Tory ministers are facing a backlash following their decision to recommend only a 1% pay rise for NHS workers despite the unprecedented pressure staff suffered during the coronavirus pandemic.

[Worth remembering that pensioners will continue to get a minimum 2.5% rise as the Chancellor did not scrap the “triple lock” of granting pensioners 2.5%, consumer prices index, or average wage rise whichever is the greatest. – Owl]

Graeme Demianyk www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The growing anger and the threat of industrial action risks eclipsing Rishi Sunak’s manicured budget and the successful vaccine roll-out, with calls for the public to support a slow hand clap next week against the pay proposals.

A 1% rise represents a drop in the bucket in the context of the government-backed Covid relief package worth £407bn.

NHS accounts for 2019/20 show that £45.1bn was spent on salaries and wages, meaning a rise of 1% would amount to approximately £450m. Under another estimate, the Department of Health and Social Care referenced a figure of £56.1bn covering permanent and “bank” staff spending in 2019/20 in evidence to the NHS pay review board. That would mean a 1% uptick costing around £561m.

Critics have pointed to how the government has lavished significant sums of money elsewhere, often on projects with questionable merits. Here are a list of just a handful or so that have caused anger in the last 18 months.

£2.6m: Refurbishment for White House-style press briefings

Downing Street has spent more than £2.6 million on renovations in order to hold White House-style press briefings, it was revealed on Saturday.

According to the PA news agency after a response to a Freedom of Information request, a total £2,607,767.67, largely excluding VAT, was spent to allow daily broadcasting by various news organisations within the Grade I listed building.

An extensive overhaul within No 9 Downing Street began last year as the government announced the plans to hold the televised question and answer sessions with journalists, with their launch long delayed during the coronavirus pandemic.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “It would take around 100 years for a newly qualified nurse to get paid this kind of money.

“It sums up Boris Johnson’s warped priorities that he can find millions for vanity projects, while picking the pockets of NHS workers.”

Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper added: “This is nothing more than an expensive vanity project and is just more evidence that this government’s priority is spin, not substance.

“The prime minister himself said that he ‘owed his life’ to Covid doctors and nurses but now he’s happy to see front-line nurses take a real-terms pay cut, whilst he gets a flashy new TV studio – the prime minister should hang his head in shame.”

£37bn: Spending on troubled Test and Trace system 

HuffPost UK revealed on Thursday that the small print of Sunak’s budget showed the Test and Trace system is to get another £15bn, bringing its total cost to £37bn. The funding for 2021/22 comes on top of this year’s spending allocation of £22bn.

MPs said that the “eye-watering” sums should prompt ministers to do more to prove that the system, run by Tory peer Dido Harding, was giving taxpayers real value for money. 

Test and Trace has been dogged by criticism since its launch last April, with critics seizing on its use of private consultants at £1,000-a-day, its outsourcing to firms like Serco and its failure to deliver contact tracing rates or rapid test turnaround times seen as vital to stop the spread of Covid.

The National Audit Office published an interim report on Test and Trace last November which concluded that the government “needs to learn lessons” and that the service “is able to make a bigger contribution to suppressing the infection than it has to date”.

£340,000: Payout to Home Office official after Priti Patel bullying claims 

On Thursday, it emerged the government agreed a “substantial” payout to settle a top civil servant’s employment tribunal claim after he quit amid allegations of home secretary Priti Patel’s bullying.

Home Office chief Sir Philip Rutnam is reported to have accepted a six-figure sum after launching legal action against the Cabinet minister.

The department’s former permanent secretary dramatically resigned in February last year, accusing Patel of a “vicious and orchestrated” briefing campaign against him, claiming constructive dismissal and accusing Patel of bullying her subordinates.

A 10-day employment tribunal to hear Sir Philip’s case was due to take place in September.

Neither the Home Office nor the the FDA Union would disclose the amount of the settlement but it is understood to be a “substantial” sum.

But the BBC, the Guardian and the Times all reported the figure was £340,000.

£4.4bn: Additional costs of Brexit preparations

Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union cost the taxpayer more than £4 billion in additional government costs, according to the Whitehall spending watchdog last March.

The NAO said that between the EU referendum in June 2016 and March 31 last year, government departments will have spent at least £4.4 billion, while £6.3 billion was allocated by the Treasury for Brexit preparations.

They included planning for both “deal” and “no deal” scenarios, with £2 billion specifically earmarked for “no deal” preparations in 2019-20 – although this was scaled back after the prospects of “no deal” receded.

Of the money spent, £1.9 billion went on staffing costs, £1.5 billion on building new systems and infrastructure, and £288 million on bringing in expertise and external advice.

At the peak of activity, in October 2019, there were 22,000 staff working on Brexit preparations, including 1,500 who had been moved within government to prepare for a possible “no deal” exit. 

£150m: Millions of unusable face masks

During the early days of the pandemic, the government scrambled to secure deals with suppliers for precious personal protective equipment (PPE). Questions have been raised about many of the contracts, among the most notorious being a deal for 50 million face masks that did not work.

The masks were bought for NHS England from investment firm Ayanda Capital as part of a £252 million contract. But the government said because they used ear-loop fastenings rather than head loops, they may not have fit tightly enough for clinical use. It confirmed in court papers that the masks would not be used in the NHS.

Based on incomplete Whitehall figures, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor estimate the 50m masks would have cost more than £150m of public money. 

£60m: Falling short of supplying computers to disadvantaged schools

A £60m contract was awarded for the education department to provide laptops to teachers and disadvantaged children during the lockdown.

But in August, HuffPost UK revealed the scale of the failure to deliver the computers to the poorest communities. Figures obtained by the Children’s Commissioner for England showed 27 academy trusts were left with just one device each.

In April, education secretary Gavin Williamson pledged the government would fund devices for children on free school meals in Year 10, as well as for vulnerable pupils with social workers and care leavers. But, despite some 540,000 pupils being eligible for the scheme, just 220,000 laptops were delivered to schools by August as a second lockdown loomed.

£1m: Boris Johnson’s ‘Brexit plane’ gets a red, white and blue makeover 

A plane used to transport the prime minister and the royal family was given a red, white and blue makeover that cost almost £1m.

The once-grey RAF Voyager was resprayed in white, with a Union flag on the tailfin and United Kingdom written in gold on the fuselage.

Boris Johnson had complained about the military paint scheme used on the jet.

As well as being a serving military plane, Voyager is used to transport the prime minister and members of the royal family to engagements abroad.

The cost of the respray, undertaken at an airport in Cambridgeshire, was condemned by opposition politicians when it was revealed.

The SNP lambasted it as an “utterly unacceptable use of public funds”.

Downing Street, which confirmed the work would cost “around £900,000”, said the new colour scheme meant the plane could better represent the UK around the world with “national branding”.

The number of number of coronavirus cases confirmed across Devon and Cornwall has dropped nearly 40 per cent this week, down to the lowest levels since September.

Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

A total of 380 new cases were confirmed across the two counties in the last week, down from 650 the week before, and bringing the total since the start of the pandemic to 45,964.

Cornwall has the second lowest infection rates of any upper tier authority in England, with Devon third, behind the Isle of Wight.

Of new cases confirmed since 26 February, 78 were in Cornwall, 67 in East Devon, 29 in Exeter, 23 in Mid Devon, 14 in North Devon, 86 in Plymouth, six in South Hams, 24 in Teignbridge, 41 in Torbay, six in Torridge and six in West Devon.

In terms of infection rates per age range, case rates are highest in the over 80s in Devon.

Exeter has its highest infection rates in the 40-59 age range, while every other local district authority has its highest figures in the 20-39s. In Devon, no age group has an infection rate of more than 50/100,000.

The number of patients in Devon’s hospitals following a positive covid-19 test has fallen to levels not seen since the middle of October, and at 43 patients has more than halved in a week. The NHS Nightingale Hospital is empty.

There were 12 patients at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (down from 22 as of Feb 23), zero at the Nightingale (down from 17), 10 at Torbay Hospital (down from 16), 18 in Derriford Hospital in Plymouth (down from 32), two at North Devon District Hospital (unchanged), and one in Devon Partnership NHS Trust units (up from zero).

In the last week, there have been eight deaths in Devon and Cornwall hospitals of patients within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, with three in Cornwall, three in Plymouth, one in Torbay, and one in North Devon.

It comes as Steve Brown, director of public health Devon, said that testing is going to be the cornerstone of transition back to normal life. He said: “Over coming weeks and months, we are going to see a lot more movement of people – students returning to education, more people getting back to work, the loosening of restrictions on how many people we can be in contact with, and in time shops, cafes, and other businesses reopening.

“Coronavirus thrives on socialisation, which is why we see case numbers fall during lockdown, when movement and socialising is restricted.

“Taking a test regularly – the rapid tests that give results within the hour – is going to be an absolutely vital part of our way out of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Local community testing sites are available to anyone who work or whose volunteering requires them to be in contact with other people. We are also encouraging parents of secondary school and college-age students to use the community testing centres, as well as people in support bubbles. The tests are very quick and easy to take and results are texted or emailed back to you within the hour.”

Latest figures on vaccines show that more than half of all adults in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon have now had their first jab.

By 28 February, 461,165 vaccines had delivered in Devon, 445,074 of them first doses. Just under 50,000 vaccinations were carried out last week.

Simon Jupp spouts the party line, extolling the virtue of the budget, but can’t find much to say about East Devon – why not? Owl

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon  1:54 pm, 4th March 2021

Much has been said in the press about a perception that this Budget would be focused on the north. It may make a predetermined headline work, but it does not reflect the package of measures that will help every corner of our country, including my home county of Devon.

I joined a conference call with local hoteliers in East Devon last night, hosted by the excellent Sidmouth Town Council. The extension of the furlough scheme will help keep staff on the books as the hospitality industry reopens its doors in May with restrictions still in place. Much praise was heaped on the new restart grants, providing up to £18,000 to hospitality businesses. That will give hotels, pubs and restaurants across East Devon a welcome boost before the tourism season kicks in.

When they fling open their doors, the support continues with a suitably Conservative flavour by keeping taxes low to help businesses thrive. The extension of the VAT cut to 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions is something I have been calling for over several months, alongside further business rates relief. Both those measures are game changers for an industry hit really hard by the pandemic. I am glad that my calls to extend that support were heard and delivered in this Budget. East Devon’s economy is heavily reliant on hospitality, and the feedback from the industry is positive. I look forward to visiting many businesses across the constituency as they reopen.

While the support for the hospitality industry is nationwide, it will particularly benefit Devon, and the whole county will reap the benefits of several other announcements too. I fought hard to secure support for regional airports after the huge loss of Flybe and the impact of the pandemic. Only one flight landed at Exeter airport in my constituency today, which is not a huge surprise in the circumstances, but the past year has been a bitter blow to the aviation industry. The airport support scheme that I campaigned for will be extended for six months, as work continues on the long-awaited aviation recovery plan. It will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis, and taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry back on its feet.

On the ground, more than £40 million of funding was included in the Budget to reinstate passenger services on the Exeter to Okehampton railway line. That will encourage more sustainable journeys across Devon and improve connectivity across the county and the city of Exeter, which I am proud to represent.

Another warmly welcomed announcement for Devon was a freeport, which will help to create thousands of jobs across our county. Businesses in Devon will benefit from more generous tax relief, simplified customs procedures and wider Government support, bringing investment, trade and jobs, which will help regenerate our county and our region. Meanwhile, the new future fund presents opportunities for businesses across Devon, including some based at the Exeter science park in my constituency. This £375 million fund will invest in highly innovative companies working in life sciences, quantum computing or clean technology.

The “rabbit out of a hat” Budget bonus was undoubtedly the new super deduction, which will cut companies’ tax bills by 25p for every £1 they invest in new equipment. To put that into perspective, it is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery—exactly what our country needs.

It is not just our economy that will benefit from this Budget. Devon is home to many veterans, and I am proud to have the Royal Marines commando training centre in Lympstone. Those who risk their lives to protect our nation deserve our support. I was really pleased to see an extra £10 million invested in the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which will deliver projects to support veterans’ mental health.

There is continued extra support for the lowest paid and most vulnerable on universal credit, and the national living wage will rise again in April. We are also helping people back into work with our plan for jobs. Some 140,000 kickstart job placements have been approved in the first six months of the scheme, with many of those in Devon. Whether it is support for sectors hit hard by the pandemic or investment and new opportunities across my home county, this Budget delivers for Devon and our whole nation in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and its Director Paul Johnson make it all very clear.

www.ifs.org.uk

Conclusions

Mr Sunak had three challenges in this Budget – to ensure the right level of support for the economy over the next few months, to set about fixing the longer term public finances, and to deal with the longer term consequences of the pandemic, especially its unequal consequences.

He has done a decent job of the first, arguably erring on the side of generosity.

He has given us a sense of where he wants to go on the second, but he still has a lot of work to do and his spending plans in particular don’t look deliverable, at least not without considerable pain.

On the third he has been silent. No money to deal with post pandemic priorities. No policies to deal with the inequalities that have opened up over the last year between rich and poor, old and young, more and less well educated. This is a big hole in the chancellor’s and the government’s policies, a hole which needs to be filled and soon if we are not to suffer a much worse hangover from this crisis than need be the case.

Extract from Paul Johnson’s opening remarks:

The other assumption is that public service spending plans will be delivered. The big story here remains that the Autumn spending review took some £12 bn a year out of pre pandemic plans in real terms. Yesterday the chancellor chose to trim around £4 billion per year from his cash plans for public service spending after next year. Now these are not firm plans, but they are the basis for the future public finance estimates. They are a very shaky basis.

