The government’s test-and-trace programme to combat Covid-19 has repeatedly failed to meet targets for delivering test results and contacting infected people despite costs escalating to £22bn, a damning official report has revealed.

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com

The National Audit Office (NAO) has found that the centralised programme is contacting two out of every three people who have been close to someone who has tested positive, with about 40% of test results delivered within 24 hours, well below the government’s targets.

The report said a target to provide results within 24 hours of in-person testing deteriorated to a low of 14% in mid-October before rising to 38% in early November.

Call handler contracts for those working on test and trace were worth up to £720m but many staff had very little to do, auditors said.

By 17 June, the utilisation rate – the proportion of time that someone actively worked during their paid hours – was 4% for health professionals and 1% for call handler staff, the report shows.

Utilisation rates remained well below a target of 50% throughout September and for much of October. This means substantial public resources have been spent on staff who provided minimal services in return.

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, told the Guardian that the report has uncovered a gaping hole in the UK’s defences against the disease.

“The £22bn test and trace now has a budget larger than policing and fire service combined, has seen multimillion pound contracts handed to big private outsourcing firms rather than mobilise experienced public health expertise, and failed to trace sufficient numbers of contacts or ensure those who are contacted have decent financial support to isolate,” he said.

The study from Whitehall’s spending watchdog found that up to the end of October, the scheme spent £2bn less than forecast due to underspending on laboratories, machines and mass testing. Of the £15bn of funding confirmed before the November Spending Review, about £12.8bn (85%) was assigned to testing and £1.3bn to tracing.

In total, 70% of early contracts by value were directly awarded without competition under emergency measures, the report said.

 Dido Harding, head of the NHS test-and-trace programme, which plans to spend a further £16.2bn on contracts by 2021. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Contracts worth £7bn have been signed with 217 public and private organisations to provide supplies, services and infrastructure, including test laboratories and call handlers for tracing. NHS test and trace (NHST&T) has plans to sign a further 154 contracts, worth £16.2bn, by March 2021.

A target to provide results within 24 hours of in-person testing in the community has not been met, auditors found. The report said that turnaround within 24 hours peaked in June at 93% but subsequently deteriorated to reach a low of 14% in mid-October before rebounding to 38% in early November.

Auditors found that while the government had “rapidly scaled up” the operation from a low base, at times “parts of the tracing service have barely been used”.

The report said: “In May, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) signed contracts for the provision of 3,000 health professionals and 18,000 call handlers. The call handler contracts were worth up to £720m .

“By 17 June, the utilisation rate (the proportion of time that someone actively worked during their paid hours) was low for both health professional (4%) and call handler staff (1%), indicating that they had little work to do.

“DHSC had no flexibility to reduce the number of call handlers under the original contracts, which ran for three months.

“It negotiated new terms in August and reduced the number of these staff to 12,000, but utilisation rates remained well below a target of 50% throughout September and for much of October. This means substantial public resources have been spent on staff who provided minimal services in return.”

The report found that NHST&T did not plan for the sharp rise in testing demand in September when schools and universities reopened. As a result, laboratories processing community swab tests were unable to keep pace with the volume and experienced large backlogs, which meant NHST&T had to limit the number of tests available.

A DHSC spokesperson said turnaround times had been steadily improving over recent weeks, and the latest performance figures showed that tracing had dramatically improved, now reaching 85.7% of contacts.

“As the Covid-19 vaccination programme is rolled out, we are determined to ensure that NHS test and trace plays an even more effective role in stopping the spread of the virus.”

Yet again, Larry and Paul have captured the essence of a Downing Street briefing, with a sketch that contains as few facts as the real one, but – unlike most government updates – is absolutely unmissable.

Oonagh Keating  /2020/12/10/larry-and-pauls-real-daily-briefing-hilarious-parody-sketch/

The briefing bot may have had a tear duct error, but we haven’t – we’re just not sure whether they’re tears of laughter or despair.

A legal challenge has been launched against Boris Johnson’s decision to clear Priti Patel of bullying despite advice that she had breached the ministerial code.

[Quite a queue forming for judicial review! – Owl]

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com

Lawyers for the FDA union sent a pre-action notice to Downing Street on Wednesday accusing the prime minister of acting unlawfully when he chose to stand by his home secretary and overrule his independent adviser.

The letter, first reported in the Times, accuses Johnson of “setting a damaging precedent which gives carte blanche to the kind of unacceptable conduct which the home secretary was found to have committed”.

The union hopes the letter is the first step towards a judicial review of Johnson’s decision. The government has so far refused to make public the full Cabinet Office investigation led by Sir Alex Allan, which concluded that Patel’s actions amounted to bullying.

The government is expected to fight any legal challenge against Johnson’s decision.

The move comes after Jonathan Evans, the chair of the committee for standards in public life, launched a review of probity rules, which will include the ministerial code.

Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA, told the Guardian: “The prime minister’s decision has laid bare the inadequacies of the ministerial code as a mechanism for dealing with the conduct of ministers when it comes to their civil servants. The code provides no commitments or rights to the civil servants who were bullied by the home secretary nor any mechanism for challenge.

“Unless this perverse decision by the prime minister, ignoring the evidence provided to him, can be challenged in the courts, it essentially deprives civil servants of the very protection against ministerial misconduct which the code is meant to ensure.”

Allan resigned last month after Johnson reportedly tried to persuade him to tone down the report.

Overruling his adviser on ministerial standards, Johnson acknowledged that while Allan had concluded Patel’s behaviour could “on occasion” be described “as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals”, he had “full confidence” in the cabinet minister.

The legal letter sent on Wednesday states: “Civil servants in the Home Office and beyond will rightly object to their conduct being measured against a standard of conduct and unacceptable bullying which, it seems, does not apply to the home secretary or other ministers.”

Sir Philip Rutnam, who quit as the department’s permanent secretary after accusing Patel of a “vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign” against him, is taking the home secretary to an employment tribunal in September.

He claims he was forced out following anonymous briefings after blowing the whistle on her behaviour. Patel denies all allegations against her.

The government has been approached for a comment.

Further details about the two mass vaccination sites that have been identified to deliver the Covid-19 vaccine in Devon have been unveiled – with one to be in Plymouth and one in Exeter.

Daniel Clark sidmouth.nub.news 

Darryn Allcorn, Chief Nurse at the Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, told Thursday’s Team Devon Local Outbreak Engagement Board meeting that two sites have been secured in the county to deliver vaccines en masse to the population early in 2021.

One site will be in Plymouth – the exact location to be announced next week once contracts are signed, he said.

The second will be in Exeter, and agreement from NHS England for the location has been reached, so further conversations with the site owner are now taking place.

Vaccinations in the county have begun after Derriford Hospital received 975 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, with Mr Allcorn saying that 55 people were vaccinated on Tuesday along with 90 on Wednesday.

Another 830 vaccinations are set to be carried out by midday on Saturday, after which the next batch will be delivered.

What other sites will be giving the vaccine – and when?

He stated that on Friday, the first eight primary care sites in Devon to receive the vaccine would be announced, with each of them to receive 975 doses of the vaccine, with vaccinations to begin on December 14 and 15, with a further 21 sites to become active in the New Year, if not beforehand.

On the large-scale mass vaccination sites, Mr Allcorn said that one would be in Plymouth and one in Exeter, and they hoped to confirm publically the locations next week, with the sites more likely to be administering the Oxford vaccine, which does not need to be stored at -70C like the Pfizer jab does, if and when it is approved for use.

Cllr Andrew Leadbetter, vice-chairman of the Board, asked what the plans were for the Northern part of Devon, if the mass vaccination centre were in the south of the county.

Mr Allcorn said: “We will be working with primary care teams to have a model where we can bring a slightly larger site to North Devon. The challenge is the geographical isolation, so once we can transport it, we will go to the flu vaccine model and deliver it to people as close as possible to their home, and the Northern teams up for that model.”

