conservativehome--2020-05-26--Nicholas Boys Smith and Hugo Owen: Councils should stop micro-managing what high street shops sell

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets .
Hugo Owen is a researcher at Create Streets .
Much has been written about “ the death of the high street ” .
Scarred by shifting consumer habits , wounded by the ease of online delivery , the high street now faces a second post-COVID battle : in the post-pandemic world , will people dare to shop ?
Will they dare to eat or drink out ?
Although the scale and longevity of the pandemic ’ s consequences remain unclear , some profound changes in how we interact within our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be more common .
Local centres may gain in importance relative to city centres ( if people stop commuting daily but still need to work away from home ) .
In the short to medium term , many cafes and restaurants are going to struggle .
It is impossible to know what the future will bring .
Risk is everywhere .
Investment will be easy to put off .
Landlords are nervous .
For our high streets and town centres to remain vibrant and relevant places in a world post COVID 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to invest with as much confidence in the future as possible .
To achieve that , we should remove all risk we can from how they can use shops and commercial spaces .
At present , and simplifying quite a lot , the Town and Country Planning ( Use Classes ) Order 1987 sets out very compartmentalised classifications for non-residential property uses .
These are A1 ( shops ) , A2 ( professional and financial services ) , A3 ( restaurants and cafes ) , A4 ( Pubs ) , A5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , D1 ( Non-residential institutions ) , D2 ( leisure ) and lots of other one-offs categorised in legal Latin as sui generis .
For some changes of use , a full planning permission request is required .
This costs money to submit and can take weeks or even months .
Others are covered by so-called permitted development – so in principle do not need planning approval .
However , it is not as simple as that .
Some permitted changes of use are still subject to ‘ prior approval ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ full planning permission to secure .
And if you want to prove that your change of use is legal you may be well advised to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate anyway .
But then again you may not .
Local Councils can withdraw permitted development .
And there are restrictions in certain circumstances .
Most ‘ matrixes ’ of what is permitted and what is not permitted run to nearly 100 lines and conclude by saying it is far more complicated and that you should read many pages of accompanying technical notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stiff drink and a careful read , you find lots of anomalies .
Why can not a bank become a yoga studio ?
Why do we allow a laundrette to become an office , but not a shop ?
And if ( as must be possible ) someone is tempted to write in and say that actually we ’ ve got that wrong and in such and such a situation , those changes would , in fact , be possible , well you ’ re rather making our point for us .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of uncertainty ahead , we ’ ll need to give them some flexibility .
Rather than compartmentalising classes within their rigid disciplines , a new use class should be created that allows shops and offices in high streets and town centres to move seamlessly between different uses without any need for council approval .
Shops , cafes , offices ( A1 , A2 , A3 , D1 , D2 , B1 ) should combine into one flexible homogeneous class – call it F for flexible .
Maybe this new use class should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations ?
This need not be that radical .
Similar suggestions have been made to the Greater London Authority .
And an equivalent mechanism already exists in English planning law – but it is time-limited .
Class V of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning ( General Permitted Development , England ) Order 2015 ( we hope you ’ re still paying attention ) permits commercial buildings to switch flexibly between different use classes during their first ten years .
After the ten-year period the right falls away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crystallised ’ as the use carried out on the very last day of the ten-year period .
The logic was to give new retail space the best possible chance of economic survival during its formative years by discovering what the market ‘ wants ’ .
But why restrict this to new units on new developments ?
Surely the same logic applies now at the very least to existing retail and commercial space within high streets ?
What is going to ‘ work ’ in the post COVID world ?
Who knows ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use Local Development Orders ( known as LDOs ) to achieve similar ends .
LDOs allows local authorities to pre-permit certain changes or developments , such as , for example , change of use .
Poole Town Centre has used LDOs to permit flexible changes of use between A1 , A2 , A3 , B1 and D1 use classes on ground floor units .
In February 2019 , Llanelli Town Centre , with vacancy rates of almost 20 per cent , also adopted this approach , on ground floor and upper floor units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one London council which is actively considering something similar at present .
No doubt there are others .
At least one neighbourhood forum has also tried to do something through its neighbourhood plan .
The St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan in North Kensington has granted shops in three neighbourhood shopping parades the right to permanent change of use between A1 , A2 , A3 , D1 , D2 , and B1 uses .
According to one local resident ; “ it has helped to reduce the number of vacant shops .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a neighbouring school , Bassett House School , which was short of space , as a D class use .
It has been very well refurbished in the process.
” However , very few councils or neighbourhood plans appear to have taken advantage of this opportunity .
Perhaps they don ’ t know about it ?
Maybe they don ’ t like to give away control ?
It is not just post-COVID uncertainty that make the Flexible Use Class an idea whose time has come .
Technology is making possible new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just not conceivable a few years ago .
Why shouldn ’ t a small business hire a shop for one evening or a few days as their perhaps limited customer base requires ?
Why shouldn ’ t a space that operates as a shop by day , turn into a dance studio or an art class by night ?
Technology permits both rapid change of décor but also hyper-targeted advertising .
By allowing flexibility in use class , the opportunities are endless .
The Flexible Use Class should permit not only changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from hour to hour .
Other places , particularly smaller centres such as villages or old fashioned runs of shops in Victorian suburbs , might not be able to support a full time shop , pub , or post office , but could support a unit that operates as all three at different times of day .
The new Flexible Use Class might make this easy .
In a post COVID 19 world , in which potentially people commute less , there may be more need for shopping and social interaction in more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Use Class would permit landlords to respond speedily to this opportunity .
Such centres already exist at home and abroad but they tend to be the consequence of much labour .
In the Dutch city of Groningen , for example , a new library building is part library , part meeting space , part science museum , and part recreational space .
Let ’ s make it easy .
This not an argument for that tiresome conflagration , a bonfire of the red tape .
Some regulation in the built environment is necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted .
No iron smelting in the suburbs , thank you very much .
And turning a shop into an office should never permit the destruction of an historic or attractive shop façade .
There is a very good case for regulating how buildings look and affect the public realm .
There is a very bad case for regulating what happens inside as long as there is no public nuisance through noise or pollution .
There should be upper limits on factors such as hours of operation , air quality , noise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or by amending The Town and Country Planning ( Use Classes ) Order 1987 .
And if owners want to restrict how a unit is used , then , of course , they can and should .
High streets that are succeeding and performing their historic role as a place where a community comes together for agreeable business , shopping , and interaction , tend to be nice places to spend time .
And they tend to be responsive to what people want .
At present our regulation of the built environment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the public realm , the quality of the carriageway , the way shops interact with the street , are all unavoidable civic functions .
At any rate , city authorities have regulated some aspects of this since time immemorial .
But , within the limits of public nuisance ( no tanneries within the city gates ! )
there is no need to over-regulate what people sell .
The need to act is now .
Many small businesses are facing systemic uncertainty as restaurants face the unavoidable unprofitability of social distance dining and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will come .
Parliament showed us in March how fleet of foot it can be when need arises .
Parliament should now permit the same flexibility and freedom to our high streets and town centres so that they can respond to the slings and arrows that await them in the months and years ahead .
Who knows what the future holds ?
Right now , none of us do .
So , let ’ s not pretend otherwise .