The Treasury argue that as far as this additional £4 billion cut is concerned this is a purely mechanical change because of a lower inflation forecast. Well up to a point, but it is a particular measure of inflation, depressed by current lockdowns. It does not represent any real reduction in cash needs going forward and it’s pretty clear that, if delivered, this additional £4 billion cut in cash spending will cause additional pain. This isn’t just a mechanical change and presenting it as such means the Chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances. 

The actual costs facing departments are unlikely to have fallen. And since the NHS, schools and the Ministry of Defence all have budgets fixed in cash terms until later in the Parliament, this new £4 billion cut will fall entirely on other, unprotected services. Those areas – including perennially squeezed budgets like justice and local government – are now facing real-terms cuts in 2022–23. That’s a recipe for a very tricky Spending Review in the autumn.

But that’s only if you think these plans will actually be stuck to. Are we really going to spend £16 billion less on public services than we were planning pre-pandemic? Is the NHS really going to revert to its pre-Covid spending plans after April 2022?

In reality, there will be pressures from all sorts of directions. The NHS is perhaps the most obvious. Further top-ups seem near-inevitable. Catching up on lost learning in schools, dealing with the backlog in our courts system, supporting public transport providers, and fixing our system for social care funding would all require additional spending. The Chancellor’s medium-term spending plans simply look implausibly low. 

Two related thoughts.

An extract from a Telegraph article basking in the “Budget Glow”, followed by a discussion on what is at stake in changing the fixed-term parliaments act.

Fraser Nelson 4 March 2021 www.telegraph.co.uk

……The madness of 2019 gave us a winter election: voters would not thank Johnson for another one. Spring is the norm. So this leaves two realistic options: go to the polls after three-and-a-half years, or four-and-a-half? 

Just after the general election, the longer time frame looked best. A “levelling-up” agenda was promised, with roads and railways built in the north of England. Such projects need time to bear fruit. When the pandemic struck, it was argued that 2024 would give enough time for the job of social repair to be complete – and for memories of shambolic lockdowns and Professor Neil Ferguson’s misadventures to fade. So for various reasons, time was the Tories’ friend. Or so it seemed then.

But the second wave has changed all that, having doubled the Covid bill to a crippling £350 billion. So we can forget about quickly repairing the lockdown damage and moving on: the costs will now dominate Budgets for the rest of the decade, if not longer. The austerity that Johnson has promised not to repeat now looks unavoidable, with plans to spend £17 billion less on public services than was envisaged this time last year. Hardly the formula on which elections are won.

But the Sunak Budget – which can be summarised as “spend now, pay nothing until 2023” – could have been designed for an election held in the May of that year. It is divided into Biblical-style fat years – the splurge now – and then the lean years, coming in the form of huge tax rises that will continue for the foreseeable.

Until May 2023, the experience of most people will be of economic boom and retail therapy. The economy is expected to surge 7.3 per cent next year, a post-war high, driven by a nation of frustrated shoppers who take two years to spend their lockdown savings. If the recovery goes better than predicted (as Sunak privately expects), the full tax rises starting in April 2023 might not be needed at all.

But delay the election until May 2024 and the post-retail glow fades. As will the growth: it’s projected to be 1.9 per cent that year. And now there’s a new argument: the Tories want the vaccine project to still be in voters’ minds. This is what seems to be driving the opinion polls now: a success that is, increasingly, supplanting the memories of failure……

Boris Johnson may soon have the power to call elections whenever he wants – a legal view on why that’s not a good idea

John McGarry theconversation.com 

Legislation is currently making its way through the UK parliament to repeal the controversial fixed-term parliaments act, which sets the period between general elections at five years and limits the prime minister’s power to trigger an election earlier.

An earlier election is possible if two thirds of MPs vote for it or if the government loses a vote of confidence among MPs.

The 2011 act was passed under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government of 2010-2015. Its immediate aim was maintaining the coalition’s stability but it also had a more principled long-term objective of ending the governing party’s ability to call an election for its own advantage. Then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said the act would “remove the right of a Prime Minister to seek the Dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain … for the first time … the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of governments”.

Before the fixed-term parliaments act, prime ministers could set the date of the next general election as long as it was within five years of the last. This gave the incumbent government a political advantage. The prime minister could call a general election timed to take advantage of favourable opinion polls, or may even delay an election as long as possible in the hope that unfavourable polls may improve.

By the 2019 election, both main parties were pledging to get rid of the system brought in by the coalition. The Conservative government claimed the act had “led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”. This referred to Boris Johnson’s failure to secure enough support from MPs to hold an early election on three occasions in 2019.

It’s questionable, though, whether this failure provides adequate grounds for repeal. The act merely fulfilled its purpose in 2019. It prevented Johnson from calling an election simply for political advantage. Any paralysis was as much due to a minority government lacking sufficient support for its Brexit plans as it was the 2011 act.

It should also be noted that an early election was eventually held in 2019, despite the fixed-term parliaments act. Johnson could not convince enough MPs to support an early election but he was able to secure enough votes to pass temporary legislation that would allow him to bypass the fixed-term parliaments act.

So, the story of 2019 is one of the fixed terms system working. It blocked the prime minister’s dissolution power while allowing early elections when there was sufficient support among MPs or parliament as a whole.

A key clause

Now, should the proposed changes go ahead, the prime minister will once again have the power to hold an election at will.

There is also a proposed clause protecting the prime minister’s power from legal challenge. Such clauses – known as ouster clauses – attempt to freeze the courts out of a particular matter. In this instance, the clause would prevent the courts hearing a claim that the power of dissolution has been exercised unlawfully. Courts are, however, adept as side-stepping ouster clauses leading to tension between the courts, parliament and government.

It’s reported that this attempt to oust the courts is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government acted unlawfully in 2019 when it tried to prorogue parliament for several weeks. Yet, that attempted prorogation, and the judgment that it was unlawful, is clear evidence of the important role courts play.

It’s widely believed that the real but unacknowledged reason for trying to prorogue parliament for so long in 2019 was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny at a crucial stage in the UK’s exit from the EU. That is, the government’s willingness to ignore constitutional, political and legal restraints for short-term political gain does not demonstrate the problem of courts ruling on the legality of government actions. It instead shows the necessity of the courts as a safeguard against abuse of governmental power.

Of course, the legal challenge in 2019 was not in response to an election being called. But the judgment in that case illustrated the courts’ willingness to intervene to keep the government in check. This explains the ouster clause – it’s an attempt to give the prime minister as much freedom as possible to call an election without interference by the courts.

The ouster clause is also part of a worrying pattern by the present government to insulate itself from political, media and judicial scrutiny. It has recently even launched a review of judicial review, the process by which the courts ensure that governmental power is exercised lawfully.

