Leaders say service needs cash to tackle surgery backlog and mental health demand

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com

NHS leaders are urging Rishi Sunak to fulfil his pledge to give the service “whatever it needs” to respond to the coronavirus crisis, by boosting its budget by £4bn next year.

NHS services need the money to tackle the huge backlog of patients waiting for surgery and the sharp increase in people needing mental health care as a direct result of the pandemic.

Patients will suffer if the money for those problems does not arrive, they claim.

NHS Providers, which represents trusts in England, wants the chancellor to unveil a major financial boost for the service in his comprehensive spending review on 25 November. It will set departmental budgets across Whitehall for 2021-22 at a time when the government has committed to spend at least £210bn to deal with the Covid public health emergency.

The plea comes amid fears at high levels of the NHS that, with public finances under intense pressure because of the huge costs of the pandemic, it will not get as much money as it has been seeking. “We’re hearing that it’s not going to be as much as we need,” said one NHS source.

The letter to Sunak reminds him that on 11 March, as the pandemic was unfolding, he told the House of Commons that “whatever extra resources our NHS needs to cope with coronavirus, it will get … whether it’s millions of pounds or billions of pounds … whatever it needs, whatever it costs, we stand behind our NHS”.

NHS Providers’ letter acknowledges that “the current public expenditure position is difficult” and that the Treasury does not want to revisit the five-year funding deal which the then prime minister, Theresa May, unveiled in 2018 to mark the service’s 70th birthday.

However, it warns that two “urgent, new problems” – the many people unable to access care in the spring and the extra pressure on mental health services – require a rethink and the provision of an extra £3bn-4bn.

Acute hospitals need to pay for more diagnostic equipment, such as scanners, while mental health trusts need to increase their capacity to treat those in need, says the letter from Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, and Saffron Cordery, his deputy.

“Trust leaders are deeply concerned that if the spending review fails to allocate the extra money to fund this capacity in 2021-22, the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of patients is at risk,” they add.

As a result of May’s deal, the budget for the Department of Health and Social Care was due to rise to £139.8bn this year, with NHS England getting £129.9bn of that. However, since then, the Treasury has had to spend £31.9bn more on the NHS than planned. Of that money, more than £15bn went on personal protective equipment for NHS staff, £10bn was earmarked for the controversy-mired test-and-trace programme and more than £1bn on extra ventilators. It has also allocated another £5.5bn to pay private hospitals to treat NHS patients.

A government spokesperson said: “This government has put never-before-seen levels of investment into our NHS, both before and during the pandemic.

“We confirmed £31.9bn extra in July for health services to tackle coronavirus, with £3bn specifically to support the NHS during winter and to upgrade A&E facilities.

“Alongside this we have provided £2.3bn of extra mental health investment a year by 2023-24 as part of the NHS long-term plan and £10.2m in funding to mental health charities to support adults and children affected by the pandemic.”

The government body has a legal duty to protect the environment, but says its standards have slipped because it is running out of money.

By Madeleine Cuff November 13, inews.co.uk

England’s most precious patches of wildlife habitat are being left unmonitored and unprotected due to a funding shortfall at the nature conservation body Natural England.  

Chair of the agency Tony Juniper revealed Natural England has been forced to dramatically scale back its conservation work because it has not been given enough money to run by government.  

The i newsletter latest news and analysis

Much of this conservation work, which includes regular monitoring of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and assessing the environmental impact of planning applications, is legally required of Natural England.  

“Natural England’s current funding is below the level required to deliver all of our statutory duties to a good standard,” Mr Juniper admitted today in a letter to MPs. He warned the agency could face legal challenges for its inaction.  

Natural England is now only doing the legal minimum to maintain National Nature Reserves, like this one in Northumberland (Photo: Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Crowdfunding for cash

Natural England has been in dire financial straits for some time. Its baseline grant from the government has been cut by 45 per cent since 2014. Last year it even set up a crowdfunding page for the public to make donations to fund its work, before the government stepped in earlier this year and awarded the body an additional £15m. 

Lack of cash means planning applications that could harm local wildlife or habitats are going unchecked and management of national nature reserves has been dramatically scaled back, Mr Juniper admitted.

Most seriously, the rarest natural habitats are not being regularly monitored, resulting in officials failing to spot serious problems like pollution or rapid population declines of rare wildlife.  

Mr Juniper said Natural England will struggle to carry out its duties effectively until it can get a long-term settlement generous enough to fund its essential activities. He estimates the body will need at least £322m next year and £389m the following year to fulfil its duties.  

“This is a vital moment for the natural environment,” he said. “There are some very encouraging signs to look towards for the future – things we know work and we know how to approach them. The ability to make a difference is within our grasp.”

A government spokesperson said: “We are currently assessing the budgets for our arm’s length bodies as part of the Spending Review process and will update on this in due course.

“This government is committed to restoring and enhancing nature, introducing the first new Environment Bill for 20 years and setting ambitious goals in our 25 Year Environment Plan.

“We recognise the ongoing pressures on the country’s biodiversity and many of our native species are in decline, which is why we must continue to act to restore and enhance nature.”

Latest ONS figures show “R” number falling but still above 1. The King’s College Covid symptom tracker is more optimistic. This app certainly correctly “called” the start of the turnaround at the peak of the first wave before anyone else.

covid.joinzoe.com

According to the ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey figures based on swab tests up to four days ago, the number of daily new COVID-19 cases is now declining across the UK.

Key findings from ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey this week: 

• There are currently 35,963 daily new symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 01 November (excluding care homes) 
• This compares to 42,049 daily new symptomatic cases a week ago
• The Midlands is the only region where the numbers are still going up, with the numbers now reaching the same levels are the North East and Yorkshire and overtaking the North West
• The number of new cases in the worst affected area, the North West, is now at the same levels they were at the beginning of October and have an R value of 0.8
• The number of daily new cases in the South East and South West have now stopped rising but have yet to start declining. These regions still have significantly less cases than the North West, North East and the Midlands (see full table of regional results and graph below)
• The UK R value is 0.9 
• Regional R values are: England, 0.9. Wales, 0.9. Scotland, 0.9.
• Age: Again this week, infections nationally have stopped increasing in most age groups apart from modest increases in the over 60s group, which needs to be monitored closely (see graph below)

The ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey figures are based on around a million weekly reporters and the proportion of newly symptomatic users who have positive swab tests. The latest survey figures were based on the data from 13,460 recent swab tests done between 25 October to 08 November 2020. 

If you’d like to receive the full daily report for the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app head to: https://covid.joinzoe.com/your-contribution 

Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, comments: 

“Having peaked at the end of October, cases coming down across most areas of the UK, is good news but the numbers are still high in most areas, and with a prevalence of over 500,000 infected people there is still a lot of virus in the population. Yesterday, we reported that the R value was below 1 across all UK nations for the first time and we need this trend to continue. A caution is that rates are still increasing in the Midlands for reasons that are unclear. We aren’t out of trouble yet, but with numbers falling and the news of a vaccine, it feels like the end is in sight.”

An historic site with agricultural significance in the heart of Honiton could be demolished to make way for a multi-storey retirement home complex, if plans get the go-ahead.

Hannah Corfield honiton.nub.news

Honiton Livestock Market

Architect illustration of the proposed development. Picture: Churchill Retirement Living

A redevelopment proposal for Honiton Livestock Market, located just off Silver Street, was submitted to planning authorities at East Devon District Council (EDDC) on November 6.

Churchill Retirement Living seeks permission for ‘demolition of existing buildings’ to build a block of ’57 retirement apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping’.

It comes after Churchill held a public consultation in Mackarness Hall back in March of this year to speak to locals affected by the town centre redevelopment plans.

Many residents have expressed strong objections to the proposals; citing impractical vehicular access down a small one-way road and close proximity to a high school and sports facilities used by families, among other reasons.

Historic site

Planning documents include a description detailing the historic significance of the Cattle Market.

It states: “The site is located just outside the historic core of Honiton. Forming part of a wider agricultural hinterland from the medieval period onwards, its immediate environs were subject to industrial and residential expansion and development in the later post-medieval and modern periods.

“From the early twentieth century onwards the site was utilised as Honiton Livestock Market and it has been subject to several phases of reorganisation and development associated with this use.”

Objections

So far, three people have commented on the planning application posted on the EDDC website – all objecting to the proposals.

Mr Hennessey wrote: “The destruction of Holyshute House and the adjacent, historically important toll house should serve as a warning of what happens when large, aggressive retirement companies are not subject to proper planning process.”