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets. Hugo Owen is a researcher at Create Streets.
Much has been written about “the death of the high street”. Scarred by shifting consumer habits, wounded by the ease of online delivery, the high street now faces a second post-COVID battle: in the post-pandemic world, will people dare to shop? Will they dare to eat or drink out?
Although the scale and longevity of the pandemic’s consequences remain unclear, some profound changes in how we interact within our environments seem very likely. Remote working will be more common. Local centres may gain in importance relative to city centres (if people stop commuting daily but still need to work away from home). In the short to medium term, many cafes and restaurants are going to struggle.
It is impossible to know what the future will bring. Risk is everywhere. Investment will be easy to put off. Landlords are nervous. For our high streets and town centres to remain vibrant and relevant places in a world post COVID 19, landlords and business will need to be able to invest with as much confidence in the future as possible. To achieve that, we should remove all risk we can from how they can use shops and commercial spaces.
At present, and simplifying quite a lot, the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 sets out very compartmentalised classifications for non-residential property uses. These are A1 (shops), A2 (professional and financial services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (Pubs), A5 (Takeaways), B1 (offices), D1 (Non-residential institutions), D2 (leisure) and lots of other one-offs categorised in legal Latin as sui generis. For some changes of use, a full planning permission request is required. This costs money to submit and can take weeks or even months.
Others are covered by so-called permitted development – so in principle do not need planning approval. However, it is not as simple as that. Some permitted changes of use are still subject to ‘prior approval’. This can take just as long as full planning permission to secure. And if you want to prove that your change of use is legal you may be well advised to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate anyway. But then again you may not. Local Councils can withdraw permitted development. And there are restrictions in certain circumstances. Most ‘matrixes’ of what is permitted and what is not permitted run to nearly 100 lines and conclude by saying it is far more complicated and that you should read many pages of accompanying technical notes. And when you do have a stiff drink and a careful read, you find lots of anomalies. Why cannot a bank become a yoga studio? Why do we allow a laundrette to become an office, but not a shop? And if (as must be possible) someone is tempted to write in and say that actually we’ve got that wrong and in such and such a situation, those changes would, in fact, be possible, well you’re rather making our point for us.
To allow high streets to navigate the unavoidable period of uncertainty ahead, we’ll need to give them some flexibility. Rather than compartmentalising classes within their rigid disciplines, a new use class should be created that allows shops and offices in high streets and town centres to move seamlessly between different uses without any need for council approval. Shops, cafes, offices (A1, A2, A3, D1, D2, B1) should combine into one flexible homogeneous class – call it F for flexible. Maybe this new use class should become the default use class in many locations?
This need not be that radical. Similar suggestions have been made to the Greater London Authority. And an equivalent mechanism already exists in English planning law – but it is time-limited. Class V of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development, England) Order 2015 (we hope you’re still paying attention) permits commercial buildings to switch flexibly between different use classes during their first ten years. After the ten-year period the right falls away and the ongoing lawful use is ‘crystallised’ as the use carried out on the very last day of the ten-year period. The logic was to give new retail space the best possible chance of economic survival during its formative years by discovering what the market ‘wants’. But why restrict this to new units on new developments? Surely the same logic applies now at the very least to existing retail and commercial space within high streets? What is going to ‘work’ in the post COVID world? Who knows?
It is also possible for Local Plans to use Local Development Orders (known as LDOs) to achieve similar ends. LDOs allows local authorities to pre-permit certain changes or developments, such as, for example, change of use. Poole Town Centre has used LDOs to permit flexible changes of use between A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1 use classes on ground floor units. In February 2019, Llanelli Town Centre, with vacancy rates of almost 20 per cent, also adopted this approach, on ground floor and upper floor units. We are also aware of at least one London council which is actively considering something similar at present. No doubt there are others.
At least one neighbourhood forum has also tried to do something through its neighbourhood plan. The St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan in North Kensington has granted shops in three neighbourhood shopping parades the right to permanent change of use between A1, A2, A3, D1, D2, and B1 uses. According to one local resident; “it has helped to reduce the number of vacant shops. One long empty shop unit has become part of a neighbouring school, Bassett House School, which was short of space, as a D class use. It has been very well refurbished in the process.”
However, very few councils or neighbourhood plans appear to have taken advantage of this opportunity. Perhaps they don’t know about it? Maybe they don’t like to give away control?
It is not just post-COVID uncertainty that make the Flexible Use Class an idea whose time has come. Technology is making possible new types of pop-up shop or office that were just not conceivable a few years ago. Why shouldn’t a small business hire a shop for one evening or a few days as their perhaps limited customer base requires? Why shouldn’t a space that operates as a shop by day, turn into a dance studio or an art class by night? Technology permits both rapid change of décor but also hyper-targeted advertising. By allowing flexibility in use class, the opportunities are endless. The Flexible Use Class should permit not only changes of use from year to year but from hour to hour.
Other places, particularly smaller centres such as villages or old fashioned runs of shops in Victorian suburbs, might not be able to support a full time shop, pub, or post office, but could support a unit that operates as all three at different times of day. The new Flexible Use Class might make this easy. In a post COVID 19 world, in which potentially people commute less, there may be more need for shopping and social interaction in more local centres. Again, a Flexible Use Class would permit landlords to respond speedily to this opportunity. Such centres already exist at home and abroad but they tend to be the consequence of much labour. In the Dutch city of Groningen, for example, a new library building is part library, part meeting space, part science museum, and part recreational space. Let’s make it easy.
This not an argument for that tiresome conflagration, a bonfire of the red tape. Some regulation in the built environment is necessary. Not all use classes should be permitted. No iron smelting in the suburbs, thank you very much. And turning a shop into an office should never permit the destruction of an historic or attractive shop façade. There is a very good case for regulating how buildings look and affect the public realm. There is a very bad case for regulating what happens inside as long as there is no public nuisance through noise or pollution. There should be upper limits on factors such as hours of operation, air quality, noise and parking could be set through planning condition or by amending The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. And if owners want to restrict how a unit is used, then, of course, they can and should.
High streets that are succeeding and performing their historic role as a place where a community comes together for agreeable business, shopping, and interaction, tend to be nice places to spend time. And they tend to be responsive to what people want. At present our regulation of the built environment is the wrong way round. The maintenance of the public realm, the quality of the carriageway, the way shops interact with the street, are all unavoidable civic functions. At any rate, city authorities have regulated some aspects of this since time immemorial. But, within the limits of public nuisance (no tanneries within the city gates!) there is no need to over-regulate what people sell.
The need to act is now. Many small businesses are facing systemic uncertainty as restaurants face the unavoidable unprofitability of social distance dining and shops just don’t know if people will come. Parliament showed us in March how fleet of foot it can be when need arises. Parliament should now permit the same flexibility and freedom to our high streets and town centres so that they can respond to the slings and arrows that await them in the months and years ahead. Who knows what the future holds? Right now, none of us do. So, let’s not pretend otherwise.


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Cummings 3) WATCH: Carlaw says that he should “consider his position”

‘ If I were Mr Cummings would be considering my position ’ @ ScotTories leader @ Jackson_Carlaw says Dominic Cummings @ @ @ @ @ furore over his trip to Durham https : //t.co/2OLJ8Bxtoh pic.twitter.com/oMWlSr8Uc9

‘If I were Mr Cummings would be considering my position’@ScotTories leader @Jackson_Carlaw says Dominic Cummings should consider resigning amid the furore over his trip to Durham https://t.co/2OLJ8Bxtoh pic.twitter.com/oMWlSr8Uc9
— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) May 26, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Cummings 2) The Church of England. People want guidance on God, not sermons about advisers.

