Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Boris Johnson trying to ‘take down’ standards watchdog, Keir Starmer says

Keir Starmer has accused Boris Johnson of trying to “take down” the standards watchdog for his personal interests as Downing Street made a new bid to stop the regulator investigating the controversy around his flat refurbishment.

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

The Labour leader said Johnson was leading the Conservative party “through the sewers and the stench lingers,” highlighting a pattern of behaviour where the government “goes after” those charged with enforcing the rules.

Days after Johnson was forced by a public and party backlash to abandon attempts to overhaul the standards watchdog, No 10 argued on Monday that the prime minister did not need to declare how much he was loaned by a Tory donor to make over his Downing Street flat.

The commissioner, Kathryn Stone, is set to rule within weeks on a potential investigation into whether Johnson properly declared the funding as an MP. She will decide after the Electoral Commission finishes its inquiry the Conservatives’ role in helping to fund the £50,000-plus refurb.

But on Monday Johnson’s spokesman said the matter was declared in the list of ministerial interests and said there was no need for the prime minister to have registered it on the list of MPs’ interests as well – putting it outside the remit of the commissioner.

Asked if the prime minister believed Stone should be able to investigate the flat refurbishment, the spokesman said: “Obviously it’s a matter for her on that. The interest, as you know, has been transparently declared by the prime minister following advice from Lord [Christopher] Geidt, the independent adviser.

“And the Commons rulebook is very clear that such ministerial code declarations do not need to be double-declared. And the flat was clearly a ministerial matter, as the PM only occupies it by virtue of his office.”

A Downing Street source dismissed Starmer’s accusation that the prime minister had tried to “take down” Stone, claiming it was “not true”.

Labour has repeatedly called on Stone to investigate whether Johnson should have declared a loan from a Tory donor, David Brownlow, to fund his flat redecoration. The cost has never been formally confirmed, although party accounts showed it covered a £52,802 “bridging loan”, which was later paid by Lord Brownlow and subsequently repaid by Johnson.

An inquiry by Geidt, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, found Johnson had acted “unwisely” by not taking enough interest in the funding of the renovations, but not broken any rules.

“It is not for the prime minister or cabinet ministers to decide what the independent anti-corruption commissioner investigates,” said Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader. Stone has previously investigated Johnson three times, including an inquiry into the funding of his holiday in Mustique by a Tory donor and the late registration of financial interests.

Johnson was absent from parliament as MPs debated the Westminster sleaze scandal on Monday, where several Tory MPs were among those criticising the government for its efforts last week to overturn a 30-day suspension for Owen Paterson, a Conservative backbencher who broke the lobbying ban.

In the process, the government also tried to announce reform of the wider standards system for MPs, proposing that John Whittingdale, a cabinet minister and former boss of Johnson’s wife, Carrie, should be put in charge of the shake-up. But the move was abandoned after a backlash among the public, media and MPs.

Starmer said: “It wasn’t a tactical mistake, an innocent misjudgment swiftly corrected by a U-turn. It was the prime minister’s way of doing business. A pattern of behaviour.

“When the prime minister’s adviser on the ministerial code found against the home secretary, the prime minister kept the home secretary and forced out the adviser. When the Electoral Commission investigated the Conservative party, the prime minister threatened to shut it down. And when the commissioner for standards looked into the prime minister’s donations, the prime minister tried to take her down.”

With the prime minister taking the train back from a hospital visit in Northumberland, it was left to Stephen Barclay, the Cabinet Office minister, to expressed “regret” in the House of Commons for the government’s misjudged attempts to change the rules.

Johnson refused to apologise for the furore over standards in an interview earlier in the day. But several Tory backbenchers were unimpressed with his refusal to attend. Mark Harper, a former chief whip, said: “Politics is a team game. It’s essential to work with your colleagues to deliver anything. But if the team captain is to expect loyalty from the backbenchers and for minsters to listen to the direction of the team captain, they deserve that decisions are well thought through and soundly based.

“As on this occasion … if the team captain gets it wrong, then I think he should come and apologise to the public and to this house. That’s the right thing to do in terms of demonstrating leadership.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

4 Questions Boris Johnson Needs To Answer Right Now

Boris Johnson has been heavily scrutinised in the past few weeks for his handling of sleaze within his own party, rising Covid cases, and his own rather lax approach to major environmental issues in the UK.

Kate Nicholson www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

The prime minister has repeatedly refused to answer direct questions on these pressing problems for weeks, to the growing frustration of the public.

Here are just four questions Johnson needs to answer right now.

1. Why won’t you apologise to the public over the Owen Paterson debacle?

All Tory MPs were whipped to vote against suspending fellow Conservative MP Owen Paterson last week.

The independent watchdog advised Parliament to suspend Paterson for 30 days after he was found guilty of lobbying on behalf of two companies which both paid him to be a consultant outside of Westminster.

While Paterson was initially let off, furious public backlash triggered a surprising U-turn from the government just the day after the Parliamentary vote.

Paterson then resigned but questions remain over how the government chose to back a former Tory cabinet minister rather than the traditional disciplinary process for MPs.

His critics have asked if the prime minister has any integrity at all after the ‘sleazy’ events on last week.

But when pressed over the case on Monday, Johnson said: “I don’t think there’s much more to be said about [the Owen Paterson] case, I really don’t.”

He refused to apologise on three occasions during a TV interview with the BBC.

Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer said: “Boris Johnson does not have the decency either to defend or apologise for his actions.”

2. Why did you not appear in the Commons to debate changing the MPs’ watchdog?

Johnson did not field questions from the despatch box in the Commons on Monday when MPs were voicing their concerns over changing the Parliamentary Standards Committee, an amendment championed by Tories just as Paterson was found guilty last week.

