spokesperson said: “As mayor, Boris Johnson followed all the legal requirements in the Greater London Assembly’s [sic] code of conduct at the time.”

Interesting to re-read this report from 2017 and what Jeremy Hunt (Health Secretary 2012 to 2018) had to say. 

www.independent.co.uk 

Chart highlights NHS hospital bed shortage crisis in comparison to other European countries

The UK has 273 free hospital beds per 100,000 people, the 24th lowest of 27 European countries

The UK has just 273 hospital beds available per 100,000 inhabitants

Jeremy Hunt has rejected claims the NHS is facing a “humanitarian crisis” and argued that the UK spends more than average for a rich country on the health service – despite having one of the worst hospital bed shortages in Europe.

The UK has 273 free hospital beds per 100,000 people, the 24th lowest of 27 European countries, according to Eurostat.

More than a dozen hospitals have reported that 100 per cent of their beds are in use, with one hospital in Essex remaining without a single free bed in any general or intensive care ward for 27 days in December.

Two patients died on trolleys in A and E and 42 emergency departments were forced to divert ambulances to other hospitals last week, twice the frequency of the same period last year.

The Health Secretary told Radio 4’s Today programme pressures in the NHS was less about overall funding than about consistency of provision.

Jeremy Hunt says only ‘one or two hospitals’ are in trouble despite claims of a humanitarian crisis

He argued that the NHS now had more doctors, nurses and funding than ever, but explained what he called “very serious problems at some hospitals” by suggesting pressures were increasing in part because people are going to A and Es when they should not.

Germany has three times as many free beds as the UK, with 823 available beds per 100,000 people, while France has 621 free beds for the same population.

Only Denmark, Ireland and Sweden have fewer available hospital beds than the UK, which lags behind the EU average of 521 free beds per 100,000 people.

More than 70 per cent of hospital beds are occupied by emergency admissions, according to the King’s Fund, while 80 per cent of patients who stay in hospital for over two weeks are over 65.

Theresa May said an ageing population “brings pressures, particularly in the interface between the health service and social care”.

“Funding is now at record levels for the NHS, more money has been going in,” said the Prime Minister, sparking claims she was “in denial” over how the health service is struggling in real terms.

Peter Brookes Times cartoon: November 20, 2021

The man who first proposed a cap on adult social care costs has said he “particularly regrets” the latest “big changes” the government has made to its plans for social care reform, which he warned will “find savings exclusively from the less well off”.

Jessica Hill www.lgcplus.com

The amendments, which were published yesterday by the Department for Health and Social Care with no fanfare while the government was embroiled in the fiasco over MPs’ second jobs, means that those with fewer assets will be less likely to benefit from the cap.

When the £86,000 cap on the amount anyone would pay for social care was first announced in September, it was expected to include all care costs including means-tested council funding. But now, in a blow to those receiving government help towards their care costs via the means test, only private contributions will be counted.

The announcement is part of what is being viewed as a very complex and wide-ranging set of changes. The Local Government Association is expecting to work with the government in the near future to understand the implications of the overall package.

Commenting on the plans, Sally Warren, director of policy at The King’s Fund, tweeted yesterday: “With the new government model, the state still contributes if assets are less than £100,000 but the cap is set not on total care costs but on how much the individual spends. They would still need to spend £86,000. This is barely better than current system: maximum exposure is £86,000 versus £92,000 under the current system

“It is clear that those with under £106,000 do little better than under current system and a lot worse than under the Care Act [Dilnot proposals]. It’s only when you have more than £186,000 that the government system leaves you no worse off than the Care Act.”

Sir Andrew Dilnot, who first proposed a cap through the Dilnot Commission in 2011, told the Treasury Committee this morning he was “very disappointed” by the changes – which contrast with his own recommendations in 2015 that those who already have social care need should not be expected to make any contribution – effectively what he called a “zero” cap.

“Essentially what this change does is – for those who have long care journeys, significant care needs – [it] means the less well off will not gain any benefit from the cap,” he said.

“The only change as a result of all of these reforms will be that instead of running your assets down to your last £14,250, you’d run your assets down to your last £20,000.

“The people most harshly affected by this change will be those with assets of exactly £106,000 – that is, the £86,000 of cap plus £20,000 that is protected by the means tested system.”

