conservativehome--2020-04-01--Home abortions, sunset clauses – and the importance of votes in Parliament

Speaking in the Lords a week ago today , Lord Bethell , the Health Minister , set out why the Government was opposed to home abortions , as follows : “ The safety of women remains our priority , but it is vital that appropriate checks and balances remain in place regarding abortion services , even while we are managing a very difficult situation such as Covid-19 .
We have worked hard with abortion providers , including the Royal College of Obstetricians , and listened to their concerns , but there are long-established arrangements in place for doctors to certify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there for good reason… “ …However , we do not agree that women should be able to take both treatments for medical abortion at home .
We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic , to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues .
Do we really want to support an amendment that could remove the only opportunity many women have , often at a most vulnerable stage , to speak confidentially and one-to-one with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what the alternatives might be ?
The bottom line is that , if there is an abusive relationship and no legal requirement for a doctor ’ s involvement , it is far more likely that a vulnerable woman could be pressured into have an abortion by an abusive partner… …Abortion is an issue on which many people have very strong beliefs .
I have been petitioned heavily and persuasively on this point .
This Bill is not the right vehicle for a fundamental change in the law .
It is not right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a sensitive area such as abortion without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
” Lord Bethell and other Ministers should now explain why what he said last Wednesday no longer applies today .
otherwise .
For the Government this week supported what the Health Minister opposed last week .
It announced on Monday that , until the sunset clause on the Bill expires , or two years pass ( whichever comes sooner ) , a single doctor will be able to prescribe abortion pills over the phone or video so that women will perform their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was apparently taken by Boris Johnson and a group of advisers .
In particular , it ’ s worth noting that the change has been made without any parliamentary scrutiny at all , adequate or otherwise .
Right to Life UK argues , in addition to the points made by Lord Bethell last week , that the move “ places women at risk .
The removal of any direct medical supervision overseeing the use of both abortion pills could see a rise of complications experienced by women , thus putting more strain on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effect intended ” .
Marie Stopes UK , the country ’ s leading abortion provider , maintained that unless the change was made , “ women seeking abortion care will continue to be forced out of self-isolation to mix unnecessarily with others , endangering both their health and that of frontline NHS staff , at the same time as putting more pressure on a health service already stretched to the limit ” .
The organisation did so after the Department of Health last week suddenly approved , without explanation , the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ …which it then immediately overturned ( presumably the reasons given by Lord Bethell ) … …only for Johnson to overturn the overturning .
Abortion is notoriously a case of two views which , like the lines in Marvell ’ s poem , “ though infinite , can never meet ” .
Though there is a middle ground that favours neither abortion on demand nor a complete ban .
Some of those who hold it will believe that terminations carried out at home ( or somewhere else , which is possible ) without any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too far .
At any rate , all concerned should be able to agree that this decision , either way , is ultimately one for MPs , to be exercised via a free vote .
This unparliamentary U-turn on another U-turn helps to explain why this site supported a sunset clause for the Coronavirus Bill ’ s provisions .
Big changes to controversial social and political issues are ill suited to decisions made by Ministers and advisers behind closed doors .

