[Under Covid restrictions should that read: “an elbow bump on the funny-bone away”? – Owl]

John Arlidge www.thetimes.co.uk 

It started with a one-line email that was designed to look casual, almost an after-thought. “Completely unrelated,” wrote David Bass, who was then working for the lobbying and communications firm Bell Pottinger. “Do you have an interest in South African business and politics?” I replied: “Keen but need to know in advance who’s your client(s)?” Bass wrote back: “Probably better if we tell you more over a drink, or lunch.” So began my introduction to the dark world of influence-peddling.

Over a £60 bottle of Nyetimber sparkling wine in the Gilbert Scott bar at the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel, London, Bass and his colleague Victoria Geoghegan dangled a juicy story: a chance to travel to South Africa to talk to business leaders and politicians for The Sunday Times Magazine. There was only one problem: they would not say who they were working for or why their clients were so keen to open boardroom doors to me, from Pretoria to Cape Town.

“They prefer to remain anonymous,” Bass said. I declined the invitation.

Good job too. Bass and Geoghegan had been hired by the Johannesburg-based business magnates Atul, Ajay and Rajesh Gupta to come up with a plan to distract attention from their corrupt relationship with Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s leader at the time. Bass and Geoghegan aimed to create the impression that the Guptas and Zuma were victims of a smear campaign by racist white business interests who did not wish to see Asian-owned businesses or the ANC government succeed. They recruited business leaders who would spread the — entirely bogus — narrative.

Lobbying — influencing decision-makers either directly or via other participants such as the media — is a big global business, and London is at its centre. Almost 100,000 people work in the sector, which is worth more than £20bn, analysts estimate. Of those 100,000, a third focus on government relations, brand management and reputation management.

Lobbying is riven with conflict of interest and prone to abuse. In recent weeks, The Sunday Times has exposed how George Pascoe-Watson, the chairman of Portland, a London-based communications outfit, secretly served as an adviser in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) during the pandemic. Pascoe-Watson took part in daily calls with Lord Bethell and Baroness Harding, the two heads of the UK’s NHS Test and Trace system. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, was on several calls.

Pascoe-Watson’s role, which lasted from April until October, was never publicly declared, although he has insisted that he declared his position to the DHSC. Days after formally completing his role, he was able to disclose to clients that “decision-makers have told me personally” that London’s recently announced tier 2 restrictions would remain in place until at least next year. Portland later wrote to clients to provide detailed information on the debate raging in No 10 about the possibility of a second national lockdown. It was three days before the news became public. Pascoe-Watson has said none of the information shared with clients was connected to the test and trace calls in which he participated.

The Gilbert Scott bar where John Arlidge met Bass and Geoghegan

Lobbying is legal and, some argue, serves a useful purpose. “Everyone, every company, every institution, is entitled to and should try to get close to power and influence and to get their point of view across to lawmakers, media and the general public,” says Alastair McCapra, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.

Getting your point across can make the difference between good and bad government decision-making, McCapra adds. He points to Rishi Sunak’s much-praised furlough and financial support schemes for businesses hit by lockdown restrictions. “Those schemes that have saved millions of jobs and livelihoods came about because MPs and ministers listened to people with detailed, specific knowledge of particular sectors. Representatives of hospitality firms, manufacturers, travel companies — you name it — all lobbied on behalf of their sector. What about this? Have you thought about that? You need that to have an informed democratic process and good outcomes.”

But there’s a familiar problem: money. “Companies and individuals are prepared to offer money like you would not believe to get lobbyists to do things they shouldn’t,” says Oliver Bullough, the author of Moneyland: Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World & How to Take It Back.

It was a £1.2m a year retainer, plus generous expenses, that tempted Bell Pottinger to work for the Guptas.

Conflicts of interest, such as Pascoe-Watson’s role at the DHSC, risk corrupting the political process and decision-making, says Peter Geoghegan, the author of Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics (and no relation of Victoria, he stresses). He criticises the “revolving door” between government and the private sector, with former MPs turning lobbyists and vice versa.

“This kind of in-out, in-out access comes at a price: not for the lobbyist but for taxpayers, who can find themselves picking up the tab for bad decisions made by ministers at the urging of their former colleagues,” he says.

A National Audit Office report revealed last week that companies that had links to ministers, often via lobbyists, were fast-tracked contracts to supply PPE — personal protective equipment — at the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with little due diligence. More than half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, the watchdog found. Not enough was done by ministers and other government officials to address potential conflicts of interest, it warned.

In other cases, lobbying — usually accompanied by hefty donations to political parties and “good causes” — can allow crooks to “launder” their reputations and transform themselves into what look to the untrained eye to be pillars of the Establishment. Tom Burgis, an investigative journalist and the author of Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering the World, points out that “Boris Johnson and his party count among their major donors figures who grew rich in ex-Soviet kleptocracies”.

Sometimes nation states get in on the act. In Moneyland, Bullough reports how the European Azerbaijan Society, run by the son of an Azerbaijan government minister, “spent tens of thousands of pounds flying [British] members of parliament to Baku, putting them in top-class hotels and showing them around. When those MPs came back, they almost invariably spoke favourably about Azerbaijan in the House of Commons, which seemed strange, since this former Soviet republic is a hereditary dictatorship [that] jails journalists who reveal the business dealings of the country’s ruling family”.

The power of lobbying can damage the political system in other ways too. Instead of staying and fighting to revive the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats after he lost his Sheffield seat in the 2017 election, Sir Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader and former deputy prime minister, quit the UK. He became a spokesman for Facebook, a company many condemn for its impact on democracy and good government because it provides a platform for and encourages political extremism. Why did he move from London to Silicon Valley? Money, most say. He is estimated to earn more than £1m a year, plus bonuses. The former MPs Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna, once rising stars who found themselves unable to remain in the Labour Party during the Corbyn era, have quit politics for the PR firm Edelman.

Most of the time, lobbyists get away with plying their trade in the shadows. Regulation is narrow and there is no central register of lobbyists and few requirements to keep a public register of clients or fees. For every scandal that is exposed, thousands more go undetected. But sometimes lobbyists are so badly exposed that they are forced to fall on their sword. That’s what happened to David Bass and Victoria Geoghegan after I met them in the bar of the Gilbert Scott.

When news emerged of their attempts to portray the Guptas as victims of racism, rather than the two men who looted South African state coffers with the connivance of Zuma, Bell Pottinger found itself accused of stirring up racism in South Africa. Clients of every moral hue deserted the firm and it collapsed into bankruptcy. After he lost his job, Bass emailed me to say: “I am hoping we can continue our working relationship. I wondered whether I could interest you in breakfast or lunch?”

Matt Hancock has failed to declare that he appointed his closest friend from university, who is the director of a lobbying firm, as an adviser — and later gave her a £15,000-a-year role on the board of his department.

Gabriel Pogrund, Whitehall Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

Gina Coladangelo, 42, is a director and major shareholder at Luther Pendragon, a lobbying firm based in central London that offers clients a “deep understanding of the mechanics of government”. She is also communications director at Oliver Bonas, a fashion and lifestyle store founded by her husband.

Hancock, the health secretary, first met Coladangelo, a public relations consultant, while involved with radio at Oxford University and the pair remain close friends.

In March, he secretly appointed her as an unpaid adviser at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on a six-month contract.

She has since accompanied Hancock, 42, to confidential meetings with civil servants and visited No 10 Downing Street.

One source said: “Before Matt does anything big, he’ll speak to Gina. She knows everything.” Another added: “She has access to lots of confidential information.”

In September, Hancock appointed Coladangelo as a non-executive director at DHSC, meaning that she is a member of the board that scrutinises the department. There is no public record of the appointment, which will see her earn at least £15,000 of taxpayers’ money and could rise by a further £5,000.

March 23: Matt Hancock in Victoria Tower Gardens, Westminster, with Gina Colandangelo, days before the national lockdown

Since April, Coladangelo has had a parliamentary pass, giving her unregulated access to the Palace of Westminster. It bears her husband’s surname, which she does not use professionally, and is sponsored by Lord Bethell, the hereditary peer, health minister and former lobbyist.

However, Coladangelo is understood to play no role in Bethell’s team.

Yesterday, the DHSC could not explain why he had sponsored her pass and had to ask this newspaper for help in finding the documents showing that he had done so.

The disclosures come as the government faces allegations of “chumocracy” and a lack of transparency in appointing friends from the private sector to key roles.

Lord Evans, the ex-MI5 boss, has warned that a “perception is taking root” that “some in our political leadership, are choosing to disregard the norms of ethics and propriety that have explicitly governed public life for the last 25 years”.

Last week, The Sunday Times also revealed that George Pascoe-Watson, chairman of Portland Communications, another lobbying firm, had advised a minister in Hancock’s department for most of the pandemic.

Shortly after leaving his role, he passed sensitive information about lockdown policy to paying clients. They include McDonald’s, which says that it has ceased all work with the firm and placed their relationship under review. Pascoe-Watson has insisted he did not gain the information through his role.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, responded by calling for an inquiry into how lobbyists are able to serve as government advisers, saying: “The public need answers now.”

May 15: The pair arriving at No 10 for the daily press conference

She redoubled those calls last night as the government declined to dispute any aspect of the latest “chumocracy” story.

Instead, a government source said that Coladangelo — who studied economics at Oxford and is not known to have a health background — worked to “support DHSC in connection with its response to the current coronavirus global health emergency”.

Hancock and Coladangelo were pictured together as recently as last Monday. However, the source said that she had “previously” worked for Hancock, implying that her advisory role had come to an end. They added that she had signed a “volunteer’s agreement”, meaning that she is bound by the Official Secrets Act.

Left, June 7: Heading for The Andrew Marr Show at the BBC. Right, July 5: Arriving at BBC HQ again

The DHSC did not respond to questions about a number of possible conflicts of interest arising from her role.

Luther Pendragon, the lobbying firm in which she is a director, boasts clients who have secured lucrative contracts during the pandemic, including British Airways (£70m) and Accenture, which received £2.5m to help build the NHS Covid-19 app.

Trade publications have described Oliver Bonas, for whom she works as communications and marketing director, as something of a “poster boy” for the government of late.

In June, for example, a blog was published on the government website entitled: “Oliver Bonas: Fashion and homeware store reopens safely.”

Then there is Coladangelo’s appointment as a non-executive director of DHSC, which appears in just one place publicly: her LinkedIn page. The role makes her responsible for “overseeing and monitoring performance” — in effect, scrutinising matters of concern to Hancock, with whom she attends Christmas drinks, birthday parties and family dinners.