He claimed he could not attend the emergency three-hour debate because he had a prior one-hour engagement in a north-east hospital.

On Monday, Johnson said he was returned to London by train and so would not be able to attend the debate as he would not be in Westminster for its start at 4.30pm.

It did not escape many people that Johnson had actually used the least environmentally friendly method of transport when leaving the climate summit COP26 in Glasgow and travelled by private jet last week, just so he could go for dinner with a friend.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said the hospital engagement had been in his diary since before the Tory sleaze debate erupted last week.

Asked by a reporter if he regretted “the huge error of judgement” to “rewrite the Parliamentary rules” – as a way to prevent Paterson’s suspension – Johnson dodged the question and said: “I’m here to look at what we’re doing to encourage people to get their booster jabs.” 

3. How will you address accusations of more Tory sleaze linked to the House of Lords?

Johnson has so far refused to comment on the joint investigation between The Sunday Times and Open Democracy which found Tory donors who gave £3 million or more to the Conservative Party would become peers in the House of Lords.

Johnson did dismiss claims that he had already decided to make Paterson a peer after throwing him under the bus in his U-turn last week, and said: “There’s been absolutely no discussion about that.”

4. Why will you not wear a mask in crowded areas, despite advising the public that they should do so?

The government has repeatedly called for people to wear masks in crowded, indoor environments but has stopped short of making it mandatory.

Even so, the prime minister appears to have gone against his own advice repeatedly.

Cabinet ministers have previously claimed that it’s fine for them not to wear masks when together because they all know each other well.

Even though this argument does not stand up when it comes to curbing Covid transmission, the prime minister has also been seen not wearing a mask when surrounded by people he doesn’t know, such as at COP26 when sat next to 95-year-old national treasure Sir David Attenborough.

Even during his hospital visit on Monday when he was surrounded by medical staff in masks – and vulnerable patients – Johnson was photographed without a face covering.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Planning applications validated by EDDC for week beginning 25 October

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Comments

1 Comment

New Tory sleaze row as donors who pay £3m get seats in House of Lords

The Conservative Party has been accused of abusing the honours system by systematically offering seats in the House of Lords to a select group of multimillionaire donors who pay more than £3 million to the party.

Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott, Tom Calver www.thetimes.co.uk 

An investigation by The Sunday Times and Open Democracy reveals that wealthy benefactors appear to be guaranteed a peerage if they take on the temporary role as the party treasurer and increase their own donations beyond £3 million. In the past two decades, all 16 of the party’s main treasurers — apart from the most recent, who stood down two months ago having donated £3.8 million — have been offered a seat in the Lords.

Among them was Peter Cruddas, a billionaire whose peerage was pushed through by Boris Johnson against the recommendation of the Lords appointments commission. One of the commission’s members has broken the panel’s silence over the process, saying the prime minister’s decision to “override what we did … left a bad taste in my mouth”.

The role of Conservative treasurer has become the most ennobled job in Britain — ahead of holders of the great offices of state, leaders of the country’s institutions and charitable organisations and even former prime ministers.

As well as Cruddas they include the City millionaires Lord Spencer, Lord Fraser, Lord Lupton and Lord Farmer, who were ennobled in the past seven years. The mining mogul Sir Mick Davis turned down the offer of a peerage.

Farmer said it had become “a tradition” for Conservative prime ministers to hand out a peerage to the holder of the party’s top fundraising role. The former vice-chairman of the party Lord Brownlow was also given a peerage in 2019 shortly after his donations to the party topped the £3 million mark.

The alleged use of seats in the Lords as an arm of party fundraising is particularly controversial because — unlike other honours, such as knighthoods — peers fulfil an important role in the legislative process as a check and balance for new laws.

There is widespread concern in the Conservative Party about the way successive prime ministers have abused their control over appointments to the Lords by rewarding benefactors. Six former Tory ministers expressed deep unease about the practice.

One said it was a “scandal in plain sight” — widely known and accepted in the party. A former party chairman said: “The truth is the entire political establishment knows this happens and they do nothing about it … The most telling line is, once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

The party never publicly acknowledges the practice. One former minister said there was “a law of omerta” forbidding any discussion of the link between donations and seats.

A Conservative spokesman said: “We do not believe that successful businesspeople and philanthropists who contribute to political causes and parties should be disqualified from sitting in the legislature.”

Lord Fowler, a Conservative former cabinet minister and later Lord Speaker, said: “Most big contributors want something: it may be influence over the direction the party is taking; it may be a particular policy; it may be an honour. All have clear dangers for a political party.”

Many other Conservative donors have also been ennobled alongside the party’s treasurers: 22 of the party’s main financial backers have been given peerages since 2010. This includes nine donor treasurers. Together they have given £54 million to the party.

Only two Labour Party donors and five Liberal Democrat financial backers have been ennobled over the same period. The parliamentary watchdog has blocked six further peerage nominations for Conservative donors on the grounds of impropriety over those 11 years.

A Tory insider said his party was dangling peerages before donors like “carrots” and everyone in the party was aware of the “cynical operation”. He cited the case of one donor he knew who had been enticed into giving £1 million to the party because he had been persuaded by a treasurer that the donation could lead to an ennoblement.

There is no suggestion any of the donors named in this investigation requested or were promised a peerage or were directed or offered to pay any particular sum to secure an honour. However, numerous Conservative sources have been highly critical of the way the party appears to be using peerages to reward large donors. They say it is morally corrupt and wrong.

Many of the ennobled donors have made minimal spoken contributions to the House, despite the party justifying their peerages on the basis of their business or financial experience. The donors often stop or severely curtail their handouts once they are accepted into the House.