Speaking in the Lords a week ago today, Lord Bethell, the Health Minister, set out why the Government was opposed to home abortions, as follows:
“The safety of women remains our priority, but it is vital that appropriate checks and balances remain in place regarding abortion services, even while we are managing a very difficult situation such as Covid-19. We have worked hard with abortion providers, including the Royal College of Obstetricians, and listened to their concerns, but there are long-established arrangements in place for doctors to certify and perform abortions, and they are there for good reason…
“…However, we do not agree that women should be able to take both treatments for medical abortion at home. We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic, to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues.
Do we really want to support an amendment that could remove the only opportunity many women have, often at a most vulnerable stage, to speak confidentially and one-to-one with a doctor about their concerns on abortion and about what the alternatives might be? The bottom line is that, if there is an abusive relationship and no legal requirement for a doctor’s involvement, it is far more likely that a vulnerable woman could be pressured into have an abortion by an abusive partner…
…Abortion is an issue on which many people have very strong beliefs. I have been petitioned heavily and persuasively on this point. This Bill is not the right vehicle for a fundamental change in the law. It is not right to rush through this type of change in a sensitive area such as abortion without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.”
Lord Bethell and other Ministers should now explain why what he said last Wednesday no longer applies today.
For the Government this week supported what the Health Minister opposed last week. It announced on Monday that, until the sunset clause on the Bill expires, or two years pass (whichever comes sooner), a single doctor will be able to prescribe abortion pills over the phone or video so that women will perform their own abortion at home. The decision was apparently taken by Boris Johnson and a group of advisers.
In particular, it’s worth noting that the change has been made without any parliamentary scrutiny at all, adequate or otherwise.
Right to Life UK argues, in addition to the points made by Lord Bethell last week, that the move “places women at risk. The removal of any direct medical supervision overseeing the use of both abortion pills could see a rise of complications experienced by women, thus putting more strain on our NHS – having the opposite of the effect intended”.
Marie Stopes UK, the country’s leading abortion provider, maintained that unless the change was made, “women seeking abortion care will continue to be forced out of self-isolation to mix unnecessarily with others, endangering both their health and that of frontline NHS staff, at the same time as putting more pressure on a health service already stretched to the limit”.
The organisation did so after the Department of Health last week suddenly approved, without explanation, the measure that the Prime Minister has now approved…
…which it then immediately overturned (presumably the reasons given by Lord Bethell)…
…only for Johnson to overturn the overturning.
Abortion is notoriously a case of two views which, like the lines in Marvell’s poem, “though infinite, can never meet”. Though there is a middle ground that favours neither abortion on demand nor a complete ban. Some of those who hold it will believe that terminations carried out at home (or somewhere else, which is possible) without any direct medical supervision will be a step too far.
At any rate, all concerned should be able to agree that this decision, either way, is ultimately one for MPs, to be exercised via a free vote. This unparliamentary U-turn on another U-turn helps to explain why this site supported a sunset clause for the Coronavirus Bill’s provisions. Big changes to controversial social and political issues are ill suited to decisions made by Ministers and advisers behind closed doors.


Coronavirus Count

From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
“ 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 .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON STAYING AT HOME AND AWAY FROM OTHERS See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE CORONAVIRUS ( 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 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Published on Wednesday March 18 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 as cold and flu .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
• 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7am on Wednesday April 1st . )

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--2020-04-01--Ryan Bourne: A one-off income hit is temporary. The loss of a human life is permanent.  We should to

Ryan Bourne: A one-off income hit is temporary. The loss of a human life is permanent.  We should tolerate the first to help save the second.