Left, September 20: Using a socially distanced greeting at the BBC. Right, September 24: Returning to parliament on the day Rishi Sunak presented his winter economy plan

Coladangelo’s role does not break any rules — because there are none. As Peter Riddell, the commissioner for public appointments, noted recently, such appointments are “not regulated at all” and increasingly take place “without competition and without any form of regulatory oversight”.

Ministers, in other words, are free to create a process or, as Hancock has apparently done, reward their closest friends with roles.

MPs also do not have to declare such advisers on the register of MPs’ staff and secretaries, which is designed to ensure transparency. On Hancock’s register, the West Suffolk MP lists three people. Coladangelo is not one of them.

Alex Thomas, who was right-hand man to Jeremy Heywood, the former cabinet secretary, and is a programme director at the Institute for Government, said: “It’s reasonable for ministers to take advice from a range of sources, but advisers should be transparent, accountable and appointed on merit.”

The former senior civil servant added: “Non-executive directors are appointed to bring in commercial and other expertise to departments, and to help ministers and civil servants deliver high priority projects. That’s where they add most value.”

During his time as a student journalist at Oxford, Hancock overslept on the day he was supposed to cover a rugby match at Twickenham. Instead of making it to the stadium, he got off the train early, found a nearby pub and watched the match on television, before writing the match report as planned.

In an interview on the BBC in April, in which she did not disclose her role, Coladangelo, a colleague of his at Oxygen FM, recalled: “He told a white lie, pretended he was at Twickenham watching the rugby, when in fact he was in a pub in Reading.” She added: “Successfully. Nobody ever found out.”

More than two decades later, Hancock is one of the most powerful officials in government and a member of the “quad” of cabinet ministers who determine Covid-19 policy. Some even credit him with persuading the PM to return to a second lockdown.

Coladangelo is now a successful businesswoman. And yet she finds herself facing questions, again, over what Hancock has and has not disclosed.

Tories call for inquiry into ‘bad data’ to justify rural housebuilding

Conservative MPs have called for an inquiry into “bad” official population projections that are then used to justify the construction of thousands of homes on open fields.

[CPRE Devon have also consistently questioned the baseline used in housing need calculations for Devon – Owl]

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Tory backbenchers in Warwickshire claim that a population projection for Coventry exaggerates growth by up to 60,000 people over the next two decades, resulting in “major incursions into the countryside”, with areas including the Forest of Arden being zoned for housing unnecessarily.

They are being backed by the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, in a complaint to Sir David Norgrove, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, that “bad decisions – to irrevocably destroy historic countryside – are being made on the back of bad data”.

Two local Labour MPs have joined the complaint, which is being coordinated by the Warwickshire branch of the CPRE, the countryside charity.

The move opens a new front in the backbench rebellion against rural housebuilding and comes amid continued tensions between Tory councillors and MPs and the government over proposed planning reforms, which could make it easier to build houses in the countryside.

Last weekend, the UK housing minister, Robert Jenrick, was forced into a U-turn on housing targets for some Tory shire heartlands in the south of England under pressure from backbenchers, including the former prime minister Theresa May and the former health secretary Jeremy Hunt. Jenrick announced an algorithm being used to set targets would be reset to allocate more homes in towns and cities and the north.

Midlands MPs are calling for an inquiry into the population projections produced by the Office of National Statistics that they allege overestimate Coventry’s birth rate and underestimate its death rate. They also say it understates international emigration, particularly among students finishing courses.

Merle Gering, the chairman of Warwickshire CPRE who carried out the statistical analysis, said it meant houses were being planned for “ghosts”.

Their letter to Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, comes on the eve of a decision on a planning application for up to 2,400 homes on land known as Eastern Green to the west of Coventry, which until recently was part of the green belt separating the city from Birmingham.

The population projections used to set the targets were produced in 2014. More up-to-date figures from 2018 were made available this summer, but the government is sticking with the earlier numbers to ensure “stability and certainty”, the ONS said.

The letter, signed by the Conservative backbenchers Craig Tracey, the MP for North Warwickshire, Jeremy Wright, the MP for Kenilworth and Southam, and Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby and Bulkington, said: “The very high figures for Coventry have led that authority and neighbouring Warwickshire authorities to over-allocate land for housing in their local plans. This has resulted in major incursions into the countryside, both in Coventry itself and in those parts of Warwickshire immediately surrounding it.

“Large amounts of the historic Forest of Arden – precious for history, biodiversity, landscape, heritage, flood control, recreation and providing the green lungs of a crowded urban area – have been removed from green belt in and around Coventry and allocated to unnecessary housing.”

Similar issues have been raised elsewhere. Last year, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, accused the government of making it impossible to reduce the amount of protected green belt allocated to housing through the use of old population growth figures, which are higher than the most recent projections.

A spokesperson for the ONS said: “Projections aren’t predictions or forecasts and simply show the trajectory of the population or number of households based on a set of plausible scenarios of what could happen to births, deaths and migration. Projections are updated every two years to ensure they use the latest data and methods, new versions supersede old versions.

“We are continuing to have conversations with residents and academics in Coventry and all of our methods have been explained to be fully transparent and helpful.”

Cathy Gardner not the only one legally challenging Matt Hancock

Michael Savage www.theguardian.com

Boris Johnson and his health secretary, Matt Hancock, acted “unlawfully” when appointing three key figures – including the head of NHS Test and Trace, Dido Harding – to posts in the fight against Covid-19, according to a legal challenge submitted by campaigners to the high court.

The Observer has seen details of documents from those pursuing the case – and initial responses from government lawyers – relating to the call for a judicial review into the appointment of Baroness Harding, who is a Tory peer, and into those of Kate Bingham to the post of head of the UK’s vaccine taskforce and Mike Coupe to the role of director of testing at NHS Test and Trace.

The case has been lodged jointly by the not-for-profit Good Law Project headed by Jolyon Maugham QC, and the UK’s leading race equality thinktank, the Runnymede Trust. If it is successful, it would represent a further serious blow to the credibility of the government’s handling of the pandemic and support claims that ministers have been running a “chumocracy”.

The claimants say the appointments were made without advertising the positions, and without the open competition normally insisted on for important public sector roles. Instead they suggest those identified and then appointed were installed in part because of their Tory connections. Harding and Bingham are both married to Conservative MPs while Coupe is a former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, and was a colleague of Harding’s at the supermarket.

The claimants question the experience and suitability of the three to carry out the roles and also say that because the positions were not advertised and are unpaid, the government was guilty of indirectly discriminating against others outside the very well-off, predominantly white group from which the three were chosen. They also say the government breached equality obligations for public sector appointments.

In relation to Harding’s appointment by Hancock in May to head the test and trace programme, the claimants say her experience “was not such that it was obvious without a selection process that she was uniquely qualified for the role”. Hancock and Harding already knew each other, partly through horse racing connections. Harding was appointed to a second role in September as head of the National Institute for Health Protection, again without an open competition or the role being advertised.

The claimants say Bingham, who has worked in the fields of venture capital and therapeutics, and was at school with the prime minister’s sister, Rachel, “has no experience of public health administration and no expertise in immunology”. Her husband, Jesse Norman, is a Tory minister and was a contemporary of the prime minister’s at Eton.

Referring to Coupe’s appointment the claimants say: “Mr Coupe’s most significant professional experience is as the former CEO of Sainsbury’s. He has no experience as a public administrator or in the health sector. He is a former colleague and friend of Baroness Harding, who worked with him at Sainsbury’s.”

The claimants are inviting the court to declare that the government acted “unlawfully” in the way it made the appointments. They are not seeking to remove the three from their posts, which they accept would be disruptive at a time of crisis, but to ensure that in future governments are bound to act fairly and lawfully.

Another 341 people in the UK died of Covid-19 on Saturday, and 19,875 new cases were recorded.

News of the legal legal challenge comes as Johnson prepares to outline to parliament on Monday details of the restrictions that will apply after the lockdown in England ends on 2 December. He will hold discussions with his cabinet on Sunday to finalise the details of extra restrictions that will have to apply in the worst-hit areas, and how rules can be loosened for a few days over Christmas. Sources said the three-tier system would remain, although with extra restrictions imposed where necessary.

Johnson may have to rely on support from Labour when the new restrictions are voted on. It is understood 70 Tory MPs have signed a letter warning they cannot support a return to a tiered system unless ministers can demonstrate measures “will save more lives than they cost”.

The group, led by former chief whip Mark Harper and former Brexit minister Steve Baker, are demanding to see a full cost-benefit analysis of the restrictions being proposed after the current national lockdown ends.

A pre-action letter outlining the details of Good Law Project’s case has been sent to Johnson and Hancock. The government legal department has responded by defending all the appointments, saying the urgency of the pandemic necessitated swift, ad hoc and temporary appointments.

The legal department said they were not civil service roles so fell outside the requirements for full and open competition, and praised the administrative abilities and experience of those chosen. It also dismissed the claims of indirect discrimination as baseless, saying the claimants had failed to say precisely who had been discriminated against. The government’s lawyers say the case is “unnecessary and will soon be academic”.

Dr Halima Begum, director of the Runnymede Trust, said in her submission: “Corners must not be cut to the point where the government is discriminating against non-white and/or disabled people. Qualified individuals should all have an equal opportunity to compete for these vital jobs, no matter their background. They should also be able to afford to accept these jobs while supporting themselves and their families.

“Dispensing with open competition and failing to remunerate full-time positions builds a perception that important jobs are being given to an inner circle of wives and friends within Westminster. This is what people increasingly call the ‘chumocracy’.”

Dave Penman, head of the civil servants’ union the FDA, said: “Ensuring civil servants are recruited on merit is not only a legal obligation on the government, it is critical in ensuring the effectiveness of public services and protects the civil service from cronyism and corruption. It ensures that from local jobcentres to ministerial private offices, civil servants are recruited for what they can do, not who they know or what they believe.”

Maugham said: “If our politicians care in the slightest about public trust, we need to get back to how things used to be. Public service needs to be exactly that – not a cloak for the advancement of private interests.”

Good Law Project is also pursuing allegations that Covid-19-related contracts have been awarded to people with close Tory connections. Last week Julia Lopez, a Cabinet Office minister, said an internal review would be held into the awarding of private contracts during the pandemic, so ministers could be sure there was “no basis” for claims of favouritism towards Tory supporters or donors. The National Audit Office is also carrying out its own review into procurement.