Mrs Howe, highlighting the issue of traffic, said: “The one-way system of traffic from the High Street via Silver Street, St Cyres Road and Dowell Street is so constrained as to make this proposal utterly nonsensical.

“Although the proposal is for sheltered accommodation and one may assume that the residents will not be major car users, the staff, visiting services and relatives will present a considerable addition to the existing traffic.”

In support of the plans

Managing Director of Churchill Retirement Living in-house planning consultancy, Stuart Goodwill said: “There is a compelling overall housing need in Honiton, especially for older people.

“Our proposed development will go some way to increasing access to this type of housing for local residents.

“By meeting this rising demand, we can allow older people to downsize and free up under occupied houses in the local area for families.

“The site is excellently located on previously developed land within easy walking distance of the town centre.

“As well as meeting the need for high-quality retirement apartments, the development will bring benefits to the local economy.

“Owners will be within easy walking distance of shops, restaurants and other amenities in the town, helping to boost local businesses.”

“If you’re going to be successful in politics you need to build alliances and bring people with you,” one ally said. “This lot just makes enemies.”

Oliver Wright | Steven Swinford www.thetimes.co.uk 

It is only a short walk down the stairs from Carrie Symonds’s Downing Street flat to the “shop” below where the prime minister’s advisers work but it may as well be a trip between different worlds.

Those worlds collided spectacularly this week as Ms Symonds helped to engineer the departure of Lee Cain, her fiancé’s communications chief. She also came close to claiming the scalp of Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief adviser.

Allies of Ms Symonds have been known to refer to the prime minister’s political advisers as “the mad mullahs”, indicating the depths of the ructions that have divided No 10.

With a briefing war in full flow and dark threats of further resignations, such things can be dismissed as palace intrigue. But at its heart, it is an ideological as well as a personal and political battle for the direction of the government.

Ms Symonds’s allies insist that she is trying to free Mr Johnson from the overbearing influence of former Vote Leave operatives who hold many of the key posts in Downing Street. She blames them for isolating him from his own MPs, turning the media against the government and for overseeing a series of missteps on the pandemic that have squandered his political capital.

“If you’re going to be successful in politics you need to build alliances and bring people with you,” one ally said. “This lot just makes enemies.”

Those in the Vote Leave camp under Mr Cummings and Mr Cain insist that Ms Symonds is the destabilising influence, working on Mr Johnson to unpick decisions and trying to create a separate power structure in No 10.

“Part of the problem is that everyone comes to an agreement then he goes upstairs to No 11 at night and it all changes,” a source in the camp said. “He talks to Carrie, he talks to her friends, and his position moves.”

At the centre is the prime minister, who bounces between the two sides. At the same time, however, insiders say that Mr Johnson often changes his mind and puts off difficult decisions.

“Boris agrees with one group of people and says he is going to do one thing,” one insider said. “Then he agrees with another group of people that he’s going to do another thing. That’s difficult for everybody.”

The present ruction centres on the decision to install Allegra Stratton, the former ITV journalist and a former aide to Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, as the new public face of the government, fronting daily press briefings.

Mr Cain came up with the original idea for an on-screen personality. Ms Stratton did not even apply for the post.

Yet Mr Johnson approached her directly. He asked her to apply and then offered her the job. She agreed, but not without conditions.

She said that she would take the role but would answer only to the prime minister and not to Mr Cain as director of communications.

She wanted to set a different tone and did not want to be forced to defend positions set by Mr Cain over which she had no control. Mr Johnson agreed to all her terms.

Allies of Mr Cain saw the hand of Ms Symonds behind the whole operation and said that it left him in an impossible position.

“He felt undermined,” one friend said. “Allegra was imposed upon him and then he was told she wasn’t going to report to him. He felt he didn’t have a choice but to resign.”

The prime minister, trying to placate both sides, suggested a new role of chief of staff who would take a strategic overview of the entire Downing Street operation. But to Ms Stratton and Ms Symonds, herself a former Conservative Party director of communications, this merely exacerbated the existing problem. This was not a reset — it was an attempt by Mr Cain and Mr Cummings to exert even further control.

The leaked news of the potential appointment was widely attributed to Team Carrie as what turned out to be a successful attempt to prevent Mr Cain from taking the job. This version of events is disputed by allies of Ms Symonds, who have suggested that the news was leaked by her opponents as part of an attempt to bounce Mr Johnson into appointing Mr Cain.

Mr Cain resigned on Wednesday, resulting in a furious response from his Vote Leave allies. Several sources said that Mr Cummings came close to following him out the door and threatened to quit during a tense meeting with Mr Johnson that evening.

Ms Stratton has not commented publicly on the furore. On Wednesday, however, she ventured to Twitter to like a message by Susie Dent, the Countdown presenter. “Word discovery of the day is ‘stiffrump’,” Dent’s tweet said. “An obstinate and haughty individual who refuses to budge no matter what.”

Mr Cummings has chosen to stay but allies think it is likely that he will leave in the new year.

“He’s determined to complete Operation Moonshot [the mass testing programme] and get Brexit done,” an ally said. “But he’s very unhappy. Lee was his key in implementing his agenda. I would be surprised if he stays beyond Christmas.”

Mr Cummings is said to be pushing for Cleo Watson, a senior No 10 adviser with whom he worked in Vote Leave, to take the role of chief of staff.

There were suggestions that Lord Frost, the chief Brexit negotiator who worked with Mr Cain in the Foreign Office, could also quit. The peer is said to have gone “bananas” about the suggestion because of concerns that it could destabilise the final stages of talks with the European Union. He is believed to have met Mr Johnson last night and assured him that he had no plans to leave.

Oliver Lewis, Lord Frost’s deputy, is said to have seriously considered quitting, however. Mr Lewis worked alongside Mr Cain at Vote Leave. He also had a private meeting with Mr Johnson and decided to stay for the time being. “There are a lot of people who are very bruised,” one figure said.

“A lot of his team are very loyal to Lee and felt very strongly about the way he’s been treated. Dom has decided to stay for now because he is very involved in all the Operation Moonshot work but I don’t know how long that will last.”

Why does it matter? In short because the centre of gravity in Downing Street has shifted significantly. Relations between Mr Johnson and Mr Cummings are said to be tense and the prime minister now regards the whole Vote Leave team, on whom he used to rely, with a degree more suspicion.

“The PM has other people who he is depending on now,” one insider said. “He is using Allegra and others — that’s just the way he does business.”

Mr Johnson is understood to have suggested bringing Henry Newman, a senior aide to Michael Gove, into a senior policy role. “The prime minister really likes him,” a government source said. “He thinks there’s a role for him.”

Mr Newman is understood not to be aware of the approach and his friends have dismissed the claims as false, suggesting that they are part of a campaign to undermine him.

One source said that Mr Johnson wants to reset the government and make it less adversarial, ending the “culture wars” against institutions such as the BBC. The prime minister wants to focus on environmental issues, never a big priority for Brexiteers, and reset relations with his increasingly fractious parliamentary party.

Much will depend on who gets the job as chief of staff, which is the one thing that both sides can agree is badly needed to bring some sort of semblance of order to decision making.

Others are less than optimistic that the tensions will be resolved. One critic said: “The lack of decisiveness at the top . . . that’s the fundamental problem we’ve seen play out this year of indecision and flip flopping. If you can’t even stand by your most loyal trusted people and undermine them and box them in, in a way that they feel they have to go. It’s not good.”

Sir Jonathan Jones, the government’s former chief legal adviser, who resigned in September over Brexit, was even more caustic.

He posted a picture of a cocktail on Twitter with the caption: “This cocktail is bang up to date. No 10 gin. Highly corrosive acid (lime juice). More heat than light (ginger liqueur). Shake chaotically over shards of ice until meltdown. Add media froth (champagne). Garnish with tears and (wasted) thyme. Do suggest names.”

As the council prepares to make major savings in the wake of declaring bankruptcy it will be looking back on financial decisions made in the past few years.

Tara O’Connor www.mylondon.news

These include property deals, made with the intention of making money for the cash-strapped council.

The Croydon Park Hotel was bought in August 2018 with the aim of bringing in £1 million profit a year for the council.

But the hotel in Altyre Road went into administration in June this year and is currently being used as temporary accommodation for homeless people while the council decides what to do with it.

The decision to buy the hotel was highlighted by auditors Grant Thornton in a report in the public interest, published last month, which recommended that the purchase be reviewed.

It was a ‘leader decision’ by then council leader Tony Newman and not reviewed by cabinet and the overview and scrutiny commission until a month later.

The auditors report will be discussed at an extraordinary council meeting on Thursday (November 19).