Lord Jay, a former chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission, said donations were increasingly becoming a factor in prime ministers’ selection of new peers.

“It would be better if people were appointed on the basis of the contribution they will make as lords, rather than on other factors such as how much money they’re giving to the party,” he said.

Clamour is growing in Westminster to reduce the size of the House of Lords. Successive Conservative prime ministers have used peerages to reward their friends and cronies, and there are now more than 800 peers, which makes the Lords the world’s second-biggest political chamber behind the annual Chinese Congress.

Since Johnson became prime minister 96 peers have been created.

Cruddas and Brownlow did not respond to requests for comment. Lupton declined to comment. Lawyers for Spencer denied he had taken the role as party treasurer and made donations to secure a peerage. Farmer said he donated to the party because he wanted a Conservative government.

Anneliese Dodds, the Labour Party chairwoman, said last night: “The stench of sleaze emanating from Boris Johnson’s government grows by the day, with even a former Conservative prime minister calling his administration ‘politically corrupt’.

“Labour would stamp out sleaze, with a tougher system to restore the public’s faith in our democracy and politics.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Residents’ fears grow over risks from district heating networks

Many DHNs [district heating networks] have successfully cut emissions and prices for households. However, those that are poorly designed and inadequately maintained have left some customers enduring freezing homes and enormous bills.

Cranbrook? – Owl

Anna Tims www.theguardian.com 

It was during a night in June that two radiators exploded in Luca’s house, jetting scalding water across the bedroom of his six-year-old son and bringing down the ceilings of the ground-floor rooms. By a fluke the family was away.

“If my son had been in his bed he would have been severely burned,” says Luca. “The disaster was inevitable. In the 10 years since I bought the house, not once have the pipes and radiators been serviced, and similar things have recently happened in neighbouring properties.”

The London housing estate where Luca lives is supplied with heating and hot water by a district heating network (DHN) operated by Southwark council.

DHNs generate heating from a central source to a whole community via a network of insulated hot water pipes, eliminating the need for individual household boilers.

There are about 14,000 in the UK run by councils, housing associations and private companies, supplying nearly 500,000 homes. They’re considered to be a cheaper, greener alternative to traditional systems, and the Climate Change Committee has estimated they need to account for 18% of the UK’s energy supply if the country is to meet its 2050 net zero target.

Many DHNs have successfully cut emissions and prices for households. However, those that are poorly designed and inadequately maintained have left some customers enduring freezing homes and enormous bills.

They are unable to switch supplier because they are locked into contracts of 25 years or longer, as soon as they buy a property supplied by a DHN. And they cannot get redress for poor service via the energy ombudsman because the sector is largely unregulated.

Campaigners have warned that thousands more people risk being trapped with unaccountable providers, as more networks are rolled out without statutory regulations.

Currently there are no controls on consumer tariffs and no technical standards to which new networks must adhere.

Developers who are required to install DHNs as a planning condition are free to choose the cheapest option, which may not be suiable, and some councils, which run their own networks, lack resources and expertise.

“There are good, well-run networks, but we cannot be confident this will become the norm, even when legislation is belatedly brought in to cover this growing sector,” says Ruth London of the campaign group Fuel Poverty Action.

The damage to Luca’s home was so extensive because DHNs operate at higher pressure and temperatures than ordinary systems, and already leaking pipes were overwhelmed.

Since the flood, the family has been living in temporary accommodation funded by their insurer. He says that he heard nothing from the council for the first three months, until the Observer intervened.

Southwark has now offered to replace the radiators, but until the malfunctioning network is overhauled, the family fears they could burst again.

Luca asked to be disconnected from the scheme so he could switch to a private supplier, but was told that, as a freeholder, he would have to pay a £39,500 fee. With this type of scheme, leaseholders and social housing tenants are not allowed to switch because their share of the costs would have to be passed to other residents.

Councillor Stephanie Cryan, Southwark’s cabinet member for council homes and homelessness, told the Observer: “I am very sorry this issue has taken some time to resolve for this family.

“While we identified a leak back in January, and we can replace all of the radiators, the wider issue is much more complex and, to date, we have been unable to come to a solution in terms of disconnection from the district heating system.”

Seventeen other Southwark residents who approached the Observer reported spending weeks in unheated homes during winter, and five-figure bills to maintain the system that let them down.

Giancarlo Niccoli was asked to pay £13,700 towards repairs of the network on his estate, after his one-bedroom flat was left without fully functioning heating for six months.

He was still billed the annual tariff of £1,000, plus a 10% administration charge, while paying for electric heaters to see him through the winter.

“The council sends multiple engineers to do the same job poorly, and then it needs repair again, at our expense, months later,” he says.

“I once had to move out while my flooring was pulled up because a botched repair caused leaks.”

Southwark insists the costs are allowable within the terms of his lease, irrespective of service standards, a fact supported by a tribunal to which Niccoli took his complaint.

In April, the council launched a compensation scheme which awards residents £3 for each day the system isn’t working, a sum residents claim is inadequate to cover electric heaters.

Jack Lewis, from the Southwark Group of Tenants Organisation, says any added heating costs are particularly concerning given the recent cut in universal credit and rising energy prices. “We will continue to lobby the council to implement immediate payments to compensate for the cost of additional heating measures,” he says.

Southwark council, which supplies a number of council estates via DHNs, admits its systems are not of a good enough standard. It is estimated that it would cost £350m to modernise its networks, some of which date back to the 1960s.

The council told the Observer that the money was not available, partly because of government policy. Increased discounts to encourage council tenants’ right to buy their homes, and the abolition of “rent convergence” – which allowed councils to increase social housing rent – have dented its budget.