There should, then, be serious doubts about reinstating the prime minister’s dissolution power. The current government’s willingness to act in ways unprecedented in modern times for short-term gain suggests it is not a good idea. For mature democracies, it’s surely preferable for elections to be at set intervals with early elections permitted if directly elected MPs, rather than the indirectly elected prime minister, decide.

3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. 

goodlawproject.org

The Judge confirmed:

“The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).”

Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. 

Over the course of our judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. 

But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. 

Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. 

Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. 

We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth. 

It is only with your support that we can continue to hold Government to account. If you would like to make a donation, you can do so here.

This is totally shocking.

East Devon, over the past year, has spent an exorbitant sum of Council Tax money on rubbish collection and toilet cleaning, up to three times a day, during the pandemic, with little benefit coming to the tourist industry.

This is an affront to us all.

Sam Sterrett www.radioexe.co.uk 

Photo: East Devon District Council

The facility in Budleigh has been closed

A public toilet at Limekiln, in Budligh, was criminally damaged last week. The photo above shows the full extend of damage, with pieces of the toilet shattered across the floor.

East Devon District Council, who shared the post via Facebook, were forced to close the toilet. The said they currently have no date for repair – but they’ll update the public once they do.

If you have any information regarding the vandalism, please report to Devon and Cornwall police via 101.

More than half of all adults in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon have now had their first Covid-19 vaccine.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The statistics, which provide the position as of February 28, show that there have been 461,165 vaccines delivered in Devon, with 445,074 of them being the first dose. Just under 50,000 vaccinations were carried out in the last week.

Across the whole of Devon, which will have risen in the most recent days, are by far the highest number of vaccinations for any of the regions within the South West and they show that 44.5 per cent of the adult population had received their first jab. This is up on the 39.1 per cent as of February 21.

In Cornwall, 216,072 people have had their first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, 46.8 per cent of the adult population, up from 39.3 per cent as of last week.

The statistics show that as of Sunday, in Devon, 99.6 per cent of over 80s, 100 per cent of 75-79s, 95.6 per cent of 70-74s, and 79.4 per cent of 65-69s had received one dose, based on the 2019 ONS population estimates.

In Cornwall, 98.4 per cent of over 80s, 100 per cent of 75-79s, 94.7 per cent of 70-74s and 83.9 per cent of 65-69s had their first vaccine.

Of the total population of Devon, 16,091 people, 1.6 per cent of adults, have also had their second dose, with 11,325 in Cornwall, 2.4 per cent of adults.

And figures also show the number of vaccines that have been delivered in each local authority, as well as in the MSOA area.

In every single local authority in Devon and Cornwall, more than a third of all adults have had at least one dose, and in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon, it is more than half.

Of the adult population, 46.8 per cent in Cornwall, 52.6 per cent in East Devon, 35 per cent in Exeter, 46.8 per cent in the Isles of Scilly, 43.8 per cent in Mid Devon, 48.4 per cent in North Devon, 38.9 per cent in Plymouth, 48.6 per cent in South Hams, 48.5 per cent in Teignbridge, 50.2 per cent in Torbay, 48.9 per cent in Torridge, and 53.4 per cent in West Devon, have had one dose. These figures are as of February 28 and so will have risen in recent days.

The government can expect a “backlash” if it goes ahead with a proposed 1% pay rise for NHS staff in England next year, a nursing union has warned.

Is the Government Tone Deaf? – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

The health department has made the recommendation in a submission to the independent panel that advises on NHS salaries.

The Royal College of Nursing called the suggested rise “pitiful” and said nurses should be getting 12.5% more.

NHS staff have been excluded from a pay freeze for most public sector workers.

The NHS Pay Review Body is due to recommend salary levels for health service staff before early May, before ministers then make a final decision.

In its submission, the health department said awarding NHS staff a “headline” pay increase of more than 1% “would require re-prioritisation”.

Health department officials said the Covid pandemic had placed a “huge strain” on NHS finances, whilst the economic outlook “remains uncertain”.

They added that this increase was still above the CPI rate of inflation, whilst some staff would see a higher rise under a previously agreed three-year deal.

Some 1.3 million public sector workers will see a pay freeze next year, while those earning less than £24,000 guaranteed a pay rise of at least £250.

image captionThe PM and his fiancee Carrie Symonds outside 10 Downing Street joining in clap for carers in May

Speaking on BBC’s Question Time, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said he was sure the pay round “has been discussed and established at the right level”.

“No one is doubting that the NHS hasn’t been absolutely first class in this pandemic. What I am suggesting is that the whole economy has been under pressure,” he added.

But Labour said a 1% increase for NHS staff was “the ultimate kick in teeth to our NHS heroes who have done so much to keep us safe over the past year”.

The party’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said staff “deserve a fair pay rise,” adding the proposal was “an absolute insult”.

NHS pay in England has been out of the news since 2018 when a three year deal was agreed and welcomed by unions.

But the issue is firmly back on the agenda with a new deal needed for the upcoming financial year.

This is just the start of the process.

The government has made its submission to the NHS Pay Review Body. But the fact that ministers think a 1% pay rise is reasonable has angered health unions.

They see it as scant reward for the huge efforts of staff during the pandemic.

Government sources say that inflation is so low that 1% still represents a real terms increase and that public finances are constrained.

This is shaping up to be a tense few months with pay added to the many difficult issues facing the NHS.

RCN Chief Executive Dame Donna Kinnair said the government was “dangerously out of touch with nursing staff, NHS workers and the public”.

“Nursing staff would feel they are being punished and made to pay for the cost of the pandemic. It is a political decision to underfund and undervalue nursing staff.

“With the time remaining before the Pay Review Body recommendation, the government can expect a backlash from a million NHS workers. Taxpayers are supportive of a significant and fair pay rise for NHS workers – this year of all years.”

One nurse, Carmel O’Boyle, said she was “disgusted”.

“We just want something that reflects the work that we do. We want a fair wage and I don’t think the government understands at all what the nursing workforce does,” she said.

“I understand it is a very difficult year for the whole world… but this is a political decision,” she added.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said the recommendation was “a kick in the teeth”.

Its chair of council, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, accused the government of a “total dereliction” of its “moral duty and obligation to a workforce that is keeping the NHS on its feet and patients alive”.

He said: “Throughout the pandemic, doctors have cared for more critically ill patients than was ever thought possible and worked round the clock despite suffering from extreme stress and exhaustion.

“The government should demonstrate that it recognises the contribution of a workforce that has literally kept this country alive for the past 10 months.”

A government spokesperson said they would “consider carefully” the recommendations made by the NHS Pay Review Body when it reports in the spring.

The government “will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers”, despite the wider freeze on pay in the rest of the public sector, the spokesperson said.

They added multi-year pay deals had delivered a pay rise of over 12% for newly qualified nurses, and will increase junior doctors’ pay scales by 8.2%.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is essential to holding the government accountable. But it’s being undermined by a major loophole: it doesn’t apply to government contractors.

go.cfoi.org.uk

Will you help get FOI extended to government contractors?