The council’s medium-term financial strategy (2018-2022) established what it called an ‘asset acquisition fund’ of £100 million to invest in property as an ongoing income stream.

This fund was increased to £200 million in December 2019.

The Colonnades Retail Park, Purley Way, was the first purchase after the asset acquisition fund was approved.

The council bought it in November 2018 for £53 million, at the time it hoped that it would provide an annual income of £1.4 million. Auditors noted that the income of the retail park had been badly hit by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In December 2019 Croydon Council announced it had bought two more properties.

These were builders’ merchants Selco in Imperial Way, Waddon, and medical supplies specialist Alliance Healthcare at Vulcan Way in New Addington – at a combined cost of £14 million.

At the time it was thought the annual income from the tenants, which employed 300 people, would be £330,000.

But a damning report into the financial state of the council, published by Grant Thornton, deemed the investments “inherently flawed”.

It said: “The investments in The Colonnades and Croydon Park Hotel were not

grounded in a sufficient understanding of the retail and leisure market and have again illustrated that the council’s strategy to invest its way out of financial challenge rather than pay attention to controlling expenditure on core services was inherently flawed.”

Croydon Council has commissioned an independent review into properties the authority has bought which is expected to be published this month.

Recommendations off the back of this report will be presented alongside a budget review in February 2021.

Council leader councillor Hamida Ali said: “As a council we are fully committed to implementing the changes and improvements to address the recommendations made by the auditor as swiftly as we can, and to learn from our mistakes.

“First we must come together as a whole council, to address the serious criticisms contained within the auditors’ report and agree a way forward to ensure that this can never happen again. It will be an extremely important step on our improvement journey.”

Just as we are struggling to read the nuance, if any, between a Ben Ingham (Independent) and a Ben Ingham (Conservative). The party he rejoined is fragmenting into groups and factions.

The new schism isn’t as simple as in the Thatcher era when Tories could be divide into the “wets” and the”dries” – far from it.

It seems that members of some of the traditional groups such as “The One Nation Group” and the “Free Market Group”  can still be identified.

But new ones are forming with euphemistic titles such as “The Common Sense Group” and “The Covid Recovery Group”. Remember how the “Brexiteers” became “The European Research Group”? Very Orwellian.

MPs seem to be hedging their bets by joining more than one, creating parties within the party.

Wonder which groups our intrepid Neil Parish and Simon Jupp belong to?

Thinking more parochially, are we going to have to pigeonhole our local Tories? Where to start? Owl

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com

Conservative MPs who see the government as remote or lacking a policy agenda are flocking to backbench pressure groups in the hope of forcing Downing Street to listen to their concerns.

After the success of the European Research Group in shaping Brexit policy, a string of new groups have been set up in recent months with a remit on issues from migration to criticism of “the woke agenda”. They claim they have their finger on the pulse of the subjects which voters in the party’s treasured new “red wall” seats care about.

One MP who is a member of two of the new groups told the Guardian: “I would say we are ready for a culture war, and we are confident that our policy agenda will help win it.”

The latest of the groups, the Covid Recovery Group (CRG), was announced on Tuesday and appears to pose the most direct threat of rebellion over the government’s policies on lockdown. It is led by the ERG veteran Steve Baker, who one member said was “the best whip in Westminster”.

It launched with 50 members and at least 10 more have joined its ranks in the last 24 hours, the Guardian understands.

The Common Sense Group, which launched quietly in the summer with about 40 members, was the subject of a front-page story in the Daily Telegraph this week after it accused the National Trust of being “coloured by cultural Marxist dogma” and in the grip of “elite bourgeois liberals” over a report acknowledging links between its properties and slavery.

It now has 59 MPs and 7 members of the House of Lords in its ranks.

Sir John Hayes, the founder of the group, told the Guardian: “The ERG has served an important role, but it has very largely done its work. The government has to decide what its defining purpose is beyond Brexit. There’s a thirst in the party to have an open debate about what the direction should be now. There’s a different kind of Conservative family emerging.”

One member of the group, Jonathan Gullis, posted a “CULTURE WAR ALERT” on Facebook last month telling his followers that research by Greenwich Maritime Museum into the Royal Navy’s links to slavery was “leftwing ideological nonsense”.

Members have met with Priti Patel to discuss their views on immigration. “We had a Zoom meeting with Priti within two or three days of forming, and I hope we did have some influence, help to shape the thinking,” Hayes said.

On Wednesday, members of the Northern Research Group (NRG) used a Westminster Hall debate to call on the government to set out a “northern economic recovery plan”. One member, Southport MP Damien Moore, told the minister Kemi Badenoch: “We can’t just hope our way out of this crisis.”

Henry Hill, news editor at the Conservative Home website, said that the groups had formed because “whereas with Thatcher or Cameron you had a coherent ‘-ism’, with Johnson you don’t really have one of those. There are just whole areas of policy where Johnsonism isn’t a thing.”

The CRG has been modelled on the ERG, which was tightly organised, commissioned in-depth reports, had official briefings for journalists and MPs, and employed a staff researcher who handled communications.

The new group has already engaged the services of Ed Barker, a seasoned Tory PR professional and former parliamentary candidate who worked for the pro-Brexit group Global Britain and for Esther McVey’s short-lived leadership campaign.

Ben Bradley, the MP for Mansfield, who was one of the first “red wall” group of Tories to be elected, in 2017, is a member of the Common Sense Group and the NRG.

He said the spate of new groups reflected the priorities of a new kind of Tory MP, drawing comparisons with some of the thinktanks that emerged under Theresa May, like the free-market group Freer, and Onward, run by former May advisers Will Tanner and the MP Neil O’Brien.

“When we got in in 2017, there was this proliferation of new groups,” Bradley said. “In 2019, there are also a lot of new ideas coming from seats that have new priorities, levelling up the north, immigration.

“This is a mechanism of getting that across. But this time there is senior leadership who are invested too, big guns on the backbenches like Jake Berry, around John Hayes in Common Sense, there’s Esther McVey in [another group] the Blue Collar Conservatives. It’s very much a 2019 viewpoint that has found a wider reception.”

Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, cautioned against groups “being amplified because if a mouthy backbencher is said to represent something it lends them legitimacy”. But he said the “turning of the page” from Brexit had helped create space for such voices. “The energy almost needed somewhere else to go within this closed system,” he said, noting of the CRG that “the journey from Euroscepticism to lockdown scepticism is fairly easy ”.

A Tory MP who is part of the CRG said that the new groupings were all viewed as “adversarial” by Downing Street. “The fundamental reason for this is that No 10 is so dominant,” they said. “It’s clear that if you want to be heard, you have to shout. Johnson has no views beyond Brexit. We’re in a particularly odd place where access is limited to a very narrow faction and so it’s hardly surprising if real conservatives are trying to find a way to act.”

Some backbenchers on the left of the party are concerned about a new factionalism. One who is aligned with the One Nation Group of soft-right Conservatives said they feared the emergence of multiple “parties within a party”.

The MP added: “I’m wary of some of these endeavours, given the grief they wrought on the party last year. But it should be said that you don’t have to be a headbanger to think that the sphere of influence in No 10 is too small and that groups that put pressure on things that Tory voters care about is not necessarily a bad thing.”

Unbelievable! – Owl

Posted on November 12, 2020 seatonmatters.org 

Today’s Health and Adult Care Scrutiny meeting painted a grim picture of the situation in Devon, with leadership which is just not meeting the needs of the situation:

Shortages of hospital and ICU beds – the SW has the fewest in the country (and the UK almost the fewest in Europe) meaning that – despite our Covid level being the lowest – the two lockdowns have been necessary to save our hospital system.

‘Physical space constraints’ due to the pandemic are restricting the restoration of ‘elective’ surgery – after improving more slowly than planned, this is now going backwards because of more Covid cases. 4,500 people and rising have been waiting over a year!

There are bed shortages in mental health units, too – as well as staff shortages, which are also affecting 111 and after-hours call-outs, with weak governance in both services.

Yet in the midst of all this, Devon CCG are saying that they must go back to implementing £400m financial savings (planned before the pandemic) in 2021-22.

They also want to proceed with the planned closure of Teignmouth hospital, although we have insisted that Scrutiny will look at the consultation results (which were not ready today) and send our views to the CCG before it makes a decision.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! The pandemic will not end on 31st March, so EMERGENCY FUNDING MUST CONTINUE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. And we need to plan now for a post-pandemic new deal:

• Centralise Covid services in the acute hospitals, disperse other services to more sites, restore proper intermediate (step-down) care outside the care home system.
• Recognise that we have been badly caught out by Covid – we need to permanently maintain a larger hospital system, with more beds, so that we are ready for the next pandemic (which experts say could be worse).
• Make full use of our community hospital system, so that people can be treated safely, closest to home wherever possible. Drop the Teignmouth closure programme.