Around 60% of old people who end up in adult social care have assets less than £186,000, and Mr Dilnot claimed all of this group “will do less well under what the government is proposing than under the proposals we made”.

“[The changes] find savings exclusively from the less well off group,” he said. “I regret the main parameters [of the reforms] and I particularly regret the announcement made yesterday which removes a central element of probativity which we did think was an important part of this structure.”

Mr Dilnot also highlighted a “north-south axis”, warning that areas with lower house prices such as Hull are likely to be hit hardest by the changes.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, shared this view. In a statement, she said: “It becomes clear that the cap will disproportionately benefit those living in the south rather than the north, where house prices are that much lower, flying in the face of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.

Mr Dilnot said it was “unlikely to be a significant sum of money” that the Treasury will save through the latest changes, “which is partly what makes me regret the decision”.

But he conceded that the proposals “still take us to a better place than we are at the moment”.

“The cap is less generous than I wanted it to be and the outcome is a bit lower. But nonetheless it moves us from the world we are now, which is an entirely means tested regime which exposes the whole population to catastrophic costs, to for the first time a national risk pool for social care.”

At the committee session, Ms Warren echoed this sentiment, indicating that despite her reservations over the latest changes, the proposals are still “the right overall structure”.

But she cautioned that while the Dilnot Commission incorporated “a whole host of other recommendations”, the government’s own proposals do not. The Dilnot proposals included “the need for a public information campaign so individuals understood what their liabilities were to help them prepare”, she said, and “working with the financial services industry to make sure that different products would emerge to be able to support that individual”.

“We’ve not seen much information from the government on any of those wider set of things which are required to make the system work,” Ms Warren said. “Because if this is going to help people prepare, they need to know about it – it’s not something that they should just find out about as they get the care in.”

She also warned that the social care reforms are “building on an existing means tested system that has been underfunded for over a decade, and remains underfunded”.

“Andrew’s first report in 2011 talked about the importance of the first thing you do being to strengthen the foundations in the current system, then you make these changes to the structure. We’ve not seen that happening at the same time.”

She highlighted Age UK’s claim that as many as 1.5 million people have an unmet care need, and how the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services says £10bn a year is needed to stabilise the adult social care system, in addition to what the government has provided through the levy.

“The spending review has provided 1.8% a year spending power increase,” Ms Warren said. “Normally social care demographic pressures are around 1.82% a year. We’ve also then got additional cost pressures through the increase in national minimum wage, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes on things like energy costs, which we think means adult social care will need considerably more than the 1.8% its being provided.”

Ms Abrahams said the changes announced yesterday make “the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected”.

“It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners who are not terribly affluent if they need care for a long time.

“This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the government has made it – and that it is only announcing it now, rather than two months ago when the prime minister set out his plan. Unfortunately, its impact is such that it is more than a mere ‘tweak’.”

Charles Tallack, assistant director of the REAL Centre at the Health Foundation, said: “While we support the government’s ambitions to reform social care and protect people from catastrophic care costs, these last-minute changes seem poorly conceived and are a step in the wrong direction.”

From Unlock Democracy:

After an immense backlash, the Government has scrapped its plans to replace the independent watchdog that scrutinises and polices the behaviour of MPs.

But the Government’s attack on the elections watchdog continues.

The Elections Bill will end the independence of the Electoral Commission by letting the Government set the priorities for the Commission.

The Prime Minister admitted that he had ‘crashed the car’ with his handling of the Owen Paterson debacle.

With his attack on the Electoral Commission he’s driving it over the cliff.

We have written to the Prime Minister to point out the similarities and ask him to rethink the Elections Bill.

Will you add your name in support of our letter?

To maintain public confidence in our politics, we need effective and independent watchdogs that can keep the Government in check.

That’s why the Government’s plans to weaken the Electoral Commission, and more recently the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, are dangerous.

We cannot let them dismantle the bodies that exist to protect our democracy.

Lord Evans, the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has warned against the Government giving itself new powers over the Electoral Commission.

He said – “It is like giving a toddler a gun – it may not immediately lead to disaster, but it’s an extremely dangerous thing to do.”

That’s why we have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to ensure that the independence of the Electoral Commission is maintained.

If you agree, please add your name in support of our letter today.

Best wishes,

Tom Brake

Director, Unlock Democracy

The health secretary, Sajid Javid, is facing questions over share options he continues to hold in the hi-tech US company he worked for until rejoining the cabinet in June – and which operates in the healthcare sector.