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is essential to holding the government accountable. But it’s being undermined by a major loophole: it doesn’t apply to government contractors.

Since the Act was passed, outsourcing has vastly expanded. Government now spends £292bn a year buying goods and services – more than a third of all public expenditure. Private companies like Serco, G4S and Capita receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but because they’re not subject to FOI we can’t properly hold them to account.

During the pandemic £10.5bn of government contracts were awarded without competitive tender and hundreds of millions was spent on “potentially unsuitable” PPE according to the National Audit Office, the spending watchdog. It also found that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to receive government contracts.

Access to contractor-held information depends on the public authority and contractor agreeing to clauses in the contract which permit it – a totally unacceptable situation that allows vital information to be withheld from the public.

We think the FOI Act should be extended to cover all contractor-held information via an FOI request to the public authority. Major contractors should be required to answer requests directly.

Support for bringing contractors under FOI has come from:

• The Information Commissioner, who enforces the FOI Act. 
• The House of Commons Public Administration & Constitutional Affairs Committee 
• The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee 
• The Committee on Standards in Public Life 
• The government appointed Independent Commission on Freedom of Information 
• The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition, which brings together 18 of the UK’s leading anti-corruption organisations 
• The Open Government Network of civil society organisations

But we need to show there is huge public support for it too. This is where you can help:

• Sign this petition to Boris Johnson It only takes a few seconds.
• Spread the word further and sharing this link to the petition on Facebook and Twitter https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/extend-the-freedom-of-information-act-to-companies-awarded-government-contracts

Thank you!

Katherine Gundersen

Campaign for Freedom of Information

A fund intended to boost the UK’s most deprived places appears overwhelmingly skewed towards Tory-held areas, with dozens of Conservative regions in the top tier for assistance despite being relatively affluent, a Guardian analysis has found.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com

Among 93 English regions placed in the priority group of three tiers to receive money from the £4.8bn levelling up fund, 31 are included while not being ranked as in the top third most deprived places by average deprivation score.

Of these 31, 26 are entirely represented by Conservative MPs, with the others having at least one Tory MP.

Among the remaining five is Canterbury, is a highly marginal Labour-Conservative seat.

Labour described the way the fund was allocated as “divide and rule”, and called on ministers to publish the criteria for the tiers. One MP whose area was excluded from the top tier called the decision “a stitch-up”.

Four places are in the uppermost level for funding despite being ranked in the bottom third of English regions by deprivation score, the analysis found. All those areas have Conservative MPs.

One area is Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, where the local MP is Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, whose own department is leading work on the fund. This is among the top fifth of most prosperous places in England by the average deprivation score.

The analysis will add weight to complaints about “pork barrel politics” within Sunak’s budget on Wednesday. It included money for two other funds, both of which appear also to lean towards Conservative-held areas.

The chancellor announced £1bn in extra money for an existing towns fund, intended to help struggling areas. Of the 45 new grants unveiled this week, 39 will go to towns with a Conservative MP.

Finally, a community renewal fund, with a total spend of £220m, will also benefit Sunak’s Richmondshire region. In all, seven areas represented by cabinet ministers are among the 100 areas targeted for help.

Dan Jarvis, mayor of the Sheffield city region and the Labour MP for Barnsley Central, said the government’s treatment of the levelling up fund was “symbolic of their divide and rule approach”, noting that while Richmondshire was in the top level, Sheffield and Barnsley – both of which have notably higher deprivation levels – were in tier 2.

Jarvis called for the funding metric to be published: “It’s yet again proof that this government’s actions are levelling South Yorkshire down, pushing our region and some of the poorest places in the north to the back of the queue for investment.”

Paul Dennett, the Labour mayor of Salford, said he could not understand why his city was tier 2 for the fund: “Salford is the 18th most deprived area in the country according to government’s own index of multiple deprivation. We would have fully expected Salford to have been included in category 1.”

While the levelling up fund also covers Scotland and Wales, deprivation statistics between the nations are not directly comparable, meaning the Guardian analysis only covers England.

However, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts, said she could not understand why Gwynedd, in north-west Wales, which includes her Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituency, was put in the lowest tier for help, saying that earlier EU funds prioritised it as among the least developed areas in Europe.

She said: “Our public money is being snatched for the budget of Tory bungs. This is not levelling up but a stitch-up.”

Boris Johnson was asked on Thursday about the allocation of the towns fund towards Conservative seats, arguing that his party’s win in the 2019 election meant “there are a lot of Conservative-represented towns”.

Speaking to reporters on a visit to Teesport in north-east England, he said: “I’ve asked about this and I’m told that the criteria was entirely objective – it takes in data on poverty, employment and so on.”

The row has been exacerbated by apparent confusion in government over how the decision to allocate spending had been made.

While Sunak had told a post-budget press conference that the metric was “based on an index of economic need, which is transparently published”, an apparent reference to the levelling-up fund, the fund’s official prospectus, says this information is coming “shortly”. Treasury sources were unable to say how long this might be.

A Treasury spokesman said: “The bandings do not represent eligibility criteria – and money will be allocated to the areas most in need. Further technical details will be published by the government in due course.”

The metrics for the towns fund also appear somewhat open to interpretation. While a wider pool of 541 eligible towns was selected based on official deprivation levels, further selection was down to factors including what was called “strategic alignment with government priorities”, investment opportunities, and other indicators of need.

Similarly, the formula for deciding who received money from the community renewal fund was also somewhat qualitative, based on an assessment by the housing ministry of seven “strategic fit considerations”.

(Unless your’e “three homes” Robert Jenrick MP for Newark)

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government www.gov.uk

This list consists of 45 of the 101 Towns Fund areas who have had their funding confirmed at part of Budget, announced by the Chancellor on Wednesday 3 March 2021. Funding equates to £1.02 billion in total.

[A National Audit Office report released in July revealed 61 of the 101 towns in the original list were chosen by ministers led by Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick – and all but one of these were either Tory-held seats or targets, including his own of Newark. Meg Hillier, chair of the powerful Commons Public Accounts Committee, accused the Government of “cherry-picking” which areas received funds. So the “cherry-picking” has become even more selective. – Owl]

Boris Johnson 2019: “And so I am announcing now on the steps of Downing Street that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared. To give every older person the dignity and security they deserve…”

Just another of “those” Tory promises – Owl

www.spectator.co.uk

If Daniel Defoe had been writing about modern budgets, he would have adapted his famous saying to include the certainty of death, taxes and an absence of a long-term plan for adult social care. Once again, the statement from the Chancellor had a yawning gap where the settlement for funding the beleaguered sector should be. There was no mention of social care in Rishi Sunak’s speech or in the Budget Red Book, either. The government’s answer to complaints about this is that ministers will publish a white paper on social care reform — but we’ve been hearing this line for years now.

