According to ZOE COVID Study incidence figures, in total there are currently 47,276 new daily symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average, based on PCR and LFT test data from up to five days ago [*]. This is down 9% from 51,876 new daily cases last week. 

covid.joinzoe.com

In the fully vaccinated population, it’s estimated there are currently 15,493 new daily symptomatic cases in the UK. Cases in this group have now started falling with last week’s figure being 17,674 (Graph 1). 

Across the different age groups, daily new cases in the 18-35 age group have fallen sharply over the past few weeks, but unsurprisingly, given the return of schools, the cases in 0-18 year olds are back on the rise (Graph 2) and rates in the over 50s are still steady or rising. 

Across the regions, many of the English regions are either falling or stable and in Scotland cases have stopped rising (Graph 3), although hospitalisations are still increasing. In terms of prevalence, on average 1 in 95 people in the UK currently have symptomatic COVID (Table 1). 

The UK R value is estimated to be around 0.9 and regional R values are; England, 0.9, Wales, 1.0, Scotland, 1.0 (Table 1) as cases continue to slowly decline. Prevalence in the regions shows that all regions are either falling or stable, apart from Wales, where prevalence is rising. 

According to the latest analysis from ZOE, it’s estimated that, at current rates, 781 people a day will go on to experience symptoms for longer than 12 weeks. This is the predicted Long COVID incidence rate (Graph 4). As the number of cases decline, so do the expected number of new Long COVID cases each day.

Graph 5 plots the ZOE prevalence figures alongside confirmed cases, which shows that the confirmed cases data is also showing the number of cases starting to fall. 

The ZOE COVID Study incidence figures (new symptomatic cases) are based on reports from around one million weekly contributors and the proportion of newly symptomatic users who have received positive swab tests. The latest survey figures were based on data from 32,409 recent swab tests done between 28th August and 11th September 2021. 

Professor Tim Spector, lead scientist on the ZOE COVID Study app, comments on the latest data:

“After calling for a plan for several weeks I’m pleased to see the government has launched a booster vaccine programme. However, the blanket approach to give boosters to everyone over 50 ignores data from the ZOE COVID Study and analysis by King’s College London outlining the groups most at risk like frail adults, and those with complex health conditions or living in deprived areas. Even more importantly, the winter plan fails to introduce the current symptoms to the list. Sticking to the classic three ignores the fact that now most people experience symptoms like sore throat, headache and sneezing rather than fever or cough. I also don’t understand why we are waiting for the situation to get worse and the NHS is pressured further before implementing simple measures that would help to bring down the number of new cases and save lives. With such high levels of virus in the population we should also still be wearing masks and keeping our distance in crowded public places, as in major European cities where cases are much lower than ours.” 

Graph 1. The ZOE COVID Study UK incidence figures results over time; total number of new cases and new cases in fully vaccinated

Graph 2. Incidence by age group 

Graph 3. Prevalence by region

Graph 4. Predicted Long COVID incidence over time

Please refer to the publication by Thompson at al. (2021) for details on how long covid rates in the population are modelled

Graph 5. A comparison of prevalence figures; ZOE COVID Study, and confirmed cases

Table 1. Incidence (daily new symptomatic cases)[*], R values and prevalence regional breakdown table 

‍

Map of UK prevalence figures

Among the most important democratic questions is how the land surrounding us is used. Is it providing homes we can afford, public services and green spaces, or is it being used by a few to impose damaging schemes on the rest of us and extract profits at our expense?

George Monbiot www.theguardian.com

In a lively democracy, we would be allowed to design our own communities to meet our own needs. But while we are invited to participate in the planning system, this often means little more than approving or objecting to plans put forward by property developers, whose interests seldom align with ours. Instead of democracy, there’s a veneer of public consent.

David Cameron’s government promised to put this right. The 2011 Localism Act would allow communities to take back control. It included a Community Right to Build Order, through which local people would automatically obtain planning permission for a project if they won a referendum.

People in the town of Totnes in Devon took him at his word. Since 2007, they had been working to transform a big derelict site, previously a milk-processing factory run by Dairy Crest, into a community project called Atmos. They turned their plans into England’s most advanced and ambitious use of a right to build order. They sought to build 62 genuinely affordable homes, 37 retirement homes, workspaces providing employment for at least 160 people, a hotel, community and youth facilities, and an arts centre.

It was a massive undertaking. Derelict factory sites are notoriously hard to develop. But while Totnes has a reputation for harbouring woolly hippies, it’s also home to some determined and very well-organised people. They put in thousands of unpaid hours, canvassing opinion, developing their plans with the community, architects and other professionals, and raising money.

In 2014 they formed the Totnes Community Development Society (TCDS). It secured an agreement with Dairy Crest for the sale of the site. This gave it the same protection that any developer would enjoy. In 2016, TCDS held a local referendum on the Atmos plans, in which 86% of voters supported the scheme, giving it planning permission. Given the difficulties of working with such a site, pulling this off in just two years was a remarkable achievement.

In 2019, Dairy Crest was bought by the Canadian company Saputo Inc. This didn’t seem to affect the sale. TCDS and Saputo had the site independently valued. After negotiations between their lawyers, Saputo UK confirmed that it would accept £460,000 for the site, and “overage” agreements for the developments TCDS would build, taking the total to almost £5m. This enabled TCDS to secure £2.5m from the National Heritage Lottery Fund.

In late 2019, Saputo’s lawyers told TCDS that the firm was considering another offer for part of the site. Then Saputo UK terminated two of its agreements with TCDS, citing technicalities. However, the negotiations continued. Then, in January last year, just as TCDS expected to exchange contracts with Saputo, the president of Saputo UK, Tom Atherton, phoned to say that the company had decided to sell the site to someone else. On the same day, Saputo’s lawyers confirmed that it had exchanged contracts with what appeared to be a mastics firm based in Essex, called FastGlobe Ltd.