The borough has the largest concentration of social housing in the capital. “We have always played catch-up on maintenance across a huge housing stock,” it says.

“The government could cap the bills for leaseholders and pay the difference to councils – then the investment for works can continue, because the money has to come from somewhere.”

DHN customers in other local authority areas have reported similar problems. The government recently pledged £300m for new low-carbon heat networks, and £4.175m of grants to overhaul existing infrastructure. It’s also developing an additional funding scheme to improve the efficiency of networks.

Three years after the Competition and Markets Authority called for regulation of the sector to protect customers, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told the Observer that it was a work in progress.

“The government is committed to legislating to implement heat networks regulation within this parliament,” it says. “This will include consumer protection rules which ensure all heat network consumers receive a fair price, a reliable supply of heating, and transparency of information.”

According to Ruth London, government funding is welcome but insufficient to remedy the problems with existing networks.

For Luca, the promises are too late, and he is fearful of moving back into his house when repairs are complete.

“My trust in the heating network has gone,” he says. “I really feel I’m being held hostage by a system that doesn’t deliver on what it should, and literally endangered my son’s life.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Morning Neil – Any regrets about your “Aye” vote last week?

As the “Storm in a Sleazecup” sweeps into a second week.

All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme, only to see the government retreat less than 24 hours later.

Andrew Rawnsley www.theguardian.com 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Comments

1 Comment

Paterson is the bad apple – and Johnson made sure to spread the rottenness 

“For months, they lobbied anyone they could find. They spread noxious rumours about members of the committee. They tried to get the speaker to block the publication of our report. They endlessly misrepresented the process, claiming that witnesses statements were ignored (they weren’t), that Paterson was denied a fair hearing (he wasn’t), that the commissioner decides the sanction (she doesn’t), and that there was no appeal (there was). They lobbied individual members of the committee – which is itself a breach of the rules of the House, which can lead to a suspension.”

Chris Bryant (chair of the standards committee and MP for Rhondda) www.theguardian.com 

This week’s appalling parliamentary shenanigans prove the saying about bad apples. As Benjamin Franklin put it, “the rotten apple spoils his companions”. That’s exactly what happened with Owen Paterson.

Nobody doubts that what he did was wrong. He took more than £9,000 a month – more in a year than the average cost of a house in the Rhondda – to lobby on behalf of Randox and Lynn’s Foods. Dozens of Tory MPs – including some of his closest friends – told me that my committee’s report was crystal clear and he was caught “bang to rights”.

Yet 250 MPs voted for a motion that would suspend judgment on the matter. Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that the motion changed the rules in the middle of a disciplinary process, which is surely the polar opposite of due process and natural justice – and that it did so for a named individual (ditto).

Let’s focus on the bullying and determination with which the government machine set about trying to give Paterson a “get out of jail free” card. For months, they lobbied anyone they could find. They spread noxious rumours about members of the committee. They tried to get the speaker to block the publication of our report. They endlessly misrepresented the process, claiming that witnesses statements were ignored (they weren’t), that Paterson was denied a fair hearing (he wasn’t), that the commissioner decides the sanction (she doesn’t), and that there was no appeal (there was). They lobbied individual members of the committee – which is itself a breach of the rules of the House, which can lead to a suspension.

Apparently some Conservative WhatsApp groups are full of libellous comments about the commissioner, who has been repeatedly and viciously calumniated in the press. I have worked closely with some of these MPs. A tiny part of me even admires their loyalty to their friend and political ally. But I say this to them: your friendship has blinded you to the truth.

In the eyes of the public, this may have damaged the whole of parliament and not just the Tories who voted for the nonsensical. I tried to warn the house that the government was leading us into a quagmire. Some brave Conservative souls warned the prime minister. But he doubled down and dragooned his MPs through the lobbies, spoiling 250 MPs with the Paterson rottenness and tarnishing parliament.

Even after Paterson resigned, again preposterously claiming his innocence, Downing Street refuses to rule out the idea that he has been or may be offered a peerage. Clearly that would be appalling.

What needs to happen next? The bare minimum is that the Commons rescinds Wednesday’s motion and approve the standards committee’s report on Paterson. That may seem unnecessary. Paterson is no longer an MP, so the House can’t sanction him any longer. When Denis McShane resigned after an adverse committee finding in 2012, that report was never put to the house. But in this case the house has considered the report – and parked it in an ambiguous layby.

The Commons must now declare beyond doubt that Paterson’s conduct was corrupt and unacceptable and abandon the ad hoc committee the government wanted to set up under John Whittingdale. I hope that can happen on Tuesday. The prime minister has to admit that he got it badly wrong and call off the troops, who still seem intent on attacking the commissioner. Jacob “grand old duke of York” Rees-Mogg needs to apologise for the damage he has done to parliament’s reputation. Otherwise what remains of his reputation will never recover.

As for the standards system, my guess is that voters want more independence, not less. We have few enough checks and balances in the British political system as it is. The standards committee has been looking at proposals and will produce a report on possible changes before Christmas. The house can consider them in the new year. But above all everyone needs to respect the rule of law and the independent process.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Boris Johnson sleaze crisis deepens amid pressure on Covid deals

The row over Tory sleaze reached new heights on Saturday night as MPs demanded details of any lobbying by Owen Paterson of government ministers on behalf of a company that won almost £500m of Covid-19 related contracts last year.

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com

The crisis facing Boris Johnson also worsened after the former Tory prime minister, Sir John Major, described his successor’s attempts to block Paterson’s suspension from parliament last week for breaching paid advocacy rules as “shameful”.

A new Opinium poll for the Observer shows ratings for Johnson and his party have slumped dramatically since last weekend, with the prime minister’s personal approval figures hitting their lowest ever level.