Devon CCG and DCC must go and tell the Government, which is splashing out tens of billions on testing, that it must find a billion more for Devon’s NHS and adult care services. Cancel the cuts and invest in a viable future plan. WILL M.P.s AND COUNCILLORS OF ALL PARTIES JOIN ME IN PUSHING FOR THIS?

There are more patients in Devon hospitals now, after a positive Covid-19 test, than at the peak of the pandemic – with that number set to rise until the end of November.

Daniel Clark sidmouth.nub.news 

Dr Paul Johnson, chairman of Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, presented the stark picture that the NHS is dealing with to Thursday’s Local Outbreak Engagement Board meeting.

He told the board that there were currently 219 patients in hospitals in Devon – although not all were admitted for Covid-19 – and that it wasn’t until the end of November that they expected to begin seeing the impact of the second lockdown and patient numbers begin to reduce.

Dr Johnson said: “Lockdown coming when it did was very good news for us as if cases kept rising beyond the end of November, then the NHS wouldn’t have been able to cope.”

In presenting the issues and pressures the NHS are facing, Dr Johnson said that the South West does have problems that could have seen it run out of beds quickest, due to geography, an older population and a relatively lower proportion of beds, which made the region vulnerable even with a lowest number of cases.

He said that there three pressures that hospitals were now facing they were not the case in April and May that means they are under more stress now than back in Spring.

The board heard that in April and May, elective referrals from GPs to hospitals were only at 40 per cent of the usual figures as people stayed home, but as of September, that was nearly back up to 100 per cent, with Dr Johnson saying: “Unlike the first wave when we had breathing space from routine elective activity, we are not seeing that this time.”

He added that in the first wave, cancer referrals in April fell to around a quarter of their usual levels, only returning to normal by June, adding: “That gave us breathing space, but was a worry that people with cancer symptoms were not coming forward and missing the chance for an early diagnoses.

“We are still waiting to see if that is the case and referrals have picked up and back at the high level and we are confident we are picking up the diagnoses now but have the added pressure.”

And he said that accident and emergency admissions fell to around 40 per cent of usual levels in the spring, but they have also returned to just below normal levels, but it felt more pressured due to the extra infection controls that need to be taken.

Dr Johnson told the board that normally the NHS aims to only have a maximum of 90 per cent of beds occupied in hospitals to ensure they have capacity to deal with any ‘surge events’ but that in the spring, only 45 per cent of beds were being used after emptying hospitals of patients to ‘deal with what could have been the worst case scenario’.

He said: “Thankfully we didn’t see it but we had the capacity to deal with it.”

The board heard that around 93 per cent of beds in Derriford Hospital, 91 per cent in Torbay Hospital, 90 per cent in Exeter, and 82 per cent of beds in North Devon Hospital were currently occupied by patients who were in hospital for a variety of reasons, not all Covid-19 related.

But he said: “The number of Covid-19 patients in hospital has exceeded the peak in the first wave, which gives us problems in hospitals.

“Some operations have had to be cancelled and we are having to close some wards as people who when admitted tested negative initially have in subsequent screenings tested positive and when happens, they are usually on a non-covid ward so that had implications around discharges and bed occupancy.

“We are not see a slowing yet and it usually around four to five weeks before any impact on hospital admissions from measures so we won’t see anything from the lockdown until the end of November, and we expect to see more of a rise for the next two and a half weeks, and then a drop as we see the impact on the lockdown.

“We are making plans to optimise the use of beds and to get people home quickly, but if it keeps rising beyond the end of November, then the NHS wouldn’t have been able to cope, so lockdown coming when it did was very good news for us to cope.”

Dr Virginia Pearson, director of Public Health for Devon, said that it was more important than ever that the public interventions of social distancing, hand washing, and wearing face coverings were adhered to do in order not only to protect ourselves but the NHS as well.

She added: “We can see the spread of the virus leading to increase in case in older age groups, which parallels with pressure with the NHS.

“There is some encouraging info from the North which suggests that they have peaked and but we will see the pressure going up for a couple of weeks, so need to expect some disruption to services.”

The meeting heard that in terms of the latest figures around coronavirus cases for Devon, the numbers were ‘relatively flat’ but there was an increasing level of ‘background noise’,

Simon Chant, public health specialist, said that the infection rates for Devon were 104 per 100,000 population, which was well below the figures for Plymouth and Torbay, and significantly below the England average of 245 per 100,000.

Figures for Exeter, East Devon, North Devon and West Devon were just over the 100/100,000 mark, with lower numbers in Teignbridge, South Hams, Torridge and Mid Devon.

Dr Pearson added that the underlying backdrop was of a gradual increase in case numbers, but that the amount of testing in Devon has increased phenomenally, from around 8,000 tests a week back in September to over 20,000 tests a week now.

She said: “Partly there are more cases because of more testing, but there is also more spread, and the pattern is small numbers scattered across the whole of Devon. There is more testing availability in Devon with the number of national labs increased, but also people are recognising that important if have symptoms to get tested.

“We want to know what is out there and it is important to understand the spread of the disease and there is no substitute for being able to get rapid data and take rapid action around self-isolation.”

Since the second lockdown began last Thursday, figures showed that traffic on Devon’s roads was down 30 per cent on weekdays and 40 per cent on weekends, but that compared to a 70-80 per cent during the first lockdown.

Dr Pearson added: “The big difference is that in the first lockdown, schools were closed, so some of the transport is school traffic. This will give us an idea of the extent how much younger people are impacting the spread. There has been an impact in schools, but not huge or a significant issue, so we will keep a close eye on the incidence, where it is, and what age groups as we go through the lockdown.”

Man you’ve never heard of resigns from job you never knew existed – it doesn’t sound the most exciting of headlines.  Except, that is……..

Ross Clark 12 November 2020 • 12:11pm www.telegraph.co.uk 

Man you’ve never heard of resigns from job you never knew existed – it doesn’t sound the most exciting of headlines.  Except, that is, when it affects a man everyone has heard of and indeed who many believe has the most important job of all as the real leader of the country. So forget Lee Cain and Carrie Symonds – the spat between them is like all those proxy wars in Korea, Afghanistan and so on during the Cold War. The real battle is between the superpowers – Dominic Cummings on the one hand and Tory MPs on the other, with the Prime Minister, like Berlin, sandwiched in the middle.

It is the same battle which seems to rage in all modern governments: between ministers and MPs on the one hand and unelected advisers and Downing Street spokesmen on the other. Remember Alan Walters vs Nigel Lawson in Thatcher’s day, Alastair Campbell vs anti-war Labour MPs in Blair’s day, Nick Timothy vs Tory MPs under Theresa May? It is effectively the same old battle, but getting more vicious with each passing administration. Prime Ministers like small bands of trusted advisers whom they can keep close at hand;  MPs, still less ministers, think they are the ones who should be wielding power and do not like being sidelined.

But no adviser has ever gained quite the profile of Dominic Cummings. For a man who doesn’t much like talking to the press, he attained from the beginning a remarkable public profile. Which other government adviser ever had reporters regularly stationed outside their house? Cummings has attained mythical status as much by fascinating people as by doing things. He is an Eric Cantona of government. He doesn’t much speak to us, but somehow we know him anyway. We know he doesn’t much like Tory MPs and that he holds the civil service pretty well in contempt.

If you are the unrecognised, unknown minister for paperclips all this must be pretty galling. You spent long years on the rubber chicken circuit, speaking to local people about buses, notching up brownie points to impress Conservative association selection panels. You worked your way up via parliamentary assistant to some junior minister. And yet still you are blocked from the Prime Ministerial ear by Cummings, who seems to have spent long years doing nothing at all, other than scribbling an impenetrable blog.   

Cummings was never likely to last a full Parliamentary term at No 10. The wonder is that he has lasted this long. For Boris Johnson the case for keeping him is that he has some super-insight into the minds of voters whom others ignore – a reputation he gained from his role in Vote Leave and in last year’s general election. We don’t, though, know the counter-factual. Maybe Britain would have voted to leave the EU without him – no-one can say for sure that the country wouldn’t have voted 53 percent to 47 percent, rather than 52 percent to 48 percent, had Cummings not offended some people with his £350 million a week claim on the side of the battle bus.