Who voted for weak tweaks to parliamentary standards? – Owl

Heather Stewart www.theguardian.com 

Javid was paid the equivalent of £150,000 a year by C3.ai, a California firm specialising in artificial intelligence (AI), from October last year until he was given the job of health secretary.

As part of his remuneration package, he was also given “an option for 666.7 shares per month”.

According to the health secretary’s current entry in the register of MPs’ interests, he continues to hold these options, which he reports have a market value of approximately £45,000.

The deputy Labour leader, Angela Rayner, has written to the prime minister’s ethics adviser, Lord Geidt, to ask him whether this represents a conflict of interest.

“In September, the secretary of state’s department announced that the use of AI would shorten waiting lists in our NHS,” she wrote, suggesting the idea the Department of Health could spend taxpayers’ money on AI “could clearly be perceived as beneficial to an AI company”.

The ministerial code states that “ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interest”.

Employee share options usually allow the recipient to buy a set number of shares at a predetermined price, sometimes on a particular future date.

Their value fluctuates with the company’s share price, so they are used to give staff an interest in the company’s value appreciating. Details of when Javid’s options can be cashed in have not been published.

C3.ai is a California-based tech firm which floated on the New York Stock Exchange in December 2020. Among nine industry sectors listed on its website, it includes “healthcare” and “government”.

It has a UK subsidiary, and is now recruiting sales and marketing staff in the UK. Javid advised the firm on “the global economy, geo-politics and market opportunities”.

The NHS was already increasing spending on AI before Javid arrived in post, but he recently highlighted its potential role in tackling health injustices.

“Technology, particularly AI, can be an incredible force for good. It can save valuable clinician time and help provide faster, more accurate diagnosis, so patients can access the care they need as quickly as possible,” he said. “It can also help us better understand racial differences so we can train our workforce to look for different symptoms or complicating factors, diagnose faster, and tailor treatments.”

Javid held the post at C3.ai alongside another advisory role, with US bank JP Morgan from August 2020 to June 2021, for which he was also paid the equivalent of £150,000 a year. He took up that role six months after resigning as chancellor. Javid previously worked for JP Morgan before entering parliament. Both of these jobs were cleared with the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs for former ministers.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said: “The secretary of state has acted in line with the ministerial code and has properly declared these share options in the usual way.”

Aides suggested he had begun the process of divesting himself of the options when he became health secretary, but that the process was difficult because the market for share options is not very liquid.

Javid unexpectedly became health secretary in June, when Matt Hancock resigned after being caught on camera in a clinch with Gina Coladangelo, a longtime friend who had been brought on to the DHSC’s payroll.

From a correspondent:

Once again the South West has missed out, in spite of Grant Shapps on Spotlight, a couple of days ago, telling us to “wait and see”.

The North and Midlands are shouting and screaming, despite receiving money from the transport swag bag. It is not enough. They need more to get their economy going.

Why is it that politicians in the South West are not “shouting and screaming” that our economy needs to get going and better transport might possibly help?  Yes, we have had the Restoring Your Railway Fund, launched in January 2020 of £300 million. This is peanuts – just think of the billions being sunk on HS2 and London’s Cross rail. 

Or perhaps they think that the London Waterloo to Exeter SINGLE TRACK is not a deterrent to economic growth. Are they happy with rail movement west of Exeter along the peninsula?

So what was Grant Shapps surprise present? Well, a letter from Boris endorsing the “Great South West has the raw materials to supply the rest of the UK with low carbon green power”.

What are these raw materials? Land for Solar Farms? Land for Wind Farms? I, amongst many others, had thought the “Great South West” was one of the prime agricultural areas of the Country. 

Or does this refer to exploitation of the “Golden Opportunity” we are supposed to be enjoying from Hinkley C which seems to have had little or no economic impact on Devon and Cornwall? 

It looks suspiciously like that this will be a very inexpensive option for the government, a bit of Magic Sauce and Catchup Ketchup.

Until we all stop voting for anything wearing a blue rosette it seems that the South West will always be the last in the line for government handouts. Just look at the 2019/20 funding per pupil in Devon. It was £4,395 compared to the national average of £4,689, a difference of £294. This gap has widened from £268 per pupil below the national average in 2018/19.