What a week for Dominic Cummings .
As if the backlash coming from Guardianistas , Conservative MPs and the Rose Garden reporters for his Durham trip hadn ’ t been hellish enough , he ’ s also had the Church of England on his back .
Indeed , following Boris Johnson ’ s press conference on Sunday , in which he defended Cummings , bishop after bishop bashed away on Twitter , clearly fuming at the adviser ’ s political survival .
Paul Bayes , the Bishop of Liverpool , said Johnson had treated “ the people of this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others followed in this vein , with Nick Bainers ( Leeds ) writing “ The question now is : do we accept being lied to , patronised and treated by a PM as mugs ?
” By far one of the most theatrical of these pontificators was David Walker ( Manchester ) , who exclaimed “ [ U ] nless very soon we see clear repentance , including the sacking of Cummings , I no longer know how we can trust what ministers say sufficiently for [ the Church of England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic.
” Who knew that firing employees was such a holy enterprise… One has a ( limited ) degree of sympathy with the bishops .
Of course , they ’ ve seen first hand , albeit through online means , the sacrifices people have made around the country to contain the virus , even missing out on funerals .
It ’ s understandable they want to speak out on their behalf .
But the problem is that this seems guided by political ideology more than anything , no thanks to Justin Welby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements always sound like code for “ let ’ s stay in the EU ” .
After all , whom exactly did it benefit when he offered to head a Citizens ’ Assembly to stop a No Deal Brexit ?
Hilariously , he once cautioned Johnson not to pour “ petrol ” on Britain ’ s Brexit divisions , but what ’ s ironic is his own hopelessness at uniting the nation – too often sounding as if he ’ s vying for an invite to a dinner party hosted by Caroline Lucas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more of the same – part of a bullying establishment against Cummings and Brexiteer politicians .
What ’ s even more appalling is Walker ’ s threat to stop working with the Government , which is hardly inspiring rhetoric in a pandemic ; the sort we might expect from unions , not spiritual leaders .
Given the C of E ’ s role helping with night shelters and community schemes , surely his words will spark fear in the most vulnerable members of our society .
With its depleting numbers of attendees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t got time for this nonsense .
If it wants to protect its own interests , it should focus more on the day job ; even make the most out of the fact the pandemic is bringing out more worshippers than ever before to watch its online services .
Some have already been deeply critical of Welby .
Though he has apparently been secretly volunteering at St. Thomas ’ s , it ’ s his lack of leadership that ’ s the issue , with The Times calling it “ lacklustre ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ shockingly absent ” .
The truth is that even atheists might want a bit of spiritual guidance during this time – so long as it ’ s sermons on God , not the politics of the EU .

What a week for Dominic Cummings. As if the backlash coming from Guardianistas, Conservative MPs and the Rose Garden reporters for his Durham trip hadn’t been hellish enough, he’s also had the Church of England on his back.
Indeed, following Boris Johnson’s press conference on Sunday, in which he defended Cummings, bishop after bishop bashed away on Twitter, clearly fuming at the adviser’s political survival.
Paul Bayes, the Bishop of Liverpool, said Johnson had treated “the people of this country like sheep who can be fooled”, and others followed in this vein, with Nick Bainers (Leeds) writing “The question now is: do we accept being lied to, patronised and treated by a PM as mugs?”
By far one of the most theatrical of these pontificators was David Walker (Manchester), who exclaimed “[U]nless very soon we see clear repentance, including the sacking of Cummings, I no longer know how we can trust what ministers say sufficiently for [the Church of England] to work together with them on the pandemic.” Who knew that firing employees was such a holy enterprise…
One has a (limited) degree of sympathy with the bishops. Of course, they’ve seen first hand, albeit through online means, the sacrifices people have made around the country to contain the virus, even missing out on funerals. It’s understandable they want to speak out on their behalf.
But the problem is that this seems guided by political ideology more than anything, no thanks to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose statements always sound like code for “let’s stay in the EU”.
After all, whom exactly did it benefit when he offered to head a Citizens’ Assembly to stop a No Deal Brexit? Hilariously, he once cautioned Johnson not to pour “petrol” on Britain’s Brexit divisions, but what’s ironic is his own hopelessness at uniting the nation – too often sounding as if he’s vying for an invite to a dinner party hosted by Caroline Lucas.
The Bishops will simply be seen as more of the same – part of a bullying establishment against Cummings and Brexiteer politicians.
What’s even more appalling is Walker’s threat to stop working with the Government, which is hardly inspiring rhetoric in a pandemic; the sort we might expect from unions, not spiritual leaders. Given the C of E’s role helping with night shelters and community schemes, surely his words will spark fear in the most vulnerable members of our society.
With its depleting numbers of attendees, the C of E simply hasn’t got time for this nonsense. If it wants to protect its own interests, it should focus more on the day job; even make the most out of the fact the pandemic is bringing out more worshippers than ever before to watch its online services.
Some have already been deeply critical of Welby. Though he has apparently been secretly volunteering at St. Thomas’s, it’s his lack of leadership that’s the issue, with The Times calling it “lacklustre” and accusing the Church of England of being “shockingly absent”.
The truth is that even atheists might want a bit of spiritual guidance during this time – so long as it’s sermons on God, not the politics of the EU.


conservativehome--2020-05-27--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Social Security Advisory Committee ( SSAC ) is an independent statutory advisory body , funded by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has the following statutory functions : to perform , on behalf of both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Parliament , a mandatory scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that underpins the social welfare system ; and to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State , whether in response to a specific request from the UK Government or on its own initiative .
In addition to the scrutiny of proposals for secondary legislation , the Committee ’ s general advisory functions are deployed to : inform the Committee ’ s work , improving members ’ ability to scrutinise regulations and provide independent advice to Ministers ; add value to the debate on a topic that is of current interest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a specific topic within the Committee and amongst stakeholders.
” “ The Independent Review of Prevent will deliver on the Government ’ s commitment set out in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and will critically examine and report on the Prevent strategy , as set out in CONTEST June 2018 .
We are seeking a highly talented individual of unquestionable independence , integrity and credibility , who can demonstrate his or her ability to exercise sound judgment and analysis at pace and under pressure , with close public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public-facing role , so we are seeking to appoint a credible and talented Independent Reviewer who is confident engaging with a wide range of interested parties , from civil society and community organisations , to Ministers and local practitioners.
” “ The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK ’ s border and immigration functions , providing security , confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency .
They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament .
Leading a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strive to continually improve the UK ’ s approach to the Border , Immigration and Citizenship System .
Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level , ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena .
Whatever your background , you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents .
Excellent communication skills , decisiveness , independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.
” “ The Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and today , IWM is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and the Commonwealth , from the First World War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ministers , the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services under the Inspectorate ’ s scrutiny .
The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.
” “ The Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roles are provided for separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ will therefore cover both roles .
TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Social Security Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) is an independent statutory advisory body, funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has the following statutory functions: to perform, on behalf of both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Parliament, a mandatory scrutiny of most of the proposed secondary legislation that underpins the social welfare system; and to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State, whether in response to a specific request from the UK Government or on its own initiative. In addition to the scrutiny of proposals for secondary legislation, the Committee’s general advisory functions are deployed to: inform the Committee’s work, improving members’ ability to scrutinise regulations and provide independent advice to Ministers; add value to the debate on a topic that is of current interest to Government and stakeholders; and stimulate debate of a specific topic within the Committee and amongst stakeholders.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £22,000 per annum.
Closes: 01 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Reviewer of Prevent
“The Independent Review of Prevent will deliver on the Government’s commitment set out in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and will critically examine and report on the Prevent strategy, as set out in CONTEST June 2018. We are seeking a highly talented individual of unquestionable independence, integrity and credibility, who can demonstrate his or her ability to exercise sound judgment and analysis at pace and under pressure, with close public and ministerial scrutiny. This is high profile and public-facing role, so we are seeking to appoint a credible and talented Independent Reviewer who is confident engaging with a wide range of interested parties, from civil society and community organisations, to Ministers and local practitioners.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £140,000 pro rata.
Closes: 01 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions, providing security, confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency. They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament. Leading a team of approximately 30 staff you will strive to continually improve the UK’s approach to the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System. Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level, ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena. Whatever your background, you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents. Excellent communication skills, decisiveness, independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £130,000
Closes: 06 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June