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
A pushback is underway .
Terrible U.S. unemployment numbers , massive enrolment into Universal Credit here , and cratering worldwide growth forecasts highlight the shocking downturn that Covid-19 will bring .
Mandated businesses closures and restrictions on association may be just be two to three weeks old , but the scale of the coming recession is leading some to worry about them already .
Donald Trump says “ we can not let the cure be worse than the problem itself.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus lockdown leads to a fall in GDP of more than 6.4 per cent , more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus.
” The Sun ‘ s Trevor Kavanagh laments “ hysteria.
” As the unaffected and recovered grow restless , such sentiment will intensify .
Southern Italy is experiencing social unrest already .
One hopes Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak ’ s unprecedented economic support will prove a palliative here .
Perhaps surprisingly , though , those most worried about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out not , by and large , to be economists .
Practitioners of the dismal science tend to more sanguine , for two reasons .
First , in the short-term , the “ economy is f*cked ” either way , as Brad Delong quotably claimed .
Even if you could get public buy-in to simply “ return to normal , ” most models suggest infection rates would spike , hospital capacity would be swamped , and the escalation in deaths would quickly bring economic panic anyway .
More likely , large segments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ full re-opening , ” particularly if other countries maintained restrictions .
Few would return to rock concerts and cinemas .
That ’ s why 97 per cent of economists believe a large downturn is inevitable , desirable even , until infections slow substantially .
“ Normality ” won ’ t occur through political declarations alone , but when the public health threat subsides , through effective treatment , a vaccine , herd immunity , or confidence that easily contracting covid-19 is unlikely .
Second , with good policy and a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not do much permanent economic damage either .
Yes , labour supply will be lower in future – the sad consequence of lost life and more sickness .
Some spending and production will never occur .
But we ’ d expect a strong bounceback once this episode passes .
It ’ s for that reason that The Times ’ reporting was misguided .
An induced recession wouldn ’ t have big negative health consequences unless it significantly affected our incomes permanently .
We still hope the virus will not , significantly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast , really would be permanent .
Though it makes some queasy , the “ statistical value of a human life ” is likely to be around £5.4 million per life .
If Imperial College modellers are right ( and there ’ s huge uncertainty ) that 280,000 deaths can be avoided using “ suppression ” measures compared with “ population social distancing , ” that policy protects £1.5 trillion in value , equivalent to 65 of last year ’ s GDP .
That ’ s a lower bound too : it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage of survivors , for example .
It stands to reason then that we should be willing to give up around 65 per cent of one year ’ s GDP to avoid such deaths .
Hence “ whatever it takes.
” Now , some might argue it ’ s wrong to treat all human life as economically equivalent .
The Italian median age of death , at least until recently , was 80.5 .
That implies a life expectancy here of 8 to 9 years , or more probably around 6 equivalent “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values a full-health quality-adjusted life year at £60,000 per year .
Six good years per person saved is £360,000 per life , or £101 billion ( 4.5 percent of last years ’ GDP ) if 280,000 lives are saved .
Even this stingier methodology then suggests we should be willing to tolerate a one-time income hit equivalent to two-thirds of the financial crisis to stop these excess deaths .
Given economists hope the fall in GDP over the medium-term to be less than this ( a sharp fall and then a sharp rebound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unaffected by policy anyway , steps that are extremely costly in the short-term might still be worthwhile for now to avoid the worse case death spikes .
Lockdown alleviates the worst , but doesn ’ t deliver the best Yet just because incurring costs to avoid deaths is better than not , doesn ’ t mean we shouldn ’ t look for ways to lower given number of deaths at the lowest cost possible .
Lockdowns are unlikely to be optimal .
Two months or so of this might avoid death spikes while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , as implied by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer , risks severe economic harm .
Widespread business failures and defaults , permanently damaged supply-chains , and significant scarring effects on workers would almost certainly result .
“ Returning to normal , ” at that stage , will cease to be an option .
The Times ’ concerns about longer-term health consequences will have merit .
You simply can not keep the economy ’ s supply capacity mothballed for long periods without weakening it .
Paying people not to work or keep business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes damaging over time .
We should be using any reprieve from the lockdowns to think through better options .
To be clear : a pandemic brings with it no good economic outcomes .
Preventing hospitals being overwhelmed right now is wise .
The point is , full lockdowns are unlikely to be optimal policy for prolonged periods .
We want , surely , to find the the most cost-effective way of minimising the combined health and economic costs , recognising that only when the virus is no longer a problem for large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means thinking on the margin : if businesses can more cheaply eliminate risk with mandated safety equipment such as masks and social distancing , even if the activity is “ nonessential , ” isn ’ t that preferable ?
Same for outdoors activity that brings much happiness at low risk .
Germany ’ s idea for certification for those who pass antibody testing , allowing resumption of normal life , seems sensible .
In other words , thinking should be driven by how we can eliminate risk at much lower cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalcy envisaged ?
Just hoping for a vaccine ?
One model suggests we could achieve the same death reductions as lockdowns at much lower economic cost if we undertook randomised testing of the asymptomatic , enforcing quarantine just on those testing positive , as well as those with symptoms .
Rather than a binary debate about lockdowns , this is where thinking should surely be : less costly ways to achieve the same ends .
Health and economic interests largely point in the same direction overall .
Lives are economically valuable and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone .
Shutdowns , while averting worst-case near-term deaths , are not a cost-effective strategy to normality though .