The community members, who had worked so hard for 13 years, were dumbfounded. They were even more surprised when they later discovered the site had been sold for a total of £1.35m, considerably less than the £5m that they would have paid.

The sale had been brokered by a land agent called Patrick Gillies. In March this year, local people had a meeting with him, which they recorded with his permission. He told them something extraordinary. FastGlobe Ltd was, for the purposes of the deal, “a purchase vehicle. That’s all. It’s like a bank.” Gillies explained that he was the coordinator, project manager and partner of the site. Now the community has discovered something else. Patrick Gillies was, until Atherton got divorced, Tom Atherton’s brother-in-law.

There is nothing illegal in this arrangement, though Saputo, which prides itself on its ethical standards and publishes a code of conduct covering such matters, might ask itself whether in this case those standards have been met. None of my questions – directly to Gillies and, through Saputo UK to Atherton – have yet been answered, but Saputo Inc, the parent company, told me: “TCDS has made us aware of these allegations. We are taking the matter very seriously and are looking into them.”

TCDS is appealing to Saputo Inc to buy back the land and honour the original agreement. Because Saputo is a reputable company, and the founding family’s charitable foundations support community groups, it has hopes of being heard.

What this story shows is that the famous Community Right to Build is feeble and tokenistic. It gives communities no protection against having the ground sold from under them, and therefore gives them no real rights. The thousands of hours and £800,000 that the community has spent developing its bid might have been entirely wasted. The rest of the UK needs the kind of right-to-buy legislation that Scotland has: strong legal rights that cannot be suddenly rescinded by landowners and developers.

They said we could take back control. It’s time to honour the promise.

• This piece was updated on 15 September 2021 to clarify that it was Atherton, rather than Gillies, who later divorced.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) worth £2.8 billion is not fit for purpose and cannot be used by the NHS a health minister has revealed.

Jane Kirby www.standard.co.uk 

Lord Bethell said 1.9 billion items of stock are currently in the “do not supply” to the NHS category.

He was answering a Parliamentary question from crossbencher Lord Alton of Liverpool around “faulty PPE” that has not met the required level of protection.

“As of June 10, 1.9 billion items of stock were in the ‘do not supply’ category,” Lord Bethell said.

“This is equivalent to 6.2% of purchased volume with an estimated value of £2.8 billion.

“We are considering options to repurpose and recycle items in this category which ensures safety and value for money.

“Discussions with suppliers are ongoing.”

Earlier this month, it emerged the Government is in dispute with several companies over £1.2 billion of PPE that has been deemed “sub-standard” or was undelivered.

At that time, Lord Bethell provided a written response to Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lee who had asked how much had been reclaimed from firms providing equipment found to be “not fit for purpose”.

The health minister replied: “The department is working through all its personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts to identify instances where products have not been delivered or failed quality tests and will seek to recover the costs for undelivered or sub-standard PPE.

“As of July 27 2021, the department was engaged in commercial discussions – potentially leading to litigation – in respect to 40 PPE contracts with a combined value of £1.2 billion covering 1.7 billion items of PPE.”

In July, it was reported that a million masks supplied to the NHS as high grade did not meet the correct level of protection.

The masks were assumed to be FFP3 type, which can be worn by staff in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols, thereby risking the spread of Covid.

Tests carried out in February found that the masks failed FFP3 requirements.

Regarding these masks, Lord Bethell said in his latest written answer: “For all personal protective equipment (PPE), certification is checked through a technical assurance process before the products are released for distribution.

“Following information received from the National Health Service in February, we quarantined and recalled the affected products and reviewed the technical certification.

“As part of our investigation, we commissioned the British Standards Institution to test the masks.

“While the findings stated the affected masks failed to meet to FFP3 requirements, they passed all the testing requirements for an FFP2 respirator.

“The World Health Organisation recommends the use of N95 or FFP2 respirators for health workers performing aerosol-generating procedures – wearers should have been afforded protection.

“These masks are not recommended to be worn by patients. We have commissioned an independent root cause analysis investigation and we await the outcome.”

Helen Donovan, professional lead for public health at the Royal College of Nursing, said of the £2.8 billion worth of PPE: “Nursing staff who were put in harm’s way early in the pandemic because they could not access proper protective equipment will find this admission deeply insulting.

“Ministers have had repeated warnings about the quality of the equipment nurses are provided with and we have had repeated assurances that staff will be protected.

“With tens of thousands of nursing vacancies in England alone and staff already off sick because they have not been protected, this must be fixed as a priority.”

Unite national officer for health Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe said: “This glaring admission by health minister Lord Bethell is a searing indictment of the secretive fast-track fashion that many of the PPE contracts were awarded to ‘friends’ of the Tory establishment, something we have suspected for a long time.

“The Government should now use every tool as its disposal to ensure that the money is reclaimed for the hard-pressed taxpayer from the suppliers of this shoddy equipment.

“It is a national disgrace that NHS workers trying to care for us should be given equipment that has not protected them.

“This should not have been allowed to happen during a global pandemic and reinforces the need for the greatest transparency in the Government’s public procurement policy.”

From a correspondent:

The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission advised the Government to promote and increase the use of high-quality styles and designs for new build homes and neighbourhoods to reflect what communities want by building on the knowledge and tradition of what works for their area.

However, the newly submitted Reserved Matters Application ((Ref: 21/2217/MRES) by Burrington Estates to East Devon District Council Planners to build 40 four-storey blocks of flats on an existing car park at Winslade Park, doesn’t appear to adhere to that vision!

This is, surely, an opportunity for Burringtons to create a truly outstanding build back better brownfield design standard that could be revered as an esteemed design guide for future admiration that will stand the test of time – but Burrington Estates’ current proposals for 40 four-storey blocks of flats fail to follow such aspirations.