Dr Paul Johnson, chair of the Devon CCG, added: “The vaccination programme is up and running and given the numbers of over 80s who are getting Covid-19 and that they are the highest risk group so targeting them is the right priority.”

What’s the Covid infection rate now?

The Board heard that Devon had seen a decline in the number of coronavirus cases confirmed over recent weeks, but that decline had stared to slow down and stabilise.

Simon Chant, Public Health Specialist, said that the latest infection rate for the county was 75.7 per 100,000, half the English average, but the rate for Devon was now higher than both Plymouth (46.5) and Torbay (36.7), areas that had seen a higher peak but a much faster drop.

Mr Chant said that the county was seeing a gradual increase cases being confirmed in the 80+ age group, which was seen by outbreaks in care home and hospital settings, and that was skewed to those 90+, but the infection rates were starting to stabilise and were decreasing, while the 0-19 age range had the lowest current infection rates.

Across the county, East Devon and West Devon were the areas with the highest current infection rates based on the seven-day rolling average covering the period of specimens between December 1 and 7, with South Hams and Teignbridge the lowest.

Dr Phil Norrey, Devon County Council’s chief executive, confirmed that the decision will be taken by Government on what happens in terms of the Tier system on December 16, with it being announced on December 17.

He added: “We will know next Thursday whether Devon continues in Tier 2 or moves up or down. It is extremely unlikely to move up, but we have no idea if it will move down.”

Dr Norrey added: “The vaccinations news is not a signal for people to lower their guard and the virus will remain in the community for months to come.”

Cllr James McInnes, cabinet member for children’s services, added: “I am starting to worry about people lowering their guard because the vaccine is coming. We need to incorporate the message to people to welcome the vaccine but also to keep yourself well so you will actually be able to take the vaccine.”

A new report has revealed the risks that Cornwall faces as a result of Brexit included major hits to agriculture and fishing industries.

Author: Richard Whitehouse, Local Democracy Reporter Published 9th Dec 2020 planetradio.co.uk 

The document, written by Cornwall Council leader Julian German, is set to go before the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Leadership Board when it meets on Friday (Dec11).

With the EU transition period set to end on December 31 the nine-page report sets out what the impact of changes could be and the risks they pose to Cornwall.

Cornwall Council has an EU transition working group which has been meeting fortnightly to assess the risks and what might need to be done to mitigate those risks.

On trade with the EU the report states:

“The changes to the way the UK trades with the EU will have an impact on Cornwall’s businesses and the wider economy. Cornwall’s trade with the EU is higher than the UK average, with 55% of Cornish exports going to the EU and 47% of its imports coming from the EU.

“This equates to a slight trade surplus with £364m in exports v £325m in imports. However, less businesses export to the EU (1,127), than those who import (1,832), with approximately 5% of Cornish businesses exporting to the EU.”

The report highlights that, at the time of writing, it is unclear whether there will be a trade deal in place by December 31 but says whatever happens there will have to be new processes for imports and exports.

There are also concerns about the impact on the wider economy with the Government forecasting that GDP will be 4% lower than if the UK remained in the EU.

The report states:

“Cornwall’s economy is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the EU exit due to the average low wage, and importance of the tourism, food, fish and agriculture sectors. This could be compounded with the impact of COVID-19 which is likely to see a greater contraction than the 2010 financial crash.

“In order to mitigate this impact Cornwall Council have been working with partners to provide support for our different sectors and businesses and seeking assurances from government on a number of key areas.”

With Cornwall having received a large amount of EU funding due to its status as being one of the poorest areas in Europe there are also concerns about whether that funding will be replaced by the Government and how.

While the Prime Minister has promised that Cornwall will not miss out there have been few details about the replacement funding and how it will be administered.

Cornwall Council has submitted a bid to the Government for £700million of funding to be provided over the next 10 years to fill the gap left by the loss of EU funding.

The report states:

“The Government have previously pledged that the replacement UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) would see no region worse off. However, there is a possibility that replacement funds could use different metrics which could see Northern/urban areas benefit over Cornwall. This presents a significant risk that the “no worse off” commitment may not be delivered as it relates to more than the value of the fund.

“The local devolution of decision making, simpler process, outcome delivery and a 10-year delivery period that Cornwall Council are calling for are also at risk.”

Concerns about the impact on seasonal labour and workforce are also highlighted in the report which states that the agriculture sector is dependent on seasonal workers.

It states that the brassica sector is worth £200m a year to Cornwall and the daffodil sector is worth £100m a year to Cornwall but less than 5% of those working in fields are UK residents.

The report says that it is still “urgently seeking” an extension to the Government’s seasonal agricultural workers scheme into 2021 and beyond and for it to cover non-food crops such as daffodils and bulbs.

It states:

“With non-food crop production (including daffodils) not covered by the current SAWS scheme, and the imminent closure of the SAWS pilot scheme at the end of December 2020, Cornish farming businesses are very concerned.

“It appears that seasonal labour is being caught up in Government policies relating to immigration rather than being treated separately. Due to the current immigration policy focusing on skills – defined as qualifications – field operatives are not considered for visas. The industry estimates 70,000 workers are needed nationally each year.”

The report adds:

“Cornwall Council have been raising this issue to the Treasury and Home Office and have been told that it is an issue that the Government have sight of and that options are under consideration. However, we have been advised that a ‘Pick for Britain’ campaign will be an important focus regardless of what is decided.”

And it continues:

“At a time when Cornwall and the UK are facing the unprecedented challenges that Covid-19 has had on our economy, the potential loss of these businesses would impact the national Exchequer as well as the local Cornish economy. Our daffodil industry alone contributes £20m a year of VAT.”

Turning to fisheries the report raises concerns about how export restrictions will impact live bivalve molluscs (LBM) and set to run from January to April.

It says that this would “significantly impact” the Fal Fishery and the export of mussels, oysters and queen scallops to the EU – the first sale value of queen scallops for the 2019/20 season was around £256,000.

The report states:

“If the anticipated restrictions stand, the fishery will cease to operate due to the complete loss of the market. The fishery currently supports 30 licence holders, a further 42 registered crew and ancillary businesses.

“This issue is due to a change in regulations which will mean that it will only be possible to export LBM to the EU that have come from A grade shellfish harvest areas or have been appropriately purified. As these products are deemed fit for direct human consumption and classified as a food product, they can be exported alongside an export health certificate.

“However, LMB from B grade shellfish harvest areas are considered live animal exports and cannot be exported without a Live Animal Health Certificate (LAHC) which is not due to be made available by the EU until April 2021.”

The report is set to go to the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Leadership Board when it meets on Friday (Dec11). The board will be asked to review the risks and consider mitigation methods which could be implemented.

The board will also be asked to write an open letter to EU residents in Cornwall reminding them to apply for settled status by June 30, 2021 and that it continues to raise the need for the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme to be extended and include non-food crops.

Revenue officials have written to families struggling to settle bills during the pandemic and threatened to “take things you own and sell them”.

Paul Morgan-Bentley, Head of Investigations | Rosa Ellis, Data Journalist www.thetimes.co.uk 

Letters have been sent accusing people on low incomes of “deliberately” choosing not to pay taxes. They are warned that officials “can take money directly from your bank or business society accounts”.

While much of the country has benefited from billions in financial aid, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has tried to collect debts by sending agents to visit people.

The enforcement tactics, which have included the use of eight private debt collection companies, have been condemned for causing “distress” and “emotional trauma”. In some cases, however, the arrears are the result of HMRC errors.

After being contacted by this newspaper, the department apologised last night for about 800 letters it had sent during the pandemic accusing people of deliberately not repaying debts.

It said that the content “was a mistake and does not reflect our current approach to debt collection”. It did not apologise for threatening repossessions and a spokesman said this was “a pretty standard line” that “we often use”.

An investigation by The Times also found that:

• HMRC has passed on 4.5 million personal records to private debt collectors since 2014 without taxpayers’ specific consent and they are incentivised to maximise takings.

• The debt-collection companies use the pandemic as a means of pressing people to pay, writing that “Covid-19 has damaged the economy” and tax is needed “to fund the NHS”.