Indeed, we might be hearing this line for longer than we’re being led to believe currently. The Whitehall machine at least seems to be gearing up for yet another delay to social care reforms. Ministers have been saying they will announce them later this year, but two official government documents have recently said we should instead expect them next year. 

There’s this official government response to a House of Lords Public Services Committee report, which reads: ‘In the longer term, the government is committed to sustainable improvement of the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals next year.’ Then there’s this letter from Treasury minister Steve Barclay to the Future Social Care Coalition, which says exactly the same thing.

When I spoke to No. 10 about this, sources pointed me to Boris Johnson’s words to the Liaison Committee in January that reform would be announced ‘later this year’. There’s always a chance, of course, that this sentence is being cut and pasted around Whitehall by civil servants who haven’t noticed that it was originally written in 2020 with a view to reforms being published in 2021 and we are in fact now in ‘next year’. But then again, they could turn out to be a Freudian slip.

If Daniel Defoe had been writing about modern budgets, he would have adapted his famous saying to include the certainty of death, taxes and an absence of a long-term plan for adult social care. Once again, the statement from the Chancellor had a yawning gap where the settlement for funding the beleaguered sector should be. There was no mention of social care in Rishi Sunak’s speech or in the Budget Red Book, either. The government’s answer to complaints about this is that ministers will publish a white paper on social care reform — but we’ve been hearing this line for years now.

Indeed, we might be hearing this line for longer than we’re being led to believe currently. The Whitehall machine at least seems to be gearing up for yet another delay to social care reforms. Ministers have been saying they will announce them later this year, but two official government documents have recently said we should instead expect them next year. 

Rishi Sunak “isn’t really levelling with people” about painful cuts that will be needed to repair the public finances, according to budget analysis by a respected economic think-tank.

John-Paul Ford Rojas news.sky.com 

Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) director Paul Johnson said “Santa Sunak… looks more like Scrooge Sunak” under plans for a squeeze totalling more than £50bn compared to the pre-pandemic outlook.

That is the scale of spending cuts and tax rises over coming years compared to what the chancellor outlined in his first budget a year ago – implying a spending outlook that seems “implausibly low”, Mr Johnson said.

“The chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances,” he added.

Mr Johnson characterised the plans outlined by Mr Sunak as a “tale of two budgets” with £65bn more coronavirus-related spending and a “super-deduction” tax break for investment followed by fiscal belt-tightening of £30bn, adding further to a squeeze outlined in November.

Spending heavily on policies such as furlough and business rates support this year will mean borrowing at historically high levels in the current fiscal year and the next.

But the chancellor’s plans, if delivered, put him on course to balance the books by 2025/26 – partly thanks to an income tax threshold freeze set to drag more than a million more people into paying it, as well as a hike in corporation tax to 25% in 2023.

“The sad truth is that that would be a balance built on the highest sustained tax burden in UK history and yet further cuts in unprotected public service spending,” said Mr Johnson.

The IFS director described the freezing of tax thresholds as “screeching U-turns” and the corporation tax hike a gamble that it “won’t have too terrible an effect on investment”.

He also pondered the likely impact of a plan to trim public service spending trimmed by £4bn a year, adding to a £12bn reduction outlined last November.

“If delivered, this additional £4bn cut in cash spending will cause additional pain,” Mr Johnson said.

One part of the plan to bring public finances back under control is to end the £20 a week temporary uplift in Universal Credit – though it has been extended for six months for now.

Unlike the gradual phase-out of furlough and other business support measures, this will be a “cliff edge” that sees some of the poorest families see their income drop by £80 from one month to the next, Mr Johnson pointed out.

The scale of the planned cuts is also likely to mean pain for services such as justice and local government – whose budgets, unlike the NHS, schools and defence, are not protected, he added.

Mr Johnson also called into question the assumption that the NHS would next year revert to its pre-COVID spending outlook.

“In reality, there will be pressures from all sorts of directions,” he said.

“The NHS is perhaps the most obvious. Further top-ups seem near-inevitable.

“Catching up on lost learning in schools, dealing with the backlogs in our courts system, supporting public transport providers, and fixing our system for social care funding would all require additional spending.

“The chancellor’s medium-term spending plans look implausibly low.”

Mr Johnson also pointed to “perennial absurdities” on pensions – with the lifetime allowance for savers frozen again – and climate change.

“This is the 11th year in a row that a government supposedly committed to net zero greenhouse gas emissions has cut the tax on burning petrol and diesel,” he said

Exmouth’s former lorry park which overlooks the Exe Estuary could become a dedicated location for motorhomes and camper van pitches.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The site off The Royal Avenue, near to the train station, has been put forward as a possible location in East Devon where ‘appropriate facilities’ would be provided by the council to allow longer stays, and for which a premium overnight rate comparable with commercial campsites could be charged.

The East Devon Car Parking TAFF, when they met on Wednesday morning, backed officer proposals to explore the possibility of creating dedicated motorhome / camper van pitches at the site.

Subject to approval by cabinet at a later date, the council would begin a formal consultation process Natural England this winter to consider the impact of the first such development on the site of Exmouth’s former lorry park adjacent to the Estuary, although Andrew Ennis, East Devon’s service lead for car parks, said that this could be a ‘significant hurdle’ to overcome.

The TAFF also recommended that the existing ‘absolute bargain’ charge for £11 for 24 hours be increased to between £15-20 a night, with overnight stays in car parks allowed in any of the pay and display car parks that are “deemed suitable”.

Mr Ennis, in his report, said that East Devon is seeing an increasing number of motorhomes in the beauty spots and the car parks, and the revised policy he had put forward was not about encouraging visitors but to alleviate some of the issues that may arise or offer services that could benefit the community and generate some useful revenue for the council in the process.

He said that increasing the charges to £15-20 a night would cover the extra cost of providing fresh water and additional refuge at the site where we are allowing stopovers.

On the proposals for the former lorry park, he said that it would need Natural England consent and planning consent, and that while consent from Natural England could be a significant hurdle, he would begin to make the enquiries if councillors supported the proposals.

DAY VISITORS

The TAFF backed keeping the policy unchanged and that visitors and residents may use any public car parks, but if their vehicle is unable to park wholly within one of the standard parking bays (2.4m x 4.8m) then they must parking with care

STOPOVERS/SHORT OVERNIGHT STAYS

The TAFF backed the proposals that overnight stays in car parks can be allowed, subject to strict terms and conditions of use, in any of the pay and display car parks that are “deemed suitable” in consultation with Ward Members and the relevant Town or Parish Council. It may be appropriate to allow overnight stays of three consecutive nights in suitable locations.

FIRE SAFETY

The Council can allow overnight stays in circumstances that are compliant with relevant fire safety legislation and therefore car parks must be managed in accordance with the appropriate guidance on the safe separation of vans staying overnight.