conservativehome--2020-05-27--School re-openings. Williamson is making his case without a taranatula perched on his shoulder.

The Cummings ’ saga has damaged the authority of the lockdown .
Which will add to the fraying of it that has taken place since it was eased last week .
Which followed the erosion that was taking place previously .
Which has all been driven by the ebbing of fear : gradually , and without thinking about it too much , people have come to grasp that the hospitals aren ’ t groaning with Coronavirus victims ; indeed , that the Nightingales are empty .
So there is the force in the argument , put by Daniel Hannan today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the polls one thing while actually doing another , at least to some extent .
This “ new normal ” may emerge just in time to rescue the Government over the reopening of schools .
When we last wrote about it ten days ago , the project was in a sticky place .
The core problem was put to ConservativeHome by a pollster and old education hand : “ Ministers are telling parents to send their children back to school without also telling them that it ’ s safe to send their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was and still is in a bind on the matter .
After all , as some like to say about the precautionary principle , just how precautionary it is ?
Just how safe is safe ?
How much risk should one take ?
The answer each of us gives to that last question will collectively decide the fate of the new normal .
But there ’ s reason to think , from the way people are currently behaving , that they ’ re willing to take just a bit more .
And remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open up all schools before next autumn in any event .
For most secondary school pupils , Alice Cooper still applies .
School ’ s out for summer !
For a lot of weary parents , it must feel as though his next line ’ s true , too .
School ’ s out forever !
Gavin Williamson ’ s efforts are bent on primary school pupils , arguably the least prone to the virus , certainly those who are impacting the economy most , because their parents are more likely to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have all of them back by the end of this school year , but is starting with “ key transition years ” – nursery , Reception , Year One and Year Six .
The Education Secretary won ’ t be to some parents ’ taste as a salesman , but during his last hosting of the Government ’ s daily press conference , at which he made his pitch , he pushed all the right buttons , or tried to .
He pointed out correctly that most teachers will want to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one we should all value , that children are being harmed by a lack of schooling , and that vulnerable ones suffer most .
Williamson has studiously avoided union-bashing .
That ’ s what the Tory press is there for .
For enraged voters are not his target : he is zeroing in on the mass of questioning teachers and parents .
So he must come to the negotiating table without Cronos , his pet tarantula , perched on his shoulder .
And at it he duly is .
The National Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to schools about re-opening .
None the less it , and other unions that have been less headbangingly destructive ( i.e : almost all of them ) have been and still are sitting round that table with the Secretary of State .
Class sizes will be halved , assemblies staggered , cleaning upped , drop-off protocols put in place , toys that are hard to clean removed and tests carried out if necessary .
The NEU has five tests , designed to be haggled out into the Greek Calends , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them .
At least 14 local authorities , most of them in the north-west , and so not a million miles away from the anti-Tory heartland of Liverpool , say they won ’ t open on June 1 .
But most councils are leaving the decision up to individual heads and schools , and the powers of local government are limited in any event .
Furthermore , schools have been open during the lockdown throughout to children who are especially vulnerable or whose parents are key workers .
The famous statistic showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers expected 20 per cent of pupils to turn up , but that only one per cent have .
Fear of the disease will doubtless still be powerful on June 1 .
Some schools will close their doors .
The NEU will still be protesting .
And some parents are finding the furlough experience pleasant enough .
So Day One is set to go very patchily for Williamson .
But by say the middle of the following week , the drift may have gathered pace , as most teachers don ’ t go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cast fear aside .
Those of us who aren ’ t parents may not have grasped how weird these times are for children – barred by the guidelines from hosting or visiting their friends , or for meeting in groups .
The youngest ones can ’ t use social media , and so have spent weeks cut off from others of their age , and from all children altogether , if they have no siblings .
A forest of research into the consequences will spring up in due course , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the here and now .
Which is , as another Alice Cooper song put it , a Bed of Nails .

The Cummings’ saga has damaged the authority of the lockdown. Which will add to the fraying of it that has taken place since it was eased last week. Which followed the erosion that was taking place previously.
Which has all been driven by the ebbing of fear: gradually, and without thinking about it too much, people have come to grasp that the hospitals aren’t groaning with Coronavirus victims; indeed, that the Nightingales are empty.
So there is the force in the argument, put by Daniel Hannan today on this site, that they are telling the polls one thing while actually doing another, at least to some extent.
This “new normal” may emerge just in time to rescue the Government over the reopening of schools. When we last wrote about it ten days ago, the project was in a sticky place.
The core problem was put to ConservativeHome by a pollster and old education hand: “Ministers are telling parents to send their children back to school without also telling them that it’s safe to send their children back to school.”
The Government was and still is in a bind on the matter. After all, as some like to say about the precautionary principle, just how precautionary it is? Just how safe is safe? How much risk should one take?
The answer each of us gives to that last question will collectively decide the fate of the new normal. But there’s reason to think, from the way people are currently behaving, that they’re willing to take just a bit more.
And remember: Ministers aren’t planning to open up all schools before next autumn in any event. For most secondary school pupils, Alice Cooper still applies.
School’s out for summer! For a lot of weary parents, it must feel as though his next line’s true, too. School’s out forever!
Gavin Williamson’s efforts are bent on primary school pupils, arguably the least prone to the virus, certainly those who are impacting the economy most, because their parents are more likely to stay home too in consequence.
He hopes to have all of them back by the end of this school year, but is starting with “key transition years” – nursery, Reception, Year One and Year Six.
The Education Secretary won’t be to some parents’ taste as a salesman, but during his last hosting of the Government’s daily press conference, at which he made his pitch, he pushed all the right buttons, or tried to.
He pointed out correctly that most teachers will want to get back to work, that their vocation is one we should all value, that children are being harmed by a lack of schooling, and that vulnerable ones suffer most.
Williamson has studiously avoided union-bashing. That’s what the Tory press is there for. For enraged voters are not his target: he is zeroing in on the mass of questioning teachers and parents.
So he must come to the negotiating table without Cronos, his pet tarantula, perched on his shoulder. And at it he duly is. The National Education Union is still advising teachers not to talk to schools about re-opening.
None the less it, and other unions that have been less headbangingly destructive (i.e: almost all of them) have been and still are sitting round that table with the Secretary of State.
Class sizes will be halved, assemblies staggered, cleaning upped, drop-off protocols put in place, toys that are hard to clean removed and tests carried out if necessary.
The NEU has five tests, designed to be haggled out into the Greek Calends, and we wish Williamson every joy in his discussion of them.
At least 14 local authorities, most of them in the north-west, and so not a million miles away from the anti-Tory heartland of Liverpool, say they won’t open on June 1.
But most councils are leaving the decision up to individual heads and schools, and the powers of local government are limited in any event.
Furthermore, schools have been open during the lockdown throughout to children who are especially vulnerable or whose parents are key workers.
The famous statistic showing the power of social distancing is that Ministers expected 20 per cent of pupils to turn up, but that only one per cent have.
Fear of the disease will doubtless still be powerful on June 1. Some schools will close their doors. The NEU will still be protesting. And some parents are finding the furlough experience pleasant enough.
So Day One is set to go very patchily for Williamson. But by say the middle of the following week, the drift may have gathered pace, as most teachers don’t go down with the virus and children start to cast fear aside.
Those of us who aren’t parents may not have grasped how weird these times are for children – barred by the guidelines from hosting or visiting their friends, or for meeting in groups.
The youngest ones can’t use social media, and so have spent weeks cut off from others of their age, and from all children altogether, if they have no siblings.
A forest of research into the consequences will spring up in due course, but the Education Secretary and his colleagues must live in the here and now. Which is, as another Alice Cooper song put it, a Bed of Nails.