With Tory MPs already fearing their party is regaining its reputation for financial impropriety after last week’s chaotic events involving Paterson, all the main opposition parties turned up the pressure.

Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party all switched their focus to the award of pandemic contracts, demanding investigations by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, or the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, into Paterson’s contacts with ministers during the pandemic.

Paterson, who announced his resignation as an MP last week, was paid more than £8,000 a month for 16 hours’ consultancy work by Randox Laboratories, until he resigned from the role on Friday. Randox was awarded two Covid testing contracts last year worth nearly £480m without the normal competition. Government officials cited the urgency of the pandemic as grounds for not advertising the contracts.

The company insists Paterson “played no role in securing any Randox contract”, but on 9 April last year the MP had a telephone meeting with the firm and Lord Bethell, then a health minister, about Covid testing.

On Saturday, Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said she had written to Case demanding “the publication of all correspondence and details of all meetings between ministers and the businesses that were paying Mr Paterson to lobby on their behalf”.

The Observer has been told that before Paterson resigned as an MP on Thursday, Conservative whips understood that Stone was seriously considering launching an investigation into the former Northern Ireland secretary’s lobbying of ministers since the pandemic began. She is also believed to be considering an inquiry into the controversy over the prime minister’s refurbishment of his Downing Street flat.

Over the coming days, the opposition parties are determined to raise the pressure. Rayner said: “It is particularly brazen that Randox were awarded £347m of taxpayers’ money after already failing to deliver on a previous contract that resulted in the recall of 750,000 unsafe testing kits and care homes being left without regular testing. Ministers need to set out how they will claw back taxpayers’ money that was wasted on duff PPE and failed testing contracts.”

The SNP leader, Ian Blackford, said he had also written to the cabinet secretary demanding “full transparency about Paterson’s lobbying, particularly relating to Covid-19 contracts involving huge sums of money”, while the Lib Dem chief whip, Wendy Chamberlain, called for “a full and thorough investigation by the standards commissioner” into the links between Paterson, Randox and the former health secretary, Matt Hancock.

The Lib Dems have secured a three-hour debate on the issue on Monday in which the way Covid contracts were awarded will be central.

The latest Opinium poll suggests the sleaze rows are hitting the Conservatives. The Tory lead has fallen to just one point, from five points a week ago, while Johnson’s personal rating has dropped to -20 from -16 last week, passing a previous low of -18 recorded a month ago.

There has also been a significant shift in views of who would make the best prime minister. An 11-point lead for Johnson last week has shrunk to just two points. Johnson is regarded as the best candidate by 28% of voters, down five, with the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, on 26%, up four.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Major was scathing about Johnson’s government, the damage it was doing to the UK’s reputation, and the way it treated parliament. Referring to efforts to block Paterson’s suspension, Major said: “I think the way the government handled that was shameful, wrong and unworthy of this or indeed any government. It also had the effect of trashing the reputation of parliament.”

He added: “There is a general whiff of ‘we are the masters now’ about their behaviour. I’m afraid that the government, with their over-large majority, do tend to treat parliament with contempt. And if that continues, it will end badly.”

Writing in the Observer, the shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, also takes aim at the business secretary over his suggestions last week that Stone should consider her position because of the way she conducted her inquiry into Paterson’s lobbying activities prior to February last year.

“Kwasi Kwarteng’s attempt to bully Kathryn Stone out of her job was yet another breach of the ministerial code, and the latest example of the Tories’ slide into corruption and moral bankruptcy. Boris Johnson has already had multiple run-ins with the standards commissioner. It is clear he simply wants revenge and impunity from the rule of law,” he wrote.

“This level of flagrant norm-shattering and proud lawbreaking demands more than tut-tutting. That’s why we need the adviser on ministerial interests to launch an inquiry into Mr Kwarteng’s threats. And it is why Labour has urged the standards commissioner to open an investigation into the prime minister over the financing of the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

There’s a climate emergency, and the planning system is not helping – CPRE

The climate emergency is the most pressing challenge of our times. With the UK keen to trumpet its climate action credentials, our planning system is sending out very mixed messages.

By Andrew Wood www.cpre.org.uk

With the COP26 global climate conference hosted in Glasgow in 2021, you’d expect the host country to be leading on climate crisis-busting plans with flying colours – including by adapting the rules that govern new building here.

But put simply, it’s just not doing enough to drive progress.

Let’s start with the good news. The government has led the world by setting a legally binding target to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050, meaning that our carbon levels work out as zero thanks to cutting emissions and carbon-capture methods.

And the government’s also ramped this up further by committing to get 78% of the way there by 2035, and announced that the UK is on track to achieve this 2035 target.

‘Local authorities want to get to net-zero even faster.’

For the first time, international aviation and shipping emissions will be counted into this budget – something CPRE has been demanding for years, and a really important step forward.

Local authorities want to get to net-zero even faster, which shows great ambition. We love to see it! Over 80% of councils have now officially declared a climate emergency and set local targets for carbon reduction. In most cases, they’re aiming for net-zero by 2030, twenty years ahead of the UK government’s legally binding date.

So far, so good. So how does planning fit in?

The planning system, the name we give to the toolkit of rules that govern what gets built and where, should naturally fit into this progress, right? Erm… Right?

And in theory, that’s the case: the planning system should support the quest for net-zero. The sectors that emit the most carbon are housing, industry and transport – which happen to also be the main forms of development that planning helps to regulate.

And the rules governing planning, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), require planning to ‘shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’. Local authorities’ development plans are also bound by a legal duty, under the Climate Change Act, to contribute to achieving net-zero.

And there’s more.