Winslade Manor (image below) has recently been very sensitively re-developed by Burringtons to now include Winslade Manor Restaurant and Bar, Number 6 personal training and wellness studio and office accommodation.

The architecture of the Manor continues to evoke an admiration and appreciation today, around 220 years after it was built (in 1800) by Edward Cotsford, the High Sheriff of Devon and, it is fair to say, that Burringtons have successfully returned this Grade II* Listed Georgian Manor to its former glory and consequently this renovation deserves accolades and commendation.

So, it is surprising, having gone to such great lengths to safeguard and preserve the Grade II* Listed Manor House, that Burringtons are now submitting three, inappropriately towering, blocks of 40 four-storey flats directly opposite the Georgian Manor and historic St Mary’s Church and the design of these new apartments has been likened to an urban car park!

Although architectural designs are creative and vulnerable to personal, differing opinions – surely this historic site requires a conscientious discernment and a more imaginative, high-quality style of design to compliment the valued Georgian Manor? Developers and decision-makers have an ethical responsibility to improve areas. Many people believe that these proposed designs appear far too utilitarian and fail to achieve aesthetic, quality, harmonious standards because these proposals overpower, clash and are incompatible with the historic Manor and its surroundings.

Such tall, design structures are considered to be an overdevelopment and incongruous in this rural, village setting because they fail to reflect distinguished, prestigious standards in architecture in the immediate setting of a valued, historic asset by conflicting with Government recommendations to enhance our communities.

Burringtons’ original proposals for this brownfield area included only 14 traditional houses, which were displayed for viewing to the entire community at Burrington’s first Public Consultation in February 2020. These 14 homes were supported by the majority of the community – but when the outline hybrid Planning Application was submitted to East Devon Planners, 14 houses on this brownfield car park had morphed into almost 60 flats (which after objections) have now been reduced to 40 – but 40 flats are still considered outrageously excessive, especially as 39 more homes have also received outline approval on a green field site nearby at the entrance to Winslade Park.

This amounts to a housing overkill in this village and Clyst St Mary residents’ views cannot be described as myopic, provincial NIMBYism because what this community was originally shown and found acceptable at a Public Consultation bears no resemblance to what is now being proposed!

In 2021, shouldn’t we be designing new homes in this small community that reflect the existing low-density, rural village environment and do not degrade the significance of a valued, elegant Georgian Manor House?

The proposed designs for these 40 four-storey high flats and a service road are directly adjacent to existing homes in Clyst Valley Road and will create an extreme intensity of development, which will cause ramifications resulting in detrimental visual issues and noise problems for existing residents by the sheer magnitude of such development in this confined location.

Although in the 1960s/1970s, deciduous woodland screening was planted between the Manor House and the now established Clyst Valley Road homes to protect The Manor’s visual amenities, surprisingly, these towering 40 four-storey flats are planned on the same side of the woodland as the Manor, in the direct sight-line of the northern façade of the historic building! Furthermore this woodland will provide little or no screening in the winter for existing residents to three multi-storey blocks containing 40 flats.

So, not only will these towering blocks obtrude on the distinguished Manor – but also on the established homes in Clyst Valley Road, who will be overlooked by such high structures and susceptible to all noise and light pollution from the flats and the service road running directly alongside their boundaries.

Although the principle of outline development was approved by EDDC Planners in December 2020, surely in 2021 we can expect a build back better from homebuilders and planners to achieve a quality development that this historic, rural village deserves and one that can be acknowledged with pride.

We must surely not create ‘eyesores’ that will scar a small, rural village by building multi-storey structures which are more appropriate in an urban environment similar to Exeter City – but are so inappropriate in a rural East Devon village setting.

Whatever East Devon Planners approve, opposite a 200 year old, stylish, Manor House, adjoining and overlooking existing homes in Clyst Valley Road, the Planners’ combined decision must surely be one that evokes pride and results in building back better with the correct quantity, density and design choices.

East Devon District Council Planners must ensure that whatever they choose to approve will be what each and every one of them, as individuals, would wish to see in their own communities and back gardens and that their combined planning judgment will result in a development that will stand the test of time for another 200 years!

Plans for a new £15million extension to the Fish Quay at Brixham have come under fire amid claims the new quay will damage the town’s tourist industry.

Guy Henderson www.devonlive.com

Yet Torbay Council says the new quay extension is vital for the future of the fishing industry and will create 150 new jobs.

But critics say the benefits will be outweighed by the loss of busy boat moorings and parking spaces for tourists.

Brixham Yacht Club commodore Richard Spreckley said: “This is supposed to be about improving the local economy, but I believe it will have the reverse effect.

“It will decimate parking, which is crucial to tourism. All this is doing is pouring in money to apologise for Brexit, which the fishermen didn’t realise was going to cut them off from their own market.”

The council and the bay’s development agency TDA are bidding for money for the new quay project from the Government’s ‘Levelling Up’ fund aimed at areas in need of investment. They expect to hear in the next few weeks if they have been successful.

The application also includes funding for a new high-tech business park at Paignton.

In Brixham, land would be reclaimed to extend the harbour and fish market, with an extra 7,000 square metres of quayside.

This would create more landing space to allow an extra five fishing vessels to off-load at a time. There would be two new auction halls, doubling the current capacity.

The TDA says the investment could lead to an increase in landed fish value of up to £20m per year within five years, generating more than £11m a year for the local economy.

Torbay Council Cabinet member Mike Morey said: “Investment in Brixham’s harbour and fish market would help secure the future of Brixham’s fishing sector which has been badly affected by Brexit and Covid-19.

“These challenges and the lack of capacity for boats and landings is preventing the sector from significant growth.”

Mr Spreckley said the yacht club was one of many objectors.

The priority for spending, he said, should be the long-awaited Northern Arm breakwater to protect boats in the harbour from damage in ‘perilous’ weather.