The situation has been described as ‘unprecedented’

Philippa Davies www.sidmouthherald.co.uk 

An urgent review is to explore the crisis in the South Western Ambulance Service and the issues that are causing it. 

A Devon County Council task group will look into the reasons for the extremely high demand on the service and the delays at hospitals that are hitting ambulance response times.

The review was secured by the county councillor for the Otter Valley, Jess Bailey, at a meeting of the health and adult care scrutiny committee on Thursday, November 11. 

The emergency service has been under extraordinary pressure for 18 months and since June this year has been on ‘black alert’ – the highest level. 

An executive director of the ambulance trust, Jess Cunningham, who attended the meeting remotely, described the situation as ‘unprecedented’. 

The committee heard of the serious problems around handover delays at acute hospitals, particularly at Derriford and Torbay, which has worsened significantly in the last twelve months. They were told: ‘there is definite patient harm being created’ and the environment for ambulance staff is ‘incredibly difficult’. 

Cllr Bailey proposed what is known as a ‘spotlight review’ – an in-depth consideration of a service by a small group of councillors who take evidence from relevant people and organisations. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Martin Wrigley and the committee resolved to undertake a review, looking at the delays in transfers, response times, impact on patients and personnel and the role of the NHS 111 service. 

Cllr Bailey said: “An urgent Spotlight Review is very important in order to understand the specific challenges faced by our ambulance service here in Devon.  

“The report from SWAST confirmed what I have long suspected. Paramedics are having to wait hours to admit patients to hospital. Ambulance services provide a link between the NHS – primary, community and secondary care. Pressure on ambulance services reflects the crises across the whole system and shines a light on the situation facing the NHS.” 

She said the latest data, published last week, shows that average response times to the most serious cases has continued to increase in the South West in October. The past six months has seen an increase in average response time from 8 minutes and 3 seconds to 11 minutes and 48 seconds.   

Cllr Bailey said “A Spotlight Review will enable a close examination of the issues that were touched on in the Scrutiny Meeting which are contributing to pressure on SWAST, including handover delays, and issues around community urgent care, and the 111 service.” 

Correspondence from Chris Wakefield:

Aggregate Industries’ quarrying plans for Straitgate Farm (Ottery St Mary) will shortly stagger to a final reckoning at DCC on December 1st. As planning applications go, this one features such a wealth of shortcomings and unanswered questions that Councillors due to pronounce on it are spoilt for choice in how to condemn it. The most glaring contradiction lies between Devon’s declared climate emergency and AI’s incomprehensible plan to haul up to 1.5 million tonnes of Straitgate gravel (20% of which is useless waste anyway) 23 miles to Hillhead for processing – a plan about as sensitive to the climate emergency as the felling of rain forest. By any rational planning process this alone would render the application dead in the water, but institutional inertia in Devon County’s climate emergency response, its habitual resort to greenwash, and the inadequacy of a planning system built for a pre-climate crisis era could be enough, despite its obvious inadequacies, to violate the fundamental moral imperative to reject it.

I think I’m too old to contemplate sticking my face to the road in protest (doesn’t appeal much anyway), but this is in my manor, and I am disturbed that my local authority might not rise to the occasion, even to protect our shared living environment.

The writer Ben Okri says he must ‘write as if these are our last days’. I agree that a sense of extreme emergency is immensely important, because these could be our last days – unless we are all prepared to take appropriate action. If our elected representatives don’t feel that urgency – and the moral responsibilities that come with it – they’re in the wrong job.

The plan has been described as something from the 19th Century by local councillors.

The owners of South West Water, the Pennon Group, are the authors of a report aimed at levelling up the South West, recently praised by Boris Johnson. So is this a glimpse of the future, overdevelopment and inadequate infrastructure? – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

South West Water has apologised to the customers affected

A village flooded by sewage 11 times this year may be offered portable toilets as a short-term solution.

Some residents of Clyst St Mary, Devon, have been unable to use toilets for up to 60 hours at a time due to sewage overflows.

The plan has been described as something from the 19th Century by local councillors.

Matt Crabtree, engineering director at South West Water, said the company will “deliver the right permanent solution”.

Earlier this month, South West Water wrote to Bishops Clyst Parish Council to request a list of properties left without flushable toilets because of problems with the sewers and offered to provide portable “camping-like” toilets as a short-term solution.

Conservative Councillor Mike Howe, of East Devon District Council, said the suggestion was “hard to believe in a modern society”.