The longer they continue , the messier things will get .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
A pushback is underway. Terrible U.S. unemployment numbers, massive enrolment into Universal Credit here, and cratering worldwide growth forecasts highlight the shocking downturn that Covid-19 will bring. Mandated businesses closures and restrictions on association may be just be two to three weeks old, but the scale of the coming recession is leading some to worry about them already.
Donald Trump says “we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” The Times published findings claiming that “if the coronavirus lockdown leads to a fall in GDP of more than 6.4 per cent, more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus.” The Sun‘s Trevor Kavanagh laments “hysteria.” As the unaffected and recovered grow restless, such sentiment will intensify. Southern Italy is experiencing social unrest already. One hopes Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s unprecedented economic support will prove a palliative here.
Economists see little short-term trade-off
Perhaps surprisingly, though, those most worried about the economics of today’s lockdowns turn out not, by and large, to be economists. Practitioners of the dismal science tend to more sanguine, for two reasons.
First, in the short-term, the “economy is f*cked” either way, as Brad Delong quotably claimed. Even if you could get public buy-in to simply “return to normal,” most models suggest infection rates would spike, hospital capacity would be swamped, and the escalation in deaths would quickly bring economic panic anyway.
More likely, large segments of the public would ignore a stop-go “full re-opening,” particularly if other countries maintained restrictions. Few would return to rock concerts and cinemas. That’s why 97 per cent of economists believe a large downturn is inevitable, desirable even, until infections slow substantially. “Normality” won’t occur through political declarations alone, but when the public health threat subsides, through effective treatment, a vaccine, herd immunity, or confidence that easily contracting covid-19 is unlikely.
Second, with good policy and a bit of luck, economists still assume the virus should not do much permanent economic damage either. Yes, labour supply will be lower in future – the sad consequence of lost life and more sickness. Some spending and production will never occur. But we’d expect a strong bounceback once this episode passes. It’s for that reason that The Times’ reporting was misguided. An induced recession wouldn’t have big negative health consequences unless it significantly affected our incomes permanently. We still hope the virus will not, significantly.
Human lives are valuable
Lost lives from the virus, in contrast, really would be permanent. Though it makes some queasy, the “statistical value of a human life” is likely to be around £5.4 million per life. If Imperial College modellers are right (and there’s huge uncertainty) that 280,000 deaths can be avoided using “suppression” measures compared with “population social distancing,” that policy protects £1.5 trillion in value, equivalent to 65 of last year’s GDP. That’s a lower bound too: it doesn’t take into account reduced lung damage of survivors, for example. It stands to reason then that we should be willing to give up around 65 per cent of one year’s GDP to avoid such deaths. Hence “whatever it takes.”
Now, some might argue it’s wrong to treat all human life as economically equivalent. The Italian median age of death, at least until recently, was 80.5. That implies a life expectancy here of 8 to 9 years, or more probably around 6 equivalent “good years.” The UK government typically values a full-health quality-adjusted life year at £60,000 per year. Six good years per person saved is £360,000 per life, or £101 billion (4.5 percent of last years’ GDP) if 280,000 lives are saved.
Even this stingier methodology then suggests we should be willing to tolerate a one-time income hit equivalent to two-thirds of the financial crisis to stop these excess deaths. Given economists hope the fall in GDP over the medium-term to be less than this (a sharp fall and then a sharp rebound), and much of it is unaffected by policy anyway, steps that are extremely costly in the short-term might still be worthwhile for now to avoid the worse case death spikes.
Lockdown alleviates the worst, but doesn’t deliver the best
Yet just because incurring costs to avoid deaths is better than not, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look for ways to lower given number of deaths at the lowest cost possible. Lockdowns are unlikely to be optimal. Two months or so of this might avoid death spikes while preserving economic capacity. Six months or more, as implied by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, risks severe economic harm. Widespread business failures and defaults, permanently damaged supply-chains, and significant scarring effects on workers would almost certainly result. “Returning to normal,” at that stage, will cease to be an option. The Times’ concerns about longer-term health consequences will have merit.
You simply cannot keep the economy’s supply capacity mothballed for long periods without weakening it. Paying people not to work or keep business paused, desirable in the short-run, becomes damaging over time. We should be using any reprieve from the lockdowns to think through better options.
To be clear: a pandemic brings with it no good economic outcomes. Preventing hospitals being overwhelmed right now is wise. The point is, full lockdowns are unlikely to be optimal policy for prolonged periods. We want, surely, to find the the most cost-effective way of minimising the combined health and economic costs, recognising that only when the virus is no longer a problem for large segments of the population will normality return.
That means thinking on the margin: if businesses can more cheaply eliminate risk with mandated safety equipment such as masks and social distancing, even if the activity is “nonessential,” isn’t that preferable? Same for outdoors activity that brings much happiness at low risk. Germany’s idea for certification for those who pass antibody testing, allowing resumption of normal life, seems sensible. In other words, thinking should be driven by how we can eliminate risk at much lower cost.
What is the current pathway to normalcy envisaged? Just hoping for a vaccine? One model suggests we could achieve the same death reductions as lockdowns at much lower economic cost if we undertook randomised testing of the asymptomatic, enforcing quarantine just on those testing positive, as well as those with symptoms. Rather than a binary debate about lockdowns, this is where thinking should surely be: less costly ways to achieve the same ends.
Health and economic interests largely point in the same direction overall. Lives are economically valuable and a strong economy requires the public health threat gone. Shutdowns, while averting worst-case near-term deaths, are not a cost-effective strategy to normality though. The longer they continue, the messier things will get.