conservativehome--2020-05-27--JOIN US for our first ever ConservativeHome Live online event with Matt Ridley

I ’ m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site : ConservativeHome Live , a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers , politicians , campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement .
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer , prominent Leave campaigner , Conservative peer , newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works .
I ’ ll be interviewing Matt , and putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June , via Zoom , the online video chat service .
We ’ ll be discussing a variety of essential topics , including : Do politicians really understand science ?
What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work ( or don ’ t work ) ?
What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown ?
How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK , outside the EU , is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to growth ?
I ’ m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own , too .
We ’ re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers , and I hope you ’ ll join us for our very first live broadcast .
As well as being a new medium for our readers , these events are also a way to help to support us as a company .
We provide Britain ’ s leading independent centre right source of news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over two million readers a year .
Frankly , like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown , and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide .
I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible , which is why we ’ ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley ’ s thoughts and put your questions to him .
To book your ticket today @ @ @ @ @

I’m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site: ConservativeHome Live, a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers, politicians, campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement.
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer, prominent Leave campaigner, Conservative peer, newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works.
I’ll be interviewing Matt, and putting your questions to him, from 7pm to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June, via Zoom, the online video chat service.
We’ll be discussing a variety of essential topics, including: Do politicians really understand science? What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work (or don’t work)? What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown? How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK, outside the EU, is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary to get us out of quarantine and back to growth? I’m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own, too.
We’re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers, and I hope you’ll join us for our very first live broadcast.
As well as being a new medium for our readers, these events are also a way to help to support us as a company. We provide Britain’s leading independent centre right source of news and analysis, for free, to over two million readers a year. Frankly, like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown, and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide. I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible, which is why we’ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley’s thoughts and put your questions to him.
To book your ticket today, please click here.
Our first ConservativeHome Live event is kindly supported by Thorncliffe.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 265,227 ( Up from 261,184 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 37,048 ( Up from 36,914 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 2,004 ( Down from 1,625 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 134 ( Up from 121 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday March 20 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7am on Wednesday May 27th . )

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-05-27--Daniel Hannan: Where we’ve got to with the lockdown. We say we want it.  Then we break it.

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
When the quarantine measures were introduced , I began a paper round for various self-isolating neighbours in my village .
There was a lot of nervousness back then , and I would generally leave their newspapers ( Telegraphs , for the most part ) at their garden gates and perhaps have a shouted conversation through an upstairs window .
Since then , things have slackened .
Some villagers are sticking rigidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most are flouting them in sensible and cautious ways .
They are driving to visit their children and grandchildren .
They are meeting each other in twos and threes for tea .
They are gathering in gardens , at a suitable distance , for glasses of wine .
Given how thunderingly unlikely outdoor transmission is , these strike me as pretty moderate peccadilloes – if , indeed , they are peccadilloes at all .
Any risk , after all , is borne by the people involved .
But here ’ s the thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people must be telling opinion pollsters that they want the restrictions maintained .
Economists call it “ revealed preference ” , a fancy way of saying that actions speak louder than words .
Could it be that , despite the overwhelming demand for harsh prohibitions – a demand that weighs heavy on ministers and their advisers – a lot of people are privately sceptical ?
Might we be keeping our distance , not for fear of infection , but for fear of censure ?
I know that I obey the rules largely out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on pavements for the same reason that I cover my head in a Sikh temple : to show respect .
How many others , I wonder , are doing the same ?
There has been a vivid daily demonstration of our collective double-standard in the tightly-packed mass of journalists swarming outside Dominic Cummings ’ s house , yelling at him about social distancing rules as they jostle shoulder to shoulder .
Perhaps the country at large is like those journalists .
Perhaps people have quietly given up on the quarantine .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has come in .
After all , we now know that the rate of infections peaked here five days before the lockdown began .
We watch our European neighbours safely reopening shops , schools and cafés .
We see the empty Nightingale hospitals .
Have we simply adjusted our opinions in the light of the evidence ?
I ’ d like to think so .
But the likelier explanation is that people are being quite honest with the pollsters .
They want the lockdown to continue ; they just implicitly exempt themselves from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afraid this mental sleight-of-hand – what psychologists call “ self-serving bias ” – comes naturally to human beings .
Most people unconsciously separate their own actions from those of everyone else .
We complain , for example , that the attractions we visit are “ spoiled by tourists ” , without acknowledging that we are tourists .
We sit in traffic jams fuming about “ the traffic ” as though it had nothing to do with us .
In the case of Covid-19 , there may even be an ugly but rational freeloader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk while you disregard the guidelines .
The Dominic Cummings affair has highlighted these inconsistencies .
It was straightforward for lockdown sceptics like me .
We had argued all along that the restrictions were excessive .
I stuck up , for example , for Stephen Kinnock when he was ludicrously criticised for marking his father ’ s birthday by driving over to see him in his garden .
When Neil Ferguson resigned after keeping a tryst with his mistress , I was angry , not because he had flouted the rules , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposition in the first place .
The main accusation against Cummings , namely that there was one law for him and one for everyone else , left me completely nonplussed .
How was he treated any differently ?
What other keyworker has been sanctioned for safely moving his family to a place where they could get support ?
I accept that we anti-lockdowners are in a minority .
But so , I suspect , are those who are following every dot and comma of the guidelines .
Most people stand somewhere in between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine but interpreting its provisions flexibly , at least in their own cases .
This is simply not sustainable .
When governments micromanage human behaviour , absurdities follow .
You end up with the state ruling that ( for example ) you can have your cleaner in your house but not your mother .
You make the law asinine .
It would have been better to have stuck to the essentially Burkeian approach we pursued at first – applying as few prohibitions as possible and asking people to use their nous .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the contradictions inherent in our policy .
It was impossible to listen to the media exegesis of what the guidelines meant without realising that we have tied ourselves in knots to no good end .
Let us instead remove the bulk of legal restrictions and tell people : “ Here are the risks and here are our recommendations ; now please use your common sense ” .
There is even a word for it – “ conservatism ” .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
When the quarantine measures were introduced, I began a paper round for various self-isolating neighbours in my village. There was a lot of nervousness back then, and I would generally leave their newspapers (Telegraphs, for the most part) at their garden gates and perhaps have a shouted conversation through an upstairs window.
Since then, things have slackened. Some villagers are sticking rigidly to the social distancing rules, but most are flouting them in sensible and cautious ways. They are driving to visit their children and grandchildren. They are meeting each other in twos and threes for tea. They are gathering in gardens, at a suitable distance, for glasses of wine.
Given how thunderingly unlikely outdoor transmission is, these strike me as pretty moderate peccadilloes – if, indeed, they are peccadilloes at all. Any risk, after all, is borne by the people involved. But here’s the thing. Statistically, many of the same people must be telling opinion pollsters that they want the restrictions maintained.
Economists call it “revealed preference”, a fancy way of saying that actions speak louder than words. Could it be that, despite the overwhelming demand for harsh prohibitions – a demand that weighs heavy on ministers and their advisers – a lot of people are privately sceptical? Might we be keeping our distance, not for fear of infection, but for fear of censure?
I know that I obey the rules largely out of politeness. I step ostentatiously around people on pavements for the same reason that I cover my head in a Sikh temple: to show respect. How many others, I wonder, are doing the same?
There has been a vivid daily demonstration of our collective double-standard in the tightly-packed mass of journalists swarming outside Dominic Cummings’s house, yelling at him about social distancing rules as they jostle shoulder to shoulder.
Perhaps the country at large is like those journalists. Perhaps people have quietly given up on the quarantine. Perhaps their attitudes have shifted as more information has come in. After all, we now know that the rate of infections peaked here five days before the lockdown began. We watch our European neighbours safely reopening shops, schools and cafés. We see the empty Nightingale hospitals. Have we simply adjusted our opinions in the light of the evidence?
I’d like to think so. But the likelier explanation is that people are being quite honest with the pollsters. They want the lockdown to continue; they just implicitly exempt themselves from parts of it.
I’m afraid this mental sleight-of-hand – what psychologists call “self-serving bias” – comes naturally to human beings. Most people unconsciously separate their own actions from those of everyone else. We complain, for example, that the attractions we visit are “spoiled by tourists”, without acknowledging that we are tourists. We sit in traffic jams fuming about “the traffic” as though it had nothing to do with us. In the case of Covid-19, there may even be an ugly but rational freeloader justification for wanting everyone else to reduce the risk while you disregard the guidelines.
The Dominic Cummings affair has highlighted these inconsistencies. It was straightforward for lockdown sceptics like me. We had argued all along that the restrictions were excessive. I stuck up, for example, for Stephen Kinnock when he was ludicrously criticised for marking his father’s birthday by driving over to see him in his garden. When Neil Ferguson resigned after keeping a tryst with his mistress, I was angry, not because he had flouted the rules, but because he had contributed to their imposition in the first place.
The main accusation against Cummings, namely that there was one law for him and one for everyone else, left me completely nonplussed. How was he treated any differently? What other keyworker has been sanctioned for safely moving his family to a place where they could get support?
I accept that we anti-lockdowners are in a minority. But so, I suspect, are those who are following every dot and comma of the guidelines. Most people stand somewhere in between, backing the broad idea of a quarantine but interpreting its provisions flexibly, at least in their own cases.
This is simply not sustainable. When governments micromanage human behaviour, absurdities follow. You end up with the state ruling that (for example) you can have your cleaner in your house but not your mother. You make the law asinine.
It would have been better to have stuck to the essentially Burkeian approach we pursued at first – applying as few prohibitions as possible and asking people to use their nous.
These événements have brought us face to face with the contradictions inherent in our policy. It was impossible to listen to the media exegesis of what the guidelines meant without realising that we have tied ourselves in knots to no good end. Let us instead remove the bulk of legal restrictions and tell people: “Here are the risks and here are our recommendations; now please use your common sense”. There is even a word for it – “conservatism”.