A spokesman for No 10 said: “We do not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

Owl was surprise, but on reflection shouldn’t have been, that the Minister “on duty shamelessly forming a square around the Prittster” yesterday was none other than “three homes” Jenrick.

Readers will recall that, at the beginning of lockdown 1, Robert Jenrick fled London to hole up at his second home/mansion in Hereford. Obviously his eyesight is now good enough to read from a script.

Of all the articles describing the extent of sleaze and chumocracy surrounding the Government, this one seems to summarise it well.

Kenan Malik www.theguardian.com

A  cladding manufacturer allegedly fakes results to win a contract for material it knows is a deathtrap. The government sets up a system to reward companies with whom ministers have links. Almost 90% of Windrush victims making compensation claims have yet to receive payment, while the home secretary responsible for that scheme is found guilty of bullying.

Just another week in 2020 Britain. And, this being 2020 Britain, the people facing the consequences of abuse of power, malfeasance and incompetence are not those responsible but those who suffer.

Last Monday, the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire heard how, after its cladding had failed the first safety test, the manufacturer, Celotex, simply set up a second test, apparently rigged the results and won the contract to wrap the block with flammable cladding. It was an astonishing revelation, but barely reported in the press.

Two days later, the National Audit Office published a damning report on the government’s procurement process for Covid-19, revealing that companies placed in a “high-priority” channel were 10 times more likely to be awarded a contract. You didn’t need to be good at producing PPE to be in this channel, you just needed to know a minister. A currency trading firm, Ayanda Capital, won a £252m contract to supply millions of face masks, in a deal brokered by Andrew Mills, a government adviser who just also happened to be an adviser to Ayanda.

Jobs, too, from the chair of the vaccine taskforce to the head of the disastrous NHS test-and-trace operation, are seemingly allocated on the basis not of what you know but of who you know (or are married to).

Meanwhile, the Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman revealed that Alexandra Ankrah, the head of policy for the Home Office Windrush compensation scheme, had resigned in frustration. The scheme, Ankrah pointed out, was administered by “the very same people who hadn’t questioned the Windrush situation in the first place”. Nine people have died while awaiting compensation.

Look at these cases individually and you might describe each as an isolated instance of “chumocracy” – some might call it corruption – or “policy failure”. They are all different kinds of wrongness. Celotex’s seemingly shocking disregard for human life in the name of profit-making is of a different order to the indifference to people’s needs apparent in the Home Office. But put these cases together and a different picture emerges. A picture of how power works. A picture of elite contempt for rules, for social needs, for the little people.

There is nothing new in corruption or incompetence. Business and sleaze have long worked hand in hand, public officials have often been negligent, ministers have rarely been shy of taking advantage of their connections. What is new is the lack of pushback or the threat of any consequences.

The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, “shocked” by the Grenfell revelations, insisted on the need for “stiffer regulation for building safety”, which is “too lax”. He failed to mention that the regulations are too lax because of a long history of government mania for deregulation. Or that the year before the Grenfell fire, the then business secretary, Sajid Javid, had introduced a “one in, three out” rule, meaning that for every regulation introduced, three had to be cut, and the government boasted of reducing fire safety inspections from six hours to 45 minutes.

After the NAO report, ministers simply shrugged their shoulders as if to say that’s how it is. “At the time there was huge pressure to get PPE into the system and that’s what we did,” said the business secretary, Alok Sharma. As if a health emergency is good reason for malpractice.

There was a time when those responsible for incompetence might have resigned. Now, it’s those who expose the wrongdoing who have to go: not just Ankrah, but Alex Allan, too, Boris Johnson’s adviser and the author of the bullying report about Priti Patel.

And all the while, the Labour party is too busy fighting with itself, and wanting to appear “responsible”, to hold ministers to account. A 23-year-old footballer has put more pressure on the government than the official opposition. The media seem more interested in soap operas, whether in No 10 or in the Home Office, than in failures of policy or misuse of power. And so incompetence and sleaze have become normalised, brushed aside with a shrug or a transparently insincere apology.

The English ruling class, George Orwell wrote in 1941, during the Blitz, “will rob, mismanage, sabotage, lead us into the muck”, but in a crisis it is “morally fairly sound”. I doubt if it was true then. It is even less true now.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

 Devon’s director of public health Steve Brown has issued a new plea to residents and said: “There is cause for optimism, without doubt.

“The challenge to us all – my plea to you – is that we do not let our enthusiasm to return to normal actually set us further back.”

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 

A further 244 cases of coronavirus have been confirmed in East Devon in the past week – with ‘clusters’ remaining in all but one of the district’s wards.

Nineteen areas – spanning Exmouth, Honiton, Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton, and Cranbrook – currently have three or more Covid infections.

The highest numbers are in Exmouth Brixington (23), Exmouth Littleham (19) and Ottery and West Hill (18).

In fact, Exmouth’s six wards are in the district’s top seven areas for current infections.

Axminster is the only part of East Devon where there is not a ‘cluster’.

The new cases recorded in East Devon in the last week represent an increase of 27 when compared to the previous seven-day period.

There were 220 new cases in Exeter – a week-on-week increase of 31.

A total of 1,301 Covid-19 cases have now been confirmed in East Devon and 2,428 in Exeter.

As of yesterday afternoon (Friday, November 20), government statistics showed that 2,367 new coronavirus cases had been confirmed in seven days across Devon and Cornwall.

That is compared to compared to 2,068 cases in the previous week.

A total of 15,982 cases have now been confirmed in both counties since the beginning of the pandemic.

‘Clusters’ in 19 East Devon areas

Nineteen ‘clusters’ – where three or more Covid cases have been confirmed – have been identified in East Devon:

• Exmouth Brixington (23 cases);
• Exmouth Littleham (19);
• Ottery St Mary and West Hill (18);
• Exmouth Halsdon (17);
• Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh (17);
• Exmouth Town (15);
• Cranbrook, Broadclyst and Stoke Canon (14);
• Clyst, Exton and Lympstone (14);
• Feniton and Whimple (ten);
• Honiton North and East (ten);
• Seaton (nine);
• Honiton South and West (eight);
• Dunkeswell, Upottery and Stockland (eight);
• Sidmouth Sidford (seven);
• Newton Poppleford, Otterton and Woodbury (five);
• Budleigh Salterton (five);
• Kilmington, Colyton and Uplyme (four);
• Sidmouth Town (three);
• Sidbury, Offwell and Beer (three).

The ‘clusters’ data, last updated this afternoon (Saturday, November 21), is based on a rolling rate of new cases by specimen date ending on November 16.

‘Clusters’ remain in all of Exeter’s 15 wards:

• Pennsylvania and University (32 cases);
• Wonford and St Loye’s (29);
• St Leonard’s (21);
• Middlemoor and Sowton (19);
• St Thomas East (18);
• Central Exeter (15);
• Mincinglake and Beacon Heath (12);
• Pinhoe and Whipton North (ten);
• Heavitree West and Polsloe (ten);
• Alphington and Marsh Barton (ten);
• St Thomas West (ten);
• Exwick and Foxhayes (ten);
• Countess Wear and Topsham (nine);
• St James Park and Hoopern (six);
• Heavitree East and Whipton South (five).

New cases across Devon and specimen dates

Of the 2,367 new cases confirmed since November 13 up to yesterday afternoon (Friday, November 20), 244 were in East Devon and 220 in Exeter.

There were 79 cases in Mid Devon, 170 in North Devon, 597 in Plymouth, 89 in the South Hams, 108 in Teignbridge, 263 in Torbay, 66 in Torridge and 53 in West Devon.

Cornwall recorded 478 cases.

Of the 2,367 new cases, 1,539 had a specimen date between November 13 – 19, with 172 of these in East Devon and 153 in Exeter.

There were 61 in Mid Devon, 103 in North Devon, 349 in Plymouth, 51 in South Hams, 65 in Teignbridge, 182 in Torbay, 50 in Torridge and 33 in West Devon.

Cornwall had 320.

Despite more new cases being confirmed this week, they are in fact falling in East Devon when looked at purely by specimen date.

Total Covid cases

A total of 1,301 Covid-19 cases had yesterday afternoon (November 20) been confirmed in East Devon and 2,428 in Exeter.

Torridge has had 308 positive cases, West Devon 347, with 542 in the South Hams, 597 in Mid Devon, 709 in North Devon, 861, in Teignbridge, 1,773 in Torbay, 3,436 in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and 3,680 in Plymouth.

The total for Devon and Cornwall has, however, only risen by 1,911 after 204 cases were this week reassigned to other local authorities.

Hospital admissions

The number of people in hospital in the South West has risen to 942 from 759.

There are currently 65 patients in mechanical ventilation beds, up from 58 as of last Friday.

NHS England figures show that, as of Tuesday morning (November 17), there were 265 patients across Devon and Cornwall in hospital after a positive Covid-19 test.

Of them, there are 106 in the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (up from 69), 90 in Derriford Hospital in Plymouth (76), 18 in North Devon District Hospital (down from 19), and 39 in Torbay Hospital (down from 43).

There are 19 patients in mechanical Ventilation beds, up from 18, with three at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, one in Torbay Hospital, eight in Derriford Hospital, and seven in North Devon District Hospital.

‘Cause for optimism’

Devon’s director of public health Steve Brown has issued a new plea to residents and said: “There is cause for optimism, without doubt.

“The challenge to us all – my plea to you – is that we do not let our enthusiasm to return to normal actually set us further back.”

It was easy to identify the biggest losers when Flybe plunged into administration.

[But the winners are……..(Some may also be dismayed by the fees paid to the administrators) – Owl]

Robert Watts www.thetimes.co.uk 

More than 2,000 staff lost their jobs when the airline went bust in March. There was also a £96.5m hit to the pension scheme.

Then there were the passengers and other small creditors, who were owed more than £450m when the Exeter-based airline went down, and a hit of more than £50m to the taxpayer.

However, eight months on, the winners in this sorry tale are finally starting to become clearer. A new company called Thyme Opco has bought Flybe’s brand and many of its assets out of administration — and now there are plans for the airline to return in the new year.

The two names on Thyme Opco’s incorporation documents are Lucien Farrell and Jonathan Peachey.

Farrell and Peachey are part of Cyrus Capital, a $4bn (£3bn) transatlantic hedge fund, which had owned 40% of Flybe before its demise. Virgin Atlantic and the Stobart Group each had 30% stakes in what had become the UK’s third-largest airline. It floated in 2010 at 295p a share for a valuation of £200m, but the consortium had bought it for £2.2m — 1p a share — in January last year.