conservativehome--2020-04-01--Daniel Hannan: There will come a point at which the cost of containment will outweigh the cost of th

Daniel Hannan: There will come a point at which the cost of containment will outweigh the cost of the virus

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 .
One by one , firms starting to go under .
They struggle on for as long as they can , furloughing their employees , taking government grants to cover their outgoings .
But – especially for companies that don ’ t qualify for the £25,000 handout – the bills eventually become too much .
Yes , 80 per cent of staff salaries is generous .
But they still have to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , insurance , council tax , supplier invoices – and , of course , residual salaries .
With zero customers , it becomes impossible .
Which is why , within the first nine days of the crisis , half-a-million extra people had joined the dole queue .
Even sectors that you would expect to be insulated are being hit .
A publisher friend , for example , tells me that book distribution companies are going down , meaning that he , too , has to lay off staff .
We have all spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graphs recently .
Insolvencies could soon be ticking up faster than infections .
The furlough scheme is not designed to last .
It makes sense to hold jobs open if the stoppage is brief .
But that is the most weighted “ if ” since the Spartans sent their one word reply to Philip of Macedon .
If most businesses are able to reopen by Easter , the policy will have been triumphantly vindicated .
Staff will return to work , the rise in unemployment will be contained , and the economic hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a one-off .
If , on the other hand , the shutdown lasts until May , or even June , there will be few customers , since everyone else will also have had to retrench .
That last paragraph will send several readers scrambling furiously for their keyboards .
“ Typical Tories !
” they will say .
“ How can you even be thinking about businesses at a time like this ?
How can you put a value on human life ?
” Actually , governments are obliged put a value on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it whenever calculates whether a new medical investment is justified .
There is even a formula to work out “ Quality Adjusted Life Years ” ( QALY ) , reflecting the difference between the death of a healthy toddler and that of a bed-ridden nonagenarian .
Since , all over the world , we can see a correlation between life expectancy and GDP , it is not unreasonable to ask how many extra years – or how many extra QALY – will be forfeited under the various strategies open to us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen at any cost .
No one is arguing that .
My point is simply that trade-offs need to be made .
There must logically be a point at which the cost of the containment measures , in terms of human welfare and even of fatalities , outweighs the cost of the virus .
I am not saying that we are at that point .
Indeed , I ’ m not sure anyone could confidently say so when there are so many unknowns .
There are widely varying estimates of how contagious COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no idea how many people have already had it .
In the circumstances , we can ’ t say how many would be at risk if the strictures were loosened .
Nor , obviously , can we put a number on the indirect costs of the shutdown : no one knows , yet , how many businesses are collapsing .
But the fact that we can ’ t yet put numbers on these things doesn ’ t mean that , as we get more data , we shouldn ’ t keep them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the unusually cold winter of 2017/18 , seasonal flu carried away some 50,000 people .
No one argued that we should shut all shops to slow the virus .
Indeed , according to the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 : “ It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus , and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so ” .
Now the key point .
How much we should pay , and who should pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much we borrow , how much of a hit we expect businesses to bear , how we compensate them for that hit – these are democratic judgment calls , not medical facts .
It is important to understand the distinction .
We should listen to experts in their fields of expertise .
But the question of how to allocate limited resources is political rather than scientific .
Ministers should defer to their advisers when it comes to charting the epidemiology .
But it is unreasonable to ask epidemiologists to rule on , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all commercial activity versus that of concentrating on protecting only those individuals in high-risk categories .
We elect politicians to arbitrate competing claims of this sort .
That is why MPs must continue to meet , virtually if necessary .
It is why the identity of the next Labour leader matters .
It is why it would be wrong to have a government of national unity .
External scrutiny allows different ideas to be proposed , different perspectives to be tested .
Commentators , like MPs , are partially cocooned .
People who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were already largely working from home .
Although some media may be forced under by the loss of advertising revenue we have , so far , not lost our livelihoods .
Nor have MPs or civil servants : their salaries are unaffected .
That isn ’ t a criticism ; it is simply a reminder that the costs of a crisis like this are not felt evenly .
To repeat , I am not in any position to say how high those costs will be , or how high they ought to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the price of the hospitalisations and fatalities will be higher than that of a two-week lockdown , or a two-month lockdown , or a two-year lockdown .
All I am saying is that that grim calculation must at some point be made .
Refusing to face it is not an act of high-mindedness , but of dereliction .