He said: “This proposal will turn the Oxen Cove car park into a mini industrial estate. There will be no pedestrian access, and it will be harder for people to get to the shops.”

Brixham’s fish market is currently enjoying a boom in business, with fish landed in ports hundreds of miles away being brought by road to be sold at the online auctions on the quayside.

But, said Mr Spreckley: “Environmentally the fish quay proposal is ridiculous. This will just lead to more fish being trucked in from all over the country to be sold on the market at Brixham, because Brixham fish has a premium value.

“It will mean more lorries driving through the tourists on the harbourside.”

Mr Spreckley said he also feared the effect of the new plan on the harbour’s sailors.

He said: “The Brixham Junior Sailing Club, which has taught hundreds of people to sail, will lose out. We need access to the water and boat storage, but more importantly we have hosted national championship, with 60 boats and families who come from all over Britain.

“That’s an awful lot of income to the local economy, and that would be massively threatened.

“Putting the existing new pier in the harbour at oxen Cove lost 50 small craft moorings, and this proposal will remove another 45 to 50.

“Rather than sailing being a very popular and affordable sport, that is going to force everyone into marinas instead, and that costs vastly more than a small mooring.

“The TDA is putting all Brixham’s money into fishing at a time when there are fewer fish in the sea.

“The day boats will scarcely get any benefit from this extension.

“The basis of the bid is creating 150 jobs, but the reality is that very few of those jobs will go to local people. In return, we will lose our ability to service the tourist industry.

“We have one of the three best bits of water for dinghy sailing along the south coast, but this will mean that our club will become vastly less attractive.

“People get the impression that we’re all filthy rich, but the reality is that we’re not. It’s a ludicrous idea.

“This club spends much more time organising dinghy championships.

“The thing that concerns me most is the damage it is doing to the harbour. It’s a beautiful safe haven that would be even safer with a Northern Arm.

“This money would have been a good start towards creating a Northern Arm.”

New housing secretary Michael Gove is facing calls to return £100,000 in donations he received last month from a property developer, with political opponents warning of a potential conflict of interest.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Parliamentary records show that Gove registered two donations of £50,000 from a German property developer, Zak Gertler,three weeks ago. The Gertler family developed offices in Germany and has been linked to property deals in London and Birmingham after moving into the UK in the 1990s. The new housing, communities and local government secretary previously accepted £10,000 from the same donor in July 2016 to help his abortive party leadership bid after the Brexit referendum, and the same amount again in June 2019.

Gove is now in charge of planning in England and faces a decision on whether to scrap reforms championed by his predecessor Robert Jenrick, which were set to give developers a freer hand over where and what to build – particularly housing, to meet the government’s target of 300,000 a year.

Gertler is not understood to be involved in housing in the UK, but Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “Conservative planning reforms are already handing more powers to developers, and now it seems the new housing secretary is accepting donations from them too. To avoid any conflict of interest, Michael Gove must return this money.”

Jenrick became embroiled in a conflict of interest row when it emerged that the Conservative party accepted a donation from Richard Desmond shortly after Jenrick approved plans for a £1bn housing development by the property developer.

Steve Reed MP, Labour’s shadow communities secretary, said: “Michael Gove’s predecessor was sacked because Conservative MPs knew his disastrous planning reforms showed their party was in the pockets of wealthy developer donors, so there are serious questions to answer about whether this just means more of the same.”

Gertler has previously invested in commercial property in the UK, according to reports, and owns a UK-registered property services company, Gertler Properties Services, which says in its filing at Companies House that its business includes “development of building projects”.

Gertler, who is German but lives in Israel, according to Companies House records, has been contacted for comment through his family’s company in Frankfurt. There is no suggestion he has requested anything in return for the donation. He is described by the Jerusalem Post as a close friend of Israel’s former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He reportedly hosted a 70th birthday party for the politician at his apartment in Tel Aviv.

He is among several repeat donors to the new housing secretary who include Lord Harris of Peckham, Charles Wigoder, a telecoms entrepreneur, Alan Massie, also a property developer, and Lord Wolfson, the chief executive of clothes retailer Next.

Meanwhile, the property industry, environmental groups and councils are waiting for Gove to decide how to reform the planning system. Gove was previously the Conservative housing spokesperson, in opposition to Tony Blair’s Labour party in 2006 and 2007, and during that time he suggested that better design of new homes could help reduce antipathy, telling parliament that he agreed with Prince Charles on that.

In one parliamentary contribution, he said: “Many of us believe that housing development should be organic – in sympathy and in tune with the local neighbourhood – so local materials should be used.”

In an interview with Building magazine in 2006, he said: “I don’t like centrally set housing targets. I’d like to see the back of regional government and regional plans and I don’t think having housing targets is helpful.”

Steve Reed said: “If the secretary of state wants to prove that his party is not in the pockets of the development industry, he should confirm that the government’s planning reforms are dead and buried.”

A spokesperson for MHCLG said: “All donations made to the secretary of state have been declared publicly and the proper process followed.

“The department has robust processes in place to ensure any potential conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. Ministers continue to be bound at all times by their obligations under the ministerial code.”

Johnson’s reshuffle gets rid of all the fools, incompetents and charlatans.

Boris Johnson’s promise to cut middle class social care fees will cost £1.5 billion a year, threatening to wreck his reforms, councils have warned.

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.co.uk

Local officials say that ensuring people who pay for their own care do not face higher fees to subsidise council-funded residents will cost more than the extra cash promised last week.

Unless Johnson finds more money at the spending review next month, his plan to cap costs could collapse as it did when David Cameron first proposed it, the County Councils Network said.

People who pay for themselves face care home fees 40 per cent higher than those paid by councils for means-tested places, in a system criticised as a “stealth tax” on the middle classes.