• Cancer patients and care home staff are among those who have been chased by debt collectors working with the government department.

• A vulnerable man whose local authority passed details of his council tax debt to collectors tried to commit suicide last month after suffering anxiety over mounting debts.

• The department refused to disclose the number of cases it had passed to debt collectors during the pandemic, despite the release of equivalent figures for the previous six years.

HMRC uses private companies to chase tax debts relating to issues such as credit overpayments and miscalculations on self-assessments.

People on low incomes who are eligible for tax credits can be overpaid for many months without realising and then face repayment demands for thousands of pounds, which they cannot afford. Others owe money relating to freelance work for the previous tax year but cannot pay because of loss of earnings during the pandemic.

The debts in cases seen by this newspaper range from £66 to more than £10,000. In recent months, several of the debt collection companies have written to families struggling to pay.

They all used the same wording: “Covid-19 (Coronavirus) has damaged the UK economy, which means more than ever it is important that tax debts are collected to help it recover. These are also needed to continue to fund vital public services like the NHS.”

They can contact taxpayers by letter, text message and phone. If there is no response or they do not pay the cases are handed back to HMRC.

In October, the taxman wrote directly to Richard Hull, 59, a carpenter who has been unable to settle a tax bill of £9,733 because he and his wife, a care home worker, were ill with the virus in April and most of his customers cancelled or delayed work.

Mr Hull had tried to respond to other letters from one of the debt collection firms but was unable to get through on the phone. While furloughed workers have had 80 per cent of their wages covered, many self-employed people, including Mr Hull, have not qualified for government help. This is often because they are newly self-employed or directors of limited companies.

The letter to Mr Hull from HMRC stated: “If you still don’t pay, we’ll now treat you like you’ve deliberately chosen not to . . . We can take things you own and sell them and we charge you fees for doing this. If you don’t act now it could cost you more money. Alternatively, in certain circumstances we can take money directly from your bank or building society accounts.”

HMRC did not respond to requests for the number of letters threatening repossessions it has sent since April.

In the 2019/20 financial year, HMRC gave 1.1 million cases to private debt collectors — more than double the number five years earlier. HMRC refused to disclose the number of cases handed to debt collectors since the pandemic struck in April, claiming this is “commercially sensitive information”. Taxpayers have made more than 1,400 complaints about the companies to the department since 2014. Over the past decade HMRC has spent at least £179 million on debt collection services.

The department also employs an internal team of 285 “field force collectors” who visit people at home or at business premises. They have made 2.4 million visits since 2014, with 1,091 of them made during the pandemic.

These have been only to business addresses. HMRC said they were not to list or collect assets but to “offer support”. Local authorities also use private companies to chase council tax debts and have continued to do so this year.

Rushanara Ali, a Labour MP on the Treasury select committee, called for a review of public services’ use of debt collection agencies and aggressive practices. “We all recognise the need to recover taxes but in the middle of the pandemic there needs to be greater sensitivity so that it doesn’t become counter-productive,” she said.

StepChange, the largest debt advice charity in Britain, said government debt collection practices were more aggressive than those in other sectors.

Peter Tutton, head of policy, said: “At a time when so many people are struggling due to coronavirus, outdated and harmful approaches to debt collection cannot be allowed to continue.”

The debt collection agencies said they were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and trained to identify and help vulnerable customers. They said they have offered additional support during the pandemic, including changes to repayment terms.

HMRC said that repossession “is only mentioned in a letter after we have already made several attempts to contact a customer”. Less than 1 per cent of field force collector cases lead to goods being removed.

HMRC stopped debt collection activities in March but contacted a million people with tax debts built up before the pandemic when restrictions were lifted in some areas.

A spokesman said that contact initially focused on working with people to help them find an affordable way forward and that “strongly worded communications only go out as a last resort”.

Private firms are awarded commission to hunt debts

Private companies chasing struggling families for tax debts are given incentives by the government to maximise the amount of money they collect.

They are reimbursed using a “payment by results” model, according to a contract for the work seen by The Times. If people who owe taxes pay HMRC after being chased by a debt collection agency, “it will be able to claim commission on these payments” up to a cap, it states.

In some cases the agencies amend debt balances to add interest and penalties when instructed to do so by the Revenue. Although the contract, which runs for seven years from 2015, offers basic information about the arrangements, details about amounts paid, how the commission is calculated, at what level payments are capped and extra penalties have been redacted to protect “commercial interests”.

HMRC outsources the collection of arrears to Integrated Debt Services, also known as Indesser, which is a private company majority owned by TDX Group. TDX Group is owned by Equifax, the consumer credit reporting agency headquartered in the US Indesser then sub-contracts the work to eight debt collection agencies.

In 2019 HMRC spent £25.4 million on debt collection services, according to figures compiled by the accountants UHY Hacker Young. Over the past decade it paid at least £179 million to debt collectors. The companies can try to contact people by letter, text messages and calls and if they do not respond or they cannot pay the cases are handed back to HMRC. The contract states that scripts — for instance for the letters and text messages — are approved by a government department. If the department decides a type of debt should not be collected on a “payment by results” basis, the contract allows different payment models to be used.

For instance, it offers a “platinum” package that allows a set fee to be paid in return for a debt agency sending three letters, making five calls and sending five text messages.

Indesser has collected more than £1.7 billion in public sector debt for 17 government bodies since its inception in 2015, according to its annual report for 2019. Its highest paid director earned £277,000 in 2018.

Indesser and HMRC declined to provide more details about the amounts paid in commission. Indesser said debt collection agencies were subject to “extensive due diligence” before approval by HMRC. It said all correspondence with the public had been updated in light of the pandemic “to acknowledge the impact on lives and finances across the country” and that people were allowed extra time to repay. It only added penalties or interest to bills if instructed to do so by a government department, at no financial benefit.

HMRC said that the law allowed it to delegate work to private sector suppliers. It said that safeguards were in place to ensure that they were monitored and complied with rules and that it had a “robust complaints process” and “will always work to rectify any mistakes”.

The government is facing a backlash from local councillors – including more than 350 Conservatives –over its proposals to shake up the planning system.

www.theguardian.com 

More than 2,000 councillors from across England and campaigners have signed an open letter to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, calling on him to rethink the plans.

Ministers want to overhaul the planning system, which they say is necessary to boost the building of high-quality, sustainable homes, by streamlining the process, cutting red tape and harnessing technology.

Proposals include speeding up the creation of local plans by communities and creating zones for growth, renewal or protection, with development in growth areas pre-approved as long as it meets local design standards.

The proposals are also aimed at much quicker development in renewal areas, replace the planning process with a clearer, rules-based system, and protect green spaces by allowing for more building on brownfield land.

But councillors have said the plans will undermine local democracy by removing the public’s right to be heard in person at local plan examinations and taking away development decisions from elected planning committees.

They said the zoning system could radically reduce protections for nature, local green spaces and fail to tackle the climate crisis, and put additional pressure on greenfield sites.

The proposals would also weaken provisions for affordable, sustainable, good-quality homes, the open letter warns.

The letter states: “The right development, in the right place has the potential to deliver social equity and sustainable economic growth, as well as meeting our environmental ambitions. The government’s proposals as they stand will not achieve these goals.”

Crispin Truman, the chief executive of the countryside charity CPRE, which has hosted the letter alongside Friends of the Earth, said it was not too late for the government to rethink its changes to the planning system.

“Planning done well can create the affordable and well-designed homes that communities are crying out for,” he said. “We can create low-carbon and nature-friendly homes, with an abundance of green space on their doorsteps, all connected by low-carbon public transport.

“Investing in a locally led democratic planning system, that empowers local councils to create these places, should be the government’s top priority.”

Naomi Luhde-Thompson, a senior planner at Friends of the Earth, added: “It’s clear to so many MPs, councillors and local communities that the prime minister’s vision for decision-making on development in England is not one that guarantees local control and centres local voices.”

