Rishi Sunak’s spending review will cost lives and cause yet more cuts in local services. But he still found the cash for a red wall bung.

Richard Vize www.theguardian.com 

If there were any lessons about spending priorities during the pandemic it is that investing in public health services saves lives, but Sunak offered nothing. The core public health grant – this year at £2.4bn – has been slashed by a fifth in five years. The hollowing out of this vital public service has been a central factor in the UK having a Covid-related death rate worse than the US and Brazil and five times that of Germany.

Covid-19 suppression and preparing for future pandemics will remain a core task, and the failure to give councils the resources to do the job will drive up the death toll. When billions can be found for the NHS it almost feels like a calculated insult. No wonder a despairing Jeanelle de Gruchy, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, described Sunak’s refusal to increase the public health grant as “completely incomprehensible”.

Social care funding was increased by a derisory £300m. So far, more than 18,000 people have died in care homes with Covid-19. Perhaps social care providers should top up their funds by investing in Serco. Its part in the failing test-and-trace system has seen its underlying profits increase to around £165m and shares jump 18%. Or perhaps they could pick up a PPE contract in Matt Hancock’s local pub.

But there were some winners: Conservative MPs. Sunak found nearly £5bn for a “levelling up” slush fund, to be run from Westminster and doled out in lumps of up to £20m where bids are backed by the local MP. Projects need to be delivered during this parliament, ie by the next election. It is a shameless example of what the Americans graphically call “pork barrel politics” – local politicians bringing home the pork from federal funds to curry favour with local electors and businesses.

They have had a dry run with the £3.6bn towns fund, with Tory seats and targets being the big beneficiaries. The Commons public accounts committee could start drafting its inevitable inquiry report now on how the levelling up fund was abused to prop up Tory seats in the red wall.

Sunak’s pay freeze for most local government staff, teachers, police and many more punishes frontline workers who have put themselves at risk to protect the public from Covid-19 and keep services going. It is shameful that council staff who have been going into people’s homes to provide care are going to be rewarded with a real terms pay cut.

Sunak claimed in his speech that public sector workers had not lost jobs because of the pandemic. But thanks to his imposition of further austerity on local government, significant numbers of council staff can expect to join the ranks of the unemployed in the coming months.

Counties in England are already warning of cuts to statutory services. Hull city council fears being overwhelmed by Covid costs, while Leeds and Nottingham are planning hundreds of redundancies. And Croydon’s financial implosion shows the perils of pushing local authorities to take ever greater risks to generate income and improve their area.

Ministers have reneged on their promise early on in the pandemic to meet all councils’ costs. Levelling up should mean improving the life chances and living conditions of the most deprived communities, not cutting their services again.

Not even 60,000 deaths can teach this government the value of investing in public services, the limits of central control or the lethal consequences of a desperately unequal society.

And compared with the budgets to come, this was supposed to be the good news.

• Richard Vize is a public policy commentator and analyst

The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is facing questions over the transparency of his financial affairs after a Guardian investigation established that his wife and her family hold a multimillion-pound portfolio of shareholdings and directorships that are not declared in the official register of ministers’ interests.

Nolan principles again – Owl

Juliette Garside www.theguardian.com 

Akshata Murty, who married Sunak in 2009, is the daughter of one of India’s most successful entrepreneurs. Her father co-founded the technology giant Infosys, and her shares in the company are worth £430m, making her one of the wealthiest women in Britain, with a fortune larger than the Queen’s.

Sunak is bound by the ministerial code, which requires him to declare any financial interests that are “relevant” to his responsibilities, and which could conflict with his duty to the public. Ministers must also declare those interests of their close family, including siblings, parents, spouse and in-laws, which might give rise to a conflict.

But Sunak’s entry mentions no family members other than his wife, and only refers to her ownership of a small, UK-based venture capital company. Research by the Guardian shows that Murty and her family hold many other interests, including:

• A combined £1.7bn shareholding in Infosys, which employs thousands of staff in the UK and has held contracts with government ministries and public bodies.

• A £900m-a-year joint venture with Amazon in India, through an investment vehicle owned by Murty’s father.

• A direct shareholding by Murty in a UK firm which runs Jamie Oliver and Wendy’s burger restaurants in India.

• Five other UK companies where Murty is a director or direct shareholder, including a Mayfair outfitter that supplies the tailcoats worn by pupils at Eton College.

Sir Alistair Graham, a former chair of the committee on standards in public life, which acts as a watchdog for UK public office holders, said it was vital that Sunak declare the financial interests of himself and his close family given “the chancellor’s capacity to determine the government’s financial and business policies”.

“He seems to have taken the most minimalist approach possible to this requirement. Perhaps Rishi Sunak should carefully read the ‘Seven principles of Public Life’ to make sure he is fulfilling the two principles of ‘Honesty and Leadership’.”

Sunak and Murty have not responded directly to requests for comment. The Treasury said all the proper procedures for declaring interests had been followed, and that decisions about what to declare were not taken by ministers themselves but by civil servants and independent advisers.

A Treasury spokesperson said the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests “confirmed he is completely satisfied with the chancellor’s propriety of arrangements and that he has followed the ministerial code to the letter in his declaration of interests”.

Ministers are held to a higher level of disclosure than MPs. The code of conduct states they must provide a “full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”. This list “should also cover interests of the minister’s spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”. Advisers then decide what to put on the official list of ministers’ interests.

Sunak and family’s financial interests

After becoming chief secretary to the Treasury in July 2019, Sunak revealed for the first time that he was the beneficiary of a blind trust. He also included Murty for the first time, stating: “Mr Sunak’s wife owns a venture capital investment company, Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd.” There is no information about his own family or his wife’s parents and siblings.

Catamaran represents just a small part of the interests held by the chancellor’s wife. The source of her extraordinary wealth is a stake in Infosys, founded by her father NR Narayana Murthy (his children have dropped the “h” from their surname).

According to the Infosys annual report, Akshata Murty owns a 0.91% stake in the group; that stake is currently worth £430m. Each year, her shares entitle her to millions in dividends. Of all the family, only her brother, Rohan Murty, owns more of the company. The combined family holding is worth an estimated £1.7bn.

 Illustration: Guardian Design/AP, AFP/Getty Images, Getty images

Murty’s holding is not secret, and it is not clear why it was not declared in the register. The interest could be seen to present a conflict, because Infosys is a contractor to the UK government and publicly funded organisations.

Since 2015, the firm has won taxpayer-funded work worth £22m, according to filings on the government’s contracts website. These include a £5m deal with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, awarded in 2018, which runs until 2021.

Infosys has also worked for the Home Office and has signed a framework agreement with Whitehall, which means it can be awarded contracts without competition. The company employs an estimated 10,000 staff in the UK, some of whom benefited from Sunak’s furlough scheme.

The Murty family has invested part of the wealth created by Infosys through Catamaran Ventures, which takes stakes in growth businesses. It is understood Murty has no financial or legal interest in the Indian arm of Catamaran. However, the fund benefits other family members, including her father. One of its most successful deals is a partnership with the online retailer Amazon.

Together they own Cloudtail, one of the largest sellers on Amazon’s Indian marketplace, with revenues of over £900m last year. The investment could be seen as a conflict of interest, given that the chancellor is responsible for decisions about how to tax large digital corporations, such as Amazon, in the UK.

Murty set up Catamaran’s UK arm with Sunak in order to invest her private wealth. He transferred his shares to her just before entering parliament and she is now the sole owner. Through it, she has invested in a clutch of start-up businesses. What Sunak has not declared is that his wife also holds direct shareholdings – in her own name, rather than through Catamaran – in at least six UK companies.

She is an investor and director at the gentlemen’s outfitters New & Lingwood, which measures Etonians for their tailcoats, and sells silk dressing gowns for £2,500 each.

Murty also holds shares in a UK business which operates Jamie’s Pizzeria, Jamie’s Italian and Wendy’s outlets in India, the nanny agency Koru Kids, and gyms operator Digme Fitness, where she is a director. Both Digme and New & Lingwood have furloughed staff during the pandemic. Soroco, a software company co-founded by her brother, lists Murty as a director of its UK arm.

Before entering the Treasury, Sunak met the government’s then head of propriety and ethics, Helen MacNamara, to decide what needed to be declared, a government source said. MacNamara reviewed the interests of Sunak and Murty and confirmed at the time, and again recently, that she was satisfied with what had been registered. Sir Alex Allan, the former independent adviser on minister’s interests, also approved the disclosures, according to the source.

Allan resigned from his post last week following a dispute over the publication of a report into allegations of bullying by the home secretary, Priti Patel.

When Dominic Cummings stormed out of Downing Street earlier this month he left behind a time bomb more explosive than any pandemic recession or no-deal Brexit. Those pestilences will pass. If enacted, the Cummings-inspired white paper Planning for the Future will scar England’s face for ever.

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com

The paper promises to shift the appearance of England. It intends to throw open landscapes, especially across the south-east, to uncontrolled “build, build, build”. It will tip wealth yet further towards London and end any levelling-up of the north. It will abolish the ages-old distinction in British planning between built-up areas and the 70-80% of land that is still rural. It will leave poorer city centres to decline, result in villages doubling or trebling in size, and building dribbling from one town into the next. Fields and open spaces will disappear.

The white paper was slipped out with a minimum of publicity in August by Boris Johnson’s housing minister, Robert Jenrick. It was based on that latest Whitehall fad, an algorithm, prepared by various construction and development lobbyists and targeted at encouraging building where it was “most needed”, an outrageous euphemism for “most profitable”.

What has been dubbed the mutant algorithm has attracted the ire of the entire planning community and, more seriously for the government, of many Tory MPs who see their rural and semi-rural constituencies effectively being decontrolled. The unpublished algorithm – or is it a formula? – confuses housing need with demand reflected in price. Local planning authorities are told to zone some areas for “protection” – national parks, green belts and “outstanding” natural beauty areas – but elsewhere land is to be left free for building, with no need for specific planning permission. Planners expect that, among other results, this will put the overwhelming majority of farmland “into play”. One told me: “It puts every meadow under a death sentence.” No other modern country has decontrolled its land use to this degree.

As for the levelling-down of the north, the policy is little short of sensational. It reportedly requires housebuilding in Newcastle to fall by 66%, Manchester by 37% and the north-east generally by 28%. In the south-east outside London, development would rise by 57%, and in Kensington the algorithm reportedly posits a ludicrous 633%. Building round Cotswold villages is required almost to double.