Peachey, 46, is the better-known of the pair. After graduating from Warwick University, he joined PwC in 1996 and trained as an accountant. Two years later, Peachey moved to Virgin and soon became a powerful figure in Sir Richard Branson’s US operations, running the American airline and becoming heavily involved in Virgin Galactic, the space travel venture.

In 2013, Peachey left Virgin to run the wearable tech firm Filip Technologies. Four years later, he became an airlines adviser to Cyrus.

Farrell — also 46, born two days before Peachey — runs Cyrus’s European operation. In 2005, American founder Stephen Friedman hired the Cambridge graduate and Farrell has run that side of the business ever since, building a reputation for artfully buying up distressed debt and making investments in more than 100 companies.

Not all of Farrell’s personal investments have proved a triumph. The Notting Hill-based hedgie was one of more than 500 people — along with the comedian Jimmy Carr and the DJ Chris Moyles — to pour money into an investment scheme clobbered by HM Revenue & Customs for tax avoidance.

The episode led to considerable public scorn for Carr, although Farrell managed to retain his customary low public profile.

During his days at Eton, Farrell struck up a friendship with Ben Elliot, co-founder of the luxury lifestyle business Quintessentially. Elliot is now co-chairman of the Conservative Party and they remain friends, completing the same charity bike rides.

When Flybe secured a tax holiday and potential state bailout two months before its March collapse, Cyrus stressed that Elliot was not involved.

Those who lost money in Flybe’s collapse may also be dismayed by the fees paid to the administrators, EY. With the hourly rate of some of staff working on Flybe exceeding £1,000, EY’s bill has topped £13.9m, and it expects to charge £9m more before the job is done.

The terms of the sale were not made public, making it hard to ascertain just how much of a bargain Farrell and Peachey landed. Nor is it clear how they plan to make their money from what has been a perennial basket case, given the slender demand for regional flights.

“We are extremely excited about the opportunity to relaunch Flybe,” said Cyrus. “The airline is not only a well-known UK brand, it was also the largest regional air carrier in the EU.”

However, with many of the best routes snapped up by rivals in recent months, the new Flybe will have a far less attractive roster of slots. The skies are clear for no one in the pandemic-hit airline industry — least of all Flybe.

• Construction of two storey side/rear and single storey rear extensions Brookside Cottage Station Road Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0ERRef. No: 20/2520/FUL | Validated: Fri 13 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 – Turkey Oak, Crown reduce to previous pruning points, MDC 100mm, and crown raise over garden and shed to 5m, MDC 50mm T2 – English Oak, Crown raise over footpath and Prunus to 3m, MDC 25mm T3 – English Oak, Reduce southern aspect by 1.5m , MDC 50mm T4 – English Oak, Reduce upper canopy on north eastern aspect by 2m, MDC 50mm T5 – English Oak, Reduce south western aspect by 2-3m, MDC 75mm, and crown raise over neighbour’s garden, MDC 50mm Reason: Appropriate arboricultural management. 16 Redwood Close Exmouth EX8 5NSRef. No: 20/2510/TRE | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed rear extension to sit on footprint of existing garages. Clad external facade of existing structure in faced stone Broadview Court Place Farm Wilmington Honiton EX14 9LARef. No: 20/2512/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension to provide visitors room. Ridgeway Salcombe Hill Road Sidmouth EX10 8JRRef. No: 20/2519/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side and rear extension. 57 Primley Road Sidmouth EX10 9LFRef. No: 20/2495/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of 1 no. totem signage. Otter Vale Motor Services Upottery Honiton EX14 9NERef. No: 20/2501/ADV | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• 2 sets of illuminated text with panel beneath, 1 illuminated logo, 1 illuminated panel with text and 1 illuminated hanging text. Mickeys Beach Queens Drive Exmouth EX8 2AYRef. No: 20/2503/ADV | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, purple plum – reduce height and re-shape by approximately 2m. R1, walnut, sycamore and willow – prune back overhang. T2, holly – reduce three main stems into lower round growth. T3, foxglove tree – fell. T4, Portuguese laurel – reduce by approximately 2m. T5, Norway maple – formative prune. Rydon Barn Ottery Street Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7HWRef. No: 20/2504/TCA | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of additional first floor side facing window. Oakhaven 10A Copp Hill Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6DTRef. No: 20/2499/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of ground floor of buildings from shops (Class E) to micropub (sui generis) 2 & 4 St Georges Chard Street Axminster EX13 5DLRef. No: 20/2496/COU | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Ash with 5 subsidiary trunks marked 0 on plan Cut back subsidiary trunks to main trunk and hedge to shrub level Reason – To reduce risk of hedge bank collapsing and blocking Stone Lane Aggies Orchard Church Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JXRef. No: 20/2490/TCA | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of first floor extension above existing garage and alterations to porch. 5 Beeches Close Woodbury Exeter EX5 1JNRef. No: 20/2502/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Forestry storage building and access track. Gold Acre Wood Ball Lane FarwayRef. No: 20/2480/AGR | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace roof on lean-to on rear (north east) elevation and replace steel flue with terracotta chimney pot and new capping Middle Tencery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QZRef. No: 20/2485/LBC | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Provision of new ventilation chimneys on existing poultry building (poultry house 3) Little Westcott Sheldon Honiton Devon EX14 4QSRef. No: 20/2488/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 – Oak – Remove two lower secondary branches and crown reduce as per annotated photograph. Work required to alleviate conflict between trees and vehicles. Rear Of 14 & 16 Luccombe Oak Cranbrook Exeter Devon EX5 7FRRef. No: 20/2482/TRE | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey rear extension Kenwood House Kestell Road Sidmouth EX10 8JJRef. No: 20/2487/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of extension to car port. Ware View Ottery St Mary EX11 1PJRef. No: 20/2471/FUL | Validated: Fri 13 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension and front porch and installation of solar panels. The Old Cobb Barn The Farm Whimple Exeter EX5 2UBRef. No: 20/2455/FUL | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of existing garage, construction of new garage and car port. Sunny View Lyme Road Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3XARef. No: 20/2475/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Demolition of existing office/reception area and lobby to South-West elevation and construction of ground floor extension to provide new office and reception and additional classroom room area with outdoor play area over. The Dolphin Pre School And Nursery 5 Raddenstile Lane Exmouth EX8 2JHRef. No: 20/2472/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T/1 Sycamore. Remove very extended lower limb. When in full leaf it abraids the shed in the picture. About 3 mts in length no cut will exceed 10 cms. T/2 very overgrown and extended Rhododendron. With the full permission of the neighbour Mr Laurence Cole at 16 Glebelands we would like to cut the Rhodo back to the wall and reduce it to approx 5ft so it can be managed as a hedge and will allow more light onto my clients garden area Woodhyde The Glen Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TRRef. No: 20/2460/TCA | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Alder: Remove 75% of regrowth from tree to reduce height by 3m; T2 Contorted Willow: Reduce by 3m; T3 Apple: Reduce by 3m and reshape; T4 Birch: Pollard to 2m; T5 Birch: Pollard to 2m. 3 Station Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6RJRef. No: 20/2476/TCA | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T2 Monterey Cypress: Dismantle to retain a standing dead wood habitat stump at 8m above ground (see attached arb report) The Old Stables 28 Grove Road Whimple Exeter EX5 2TPRef. No: 20/2477/TRE | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Roof work following fire damage: new cedar shingle roof, breathable membrane and battened on south elevation, repair and replace where necessary rafters, posts and beams and install fire wall in roof space. Weycroft Well House Weycroft Axminster EX13 7LLRef. No: 20/2465/LBC | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Alterations to kitchen roof 21 Victoria Place Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JPRef. No: 20/2473/FUL | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell one weeping silver birch (T1) and install a wildlife pond in its place; reduce in height by approx 30-40% and reshape weeping silver birch (T2); reduce in height by approx 30-40% and reshape cherry tree (T3), and: fell Alder tree (T4) and replace with 2-3 fruit trees which are more in keeping with a garden of this size and of the area. High Banks Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5HWRef. No: 20/2474/TCA | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of rear conservatory. 4 Poplar Row Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NLRef. No: 20/2468/FUL | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and construction of replacement dwelling and double garage with associated landscaping works, including new pedestrian access gate and formation of path across verge Akora Southway Sidmouth EX10 8JLRef. No: 20/2438/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 – Oak – Reduction in height and crown spread by 3m, due to overhanging shed and dropping branches. T2 – Ash – Removal of limb on Southern side of canopy growing towards T1 due to defect. The Granary Axmouth Seaton EX12 4BLRef. No: 20/2451/TRE | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Certificate of Lawfulness to establish the use of The Shippen, and its associated curtilage, as an independent dwelling for a period of time exceeding 10 years The Shippen South Hill Farm Woodbury Exeter EX5 1LARef. No: 20/2449/CPE | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed menage (for private use). Land At Woodhouse Hill BranscombeRef. No: 20/2454/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawfulness to establish the use of South Hill Barn, and its associated curtilage, as an independent dwelling for a period of time exceeding 10 years South Hill Barn South Hill Farm Woodbury Exeter EX5 1LARef. No: 20/2448/CPE | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of an ancillary outbuilding. 1 Clystlands Clyst Honiton Exeter EX5 2LXRef. No: 20/2444/CPL | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed vertical extension to existing garage to provide ancillary accommodation at first floor. Laurissa The Meadows Beer Seaton EX12 3ESRef. No: 20/2436/FUL | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of porch to front. 12 Bramley Gardens Whimple Exeter EX5 2SJRef. No: 20/2435/CPL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 walnut Reduce crown to give a two metre clearance from the roof taking into consideration best arboricultural practices. To allow the roof to be repaired 16 Elmside Budleigh Salterton EX9 6RPRef. No: 20/2426/TRE | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of single storey rear extension 4 Younghayes Road Cranbrook Exeter Devon EX5 7DTRef. No: 20/2407/CPL | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Approved
• New industrial building (18.3m x 24.4m) for the storage and restoration of vintage steam related items The Antique Village Hele Exeter EX5 4PWRef. No: 20/2411/FUL | Validated: Fri 13 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacing existing septic tank with new sewage treatment system. Otterfields Rawridge Honiton EX14 9PSRef. No: 20/2402/FUL | Validated: Fri 13 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Provision of cladding to main house and garage. Withen House Withen Lane Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2JQRef. No: 20/2395/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of condition 1 on planning permission 07/1771/VAR (Variation of condition on planning permission 99/P1737 for use as holiday accommodation) to allow the building to be used as an unrestricted dwelling Sceat Cottage Colyton EX24 6DPRef. No: 20/2394/VAR | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change use of first floor of garage from domestic storage to holiday accommodation, including installation of additional external door and internal alterations Strand House The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5EYRef. No: 20/2392/LBC | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side and rear wrap around extension; replacing front door and window with 2 no. bay windows 7 Starre Close Seaton EX12 2TLRef. No: 20/2388/FUL | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Ash – large branches ripped off in high winds. Tree Surgeon has suggested this has happened as the tree is very tall and so high wind cause the branches to “whip” about. Two of these have already fallen close to our property. Concern for safety as we adjoin a public footpath / bridleway. Lindens Mill Lane Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TZRef. No: 20/2381/TRE | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of detached garage 2 Glebelands Sidmouth EX10 8UBRef. No: 20/2371/CPL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Re-thatching from wheat straw to water reed Woodmead Marsh Honiton EX14 9AJRef. No: 20/2338/LBC | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of replacement detached double garage and annexe (revision of previously approved 19/2704/FUL) 3 Endsleigh Crescent Blackhorse Exeter EX5 2AWRef. No: 20/2337/FUL | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Ash Tree and Field Maple tree from Tescos Boundary are growing into garden of 9 Ware Court and now touching their property. There is a Field Maple and an Ash tree that have grown across the boundary line and are now touching their property. The maple needs to be felled to ground level and the Ash tree needs to be reduced back to the Boundary line away from the property 6m. Removing all branches that are over growing into the neighbours garden – the trees could affect tiles or cause further damage Tesco Honiton Store Battishorne Way Honiton EX14 2XDRef. No: 20/2318/TRE | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention and completion of insulation to underside of existing rafters including new boarding and plaster finish The Barn Edge Barton Manor Branscombe Seaton EX12 3BNRef. No: 20/2303/LBC | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Removal of condition 5 of planning permission 78/C0284 (proposed dwelling) to remove the tie to the engineering business and allow unrestricted occupation of the dwelling. The Smithy White Cross Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1EPRef. No: 20/2285/VAR | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for various works to barn (annexe), including blocking up door, installation of storm canopy over doorway and 4no. replacement windows. Retention of new iron gate to driveway. The Old Manor Clyst Hydon Cullompton EX15 2NDRef. No: 20/2183/FUL | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 19/1834/FUL (Change of use to a two bedroom dwelling, removal of canopy and ramps, creation of parking and garden) to amend the design Ottery St Mary Childrens Centre Tip Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1BERef. No: 20/2120/VAR | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of shed for shelter and storage of machinery equipment, tools and fertilisers in connection with servicing and maintenance of existing orchard Ivy Cottage Stockland Honiton EX14 9BSRef. No: 20/2017/FUL | Validated: Mon 09 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 5no. windows on ground floor rear elevation 1 Jessamine Cottage The Green Whimple Exeter EX5 2TYRef. No: 20/1889/LBC | Validated: Wed 11 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New single storey rear extension, infill existing porch, internal alterations and associated minor repair works. Ancillary accommodation. New garden storage and tool shed to replace existing. Manor Cottage Upottery Honiton EX14 9PNRef. No: 20/1703/FUL | Validated: Fri 13 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side and rear extensions; single and two storey front extensions. Oaks End Lower Broad Oak Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XHRef. No: 20/1480/FUL | Validated: Thu 12 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey front and side extension with balcony, covered porch with steps, veranda to front, provision of cladding, and associated landscaping Briar Patch St Johns Road Exmouth EX8 5EGRef. No: 20/1381/FUL | Validated: Tue 10 Nov 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