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.
One by one, firms starting to go under. They struggle on for as long as they can, furloughing their employees, taking government grants to cover their outgoings. But – especially for companies that don’t qualify for the £25,000 handout – the bills eventually become too much. Yes, 80 per cent of staff salaries is generous. But they still have to cover their rent, rates, utility bills, insurance, council tax, supplier invoices – and, of course, residual salaries. With zero customers, it becomes impossible. Which is why, within the first nine days of the crisis, half-a-million extra people had joined the dole queue.
Even sectors that you would expect to be insulated are being hit. A publisher friend, for example, tells me that book distribution companies are going down, meaning that he, too, has to lay off staff.
We have all spent a lot of time looking at exponential graphs recently. Insolvencies could soon be ticking up faster than infections. The furlough scheme is not designed to last. It makes sense to hold jobs open if the stoppage is brief. But that is the most weighted “if” since the Spartans sent their one word reply to Philip of Macedon.
If most businesses are able to reopen by Easter, the policy will have been triumphantly vindicated. Staff will return to work, the rise in unemployment will be contained, and the economic hit will turn out to have been largely a one-off. If, on the other hand, the shutdown lasts until May, or even June, there will be few customers, since everyone else will also have had to retrench.
That last paragraph will send several readers scrambling furiously for their keyboards. “Typical Tories!” they will say. “How can you even be thinking about businesses at a time like this? How can you put a value on human life?”
Actually, governments are obliged put a value on life all the time. The NICE does it whenever calculates whether a new medical investment is justified. There is even a formula to work out “Quality Adjusted Life Years” (QALY), reflecting the difference between the death of a healthy toddler and that of a bed-ridden nonagenarian. Since, all over the world, we can see a correlation between life expectancy and GDP, it is not unreasonable to ask how many extra years – or how many extra QALY – will be forfeited under the various strategies open to us.
My point is not that shops must reopen at any cost. No one is arguing that. My point is simply that trade-offs need to be made. There must logically be a point at which the cost of the containment measures, in terms of human welfare and even of fatalities, outweighs the cost of the virus.
I am not saying that we are at that point. Indeed, I’m not sure anyone could confidently say so when there are so many unknowns. There are widely varying estimates of how contagious COVID-19 is, and how lethal. We have no idea how many people have already had it. In the circumstances, we can’t say how many would be at risk if the strictures were loosened. Nor, obviously, can we put a number on the indirect costs of the shutdown: no one knows, yet, how many businesses are collapsing.
But the fact that we can’t yet put numbers on these things doesn’t mean that, as we get more data, we shouldn’t keep them under review. Two years ago, during the unusually cold winter of 2017/18, seasonal flu carried away some 50,000 people. No one argued that we should shut all shops to slow the virus. Indeed, according to the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011: “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so”.
Now the key point. How much we should pay, and who should pay it, are political questions. How much we borrow, how much of a hit we expect businesses to bear, how we compensate them for that hit – these are democratic judgment calls, not medical facts.
It is important to understand the distinction. We should listen to experts in their fields of expertise. But the question of how to allocate limited resources is political rather than scientific. Ministers should defer to their advisers when it comes to charting the epidemiology. But it is unreasonable to ask epidemiologists to rule on, say, the relative costs of closing down all commercial activity versus that of concentrating on protecting only those individuals in high-risk categories. We elect politicians to arbitrate competing claims of this sort.
That is why MPs must continue to meet, virtually if necessary. It is why the identity of the next Labour leader matters. It is why it would be wrong to have a government of national unity. External scrutiny allows different ideas to be proposed, different perspectives to be tested.
Commentators, like MPs, are partially cocooned. People who write columns, as I do, were already largely working from home. Although some media may be forced under by the loss of advertising revenue we have, so far, not lost our livelihoods. Nor have MPs or civil servants: their salaries are unaffected. That isn’t a criticism; it is simply a reminder that the costs of a crisis like this are not felt evenly.
To repeat, I am not in any position to say how high those costs will be, or how high they ought to be. I can’t tell you whether the price of the hospitalisations and fatalities will be higher than that of a two-week lockdown, or a two-month lockdown, or a two-year lockdown. All I am saying is that that grim calculation must at some point be made. Refusing to face it is not an act of high-mindedness, but of dereliction.