But one thing is for certain: while Cummings may possibly help to win referendums and elections, he certainly can’t help win Commons votes – only MPs can do that. What precipitated this week’s crisis at No 10 was last week’s vote on a second lockdown, where the Government’s 80-seat majority all but evaporated. Cummings, despite his jaunt to Barnard Castle, is a lockdown fanatic. Lee Cain is blamed by many for leaking the lockdown plans which led the Prime Minister to bring forward his announcement of the new restrictions, and to the hurried press briefing with the dodgy graphs.

There are still four years to go before an election – where Cummings could show his greatest usefulness. Commons votes, on the other hand, are going to come around with increasing rapidity. That is why Cummings is hanging by a thread and likely to lose the battle for his job: right now, the Prime Minister needs Cummings’s many enemies more than he needs the man himself.

Let’s face it. Government by unelected and unaccountable SPADs has been a costly failure (and a delicious PR disaster). Time for Dominic Cummings to spend more time with his family in Durham? Lockdown would be a good time to make the journey. – Owl

Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor | Oliver Wright, Policy Editor | Eleni Courea, Political Reporter www.thetimes.co.uk 

Even by the tumultuous standards of Boris Johnson’s government the rise and fall of his trusted aide Lee Cain has shaken those around the prime minister.

On Tuesday Mr Cain was Mr Johnson’s presumptive new chief of staff, having loyally served him long before he entered Downing Street. But by last night he was gone — losing not only the job he wanted but also resigning from his present role as the prime minister’s director of communications.

His departure, and the events that led up to it, reveal a fractured top team around Mr Johnson that has pitted his Brexit allies against the prime minister’s own fiancée in a battle over what kind of prime minister he should be.

It is a row that has engulfed the highest levels of No 10 and could prove to be a decisive moment for the direction of the government.

The enmity between Mr Cain and Carrie Symonds, herself a former director of communications for the Conservative Party, has long been simmering under the surface but became public yesterday after The Times disclosed Mr Johnson’s intention to promote Mr Cain to a new role.

If he had got the job the appointment would have cemented the influence of Downing Street’s Vote Leave faction around the prime minister, Mr Cain having worked for Dominic Cummings during the EU referendum campaign.

Yesterday, until his resignation, allies of Mr Cain had been insisting that he was the right man for the role, having been acting as the prime minister’s de facto chief of staff for some time.

“His instincts and the prime minister’s instincts are the same,” one government source said. “They have a tight bond. The point of a chief of staff is that they can provide direction and clarity on behalf of the prime minister. Lee can do that.”

Ms Symonds, however, believed that elevating Mr Cain would be damaging.

“She knows he runs the operation in an uncollegiate way where few people can get to him,” one friend said. “There’s not a diversity of opinion, he is not getting good advice. His top advisers are running him into the ground.”

Mr Cain’s potential promotion was always a bit tenuous. Last week he is understood to have tendered his resignation amid suggestions that he risked being marginalised by Allegra Stratton, who was chosen by the prime minister to front daily press briefings.

Ms Stratton has extensive broadcasting experience and previously worked for Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, as his director of communications.

Mr Cain is said to have objected to her appointment. “She was not his first choice, it was very much the prime minister’s call,” a Downing Street source said. “It has not gone well.”

According to Downing Street sources, the pair had not spoken since Ms Stratton moved to No 10 a fortnight ago. “Allegra has made no secret of the fact she wants to do things differently,” one No 10 staffer said.

“You had someone [in Boris] who was the most popular politician in the country who is now one of the least popular. She wants No 10 to be much more open, to take people with it. Both the party and the country.”

Mr Johnson, however, wanted to keep both Mr Cain and Ms Stratton. After Mr Cain suggested he could quit, the prime minister is understood to have “wined and dined” his aide and urged him to stay.

The role of chief of staff was discussed, with Mr Cummings and Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, both of whom are said to have pushed strongly for Mr Cain’s appointment. Two sources familiar with the matter said that Mr Cain had been verbally offered the role. Another disputed this and said that Mr Johnson had not made up his mind.

Either way, Ms Symonds was intent on stopping the appointment. “She didn’t think he was the right person to do it,” an ally said. “Why would the prime minister make the person who ran government communications during the pandemic his chief of staff? It doesn’t make sense.”

Some of Ms Symonds’ allies are concerned she will be “smeared” as a Lady Macbeth figure for intervening in political matters.

“She’s allowed to have a view. It’s a critical decision for the prime minister,” the ally said. “She is deeply political and has extensive experience.”

But Ms Symonds was not alone in her concerns. Ms Stratton is understood to have made clear to the prime minister that she believed Mr Cain’s appointment would have been a mistake.

Munira Mirza, head of policy at No 10, was also said to have concerns, though allies have rejected the claim.

Ms Stratton wants a change of tone. The treatment of Sonia Khan, a former Treasury adviser who was led out of Downing Street by armed police after being accused of leaking, still rankles.

“[Allegra’s] uncomfortable with how we’ve communicated with the public and the treatment of journalists and special advisers,” a No 10 staffer said.

However, one figure who worked with Mr Cain and Mr Johnson in Downing Street said he was one of the few people who could get the prime minister to take a decision. “Boris has a tendency to put off making difficult calls but Lee gets into a place where he is prepared to take a decision. There are not many people who can do that.

“Unlike Dom, Boris doesn’t see him as having an agenda. Lee is the prime minister’s man. He created him. Unlike many people he owes everything to Boris.”

Until now Mr Cain had made a remarkable ascent. He was a special adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and briefly at No 10 under Theresa May before working for Mr Johnson in the Foreign Office. One source said that Mr Cain beat Ms Symonds, who was a special adviser herself, to the role.

Mr Cain stuck with Mr Johnson after he left Mrs May’s government, and was instrumental in the Tory leadership campaign that followed. He was rewarded for his loyalty with the role of director of communications.

But Mr Cain’s appointment caused consternation among some Tory MPs who were concerned by the influence of the Vote Leave faction in No 10. And that may be what eventually did for him after the news leaked prematurely.

One said the party would regard it “with some horror” and that it could increase rifts between the No 10 operation and backbenchers. In the glare of publicity Mr Johnson ultimately decided that the risk was not worth taking.

Mr Cain’s previous role will now be filled by James Slack, a civil servant, who has a close relationship with Ms Stratton and previously worked for Mrs May. It signals a less adversarial approach to Downing Street communications.

People in their 20s are still testing positive for Covid-19 more than any other age groups across Devon and Cornwall, except in Torbay where people in their 50s are.

Daniel Clark exmouth.nub.news

The latest figures, based on tests reported between November 3 and November 9, continue to show that as was the case last week, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Devon County Council area, the 20-29 age group are still seeing the highest prevalence of cases.

But in Torbay, that is only the fourth highest age range, with the 40-49, 50-59 and 60-69 age ranges seeing more positive tests.

Across Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, the proportion of over 60s testing positive has risen in the last week, but there has been a small drop in the Devon County Council area in that age range.

All four areas have seen a drop in the proportion of those aged 10-19 testing positive – with one explanation likely to involve the time period of when the tests would have taken place coinciding with the half-term break.

The figures related to positive cases reported this week between November 3 and November 9, although do not necessarily relate to specimens from that time period.

In Devon County Council area, the proportion of cases in the 60+ age range have dropped to 20 per cent (from 21 per cent), with a drop in the 10-19 age range (10 per cent, down from 11 per cent), with 21 per cent of positives in the 20-29 age range.

Torbay has the highest percentage of cases in the 60+ age range (26.5 per cent, up from 24 per cent last week) and the second lowest in the 10-19 age range (7.7 per cent, up from 10 per cent). The Bay is seeing 20 per cent of the positive cases in the 50-59 age range, and 18.5 per cent in the 40-49 age range, and just 11.7 per cent of people in their 20s.

Plymouth has the lowest percentage of cases in the 10-19 age range (6.7 per cent per cent, down from 8 per cent), with the second lowest in the 60+ age range (17.7 per cent, up from 14 per cent). More than a quarter (25.8 per cent) of positive tests are in the 20-29 age range.

Cornwall has the lowest proportion of those in the 60+ age range (15.6 per cent, up from 14 per cent), but the highest in the 10-19 age range (14 per cent, down from 16 per cent), and also is seeing more than a quarter (26.6 per cent) of all cases in the 20-29 age range.

Second-home owners, investors and pensioners face paying tens of thousands of pounds more in tax under a review ordered by the chancellor that could raise £14 billion a year.

[Day of reckoning for all the consultancy bills approaches – Owl]

David Byers, Assistant Money Editor | Oliver Wright, Carol Lewis www.thetimes.co.uk 

Rishi Sunak’s advisers on tax reform have suggested increasing capital gains tax (CGT) in a move that would particularly affect high and middle-income earners.