In its blueprint for social care, the government promised to end this “persistent unfairness” by ensuring that people who pay their own fees can get the same rates as councils pay “so that they can find better value care”.

The network, which represents rural bodies, said in a report that either care homes would be forced into bankruptcy or councils would face higher fees they could not afford.

Martin Tett, the network’s spokesman for adult social care, writes in The Times Red Box: “Unless the government fully funds this commitment, either providers will have to accept lower rates for care, affecting their profitability, or councils will have to pay more, which will impact on their ability to balance budgets.”

Tett says that not finding extra money “could . . . result in large-scale care home closures, with 272 care homes already closing their doors in counties over the past three years”.

He points out that when Cameron backed away from capping care costs it was partly because he struggled to find an affordable way to end the fees cross-subsidy. “We are concerned the government has underestimated the consequences of its well-intentioned aims.”

Local bodies estimate that raising council fees to sustainable rates would cost £761 million in rural communities and £1.5 billion across the country.

Last week’s review allocated councils only £2.9 billion over three years for the existing social care system, less than this annual cost and leaving no money over for improving the quality of care or offering it to more people.

The network also estimates that most requests for care were turned down last year as councils tightened eligibility while budgets were squeezed.

Of the 545,000 people in rural areas who asked for help last year, 58,000 were rejected because their needs were deemed not severe enough.

Are times getting tougher for those living in the eighteenth century? Doubt it – Owl

Patrick Hosking www.thetimes.co.uk

Jacob Rees-Mogg is thought to have taken a dividend cut of about £200,000 this year after the City investment firm he co-founded suffered a one-third slide in profits.

Rees-Mogg, who is leader of the Commons, is thought to have received dividends this year of about £600,000 from Somerset Capital Management, down from £800,000 in 2020.

Somerset, which manages investments in emerging markets on behalf of retail and institutional investors, reported profits for the year to March 2021 of £9.7 million, down 35 per cent year-on-year.

The firm warned that it expected profits to fall again in the current year, suggesting that Rees-Mogg is set to take another cut in income next year.

Rees-Mogg, 52, who attends cabinet, is thought to be one of the highest paid MPs thanks to Somerset, which he set up in 2007 and continued to run until 2019 when he severed all direct links with the firm to join the government. He remains a sleeping shareholder.

A year ago he owned about 14 per cent of the London-based firm, but he has pledged to reduce his stake as he sells shares to new partners in the hope of maintaining Somerset as a perpetual partnership.

The profit fall at Somerset came despite the firm lifting its total assets under management from $5.6 billion to $7.3 billion.

The company said that it had been hit by lower management and performance fees, as well as a small rise in costs because of new hires.

Dominic Johnson, chief executive and co-founder, said: “Emerging markets and Asia always have challenges and risks — but that is what makes them such an exciting asset class for active managers.

“We are particularly optimistic about our Asia Income Strategy, which has continued to perform strongly since Mark Williams and the team joined in October last year.”

Somerset has been pushing much deeper into investing in China, a market Rees-Mogg regarded with caution when he was in charge.

Following on from pubs and hospitality, our MP, Simon Jupp seems to have discovered a new cause to promote. 

Four days ago he asked a written question about labour shortages in the poultry sector. There are only a few poultry farmers in East Devon. So Owl wonders whether Simon is more worried about his local KFC running out or even whether he will get his turkey at Christmas. Why is this an East Devon priority?

Owl, and the correspondent who alerted Owl to this, would rather he had asked what the government was doing to recruit enough doctors and nurses for the NHS.

From the answer, we will all be pleased to know that prisoners can be released early on licence to gain “useful skills and work experience” – an option hopefully not available to help with the NHS, police and other like staff shortages – yet! 

But who knows? 

PS Ever thought of going veggie Simon?

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to tackle labour shortages in the poultry sector.

Victoria Prentis The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We are aware of the challenges that the poultry industry has encountered in recent months. Defra continues to monitor the market, and we will continue to work closely with the sector.

Defra is working with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to raise awareness of career opportunities within the food and farming sectors among UK workers.

DWP is supporting Defra to develop and deliver a long-term recruitment strategy that supports the domestic workforce into both seasonal and long-term roles in the agriculture sector, including the poultry sector.

DWP has worked with Defra and key Trade Associations to develop a regional recruitment strategy that utilises DWP’s Jobcentre Plus network, fosters strong local links between employers and work coaches, and gives jobseekers the skills and knowledge they need to enter the sector.

All poultry businesses are encouraged to advertise roles through DWP’s Find A Job website, where they can upload and manage their vacancies. DWP does not charge for this service and it is available nationally, including Scotland and Wales.

Defra welcomes the Ministry of Justice‘s work on the Release On Temporary Licence (ROTL) scheme for work across a number of sectors, including the agri-food sector. The scheme aims to help prisoners gain useful skills and work experience as they approach their release.

In 2021 and beyond, food and farming businesses continue to be able to rely on EU nationals living in the UK with settled or pre-settled status. Over 5.1 million EU citizens and their families have been granted status under the EU Settlement Scheme and EU nationals who have settled status can continue to travel to the UK to do work in the poultry sector in 2021.

Defra is also working closely with the Home Office to ensure there is a long-term strategy for the food and farming workforce beyond 2021.

Excess deaths due to the coronavirus pandemic contributed to life expectancy in England falling last year to its lowest level in almost a decade, according to Public Health England (PHE).

www.theguardian.com

PHE said the “very high level” of excess deaths caused life expectancy to fall by 1.3 years for men, to 78.7, and 0.9 years for women to 82.7.

The organisation said this was the lowest life expectancy since 2011 for both sexes.

PHE published its Health Profile for England 2021 report on Wednesday, which it said gave the most comprehensive look at the state of the nation’s health.