She said the proposals would “drown out community voices, stifle local democratic responsibility, and weaken legal protections for the environment”.

James Jamieson, the chairman of the Local Government Association, said councils were committed to ensuring new homes were built and communities had quality places to live.

He said: “It is vital that these are delivered through a locally-led planning system which gives communities the power to ensure new developments are of a high standard, built in the right places, and include affordable homes.”

He said nine in 10 applications were approved by councils and that more than a million homes given planning permission over the last decade were yet to be built.

“Any loss of local control over developments would be a concern,” he warned. “It would deprive communities of the ability to define the area they live in and know best and risk giving developers the freedom to ride roughshod over local areas.

“If we are to truly fix our chronic housing shortage, councils need the tools, powers and flexibilities to plan for and deliver the quality homes and places communities need.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the concerns were unfounded and “demonstrate a misunderstanding of our proposals”.

They added: “Our reforms to the planning system will protect our cherished countryside and green spaces for generations to come. The proposals will put local democracy at the heart of the planning process, enabling green belt decisions to remain with councils and giving communities real influence over development location and design.”

A fleet of environmentally-friendly electric vans have hit the road in East Devon as part of the district council’s drive to become carbon-neutral by 2040.

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 

The authority is one of the first in the country to trial the seven specially-modified vehicles – each kitted out with a custom-made caged tipping body.

Their rechargeable batteries have a range of between 124 and 187 miles.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) is leasing the lower-emission Nissan ENV200 vans which will be used daily to help keep parks and public areas ‘clean and green’.

And plans are in place to convert more of its vehicles to electric in the future as part of a £100,000 programme.

East Devon District Council StreetScene deputy operations manager Tom Wood. Picture: EDDC

Councillor Marianne Rixson, portfolio holder for climate action, said: “I am very encouraged by our greener fleet and I’m excited to see how this area of our work will progress in the future.

“Each and every one of us faces an enormous environmental challenge and any changes that we can make to reduce our footprint is a positive step forward.”

EDDC, which has been using electric vehicles since 2012, signed up to a Devon-wide climate change emergency declaration last year.

Its climate change action plan includes earmarking £100,000 towards the electrification of its fleet of vans and cars.

The ‘associated infrastructure’ of the environmentally-friendly motors initially costs more to buy than standard diesel or petrol vehicles.

The East Devon District Council vans have a bespoke caged tipping body. Picture: EDDC

EDDC has also been working ‘smart’ electric vehicle charging equipment installer Elmtronics, which has supplied four stations in Sidmouth.

The charge facilities can be increased ‘as more vehicles come on-stream’, says the council.

Two builders’ bags full of asbestos sheets were found in the Mill Leat, on the River Clyst, near Sowton Village, East Devon. It is thought the illegal dumping happened on or near 20 November 2020.

Mirage News www.miragenews.com 

Fly-tipping is not a victimless crime. The cost of clearing up falls on the landowner. But in limited circumstances the Environment Agency can step in. The asbestos is now being removed and disposed of safely.

Dave Brogden of the Environment Agency said:

The burden of investigating and clearing waste from fly-tipping often falls on local councils and we get involved if the amount and type of waste is so bad it can only be classified as illegal dumping.

On this occasion we have stepped in to sort out this problem, the result of someone showing a complete disregard to the safety of the public and the environment and for the time and resources of local services such as ours, which are already under extreme pressure.

Everyone who produces waste has a duty of care to make sure it does not cause harm to human health or pollute the environment and that it goes to the right place for disposal. On this occasion there were at least three sites within a few miles of the location permitted to accept this sort of hazardous waste.

If the cost of any work being carried out is unusually low, the contractor may not have a permit to carry waste nor any intention of paying for its proper disposal. You can check their waste-carrying credentials at https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-waste-carriers-brokers.

Dave Brogden said:

If you use someone to take away waste, we want you to take 3 steps: check if they if they have a permit, ask where the rubbish will end up, then record the details of the vehicle used to take the rubbish away. Never pay cash and insist upon a receipt.

If you have any information about who is responsible for this waste crime, contact the Environment Agency’s 24/7 hotline 0800 807060 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111 or www.crimestoppers-uk.org.

/Public Release. The material in this public release comes from the originating organization and may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. View in full here.

A Town council survey has revealed that there is ‘no consensus’ over the future of Budleigh Salterton’s high street to make the town centre safer.

[Exmouth story here]

Daniel Wilkins www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

High Street, Budleigh Salterton. Picture: Google

Budleigh Salterton Town Council had agreed to undertake the survey after proposals for temporary alterations to the town centre to help with social distancing were criticised by traders and residents.

The results of the survey, which closed at the beginning of October, were presented to the town council on Monday, November 23.

The main conclusion of the summary report is that there is no consensus amongst local people about the way forward for the High Street.

A spokesman for the town council said: “Responses presented a really mixed picture, and it became quite apparent there was no one scheme which the majority of respondents wished to be carried out.”

The survey, which asked for opinions and ideas relating to the safety of the High Street in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, received 371 responses – 333 of which were completed via an online form.

More than 85 per cent of those who took the survey lived in Budleigh and the same figure said Budleigh high street was important to them.

Around half of those who took part in the survey said designated disabled parking bays are needed, with 21 per cent saying they were not.

Earlier this year the town council proposed to widen the pavements in Budleigh to make it easier for shoppers and 75 per cent of those taking the survey said the pavements are currently too narrow.

At the council Meeting, councillors thanked local residents and businesses who had made their voices heard through the survey and agreed that this had been a ‘huge learning curve’ for all involved as all the comments were ‘really valuable’ in gauging the wide variety of local opinion.

The Town Council is publishing a summary of the results, so that people can see the breadth of views expressed.

It will continue to monitor issues, for both pedestrians and drivers, in the High Street and will continue to review the many positive suggestions for improvement to see if an obvious solution becomes apparent which it can then bring it to fruition.

Residents parking restrictions are set to be introduced across large areas of Exmouth.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

Councillors on the East Devon Highways and Traffic Orders Committee on Friday unanimously agreed to advertise the traffic regulation orders that would enable the parking restrictions to be put in place.

It followed a consultation back in October 2019 which received over 1,200 responses from around 1,000 address in Exmouth, which saw more than 60 per cent of the respondents in the areas affected back proposals to introduce a residents’ parking scheme.

The East Devon HATOC heard that as a result, it was proposed that restrictions are progressed in the zones where the majority of responses are in favour of a scheme.

Residents Parking sign

The report of Meg Booth, chief officer for highways, said: “It should be noted that this may include some roads where residents may be opposed to a scheme, but it is not practical or appropriate to exclude that road from the proposals being developed. A number of residents from Bicton Place have submitted comments as part of the consultation to request that they be included in a scheme and it is recommended that the proposals be amended to include this road.”

Restrictions will be introduced in five Zones:

· Zone A – Colonies Area

· Zone B – Withycombe Road Area

· Zone C – St Andrews Road Area

· Zone D – Albion Street Area

· Zone E – Carter Avenue Area

But she added that a sixth zone around the town centre area (EX6) saw a very low response rate of just 6.2 per cent, and as those responding had mixed views, but slightly more were opposed to a scheme, it is recommended that the proposed restrictions are not progressed in this area.

Following discussions with the local members, it is proposed that the residents parking scheme apply 8am to 8pm on all days to maximise the benefits of a scheme at times it can be enforced.

The consultation responses saw that the times that most people found difficult to park outside their homes were either after 4pm in the evening, or at weekends

Cllr Richard Scott, who represents Exmouth, backed the proposals which were ‘a massive piece of work to try and solve the problem of parking’. He added: “I hope the members can see the detail and I ask that you support the largest change in parking restrictions in Exmouth.”

His fellow ward member, Cllr Jeff Trail added: “This is a massive change for the residents who have faced parking issues and a lack of residents unable to park near their homes.”

The proposals were unanimously supported by the East Devon HATOC, and subject to no objections being received to the traffic regulation order process, will then come into force, at a date yet to be determined.