conservativehome--2020-04-01--Luke Evans: Communicate, organise, problem-solve. My three principles for local action to help comba

Luke Evans: Communicate, organise, problem-solve. My three principles for local action to help combat the virus.

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
Having been an MP for not much more than a hundred days , it ’ s very difficult to tell what is ‘ normal ’ for a constituency office , although I feel very safe in saying that what has been happening over these past few weeks definitely isn ’ t .
You don ’ t need to have been in the chamber for 20 years to know that the word ‘ unprecedented ’ isn ’ t being thrown around lightly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ office has been inundated with calls and emails from worried constituents .
My casework system has seen 400 plus new emails from residents and businesses entered onto it , for the most part each of which represents a new case .
If quick , many contacts aren ’ t getting as far as being logged onto the system .
I hear from colleagues that a caseload like this is far from exceptional at the present time .
It became clear from very early on that I needed a plan for dealing with contacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my medical training .
I mentioned in my maiden speech that a personal philosophy has long been ‘ to help those can ’ t and empower those who can ’ .
It seems in many ways that it ’ s an ethos which is driving the Government in these difficult times too .
Of course , in any walk of life a philosophy is little more than an inspirational poster on a teenage bedroom wall unless it can be put into practice .
Holding Skype conversations with my team we quickly decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituents .
The first was to communicate .
It was vital from the start to get the message out about social distancing , sell-isolation and shielding ; whether that was through writing to our local newspaper or video messages , some of which have now had hundreds of thousands of engagements .
Equally important was the need to let constituents know how to access the services that they will become so dependent on during this stage of lockdown .
Wherever we can we have signposted to gov.uk/coronavirus and the platforms that its message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website is being updated daily .
The second strand has been to organise .
As I see it one of my key tasks has been to bring organisations together and within the first few days I had written to parish , borough and county councillors and local government senior officers urging them to work collaboratively to establish local volunteer networks to support the most vulnerable .
I ’ ve made it very much my role to be in regular contact with schools , GP surgeries and the police , and when one asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having the knowledge and open lines to put them quickly in contact with someone best placed to respond has proved invaluable .
The most direct route to helping those who can ’ t falls within the third strand ; problem-solving .
Whether it is the relatively easy job of using my social media platform to find urgent nursery provision for key workers ; through to helping constituents stranded abroad get back to the UK ; or , seeking ministerial advice on the intricacies of self-isolation in exceptional circumstances .
It goes without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ever sit in isolation .
Our local volunteer network has got off to a great start , and when it was inundated with calls organisation quickly blends into communication , and problem solving is represented by constituents being referred to receive help .
It would be very easy at times like this to simply firefight problems as they come in , and that may work for a while ; but my training tells me we have to have a clear process in how we triage the support that we can give .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so many worried people asking questions or in need of help , it ’ s vital that when we can we show them to the most appropriate point ; and when they can ’ t we can identify and provide the help that they need .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
Having been an MP for not much more than a hundred days, it’s very difficult to tell what is ‘normal’ for a constituency office, although I feel very safe in saying that what has been happening over these past few weeks definitely isn’t. You don’t need to have been in the chamber for 20 years to know that the word ‘unprecedented’ isn’t being thrown around lightly.
During the past seven days, my office has been inundated with calls and emails from worried constituents. My casework system has seen 400 plus new emails from residents and businesses entered onto it, for the most part each of which represents a new case. If quick, many contacts aren’t getting as far as being logged onto the system. I hear from colleagues that a caseload like this is far from exceptional at the present time.
It became clear from very early on that I needed a plan for dealing with contacts, and for me that meant resorting to my medical training.
I mentioned in my maiden speech that a personal philosophy has long been ‘to help those can’t and empower those who can’. It seems in many ways that it’s an ethos which is driving the Government in these difficult times too.
Of course, in any walk of life a philosophy is little more than an inspirational poster on a teenage bedroom wall unless it can be put into practice.
Holding Skype conversations with my team we quickly decided on a three-pronged strategy for dealing with constituents.
The first was to communicate. It was vital from the start to get the message out about social distancing, sell-isolation and shielding; whether that was through writing to our local newspaper or video messages, some of which have now had hundreds of thousands of engagements. Equally important was the need to let constituents know how to access the services that they will become so dependent on during this stage of lockdown. Wherever we can we have signposted to gov.uk/coronavirus and the platforms that its message has migrated to, and my constituency website is being updated daily.
The second strand has been to organise. As I see it one of my key tasks has been to bring organisations together and within the first few days I had written to parish, borough and county councillors and local government senior officers urging them to work collaboratively to establish local volunteer networks to support the most vulnerable.
I’ve made it very much my role to be in regular contact with schools, GP surgeries and the police, and when one asks a question, or has a need, having the knowledge and open lines to put them quickly in contact with someone best placed to respond has proved invaluable.
The most direct route to helping those who can’t falls within the third strand; problem-solving. Whether it is the relatively easy job of using my social media platform to find urgent nursery provision for key workers; through to helping constituents stranded abroad get back to the UK; or, seeking ministerial advice on the intricacies of self-isolation in exceptional circumstances.
It goes without saying that none of the three prongs can ever sit in isolation. Our local volunteer network has got off to a great start, and when it was inundated with calls organisation quickly blends into communication, and problem solving is represented by constituents being referred to receive help.
It would be very easy at times like this to simply firefight problems as they come in, and that may work for a while; but my training tells me we have to have a clear process in how we triage the support that we can give.
With such a huge volume of contacts, and so many worried people asking questions or in need of help, it’s vital that when we can we show them to the most appropriate point; and when they can’t we can identify and provide the help that they need.