What does it take for women to stand as an independent political candidate? This is a women-only event.

www.eventbrite.co.uk

About this Event

Join us in the next online workshop in our Standing for… series.

If you are a woman, that has yet to wooed by any of the political parties on offer and are toying with the idea of standing as an Independent candidate, then this workshop is for you!

In this session we will be demystifying the process of standing for election as an independent political candidate, covering everything from the application to the campaigning process. We will be highlighting the support that is available to you as you embark on your political journey as an idependent candidate and we will be talking about the other programmes available to you from the Parliament Project.

Most importantly we want to support you to define your own next steps in standing for elected office.

During the session we will be joined by Cllr Marianne Overton MBE, who is the Head of the Independent group at LGA and Head of the Independent Network and Independent Cllr Kaye Corfe.

Both women will be sharing with us their knowledge and experiences as standing as Independent candidates n order to help you develop your plans for standing.

This session will be facilitated by Parliament Project facilitator Zainab Asunramu.

A zoom link to access the session will be sent to you in the days leading up to the webinar. You may be interested in other webinars in this series. Check them out on our website here.

Live Captions will be available for this session. A live link will be provided at the start of the workshop.

If you have any access or audiovisual access needs that we should know about in order to support you in accessing the content of the session, please contact us at events@parliamentproject.com so we can ensure we accommodate your needs.

By registering for this online session are agreeing that you will behave in line with and to respect Equal Power’s values both in and outside of the workshop. Please take a couple of minutes to read our values statement here.

By registering for this event you are agreeing to receive information about future Parliament Project activities that you may be interested in, to support you on your own political pathway. You have the right to unsubscribe from these updates at any time.

ABOUT US

Equal Power is a ground-breaking campaign to transform women’s representation at every level of politics. It’s time for Equal Power: equal representation for women in all our diversity. This three-year campaign, run by a coalition of women’s and civil society organisations, is funded by Comic Relief. We will track the journeys of aspiring leaders to office and the barriers and discrimination they still face.

The Parliament Project is a non-partisan project to inspire, empower and encourage women to run for political office in the UK. Focusing on practical, hands-on training and support, we run workshops and webinars to demystify the process for women wanting to get involved in politics and online peer support circles to support women’s political ambitions more deeply.

Date and Time

Location

Online Event

The Parliament Project is a non-partisan organisation which aims to get more women elected in the UK. It helps by running informative and skills building events, providing links to current research in women in politics and offering a peer networking service to support women’s journey to get elected.

From a correspondent:

Many of the people living in the lower Otter Valley have expressed very forcible views on the Lower Otter Valley Restoration Project but few have actually shown the “get up and go” of Patrick Hamilton, the new Pride of Devon 2020 Countryside Champion, sponsored by Bicton College.

Since 2011 Patrick has led the Otter Valley Association’s project to eliminate Himalayan Balsam, an invasive species on the whole of the Otter catchment and has helped make a big impact on the Lower Otter. He has organised volunteer work parties to pull up the plant and strim in open areas without major obstacles.

Whilst herbicides are effective, they cannot be used indiscriminately, particularly close to water courses.

Annual return visits are required to discourage re-growth.

Following the River Tale’s successful strategy of first clearing the tributaries, the OVA adopted this same policy on the Lower Otter catchment, led by Patrick. He has liaised with the many partners and land owners tackling this project.

In addition, for many years he has organised the annual litter pick at the mouth of the Otter estuary.  

As the citation quotes:

Patrick plays a huge part in the Otter Valley Association running worthwhile projects and practical conservation work including annual litter picks and extricating Himalayan balsam – a plant that threatens the native biodiversity of the Otter Valley. This year despite restrictions on group sizes, Patrick’s efforts have not been diminished. Him and a team of volunteers have still managed to win the fight against the invasive plant. His personal contribution and response to this alien invader locally would not be where it is today. The landscape and communities of the Lower Otter Valley are much indebted to Patrick’s tireless effort. He is a true countryside champion.

www.radioexe.co.uk

Pride of Devon Awards 2020

Countryside Champion – sponsored Bicton College

Patrick Hamilton

Nominated by Kate Ponting from Clinton Devon Estate

– and there’s a chance it could rear its head again 

By Tom Rayner, political correspondent news.sky.com 

The Cabinet Office report into whether or not Priti Patel bullied her civil servants has been sitting on the prime minister’s desk for months.

Since March, political reporters have asked about the progress of the inquiry into the home secretary on a near-daily basis, only to be told by Boris Johnson’s official spokesman: “I don’t have any update for you.”

It’s not entirely clear why this week was chosen as the moment to finally publish the findings, but the controversial nature of the prime minister’s response might at least explain why there had been such a delay in Number 10 in coming forward with it.

Sir Alex Allan, his independent adviser on ministerial ethics, had concluded Ms Patel had behaved in a way that constituted bullying, and was in breach of the ministerial code.

Normally it would then be for the prime minister to determine whether that breach constituted a sackable offence.

Instead, Mr Johnson decided that was immaterial because in his eyes there was no breach.

He was within his rights to make that call, because he has the final say on matters relating to the code, but it is a fact there is no precedent for prime minister contradicting the conclusion of their ministerial ethics adviser following such an investigation.

The response of Sir Alex was to immediately resign from his post.

The justification Number 10 gave for this unprecedented approach was that the prime minister had to consider the matter “in the round”.

His spokesman said Mr Johnson had concluded there was no breach because any offence caused was inadvertent and that the home secretary had not been made aware of it. He went on to say that given Ms Patel had made an “unreserved apology” the matter was now “closed”.

But is it? Has the “unreserved apology”, as Ms Patel described it herself, done enough for the issue to go away? The short answer is no.

Already opposition politicians are expressing outrage that the home secretary’s apology was for the upset caused, rather than the behaviour itself.

The full publication of the report is another issue that is likely to linger.

The government have said the final document cannot be published without compromising the private information of those who contributed evidence to it.

However, Yvette Cooper, who chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee, has already requested a copy for scrutiny of whether key evidence has been overlooked in the summary that was published on Friday. A political row will ensue if that is denied.

Similarly, Lord Evans, the chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, has said Sir Alex’s resignation was “deeply concerning” and indicated it would now be looked at as part of his ongoing inquiry into the ministerial code.

On top of all that, the former senior civil servant whose resignation sparked the inquiry in the first place has raised questions about whether the findings presented on Friday were accurate.

Sir Philip Rutnam, who quit as permanent secretary at the Home Office in February, has said it is false to claim the home secretary was not made aware of the offence that her behaviour had caused.

In a statement, Sir Philip said Ms Patel had indeed been warned about shouting at staff in August and September of last year, and again in February of this year.

All of this is likely to be raised at the employment tribunal Sir Philip has launched for what he claims was constructive dismissal.

But that tribunal, if it goes ahead, is not expected to be held until next September.