Thrown-away flatscreen televisions and vacuum cleaners are among electrical items now being sold at recycling centres in Exmouth and Exeter for the first time.

eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Safety-checked and function-tested devices have been added to the re-conditioned stock of low-cost shops at some tips – and even come with a 30-day guarantee.

The new scheme to give the discarded products a fresh lease of life comes following public demand for the popular ‘re-sale’ outlets to expand their offering.

Knowle Hill Recycling Centre in Exmouth and Pinbrook Recycling Centre in Exeter are among five across the county taking part in the initiative.

Concerns over the number of confirmed coronavirus cases has prompted Devon County Council’s leader to warn the county may not drop down to Tier 1 when the grades are reassessed.

[Isn’t a couple of weeks too soon after the transition from lockdown 2 to Tier2* to make any “meaningful” case? – Owl]

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

When the current tiered system is reviewed next Wednesday, December 16, some areas could move into a lower tier – while others may move up.

Authorities have a week to make their case for moving down a tier. The review will consider the opinions of local public health directors, with a final decision on whether any changes will take place being made at a cabinet committee.

Areas which are approved for tier changes will see the switch take place on December 19.

Devon County Council leader John Hart has shared concerns about the number of people still being tested positive for coronavirus in Devon, which is currently in Tier 2.

Yesterday, Devon Live reported the latest Covid figures for Devon show the total number of infections in Exeter over the past seven days now stands at 130 – continuing a steady downward trend in the city.

A total of 10 people tested positive, according to the latest data from Public Health England.

The ward with the highest infection rate in the city is Wonford and St Loyes, which has an infection rate of 253 per 100,000 people. Its 21 cases was unchanged on Monday.

Areas seeing an increase include St Leonard’s; Heavitree East & Whipton South; Central Exeter; and Exwick and Foxhayes.

It now means there have been 2,777 Covid-19 cases in Exeter since the pandemic started.

Exeter’s coronavirus case rate per 100,000 is currently 98.9. That is above the Devon county rate of 76.6.

The highest infection rate can currently be found in East Devon. Honiton North & East has 16 cases and a rolling rate of 264.6.

In North Devon all the wards have less than 10 cases. Figures in Torbay remain low. In Torridge, Holsworthy, Bradworthy and Welcome has seen nine new cases, taking the total to 21.

Cllr Hart said: “As much as I would like to see restrictions lifted a little in order to support our local tourism and hospitality industry, I fear case numbers are not yet coming down sufficiently to warrant a move to Tier 1.

“In particular, there is still real concern about positivity rates among older people and the pressure this could put on local hospitals.

“I fully recognise that there is a very fine and difficult balance to strike between lives and livelihoods here in Devon.

“If we are to stay in Tier 2 then I would like to see more support from the government for our hard pressed local businesses, and the hospitality trade in particular.

“While there will be the relaxation of tier restrictions between December 23 and 27 to enable families to get together for Christmas, we must all make sure we continue to make the right choices and do not drop our guard otherwise we will pay a heavy price in January with the inevitable prospect of tighter restrictions needed if numbers start to rise again.”

A government plan to deliver discounted starter homes has left 85,000 young people waiting in vain for an affordable place to live, in a policy branded “deplorable” by a cross-party committee of MPs.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com

The 2015 initiative to build 200,000 homes and sell them at a 20% discount was formally scrapped this year without a single home being built. But £173m was spent buying land, a damning report by the Commons public accounts committee said. It is now on course to deliver only 6,600 homes and is being replaced by a new scheme.

The influential committee highlighted the abandoned scheme as a waste of time and resources as part of a broadside against government housing policy, which it said has been “stringing expectant young people along for years” with housing policies that “come to nothing as ministers come and go with alarming frequency” – there have been 19 since 1997.

It also criticised the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for failing to say how it will reach its ambition of building 300,000 homes a year in England and accused ministers of an “alarming blurring” of the definition of affordable housing.

The attack came a week after annual figures showed construction of the cheapest social housing remained at close to its lowest level since the 1980s, with just 6,566 homes built between March 2019 and April 2020. Affordable homes of all kinds numbering 57,644 were built in England but social housing experts have estimated 145,000 new affordable homes are needed annually. Official figures on Tuesday revealed housebuilding starts fell by almost 40% during the pandemic.

“The department for ‘housing’ is at risk of losing the right to the title,” said Meg Hillier MP, chair of the committee. “It has serially, constantly failed to deliver affordable new homes or even make a serious attempt to execute its own housing policies or achieve targets before they are ditched, unannounced – costs sunk and outcomes unknown.… MHCLG needs to ditch the false promises and set out clear, staged, funded plans, backed by the necessary laws and with a realistic prospect of delivering.”

The Starter Homes scheme fizzled out when mortgage lenders raised the difficulty of valuing properties with discounts applied.

David O Leary, policy director at the Home Builders Federation, said its failure “demonstrates the importance of ensuring that proper consideration is given to the practical implementation of interventions and their market impacts as early as possible”.

The PAC said the government remained unable to say when its new starter home policy – called First Homes, which offers 30% discounted homes to local first-time buyers – will deliver the first properties to purchase.

“Its reliance on developer contributions to fund First Homes is part of an opaque, complex mechanism which risks less money being available to local authorities for housing and infrastructure,” the report said. “The department does not have a timetable or target for delivering First Homes but is planning a pilot to build 1,500 First Homes ‘within the next couple of years’, which it wants to learn from before further planning of the new scheme.”

It also said it was “wearily familiar” that the MHCLG is “unable or unwilling” to clarify how it will achieve its ambition of 300,000 new homes per year by the mid-2020s.

David Renard, the Local Government Association’s housing spokesperson, said: “The government must hand councils the powers to build new homes at a scale not seen since the 1970s when local authorities built 40% of new homes. Councils fully support the aspiration of people wanting to buy their own home and helping those that want to buy to be able to. However not everybody is ready to buy.”

“This report shows how the government’s approach to solving the housing emergency has been focused on all the wrong solutions,” said Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter. “The government has persisted with schemes for expensive homes which often end up not getting built. There is wide public and political support for social housing across the country, but progress is nonexistent.”

An MHCLG spokesperson rejected the PAC report, saying it was “misleading”. “Since 2010 over 663,000 households have been helped into home ownership through government schemes,” they said. “We’re also investing over £12 billion in affordable housing over the next five years – the largest investment in a decade – and our new First Homes scheme will help local people and key workers buy their own home, in the area they already live, at a discount of 30%.”

[Couldn’t make it up – Owl]

Government demands information from council after Mayor arrest

Liam Thorp www.liverpoolecho.co.uk 

The government has written to Liverpool City Council requesting information as it investigates the situation at the authority following the arrest of Mayor Joe Anderson.

The letter reveals that the city council’s Chief Executive Tony Reeves met with Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick at his request on Monday following Friday’s dramatic news.

Mayor Anderson was arrested on Friday on suspicion of conspiracy to commit bribery and witness intimidation.

Last December the council’s Director of Regeneration Nick Kavanagh was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in a public office nearly a year ago.

Now Catherine Frances, the Director General of Local Government, Strategy & Analysis at the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has written to Mr Reeves requesting key information as the government looks to decide what level of intervention may be required at Liverpool City Council.

The letter states: “Dear Mr Reeves, As you are aware, Merseyside Police have been conducting an investigation which has resulted in a number of arrests made on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption and misconduct in public office, in December 2019, in September 2020 and most recently on 4 December 2020 in connection with offences of bribery and witness intimidation.

“This investigation involves a significant connection to Liverpool City Council.

“As you are also aware, the Secretary of State has a range of powers available to him under the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the ‘Best Value’ duty on councils.

“You met with the Secretary of State at his request on Monday 7 December and gave him a range of assurances about the steps you have taken to improve governance in the Council, to ensure that the Council is now operating properly and in line with the duty.”