It said the level of inequality in life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas for both men and women was higher than all previous years for which PHE has data, therefore covering the past two decades.

Its report stated: “This demonstrates that the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities in life expectancy by deprivation.

“Covid-19 was the cause of death that contributed most to the gap in 2020, however, higher mortality from heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases in deprived areas remained important contributors.”

Elsewhere in its report, PHE said dementia and Alzheimer’s disease remained the leading cause of death in England in women and the third largest in men.

Dementia was reported as the main pre-existing health condition in about a quarter of all deaths involving Covid-19 between March and June 2020 last year, the report said.

By June this year there were about 35,000 fewer people aged 65 and over with a diagnosis of dementia, PHE said, potentially attributing this drop to higher deaths among people with dementia during the pandemic as well as reduced access to diagnostic services.

The report said half of people with a worsening health condition between May 2020 and January 2021 did not seek treatment, mostly due to not wanting to add to pressure on the NHS or for fear of catching the virus.

PHE said there had been an “unprecedented” rise in deaths caused by alcohol use, up 20% last year compared to 2019.

The report also noted the “profound effect” of the pandemic on the life of young people “through isolation and interruptions to education”.

It said: “Some of these effects will be longer-term and data are not available to measure them yet.”

In conclusion, PHE said: “The report has highlighted how the direct impact of Covid-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected people from ethnic minority groups, people living in deprived areas, older people and those with pre-existing health conditions.

“There have been substantial indirect effects on children’s education and mental health, and on employment opportunities across the life course, but particularly for younger people working in sectors such as hospitality and entertainment.

“In addition, it is clear that access and use of a range of health services has been disrupted during the pandemic and the long-term effects of this is not yet realised.”

Neil Parish MP

“I thank my hon. Friend very much for securing the debate. She talks about the Agriculture Bill. It is really important that, as we move to make sure that we sustainably produce food in an environmentally friendly way, we also produce enough food, really good-quality food, more vegetables, more meat and more milk. As we experience climate change—we are a country that has a climate that can produce food—we must make sure that we can produce enough food in future.”

So why do we build on good quality agricultural land? – Owl

Hansard.parliament.uk

“A view” from Paul Arnott in this week’s Exmouth Journal (and sister publications)

Before I get going this week, it is appropriate that I record briefly the fact that East Devon District Council has made an initial response to the news that one of its former Conservative councillors, John Humphreys, was sentenced to 21years in prison a few weeks ago for a number of counts of sexual assault.

The council’s first action was to meet to remove his honorific title as an Alderman. It’s a small but significant start to a council response. However, it is important to record through this column that – in my personal view as Leader of EDDC – this is just the first inch in what will need to be a many mile journey looking into this matter. For legal reasons I cannot pass further comment.

However, it is crucial that it is understood by the public, and in particular the victims, that I have heard very clearly the widely reported comment in one of the victim’s impact statements, that he believed there had been many years inertia in the conviction of Humphreys due to his “political influence”.

That statement is one that in my view cannot be left unexplored. It already is being, and I will ensure that every stone which needs to be overturned to get to the truth will be. I suspect that all the people who voted for me and the kind of administration I lead at EDDC would expect nothing less.

As stated, I cannot pass further comment at this stage, so I must apologise for crashing gears with a complete change of subject. So, and with the nights beginning to shorten, we get into the time of the year which, in my view, sets the agenda for what is possible all the way through to the end of next summer.

For that reason, I wanted to share with readers your district council’s absolute number one priority for that period – somehow we must do all we can to increase the level of housing stock available to local people who are unable to afford the prices of most private sector homes. As we all know, there is a “perfect storm” in our area.

House prices are soaring as the broadband-enabled work-from-home revolution was stimulated even further by the pandemic. We happened to have our own home valued both before the pandemic and then a few months ago and it showed an increase in likely price at sale of more than 20% in eighteen months. This accords with data across most of Devon and Cornwall, and it applies in all sectors of the market.

Meanwhile, compounding the post-Brexit loss from the available labour force in Devon, it has become even more unaffordable than before for people on low-to-middle salaries to live here. It’s not just the challenge to raise the deposit and mortgage to get on the property ladder, it is the almost non-existence of the supply in the rental market if you are not over 60.

So, what is needed now is some radical thinking. As a local authority we need to help find brownfield land, perhaps in EDDC’s own ownership, on which to build. I am aware that I am hurling a cat amongst the pigeons here, but I’ll say it anyway. One part of EDDC’s land assets is its car parks, of which there are many. Now, this would not apply to all of them by any means, but perhaps some. How about we retain the car parking capacity at a ground floor level, but build homes at another two or three levels above? This would provide decent starter homes in central locations of some of our most economically challenged towns. What do you think? Please don’t think for a minute this would be about losing car parking capacity, or that this would be rolled out without huge consultation locally. But if not there, where?

The Journal’s front page last week highlighted the East Devon Conservatives’ urgent calls for all councillors to be subject to DBS checks, immediately following the news that former Tory councillor John Humphreys had been convicted of serious sexual offences against children.

Cllr Paul Millar www.midweekherald.co.uk

The journalist did his homework and spoke to an experienced employment lawyer who questioned the legal validity of what the Tories were proposing. In the Tories’ press release, they claim that their calls for blanket councillor DBS checks have been ‘ignored by other groups within the council’, when the opposite is the case.

Whilst a Cabinet member I called a meeting with the council’s head of legal on the subject. At the time I knew nothing of the Humphreys investigation but I was being lobbied by colleagues who had local casework specifically involving vulnerable adults in relation to housing and wondered why they weren’t subject to a DBS check.

A report followed with reference to current legislation which remains in force, laid by a Conservative-led government in 2012. It stated that an individual in their capacity as a district councillor could not undertake an enhanced DBS check.