He is looking for ways to repair the public finances amid the coronavirus crisis. However, any move on CGT would meet fierce resistance from Tory backbenchers who have warned Mr Sunak that it would be politically disastrous by punishing the party’s base.

At present anyone selling shares, a second home or other assets is liable to pay capital gains tax on the profits they have made from the sale.

Those earning less than £50,000 are charged 18 per cent on residential property and 10 per cent on profits from other assets. For those whose income is more than £50,000 the tax is 28 per cent on residential property and 20 per cent on other assets.

In its report for the Treasury, the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) suggested that the chancellor bring CGT into line with income tax. This would mean higher rate taxpayers facing a flat rate of 40 or 45 per cent.

In a separate recommendation the OTS suggested the chancellor could reduce the threshold at which the levy kicks in from £12,300 to £5,000. This would double the number falling into the net each year to more than half a million. This would be tripled if he cut the threshold further to £1,000.

Mr Sunak needs to find up to £40 billion a year in cuts or additional revenue after the pandemic, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. However, Tory MPs have already expressed strong opposition to any move on CGT. “I think it would be very unwise,” Marcus Fysh, deputy president of the Board of Trade, said. “It would kill off incentives within the economy at a time when we want to stimulate growth. We should be looking at ways of simplifying tax by reducing it.”

Another said: “It has been made clear to Rishi that colleagues will not support it.” A Treasury source played down the report, saying it would not have a bearing on any decision by the chancellor.

The OTS justified aligning the rates by saying that the present disparity “can distort business and family decision-making and creates an incentive for taxpayers to arrange their affairs in ways that effectively re-characterise income as capital gains”.

Bill Dodwell, the group’s tax director, said: “If the government considers the simplification priority is to reduce distortions to behaviour, it should consider either more closely aligning CGT rates with income tax rates, or addressing boundary issues between CGT and income tax.”

Mr Dodwell said that the OTS would publish a second report in the spring, with further recommendations on how the tax can be revised. He stressed that Mr Sunak had not asked him to examine ways of scrapping the capital gains exemption on the sale of main homes, a potentially explosive move.

The government raised £9.5 billion in 2018-19 from 276,000 taxpayers against capital gains of £62.8 billion. Receipts from the tax would continue to be small compared with other levies, suggesting that the chancellor would also have to raise rates elsewhere.

George Bull, a partner at the tax firm RSM, said that changes to CGT would be “attractive to the government”. “In addition to simplifying the tax system, it also promises to dramatically increase the amount of CGT collected each year,” he said.

Nimesh Shah, chief executive of the tax advisers Blick Rothenberg, suggested that the study was politically motivated and went beyond tax simplification, saying: “This report contains more policy direction than any other report I have seen from the OTS.”

A Treasury spokesman said: “We have asked the OTS to examine and provide recommendations on how to make CGT as clear and efficient as possible. Over the last few years the OTS has reviewed nearly all the major taxes but had not yet reviewed CGT. The OTS provides independent advice to the government. It is for the government to make tax policy decisions.”

Tory council leaders have delivered a stark warning to ministers that failure to tackle English local authorities’ cash crisis will force them to cut vital services, from social care to libraries and refuse collection.

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com

The County Councils Network (CCN), 32 of whose 36 members are Conservative-controlled said just a fifth of authorities were confident they could meet their legal duty to set a balanced budget next year and avoid effective bankruptcy.

Over half of its member councils were planning “moderate or severe” service reductions in adult social care, nearly a third were seeking heavy cuts to road repair budgets, and 33% were considering major savings in library services.

Over two-thirds said that cuts to frontline service would hamper efforts to support the government’s “levelling-up” plans to boost local economies in the north and Midlands, while 60% agreed the cuts would result in greater hardship for residents.

“We are quickly running out of ways to meet the funding shortfall without dramatic reductions which will make visible and damaging changes to highly-valued services,” said David Williams, CCN chair and leader of Hertfordshire county council.

“The financial support provided by government over the past year has been very welcome. But even before the onslaught of a second wave, councils were facing difficult choices and they are now left with little room to manoeuvre over the coming months as they face further escalating costs resulting in an immediate cliff-edge next year.”

The warning comes as all councils continue to struggle with serious financial pressures stemming from the pandemic, including the spiralling cost of providing personal protective equipment, coupled with an abrupt fall-off in council tax and business rates income.

The survey of CCN members, carried out in October, found that 60% were anticipating having to make a “fundamental reduction” in frontline services. Without extra government funding, over half said they would cut access to care packages for older and disabled residents, with many planning to introduce new care charges.

Although recent rises in numbers of vulnerable children mean children’s social care budgets will be relatively protected, over a quarter of CCN member councils were planning reductions to child protection, early years and youth services budgets.

The survey shows over half of CCN councils are planning reductions to school transport services, libraries, education support, recycling and waste collection. Nearly half predict cuts to road pothole filling services.

The CCN’s members provide local council services in about two-thirds of all Tory-held parliamentary constituencies, including in home counties heartlands such as Kent, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Hampshire.

The government is expected to set out its funding plans for English local government though the Treasury spending review scheduled for the end of this month.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We’re giving councils unprecedented support during the pandemic, with nearly £1.2bn in non-ringfenced emergency funding for county councils. Additionally, their core spending power increased by £974m in 2020-21 even before emergency funding was announced.”

Watchdog says process was ‘not impartial’ and decisions were ‘politically motivated’

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com

An inquiry by parliament’s spending watchdog into how ministers distributed £3.6bn to help deprived towns has raised serious concerns that funding decisions were politically biased.

The cross-party public accounts committee said it was “not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others” when the towns fund was distributed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, (MHCLG) last year.

Justifications offered by ministers for selecting individual towns were “vague and based on sweeping assumptions” and raised concerns over the decisions being politically motivated, the committee said.

The highly critical report comes after the communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, earlier this year denied having any role in selecting his constituency, Newark, for a £25m grant under the scheme, despite having boasted about it during last year’s general election.

Jenrick said the award had been signed off by the then communities minister Jake Berry, while he had approved a grant for Darwen in Berry’s constituency.

Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said the system gave “every appearance of having been politically motivated”.

“MHCLG must be open and transparent about the decisions it made to hand out those billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and what it expects to deliver,” she said.

The scheme was originally launched “at pace” in July 2019 to support struggling towns across England.

Officials in the department then drew up a ranked priority list of 541 towns based on need and potential for development for ministers to select from.

While the top 40 “high priority” locations were all confirmed, ministers then picked another 61 “medium and low priority” communities from across the rest of the list including one ranked just 536th.

Although the department was supposed to record the “rationale” for choosing some towns and not others, the committee said it was “not convinced” by some of the reasons given. “The selection process was not impartial,” they concluded.

The committee also complained that the reasons given by the department for not publishing more information about the selection process were “weak and unconvincing”.

It said concerns had been heightened by press statements which wrongly claimed the National Audit Office had concluded that its procedures were “robust”.

While the department’s permanent secretary, Jeremy Pocklington, said he was satisfied the requirements of “propriety and regularity” had been met, the committee said it was “disappointed” that a summary of his assessment remained unpublished.

“This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the civil service’s reputation for integrity and impartiality,” it said.

The MHCLG responded to the report with a statement rejecting the main conclusions. A spokesperson said: “We completely disagree with the committee’s criticism of the town fund selection process, which was comprehensive, robust and fair.

“The towns fund will help level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies.”

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has already acknowledged there will be ‘enormous complexity’ in administering the Pfizer solution

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor www.telegraph.co.uk

Pfizer’s vaccine announcement is undoubtedly a shot in the arm for ending the coronavirus pandemic, but behind the scenes at Whitehall, ministers will be secretly praying that Oxford University will soon catch up.

The cost of rolling-out the US/German jab is likely to be at least ten times higher than our home-grown version, and the logistics of distributing a vaccine which needs to be kept in dry ice is staggering. 

It is like backing the winning horse only to realise you’ve been hit with an eye-watering bill for veterinary fees and stabling.

Matt Hancock has warned the mass distribution would be a “colossal exercise” involving not just the NHS but the Armed Forces. 

The Health Secretary acknowledged there was “enormous complexity” in administering the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can’t take it out of that freezer more than four times on its journey from the manufacturing plant into the arms of patients [so] that brings its complications,” he said. “The AstraZeneca vaccine is easier to deploy logistically.”

Although the Government has not yet disclosed full details of the deals with Pfizer or AstraZeneca (the company producing the Oxford vaccine) the US is being charged around £29.47 for the two doses needed for each person. 