He added: “If it was the 1800s you’d sort of understand it. I struggle to understand it in this day and age.”

Mr Howe also wants all development in the West End of East Devon, to be halted until South West Water sorts out the sewage problems.

The firm has previously struggled to keep up with demand on its services, with 42,000 raw sewage discharges in 2020 alone, according to the Local Democratic Reporting Service.

Mr Howe and East Devon Conservative MP Simon Jupp recently met with South Water executives, who promised to provide monthly updates on sewage problems in the area.

“Extensive” repairs

In a letter to Bishops Clyst Parish Council, Mr Crabtree apologised to customers who had been impacted by the drainage issues.

He added: “We are continuing to investigate the cause of the issue and have been making a number of improvements to the sewer network and to the Clyst Honition pumping station, as well as adding and moving monitors to help trace the root causes.

“We are committed to delivering a permanent solution which will involve detailed works and upgrades to our network.

“These repairs will be extensive and will cause disruption to the area and because of this, we want to be absolutely sure that we have traced the cause to deliver the right permanent solution for the community.”

Letter to Guardian spells it out.

You report that “A&E staff have struggled to find beds for patients because the hospital has run out of space as a result of Covid-19, because of an inability to discharge patients who are medically fit to leave, or due to the record demand for care” (NHS patients dying in back of ambulances stuck outside A&E, report says, 14 November). Aren’t you missing the elephant in the room? The reason A&E staff are struggling to find beds is that the beds aren’t there any more. When the Conservatives came to power in 2010 there were 169,681 hospital beds in the UK. By 2020 the Tories had slashed that to 131,795. Hospitals aren’t coping because the Tories are destroying the NHS.

Denis Beaumont

Wombourne, Staffordshire

More promises heading to the bonfire. – Owl

www.independent.co.uk 

‘Red’ rating means programme faces ‘major issues’ which ‘do not appear to be manageable or resolvable’

The pledge of 40 new hospitals was a key part of the 2019 Conservative election campaign.

Boris Johnson’s pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 has hit fresh trouble after being judged “unachievable” by a watchdog.

The project – already dogged by criticism that most schemes are refurbishments, rather than new buildings – has been given a “red” rating by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA).

It means there are “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

Sources told the Health Service Journal that the IPA carried out two reviews of the programme in the last six months, the latest review – completed this autumn – resulting in the “red” rating.

The IPA’s 2020-21 annual report gave it an “amber/red” ranking, which meant the successful delivery of the project was “in doubt”, but the forecast had now worsened.

The department of health and social care acknowledged the “red” rating and has been asked to respond to fears that the pledge – a key part of the 2019 Conservative election campaign – appears doomed.

Labour pointed to the revelation emerging one day after Mr Johnson “sneaked out social care changes” that will force poorer pensioners to pay higher care bills.

“We learn the government’s own Infrastructure and Projects Authority is warning the Tory promise to deliver 40 new hospitals is now ‘unachievable’,” said Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary.

“From failing to stamp out corruption, betraying the north over rail and now more broken promises over health and care, the Tories simply can’t be trusted to deliver any of their promises.”

The promise of 40 hospitals came under fire almost immediately, when the bill was put at as high as £24bn – while the Tories refused to specify the cost or where the money would come from.

It then emerged that, of the 40 projects, the majority were not in fact new hospitals but were rebuilding projects on existing sites, or the addition of extra units.

Last summer, it was revealed that health bosses had been ordered to ensure that any such building scheme “must always be referred to as a new hospital”.

The instruction was contained within instructions sent to NHS trusts called the New Hospital Programme Communications Playbook, also leaked to HSJ.

Sajid Javid, the health secretary, was embarrassed when he said he was looking forward to opening a “new” hospital – when the cancer care centre had been planned before Mr Johnson’s 2019 pledge.

The HSJ also reported that the Cabinet Office has drafted in a former transport infrastructure chief in Australia to speed up the programme.

Developers are “gorging” on greenfield sites in rural areas to build despite a record amount of brownfield land being available for construction, a charity has said.

www.independent.co.uk 

A report by the CPRE, an organisation that aims to protect the countryside, said there is enough brownfield land in England to accommodate 1.3 million homes.

Despite this, CPRE said “wasteful and immoral” developers are choosing to concrete over greensites because it is cheaper. Emma Bridgewater, the charity’s president, is calling for councils and planners to take a “brownfield first policy”.