The TAFF agreed to the suggestion made by Cllr Eleanor Rylance that bays in different colours be marked out for people parking overnight so they can manage spacing to stop people parking wherever they like

The view across the Exe Estuary from the Exmouth lorry park (Image Google Maps)

TARIFFS

The current tariff of £11 per night is set to be increased to between £15-20 a night, with the TAFF allowing the cabinet to decide upon the final figure. Mr Ennis, in his report, said: “An appropriate tariff to reflect the value of these “casual” overnight stays in approved car parks for one, two or three consecutive nights only needs careful consideration.

”In my view, our current tariff of £11 per night in the Exmouth pilot is deliberately inexpensive (bearing in mind that it also includes 24 hours parking in a prime location). It was based on the previously charged on-street tariff so that the pilot did not act as a deterrent and sought to encourage existing visitors to relocate from the desirable seafront highway parking spaces into a less intrusive location within an off-street car park.

“If we were to up the charge to £15-20 a night, it would cover the extra cost of providing fresh water and additional refuge at the site where we are allowing stopovers

Cllr Maddy Chapman said that £20 a night wasn’t a great deal, while Cllr Olly Davey said that £18 was a better figure as it was just low enough to overcome the physiological barrier of a £20 fee and would ensure it wasn’t too high and driving visitors out from using the car parks

ARRANGEMENTS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS

Residents will still be unable to purchase a parking permit to use our public car parks for long-term storage of motorhomes and campervans when they are not in use, but it has to be a vehicle that fits into a standard bay.

One safeguard to be introduced is to make it a condition that the exemption will only apply in areas where the resident lives in close proximity to the car park in question and where the vehicle is registered and insured in their name at that home address.

DEDICATED SITES

The TAFF backed the proposals from officers to explore the possibility of creating dedicated motorhome / camper van pitches within sites with appropriate facilities to allow longer stays and for which a premium overnight rate comparable with commercial campsites could be charged.

Mr Ennis said that they would propose beginning a formal consultation process with local members and Natural England this winter to consider the impact of the first such development on the site of Exmouth’s former lorry park adjacent to the Estuary.

He added: “The implementation of this would be subject to further consideration by members in due course in terms of financial investment decisions and might also need to be the subject of a planning application depending on the exact details of the change from Lorry Park to camp site.”

Cllr Rylance said that the Lorry Park site was perfect for overnight camping, with Cllr Davey adding that it would be a very attractive site and an exciting opportunity, while Cllr Joe Whibley said that camper vans and motorhomes won’t stop coming so the council needs to encourage them to a certain extent but to manage them in some way.

LOCAL PLAN

The TAFF agreed to proposals from Cllr Val Ranger that a formal planning policy for motorhomes and campervans should be tied into the Local Plan review to address the issue across the whole of East Devon.

The recommendations of the TAFF will now go to the scrutiny committee for consideration, before finally being sent to the cabinet for a final decision as to whether to move forward with the suggestions made as part of the revised motorhomes policy for East Devon.

Extract from Dan Bloom www.mirror.co.uk

Rishi Sunak today presented yet another £65billion of Covid support in his annual Budget.

The Chancellor extended most schemes until September and gave businesses another shot in the arm as they wait for a vaccine.

But all that help comes at a cost, and we’re not just talking about a hike in Corporation Tax.

A stealth tax hike on working Brits will raise £8bn a year and schemes could run out in September while 2million are still furloughed.

The Budget speech is always a triumphant affair, burying the awkward details to a few lines or none at all. To get a real feel for what’s going on, you must read the hundreds of pages of documents slipped out when the Chancellor sits down.

We’re still trawling through the mammoth pile of Budget documents, including analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog (OBR). But here are the biggest surprises in the small print that have leaped out at us so far.

1. NHS spending overall looks set to be cut

2. Public spending could be ‘cut by £4bn a year’

3. 2million people ‘will still be on furlough’ just before it ends

4. Brexit will leave us worse off – it’s official

5. The self-employed face a hit earlier than expected

6. Massive firms could escape the Corporation Tax hike

7. New Stamp Duty cut won’t actually help first-time buyers

8. Stealth tax raid on working Brits will rake in £8bn a year

9. Eye-watering cost of the fuel duty freeze

10. We have no idea how much 95% mortgages will cost the nation

11. The Green Homes Grant looks to have been buried

Our LEP has been spending its effort in backing a “Freeport” bid centred on Bridgewater, did we know?

“Freeport aims to bring innovation and jobs to Somerset – Heart of the south west LEP”

But yesterday the Government chose Plymouth instead. 

From heartofswlep.co.uk

“Somerset has a key role to play in the bid to develop a new Great Western Freeport – a project which could create thousands of jobs and boost the region’s reputation as a leader in high-value design and innovation…….

…..Karl Tucker, Chairman of Heart of the South West LEP, said: “We are delighted to have worked in partnership with public and private sector partners to submit this bid to government for a Great Western Freeport, which will deliver thousands of jobs and support businesses and their supply chains both within and well beyond its boundaries across the region.

“It would create significant potential for the Gravity site near Bridgwater and the Freeport would become a national hub for green manufacturing and trade, building on the wider South West’s key strengths and helping to deliver clean and inclusive economic growth for our region.“

The submitted bid has been put together by the combined authority working with public and private sector partners, including large-scale businesses across the aerospace and nuclear sector, the region’s universities and colleges, innovation centres, local authorities and business networks.”

Free ports – or sleaze ports? Opinion divided.

From www.theguardian.com 

Proponents say free ports can attract investment to areas that have been left woefully short, bringing jobs and prosperity to deprived regions as part of the “levelling up” agenda, helping prioritise greener industry, and breathing new life into, say, the former Redcar steelworks site, or the Grimsby docks.

But others fear the move signals the creation of “mini-tax havens” and a race to the bottom on regulation, keeping revenues from councils and the Treasury to line the pockets of business and landowners, with profits sent offshore rather than reinvested in the UK.

Support is found predominantly among those who voted – and campaigned – to leave the EU; backers call it a Brexit dividend enabled by the final deal. The EU has started to clamp down on the 80-odd free zones within its jurisdiction, over tax evasion, corruption and crime concerns.

Labour accused the government of using public money “to serve their own party’s needs” after Sunak’s own constituency of Richmond in Yorkshire, and those of other cabinet ministers, were put in the top tier to receive money from a new fund.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com

Rishi Sunak has denied that funds intended to boost struggling towns are biased towards Conservative-held areas after it emerged that 40 of the 45 places to receive a share of the first £1bn in funding are represented by Tory MPs.

Labour accused the government of using public money “to serve their own party’s needs” after Sunak’s own constituency of Richmond in Yorkshire, and those of other cabinet ministers, were put in the top tier to receive money from a new fund.