In contrast, EU countries have been offered a dose of the Oxford vaccine for just £2.23.

The price of the Pfizer drug is likely to be higher for Britain, because the US deal was brokered by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (Barda) which helped to fund Pfizer’s vaccine. 

Likewise, Britain has undoubtedly secured a discount for the Oxford vaccine, because it funded much of the research.

So if the Oxford vaccine fails to deliver quickly, Britain could be left with a far higher bill for a mass vaccination programme than it was expecting. 

The fact the Government placed an order for 100 million doses from AstraZeneca compared to 40 million for Pfizer shows where its loyalties lie.  

And now that it’s clear the Pfizer drug needs two jabs, the Government order has essentially been cut in half, meaning just a third of the population could be vaccinated, way too few for herd immunity. 

The Oxford jab is cheaper because it relies on traditional methods of vaccine production. In this case, the spike protein of coronavirus, which helps it attach to human cells, has been inserted into a common cold virus. 

Once in the body, the immune system spots the new invader and produces t-cells and antibodies that will kick into action should the real virus turn up.

In contrast, the Pfizer vaccine is a ‘messenger RNA’ vaccine which sends a piece of genetic code into cells instructing them to make the spike protein themselves. No vaccine has ever been successfully created in this way before, so it carries the expense of novelty.

And because the Pfizer drug relies on a live piece of RNA it needs to be kept at super cold temperatures to avoid the genetic code being destroyed. 

Sir John Bell who is heading Oxford’s programme, said the cold storage problem meant it was unlikely that GPs would be unable to carry out the inoculations. 

The vaccine needs to be transported in liquid nitrogen, or stored in a container which maintains a temperature four times lower than a domestic freezer.

“The Pfizer vaccine needs a cold chain at minus -80,” said Sir John. “The idea that that’ll be done through local GPs sounds a bit unlikely to me.”

To make matters worse, the two Pfizer jabs need to be given three weeks apart, a further logistical headache for the Government.

Dr Jonathan Stoye, group leader, Retrovirus-Host Interactions Laboratory, at London’s Francis Crick Institute, said: “One can foresee at least two drawbacks to the Pfizer vaccine, even assuming it works as well as we currently think.  

“First, it requires two injections for full effectiveness, spaced three to four weeks apart.  Second, it needs to be stored at -80 degrees before use.  Both properties will severely complicate administering the vaccine.”

Many experts believe that Pfizer jumped the gun on Monday (announcing interim results ahead of scientific peer-review) and think Oxford is not too far behind. The group looks to be just weeks away from releasing its own findings. 

If previous announcements are anything to go by, the team will release the results on the same day as publication, meaning they can go straight to regulators for approval. 

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been working closely with both Pfizer and AstraZeneca which should expedite the approvals process.

Prof Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, said: “We continue to work on the vaccine and anticipate early efficacy readings in the coming months should the transmission rates remain high.

“Ideally, we need several of these to be successful for the best possible results for humanity.” Sir John, who is leading Oxford’s vaccine research, has also said the team was just weeks from a result. 

He told MPs at the Health Select Committee that he believed there was a “70 to 80 per cent chance” that the vulnerable would be vaccinated by Easter, so that life could begin to return to normality.

“That’s provided they don’t screw up the distribution of the vaccine,” he added.

A major operation is under way in Devon to combat holiday hunger for children this Christmas.

[And Selaine Saxby MP who previously said she “very much” hopes businesses offering to feed hungry children for free “will not be seeking any further government support”, provokes a predictable comment when she tweets. her support ]

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Devon County Council is set to lead the operation to organise networks of providers across the county and will use a £2 million Government grant to support vulnerable children and families in the most effective way.

Leader of Devon County Council, Cllr John Hart, told Wednesday morning’s cabinet meeting: “We are going to receive just over £2 million from the Government and we now have the opportunity to do the right thing.”

Over the next few weeks a range of community kitchens, holiday clubs, charities and local businesses will be enlisted to coordinate help and support for those who need it the most in every district in Devon.

They will ensure that every child entitled to Free School Meals will be able to get free food over the Christmas holiday, during the Easter half-term and the Easter holidays.

Devon’s Cabinet member for communities, Cllr Roger Croad, added: “We need to act quickly to ensure that no child goes hungry this Christmas.

“We envisage that in most areas there will be a range of solutions and options that are geared to meet the needs of their individual communities.

“These are likely to include holiday clubs providing food, cooking sessions, community meals, offers from local cafes and businesses and community larders.

“Our top priority is to ensure those in receipt of free school meals have enough to eat over the holidays. But we also want to help and support people with wider vulnerabilities.”

Cllr Hart added: “This pandemic has been so cruel to so many people. We are aiming to support those families who were suddenly left without money, without a job and without savings as a result of coronavirus.

“This partnership of local organisations tailoring support to the local needs of their communities coupled with the Devon-wide organisation of the county council seems a really good way forward.

“I believe it will be an effective and practical way of combating holiday hunger and I want to thank all of the groups that will be working with us.”

The latest statistics show that 14,774 children in Devon are registered for free school meals – 15 per cent of the total school population.

It follows the Government’s U-turn on providing free school meals over the holidays to the poorest children which has been welcomed by Devon’s head of education who said it is a massive step forward of getting support to families.

The UK government had extended free school meals to eligible children during the Easter holidays earlier this year and, after a campaign by Manchester United and England striker Marcus Rashford campaigning, did the same for the summer holiday.

Initially though they refused to do so for half-term and the Christmas holidays, before making a U-turn this week when a winter grant scheme programme of £400m was announced by Government to provide support with food and bills, with a holiday food and activities programme to be expanded.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Devon County Council children’s scrutiny committee, Dawn Stabb, the council’s head of education, said that if properly implemented then it should be a significant step in the right direction for helping children.

Committee chairman Cllr Rob Hannaford had prior to Monday’s announcement put forward a motion to December’s full council meeting that would see the council resolve to use some of the allocated hardship funding to ensure that all eligible children receive free school meal vouchers for the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

He said: “I welcome the change of direction and that had caused a lot of controversy and there were so many families affected by the issue.”

Asking Mrs Stabb, he said: “In your opinion, does the current package do all that we would want it to do in Devon and what members wanted it to and can you see in the new scheme, much welcome as it is, any gaps we may need to plug to make sure no families slip through the net?”

In response, she said while they only currently have the headline figures, it is a massive step forward of getting the support to families.

She added: “The route is correct, the principle is correct, we have the infrastructure in place to deliver it, but we don’t have the exact detail as to how the funding will be applied or any other restrictions. I cannot give a categorical answer but if it is properly implemented, it should move us significantly in the right direction. The key focus is to ensure food makes its way to children.”

Cllr Frank Biederman added: “I am thankful that the Government has listened and acted and have moved in the right direction,” while Cllr Richard Hosking said that rather than a ‘change of heart’, it was a ‘change in circumstances with the second lockdown’ that led to the U-turn.

In a report to the meeting, she said that there were 14,774 pupils claiming free school meals in Devon, which at £3 per meal, meaning it would cost £44,322 per day to provide a meal to these children, with 15 per cent of all pupils eligible.

In Torridge, 18 per cent of pupils would be eligible, with 17 per cent in North Devon and Exeter, 15 per cent in Mid Devon and Teignbridge, 14 per cent in West Devon, 13 per cent in East Devon and 12 per cent in the South Hams and of pupils who live in Plymouth but who study at schools in the Devon County Council area.

The report added that every single area had been an increase in claimants in October compared to pre-lockdown levels.

Asked whether she thought schools would have to close, Mrs Stabb said that the Government had been clear that keeping them open was a priority.

She added: “The number of infections coming down in Devon’s school. When I last reported to the committee there were 30+ schools and 1600 pupils off self-isolating and that it now down to 20 school and 382 children self-isolating.

“There is no national indicator of spread within the school environment and cases are coming from contacts outside the school, with no evidence of increased risk of children attending schools. From the figures we are seeing in Devon, there is nothing to suggest it would warrant a school closure.”

Selaine Saxby MP on Twitter

[In a now-deleted Facebook post Selaine Saxby, who represents North Devon, wrote: “I am delighted our local businesses have bounced back so much after lockdown they are able to give away food for free, and very much hope they will not be seeking any further government support.” ]

twitter.com

No child should ever go hungry, and the extra £2M for @DevonCC will ensure local families that need extra support with food and bills this winter can access it, which is very welcome news.

From comments in the Guardian:

This is very the same Tory MP who wasn’t satisfied with just voting against feeding hungry kids.

She said that businesses who helped feed hungry kids should not ask for any government help in lockdown.