The Local Government Association has professed itself baffled that Jenrick should so “seriously jeopardise levelling up”. The Royal Institute of British Architects predicts that the end of planning permissions will lead to “the next generation of slum housing”. The countryside charity CPRE could not see the point of cutting carbon emissions while directing housebuilding to new settlements reliant on cars, requiring “a massive loss of countryside”. The policy amounted to “build and be damned”. The planning lawyer and former supreme court judge Lord Carnwath has written to Jenrick protesting the document’s “levelling the foundations” of English planning, while “not beginning to make the case … for the disruption caused”.

The boundary between landscape conservation and nimbyism has always been hard to draw, but it is vividly illustrated in the catalogue of ministerial hypocrisy on planning. As prime minister, Johnson has told his own constituency it “needs” 446 new houses, while as MP he has objected to a scheme for 514. He now intends to remove his liberty to object. Meanwhile the home secretary, Priti Patel, has objected to 225 houses in her constituency, defence secretary Ben Wallace to 210 in his and the Cabinet Office’s Michael Gove to 44 in his.

One of Johnson’s many glib promises is to build 300,000 houses a year. This figure snatched from the air seems vaguely related to household formation, immigration and price, the latter two of which are now falling. The policy has nothing to say on vacancy rates, security of tenure, or the absurd VAT tax for new building but not for house conversion and downsizing. It has nothing to say on the million unused planning permissions or on the regular claims that London alone has brownfield land for another million people – planned homes waiting to be built. As for England’s 280,000 homeless people currently in urgent need of social housing, forget it. In other words, this is government modelling at its dumbest.

At the time of the 2012 Olympics, the English countryside ranked in polls as one of the things people most prized about England. Johnson and Jenrick do not care for this view. Those holding it are to be stripped of any control over the countryside, in deference to Whitehall and its Tory-donating developers.

Land-use decisions cannot be quantified. A good planner – a near defunct profession in England – is charged with enacting Alexander Pope’s maxim that we should “Consult the genius of the place in all”. Democracy awards this consultation to the community, not to wealth. How communities shape and develop their neighbourhoods is the most sensitive of political decisions. It is also one of the few remaining areas of local democratic discretion in England.

The reality is that Johnson’s targets and Jenrick’s models are meant to please the volume builders of rural executive estates. They do not care how land is curated, countryside protected and the north-south balance adjusted. They mock the idea that communities should “take back control” of their most precious resource, land. Fifty years ago, Britain had an admired global reputation for town and country planning. As in so many branches of our government, that reputation is collapsing.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Council leaders across Devon have said the placing of the region in the tough ‘high alert’ measures will cause irrevocable harm to local businesses.

But none has spoken out as strongly as EDDC Leader Cllr Paul Arnott about the impact of hospital cuts for the reasons he spells out so clearly:

“Non-Conservative councillors have been begging and pleading on this topic for years through the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee at DCC but the Tories consistently refused requests to go into battle to prevent the loss of East Devon’s community hospital beds.

“Now, our poor local businesses and employees – indeed our entire local economy – will pay the price for the failure of those Tories at Devon County who were not prepared to put the blue rosette to one side and tell truth to power.”

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The councillors have said that the news will be ‘desperately disappointing’ and for many people in the drinks-only hospitality industry, they must be feeling near desperation at the prospect of what looks like a further lockdown for them.

And they have slammed the historic under-funding and reduction in hospital capacity that is one of the reasons why Devon has been placed in Tier 2, despite some of its districts having the lowest rates of anywhere in England.

Explaining why Devon has been placed in Tier 2, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said that the case rates are 121/100,000 overall, although there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. He added that the case rate in the over 60s is 85/100,000, though significantly higher in Exeter at 155.9/100,000), and there is pressure at the RD&E Hospital.

The Tier 2 measures mean you must not socialise with anyone you do not live with or who is not in your support bubble in any indoor setting, whether at home or in a public place. You can socialise though in a pub beer garden, but pubs and bars must close, unless operating as restaurants and hospitality venues can only serve alcohol with substantial meals.”

Cllr Judy Pearce, Leader of South Hams District Council said: “ I am really disappointing that South Hams will placed under Tier 2 restrictions on 2 December. In spite of low and decreasing infection numbers locally, pressure on local hospital facilities has been quoted as a reason.

“Local authorities from the South West have been lobbying to increase hospital capacity for years, but governments of all hues have never listened to us. There will be irrevocable harm to local businesses in the run up to Christmas as a result of our District being placed under Tier 2 restrictions and this concerns me greatly.”

Teignbridge Council Leader, Cllr Alan Connett said: “I’m hugely disappointed for Teignbridge, and even more saddened for the businesses that will be adversely affected by this decision. Whilst this news brings some hope for many of our businesses that they can open up again, our drinks-only hospitality industry must be feeling near desperation at the prospect of what looks like a further lockdown for them.

“We want to help these businesses as much as possible to diversify their offer, to enable them to work within the rules and reopen wherever possible, and also through our businesses grants and other support, so I’d encourage them to get in touch. We want to help and will where we can.

“We’re very unlucky that we’ve been placed in a higher tier than many expected, and it does feel like a slap in the face for everyone who has worked so hard to keep our infection rates low, keep our high streets and businesses Covid safe and stick to the rules.

“But what we need to focus on now is keeping our rates down, helping get our NHS through this critical period, and supporting our local communities to recover.

“It’s not going to be easy – we’re already seeing big increases in claims for universal credit, council tax relief and hardship funds, and our economy is being hit hard.

“By continuing to work together, we may be able to get into Tier 1, and we can support our businesses and traders by shopping locally wherever possible. Let’s keep Devon safe and strong.”

Cllr Neil Jory Leader of West Devon Borough Council said: “I know it will be desperately disappointing for many people that, as part of a wider Devon grouping – including Plymouth and Torbay – we have been placed in Tier 2. Everyone has been disciplined in keeping to the regulation resulting in falls to infection rates over recent days.

“I really hope that will continue and ask everyone to keep following the guidance so that, hopefully, we can keep driving the rates down so that we can look forward to next year with a sense of optimism and hope”.

Cllr David Worden, leader of North Devon Council added: “Although it wasn’t unexpected, we’re obviously disappointed to be placed in Tier 2, knowing what an effect it will have on our community. Our numbers are starting to come down but we are still above the average for Devon and we need each and every person in North Devon to strictly adhere to the guidelines, keep their distance, wash and sanitise hands regularly and not mix with other households so we can get back to Tier 1 at the earliest opportunity.”

Cllr Paul Arnott

Cllr Paul Arnott, leader of East Devon District Council added: “We are scheduling urgent meetings of senior councillors and officers to respond to this very bad news. The expectation of local people and businesses had been that we’d be out of lockdown on 2nd December – but now this. We will do all we can to respond as fully and positively as possible.

“It must be said that it is deeply distressing for Devon to be marooned in Tier 2. Despite campaigners – including me – warning the government for many years that to continually shrink our local hospital capacity was dangerous, we now find ourselves in Tier 2 mainly because of inadequate current and projected NHS capacity. The RDE is down a thousand staff, and more locals beds no longer exist.

“Non-Conservative councillors have been begging and pleading on this topic for years through the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee at DCC but the Tories consistently refused requests to go into battle to prevent the loss of East Devon’s community hospital beds.

“Now, our poor local businesses and employees – indeed our entire local economy – will pay the price for the failure of those Tories at Devon County who were not prepared to put the blue rosette to one side and tell truth to power.”

Cllr John Hart, leader of Devon County Council, said he was disappointed by the announcement and renew his appeal to people to abide by the guidelines to give the county the best chance of dropping into Tier 1 when the first review takes place in two weeks’ time.

He said: “Devon has done well so far in keeping case numbers relatively low and I would like to thank everyone for their actions during the latest lockdown, so I’m disappointed that we have been placed in Tier 2.

“It’s even more vital now that we all stick to the guidelines and maintain social distance, wash our hands regularly and wear masks where required so we can get cases down and get into Tier 1.

“And working with MPs and Team Devon partners I will be strongly lobbying the Government to provide tailored support for our hard-hit hospitality industry, which is losing out significantly during what’s usually their most lucrative period.

“I’m pleased local shops will be able to re-open in the run-up to Christmas and begin to help our economy recover, but in Devon, hospitality businesses are crucial and they need targeted support.

“In the meantime I would renew my appeal to people to stick to the rules to keep themselves and their families and neighbours safe and minimise the pressure on our local health services.

“I welcome the opening of the Nightingale Hospital in Exeter today but, as Boris Johnson has conceded, the South West still lacks hospital beds and this must be urgently addressed.”

Boris Johnson faces a potentially perilous battle to get England’s new coronavirus tiers plan through parliament after dozens of Conservative MPs protested at the curbs for their areas and demanded to see the evidence behind them.

Josh Halliday www.theguardian.com

Some MPs predicted that, without significant change between now and Tuesday, when the vote on the system to replace the current England-wide lockdown takes place, as many as 70 Conservatives could vote against the plan or abstain. This could mean relying on Labour for the vote – which takes place on the day the lockdown lapses under law – to pass.

Particular vehemence came from Tories who found their areas moved from tier 1 under the pre-lockdown system to tier 2 or, in the case of Kent, to the most rigorous restrictions of tier 3 starting at 00.01 on Wednesday 2 December.

Tier 3 rules force the closure of pubs and restaurants, which can offer takeaways only, and ban indoor social mixing between households or bubbles.

“We went into lockdown at tier 1 and came out at tier 3,” said Tom Tugendhat, the senior backbencher who represents Tonbridge and Malling in Kent. “This isn’t working for us.”

Jonathan Djanogly, MP for Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire, who voted against the current lockdown, said he could oppose the government again.

“My constituency went into second lockdown, against my wishes, at tier 1 and, with great cost to the local economy, has come out of lockdown at tier 2 – am I missing something here? I will need to have this justified before voting for it.”

Former Foreign Office minister Harriett Baldwin said she had voted for the lockdown on the basis it would allow time to develop better strategies to live with Covid.

She said: “Over 23 million of us were living under tier 1 restrictions before the lockdown – that figure will be under 1 million in December. There is no logic whatsoever in having a month of lockdown only for people to have to live under an even more severe set of restrictions afterwards.”

While the government may need to rely on the opposition for the vote to pass, Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North, said north-east England MPs were told during a call with the government that it was “unlikely” they could move to tier 2 before the new year. He said: “I can’t help but think the government have no intention of changing things for our region.”

Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who clashed with ministers over the pre-lockdown tier 3 ruling, said he wanted the city to be moved to tier 2 after a fortnight this month, adding that the lack of extra economic support for tier 3 areas was “completely wrong”.

Other Labour leaders were openly furious. Paul Foster, head of South Ribble council in Lancashire, whose area was placed in tier 3, noted jocular scenes in the Commons during the debate on the tiers between Jeremy Hunt and Johnson, as the former health secretary welcomed the PM back from two weeks of self-isolation.