“We need to direct councils and developers to use these sites – often in town and city centres where housing need is most acute – before any greenfield land can be released,” she said.

“It is wasteful and immoral to abandon our former industrial heartlands where factories and outdated housing have fallen into disrepair. Developing brownfield is a win-win solution that holds back the tide of new buildings on pristine countryside and aids urban regeneration at a stroke.”

In The State of Brownfield, CPRE’s latest study, the charity says there are enough derelict sites in London alone to build 350,000 houses.

Meanwhile in the north west there is enough brownfield land available for developers to build around 170,000 units.

The report highlighted two cases in Manchester which it said were examples of how development in inner cities is slow . It said the former Boddingtons Brewery site in the city has been awaiting development for 15 years.

Despite the increasing availability of brownfield land, planning permission permits for building on green sites are soaring, CPRE said

The proportion of brownfield housing units with planning permission is the lowest since records began – down to 44 per cent  in 2021 from 53 per cent in 2020 – and the actual number, at 506,000, is the lowest for four years.

Ms Bridgewater said she welcomed the recent “warm words” from the government to protect green sites but wants to see more action on a brownfield first policy.

Andy Street, the Conservative mayor for the West Midlands, said the priority for housing “has to be providing homes that are much needed” while protecting the “greenbelt for future generations.”

“That’s exactly what we’re doing here in the West Midlands,” he added. “The simple fact is there is no excuse to destroy the countryside while so much brownfield land is available for housing, which is why in our region we use the cash we’ve won from government to pay to clean up derelict industrial land.

“This is vital in the context of protecting our natural environment so it can help in the fight against climate change while levelling up our towns and cities so that they are thriving, attractive places to live and work – with nature on the doorstep to be explored and enjoyed.”

Prime minister Boris Johnson has previously pledged to encourage more housing in the north and Midlands to alleviate stress in the overheating market in London in the southeast.

Earlier this year, Mr Johnson was forced into a U-turn by his own MPs following a backlash controversial planning reforms unveiled in the Queen’s speech, which critics said would turn swathes of the south into an urban sprawl.

Downing Street later in the Budget announced a £1.8 billion fund to regenerate brownfield land for 160,000 homes, with Michael Gove, the new “levelling up” secretary responsible for housing has emphasised the need to build on brown sites.

A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: “We welcome the CPRE’s commitment to focus on brownfield, which is an absolute priority for the government.”

So no promises of money for rail or road improvements in the South West. The carrot he is reported as dangling is to “support” “greening” the South West. The greening report, however, was  written by none other than one of the main polluters of our rivers and seas, the Pennon Group. See:

South West Water says now is the time to create a “green jobs” G7 legacy

“Pennon, the South West’s biggest employer and parent company of South West Water, has written a report on behalf of the Great South West calling for the region not to be overlooked in the Government’s plans to level up the country. The report demands a “green jobs boom” to stop the brain drain of talented young people leaving the region.”

Are we all about to pay for a “clean-up”? Why is a monopoly utility group leading on economic regeneration? – Owl

Boris hints at ‘powerhouse’ decision as South West kept waiting

Hannah Finch www.cornwalllive.com 

Boris Johnson has told the South West it must continue to wait for news about the region’s £45billion ambition to become the UK’s ‘natural powerhouse’.

The Prime Minister, in an exclusive letter to our sister print title the Western Morning News, which has been spearheading the #BackTheGreatSouthWest campaign, hinted at good news on the horizon.

The PM writes that the Levelling Up White Paper, due to be published by the end of this year, will provide ‘an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks’.

But he has made no firm commitments and a campaign leader today declared: “The region has already been waiting too long”.

Mr Johnson’s comments come in response to a letter to Number 10 sent by Bill Martin, the newspaper’s Marketplace Publisher, and Editor Philip Bowern in September. They urged him to act on his warm words about the Great South West campaign.

At the time, business leaders said they were ‘beyond frustrated’ at the lack of action on their business case which they say will transform the region, delivering £45 billion of economic benefit and establishing the region as the UK’s leader for the green and blue economy.

In his letter, sent in September, Mr Martin explained how it has been five years since the #BackTheGreatSouthWest campaign was launched with the region’s biggest private sector employer Pennon Plc and the backing of MPs, business leaders and LEPS.