The NPPF also contains useful hooks to hang climate-friendly policies onto: for example, poor design should be refused planning permission, and development should be focused where it’s accessible by public transport and offers scope to reduce private car travel.

So surely local authorities are only allowing new building that’s doing lots to tackle the climate emergency… aren’t they?

Local heroes… and the rest

Some local plans (the document created by local authorities and, ideally, residents which lays out the principles for new development in the area) are rising to the climate crisis challenge.

Plymouth & South Devon Councils have already adopted a joint plan which commits to implementing their carbon reduction target. Hurray! And we know that at least Lancaster, Leeds and Bradford are aiming to follow suit – double hurray!

But… that’s where the good news ends. There are plenty of signs that, in practice, the planning system is well behind the curve on climate action.

What’s not working

Here are four things that we know are going wrong:

1. Car and plane-addicted councils

Despite powerful evidence that car use needs to be reduced by between 10% and 60% to achieve net-zero, all across the country, councils are still earmarking land for new housing and commercial development in car-dependent locations, planning for new roads, and pinning their economic ambitions on the continued growth of airports.

A landmark 2020 report by Transport for New Homes found that new ‘garden communities’ were being built that were overwhelmingly car-dependent and the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund is regularly used to fund roadbuilding projects. This is not a recipe for reducing car use.

‘This is not a recipe for reducing car use.’

2. The homes we need – but make them green

When local plans are examined by government-appointed inspectors, the remit is considered on very narrow criteria – and is purely about housing numbers.

The inspector asks, ‘Will this local plan provide enough development land to meet the council’s housing target?’ If not, the council must go away and find more land.

But there are no such penalties for not having a convincing strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Providing the homes people need and tackling the climate emergency are both important objectives, yet it seems that plans are judged against one and not the other.

3. New rules for planning – but silence on the climate

The much-vaunted planning reform programme, which began in summer 2020, made bold claims about speeding up and simplifying the planning system, but soon became bogged down in controversy about top-down housing numbers (the ‘mutant algorithm’) and the risks to local democracy.

But, as CPRE and many other groups pointed out, there was little mention of climate action in the new proposals – in fact, they didn’t even commit to setting a firm date for new development to be zero-carbon.

Considering that the government had previously cancelled a 2016 zero-carbon date for new housing, this was incredibly disappointing.

4. Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads

The government is also currently reviewing its Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, which delivers big projects mainly for energy and transport. The review says it wants to halve the time it takes to make decisions on proposals, and cites the need to move towards net-zero carbon super-speedily as a key objective.

But nearly a third of these large projects already approved or awaiting decisions are for major road schemes – such as the Lower Thames Crossing – or for airport expansions, all of which will inevitably cause increases in carbon emissions and work directly against meeting the government’s net-zero target.

There are solutions. Now we need action

Each of these problems has an obvious solution – if the government has the will to act. Local plans should place extra focus on urban brownfield locations for new development (read what brownfield is, and why we care about it so much, here) and stop enabling homes and commercial premises to be built in car-dependent locations.

Plans should be judged on their emissions-reducing credentials as much as on housing supply. Cutting carbon should be a basic criterion for major new projects to be considered, negating new roads or airport expansion and following the moves to this effect already made in Wales. Business as usual is not an option.

And, as Mr Gove looks to make his mark on his role as Minister for Housing, he could explicitly make moving to net-zero carbon one of the key purposes of planning reforms.

Will the government give the planning system a real role and purpose in tackling the climate emergency? It’s high time.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

The Paterson fiasco confirms the threat Boris Johnson poses to British democracy

How many more times does it need to happen? How much more proof do we need that the country is run by a man with contempt for the rule of law, who believes that he and his friends are beyond its reach?

Jonathan Freedland www.theguardian.com

Boris Johnson demonstrated that again to the nation this week, as vividly as he could. Faced with the prospect that Owen Paterson, a comrade from the Brexit trenches of 2016, would be punished for what parliament’s standards committee called “an egregious case of paid advocacy”, Johnson instructed MPs to let his chum off the hook. The prime minister’s orders, dutifully followed by 250 of his troops, were to halt Paterson’s 30-day suspension from the House of Commons and to scrap the system that had found him guilty, replacing it with one that would be gentler in its treatment of Conservatives – because Conservatives would design it and dominate it.

The move was shocking because it was so brazen, not because it was novel. For this was merely the latest instance of Johnson deciding that an ally clearly in breach of the rules should escape all consequence. The roll call should be familiar by now. When Dominic Cummings decided the national lockdown did not really apply to him, Johnson stood by him. When Robert Jenrick fast-tracked an “unlawful” planning decision that would save Richard Desmond, a Tory donor, £45m in local taxes, Jenrick stayed in his post. When Priti Patel’s bullying behaviour was found to be a violation of the ministerial code, she too kept her job. If you’re on Team Johnson, the normal rules don’t apply.

Sometimes it’s about rewarding loyalty or a valuable favour. So when the Lords Appointments Commission decided that another Tory donor, Peter Cruddas, was not fit to receive a peerage, Johnson gave him one anyway. But just as often, the prime minister’s disregard for the rules extends to the gravest matters of state.

One of his first acts in office was to suspend parliament altogether, a move struck down by a unanimous supreme court. Later he proposed post-Brexit legislation that a cabinet minister cheerfully admitted on the floor of the Commons would break international law.

Johnson does not regard even those laws he himself put on the statute book as binding. An impeccable source reports that, at the G7 meeting in Cornwall, the prime minister told French president Emmanuel Macron that he had only “sort of” signed the Northern Ireland protocol, currently the cause of so much tension between the two countries.