“To all the business owners out there struggling to survive; to all the pub landlords; to all the restaurants and cinemas, this is no joke,” Foster said. “This announcement could prove fatal for some businesses and that is truly devastating for both they and our communities.”

For Conservative MPs, two issues seem to be key to the discontent: the tier allocation taking place by county rather than by smaller geographical areas, and a perception that the decisions were made without clear evidence.

Steve Baker, deputy chair of the new Covid Recovery Group, the primary home for Tories concerned about the scale of restrictions, said the “truly appalling” restrictions had to be fully justified.

“I am open to supporting measures where it can clearly be demonstrated that the government intervention will save more lives than it costs – as long as this data and analysis is published in full and in time ahead of any votes in parliament, so that MPs and the public have a chance to scrutinise it,” he said.

After Matt Hancock, the health secretary, announced the plans in the Commons, a series of backbench Tories stood up to complain about the decision-making process and the county-scale tier boundaries.

Others sought assurance on how areas could switch tiers. Julian Sturdy, the York Outer MP, called for the announced fortnightly reviews to take place weekly, which Hancock agreed could potentially happen.

Boris Johnson is likely to have to break his manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance to help repair Britain’s coronavirus-ravaged finances, economists have said.

Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor | Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor www.thetimes.co.uk 

During the general election Mr Johnson promised to retain the triple lock on tax increases, severely limiting the government’s room for manoeuvre as it seeks to stabilise national debt. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that the government would need to find £40 billion worth of savings or tax rises.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor yesterday declined to say that he stood by the triple lock on taxes, adding that he would not discuss future fiscal policy. By contrast,the prime minister’s official spokesman said that Mr Johnson stood by the manifesto pledge on the tax lock.

Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the IFS, said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of a package of tax-raising measures. I appreciate it would break a manifesto commitment but there are other manifesto commitments that are being broken too. Clearly Covid is a very big shock that wasn’t anticipated last year.”

Council taxes are likely to rise by an average of £70 per household after local government budgets were squeezed under “another bout of austerity” for some departments, the IFS added. It also raised questions about how to pay for the separate pensions triple lock.

Paul Johnson, the IFS director, said the £27 billion of tax rises implied by the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast understated the true challenge the government faced. Decisions not to top up NHS spending beyond next year, to scrap the temporary £6 billion increase in universal credit and to lower day-to-day public service spending by £10 billion a year look ambitious, the IFS said.

“Put these pressures together and . . . the chancellor would eventually need about £40 billion in today’s terms,” Mr Johnson said. “The chancellor will have to get debt at least to a level where it is not on an upward trajectory, and that will probably require some tax rises in the early middle years of this decade.”

Debt is forecast to rise as a share of GDP every year of the parliament, which is widely seen as unsustainable.

The IFS director added that the spending review was “pretty austere” because it lowered departmental spending from 2022 onwards by £10 billion compared with March projections, with the pain landing hardest on unprotected departments such as local government, transport and prisons.

Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation think tank, described the reduction in spending relative to previous plans, as “a way of the chancellor starting to change the path of the public spending tanker” to realign it with a smaller economy.

He said, however, that Britain’s coronavirus recovery could be better than expected as households spend their pent-up savings having a good time like in “the roaring Twenties”.

He also said that the prime minister could continue to claim that austerity was over because overall spending on day-to-day public services was “roughly back to pre-financial crisis levels”.

The IFS suggested that changes may be needed to the state pension. It is set to rise by 6 per cent above inflation by 2025, adding £6 billion to the cost to the exchequer, raising questions about the pledge to uprate it in line with the higher of inflation, average earnings or 2.5 per cent.

Households face a £1,200 cut in pay by 2025 relative to previous expectations, the Resolution Foundation said. Average pay is about £30,000.

Analysis of the OBR forecasts showed that household incomes will have grown by only 10 per cent in the 15 years since the 2008 financial crisis, compared with 40 per cent in the previous 15 years.

Mr Bell said: “The Covid crisis is causing immense damage to the public finances, and permanent damage to family finances too, with pay packets on track to be £1,200 a year lower than pre-pandemic expectations.

“The pandemic is just the latest of three ‘once in a lifetime’ economic shocks the UK experienced in a little over a decade, following the financial crisis and Brexit. The result is an unprecedented 15-year living standards squeeze.”

Devon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are 121/100,000 overall, though there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. The case rate in the over-60s is 85/100,000 though significantly higher in Exeter (155.9/100,000). Positivity is 4.2 per cent. There is pressure at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.” [Owl emphasis]

Full list below

By Dominic Penna  www.telegraph.co.uk 

Every area of England has been allocated a tier under the Government’s new rules for post-lockdown living after December 2.

Just one per cent of the population will be in the ‘medium’ Tier 1, with 57 per cent of people in ‘high’ Tier 2 and the remaining 42 per cent in ‘very high’ Tier 3, the strictest level of the tiered system.

The restrictions vary greatly between the tiers, with those in the highest tranche facing strict limits on their freedoms. 

Below is a comprehensive list of each region in the UK and which tier it will enter from December 2, along with the Government’s justification for its decision.

North-West

Greater Manchester: Tier 3

Reason: “While there has been continued improvement in Greater Manchester, weekly case rates remain very high, especially among those aged over-60, at around 260 per 100,000 people.

“The pressure on the local NHS is decreasing in some areas but remains a concern; Manchester University hospital and Pennine Acute Trust remain under significant pressure.”

Lancashire, Blackpool, and Blackburn with Darwen: Tier 3

Reason: “While there have been improvements in some areas, case rates and the proportion of tests which are positive for Covid-19 remain high. Case rates in over-60s are very high (over 200 per 100,000) in six lower tier local authorities. There is still pressure on the NHS in this region.”

Liverpool City Region: Tier 2

Reason: “There is continued improvement across the Liverpool city region. Case rates, including for the over-60s, are decreasing rapidly with some notable improvements in Liverpool, Knowsley and Sefton. Cases have fallen by 69 per cent over six weeks.

“However, despite improvements, case rates in over-60s remain high at 150-plus per 100,000 people in all lower tier local authorities.”

Cheshire (including Warrington): Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are continuing to decline across Warrington and Cheshire, with a 27.4 per cent fall to 209 people per 100,000, in line with the Liverpool City Region.

“However, case rates in those over-60 years old remain high (175/100,000) though falling. Positivity is 8.1 per cent. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS foundation Trust has 150 inpatients with Covid-19.”

Cumbria: Tier 3

Reason: “The picture in Cumbria is broadly improving although case rates in Carlisle and South Lakeland are increasing – with increases likely due to a large school outbreak.

Case rates in over-60s are above 100 per 100,000 in Carlisle and Barrow-in-Furness. These case rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but Cumbria’s trajectory does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3.”

North-East

Tees Valley Combined Authority: Tier 3

Reason: “While case rates are now decreasing in all lower tier local authorities, they remain very high at 390 people per 100,000 across the region, with positivity also very high at 13.3 per cent.

“The case rate in over-60s remains very high at 292 per 100,000. NHS admissions in the area have remained high in November.”

North East Combined Authority: Tier 3

Reason: “The region continues to see very high case rates, overall 318 people per 100,000, although this figure is either stable or falling in all parts of the region. Case rate in over-60s remains very high at 256 per 100,000.

“NHS admissions in the area have remained high in November.”

Yorkshire and the Humber

The Humber: Tier 3

Reason: “The picture in Humber is improving with case rates now falling in three of the four lower tier local authorities.

“However, case rates in all ages and in over-60s remain very high (431/100,000 and 344/100,000 respectively). Positivity is 12.6 per cent. There is ongoing pressure on the local NHS.”

West Yorkshire: Tier 3

Reason: “This area is improving with case rates falling in all five lower tier local authorities. However, case rates in all ages and rates in over-60s remain very high (389/100,000 and 312/100,000 respectively). Positivity is 13.9 per cent.”

South Yorkshire: Tier 3

Reason: “This area is improving with case rates falling in all four lower tier local authorities. However, case rates in all ages and rates in those over 60 remain very high (274/100,000 and 223/100,000 respectively).

“Positivity is 11.0 per cent. There is pressure on local NHS Trusts.”

York and North Yorkshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Overall case rates (including for those over 60) in this region are improving in seven of the eight local authorities and lower than other parts of Yorkshire and The Humber, but remain high overall (202/100,000 in all age groups and 145/100,000 for those aged over 60). Positivity is 8.5 per cent.

“Rates in Scarborough are significantly higher than the rest of the region (334/100,000 in all age groups and 247/100,000 in those aged over 60) but falling rapidly.”

East Midlands

Leicester and Leicestershire: Tier 3

Reason: “Improvements have been seen in overall case rates in all but one lower tier local authority, but remain very high at 355 per 100,000, including in over-60s at 250 per 100k. The pressure on the local NHS remains very high.”

Derby and Derbyshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been improvement in this area, but case rates remain very high at 275 per 100,000, and in those over 60 it is 220 per 100,000. The pressure on the local NHS remains high.”

Lincolnshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been an overall improvement, but case rates remain high throughout the county, at 307 per 100,000 and in the over-60s it is 281 per 100,000.

“NHS pressures in Lincolnshire remain high and show signs of increasing, particularly for the units treating the more serious cases.”

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire: Tier 3

Reason: “There has been an improvement, but case rates remain very high in the over-60s at 211 per 100,000. The overall case rate is 244 per 100,000 and positivity is 10 per cent. The proportion of hospital beds taken up by Covid-19 patients is high, but appears to be falling.”

Northamptonshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Although improvements in the overall case rates have been seen recently, there is a continued rise in rates of Covid-19 in the over-60s. [The] over-60s case rate is 154 per 100,000.

“There is some evidence that the local NHS is seeing the proportion of people with Covid-19 being admitted and subsequently occupying beds stabilising. However, Covid and non-Covid patients occupying beds in units treating more serious cases is high.”

Rutland: Tier 2

Reason: “This area is improving with a case rate of 125 per 100,000 and 118 per 100,000 for the over 60s, which while elevated is different from the surrounding areas. Positivity is 6.4 per cent.”

West Midlands

Birmingham and Black Country: Tier 3

Reason: “While case rates are improving – down 8.3 per cent – they remain very high (390/100,000). There is a similar trend for positivity. Pressure on the NHS remains high.”

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent: Tier 3

Reason: “While the situation is improving with case rates down 13.4 per cent, case rates and test positivity are both very high across this area (391/100,000 and 11.1 per cent respectively).

“The pressure on the local NHS remains very high, including in units treating the more serious cases.”

Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull: Tier 3

Reason: “The case rate remains very high (though falling) across this area at 236/100,000. The case rate in over-60s remains very high at 182/100,000.

“There is a clear upward trend in case rates in over-60s in three of the seven local authority areas. Positivity is 9.0 per cent. The pressure on the local NHS remains high.”

Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin: Tier 2

Reason: “The case rate remains high (though falling) at 200/100,000. The case rate in over-60s remains high at 139/100.000 and is falling. Positivity is 7.2 per cent.”

Herefordshire: Tier 2

Reason: “Herefordshire has a high case rate at 160.3/100,000. These rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but the slight downward trajectory – a fall of 1.9 per cent – does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3.”

Worcestershire: Tier 2

Reason: “While there has been a decline in case rates in all lower tier local authorities they do remain high (201/100,000),including in the over 60s (141/100,000).

“These case rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but the downward trajectory – with a fall of 18.3 per cent – does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3. Hospital admissions of patients with Covid-19 have started to stabilise.”

London

All London boroughs and City of London: Tier 2

Reason: “The trajectory of key indicators of Covid-19 in an area (including all age case rates, over-60s case rates, and positivity) have been increasing until very recently.

“The situation in London is not uniform throughout the city. Thirteen of the 33 boroughs have case rates which are 10 per cent, or more, higher than a week ago and ten boroughs where case rates for over-60s are above 150 per 100,000.

“Hospital admissions continue to increase in the East and North London in particular, although they are still well below the spring peak. Taken as a whole, the situation in London has stabilised at a similar case rate and positivity to other parts of the country in Tier 2.”

East of England

Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes: Tier 2

Reason: “The overall case rate is still increasing in two of the three lower tier local authorities. The overall case rate is high at 178/100,000 and it is 113/100,000 in the over-60s, although this rises to 185/100,000 in Luton.

“Positivity 6.9 per cent. There is pressure on the local NHS.”

Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea: Tier 2

Reason: “Overall the rate is 159/100,000 and rising. The rate in over 60s is 100/100,000 and falling. Positivity is 6.4 per cent.”

Norfolk: Tier 2

Reason: “The majority of Norfolk is improving. Case rates are 123/100,000 and positivity is five per cent. Case rates for over-60s remain over 100 per 100,000 in Great Yarmouth, Norwich and South Norfolk (with increasing trajectories in the last two areas).”

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture with decreasing case rates across five of the six local authorities, although the case rate is still high at 123/100,000 overall. Case rates in over-60s are also decreasing (58/100,000). Positivity has dropped to 5.2 per cent.”

Hertfordshire: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture across the majority of Hertfordshire – the case rate has fallen to 147/100,000 overall with drops in rates in 9 of the 10 local authorities.

“Case rates in over-60s are falling also (102/100,000) but they are greater than 100/100,000 in six local authorities. Positivity is 6.3 per cent [and] falling.”

Suffolk: Tier 2

Reason: “There is an improving picture across the majority of Suffolk. The case rate has fallen to 82/100,000 with drops in rate in four of the five local authorities.

“There has been a 40 per cent increase in weekly case rate to 128/100,000 in Ipswich, when compared with the previous week. Across Suffolk, case rates in over-60s are also falling (72/100,000). Positivity is 3.7 per cent.”

South-East

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton: Tier 2

Reason: “There is a mixed picture across this area although the overall case rate is now 152/100,000 and falling in almost all areas. NHS admissions were increasing rapidly until mid-November and are now stable.”

Isle of Wight: Tier 1

Reason: “The case rate is low and decreasing at 71 per 100,000 and lower in over-60s at 44 per 100,000. Covid-19 pressure on the NHS is low.”

East and West Sussex, and Brighton and Hove: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates in Sussex are at 120 per 100,000 with a total positivity of 4.5 per cent. However, the trend is increasing in several areas. NHS admissions have been fairly stable in the last month but there is increasing occupancy in units treating more serious cases.”

Surrey: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are stable or improving in all areas with the overall rate at 139 per 100,000.

“The most concerning lower tier local authorities are those that neighbour London (Spelthorne and Runnymede) with case rates over 200 per 100,000, and high case rates in the over-60s are observed in neighbouring Surrey Heath and Woking.

“Surrey Heartlands Health & Care Partnership (STP) report admissions to hospital from Covid-19 patients were fairly stable in the last month.”

Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead, West Berkshire: Tier 2

Reason: “An improving picture across the area with the exception of Slough and Reading. Slough has high case rates (326 per 100,000 overall and 219 per 100,000 for the over 60s) and relatively high positivity of 12 per cent.

“The case rate and positivity away from Slough do not justify inclusion in Tier 3.”

Slough: Tier 3

Reason: “The weekly case rate in Slough is much higher than surrounding areas at over 320 per 100,000 people compared with 155 per 100,000 in the rest of Berkshire and 138 in Buckinghamshire. Test positivity is also much higher at 12 per cent.”

Buckinghamshire: Tier 2

Reason: “A broadly stable or improving picture across Buckinghamshire with a case rate at 138 per 100,000 and positivity at 6.4 per cent. These case rates remain too high for allocation to Tier 1.”

Oxfordshire: Tier 3

Reason: “Positive improvements across key indicators across all areas in Oxfordshire, but case rates still too high for Tier 1. Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire And Berkshire West STP hospital admissions have been fairly stable in recent months.”

Kent & Medway: Tier 3

Reason: “Case rates are high and continuing to rise with large increases in case rates in almost all areas in the last seven days. Some of the highest case rates in the country are currently seen in Kent.

“Rising case rates in people aged over 60 are a particular concern. Positivity is also increasing in 10 of the 13 lower tier local authorities. Kent And Medway STP are reporting hospital admissions increasing.”

South-West

Bristol,  South Gloucestershire, North Somerset: Tier 3

Reason: “The overall picture remains concerning with very high case rates overall (325/100,000) and in the over-60s (208/100,000). Positivity is 10.4 per cent.

“Bristol, South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset are part of a wider travel-to-work area and thus form a natural geographic grouping, separate to the surrounding area.”

Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset: Tier 2

Reason: “There are very small increases in the case rates in this area, however overall case rates and those in over-60s remain high (154/100,000 and 102/100,000 respectively). Positivity is stable at 5.5 per cent.”

Dorset, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are falling across the area (131/100,000 in all cases and 99/100,000 in the over 60s).

“However the over-60 case rate is still high at 151/100,000 in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. Positivity is 5.2 per cent. In addition, the Dorset STP reports daily admissions to hospitals are increasing.”

Gloucestershire: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are falling across the area (131/100,000 in all cases and 99/100,000 in the over 60s). However the over-60 case rate is still high at 151/100,000 in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

“Positivity is 5.2 per cent. In addition, the Dorset STP reports daily admissions to hospitals are increasing.”

Wiltshire and Swindon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates continue to fall in Swindon but are increasing in Wiltshire. Overall case rates are 143/100,000 and 93/100,000 in the over-60s. Positivity is 6.2 per cent. Swindon and Wiltshire STP are reporting increasing admissions to hospital.”

Devon: Tier 2

Reason: “Case rates are 121/100,000 overall, though there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. The case rate in the over-60s is 85/100,000 though significantly higher in Exeter (155.9/100,000). Positivity is 4.2 per cent. There is pressure at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.”

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly: Tier 1

Reason: “There are low case rates and test positivity in Cornwall and the case rates in all age groups are stable or declining. There have been no cases in the Isles of Scilly in the last seven days meaning there is strong evidence to make an allocation to Tier 1.”

More crocodile tears.

Owl obviously needs to remind Cllr John Hart of this episode from July 2017 in the County Council Health Scrutiny meeting chaired by Conservative Councillor (former leader of EDDC) Sarah Randall Johnson:

“In a move which prompted jeers and cries of “fix” from the public gallery, Randall Johnson ignored a tabled motion [from Independent Cllr Claire Wright] to halt hospital bed closure plans and instead allow a fellow Tory, Rufus Gilbert, to seize the momentum by kick starting the debate and swiftly proposing the exact opposite.”

Conservative Councillors have gone along with bed closures without lifting a finger until now., plenty of examples in the East Devon Watch archive.

Radio Exe News www.radioexe.co.uk

The leader of Devon County Council and chair of the county’s Local Outbreak Engagement Board, Cllr John Hart says he’s disappointed that Devon’s not in the lowest tier of covid restrictions, unlike neighbouring Cornwall..

“Devon has done well so far in keeping case numbers relatively low and I would like to thank everyone for their actions during the latest lockdown, so I’m disappointed that we have been placed in Tier 2. It’s even more vital now that we all stick to the guidelines and maintain social distance, wash our hands regularly and wear masks where required so we can get cases down and get into Tier 1.

“And working with MPs and Team Devon partners I will be strongly lobbying the government to provide tailored support for our hard-hit hospitality industry, which is losing out significantly during what’s usually their most lucrative period.

“I’m pleased local shops will be able to re-open in the run-up to Christmas and begin to help our economy recover, but in Devon, hospitality businesses are crucial and they need targeted support.  In the meantime I would renew my appeal to people to stick to the rules to keep themselves and their families and neighbours safe and minimise the pressure on our local health services. 

“I welcome the opening of the Nightingale Hospital in Exeter today but, as Boris Johnson has conceded, the south west still lacks hospital beds and this must be urgently addressed.”

The Director of Public Health Devon (Designate), Steve Brown, said: “Whilst the number of cases across Devon has stabilised, it is clear that the virus is still with us. Local cases were rising when previously in Tier 1 and it has only been through the additional restrictions and efforts of residents, that we are now just starting to see a reduction in cases. Going into Tier 2 now gives us the best chance of continuing to keep a lid on cases or even continuing to bring them down.

“The number of cases still out in our communities remains a real concern, particularly in the working age population and among older people – in workplaces, care homes and other settings where people come together.

“We must not let down our guard over the next few weeks, nor throw caution to the wind over the Christmas period. It would take little for the numbers to start to increase again and for our hospitals to be put under increased pressure, and none of us should want to pay the price for that in a few weeks’ time or in the New Year.”

Crocodile tears over tiers from Tory MPs as Anne Marie Morris, MP for Newton Abbot, puts her finger on it:

“If, as expected, this decision was made primarily based on healthcare capacity in the region then this is regrettable. We find ourselves in this situation due to historic underfunding of healthcare in the South West and a complete lack of understanding from Governments (of all colours) that a ‘one size fits all’ approach doesn’t work, especially in rural areas. This pandemic should be a wake-up call as to how we provide rural healthcare in the future.” 

(“Marie Antoinette” Saxsby still on mute.)