The Great South West Partnership set out how it has the potential to become the ‘UK’s Natural Powerhouse’ in its Securing the Future prospectus and presented it at 10 Downing Street in 2019.

The deal asked the Government for £2million over three years to progress its ambitions but nothing has yet come of it.

In his letter, Mr Johnson said that he is a supporter of the greater South West and recognised the work that had gone into the campaign.

He said: “The Government is a passionate supporter of a greater South West and I recognise the work that partners have put into the prospectus, maintaining the partnership and securing the support of MPs, local government and others.”

Mr Johnson added that the Levelling Up White Paper “is an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks, whilst providing the right framework for delivering these ambitions”.

But Mr Johnson’s response still falls short on the reassurances that the region is expecting, said Mr Martin.

“The Prime Minister appears to recognise that the Great South West is an opportunity, and his reply seems to indicate this will soon be recognised by Government. The trouble is that the region has already been waiting too long and that is preventing the region from realising its full potential,” he said.

“However we shall await the white paper and will continue to lobby on behalf of the region.”

Business leaders have expressed concern that the rural South West, including Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset that is represented by the Great South West, will be overlooked in favour of its nearest cousin – the Western Gateway – covering Bristol, Bath, Gloucester and parts of Wales, including Cardiff.

They fear that the Government will want to deal with one entity only when considering the needs of the South West.

But it is not as simple as that, said John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council.

He said: “The economic challenges faced by the Great South West are a world away from Bristol, Bath and Swindon, and demand special recognition by Government in terms of productivity, wages and life chances.

“Our communities have been the poor relations for far too long, but the potential for the Great South West to be England’s green powerhouse is huge.

“Levelling Up is the Government’s golden opportunity to unleash that potential.”

Gary Streeter, co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Great South West, said further delay is holding the region back.

He said he had recently explained to the Minister for Levelling Up, Michael Gove, that the Western Gateway area does not wish to expand its territory to include the four counties within the Great South West.

“The Government is beginning to recognise the contribution the Great South West can make to Net Zero and the Plan for Growth but we continue to be concerned that Government is focused on our metropolitan areas and doesn’t recognise the huge levelling up challenges particularly to our coastal and rural places.

He said: “Although we can all understand the need for coherence. There is every hope that we will get the right result, but the delay is holding our region back in maximising its unique potential.”

A report published in September called Levelling Up the South West by thinktank Onward warned against a ‘one size fits all’ policy when considering the differing needs across the South West.

And in the Autumn Budget, big transport cash was reserved for areas with metro mayors, including £540m for the West of England Combined Authority (Weca) region – or £568 per head – for public transport in the Bristol and Bath region.

The South West did secure some vital funding in the Autumn Budget including investment through the British Business Bank for South West SME businesses, a major road improvement project in Plymouth and £48.4m for improved Isles of Scilly ferry transport links.

David Ralph, chief executive of the Heart of the South West LEP, said that it is time for the Great South West to get similar funding and recognition as its urban cousins.

He said: “The Western Gateway have clearly set out they have no appetite to extend the borders and that doing so would not be helpful to either area.

“We are collaborating effectively on areas of common interest on the Bristol Channel and aerospace but the Great South West needs to operate on a level playing field with similar funding and recognition. Then we can work directly with Government to accelerate our ambitions rather than continue to operate on the basis of good will and no funding or support.

“The proposition of the Great South West is genuinely as a powerhouse. Whilst other areas in the UK are looking to use power to try to transition to a low carbon economy, the Great South West has the raw materials to supply the rest of the UK with low carbon green power from its huge resource of untapped natural capital. It’s time to back the Great South West.”

Boris Johnson’s letter in full

“The Government is a passionate supporter of a greater South West and I recognise the work that partners have put into the prospectus, maintaining the partnership and securing the support of MPs, local government and others.

“The upcoming Levelling Up White Paper will set out bold new policy interventions that will improve opportunities and boost livelihoods across the country as we build back better from the Covid-19 pandemic. It will also look at how the Government can best work with local institutions. This is an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks, whilst providing the right framework for delivering these ambitions.

“I am pleased that the forthcoming White Paper will present an opportunity for councils and local government to be at the very heart of the Levelling Up agenda. Moreover, with the completion of the review of Local Enterprise Partnerships, we will have a greater understanding of how the Great South West can best work across local institutions.”