The select committees that are indicating they want to investigate these matters are unlikely to move forward particularly quickly.

Given the reaction from the Conservative backbenches has been broadly supportive of the prime minister’s decision, it is possible to see why Downing Street chose to publish the findings on Friday.

The matter may not be as closed as Mr Johnson claims it to be, but given the next few weeks are likely to be dominated by a focus on the spending review, Brexit talks, vaccine rollouts and rows over changing coronavirus restrictions, the scope for this issue to remain at the top of the agenda is limited.

That does not mean Ms Patel is safe in her post for good.

There is no doubt she has been damaged by this process, and there’s plenty of scope for it to rear its head once again.

But Number 10 appears to have concluded that the storm created by sticking by a home secretary, who is popular with Conservative MPs and party members alike, will soon be blown away by the bigger political storms on the horizon.

From the Waugh Zone Huffpost uk:

“form a square around the prittster”

One Tory insider believes that like the Cummings case, the story is not going to go away.

“Patel needs to go, she needs to resign,” they told me.

“Keir Starmer if he’s smart is going to frame this as a condition of Johnson’s premiership – who do you stand up for? You’re a bully, you don’t care about the little guy.

“It’s the elitist thing – it’s Barnard Castle, it’s Priti Patel.”

Matters were made worse when it emerged that the PM texted Tory colleagues urging them to “form a square around the prittster”, which Stratton [Allegra Stratton PM’s new Press Secretary] was again forced to defend by stressing Patel was going to have a “testing day” – that is true, and it’s because she broke the ministerial code.

Cornwall is set for a construction tidal wave with the announcement that the Home Office is finalising plans to construct hundreds of new prime location coves.

28TH JULY 2018 BY GARY SEARCHLIGHT now, in 2020, looking prescient

LCD VIEWS www.lcdviews.com 

Government mocking and Brexit related satire, as well as general nonsense now and then. They’re playing us all for fools so let’s laugh in their faces.

”Just imagine the view,” a spokesman for the department told LCD Views, “and then imagine spending your summer with a pick and a shovel in hand preparing Cornwall for life after Brexit.”

The pitch is a clear play for the lazy students that infest the country doing nothing of much use, while moaning about having over £50K in debt and no freedom of movement.

”If they’re too lazy to pick fruit,” Owen Paterson posted on Twitter, in support of the initiative, “they can at least knock a few rocks about in the southwest. It’s their patriotic duty. You don’t need a burgundy passport to leave your London swat and go to Cornwall. Yet.”

But critics of the plan have leapt on what they see as a flaw in the scheme.

”The plans show the new coves being built inland,” professional smuggler, Mrs Arrrrr, told us, while shouldering a barrel of rum, “It’s not much use to a pirate if you can’t access the cove from a safe anchor in an inlet. They’re just ditches. Someone could come to grief in them.”

LCD Views would like to take this opportunity to chastise the limits on the thinking of so called experts like Mrs Arrrr. If we can’t think outside of the box, we’re not going to make the most of the opportunities presented by Brexit.

”This is a chance to trade with the world,” professional muppet Paterson opined, while sitting in his Chinese car, using his American designed phone and wearing his Australian made sheepskin boots, “mostly the trade will be in insulin, insults, blood products and fresh produce. And whatever else the EU has banned us producing in the U.K. for far too long. I say seize it with both hands and one leg. Arrrr indeed.”

A woman from Devon says an antibody test proves she caught the coronavirus in the UK in December of last year – more than a month before the first cases were confirmed in the country.

Paul Greaves www.devonlive.com 

Sue Reader, 59, from Ogwell, believes she caught the virus during a trip to arrange travel documents from the Chinese Visa Application Centre in London on December 16.

She did not develop symptoms until December 30 and immediately self-isolated. She displayed all the usual symptoms we now associate with Covid-19, including acute shortness of breath, fatigue and loss of smell.

The NHS worker had an antibody test in June which proved she had contracted the virus.

If correct, Sue’s experience adds to growing evidence that the virus was active in the UK much earlier than first thought. The virus is understood to have started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The UK did not confirm its first Covid positive case until January 31, 2020.

Sue said: “It just seems to me the government are in complete denial by saying they don’t believe it was in this country before the end of January.

“I’m not suggesting I was the first person in the country to catch it but I may well have been the first in Devon, simply because of the circumstances in which I contracted it and the fact I was at home in bed completely floored by it.”

Sue was staying at her parents home in Henley-on-Thames when she visited the Chinese Visa Application Centre in the City of London on December 16. She was planning a holiday to the Great Wall of China and needed the appropriate travel documentation.

She said: “Inside the building it was full of people coughing and spluttering. I always notice this type of behaviour because I am the type of person who never gets sick. I lead a very healthy lifestyle but the coughing was very apparent.”

While at the visa centre Sue was busy photocopying documents, touching cash machines, having face-to-face discussion with staff, using the photo booth. She believes this was the crucial period when she caught the virus.

“That was the 16th and basically it wasn’t until the 30th when I was suddenly completely and absolutely overwhelmed,” she says.

“I had a high temperature, I was aching, I couldn’t breathe and I was hallucinating. I remember saying to my family ‘do not let anybody come into my room. Whatever I’ve got nobody wants it’.

“My father is 88 and has heart failure and I was very conscious that I could not stay because whatever I had was serious. I don’t think he would be here now if I had stayed. I knew it was a virus and not just a cold or something like that.”

Despite her failing health Sue managed to drive back to Ogwell near Newton Abbot on January 1. She spent the next month in complete isolation, mostly sleeping, not leaving the house.

By this time there had been a number of confirmed coronavirus cases in China. The first known death from the illness was in China on January 11. In the UK, the virus was almost unknown outside of medical circles.

The first cases in the country were not confirmed until January 31 in York, though anecdotal evidence suggests it was here before that date. An 84-year-old man from Kent who died on January 30 is certified as the earliest Covid-related death in the UK. Peter Attwood showed symptoms on December 15, 2019.

Sue says: “It wasn’t like anything I had experienced before. I didn’t know anything about coronavirus at the time, nobody did. I remember the first time I heard about it and it was like a light bulb moment.

“I was extremely ill. I couldn’t even walk up the stairs. All I wanted to do was sleep. I was on my own and very ill for about a month.”

Antibody tests were offered to NHS staff in June this year and Sue, who was convinced she’d had the virus, decided to take one. It came back positive for Covid antibodies, meaning her body’s immune system had built up a level of protection and she had indeed had the virus.

She wanted to donate plasma to help those convalesing with the virus but was told her veins were were too narrow for it to be safe.

What worries her now is the long term toll the virus has taken on her body. Sue displays ongoing health issues commonly connected to ‘Long Covid’.

“I’m a keen gardener and my allotment is at the bottom of a hill. By the time I walk back I’m completely out of breath for five minutes. For me my biggest anxiety is that nobody knows the long term effect it has on people’s health.

“What I don’t understand is why they are not looking at a person’s lung capacity. I don’t know what long term damage has been done to my lungs and nobody seems to be considering it.”

She also thinks the incubation period of the disease is longer than commonly thought.

“I hadn’t been unwell in the 14 days between my visit to the visa centre and the 30th and had carried on as normal over Christmas. But nobody else in the household got ill, not my father or grandmother.

“It is my belief, because of my personal experience, that you start being contagious when the coughing begins.”

Current health advice is that people appear to be most infectious just before they develop symptoms (namely two days before they develop symptoms) and early in their illness.

Latest research shows which parts of Devon are set to be experiencing high rates of infection when lockdown ends on December 2.

Paul Greaves www.devonlive.com

According to Imperial College London’s research infection rates will remain high in almost all parts of the county.

Red Zones on their map project which local authority areas will be Covid hotpots with more than 100 cases per week.

It is those areas that are likely to face the toughest levels of restrictions.

In our region, there is a 99 per cent probability that North Devon will have more than 100 cases per week by December 2.

East Devon (98 per cent); Torridge (94 per cent); Torbay (92 per cent) follow close behind.

England’s lockdown is set to end on December 2 and will be replaced by a tiered system of restrictions, according to the Government.

The entire UK is working on a joint approach to rules for Christmas – with speculation bans on indoor gathering and limits on the number of people who meet could be lifted.

SAGE experts say for every day the rules are eased the country would need five days of ‘lockdown’ to bring the virus back under control.

Researchers define a hotspot as a local authority where there are more than 50 cases of Covid-19 per 100,000 of the population per week. See the map here.

All local authority areas of Devon have a greater than 80 per cent probability of having more than 50 cases by December 2.

If the definition of a hotpost is upped to 100 cases per 100,000, then only Teignbridge has a probability of less than 50 per cent (43).

South Hams (88 per cent); West Devon (80 per cent); Mid Devon (85 per cent) and Exeter (78 per cent) complete the county.

Although the rates appear high the infection rates in Devon and the South West are projected to be lower than most other parts of the country – a picture consistent with infection rates throughout the health crisis.

In England, Hull, Swale, Hartlepool, East Lindsey, Dudley and Stoke-on-Trent are predicted to have some of the highest infection rates.

Just under 300 local authorities have an 80 per cent or greater chance of being a hotspot on December 2, according to the study.

A holiday park said 25 jobs were at risk of redundancy due to the “seismic” effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

BBC news

Devon Cliffs Holiday Park in Exmouth currently employs about 500 people at the seaside destination.

Owners Bourne Leisure said it had made the decision after witnessing a “significant change” in the hospitality and tourism industry.

It said the company would be consulting with staff over the coming weeks, and was “committed” to redeployment.

A spokesperson for Bourne Leisure said: “The pandemic has had a seismic effect on the tourism and hospitality sector and we are saddened that it is leading to significant change and jobs being at risk.

“As a company, we are committed to redeploying as many of our highly valued team members as possible to other roles within our brands.”

The company said its proposed structure would allow it to emerge from the pandemic “in a position to move forward strongly”.

Ancient warriors were said to terrify their foes by piling high their valuables in full view and burning them to flaunt their power. That is now official British defence policy.

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson feels the need to show the world he is fit and well by humiliating his chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and indulging his most spendthrift department, defence. He is giving it an extra £21.5bn of taxpayers’ money, a rise of up to 15% in real terms. This has already shattered the foreign aid budget and mocks all talk of belt-tightening to pay for Covid. Johnson has also effectively dumped next year’s “integrated defence review”, a pet project of the now clearly defunct Dominic Cummings. This is chaotic government.