And sometimes these two elements – favours for pals and rule-breaking in matters of state – come together. The most obvious example is in the bonanza of Covid-related contracts handed out to chums at the start of the pandemic, with a “high priority” VIP lane created for those lucky enough to be in a minister’s contacts book. That created a stampede of ministerial mates, often hawking goods or services that didn’t work, which both cost taxpayers’ £2.8bn and wasted precious civil service time. As the Good Law Project’s Jolyon Maugham puts it: “So keen were they to get their mates to the trough they interfered with getting the right stuff.”

Even the Paterson case’s ugliest aspect – retrospectively changing the rules to produce a desired outcome – is becoming all too familiar. This week the government rewrote the job spec for the new chair of Ofcom after its favoured candidate, the former Daily Mail editor and ardent Brexiteer Paul Dacre, failed to meet the initial standard. Handily, the new job description is receptive to a more, ahem, confrontational candidate.

The pattern is now clear. Rules that might hold the government to account, that might act as a check on its power, are either to be ignored or rewritten. The bodies that enforce those rules are similarly to be hobbled or neutered in the name of “reform”. Johnson wanted to do that this week to the parliamentary standards system, adding it to a target list that already includes the courts and the electoral commission. Meanwhile, his culture secretary threatens the BBC, announcing that fearless questioning of the prime minister by one of its interviewers has cost the organisation “a lot of money”.

We hesitate to use the word because it sounds so hyperbolic, but this is how the slide to authoritarianism begins. Not as it was in the old newsreels, with strutting dictators and balcony speeches, but with cronyism and special treatment; with enforcement of the law for “them” and exemptions for “us”; with the steady weakening and eventual removal of the constraints on government power. It is the dismantling, bit by bit, block by block, of the apparatus that holds up a liberal democracy.

I spoke with a minister late on Thursday who, though furious over the Paterson debacle – “It’s a total car crash” – rejected the notion that Johnson is like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in Eton tails. “This was the Brexit gang looking after one of its own,” he said. Johnson keeps making special dispensations for his friends not out of a power-crazed desire to demolish the democratic architecture, but because “he wants to be liked … It’s a damaged neediness.” Add to that, he says, a Vote Leave self-righteousness that tells itself: “Elites have let the country down; we don’t have to follow their norms.”

Even if you buy all that, it doesn’t matter. It’s not the motive for Johnson’s actions that counts but their impact. He didn’t get his way this time: fury from usually supportive newspapers and on the Tory benches forced a rapid climbdown. But this was what he wanted, and what most of his MPs were ready to give him – a shredding of the rules to ensure those in power are unbound, and ever harder to remove.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

No 10 declines to rule out potential peerage for Owen Paterson

Downing Street has declined to rule out the possibility Owen Paterson could receive a peerage after his decision to step down as a Conservative MP amid a lobbying scandal.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson’s spokesperson also did not deny reports that some Tory MPs had been warned they could lose future funding for their constituencies if they did not support a Commons vote to halt punishment for Paterson and rip up the anti-sleaze rules he broke……….

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Exmouth beach management group gets underway

A new Exmouth beach management plan (BMP) steering group, made up of local beach users, organisations and district and county councillors, has met for the first time.

Radio Exe News www.radioexe.co.uk 

They say that although sand volumes on Exmouth Beach remain constant, there have been dramatic changes with some areas losing considerable amounts while other areas are gaining sand. 

Some years ago, there was a spat between Exmouth and Dawlish, with the former accusing the Teignbridge town of stealing its sand. The culprit turned out to be erosion, with sand being transported west.

Now movement of sand around Exmouth beach has led to old structures – such as beach hut timber foundations, old jetties, former groynes, and metal pipes – being exposed.

The BMP is a document to outline what actions can be taken to manage the beach. It may go on to suggest physical measures such as additional groynes, for which further funding would be required. The BMP will look at the cost of any proposed measures and the feasibility of East Devon District Council being able to secure outside funding.

Government funding for flood and coastal protection schemes are only available to protect homes and properties at risk. Areas around Exmouth’s seafront and estuary have recently undergone substantial multi-million pound flood protection measures, organised by the Environment Agency.

East Devon councillor Paul Millar (Labour, Exmouth Halsdon) is to be the BMP’s chairperson. The group has agreed its ‘terms of reference.’  The next step is to agree on how far reaching the study should be, and what outcomes are required. They will appoint consultants to investigate the causes and any potential remedies to return the appropriate beach levels to protect the shoreside properties, the sea wall, car parks, and the road.

Cllr Millar said: “I am delighted to be chairing the work of this vital steering group which unites the expertise of our council’s engineers, the Environment Agency and relevant local stakeholders such as the RNLI, to urgently address issues caused by storms, floods and cliff erosion.

“This is major and urgent project in which the end goal is to better protect and enhance the jewel in Exmouth’s crown. Around the lifeboat station, we have pipes sticking out the ground and putting the safety of our residents and visitors at risk.

“Our work starts immediately with our priority to work with the RNLI to repair the sea walls and extend the ramp, so it reaches the sea. Our biggest challenge will be securing external funding for managing the physical nature of the beach.”

EDDC Portfolio holder for coast country and environment, Cllr Geoff Jung added: “Everyone who knows Exmouth beach is concerned at the recent changes to both the Estuary and the beach, and we need to first understand why these changes are happening and then to formulate a plan to return the beach levels for the benefit of holiday makers and local people as best we can, but aware of the impact of climate change and sea level rise as well as the limited funding available, this is going to be a challenging project.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Megaphone Politics at District Council

Police officers were called to a local council meeting after a member, who brought a megaphone with him, repeatedly interjected the proceedings.