conservativehome--2020-05-27--Ryan Bourne: Welcome to the Inefficient Economy

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Aggregate demand and the public finances dominate most economic policy discourse .
What Boris Johnson ’ s Government could do to “ stimulate ” activity through taxes or public spending , or how much relief it can sustainably provide , will command most airtime even as economic reopening begins .
Insufficient focus , as ever , is given to the supply-side – our ability to produce goods and services at prices people are willing to pay .
Yet Rishi Sunak and Alok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what I ’ ll call the Inefficient Economy .
There are good reasons to think that economic activity will struggle far beyond the demand-sapping impact of the Coronavirus on travel , hospitality and bars and restaurants .
First , rational changes to business practices will breed inefficiency .
Fewer people will be dining in restaurants , going on planes , or getting hair cuts as regularly , yes .
But those who do will find middle-seats left free on flights , wide spaces between tables , and extensive cleaning of hairstyling tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation in these sectors will fall .
Winning trust from customers and workers will actually require businesses to invest in what would ordinarily be considered inefficiency on their premises .
Cleaners will disrupt workplaces more often to keep workspaces sanitised .
Temperature testing might delay workers getting to the day job each morning .
Employees still working from home often , or in office shifts , or unable to travel internationally , will entrench communication inefficiencies .
Then there ’ s staffing difficulties with workers self-isolating when they get symptoms or disruptions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compounded by uncertainty .
Why replace those inefficient industrial dryers in your dry cleaning business without knowing when or if your key local hotel customers might re-open ?
Yes , some businesses will perish from the demand shock .
But even those that survive will find they can ’ t do things as efficiently as they once did .
If that wasn ’ t enough , the economy will also face a labour market shock .
Jobs will be permanently lost , while others will be created .
Delivery companies are hiring , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to sell to commercial outlets may add workers to become more retail-oriented .
The demands for consultants , website managers , contact tracers and more may rise in some areas , as companies think of new ways of doing business .
But while we see job churn at the best of times , the scale and breadth of this reallocation will weigh on our productive potential .
Many job relationships of people well suited , specialised , or experienced in their previous roles will be lost .
It takes time to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to train them .
That means both elevated unemployment and workplace inefficiency for some time .
All this will prove a headwind against a sharp economic bounce-back .
With a vaccine running into difficulties already , and no political or social prospect of a collective decision to just all “ go back to normal , ” the Inefficient Economy is here for a year , at least .
So are we powerless ?
We certainly can not wish away reality .
But the Government can take steps to avoid worsening this inefficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find solutions to it .
But that requires as bold a deviation from ordinary policy as the extraordinary relief efforts we saw before .
Supply-side inefficiency would ordinarily lead to higher prices in certain product markets .
With swings in demand too , prices might jump all over the place as activity re-opens .
These price changes play a vital role in coordinating how resources get re-allocated across the economy in this new world .
Yet the government ’ s Competition and Markets Authority has warned businesses against raising prices during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rip offs.
” If businesses take this threat seriously , an unwillingness to raise prices in new situations will create an invisible effective price cap that will cause shortages in certain areas .
It is crucial , as lockdowns are relaxed , that the government makes clear prices can be freely set again without reaction , to avoid compounding inefficiency with inefficiency .
To help companies adjust , the Government should suspend regulations that prevent innovations to opening hours and on-site activities .
Some of this has been done already , with councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow restaurants to become takeaways and shops to extend hours .
Working hours ’ regulation may also need to be suspended given pent-up demand in certain industries .
Careful thought will need to be given to statutory holiday time too – are employees still going to be entitled to 28 days off through the end of the year as businesses struggle during reopening ?
Then there ’ s the national living wage , which the government raised again in April .
A lot of low-paid jobs in hospitality , restaurants , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before – the revenue per worker hour will have fallen .
If the government insists on maintaining a high wage floor devoid from companies ’ ability to pay , some jobs will be lost and the reallocation problem compounded .
In theory , the inefficient economy need not mean high unemployment , however .
Companies will need lots of workers for cleaning , security , testing , delivery , repatriated manufacturing businesses and many other roles .
But avoiding permanent scarring from mass layoffs requires a rapid reallocation of workers .
This can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government activism .
Deregulation , in the form of relaxing rules surrounding occupational licensing and suspending the minimum wage .
Activism , in the form of tools to help people in job search and financial incentives for workers to take up new roles .
There is a strong case for a temporary “ big push ” on hiring good job centre personnel and developing better clearing houses for job and re-training opportunities , for example .
But we also need financial incentives to work in lockstep .
Here , Jonathan Portes and Tony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind-down the furlough scheme has merit : if both worker and employer agree that the prospects for a job that necessitated furlough money are good , then continue partial government support for short-time working .
If either worker or business thinks the job unviable , give the worker the option of a lump-sum grant or retraining , alongside a wage subsidy for a set period in any new job they take .
That ensures relief to those with most to lose from the furlough scheme ending , but without compromising economic efficiency too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government spending through relief , the Government did the unthinkable by subsidising over a fifth of all employment , and was celebrated for it , even by many classical liberals , given the extraordinary circumstances .
Now we approach a new extraordinary period in regard the economics of this pandemic – the Inefficient Economy – which only business and worker flexibility can partially offset .