The language in which Downing Street is selling this bonanza leaves no doubt. The intention is to portray the locked-down prime minister as fearlessly decisive. It is to please the US president-elect Joe Biden in the hope of a post-Brexit trade deal. It is “to bolster our global influence” which Johnson knows will be damaged by Brexit. It is also to show other cabinet ministers that blind loyalty – like that of Johnson’s friend, the defence secretary, Ben Wallace – will be amply rewarded.

None of this has to do with defence. As far as that is concerned, Johnson says his spending will “end the era of retreat” and enable Britain to “defend free societies around the world”. What retreat and which societies we are not told. Nor does Johnson list those of his predecessors he thinks are the lily-livered retreaters. We are merely to imagine Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping reeling in terror at the sight of Johnson’s profligacy and power. They will gasp at his ruthlessness in spending so much while snatching food from his schoolchildren’s mouths, starving his care homes of migrant workers, stuffing the chumocracy with £21m backhanders and blowing billions on a Birmingham railway. Such a man, they are supposed to fear, will do anything.

The department now crowing with delight is notorious for waste. Cummings himself blurted out in a March blog that “it has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists”. The Ministry of Defence is said to suffer from a procurement black hole, calculated at £13bn of accumulated overspending on top of its £41.5bn annual budget. Francis Tusa of Defence Analysis describes this hole as “not a Treasury problem but an MoD problem”, adding that the settlement is merely “rewarding bad management”.

We can accept that some of this money is going on sound defence. It will upgrade cyber-protection to defend Britons, says Johnson, from attacks on “the mobile phones in their pockets or the computers in their homes”. That is fine but it is surely appalling that the MoD is only now getting round to a “cyberforce” and “an AI agency to develop autonomous weapons systems”. What has it been doing with our money for the past 20 years?

The answer is that almost all procurement is focused on fighting the infamous “last war but one”. To read modern defence literature is to disappear into memories of the second world war. Billions is spent on tanks, jet fighters, aircraft carriers and Trident missile submarines, poised to “hit back” in a matter of hours,as if Stalin or the dreaded Hun were on the horizon.

 ‘Inexhaustible lasers’: Boris Johnson’s plan for defence after budget boost – video

Desperate to make some use for his new £3bn aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth, Johnson is sending it to the South China Sea at vast expense with four protection vessels. It is hard to see what this will do beyond offer target practice for China’s massive air and submarine defences. Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force wants a new generation of Tempest jet fighters. Earlier this year a similar debate broke out over the future of the army’s Challenger 2 tank force, designed to fight El Alamein on the plains of central Europe.

There is no remotely conceivable military threat to what Johnson calls “Britain’s realm” requiring massed conventional defences, nor has there been for 70 years. Other European countries are not quaking in their shoes for want of Britain’s armour. The wars that Tony Blair and David Cameron fought were all ventures of aggression not defence, mostly against poorly armed but highly motivated Muslim countries whose troubles proved too much for us.

These “retreats”, as Johnson calls them, were because defence resources had gone on glamorous kit, rather than on infantry trained for street fighting. Nowadays the principal threat to British interests abroad is precisely such entanglements. The UK’s ability to send soldiers round the world encourages ambitious ministers into senseless interventions. Had Donald Trump won the US election it is possible he would have seduced Johnson into a war with Iran.

Public spending that can only be validated by such abstract nouns as influence and status is likely to be wasted. The only concrete use announced for the cash this week was for the army to police coronavirus, and for procurement to aid “job creation”. There must be less costly ways of achieving these benefits.

As it is, we are left with a budget underpinned by waffle – waffle concealing waste. Some of the money is apparently to be spent on a new military “space command”, so Johnson can send rockets to wage war in space. Citing opportunity cost can be glib, but when 280,000 people are homeless, spending on such boys’ toys is obscene.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

There was supposed to be a government review of Britain’s foreign, security and military needs. But, as so often, Boris Johnson has put the cart before the horse

Editorial www.theguardian.com

Boris Johnson’s statement to parliament on future defence spending showed the prime minister at his worst. The language was grandiloquent – he spoke of ending an “era of retreat” over which, in fact, Conservative governments have presided – as well as bombastic: “tipping the scales of history”. It was studded with dubious invocations of Britain’s past designed to stoke national pride. However, as Mr Johnson has done throughout the Covid crisis and over Brexit, it put the rhetorical cart in front of a horse that is still being tended in the stable.

There were very few specifics about how the £24.1bn extra spending at the core of the statement would actually be used. Some of that sum has been promised already, in the Conservative manifesto. There were even fewer details about how any of it is to be raised, especially in the tight post-Covid public financial world which the chancellor will outline in the spending review next week.

Most frustratingly of all, the post-Brexit strategic choices, which the government’s own integrated review of foreign, defence and security policy was supposed to have resolved, all remained unaddressed. That review has not yet been completed, not least because the US election has changed the global picture. Yet here was Mr Johnson, acting as prime ministers often do, jumping the gun to trumpet his commitment to Britain’s armed forces when they do not yet know how the government really sees their future role.

Mr Johnson has a spending plan but not a strategy. His approach owed more to domestic politics than anything else. He wanted to show he is back in charge after the departure of Dominic Cummings; relieved Tory MPs lapped that up. He wanted to reinforce his appeal to voters who abandoned Labour because they doubted Jeremy Corbyn’s patriotism. Mr Johnson also needed some big spending headlines for Clydeside and Fife to counteract the wanton damage he did to the Scottish Tory cause on Monday by dismissing devolution as a disaster.

In addition, Downing Street clearly wanted a space in the news cycle between Thursday’s upbeat announcements and the chancellor’s less boosterish spending statement. This is likely to rein in many departmental budgets, and will prove a tougher political sell. On the world stage, it was also an opportunity to signal to the incoming Biden administration that Mr Johnson is ready to be the new US president’s military ally. Yet the real-world consequences of the statement are still overwhelmingly unclear and distant. As ever with Mr Johnson, the warm words were the easy bit – and we have learned from experience that the words are not just warm but weaselly.

The way Mr Johnson told it, absolutely everyone in the defence and security world would be a winner. If that is true, then why bother with a strategic review at all? The spending would boost all three armed services (though the navy is the biggest winner), as well as benefiting special forces, research and development, and a new aggressive cyber capability. There would even be a new British space rocket programme (based in Scotland). All this would safeguard “hundreds of thousands” of jobs, and produce a “renaissance” for shipyards across the country (especially in Scotland), as well as turbocharging the aerospace, artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicle industries.

Yet it is simply not true that most defence spending can be treated as investment in this way. Ships, tanks and planes do not pay for themselves. The case for defence spending as a national priority rests squarely on its own terms. In principle, the case for a spending upgrade is strong, not least because of Brexit, and must not be dismissed. But increases have to be paid for, either by cuts to other programmes, by greater borrowing, or by tax increases. Social programmes and the overseas aid budget – both of which are true investments – should not be sacrificed for this. Mr Johnson was evasive when challenged on this on Thursday from both sides of the Commons. Now he needs to be held to account. Cuts in aid and welfare would tip the scales of history in a shameful way. They would do absolutely nothing to help make Britain a stronger and safer society.

Virologist whose father, 88, died of Covid in a care home sues the government

By Jack Elsom Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter For Mailonline www.dailymail.co.uk 

A judicial review will probe whether the Government failed to protect care home residents from Covid-19 following a legal challenge by two bereft daughters.

A High Court judge today ruled in favour of Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris, who are taking action against Matt Hancock, the NHS and Public Health England for their handling of the crisis. 

Dr Gardner argues that the lack of ‘adequate’ measures to protect residents was ‘one of the most egregious and devastating policy failures of recent times’. 

She accused the Government of breaching the human rights of thousands of vulnerable people, including her 88-year-old father Michael Gibson, a retired registrar who passed away at the Cherwood House Care Centre in Oxfordshire on April 3.

Ms Harris, 57, also joined the legal fight after her 89-year-old father Don, an ex-Royal Marine, died in May along with 24 residents of his Hampshire care home. 

The Government and related health bodies oppose the legal challenge and asked the judge to throw out the case.

But Mr Justice Linden told a remote hearing this afternoon: ‘I consider it interests of justice for the claim to be heard.’   

The first-stage victory for the women paves the way for a judicial review that could have huge ramifications for the families of at least 30,000 people who died in care homes with Covid this year

Dr Cathy Gardner with her father Michael, a former registrar, who died in a care home after a resident was brought in with coronavirus after being discharged with coronavirus

Fay Harris, 57, whose father Don, a former Royal Marine, was one of 24 residents of a Hampshire care home who died in May after a Covid-19 outbreak, has also joined the legal action

Mr Justice Linden said that the daughters should be given permission to pursue their case on all grounds, saying it ‘crossed the threshold of arguability’.   

Both women are ‘appalled’ by Health Secretary Mr Hancock’s insistence that a ‘protective ring’ had been placed around care homes to shield them during the first wave of the pandemic. 

Dr Gardner’s lawyers claimed that prior to her father’s death the care home was pressured into accepting a hospital patient who had tested positive but ‘had no temperature for 72 hours’. 

Mr Gibson, a retired superintendent registrar of birth marriages and deaths, was primed to catch the illness despite never leaving the home, they said. 

Dr Gardner was so upset that she was forced to say goodbye to her octogenarian father through a care home window and the circumstances before his death that she is suing the government.

Her case accuses the government of unlawfully exposing countless care home residents to substantial risk during the pandemic – and was filed at the High Court in June.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock claimed that a ‘protective ring’ was placed around care homes

Dr Gardner, also chair of East Devon District Council, believes her father’s death was part of a ‘national disgrace’. 

The case will be for the benefit of every individual, including care home residents, staff and family members, affected by the government’s course of action, she says.

Dr Gardner says the government opted for a ‘casual approach’ to protecting care home residents, adding: ‘At worst, the government have adopted a policy that has caused the death of the most vulnerable in our society.

‘It is completely unacceptable that this happened and that responsibility has been avoided.’

On her father’s death certificate it said ‘Covid probable’, because he perished before widespread-testing became widespread in care homes. 

The government has been met with staunch criticism in relation to its handling of care homes throughout the health crisis, with particular policies allowing patients to be discharged from hospitals into care homes without being tested coming under fire.

Dr Gardner’s case, which will be filed at the High Court on Friday, accuses the government of having exposed care home residents to substantial risk during the pandemic

A letter sent to Mr Hancock in June said Dr Gardner believed that the controversial policies adopted by the Health Secretary, NHS England and Public Health England ‘manifestly failed to protect the health, wellbeing and right to life of those residing and working in care homes’.