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

Devon’s MPs have reacted with disappointment to the news that the county will be placed into Tier 2 when the national lockdown ends next week.

Despite Teignbridge having the lowest infection rate of any of England’s 315 lower tier authority regions, with the South Hams 3^rd, and Torridge 9^th, the county has been treated as a whole in determining restrictions, and only Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Wight have been placed in Tier 1.

Explaining why Devon has been placed in Tier 2, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said that the case rates are 121/100,000 overall, although there are higher rates in Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. He added that the case rate in the over 60s is 85/100,000, though significantly higher in Exeter at 155.9/100,000), and there is pressure at the RD&E Hospital.

But MPs across the county have reacted to disappointment to the news, with Anne Marie Morris, MP for Newton Abbot, making it clear she is currently set to vote against the new tier system when voted on next Tuesday in the House of Commons.

She said: “I am disappointed to see Devon placed in Tier 2, especially given the fact that Teignbridge currently has the lowest cases per 100k in England, but appreciate that it would be impossible to divide us up further.

“If, as expected, this decision was made primarily based on healthcare capacity in the region then this is regrettable. We find ourselves in this situation due to historic underfunding of healthcare in the South West and a complete lack of understanding from Governments (of all colours) that a ‘one size fits all’ approach doesn’t work, especially in rural areas. This pandemic should be a wake-up call as to how we provide rural healthcare in the future.”

Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter, said that it was perhaps not a surprise given hardly areas were in Tier 1, but was extremely disappointing to many people.

He said: “It is not surprising, but it will be extremely disappointing to many people, given Boris Johnson stupidly raised expectations of a greater relaxation. Devon’s figures are among the lowest in England, less than half the English average and falling.

“I hope this decision has not been skewed by the current pressure on our hospitals because of a lack of staff and resources. I shall be asking the Health Secretary these questions in a Zoom meeting with him this afternoon. The Government must also publish the basis on which these decisions have been made and clear criteria for moving up or down tiers.

“The last tier system failed, which is why we had to go into another month’s national lockdown. The worst thing would be for this to fail again so we end up back in lockdown, especially when vaccines are now on the horizon.

“I will want to examine the detail and hear what Mr Hancock has to say before deciding how to vote. The problem with these votes, however, is they are on a take it or leave it basis and if the proposals are rejected, there would be no restrictions at all, which would be disastrous.”

Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, confirmed he would be voting for the measure, saying: “I am glad that retail can reopen in our area ahead of Christmas, including our markets like in Tiverton Town Centre, and I am also glad our pubs serving meals and our restaurants can open too.

“The package of measures is also welcome so people can go back to church, play sport and do a lot more than under lockdown. I think everyone will be keen to review the tiers regularly and see if we can move down into tier 1.”

Sir Gary Streeter, MP for South West Devon, said that it was disappointing news but he also would be voting for the measures.

He said: “I see that only the Isle of Wight, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are in tier 1 so we must accept tier 2 for Devon and Plymouth.

“Our rates are continuing to fall and there will be a review before Christmas and I will continue to push, if the data allows, for us to be in tier 1. I will certainly be supporting these regulations next week. We have got to grip this virus hard as we await the vaccine to be rolled out over the next 4 months.”

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, added: “I’m very disappointed that Devon will be in Tier 2 (High) from next Wednesday with a review two weeks after. I remain concerned by the pressure at the RD&E and I am in touch with the Chief Executive. Pubs, restaurants & the hospitality sector must receive enough support to survive.”

Selaine Saxby, MP for North Devon, said that she would comment following a meeting via Zoom with the Health Secretary around the rationale and exit plan from the measures, while Mel Stride, Kevin Foster, Anthony Mangnall and Geoffrey Cox have also been asked for comment.

In tier 2:

• you must not socialise with anyone you do not live with or who is not in your support bubble in any indoor setting, whether at home or in a public place. You can socialise though in a pub beer garden.
• you must not socialise in a group of more than 6 people outside, including in a garden or a public space – this is called the ‘rule of 6’
• businesses and venues can continue to operate, in a COVID-Securemanner, other than those which remain closed by law, such as nightclubs
• pubs and bars must close, unless operating as restaurants. Hospitality venues can only serve alcohol with substantial meals

Hospitality businesses selling food or drink for consumption on their premises are required to:

• provide table service only, in premises which sell alcohol
• close between 11pm and 5am (hospitality venues in airports, ports, transport services and motorway service areas are exempt) stop taking orders after 10pm

But up to 2,000 fans will be allowed inside St James Park and Sandy Park for Exeter City and Exeter Chiefs’ fixtures

www.heart.co.uk /news/coronavirus/government-postcode-checker-what-tier-am-i-in/

---

26 November 2020, 11:33 | Updated: 26 November 2020, 12:04

The Government have confirmed which areas in England will be going into tier one, tier two and tier three.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced in the House of Commons today which areas of England are in tier one, two or three.

This comes after it was announced England would be returning to the three-tier system when lockdown ends on December 2.

Mr Hancock announced that only three areas across the country will be going into tier 1, which the majority will be placed in tier 2.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson confirms Christmas COVID rules will allow three households to mix for five days

What are the tiers in England?

In the House of Commons today, Matt Hancock announced which areas of England will be going into tier one, two and three.

Areas going into tier three:

Hartlepool

Middlesbrough

Stockton-on-Tees

Redcar and Cleveland

Darlington

Sunderland

South Tyneside

Gateshead

Newcastle upon Tyne

North Tyneside

County Durham

Northumberland

Greater Manchester

Lancashire

Blackpool

Blackburn with Darwen

The Humber

West Yorkshire

South Yorkshire

Birmingham and Black Country

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull

Derby and Derbyshire

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire

Leicester and Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Slough (remainder of Berkshire is tier 2: High alert)

Kent and Medway

Bristol

South Gloucestershire

North Somerset

Areas going into tier two:

Cumbria

Liverpool City Region

Warrington and Cheshire

York

North Yorkshire

Worcestershire

Herefordshire

Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin

Rutland

Northamptonshire

Suffolk

Hertfordshire

Cambridgeshire, including Peterborough

Norfolk

Essex, Thurrock and Southend on Sea

Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes

All boroughs of London and the City of London

East Sussex

West Sussex

Brighton and Hove

Surrey

Reading

Wokingham

Bracknell Forest

Windsor and Maidenhead

West Berkshire

Hampshire (except the Isle of Wight), Portsmouth and Southampton

Buckinghamshire

Oxfordshire

South Somerset, Somerset West and Taunton, Mendip and Sedgemoor

Bath and North East Somerset

Dorset

Bournemouth

Christchurch

Poole

Gloucestershire

Wiltshire and Swindon

Devon

Areas going into tier one:

Cornwall

Scilly Isles

Isle of Wight

What do the different tiers mean?

Under all the Tiers, non essential shops will be allowed to open again, as well as gyms, salons and leisure centres.

Collective worship, weddings and outdoor sports can also resume, and people will no longer be limited to seeing one other person outdoors, as the rule of six returns.

In tier 1, the rule of six will be the same both indoors and outdoors, while in tiers 2 and 3, meetings will only be allowed outdoors.

Limited and socially distanced numbers of spectators will also be allowed at both indoor and outdoor sports events in the lower two tiers.

In terms of hospitality, pubs and restaurants will be re-opened in tiers 1 and 2, while alcohol can only be served with a ‘substantial meal’ in tier 2.

In tier 3 all pubs, restaurants and cafes must close apart from for delivery or takeaway.

The curfew has also been tweaked, and while alcohol can’t be served past 10pm, people can stay until up to 11pm.

For sports events outdoors, in tier 1 up to 4,000 people can gather, while in tier 2 the number is 2,000 people.

You can find all the tier rules here.

Looks like Devon is Tier 2 and Cornwall Tier 1 – not confirmed

Government’s Tier post code look-up tool crashes! As Hancock speaks.

An acquaintance and former neighbour of Matt Hancock is supplying the government with tens of millions of vials for NHS Covid-19 tests despite having had no previous experience of producing medical supplies.

Felicity Lawrence www.theguardian.com 

Alex Bourne, who used to run a pub close to Hancock’s former constituency home in Suffolk, said he initially offered his services to the UK health secretary several months ago by sending him a personal WhatsApp message.

Bourne’s company, Hinpack, was at that time producing plastic cups and takeaway boxes for the catering industry. It is now supplying about 2m medical grade vials a week to the government via a distributor contracted by the NHS.

Bourne categorically denies he profited from his personal contact with Hancock. However, the case raises questions for the health secretary and is likely to reignite the row over alleged government cronyism during the pandemic.

Contacted last week by the Guardian, Bourne’s lawyers flatly denied that their client had any discussions with Hancock in relation to Covid-19 supplies.

However, on Monday, after being confronted with further details about his interactions with the health secretary, Bourne backtracked. In a phone call with the Guardian, he conceded that he has in fact exchanged text and email messages with Hancock over several months.

He also participated in an industry Zoom meeting in August attended by Hancock, Boris Johnson and several dozen suppliers in the Covid test-and-trace programme.

Bourne said he sent his WhatsApp message to Hancock’s mobile number on 30 March offering his services amid a nationwide call to arms to respond to the pandemic. Bourne said he opened the exchange: “Hello, it’s Alex Bourne from Thurlow.”

Until the end of 2017 when they leased it out, Bourne and his wife had run the Cock Inn, a village pub in Thurlow a few hundred yards from Hancock’s former constituency home. The Conservative cabinet minister was a supporter of the pub, attending its reopening after refurbishment in 2016 and nominating it for an award in 2017. Hancock posted a photo of himself pulling a pint with Bourne on his parliamentary website. Hancock moved in 2018.

Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.

A week or two later, around mid-April, Bourne said a major distributor of medical products that he had never heard of called him asking if he could produce specialist Covid-related items such as drop-wells and pipette tips. His company Hinpack was not deemed suitable for that job.

Later that month, Bourne said he was called back by the same distributor. The firm, which already had a general government contract in place to supply the NHS regularly when Covid struck, said it had been asked by the government to supply test tubes. Bourne persuaded the firm he could produce the vials, and said he also discussed Hinpack’s work with two civil servants representing the DHSC.

By June, after engaging the assistance of external advisers and regulatory experts, Bourne was producing large quantities of medical vials. He said he was now making about 2m vials a week, as well as about 500,000 plastic funnels for test samples.

In August, he switched distributor, and is now supplying the same tubes via Alpha Laboratories, which also had a pre-existing contract with DHSC. In a statement, Alpha Laboratories said: “Although we were aware Alex Bourne had met Mr Hancock, this was irrelevant to our discussions as we were sourcing from Hinpack a price-competitive product for the NHS supply chain which fitted within our product range.”