Let ’ s see how willing other thinkers are to suspend their ordinary policy priors .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Aggregate demand and the public finances dominate most economic policy discourse. What Boris Johnson’s Government could do to “stimulate” activity through taxes or public spending, or how much relief it can sustainably provide, will command most airtime even as economic reopening begins.
Insufficient focus, as ever, is given to the supply-side – our ability to produce goods and services at prices people are willing to pay. Yet Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma will soon be facing the reality of what I’ll call the Inefficient Economy. There are good reasons to think that economic activity will struggle far beyond the demand-sapping impact of the Coronavirus on travel, hospitality and bars and restaurants.
First, rational changes to business practices will breed inefficiency. Fewer people will be dining in restaurants, going on planes, or getting hair cuts as regularly, yes. But those who do will find middle-seats left free on flights, wide spaces between tables, and extensive cleaning of hairstyling tools. The revenue-potential of an hour of operation in these sectors will fall.
Winning trust from customers and workers will actually require businesses to invest in what would ordinarily be considered inefficiency on their premises. Cleaners will disrupt workplaces more often to keep workspaces sanitised. Temperature testing might delay workers getting to the day job each morning. Employees still working from home often, or in office shifts, or unable to travel internationally, will entrench communication inefficiencies. Then there’s staffing difficulties with workers self-isolating when they get symptoms or disruptions to child-care.
All this inefficiency will be compounded by uncertainty. Why replace those inefficient industrial dryers in your dry cleaning business without knowing when or if your key local hotel customers might re-open? Yes, some businesses will perish from the demand shock. But even those that survive will find they can’t do things as efficiently as they once did.
If that wasn’t enough, the economy will also face a labour market shock. Jobs will be permanently lost, while others will be created. Delivery companies are hiring, as are supermarkets. Some wholesalers who used to sell to commercial outlets may add workers to become more retail-oriented. The demands for consultants, website managers, contact tracers and more may rise in some areas, as companies think of new ways of doing business.
But while we see job churn at the best of times, the scale and breadth of this reallocation will weigh on our productive potential. Many job relationships of people well suited, specialised, or experienced in their previous roles will be lost. It takes time to find the right workers for new positions and resources to train them. That means both elevated unemployment and workplace inefficiency for some time.
All this will prove a headwind against a sharp economic bounce-back. With a vaccine running into difficulties already, and no political or social prospect of a collective decision to just all “go back to normal,” the Inefficient Economy is here for a year, at least.
So are we powerless? We certainly cannot wish away reality. But the Government can take steps to avoid worsening this inefficiency and to allow businesses and workers to find solutions to it. But that requires as bold a deviation from ordinary policy as the extraordinary relief efforts we saw before.
1) Prices
Supply-side inefficiency would ordinarily lead to higher prices in certain product markets. With swings in demand too, prices might jump all over the place as activity re-opens. These price changes play a vital role in coordinating how resources get re-allocated across the economy in this new world.
Yet the government’s Competition and Markets Authority has warned businesses against raising prices during the pandemic, pledging to stamp down on “rip offs.” If businesses take this threat seriously, an unwillingness to raise prices in new situations will create an invisible effective price cap that will cause shortages in certain areas. It is crucial, as lockdowns are relaxed, that the government makes clear prices can be freely set again without reaction, to avoid compounding inefficiency with inefficiency.
2) Business and Worker Regulation
To help companies adjust, the Government should suspend regulations that prevent innovations to opening hours and on-site activities. Some of this has been done already, with councils changing planning and Sunday trading laws to allow restaurants to become takeaways and shops to extend hours.
Working hours’ regulation may also need to be suspended given pent-up demand in certain industries. Careful thought will need to be given to statutory holiday time too – are employees still going to be entitled to 28 days off through the end of the year as businesses struggle during reopening?
Then there’s the national living wage, which the government raised again in April. A lot of low-paid jobs in hospitality, restaurants, and more will be less “productive” than before – the revenue per worker hour will have fallen. If the government insists on maintaining a high wage floor devoid from companies’ ability to pay, some jobs will be lost and the reallocation problem compounded.
3) Labour market policy
In theory, the inefficient economy need not mean high unemployment, however. Companies will need lots of workers for cleaning, security, testing, delivery, repatriated manufacturing businesses and many other roles.
But avoiding permanent scarring from mass layoffs requires a rapid reallocation of workers. This can be encouraged by both deregulation and temporary government activism. Deregulation, in the form of relaxing rules surrounding occupational licensing and suspending the minimum wage. Activism, in the form of tools to help people in job search and financial incentives for workers to take up new roles.
There is a strong case for a temporary “big push” on hiring good job centre personnel and developing better clearing houses for job and re-training opportunities, for example. But we also need financial incentives to work in lockstep.
Here, Jonathan Portes and Tony Wilson’s idea for how to wind-down the furlough scheme has merit: if both worker and employer agree that the prospects for a job that necessitated furlough money are good, then continue partial government support for short-time working.
If either worker or business thinks the job unviable, give the worker the option of a lump-sum grant or retraining, alongside a wage subsidy for a set period in any new job they take. That ensures relief to those with most to lose from the furlough scheme ending, but without compromising economic efficiency too much.
When it came to extraordinary government spending through relief, the Government did the unthinkable by subsidising over a fifth of all employment, and was celebrated for it, even by many classical liberals, given the extraordinary circumstances.
Now we approach a new extraordinary period in regard the economics of this pandemic – the Inefficient Economy – which only business and worker flexibility can partially offset. Let’s see how willing other thinkers are to suspend their ordinary policy priors.


conservativehome--2020-05-27--Luke Evans: The shutdown and economic crisis. The longer the first goes on, the more likely the seco

Luke Evans: The shutdown and economic crisis. The longer the first goes on, the more likely the second becomes.