The letter also claimed: ‘Their failings have led to large numbers of unnecessary deaths and serious illnesses.

‘In addition, the failings of Government have been aggravated by the making of wholly disingenuous, misleading and – in some cases – plainly false statements suggesting that everything necessary has been done to protect care homes during the pandemic.’ 

Ms Harris, who has joined the court action, had planned to treat her father Don, a former Royal Marine, to a special sailing trip in his beloved Portsmouth Harbour to celebrate his 90th birthday last month.

She had found a boat adapted to carry people in wheelchairs so he could see the harbour where he was stationed from the sea again.

But days later on May 1 Mr Harris died at Marlfield care home in Alton after an outbreak of coronavirus. Hampshire Court Council said later that a quarter of the 24 deaths there around this period were Covid-related but could have been higher.

His bereft daughter told The Times: ‘Physically my dad was fit and he was well. He always had a smile on his face. When we left him he was mobile. He was strong and he was a fighter. He had Alzheimer’s and had had care problems but he came through them all. He should not have died, he should have been on that birthday trip.’

The Department of Health has said it cannot comment on legal proceedings. 

How care homes became the Covid frontline: A timeline of failings 

FEBRUARY – SAGE scientists warned Government ‘very early on’ about the risk to care homes

Britain’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, revealed in April that he and other senior scientists warned politicians ‘very early on’ about the risk COVID-19 posed to care homes.

He said: ‘So very early on we looked at a number of topics, we looked at nosocomial infection very early on, that’s the spread in hospitals, and we flagged that as something that the NHS needed to think about.

‘We flagged the fact that we thought care homes would be an important area to look at, and we flagged things like vaccine development and so on. So we try to take a longer term view of things as well as dealing with the urgent and immediate areas.’

The SAGE committee met for the first time on January 22, suggesting ‘very early on’ in its discussions was likely the end of January or the beginning of February.

MARCH – 25,000 hospital patients discharged to homes without tests

In March and April at least 25,000 people were discharged from NHS hospitals into care homes without getting tested for coronavirus, a report by the National Audit Office found.

This move came at the peak of the outbreak and has been blamed for ‘seeding’ Covid-19 outbreaks in the homes which later became impossible to control.

NHS England issued an order to its hospitals to free up as many beds as they could, and later sent out joint guidance with the Department of Health saying that patients did not need to be tested beforehand.

Chair of the public accounts committee and a Labour MP in London, Meg Hillier, said: ‘Residents and staff were an afterthought yet again: out of sight and out of mind, with devastating consequences.’

MARCH – Public Health England advice still did not raise alarm about care home risk and allowed visits

An early key error in the handling of the crisis, social care consultant Melanie Henwood told the Mail on Sunday, was advice issued by Public Health England (PHE) on February 25 that it remained ‘very unlikely’ people in care homes would become infected as there was ‘currently no transmission of Covid-19 in the UK’.

Yet a fortnight earlier the UK Government’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Modelling committee had concluded: ‘It is a realistic probability that there is already sustained transmission in the UK, or that it will become established in the coming weeks.’

On March 13, PHE advice for care homes changed ‘asking no one to visit who has suspected Covid-19 or is generally unwell’ – but visits were still allowed.

Three days later, Mr Johnson said: ‘Absolutely, we don’t want to see people unnecessarily visiting care homes.’

MARCH/APRIL – Testing not readily available to care home residents

In March and April coronavirus swab tests – to see who currently has the disease – were rationed and not available to all care home residents suspected of having Covid-19.

Government policy dictated that a sample of residents would be tested if one showed symptoms, then an outbreak would be declared and anyone else with symptoms presumed to be infected without a test.

The Department of Health has been in control of who gets Covid-19 tests and when, based on UK testing capacity.

MARCH/APRIL – Bosses warned homes didn’t have enough PPE

Care home bosses were furious in March and April – now known to have been the peak of the UK’s epidemic – that their staff didn’t have enough access to personal protective equipment such as gloves, masks and aprons.

A letter sent from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (Adass) to the Department of Health saw the care chiefs accuse a senior figure at the Department of overseeing a ‘shambolic response’.

Adass said it was facing ‘confusion’ and additional work as a result of mixed messaging put out by the Government.

It said the situation around PPE, which was by then mandatory for all healthcare workers, was ‘shambolic’ and that deliveries had been ‘paltry’ or ‘haphazard’.

A shortage of PPE has been a consistent issue from staff in care homes since the pandemic began, and the union Unison revealed at the beginning of May that it had already received 3,600 reports about inadequate access to PPE from workers in the sector.

APRIL – Care home deaths left out of official fatality count

The Department of Health refused to include people who had died outside of hospitals in its official daily death count until April 29, three weeks after deaths had peaked in the UK.

It started to include the ‘all settings’ measure from that date and added on 3,811 previously uncounted Covid-19 deaths on the first day.

NOVEMBER – In response to anger over the continued ban on in-person visits, Matt Hancock vows to introduce a testing regime for visitors by Christmas.  

In the first five months after Dido Harding was put in charge of NHS Test and Trace, she held on to a part-time job on the board of Mind Gym, a “business transformation” company that was founded by an Eton school friend of David Cameron, VICE World News can reveal.

www.vice.com

As NHS Test and Trace struggled in June and July, Harding even spent time helping to write Mind Gym’s annual report. In that report, the company’s founder and CEO, Octavius Black, said COVID-19 gave the firm a “strong opportunity” to “grow our share of the market”. Harding resigned from her Mind Gym job last month. 

Mind Gym has a turnover of £48 million a year, selling psychology-based consultancy and “behaviour change solutions” to other companies. Black hired Harding as the “Senior Independent Non-Executive Director” of Mind Gym in July of 2018. 

This is a part-time, but high-profile job at the firm. According to Mind Gym’s annual report, Harding was expected to go to a number of company committees as well as acting as “a sounding board for the Chairman”, and being “available to shareholders should they wish to discuss concerns”.

In May, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said he was “delighted” to announce that Harding would become the new chair of the NHS Test and Trace programme. Hancock said Harding would “oversee implementation of the new NHS app, mass testing and contact tracing programme”.

This was a crucial job in terms of the UK response to the pandemic, but the announcement did not make clear if it was actually a full-time job. And Harding did continue to work for Mind Gym for a period.

Harding’s appointment was always controversial. The Tory life peer is best known as the former CEO of TalkTalk, and her handling of a 2015 cyberattack on the mobile phone network’s customers, 157,000 of whom had their data stolen. In 2017 Harding left TalkTalk and became chair of NHS Improvement.

Responding to Freedom of Information requests submitted by VICE World News, the Department of Health and the NHS said they do not have records of how many days Harding has worked for NHS Test and Trace.

Mind Gym paid Harding a £60,000 per year salary. Harding was paid £65,000 a year for her role as chair of NHS Improvement, but her Test and Trace role is unpaid.

June and July were crucial months for the development of NHS Test and Trace. The new Contact Tracing Service was launched at the end of May, but it was widely seen as botched, and experts estimated the COVID-19 track and trace scheme was missing 75 per cent of cases in June. The COVID-19 tracing app that Hancock had promised in May was launched on the Isle of Wight, only to be withdrawn on the 18th of June because it didn’t work properly. In July the government admitted a quarter of the COVID-19 tests they claimed were counted as complete had not actually been returned in the post.

As well as sitting on the main board, Harding also sat on Mind Gym’s remuneration committee, which decides on executive salaries, and its risk committee. Company papers suggest this would involve around 20 meetings a year, alongside other duties.

Mind Gym papers show Harding was active for the company at this time. As Remuneration Committee Chair, Harding wrote a letter included in the Mind Gym annual report, dated the 10th of June. Harding asked investors to re-elect her to the board at the Mind Gym Annual General Meeting on the 13th of July, which they did.

On the 18th of August, Harding was promoted to the chair of the new National Institute for Health Protection, adding new responsibilities to her COVID-19 work. However, Harding did not finally resign from Mind Gym until the 16th of October.

In the annual report that Harding helped write, Mind Gym CEO Black told shareholders that “In the short term” the outbreak of COVID-19 has “affected our clients and our performance”. But, the report said, “In the medium term, we believe it creates a strong opportunity to accelerate our digital strategy and grow our share.”

Black said, “We are already getting great interest from clients” about how Mind Gym could help them deal with the pandemic. Black said their “pivot to digital” and their “strength in delivering live, bite-size workshops online” meant the firm could do well from the pandemic. 

Mind Gym is well-connected. Black is a friend of former Prime Minister Cameron. Black’s wife, Joanne Cash – who was dubbed the “Tatler Tory” during Cameron’s time in government – also sits on the board of Mind Gym. Cash was a Conservative Parliamentary candidate in 2010. Michael Gove and other key Conservatives went to Black and Cash’s wedding.

Black has good access to Conservative ministers and officials. Hancock had a ministerial meeting with Black in 2016. So did Cabinet Office Minister Ben Gummer. In 2015, Cameron’s government awarded Mind Gym contracts to train senior civil servants.

VICE World News asked the Department of Health if it approved of Harding’s part-time work with Mind Gym, and if they thought it was OK for her to do this extra work on top of running Test and Trace. We also asked if the department in fact believed that Harding’s Test and Trace roles were not jobs that needed her full-time attention. They gave no response.

Mind Gym and Baroness Harding, currently self-isolating after getting pinged by the NHS app she oversees, were also approached for comment. They declined to respond.

@SolHughesWriter

As you may have heard in the news Mr Justice Linden granted the case permission to proceed to a full trial. Despite the best efforts of the Government and NHS to get the case thrown out the judge ruled that we had an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success. The judge recognised the wider public interest in the case and that it affects the lives of many people who have lost loved ones in the pandemic. Simply put, he accepted that it is arguable that the Government unlawfully failed to protect the lives of care home residents.

A huge amount of work has been done to get the case to this significant point. There is much more to do. The government and NHS have to file their detailed evidence by 22ndJanuary 2021 and we then have an opportunity to file evidence in reply. For the first time we will see what the Government’s reasoning was in making some of the disastrous decisions they took – for example the requirement to urgently discharge patients from hospital without COVID-19 tests in March this year.

We expect the trial to take place around April/May next year.

We need continue to raise funds to be able to hold the Government to account for the loss of so many lives. I am so grateful for your generosity that has helped us get to this highly significant moment. Please share this page and many thanks again for all your donations and kind comments of support.