The letter adds: “Following that conversation, and given the seriousness of the issues, this letter invites your authority to provide by 3pm on 11 December 2020: a) Information about any proposals or plans for your authority to enter into any commitment to dispose of, or otherwise transfer to third parties, or relating to the development of, any real property other than existing domestic property for the purposes of residential accommodation.

“This information should include identifying the property, and indication of its value, and the current position and likely future timetable for the disposal, transfer, or commitment relating to the development of the property.

“b) Information on the steps the authority has taken and proposes to take to secure effective governance, with particular reference to its planning, highways, regeneration and property management functions, and to provide regular updates to the department on these steps.”

Ms Frances continues by asking Mr Reeves to keep her informed on a regular basis about ‘the Council’s ongoing response to these issues.’

She wrote: “As the Secretary of State said to you when you spoke yesterday, the department stands ready to provide the council with the support it needs to ensure that it is able to support the people and City of Liverpool as effectively as possible at this challenging time.”

Responding to the letter, a spokesperson for Liverpool City Council said: “The council will be responding to the terms of the letter within the timescale requested.”

If not by the French…….. An early Christmas quiz: What caught Owl’s eye in this article? Hint it’s all in the name of a trawler and remember quotas and the “Nina May”

Steven Morris www.theguardian.com 

Even before the sun rose, the harbour-side of Brixham, which bills itself as the birthplace of the trawling industry, was bustling.

Fishermen, market workers and merchants were busy with their early morning tasks, landing, preparing, and auctioning off gleaming hauls of dover sole, monkfish and scallops.

But in the background, thoughts of the Brexit negotiations taking place hundreds of miles away in London and Brussels were hovering.

“I wish they’d get on and get it sorted,” said Dave Brown as he unloaded a catch of bass from his boat, The Thankful. “This could be a really significant moment for our industry. We want our waters and our quotas back.”

Brown has worked from this famous old Devon port for 40 years. He does not feel fishermen from mainland Europe should be barred completely from British waters. “There’s got to be some compromise but it’s just not fair at the moment.” Is he optimistic a favourable deal will be reached? “Not very, to be honest.”

In truth, there was precious little optimism at the harbour. The most common responses – accompanied by a variety of colourful expletives – were variations on: “We’ll be sold down the river again” or “We’ll be shafted, we always are.”

The mood in Brixham is not helped by a tragedy. Local man Adam Harper, 26, was one of two fishermen who died when the boat the Joanna C sank three miles out to sea last month.

“That is a reminder of the human cost of fishing,” said James Walsh, who manages the fishmonger at Rockfish on the harbourside.

Jamie Walsh: ‘I’d just like to see a fairer deal for the fisherman.’ Photograph: Jim Wileman/The Guardian

“I’d just like to see a fairer deal for the fisherman. We should have a better share of our waters. We’re happy to share but the split needs to favour us more than them. At the moment they [boats from mainland Europe] have free roam and are taking money out of British pockets.”

Brixham has been a fishing port since the middle ages and in the 18th century pioneered the use of sailing trawlers, fast powerful robust boats that targeted demersal fish – cod, sole, plaice, haddock.

In more recent decades the industry has shrunk and the seafood sector, which includes fishing, aquaculture and processing, represents only 0.1% of the UK economy.

But in places such as south Devon it is still hugely important and Brixham is England’s largest market by value of fish sold. This autumn the port enjoyed a run of million-pound weeks, with sales of cuttlefish, scallops and more than 40 types of fish regularly reaching seven figures.

Mike Sharp, the owner of two Brixham beam trawlers, said this was the simple reason why the French and other nations were so keen to maintain excellent access to British waters.

“From Dover to the Isle of Scilly we have the best fish in the world,” said Sharp. “That’s why the French are kicking off so much.”

“We want what I think Boris is trying to achieve – full sovereignty of our waters. Once we have that we can have a yearly agreement to decide who can come in and swap that with the French for access to their waters.”

Sharp, who took part in the pro-Brexit flotilla protest on the Thames in London during the EU referendum campaign, said he is not worried by the prospect of no deal. “I don’t mind if it breaks down. I don’t think that will be bad for fishing at all.”

But compromises have been floated, such as a transition period or taking some fish – for example, pelagic species such as herrings and tuna – out of the negotiations.

Barrie Deas, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, the body representing fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, said the industry was opposed to a transition period that has been mooted with reviews at the end of three, five, seven or 10 years.

“Justice deferred is justice denied,” he said. “The industry feels that it’s been in a relationship with the EU that has worked systematically to its disadvantage for 40 years, so there’s not really a huge sympathy or appetite for extending anything that looks like being tied into the common fisheries policy.”

Deas added that the industry will be looking to see the detail of the quota arrangements and that reports that the EU had offered to hand up to 18% of fish caught in British waters back was “meaningless” as there were quota shares for 140 different fish species.

“Behind every stock, there’s a story, behind every quota, there’s a story, there’s a community,” he said.

One crucial factor haunting Brixham, however, is that the EU is its largest customer with more than 70% of its catch exported to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain.

Trevor Sclater, the skipper of Brixham’s newest and biggest beam trawler, Georgina of Ladram, is a rare beast – a anti-Brexit fisherman prepared to speak about it.

“I’ve been anti-Brexit from the start,” he said. “I think it’s disgusting what we’re doing.”

Sclater is for equality. “It should be a level playing field. If we have to stay outside the French 12-mile limit then they should stay outside ours. But, he argues, the industry worked well before Brexit. “We fished, we made a living. Why fix something that isn’t broken?”

He fears that if boats from mainland Europe are banned from fishing off the British coast, countries such as France will stop accepting the fish caught by UK boats.

“I can see on 2 January us not being able to sell our fish. We shouldn’t be putting gateways between ourselves and our nearest neighbours. That’s crazy.”

Four more coronavirus-related deaths have been recorded in East Devon and another nine in Exeter, according to the latest weekly figures.

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Office for National Statistics (ONS) data published today (Tuesday, December 8) shows the seven-day toll of 40 across Devon and Cornwall is the region’s highest since the start of May.

They relate to deaths which occurred in the week of November 21 – 27 and were registered up to December 5.

Three of the deaths recorded in East Devon were at hospital and one was at home.

Eight of the fatalities in Exeter were in hospital and one was in a care home.

There were seven deaths in Plymouth; nine in Torbay; three in Teignbridge, two in both North Devon and Mid Devon; and one in the South Hams.

Three deaths due to coronavirus were recorded in Cornwall.

The previous seven-day period saw 34 Covid-related deaths – two of them in East Devon and two in Exeter – recorded across Devon and Cornwall.

In total, 61 Covid-19 deaths have now been registered in East Devon; 27 of them in hospital, 29 in care homes and five at home.

The total for Exeter is 52; 28 of them in hospital, 22 in care homes and two at home.

Some 738 coronavirus-related deaths have been registered across Devon and Cornwall; 422 in hospitals, 255 in care homes, 57 at home, one in a hospice and three ‘elsewhere’.

Of these, 125 have been in Plymouth, 97 in Torbay, 47 in Teignbridge, 32 in North Devon, 27 in Torridge, 25 in Mid Devon, 22 in West Devon, and 20 in the South Hams

A total of 231 deaths due to the virus have been registered in Cornwall.

The ONS figures for Devon and Cornwall include people who have died at home, in hospital, in care homes, hospices, ‘other’ communal places, or ‘elsewhere’.

They are broken down by the local authority area in which the deaths were registered.

Government figures show at total of 1,718 Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in East Devon to date. The number for Exeter is 2,777.

The Lancet: Oxford COVID-19 vaccine is safe and protects against disease, first published results from phase 3 trials

The results are the first full peer-reviewed efficacy results to be published for a COVID-19 vaccine, and are published in The Lancet.

www.eurekalert.org 

• First full results from interim analysis confirm that the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) has an acceptable safety profile and is efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 disease, with no hospitalisations or severe disease reported in the COVID-19 vaccine group so far
• First clinical efficacy results of the vaccine are based on a pre-specified pooled analysis of phase 3 trials in UK and Brazil (11,636 people), alongside safety data from a total of 23,745 participants in 4 trials in the UK, Brazil and South Africa

Interim results of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trials find that the vaccine protects against symptomatic disease in 70% of cases – with vaccine efficacy of 62% for those given two full doses, and of 90% in those given a half then a full dose (both trial arms pre-specified in the pooled analysis). The results are the first full peer-reviewed efficacy results to be published for a COVID-19 vaccine, and are published in The Lancet.