A Suffolk local and friend of Bourne’s, Sukhvinder Dhat, said he had regularly seen Hancock in the pub when he lived in the village and claimed that Bourne and Hancock were “friends” and “buddies”. Bourne’s lawyers denied that characterisation, saying Bourne does not now have a “close personal connection” with the health secretary.

In his call with the Guardian, Bourne also played down his relationship with Hancock. “I’ve never once been to his house,” he said. “He’s never been to mine. I’ve never once had a drink with him.” A spokesperson from the DHSC said: “We do not comment on the secretary of state’s personal relationships.”

Dhat, a retired business consultant, said Bourne had been talking to him over the summer about being in touch with Hancock and sitting in on government meetings about Covid supplies, including a Zoom meeting with the prime minister.

Over the weekend, Dhat said Bourne had confided in him that the Guardian was investigating his relationship with the health secretary. Dhat said he asked Bourne if he was being caught up in “chumocracygate” – a reference to the growing row over government contracts being given to Tory-linked firms.

Dhat said of his conversation with Bourne: “He said he had been approached by the Guardian about being a friend of Hancock’s but he had said, no, he wasn’t a friend. It was sort of ‘how can they prove anything’.”

Dhat also questioned how Bourne managed to become involved in providing medical supplies to the government given his limited business experience. Prior to running the Cock Inn, which was sold in January, Bourne set up a string of companies that did not trade and were later dissolved. Hinpack was established in July 2018, trading in disposable items for the catering industry.

“How does someone like [Bourne] get a contract to do something like this?” Dhat asked. “I was in management consulting for decades and we had to show some sort of capability or at least a client reference to get business. Who knew him to say he was an appropriate person?”

While he had no prior experience in medical supplies, Bourne said a partner company in the disposable catering business did have relevant experience. He also stressed his company had hired industry experts and retired professors.

His lawyers said it was “untrue” Bourne was helped “in any way, commercially or operationally” by Hancock. “To suggest that our client has had political, indeed ministerial, help is to betray a deeply regrettable lack of understanding of how the supply chain works.”

They said that Bourne, a former captain in the British army, offered his services to the government out of a “sense of duty and willingness to serve, not obtaining financial advantage”, adding that UK companies had “retooled” during the pandemic. They said the medical devices Bourne manufactured were “by no means complicated and are well within our client’s existing skillset”.

New to the industry, Bourne has certainly displayed ingenuity. He initially did not have the “clean rooms” required for manufacturing medical products and so commissioned a series of inflatable rooms.

He also paid a manufacturer of bouncy castles and blimps to make him a specially commissioned inflatable structure to unpack and decontaminate incoming supplies, which his lawyers described as a room that was intended to be “comparatively contamination-free” but “not medical-grade sterile”.

They said their client’s decision to turn to the bouncy castle company showed “creative and lateral thinking in a time of crisis”.

It remains unclear precisely how, with no prior experience in the field, and without the pre-existing facilities in produce medical supplies, Bourne came to provide millions of test tubes via two distributors with pre-existing deals with the DHSC.

Last week, the National Audit Office revealed that PPE suppliers with political connections were directed to a “high-priority” channel for UK government contracts where bids were 10 times more likely to be successful.

However, Bourne did not have a direct contract with the DHSC and said he did not believe he was added to any high-priority lane after contacting Hancock and entering details of his company’s area of work on the department’s website in March.

Asked whether Hinpack received any preferential treatment because of Bourne’s contacts with the health secretary, a DHSC spokesperson said it had not: “There is no evidence to support these claims. As the National Audit Office report has made clear, ministers are not involved in procurement decisions or contract management and to suggest otherwise is wholly inaccurate.”

TOP STORY: The Chancellor has announced significant investment across the South West as part of the Tory Government’s commitment to “level up opportunity” across the nation, reports our Business Editor, William Telford…

The Government has insisted that Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Spending Review will benefit the South West and help “level up” the UK.

[Depends on what you mean by the South West and how much of this is re-announcement. Read Shadow Environment Secretary’s comments. – Owl]

Mr Sunak, in his Commons speech yesterday, announced significant investment across the South West as part of the Tory Government’s commitment to “level up opportunity” across the nation.

The Chancellor used the Spending Review to boost housing, transport and infrastructure and also announced a new £4billion Levelling Up Fund which will invest in local infrastructure that has a “visible impact” on people and their communities and will support economic recovery.

But there are concerns the measures will not do enough for a UK economy predicted to shrink by 11.3% in 2020, leaving 2.6million people unemployed by next year, and a pay freeze for non-NHS public sector workers will harm the South West.

Announcements specific to the South West included:

• More than £600million in housing infrastructure funding across 23 projects, including £250million for key highways improvements. This includes the relocation of Junction 10 of the M5 to unlock nearly 9,000 homes to the west and north-west of Cheltenham.This is part of the £7.1billion National Home Building Fund which will invest in key infrastructure and provide support for SME housebuilders, to unlock up to 860,000 homes across the country.
• West of England Combined Authority will receive a share of £4.2billion for intra-city transport settlements, enabling them to benefit from long-term, locally-led investment, subject to appropriate governance. The South East will also benefit from major upgrades to the A303 at Stonehenge, dualling the A358 Taunton to Southfields, and improving the A417 missing link.
• The South West will also benefit from a share of the £5.2billion six-year flood and coastal defence programme, including better protection for over 7,000 properties across Bridgwater, Poole and Gloucester.
• The Government also announced that the South West will receive almost £3.5billion in per-pupil funding through the schools block – an average per-pupil increase of 3.6% compared to 2020-21.
• Furthermore, the Spending Review confirmed that 11 new hospitals will be built in the South West, with the continued growth of medical undergraduate degree places, with an additional 196 places in the South West compared to 2017/18.

Mr Sunak said: “We are committed to spreading opportunity to all regions of the UK and this Spending Review delivers on that promise.

“The investment in housing, transport and infrastructure announced today will support the recovery from coronavirus across the South West.

“We will provide billions of pounds in the fight against coronavirus across the UK, deliver the peoples’ priorities and drive the UK’s recovery.”

But Luke Pollard, Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport and Shadow Environment Secretary, criticised the pay freeze for non-NHS public sector workers, and said there was not enough announced that would help the environment.

He said: “The Tory pay freeze is a kick in the teeth for Plymouth’s frontline public sector workers. Police officers, teachers and firefighters all face real-terms pay cuts. It’s all well and good clapping for our key workers, but what they really need is to be paid properly for their dedication.

“This spending review was disappointing for the South West and for Plymouth. The Chancellor’s plans do not match the scale of the crises we face. The scale of the jobs crisis is scary and I am very worried about how many Plymouth families will be out of work very soon.

“There are large gaps in the spending plans especially for funding local services like care services from Plymouth City Council. The Tory plan is not ambitious enough to meaningfully help with our city’s recovery from the deep recession we’re heading into. And there’s no sign of Plymouth getting its fair share in funding yet again.

“The South West seems to have been missed in the Tory levelling up agenda. Tory Ministers are taking the South West for granted. I had high hopes for the new national infrastructure plan but this has just re-announced old projects for the South West. The map for planned investment shows nothing for Plymouth.

“The spending review was almost silent about the climate emergency. Recent green funding announcements unravelled almost as soon as they were made with only £3billion in new money which is barely 10% of what Germany is investing in new green jobs. We need a proper plan for jobs not a wall of Government spin.”

The government spent £10bn more buying personal protective equipment in “chaotic” and inflated market conditions during the pandemic than it would have paid for the same products last year, according to a report by the parliamentary spending watchdog.

[Link to NAO report here]

David Conn www.theguardian.com

But less than 10% of the gloves, gowns, face masks and other products – ordered for a total £12.5bn – had been delivered to NHS trusts and other frontline organisations by the end of July, the National Audit Office (NAO) report found.

Of 32bn items ordered at exponentially rising prices, 2.6bn had been distributed by July. The controversial “parallel supply chain”, rapidly set up by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in March, has still not received much of the PPE it ordered, the report said, “with some of it not yet manufactured”.

According to the NAO, the stockpile was “inadequate” before the pandemic, containing only two weeks’ worth of PPE but the health department then dramatically over-ordered, it was suggested, with the 32bn items amounting to five years’ worth of supply.

Setting out comparative costs for the equipment, the NAO said 760m gowns and coveralls, which would have cost 33p each last year, were bought for £4.50 each, an increase of 1,277%. One million body bags that would have cost £1 each last year were bought for £14.10, with millions of gloves, face masks, goggles and sanitiser also bought at inflated costs.

“The department had to pay such high prices because it was in the position of needing to buy huge volumes of PPE very quickly,” the report said. The total cost of all 32bn items at 2019 prices would have been £2.5bn, £10bn less than the government paid.

The report follows NAO revelations that the DHSC operated a “high priority” route for PPE suppliers with political connections, where bids for multimillion-pound contracts were 10 times more likely to be successful. Competitive tenders were suspended in the emergency.

NHS organisations told the watchdog that they had been able to get the PPE they needed in time, but the report contrasts that assurance with health and social care workers who told their professional bodies and unions that they suffered shortages of vital PPE.

Adult social care providers felt they were “not adequately supported by government in obtaining PPE”, receiving only 10% of their estimated need from the government between March and July, while NHS trusts received 80% of their estimated need.

Office for National Statistics figures show 612 deaths of health and social care workers involving Covid-19 were registered between 9 March and 12 October in England.

The NAO calls for the government to hold a “comprehensive lessons-learned exercise” to consider whether “any issues with PPE provision or use might have contributed to Covid-19 infections or deaths” and to inform planning for future emergencies.

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, whose members include relatives of health and social care workers who died after complaining of PPE shortages, has repeatedly called for a rapid public inquiry.

Jo Goodman, the group’s co-founder, said: “The fact that some of our NHS heroes have been lost due to the government’s failure to adequately supply them with PPE is yet another national disgrace which can only really be truly understood with an urgent public inquiry. It is not too late to learn the lessons from the first wave of the pandemic and save lives.”

Jolyon Maugham QC, founder of the Good Law Project which is challenging the government’s procurement processes and several individual contracts, said of the report: “It shows there has been an obscene waste of public money. This was the worst of all worlds, where the government paid five times the normal price, but bought five years’ worth of supply, most of which will never be used. Most striking in the NAO report is the question they don’t answer: why the government procured 32 billion items of PPE in a period in which they only distributed 2.6 billion.”

Health minister Jo Churchill said: “As the NAO report recognises, during this unprecedented pandemic all the NHS providers audited ‘were always able to get what they needed in time’ thanks to the herculean effort of government, NHS, armed forces, civil servants and industry who delivered around 5 billion items of PPE to the frontline at record speed.