The allocations from what are officially called the towns fund and the levelling up fund, unveiled as part of the budget, highlight the government’s intention to focus spending on areas outside major cities, particularly in northern England and the Midlands.

Separately, Sunak used the budget to announce that two new economic hubs will open in the north, in Darlington and Leeds, in another apparent attempt to strengthen the Conservatives’ support outside their traditional heartlands.

But in his post-budget press conference, Sunak was accused of “pork barrel politics” given that 40 of the 45 towns in the first tranche of towns fund spending were represented by Conservative MPs, while his constituency is in tier 1 of the levelling up fund, while less prosperous neighbouring areas are not.

The chancellor rejected this, saying: “The formula for the grant payment for the new fund is based on an index of economic need, which is transparently published by MHCLG [the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government], and based on a bunch of objective measures.”

He said that the tier 1 areas were only receiving extra capacity funding to bid for support as they “might need a bit of extra help” and that this did not mean other places would lose out. Sunak added: “If you look at things we’re doing, they’re benefiting people in every corner of the country.”

Neither the Treasury or MHCLG said where the formula was published. Labour has tabled a parliamentary question to seek the information.

Labour said the levelling up fund not only now had Sunak’s local authority in tier 1, but also areas represented by the communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, the Welsh secretary, Simon Hart, the Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, and the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis.

Labour said ministers needed to be more open about the metrics used. Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said: “This research raises big questions marks over the fairness of the government’s regeneration funding schemes.

“This government should be investing to rebuild the foundations of our economy, but they’re pulling the country further apart by pitting regions and nations against each other for crucial funding, then diverting the money to serve their own party’s needs.”

Announcing the new northern hubs in his speech, Sunak said a Treasury campus will be set up in Darlington and a national infrastructure bank will be situated in Leeds.

Sunak announced plans for a regional Treasury site in last year’s budget and, after an extensive scoping exercise, revealed on Wednesday that Darlington in Tees Valley would be the location.

Sunak promised that the infrastructure bank in Leeds would be up and running “in an interim form” by the spring. Its role will be to dole out £13bn of equity and debt capital, and to issue up to £10bn of guarantees, as well as offering loans to local authorities from the summer. “Redrawing our economic map means rebalancing our economic investment,” said Sunak.

Details about how many civil servants could be relocated to Darlington and how many jobs could be created in the region have yet to be clarified, but the government plans to move 22,000 civil servants out of London by 2030. The policy mirrors a pledge in Labour’s 2019 manifesto when the then shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, pledged to “break up No 11” and move it “to the north”.

This needs to be read in conjunction with Simon Jupp’s public support for Exmouth.

Tim Dixon www.midweekherald.co.uk

Hard-hit traders in Axminster have their attention fixed on Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Budget today as he announces his financial route out of lockdown.

A survey of businesses by the Totally Locally Axminster traders’ group shows that optimism over the town’s future is being tempered by concerns whether crucial support will be available to help them get through the recovery stages. 

As chief executive of one of the town’s most high profile businesses, River Cottage managaing director Stewart Dodd said that businesses would be unlikely to return to pre-Covid revenue levels until 2022. He spoke for most with his assessment of the critical factors for local businesses, including a furlough scheme extension until July 31 to support a phased return to work. He believed both the reduced VAT rate of five per cent and businesses rates relief should be further extended to the end of March 2022, and urged pressure be put on banks and lenders to allow further capital repayment breaks, plus encouragement to landlords to allow rent breaks.

He added: “Its highly likely that the UK economy will be buoyant throughout the summer months whilst people remain cautious booking international vacations but it’s important that the government continues support through the winter months, as the economy slows. Hopefully, in the spring of 2022 the economy will bounce back to pre-Covid levels.”

The longer term need for business rates reform is regarded as a key issue by Ian Styles, who has invested heavily in Axminster during lockdown through the restoration of the Trinity House anchor store as a haven for small independent businesses.

“The promised review of the business rates system is long overdue,” he said. “For those that have to pay it locally it can be a crippling burden – there is a real need to level the playing field between large and small businesses.”

At Collate Interiors, owner Naomi Eden highlighted the need for further grant support to cover the true cost of being closed for three months and funding for small towns to help with post Covid regeneration plans. Archway Bookshop’s Simon Holmes was cautious about an online tax designed to help small shops, fearing it could rebound on businesses like his own that have greatly increased their website trading through lockdown.

An in-depth article in Tatler reveals that Symonds, 32, has been overhauling the flat to remove all vestiges of Theresa May’s “John Lewis furniture nightmare”. 

Owl believes that ardent Tory, Philip Skinner, has a grand mahogany dining table that is definitely not John Lewis; perhaps he could donate it to a cash strapped PM?

Extract from Oliver Wright, Policy Editor www.thetimes.co.uk

Boris Johnson’s plan to set up a charity to help pay for improvements to Downing Street is “inappropriate” and “monstrous”, a former standards chief has said.

The prime minister reportedly wants the new body to be based on one used by the White House to raise millions of dollars for interior design, antiques and art. He is said to be struggling to fund the makeover of his official flat by his fiancée, Carrie Symonds.

Johnson is said to have asked Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row, a Tory peer and multimillionaire financier with close links to the royal family, to run the charity. An application to register it with the Charity Commission is said to be under way.

The charity could be funded by private donors, which would risk claims of a conflict of interest if it were seen as a backdoor way of providing benefit to the prime minister.

While its official purpose would be to raise funds to preserve No 10 and No 11 on heritage grounds, insiders say that the plans stemmed from the costs of Symonds’s makeover.

Sir Alistair Graham, a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Times that the charity idea was “quite inappropriate”.

Graham said: “It looks like he is seeking to set up the charity for personal benefit rather than for the benefit of a wider group in need. I would quite like to set a charity up to refurbish my flat in York, but I don’t think it’s a practical proposition. That’s not what charities are for: to provide enhanced living standards for the prime minister and his wife.”

Graham said that the idea of the charity being funded by party donors was “monstrous”. He said: “If you’re making a donation, you’re making it to a political party for the purposes of ensuring that party stays in power, you don’t do it for the personal benefit of the leader of the party. It would seem to me an abuse of his position as prime minister. I cannot believe how it crossed his mind. If there is a need to do certain things in terms of maintenance, that should be paid out of government funds.”

An in-depth article in Tatler reveals that Symonds, 32, has been overhauling the flat to remove all vestiges of Theresa May’s “John Lewis furniture nightmare”. The flat, above No 11 Downing Street, is larger than the one over No 10 and has been used by every prime minister since Tony Blair took it over.

In a separate piece the Daily Mail said that Johnson, 56, had complained that the cost of the project was “totally out of control”. The decor is said to have been inspired by Lulu Lytle, a celebrated eco-interior designer, who makes furniture “based on traditional crafts, including blacksmiths”.

Johnson is said to have first expressed concern last year after being informed by the Cabinet Office that the maximum taxpayer contribution would be about £30,000……