The vaccine was found to be safe, with only three out of 23,745 participants over a median of 3.4 months experiencing serious adverse events that were possibly related to a vaccine; one in the vaccine arm, one in the control arm, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. All participants have recovered or are recovering, and remain in the trial.

Study author, Dr Merryn Voysey, University of Oxford, UK, says: “The results presented in this report provide the key findings from our first interim analysis. In future analyses, with more data included as it becomes available, we will investigate differences in key subgroups such as older adults, various ethnicities, doses, timing of booster vaccines, and we will determine which immune responses equate to protection from infection or disease.” [1]

Study lead author Professor Andrew Pollard, University of Oxford, UK, says: “Control of the pandemic will only be achieved if the licensing, manufacturing and distribution of these vaccines can be achieved at an unprecedented scale and vaccination is rolled out to those who are vulnerable. Our findings indicate that our vaccine’s efficacy exceeds the thresholds set by health authorities and may have a potential public health impact.” [1]

The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus viral vector that cannot cause disease in humans and expresses the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This means the vaccine delivers the spike protein genetic code into vaccinated people’s cells, which then produce the protein, and teaching the immune system to recognise and attack the virus. Past trial results have found that the vaccine induces antibody and T cell immune responses, and is safe in adults aged 18 years and over, including older adults [2].

For the new study, the authors analysed data from 23,745 adults in the UK, Brazil and South Africa (11,730, 10,002, and 2,013 in each country, respectively). The interim analysis published today pools the data from these for analysis, providing greater precision for efficacy and safety outcomes than possible in individual trials and giving a broader understanding of the use of the vaccine in different populations [3].

In the trial, half of the participants were given the COVID-19 vaccine and the other half given a control (either a meningococcal conjugate vaccine or saline [4]). The trial was originally designed to assess a single dose of the vaccine, but following review of the immune response data in the UK phase 1/2 study (which found a second dose boosted immune responses) another dose was added to the trial protocol, then, once approved, second doses were given to participants.

Participants in the COVID-19 vaccine group received two doses each containing 5×1010 viral particles (a standard dose). However, a subset (1,367 people) in the UK received a half dose as their first dose, followed by a full second dose. This was because of differences in the results of quantification methods between batches of the vaccine. The low-dose/standard-dose group did not include adults over the age of 55 years as the low-dose was given in an early stage of the trial before recruitment of older adults had commenced.

The authors used the numbers of cases of symptomatic and asymptomatic infection to determine vaccine efficacy.

Overall, most participants were aged 18-55 years (82%,19,588/23,745) as people aged 56 years and older were recruited later and will be studied in future analyses of the trial. In the 11,636 people included in the vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease analysis, 12% (1,418/11,636 people) were older adults and most were white (83%, 9,625/11,636 people).

Findings from the trial safety data

Safety was monitored for a median of 3.4 months in all 23,745 participants from the UK, Brazil and South Africa. Out of 23,745 participants, 168 experienced a total of 175 severe adverse events over the period, but 172 events were unrelated to the COVID-19 or control vaccines. One event was in the control group (a case of haemolytic anaemia), one event was in the COVID-19 vaccine group (a case of transverse myelitis considered possibly related to the vaccine), and a case of severe fever (> 40oC) was reported in South Africa in a participant who remains masked to group allocation and recovered rapidly without an alternative diagnosis and was not hospitalised. All three participants have recovered or are recovering, and continue to be part of the trial.

Safety monitoring of all participants in the trial continues.

Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 disease

The primary outcome of the study was to determine how many cases of symptomatic COVID-19 disease (confirmed by positive test, and the participant having a fever, cough, shortness of breath, or loss of smell or taste) there were in participants who had received two doses of the vaccine (with the first dose being either low or standard dose, and the second dose being standard dose), compared with controls. Only cases that occurred 14 days after the second vaccination had been given were included (11,636 participants in the UK and Brazil trials).

There were 131 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 disease more than 14 days after the second vaccine dose in these 11,636 people. This included 30/5,807 (0.5%) cases in the vaccine group and 101/5,829 (1.7%) cases in the control group, which equates to a vaccine efficacy of 70%.

When breaking this down based on vaccine dose, those who received two standard doses of the vaccine saw a vaccine efficacy of 62% (based on 27/4,440 (0.6%) cases in the vaccine group, and 71/4,455 (1.6%) cases in the control group), and the low-dose/standard-dose group vaccine efficacy was 90% (based on 3/1,367 (0.2%) cases in the vaccine group, and 30/1,374 (2.2%) cases in the control group).

The authors completed exploratory subgroup analyses at the request of peer-reviewers to study the difference in efficacy against symptomatic disease in the low-dose/standard-dose group and two standard doses group. These were to help understand whether the difference was related to the dose or other factors (participant age and time between vaccine doses [5]). They found that, irrespective of age or time between doses, their analyses suggested higher efficacy in the low-dose/standard-dose group. However, these exploratory analyses provide a suggestion, and will require further research as more data becomes available from the trial.

Five cases of symptomatic COVID-19 disease occurred in people aged over 55 years old, but vaccine efficacy in older age groups could not be assessed as there were too few cases. The authors say that this analysis will be completed in future.

“In order to assess vaccine efficacy, we need to have a sufficient number of COVID-19 cases among participants to indicate that the vaccine is protecting them from disease. Since recruitment of older adults started later than in younger adults there has been less follow up time for these cohorts and less time to accrue COVID-19 cases. This means we have to wait longer to have sufficient data to provide good vaccine efficacy estimates in smaller subgroups.” says Dr Voysey. [1]

Asymptomatic transmission

The trial also measured protection against asymptomatic infection by asking 6,638 UK participants to complete weekly COVID tests. However, it is important to note these data are secondary outcomes [6] and findings need to be confirmed when there is more data available from the trial.

There were 69 cases of asymptomatic COVID-19 disease identified in the UK study’s weekly COVID-19 testing of 6,638 people. This included 29/3,288 (0.9%) cases in the vaccine group, and 40/3,350 (1.2%) cases in the control group, leading to a vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic transmission of 27%.

In the low-dose/standard-dose group, there were 7/1,120 (0.6%) cases in the vaccine group and 17/1,127 (1.5%) cases in the control group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic transmission of 59%. In people given two standard doses, there were 22/2,168 (1%) cases in the vaccine group and 23/2,223 (1%) in the control group, which equates to a vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic transmission of 4%.

Protection against severe disease

Cases of severe disease and hospitalisation were monitored for in all 23,745 participants. From 21 days after the first dose there were 10 cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm, and two were classified as severe, including one death. These are also secondary outcomes and will require additional confirmation.

Co-author, Professor Sarah Gilbert, University of Oxford, UK, says: “Despite global spread of COVID-19, a large proportion of the population in many countries have not been infected and are not immune. Vaccines may play an important role in increasing immunity, preventing severe disease, and reducing the health crisis, so the possibility that more than one efficacious vaccine may be approved for use in the near future is encouraging. Here we have shown for the first time that an adenoviral vectored vaccine – a type of vaccine technology which has been in use since 2009 – is efficacious and could contribute to disease control in the COVID-19 pandemic.” [1]

The authors note that they are not yet able to assess duration of protection, as the first trials were initiated in April 2020 and all disease episodes have accrued within six months of the first dose being administered. Further evidence will be required to determine duration of protection and the need for additional booster doses of vaccine.