She actually wanted to punish businesses for stepping into the breach left by her Party.

The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking.

Two reports in today’s press show that the Otter Restoration Project is proving to be highly controversial.

From today’s Western Morning News:

ENVIRONMENT: A major floodplain restoration project has come up against opposition from campaigners who argue green landscape will be lost to mudflats amid two years of disruptive works. Philip Bowern reports.

A PLAN to ‘restore’ the lower reaches of Devon’s River Otter (pictured above by Helen Dart) by breaking through flood barriers and allowing a flood plain to develop has come in for opposition from a group fighting the move.

East Devon district council is considering an application presented by the Environment Agency for the Lower Otter Restoration Project. The applicants say they are working with local people and partner organisations, including Clinton Devon Estates, to “adapt and improve the downstream part of the River Otter, its estuary and its immediate surroundings for future generations.”

The scheme, which reconnects the river to its floodplain, will create what the applicants say is an increased area washed by the tides and bring “significant biodiversity benefits.” The Environment Agency says it believes the scheme will compensate for lost areas of inter-tidal habitat in other coastal sites, like the Exe estuary, which have been “squeezed” due to increased development at the coast and the building of coastal defences.

But a group of local people are opposing the plans. They have formed a campaign group called Stop the Otter Swamp and are calling on others to object to the proposals to East Devon council before the advertised deadline for comments on Friday November 13. In their leaflets they warn the proposals will bring about major unwanted changes.

They say: “Residents were taken by surprise when a planning application was lodged at the end of September quite unlike previous proposals, including major construction works in a huge area of land. Few people were informed about it, and most are still completely unaware of a proposal which is of widespread significance.”

The application covers 151 hectares of land in the parishes of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton and Otterton, stretching from the Lime Kiln Car Park to an area south of Frogmore House in the the Lower Otter Valley.

Part of the plan would relocate the Budleigh Salterton cricket club away from its current flood-prone site and also, the applicants say, secure the livelihoods of tenant farmers in the area as well as maintain access to South Farm.

But the protesters claim: “If approved, it will destroy the Otter Valley as we know it forever. The green landscape will be replaced by mud flats; trees will be felled; wildlife species such as owls, otters, bats and beavers will be lost and the nature reserve will be disturbed by major building works lasting at least two years.”

The original plan for the changes, which date back three years to 2017, came from landowners the Clinton Devon Estate. The Environment Agency backed the proposals because it has a statutory need to compensate for the loss of mud flats on the nearby Exe estuary.

In a summary of the proposals the applicants say: “The natural environment of the Otter estuary has, for hundreds of years, been modified by humans. These changes have led to a disruption of natural processes with the river no longer able to adapt and move naturally across the floodplain as it once did, nor can it cope effectively with flooding events, which are more prevalent due to climate change. There is a strong argument to take action.”

They say if the plans are not approved there is a risk of further flooding of a road, continued flooding of Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club and the “catastrophic breaching of embankments.”

To comment on the plan go to the East Devon district council planning portal.

From today’s Exmouth Journal:

Act now and work with nature to future-proof our community

Kate Ponting countryside and communities officer for Clinton Estates

A stormy sky over the Otter Estuary

Walking along the South West Coast Path last week and looking at the stormy English Channel, reminded me just how much the sea has shaped our environment here in East Devon.

Two years ago, a very high tide at Budleigh Salterton contributed to the collapse of a section of the South West Coast Path. It was only thanks to the prompt work of the Environment Agency and other partners that a catastrophic breach of the embankments on the River Otter Estuary was averted.

Even so, it was still four months before the footpath could be safely reopened.

The sea is constantly changing the landscape, and climate change is speeding-up those changes so we’ll all have to prepare ourselves for more stormy weather and rising sea levels.

Unless we act soon, nature will certainly breach the man-made embankments of the lower River Otter and the Otter Estuary; eroding the footpath, flooding the cricket club, threatening access to homes and businesses and exposing an old municipal tip.

The Lower Otter Restoration Project, a partnership which includes the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust, has come up with a solution to this problem.

It will mean raising South Farm Road and building a new road bridge to protect access to the area, working to save the South West Coast Path, protecting the redundant tip and relocating the cricket club. It will also recreate a rare wetland habitat which will provide a home for many threatened and endangered species.

Thanks to a time-limited funding package from the EU’s Interreg programme, we have a small window of opportunity to realign the Lower Otter and the Otter Estuary with its natural floodplain through a carefully managed programme of work.

Change will come to the lower Otter valley, the sea and the climate will see to that.

We have two alternatives: do nothing and accept we will have to deal with whatever the changes bring, or act now and work with nature to future-proof our community and protect a much-loved amenity

If the prime minister is serious about tackling the climate emergency he needs to start by overhauling his ill-considered planning reforms.

Richard Simmons www.thetimes.co.uk 

It’s never been clearer: what we build, where we build it and how we move around are some of the biggest causes of carbon emissions. We know from painful experience that the destruction of nature is a common casualty of reckless development. That’s why a robust, locally led planning system is crucial, not the top-down free-for-all proposed by the government earlier this year.

At CPRE, the countryside charity, we want to see affordable, well-designed new homes for rural communities. But these homes should be put there by a locally accountable planning system, not one dictated by an algorithm created in Whitehall. They should also be as environmentally sustainable as possible, from the materials used to the standard of insulation.

But the government’s plans fail to deliver any of this. They’re ambiguous about environmental measures and make few if any promises for when objectives will be met. The government’s aim to deliver carbon neutral new homes by 2050 is actually a sign of failure. This target represents 34 lost years, given that a pledge to achieve the same thing by 2016 was dropped by the Conservatives five years ago.

Boris Johnson is expected to outline his ten-point plan to tackle the climate emergency this week. With so much at stake we need clarity of thought and speed of action. But what’s the point in investing in new technology to capture carbon when our planning system produces dislocated, car-dependent, land-hungry developments, further increasing carbon emissions?

Where’s the logic in planting millions more trees when developers are given a free rein to build on precious countryside even though they could build more than a million homes on previously developed brownfield sites at a fraction of the environmental cost?

The planning system, if properly reformed, can come up with solutions to our environmental problems rather than add to them. It needs to recognise that the built environment, transport and energy play a big role in generating greenhouse gases, and act to change that. Above all we must value nature’s capacity to sustain our world. If the prime minister’s ten-point plan for the environment is to amount to anything, it must force a rethink of his damaging, polluting planning reforms.

Richard Simmons is chairman of the policy committee of CPRE, the countryside charity

Watchdog says process was ‘not impartial’ and decisions were ‘politically motivated’

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com

An inquiry by parliament’s spending watchdog into how ministers distributed £3.6bn to help deprived towns has raised serious concerns that funding decisions were politically biased.

The cross-party public accounts committee said it was “not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others” when the towns fund was distributed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, (MHCLG) last year.

Justifications offered by ministers for selecting individual towns were “vague and based on sweeping assumptions” and raised concerns over the decisions being politically motivated, the committee said.

The highly critical report comes after the communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, earlier this year denied having any role in selecting his constituency, Newark, for a £25m grant under the scheme, despite having boasted about it during last year’s general election.

Jenrick said the award had been signed off by the then communities minister Jake Berry, while he had approved a grant for Darwen in Berry’s constituency.

Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said the system gave “every appearance of having been politically motivated”.

“MHCLG must be open and transparent about the decisions it made to hand out those billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and what it expects to deliver,” she said.

The scheme was originally launched “at pace” in July 2019 to support struggling towns across England.

Officials in the department then drew up a ranked priority list of 541 towns based on need and potential for development for ministers to select from.

While the top 40 “high priority” locations were all confirmed, ministers then picked another 61 “medium and low priority” communities from across the rest of the list including one ranked just 536th.

Although the department was supposed to record the “rationale” for choosing some towns and not others, the committee said it was “not convinced” by some of the reasons given. “The selection process was not impartial,” they concluded.

The committee also complained that the reasons given by the department for not publishing more information about the selection process were “weak and unconvincing”.

It said concerns had been heightened by press statements which wrongly claimed the National Audit Office had concluded that its procedures were “robust”.

While the department’s permanent secretary, Jeremy Pocklington, said he was satisfied the requirements of “propriety and regularity” had been met, the committee said it was “disappointed” that a summary of his assessment remained unpublished.

“This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the civil service’s reputation for integrity and impartiality,” it said.

The MHCLG responded to the report with a statement rejecting the main conclusions. A spokesperson said: “We completely disagree with the committee’s criticism of the town fund selection process, which was comprehensive, robust and fair.

“The towns fund will help level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies.”