“We set up robust and resilient supply chains from scratch and expanded our distribution network from 226 NHS trusts to over 58,000 health and care settings. With almost 32 billion items of PPE ordered we are confident we can provide a continuous supply to our amazing frontline workers over the coming months and respond to future eventualities.”

Having spent most of his short career as chancellor being seen as the nice man who dishes out dosh, it was perhaps no surprise that Rishi Sunak sounded less sure-footed with the tough stuff.‌

Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

Even as he lobbed some red meat towards Tory backbenchers on public sector pay today, he couldn’t bring himself to use the F-word: freeze. Instead, Sunak said pay rises for non-NHS staff will be “paused” next year.

“Pausing” a pay rise is a euphemism that will stick in the throat of the 1.3 million teaching assistants, school dinner ladies, hospital porters, police officers, soldiers. The pay freeze (George Osborne had no qualms using the F-word in 2010) will also likely apply to council staff like bin men and care workers. In short, that’s a fair chunk of the “key workers” that have kept the country running through the pandemic.

The chancellor did of course try to limit the impact, setting out a £250 rise for 2.1m public sector staff who earn less than the median wage of £24,000. Yet even that seemed undermined by a sleight of hand. When Yvette Cooper pointed out that with inflation forecast to be 2% next year, the £250 would still be a real terms cut, Sunak sidestepped the issue.

In fact, “pausing” appeared to be the overall theme for this spending review. He paused an expected change in the inflation measure that will mean rail commuters and student loans will cost more for more years. The chancellor also paused any progress on climate change (there was virtually nothing on the global emergency that will one day overshadow the covid emergency).‌

And in yet another red meat moment for Tory MPs, Sunak paused the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of its GDP on overseas aid. The cut to 0.5% is for one year, but it’s unclear when the pause in the legal requirement will be restarted, given the only guide was “when the fiscal situation allows”.‌

It’s worth saying that the whole point of the GDP measure on aid was precisely to allow it to go up and down according to the health of the economy. When times are hard, aid spending already goes down automatically. But Sunak opted to go further, with £4bn more in cuts to the world’s poorest. Why? So some Tory backbenchers could dress it up with a depressing “charity begins at home” meme, like a tawdry early Christmas present they believe voters want to take their minds off covid.

Unsurprisingly, instant opinion polls showed that “reducing foreign aid spending” (yeah that word “foreign” is loaded with meaning) was popular. YouGov put support at 66%, opposition at 16%, SavantaComRes had 61% to 13%. Yet no one in government made the case that tying aid to growth has already reduced spending on it.‌

The resignation of junior minister Liz Sugg was an indication that some Tories won’t support a cynical attempt to use overseas aid cuts as a political weapon. Sugg, who worked for David Cameron and knows all too well how slippery Boris Johnson can be, won’t have been surprised he broke his promise to the voters in the Tory manifesto to “maintain” the aid pledge.

Although the aid cut will need new legislation, it’s hard to see how the One Nation caucus of Tory moderates has enough numbers to stop it. Few will forget how the caucus rolled over on the issue of breaking international law in the Internal Market Bill. But as with that bill, the danger (as Tim Montgomerie pointed out) is that “under this PM, Britain is becoming a nation that doesn’t keep its word”.

What really exposed the cynicism of both Johnson and Sunak (he’s meant to be the “nice guy” remember) was the quid-pro-quo of the £4bn aid cut being matched by a £4bn “levelling up fund” aimed at Blue Wall seats. Mansfield MP Ben Bradley tweeted exactly this equation, referring to “areas of the UK that are most in need”.

The fact is that the £10 billion saved by Sunak from partially freezing public sector pay and cutting aid spending was dwarfed by the £394 billion being borrowed to fund all the extra spending. But politically the cuts were about “the feels”. The point was unwittingly underlined by a Treasury “factsheet” on levelling up, that said it was aimed at “helping people feel better off”.

That emphasis on feelings and identity is indeed a reminder that while Dominic Cummings may be gone, his playbook and philosophy remains key to the Johnson government. The “foreign” culture war, the focus on the Blue/Red Wall, the suggestion that the NHS is the only bit of the public services that anyone really likes, Cummingsism lives on.

Yet on Cummings’ other big legacy – Brexit – Sunak was totally, utterly silent. The OBR was however more forthcoming, pointing out that a no-deal outcome would delay a post-Covid economic recovery by a whole year. Even a negotiated free trade agreement will strip 4% from output, the watchdog estimates. But the chancellor, himself a Brexiteer, had no comment.

Speaking of covid, the OBR’s figures today showed the merit of at least one big pause of Sunak’s: his close-run-thing decision to delay ending furlough in October. The extension to spring 2021 will save 300,000 jobs, it found. But ending furlough in March will lead to a 800,000 rise in unemployment, and the new Restart scheme won’t fully kick in next year.

Sunak also paused any decision on continuing the Universal Credit uplift. Though many expect that to come in the New Year at some point (Marcus Rashford is hinting another campaign is on the way), he was not ready to commit to it today, perhaps because that wouldn’t follow the Cummings script.

The biggest pause of all, however, was on the one thing that Tory chancellors are supposed to do: balance the books. The OBR warned he will need to find £27bn of tax increases or spending cuts in coming years, and the IFS said that kind of cash can’t be found without ripping up Tory pledges on income tax, VAT or national insurance.

Add the rising costs of an ageing population and climate change, and the chancellor is facing an almighty challenge. Inflict the pain too early and he risks choking off the recovery, inflict it too late and he gets very close to the next election. But whether he’s in No.11 or No.10 in coming years, Rishi Sunak can’t pause that big decision forever.

Exeter’s Nightingale Hospital will begin treating coronavirus patients tomorrow.

[Contains a good summary of the history and interesting information on costs – Owl] 

Katie Timms www.devonlive.com

The first COVID-19 patients will be transferred from the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital to the 116-bed hospital in Sowton on Thursday.

Construction of the hospital was completed in July and it was originally intended to ‘provide care for patients suffering from symptoms of coronavirus‘.

However, a fall in numbers of cases meant the hospital was not used for its original purpose and had been used for ‘diagnostic testing for a range of conditions’ since July.

An NHS spokesperson has now confirmed that the RD&E is “very busy”, resulting in patients being moved to the Nightingale.

It comes after two more deaths were reported at the RD&E today, bringing the total Covid-19 related deaths at the hospital to 70.

A Nightingale Hospital spokesperson said: “The Nightingale Exeter will accept patients tomorrow (Thursday) who will be transferred from the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (RD&E) which is very busy.

“We would ask that the public continue to observe the Government’s advice on observing the lockdown and social distancing so that we can keep patients safe.”

Responding to the news, Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw said: “Very good news that the Exeter Nightingale hospital is finally opening for patients tomorrow to take pressure off the RD&E hospitals and other local NHS services to cope with unprecedented Covid-19 UK pressures.”

A Freedom of Information request (FoI) in August confirmed that no patients had been treated at the hospital.

Philippa Slinger, chief executive leading the development of Nightingale Exeter, said: “While it remains the case that the Nightingale Exeter isn’t needed for Covid patients, we will be using our CT scanner to help local GPs and hospitals provide people with safer and faster access to tests for a range of conditions, not just cancer.

“The hospital beds are specifically designed for people with Covid needs, and throughout this time the facility will remain ready to quickly revert to our primary purpose and receive patients with Covid, if the number of cases in the region rises significantly.”

It comes as another FoI revealed how much the site in Sowton cost to build.

The exact cost of the hospital – one of seven built across the country at the start of the coronavirus pandemic – was not initially revealed.

An FoI in July showed that the Government spent an estimated £220 million setting up England’s seven Nightingale hospitals, while running costs in April were revealed to be around £15 million.

Details of how much each individual site cost were withheld.

However, another FOI in August saw the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust state that it had cost them £19,807,000 to build the hospital, rising to £22,643,000 when ‘costs incurred by other organisations’ was taken into account.

The ‘monthly stand-by costs’ of the hospital were listed as £409,000.

It was originally planned to be at Westpoint Arena and was scheduled to have 700 beds.

However, the location was changed as plans were scaled down to the current 36,000 sq ft site at a former retail unit.

Sunday saw the UK record another 18,662 coronavirus cases and 398 deaths.

The figure included 141 deaths which were omitted from Saturday’s Government figures in error, and brings the total number of deaths to 55,024.

The British government has banned local authorities from buying up investment property after a near-£7bn spending spree left many councils heavily indebted and at the mercy of a downturn caused by coronavirus.

George Hammond www.ft.com 

Over the past three years local authorities have tapped £6.6bn from central government in low-cost loans to invest in property. That is 14-times the amount accessed over the previous three year period, according to the parliamentary public accounts committee.

The Treasury announced on Wednesday that it was tightening the lending criteria to prevent councils tapping the Public Works Loan Board as a source of cheap finance to fund risky bets.

Before any loans from the PWLB can be signed off, local authorities will now have to “confirm that there is no intention to buy investment assets primarily for yield at any point in the next three years”, according to the government statement.

Councils turned to property investing as a way of trying to generate income without increasing council tax, after deep cuts to local budgets over the past decade.

But the speculative practice has left a number of authorities exposed to the pandemic’s destructive impact on the property market. Since coronavirus broke out in the UK in March, the value of shops, cinemas, bars, leisure centres and offices have plummeted and rent payments have dried up, as retailers and hospitality businesses have been forced to close. 

Earlier this month, Croydon council in south London announced it could not balance its budget after investing in a shopping centre, a hotel and a number of housing developers. The council’s debt load has doubled to £1.8bn in the past three years.

Under the new rules for accessing the PWLB, authorities will also be asked to lay out their planned capital spending and financing plans for the following three years. 

The Treasury said its aim “is to develop a proportionate and equitable way to prevent local authorities from using PWLB loans to buy commercial assets primarily for yield, without impeding their ability to pursue service delivery, housing, and regeneration under the prudential regime as they do now.”

But the Local Government Association, the membership body for local councils, warned that tighter lending criteria might make it hard for authorities to access loans for the delivery of legitimate projects, such as delivering new homes.

“These plans will throw into doubt the future of programmes which help deliver on key government priorities, such as housing and regeneration,” the LGA said.

In an attempt to ensure the PWLB remains an attractive source of finance, the Treasury also said it would cut the interest rate on new loans from the fund, once satisfied those loans were not being used to finance property investments mainly intended to generate a yield. That reversed an October 2019 rate rise, which was designed to dissuade local authorities from borrowing heavily to invest in property.