Currently no political party can legally vet their candidates before they are selected which could lead to their election to public office. As I’m sure you’re all thinking, this is a completely unacceptable situation when one considers the trust local people place in their elected representatives and access to their lives to help them deal with sometimes very sensitive issues in an advocacy capacity.

But it is also worth emphasising that a DBS check would never have flagged the crimes of Humphreys before he became a councillor, because they only recently came to light. DBS checks are no silver bullet, sadly. In my past role as an MP’s caseworker, I undertook safeguarding training. For the 45 years the Tories were in power at East Devon District Council, they didn’t manage to establish mandatory safeguarding training for councillors in relation to their activities – the current administration is getting that in place now.

With these facts in mind, and with all councillors having sight of legal advice which has been endorsed by the Local Government Association, I resent the way the Tories are campaigning on this most sensitive of issues, which has the effect of whipping up public hysteria. They do themselves no favours in suggesting it is an issue the present ruling groups are responsible for solving, when it is a Westminster issue. And in that respect, they have much better access to government ministers while the Tories remain in power there.

I believe the Tories know full well that the subject of councillors and DBS checks is not a straightforward one, let alone a matter the current administration can click its fingers and change.

Appropriate and necessary reforms need to be made at Westminster. Had Humphreys been legally subject to a DBS check in 2015 before he became a candidate for that local election, it may have flagged that a police investigation on serious offences had begun. Presuming the Tories didn’t know already about the police investigation, the information may have also prevented the Tory group from selecting him as a candidate or indeed later nominating him for the position of Honorary Alderman.

If I could, I would change the law tomorrow to make being a Ddistrict councillor a ‘regulated activity’ which required enhanced DBS checks being carried out on us all. Any new law would need careful safeguards to prevent the public exposure of minor spent convictions from decades ago on matters unrelated to children and vulnerable adults.

But sadly I am not (yet) Exmouth’s elected Member of Parliament with a vote in the House of Commons and the power to propose new legislation. For now, the MP is Simon Jupp, whose silence on this matter and absence of support for his own EDDC Conservative group colleagues speaks volumes.

Why, oh why Simon did you decide to be pictured in your media column this week drinking a pint of Doom alongside “Three Homes” Robert Jenrick? Didn’t Boris tell you he was about to sack him and demote your mentor Dominic Raab? And even if he hadn’t, did you really want to associate yourself with his “build, build, build” algorithm and attitude to “lock-down rules”? 

Why, oh why Simon, do you keep banging the drum for the hospitality trade? Have you forgotten “Eat out to help out” and what it did to supercharge last autumn’s infection wave? Don’t you realise that a very high proportion of your constituents feel vulnerable to the delta variant? Don’t you think you would help the hospitality sector more by arguing for the Government to take a more responsible, less “Gung-Ho”, attitude to Covid so that the general population felt more secure to venture out? 

Why, oh why Simon do you chose the hospitality trade in particular? Recent research noted that whilst hospitality, food and tourism are sources of pride for the region and its flourishing tourism sector, it’s inescapable that they are also sources of low pay and low productivity. Are low pay and productivity what you support?

Lastly, why, oh why Simon, if you must go on a pub crawl to support local business, are you drinking a beer brewed in North Cornwall – Doom – and not something brewed locally, in Devon, such as Otter Bitter!!!!

Doom, it’s all in the optics

“Go hard, go early” to curb winter crisis, Johnson told.

From dithering “libertarian” Boris? No chance – Owl

www.thetimes.co.uk

Government whips have been accused of threatening to withhold funding from Conservative MPs’ constituencies in a bid to clamp down on rebellions in key votes.

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com 

Some of Boris Johnson’s backbenchers also claimed that would-be rebels who risk losing their seat in an upcoming parliamentary boundary review were warned they might not automatically be selected elsewhere. In addition, whips were accused of telling some in Tory-held marginals that they could lose “critical defence” funding from party headquarters worth up to £10,000.

The moves were said to have been employed to impose discipline and head off embarrassing Commons defeats before a difficult winter for the government.

While party whips have long been known for employing pressure tactics, the allegation by some Tories that there were threats to withhold town deal funding will raise questions over the fairness of its allocation.

The towns fund, designed to boost struggling areas, was announced in 2019 and 101 town deal offers have been made by the government.

In March the Guardian revealed that of the first £1bn released under the scheme, 39 of the 45 places it went to were represented by Tory MPs. At the time, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, rejected accusations of “pork barrel politics”, saying the formula was “based on an index of economic need” published by Whitehall and “based on a bunch of objective measures”.

More recently, the chief whip, Mark Spencer, is said to have told some potential rebels in marginals that party funding to retain their seat at the next election could depend on their loyalty to the government. “My pen hovered over your name,” he is alleged to have said.

Nevertheless, the pressure put on MPs appears to have worked: some would-be rebels said in private that the techniques had stopped them voting against the government when they had planned to.

Caroline Slocock, director of the Civil Exchange thinktank, said: “Every government uses tough tactics to curtail rebellions from its own side on key votes. But it is shocking if government whips are promising to hand out public money (or deny it) to their MPs to buy votes.

“Public funds should be allocated following clear criteria based on need, with due process. If these allegations are true, the government risks undermining confidence in government – something more important than winning one vote.”

There have also been more positive attempts to engage with restless backbenchers. Before the summer, some were invited to meetings with No 10 policy chiefs and asked to bring solutions for issues the government should be tackling.

Some insiders defended Spencer. One called him “the best chief whip since the days of Patrick McLoughlin”, who served during the first two years of the coalition government.

One Tory MP noted: “It’s not like the [Theresa] May government where the whips need to go heavy-handed because every vote was on a knife-edge. The government’s majority is such they don’t need to go ballistic with everybody.”

Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said: “This shows again that the Conservatives treat public money like it’s their own. Boris Johnson is bullying his own MPs into breaking the promises they made, but it’s people in our communities who will suffer. The Conservatives aren’t interested in investing in our towns. They are only focused on taking money out of the pockets of working people with tax hikes and a cut to universal credit.”

Conservative campaign headquarters was contacted for comment. A Tory source said Spencer was “always happy to offer support to those colleagues who he finds in the government lobby” and another insisted “engagement with colleagues is totally normal”.

It comes amid speculation of a cabinet reshuffle that some believed would happen last week. Frontbenchers suspected Johnson deliberately did not play down the idea before a vote on the health and social care levy, in an attempt to keep the number of rebels to a minimum. While the threat of a reshuffle has only partially subsided, it is not expected to happen on Wednesday.

A similar project to the Lower Otter Restoration Project, but on a smaller scale at Cotehele Quay.

The National Trust is undoing flood prevention work carried out in the 19th century, and turning back the clock to create wetland habitats. From today’s Western Morning News and National Trust

A milestone has been reached in the creation of a new intertidal habitat in Cornwall.

A 15-metre breach has been made in a 19th century riverside bank on the Tamar estuary ready for the tide to flood in over low-grade farmland.

The farmland was created in 1850 when an embankment was built allowing the land to be drained for agriculture.

The National Trust is now creating the intertidal habitat and allowing the land to return to nature.

The project will also help alleviate flooding during high tides or heavy rains by creating more space for water.

Alastair Cameron, from the National Trust, said: “By creating new wetland habitat similar to that found before the embankment was built, we can make space for nature and water.

“This month we’ve made a relatively small breach in the bank and now we’ll let nature and the tides take their course. It’s really exciting to see the water flowing in now with the spring tides.” 

The new habitat will over the next decade start to attract a wide range of wildlife, including worms and a range of wild birds, such as shelduck, redshank and teal ducks.

“Over the coming years we’ll start to see changes in the habitat which should attract typical Tamar estuary species and in time we’ll see more permanent intertidal vegetation increase like reeds which will attract more and different wildlife,” Mr Cameron said. The project is being jointly funded by the Environment Agency and the National Trust.

Rob Price, from the Environment Agency, added: “We are very much looking forward to see the new intertidal habitat established over the next few years as the project now turns its focus to monitoring the benefits that this enhanced area will provide for local wildlife, habitats and people.

“This valuable work is an important part of an integrated programme of works to build the Tamar catchment’s resilience to a wide range of environmental pressures including those related to climate change.”

The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill was voted through its final stage of the Commons by 312 to 55. It repeals the Fixed Term Act introduced by the coalition Government in 2011, returning power to call an election to the Prime Minister.

Dan Falvey, Political Correspondent www.express.co.uk 

Clipping the wings of the Supreme Court, the Bill also seeks to rule out judicial intervention.

The Bill makes it explicitly clear the decision to call an election could not be challenged in the courts.

Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith told the Commons the legislation “is necessary and proportionate for the avoidance of doubt and to preserve the longstanding position that the prerogative powers to dissolve one parliament and to call another are non-justiciable.”

She added: “Any judgment on their exercise should be left to the electorate in the polling booth.”

Mr Johnson pledged to scrap the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in the 2019 general election.

The decision to write into law there is no legal basis for the courts to intervene in the timing of an election is seen among Westminster as a deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to get revenge on the Supreme Court.

In September 2019, Mr Johnson planned to prorogue parliament for a number of weeks in a bid to prevent MPs forcing him to extend the date the UK would leave the EU beyond October 31.

However, a legal challenge by a group of Remainers led to the Supreme Court ruling the prorogation illegal.

MPs were sent straight back to Parliament, where they held a vote to force Mr Johnson to beg the EU for another Brexit extension.

Conservative MP Sir Geoffrey Cox, who was attorney general at the time of the prorogation row, spoke out in favour of the Bill in the Commons.

He argued reverting power to dissolve parliament for elections to the Prime Minister was a return to “sanity” and “normality”.

He told MPs: “I see this measure as a welcomed correction that brings back our constitution to the fundamental principles, which have existed for many, many years.”

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been blamed as partially responsible for the Brexit impasse in the Commons in 2019.

Under the law, an election could only be called earlier than the five year period if it was supported by two-thirds of MPs.

With the Government struggling to break the Brexit deadlock in Parliament, Mr Johnson twice tried and failed to call an election.

Opposition MPs refused to give their consent to going to the ballot box, claiming they were concerned by the timing of the planned election.

While clearing all the hurdles of the Commons, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill could still be amended in the House of Lords.

Peers will debate and vote on the legislation later this year.

Where the wine was ‘rubbish’ and he made “incendiary” remarks. [Watch the video, no comment – Owl]

Henry Dyer www.businessinsider.com 

• Johnson attended a Conservative Party fundraiser on Sept. 10, the largest since the pandemic began.
• Insider spoke to an attendee who provided an insight into the PM’s behaviour behind closed doors.
• At one point, he joked about the UK becoming the “Saudi Arabia of penal policy” under Priti Patel.

Boris Johnson was, as usual, running late.

He had just been at Downing Street to speak to the president of Chile, but more important business on the afternoon of September 10 was in the largest conference room at the InterContinental London Park Lane in Mayfair.

Johnson was the guest of honour at the first large Conservative Party fundraiser event since the pandemic began.

With tickets costing up to £500, and three hundred attendees, the lunch was a major opportunity to raise funds for the Cities Of London & Westminster Conservative Association, whose constituency covers Theatreland in the West End, the Houses of Parliament, and the commercial centre of the City of London.

The “substantial sum of money” raised was not just for the association’s work in the constituency, but also for Conservative Campaign Headquarters and other groups, according to the event’s brochure.

Insider spoke to an attendee at the lunch, who shared her experience of what it is like to attend the event, as well as photographs and video, including of incendiary remarks made by Johnson behind closed doors.