Writing in a linked Comment, Dr Maria Deloria Knoll and Dr Chizoba Wonodi, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA (who were not involved in the study), say: “Oxford-AstraZeneca’s US$2-3 per dose agreement with the COVAX facility holds good promise for equitable access for LMICs, compared with the high cost of the two mRNA vaccines that have also reported more than 90% efficacy. The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine can also use routine refrigerated cold chain, which is important since the ultra-low temperature freezers required to store mRNA vaccines could be unaffordable and impractical in many countries and in settings such as nursing homes. However, other challenges with any two-dose regimen will exist in many LMICs where platforms to easily identify, locate, and reach–twice– adults targeted for vaccination are lacking. If the two vaccine injections require different doses, this will add complexity for health workers with little formal training, but can be managed with innovative packaging and proper change management to reduce errors… When faced with vaccine choices, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups will have to consider all factors and decide which vaccine is right for their setting. Efficacy is an important consideration, but so are pragmatics of delivery, community acceptance, longevity of effect, whether a vaccine reduces infection and transmission as well as disease, efficacy in high-risk groups, and, of course, safety. Despite the outstanding questions and challenges in delivering these vaccines, it is hard not to be excited about these findings and now the existence of three safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, with 57 more in clinical trials. With a range of manufacturers, a very large global investment in production and cooperation in procurement and distribution, it seems likely that 2021 will see COVID-19 vaccines made available to all countries in the world. Perhaps by this time next year, we can celebrate the global control of SARS-CoV-2, in person.”

###

Peer-reviewed / Randomised Controlled Trial / People

**There will be a UK Science Media Centre briefing at 2pm UK time on Tuesday 8 December about this study. Please see details in notes to editors**

NOTES TO EDITORS

This study was funded by UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’OR, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland’s NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca. A full list of researchers and their institutions is available in the Article.

The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com

[1] Quote direct from author and cannot be found in the text of the Article.

[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext and https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

[3] A statistical analysis plan for the global pooled analysis of these studies was developed prior to data lock and analysis and finalised with extensive feedback from national and international regulators (see appendix).

[4] In the UK trial arm, meningococcal Group A, C, W and Y conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) was chosen as the control group vaccine to minimise the chance of accidental participant unblinding due to local or systemic reactions to the vaccine. The Brazilian arm of the trial used MenACWY as the control for the first dose and saline for the second dose. In the South African arm, participants randomised to the control group were administered saline solution.

[5] Participants were expected to receive the two injections four weeks apart, but because of the time required to review the data, update and agree the protocol with regulators, and with some manufacturing delays, most participants had delays in receiving their second vaccine. 53% of UK participants (1,459/2,741) in the low-dose/standard-dose group received a second dose at least 12 weeks after their first dose (median 84 days), and 0.8% (22/2,741) received a second dose within 8 weeks or less. For UK participants receiving two standard doses, the median time between doses was 69 days (approximately 10 weeks). However, in the Brazilian trial, the majority (2,493/4,088, 61%) of participants receiving two standard doses received a second dose within 6 weeks of the first dose (median 36 days).

[6] Secondary analyses are planned outcome measures that are not as important as the primary outcome measure but are still of interest in evaluating the effect of an intervention – see https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/glossary/secondary-outcome-measure

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

A trial is likely to go ahead in January to find out whether mixing and matching Covid vaccines gives better protection than two doses of the same one, the head of the British government’s taskforce has said.

Sarah Boseley www.theguardian.com 

The trial will begin if the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is approved in the coming weeks, as is hoped. The treatment can only be administered with licensed vaccines.

The news comes as the first British patients begin receiving coronavirus vaccinations from Tuesday, a jab made by Pfizer/BioNTech, a week after the UK became the first country in the western world to approve a Covid vaccine.

Those who take part in January’s trial will get one shot of AstraZeneca’s vaccine and one of the Pfizer injection. A vaccine from US biotech firm Moderna will also be included if it gets approval.

Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines have both been shown to have 95% efficacy at protecting people against the virus. For AstraZeneca’s, efficacy was 62% among the largest cohort given two doses, but rose to 90% among a smaller group given half a dose initially, followed by a full dose.

Kate Bingham, outgoing chair of the UK’s vaccine taskforce, said the “mix and match” trials were not about making limited supplies of the vaccines go further. The UK government has ordered 40m doses of the Pfizer vaccine and 100m of Oxford/AstraZeneca’s candidate.

“It’s not being done because of supplies,” said Bingham. “It’s to do with trying to trigger the immune response and the durability and nothing to do with what vaccines we’ve got.”

The concept is known as a heterologous prime-boost. “It means mix and matching vaccines,” said Bingham. “So you do a prime with one vaccine and then the second – whether it’s 28 days or two months or whatever the agreed periods would be – would be with a different vaccine.”

Viral-based vaccines such as the Oxford jab, which is based on a chimp common cold virus, give a much greater cellular response – prompting the T-cells to kill cells infected with the coronavirus. The mRNA vaccines, like Pfizer’s, tend to generate a bigger antibody response. So the idea is to combine them, in whichever order, to help the immune system respond more powerfully to Sars-CoV2.

“No one’s ever done it live and since we’ll have safe vaccines available we should do that study, because then we have the ability to actually produce better immune responses,” said Clive Dix, deputy chair of the taskforce.

“There is a slight benefit to it, too, in that if prime and boosting either way around work, it may help with the deployment, because it might just be simpler to deploy that way round, but the main reason is to get a stronger immune response.”

Bingham and Dix were speaking at the launch of a progress report on the first six months of the taskforce, which has secured deals for seven different vaccines for the UK.

Three of them – Oxford/AstraZeneca, Valneva and Novavax – are being manufactured in the UK. The first doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine have been made in the Netherlands and Germany, but 4m doses are already in the country and most of the rest of the supply will be UK-manufactured.

There remain questions over when the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine will be approved. The UK regulator has been asked by the government to appraise it following a rolling review, assessing all data and information on safety and efficacy and the quality of the product over recent months as it has become available. But the full data from the late-stage clinical trials, involving 24,000 people, have not yet been published and it is not known how the regulators will view the results.

Dix said the taskforce had no regrets over backing other types of vaccine over mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s, adding: “We certainly wouldn’t have got enough [of the Pfizer vaccine] to vaccinate everybody.”

They looked at Moderna but realised they could not get any doses until April, so did not sign a contract. On the day Moderna reported its results, a deal was agreed to buy 5m doses, which was later increased to 7m.

Moments of light relief have been hard to come by this year but the annual ranking of topical Christmas cracker jokes provides some, with the top spot taken by one that has a punchline featuring a Chris Rea song and Dominic Cummings.

Lanre Bakare www.theguardian.com 

The TV channel Gold’s eighth annual ranking, which is chosen by a panel chaired by the comedy critic Bruce Dessau, was put to 2,000 voters who chose: “What is Dominic Cummings’ favourite Christmas song? Driving Home for Christmas”, as the best cracker joke this year.

Other entries riff on more Covid-related themes, with punchlines ranging from quips about pirates and the R number to festive groaners about reindeer and herd immunity.

Dessau said during one of the “strangest and most turbulent years yet, we can always rely on British humour to pull us through”.

The top 10 cracker jokes

1. What is Dominic Cummings’ favourite Christmas song? Driving Home for Christmas.

2. Did you hear that production was down at Santa’s workshop? Many of his workers have had to Elf isolate!

3. Why didn’t Mary and Joseph make it to Bethlehem? All Virgin flights were cancelled.

4. Why are Santa’s reindeer allowed to travel on Christmas Eve? They have herd immunity.

5. Why did the pirates have to go into lockdown? Because the “Arrrr!” rate had risen.

6. Why is it best to think of 2020 like a panto? Because eventually, it’s behind you.

7. Why couldn’t Mary and Joseph join their work conference call? Because there was no Zoom at the inn.

8. Why can’t Boris Johnson make his Christmas cake until the last minute? He doesn’t know how many tiers it should have.

9. What do the Trumps do for Christmas dinner? They put on a super spread.

10. Which Christmas film was 30 years ahead of its time? Home Alone.