Planning Applications – 20/1001/MOUT and 20/1003/LBC – Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary

This representation is written as an open letter to all Councillors on the Planning Committee to endeavour to explain the depth of feeling and opinions of residents in Clyst St Mary, who have submitted over 200 objections in total to Application 20/1001/MOUT (including 2 objections from the Devon Branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England), in an effort to assist the Committee in determining their decision on the above applications.

The Applicants have opted to submit a hybrid application, which is very difficult to determine because it combines a full application for the refurbishment and re-development of the redundant offices, which is fundamentally supported by the majority of residents –  but also incorporates inappropriate, outline new residential development proposals that are unacceptable to so many in this small village community. This leaves planners and decision makers with the burdensome task of either refusing acceptable proposals or supporting incongruous, unsuitable elements within the same application. This is considered a manipulation of planning procedures and two separate applications should have been submitted for such a vast developmental masterplan.

This also directly affects the tandem Listed Building Consent Application (20/1003/LBC), which is also supported by residents, to bring back sustainable, commercial uses within the historic assets but cannot proceed without an approval of 20/1001/MOUT.

 Local public trust was lost after the Applicants made major changes to the proposals after the Public Consultation, by adding substantial residential development in Zone A on a local  football ground (after objections – this has now been withdrawn) and by substituting 14 traditional homes with an inappropriate three-storey 59 apartment block in Zone D, opposite the Grade II*Listed Winslade Manor and historic Church (after objections  – this has now been reduced to 40 two/three storey apartments).

The submission of only outline proposals (as part of the hybrid application – 20/1001/MOUT) has also proved limiting and unsatisfactory to enable numerous consultees to advise constructively and the lack of transparency on specific details for the new build fuels anxiety for many in the community that the ultimate growth proposals will be in conflict and incompatible in a rural village community.

Although various mitigating amendments have seen an improvement on the original hybrid application, there are still not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development so as to outweigh the provisions of the Local Development Plan and the adverse impacts of permitting these proposed developments would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In essence, the Applicants seek an intensity of commercial use and new residential use (94 units) that together are excessive in terms of demands on infrastructure and services and will impact on the local amenity and character of this village. Such a scale of development is inappropriate in this location especially as there is no local need for housing because around 100 new homes have already been provided in this village in the last few years.

20/1001/MOUT continues to be contrary to policies in and constitutes a departure from the adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013- 2031 (including Strategies 26B and 7 and Policies 5B, TC2 and TC7), the Villages Plan and Built-Up Area Boundaries, the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014- 2031 and also conflicts with core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, which are all in place for the protection of communities.

The Planning Officer’s own Report, before members, states that this application represents a substantial departure from the Local Development Plan and is contrary to the views of the Ward Member and the Parish Council. The public perception is that copious amounts of public money and substantial time have been expended preparing and adopting development plans that are now being ignored. It appears that greater weight is being afforded to the economic factors within this application, which is proving detrimental to the historic, social and environmental elements, when the National Planning Policy Framework recommends a balance for sustainability purposes.

Zone A is a best and most versatile agricultural green field that was specifically removed by EDDC from the EDLP for development purposes and the proposed 54 new homes constitute a clear departure from the previously-developed brownfield allocation in Strategy 26B of the EDLP.

Zone D proposes excessive quantum, poor design and placement (albeit indicative) in an area of landscape and historic importance. EDDC’s own Historic Conservation Officer stated that the 40-apartment block in Zone D was:-

 ‘totally unacceptable and appears to mimic the modern office development on the site or a student housing block. This should be an innovative well designed scheme being in such close proximity to the listed Manor. This is in the immediate setting of the listed building and still needs considerably more information to be submitted, as previously requested, to assess what will clearly still have an impact on the Manor, its setting and the original historic parkland.’

Even with the amendments of a reduction in height to two storeys at the eastern and western elevations of the Zone D apartments with the visual breaks – this is still an incongruous design, being too high and overbearing, which will overlook residents’ properties in Clyst Valley Road for 6 months of the year, when the screening of the deciduous woodland is lost. The substantial massing and bulk of any apartment block design in this rural and historic setting fails to respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area. The proposals for Zone D continue to fail good design standards and are contrary to the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan Design Statement (Policy BiC 05).

The Applicants need to demonstrate how they are complying with the Government’s 10-point National Design Guide and recently published Planning Practice Guidance for ‘beautiful, enduring and successful places’ to improve the quality and character of this area and not detrimentally impact on the historic buildings and landscape.

Parking in Flood Zones B and J – The Applicants admit that these areas are susceptible to flooding but the planner’s opinion that when flooding occurs, the offices would not be in use, therefore the lack of on-site parking would not be problematic, is disputed. It has been indicated that in such emergencies, the single-track Church Lane could be used as an alternative access to the site, which shows that vehicle users would require parking during flooding? The implementation of major flood relief measures is essential to alleviate the high-risk flooding in Zone B (176 parking spaces) and Zone J (395 parking spaces). Fundamentally, the question to be answered is where will 571 vehicles park during the storms that have been experienced in the past few years? In all likelihood in adjoining residential areas!

Traffic – These proposals conflict with Strategic Policy 5B and Policies TC2 and TC7 of the EDLP. PolicyTC7 states that permission will not be granted to new development if the traffic generated by such would be detrimental to the safe and satisfactory operation of the local or wider highway network. There are still major concerns with traffic from 94 more homes, visitors, services and sports etc which together with the employment use will completely consume and overwhelm the capacity of the local highway network at peak times in an area which already suffers with major gridlock. The development site is not well located in terms of sustainable transport and performs poorly in respect of modes of sustainable transport (walking, cycling and public transport) and no provision to improve public transport to directly serve the site has been provided. Furthermore, the Applicants’ submitted traffic reports have been shown to be flawed under independent traffic expert analyses.

Heavy volumes of traffic at peak times on the A3052 and A376 cause daily congestion around the Clyst St Mary roundabout, resulting in complete gridlock which leads to an unacceptable number of vehicles using the nearby residential roads, in particular Winslade Park Avenue, in an attempt to bypass the roundabout.

The traffic issues have become so acute in recent years that the Parish Council appointed a Traffic and Parking Group to investigate and prepare a detailed report which was completed in December 2019 and presented to Devon County Council. A copy of this report is available on Bishops Clyst Parish Council website here http://www.bishopsclyst.btck.co.uk/Highways

The outline elements of this application seek to establish only the general principles of quantum, scale and the nature of the proposed development which will be acceptable to EDDC. However, this lack of transparency leaves huge voids regarding important details of what will eventually be built on this unique site? Low-rise bungalows could morph into houses in Zone A and inappropriate, towering 40 apartment blocks in Zone D could get two additional storeys added under future proposals for permitted development rights legislation. Community facilities offered to residents at the Public Consultation e.g. the swimming pool, indoor sports/fitness and cafes now appear likely to be restricted to office workers and those living on the site and not the Clyst St Mary wider community, although limited use of some facilities by the school (yet to be agreed) will be beneficial. Therefore, many of the amenities will not be of benefit to the existing Clyst St Mary or wider communities?

The Applicants purchased this complicated site with a full awareness of the planning history and environmental limitations and their comments that the whole development will fail and not be financially viable without the residential elements are unconvincing and equate to requesting planners to ignore planning policy.

This is not an urban environment and this exceptional, distinctive, historic landscape deserves a quality approach rather than one displaying quantity to safeguard and truly enhance this small, rural East Devon village. We, therefore, request that this inappropriate hybrid application is REFUSED.

Gaeron Kayley – Chairman

Save Clyst St Mary Residents’ Association

Boris Johnson’s adviser on ethical standards has questioned whether the prime minister should maintain sole responsibility for the ministerial code days after an outcry over the decision not to sack Priti Patel for bullying staff.

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com 

Jonathan Evans, the chair of the committee on standards in public life, said the PM having sole discretion over both launching investigations and deciding to punish an errant minister risked looking like “marking your own homework”.

His remarks come after Johnson was accused of double standards after telling ministers there was “no place for bullying” in the wake of a damning report into the behaviour of the home secretary.

Johnson refused to sack Patel on Friday despite an inquiry by his adviser Sir Alex Allan that concluded she had broken the ministerial code.

The prime minister has sole power both to trigger investigations into wrongdoing by ministers, and to decide on what action, if any, to take.

Johnson’s decision not to sack Patel set a new precedent because previous ministers who have been found to have broken the code have been sacked or resigned from office.

Lord Evans, a former head of MI5, told parliament’s standards committee he was to take evidence on whether to hand both the powers to an independent body similar to those that have been introduced in parliament.

“The triggering of an investigation rests solely with the prime minister. The decision on what action to take about that also rests entirely with the prime minister.

“In the same way that adjudicating those same issues in the Commons or the Lords looks as though you are marking your own homework, the same concerns could be expressed about the way the ministerial code works,” he said.

“There is a problem here … the ministerial code does not have the same independent process which supports the Commons’ code [of conduct] and I think that is an issue which has been overtaken.

“Increasingly – we have seen it in the Commons, we have seen it in the Lords and we have seen it elsewhere – an independent element has been introduced. So there is a kind of mismatch between the expectations of what you would deliver from the Commons and what you get from the ministerial code.

“So I think there’s a question to be asked about whether there should be more independence, whether the investigative element should be triggered independently, potentially and then there’s the separate but parallel issue of what the response to the actual investigation should be.”

Lord Evans said the public would be confused by the fact that allegations of bullying by MPs are investigated by an independent panel, but allegations of bullying by ministers are not.

“If bullying is treated in one particular way for MPs in their parliamentary role then why would you want to handle it differently in their ministerial role?”

He also suggested there should be more options for punishing ministers who break the code, rather than simply whether or not to sack them.

“At the moment it’s rather a binary thing, either you get virtually nothing, really, or you have to resign,” he said.

On Friday, Johnson refused to sack Patel after Allan’s inquiry concluded she had broken the ministerial code following bullying allegations across three government departments.

Allan, the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial standards, resigned from his post after Johnson contradicted his report by vigorously defending the home secretary and keeping her in her role.

One of the justifications Johnson used for defending Patel was the element of Allan’s report that said she had been unaware of the impact of her behaviour because no Home Office official had complained about her.

Sources have said, however, that Allan sought to interview the former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned after clashing with Patel, but government officials blocked him.

Offering what she described as an “unreserved, fulsome apology”, Patel has seized on Allan’s finding that she had received no feedback on the impact of her behaviour.

Rutnam, who is suing Patel for wrongful dismissal under whistleblowing laws, issued a statement on Friday that said she was advised not to shout and swear at staff the month after her appointment in 2019, and that he had told her to treat staff with respect “on further occasions”.