Sophie Morris news.sky.com 

The meeting of Maldon District Council, which took place on Thursday evening, was abandoned after several frustrated members walked out.

After arriving at the scene, police deemed independent councillor Chrisy Morris to be “breaching the peace” – but no arrests were made.

Councillor Morris repeatedly interrupted shouting “point of order” during the meeting as the chairman tried to move on.

Those at the meeting of the Essex local authority were, amongst other things, discussing sanctions against Mr Morris after the council’s joint standards committee deemed that he had brought the authority into disrepute following two independent investigations.

Minutes of the meeting state that Mr Morris was found to have previously disclosed confidential information.

While livestreaming the event on social media, the independent councillor repeatedly disputed the findings, ensuring his point was heard loudly and clearly.

After continuously interjecting over council chairman Mark Heard, Mr Morris was asked to leave the meeting just ten minutes into the session.

Mr Morris, sat with his megaphone, then shouted: “You can’t make me, you idiots. You can’t make me leave the meeting. I am democratically elected!”

Asked to be quiet by Mr Heard and told that he had “no right to speak here”, Mr Morris said that he “will be heard” and has “every right” to make his point.

“This is democracy. You might not like me, but you have got to listen to me,” the independent councillor said.

Police officers then arrived at the scene and tried to persuade Mr Morris to leave.

“I’m not interested in what you’ve got to say, I’m trying to conduct a meeting here so I’m very pleased to see these officers,” Mr Heard said.

Then an officer states to Mr Morris: “At this time you’re essentially breaching the peace.”

Visibly unhappy at the request to depart the premises, Mr Morris then tells the officers: “You guys shouldn’t be getting involved in politics.”

He adds that he is “legally entitled to be here”.

After a pause, the meeting then reconvened – but Mr Morris continued to interject, requesting a point of order.

Chairman Mr Heard then asked the members to leave in protest and the meeting ended prematurely with several pieces of business unfinished.

In a statement regarding the incident, Wendy Stamp, leader of Maldon District Council, said: “Enough is enough. The public may be seeing councillor Morris’s disruptive behaviour for the first time at last night’s council meeting.

“However, this has been a regular occurrence and we cannot tolerate this type of behaviour any longer and put members and staff through any further distress. Our focus as a council is to provide services to residents and to act as the democratic voice.”

The statement went on to say Mr Heard “was concerned for the duty of care of staff present who have continued to be the target of aggressive, intimidating behaviour from councillor Morris”.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Morris told the BBC he had no regrets.

“What I said I needed to say; it was very simple, I had a point of order which the chairman should deal with as soon as it’s brought to his attention,” he said.

“They wouldn’t allow [my point of order], which was undemocratic in itself.

“I’m a democratically elected representative. I’ve got the right to speak. I’m there to speak and I simply have not been allowed to speak.”

Sky News has attempted to contact independent councillor Mr Morris for comment.

The heated scenes may remind many of the meeting of Handforth Parish Council meeting where clerk Jackie Weaver became an overnight internet sensation after attempting to calm down the fiery zoom session.

During the tense meeting of Handforth Parish Council, then-chairman Brian Tolver told stand-in clerk Ms Weaver that she had “no authority”.

Ms Weaver then proceeded to kick Mr Tolver, and two other members from the meeting, out of the call – placing them in a virtual waiting room.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Colyford wants split from Colyton

Colyford could break away from Colyton and have its own parish council.

A welcome reinvigoration of local politics, when many parishes are struggling to find councillors – Owl

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

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has agreed to review the way local decisions are made in the East Devon village  following  a request by Colyford Village Residents Association.

Speaking ahead of a vote by the district council’s cabinet, Ian Priestly, chairman of the association, said: “Colyford is now one of the largest settlements in East Devon without its own parish council. We have our own sense of identity, a deep sense of pride and a history dating back over 800 years.

“We have different issues, different aims and a different demographic make-up to that of Colyton. Colyton is expanding fast and we believe that by creating our own parish council it would be advantageous to the current council by reducing their workloads so they can focus on their own unique needs.

“Times have moved on and Colyford would like to transition from its historic 100-year-old arrangement with Colyton and grasp its own initiatives to make a positive difference.”

It’s thought around one-third of Colyford residents signed a petition in favour of a review into creating the new breakaway council. Mr Priestly said Colyford was well-prepared to handle the next stages of the process, with a steering group of residents from all walks of life ready to help EDDC with its community governance review.

Councillor Paul Hayward (Democratic Alliance Group, Yarty) said: “The fact that Colyton and Colyford could be ripped asunder actually doesn’t mean they’ll be at each other’s throats, it actually means it gives an opportunity for two separate communities to coexist very happily and work together for the mutual benefit of all their residents.”

Councillor Jack Rowland (Democratic Alliance Group, Seaton) added: “I fully understand the reasons for this request and I totally support it.”

EDDC’s cabinet voted unanimously in favour of carrying out the review, which is needed before plans for a new parish council at Colyford can be created. 

The review, which is set to cost around £5,000, will be concluded within 12 months of its terms of reference being published – one of the first stages of a community governance review.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Nov 2021

Posted under

Misc

Comments

2 Comments

Rebel MPs told “they would lose funding for their constituency”

Today’s Politico newsletter:

The FT’s George Parker, Laura Hughes and Seb Payne reveal possible Tory rebels were told “they would lose funding for their constituency” if they voted against the amendment. A Tory veteran tells Jim Pickard: “Any MP who believed this deserves to have funding removed for being a thick gullible tw*t.” Labour’s Anneliese Dodds blasts: “Threatening to hold money back from voters and their communities, all to protect a Tory MP who broke the rules. If true this marks a new low for Johnson’s scandal-ridden Conservatives.”