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
Two days ago , Angela Rasmussen , a Columbia University virologist , posted a series of tweets about how much we still have to learn about Coronavirus .
Acknowledging that we have already come a long way in a short time , Dr Rasmussen wrote : “ Unfortunately the focus on who is “ right ” and when they were right is giving oxygen to the “ infodemic ” that is contributing to the extreme polarisation of public health priorities .
Nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogen that is still mired in so much uncertainty.
” Since the beginning of the Coronavirus outbreak , our Government , which has no Ministers as far as I know who are trained epidemiologists , have had to listen to information and advice proffered by the respected science community .
That advice will have been given in good faith , and it ’ s right that ultimately the buck stops with politicians , but of course as we develop greater knowledge it may well be that some measures taken based upon it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not a matter of apportioning blame , but rather of accepting there are a great many things that we still don ’ t know about this novel virus .
Every action we take potentially brings with it a cost , many know the concept of ‘ opportunity cost ’ .
Michael Levitt , a Nobel laureate in Chemistry , claimed this week that “ I think lockdown saved no lives…I think it may have cost lives .
It will have saved a few road accident lives – things like that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , divorces , alcoholism – has been extreme .
And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.
” Whilst Professor Levitt is not an epidemiologist either , and his comments appear to serve as an outlier to the wider scientific community , it ’ s undeniable that , for each action , there is a price to pay , even if we don ’ t know what the cost is yet .
One incontrovertible truth is that the longer that lockdown continues , the likelihood of the United Kingdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into this pandemic , the working worst case scenario was 500,000 deaths from the virus itself if nothing was done , and the working financial cost of the virus by the Treasury is up to £300 billion .
Both are extreme positions in themselves , the only commonality between them is that hope that they are both overestimations .
We have to understand that whilst economy and health are , on the face of it , completely separate matters they are inseparably intertwined , too .
There is an unsolvable and immeasurable balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will point and say ‘ another Tory bothered more about money than health ’ , without ever acknowledging the fact that our economy has a direct impact on health outcomes .
Yet a decision on one directly and indirectly affects the other .
In a study published last month by the Institute for Fiscal Studies , it was claimed that there may well be some short term health benefits to a recession : drinking , smoking and unhealthy eating all tend to reduce when there are negative income shocks ; improved cardiovascular health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; even viral transmission tends to lower with reduced inter-regional travel .
But in the long term , the health of many also deteriorates because , in general terms , our health improves in a growing economy .
In other research published by the IFS , Janke et al suggested that health conditions worsen when economic factors deteriorate , especially in industrial areas , where populations are older and where others already experience poorer health outcomes .
The ONS records that whilst overall life expectancy has continued to increase the rate that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2008 recession .
We know that between 2008 and 2010 there were over 10,000 excess suicides attributed to the economic crash , and that according to The Lancet in 2016 , there were an estimated 260,000 excess cancer related deaths across the OECD .
Over the coming months , Government has difficult decisions to make about the manner and speed in which it seeks to lift lockdown .
We ’ ve seen that there has been a concentration of Coronavirus deaths in less affluent areas , and a second spike may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those negative health outcomes which come together with an economic shock and are felt more keenly in many of the same areas too .
In seeking to mitigate the worst impacts of an economic crisis , we are going to need consensus across the House , we have to move away from making casual and politicised comparisons , or of framing the debate in a binary choice of health versus economy .
We still are mired in uncertainty about Coronavirus , but there will come a time when we can be clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease is higher than not doing so ; and that means having a frank and open discussion about the impacts felt now and in the future .
And just like Dr Rasmussen we need to be able to say there are things that we don ’ t currently know , but that we will be willing to listen to lessons learned from both here and abroad in the future .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
Two days ago, Angela Rasmussen, a Columbia University virologist, posted a series of tweets about how much we still have to learn about Coronavirus.
Acknowledging that we have already come a long way in a short time, Dr Rasmussen wrote: “Unfortunately the focus on who is “right” and when they were right is giving oxygen to the “infodemic” that is contributing to the extreme polarisation of public health priorities. Nobody can be “right” about a pathogen that is still mired in so much uncertainty.”
Since the beginning of the Coronavirus outbreak, our Government, which has no Ministers as far as I know who are trained epidemiologists, have had to listen to information and advice proffered by the respected science community.
That advice will have been given in good faith, and it’s right that ultimately the buck stops with politicians, but of course as we develop greater knowledge it may well be that some measures taken based upon it will prove ineffective or even potentially damaging.
It’s not a matter of apportioning blame, but rather of accepting there are a great many things that we still don’t know about this novel virus.
Every action we take potentially brings with it a cost, many know the concept of ‘opportunity cost’. Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate in Chemistry, claimed this week that “I think lockdown saved no lives…I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives – things like that – but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.”
Whilst Professor Levitt is not an epidemiologist either, and his comments appear to serve as an outlier to the wider scientific community, it’s undeniable that, for each action, there is a price to pay, even if we don’t know what the cost is yet.
One incontrovertible truth is that the longer that lockdown continues, the likelihood of the United Kingdom experiencing an economic crisis increases.
Entering into this pandemic, the working worst case scenario was 500,000 deaths from the virus itself if nothing was done, and the working financial cost of the virus by the Treasury is up to £300 billion. Both are extreme positions in themselves, the only commonality between them is that hope that they are both overestimations.
We have to understand that whilst economy and health are, on the face of it, completely separate matters they are inseparably intertwined, too. There is an unsolvable and immeasurable balance between lives and livelihoods.
Political opponents will point and say ‘another Tory bothered more about money than health’, without ever acknowledging the fact that our economy has a direct impact on health outcomes.
Yet a decision on one directly and indirectly affects the other.
In a study published last month by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it was claimed that there may well be some short term health benefits to a recession: drinking, smoking and unhealthy eating all tend to reduce when there are negative income shocks; improved cardiovascular health comes hand in hand with lower pollution; even viral transmission tends to lower with reduced inter-regional travel.
But in the long term, the health of many also deteriorates because, in general terms, our health improves in a growing economy.
In other research published by the IFS, Janke et al suggested that health conditions worsen when economic factors deteriorate, especially in industrial areas, where populations are older and where others already experience poorer health outcomes.
The ONS records that whilst overall life expectancy has continued to increase the rate that it has done so has slowed significantly since the 2008 recession.
We know that between 2008 and 2010 there were over 10,000 excess suicides attributed to the economic crash, and that according to The Lancet in 2016, there were an estimated 260,000 excess cancer related deaths across the OECD.
Over the coming months, Government has difficult decisions to make about the manner and speed in which it seeks to lift lockdown.
We’ve seen that there has been a concentration of Coronavirus deaths in less affluent areas, and a second spike may well see that replicated. We also know that those negative health outcomes which come together with an economic shock and are felt more keenly in many of the same areas too.
In seeking to mitigate the worst impacts of an economic crisis, we are going to need consensus across the House, we have to move away from making casual and politicised comparisons, or of framing the debate in a binary choice of health versus economy.
We still are mired in uncertainty about Coronavirus, but there will come a time when we can be clear that the price of severely mitigating the disease is higher than not doing so; and that means having a frank and open discussion about the impacts felt now and in the future.
And just like Dr Rasmussen we need to be able to say there are things that we don’t currently know, but that we will be willing to listen to lessons learned from both here and abroad in the future.