conservativehome--2020-04-01--Coronavirus: some councils are doing better than others. And where are the Police and Crime Commissi

Coronavirus: some councils are doing better than others. And where are the Police and Crime Commissioners?

Some councils are doing more to galvanise volunteers than others This site has run some encouraging examples of the number of volunteers that have come forward to help their vulnerable neighbours .
Many have been informal community efforts operating independently of the state .
There has been a huge response to appeals for volunteers to help the NHS – over 750,000 people have offered to help .
But local authorities will also be under strain due to the increased pressure on providing social care to the elderly .
So it is important to encourage people to come forward and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these offers that is possible .
Given the obvious priority , the home page of each local authority website should feature information about coronavirus prominently – including how people can register their willingness to assist .
By this measure , some councils are responding better than others .
Wandsworth does this well on its website – the guidance is easy to follow , both for those who need help and those offering it .
So does Westminster .
The good citizens of Kensington and Chelsea wishing to do their bit , first have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website – though if they look hard they can see a link to register with the local volunteer centre .
I would have thought simplicity would be an advantage .
Surrey County Council has lots of information about local groups – perhaps too much .
Nottinghamshire offers a single email address where everyone can register – which is more straightforward .
Where are the Police and Crime Commissioners ?
In these extraordinary times , most police officers have responded with restraint and common sense .
But there have been some high profile exceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court judge says : “ The tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform , they are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government ’ s command .
The police have no power to enforce ministers ’ preferences but only legal regulations which don ’ t go anything like as far as the government ’ s guidance .
I have to say that the behaviour of Derbyshire Police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to travel to take exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fells so people don ’ t want to go there is frankly disgraceful .
This is what a police state is like .
It ’ s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers ’ wishes .
I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion .
Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions.
” Some will think this a bit strong – others will agree with Sumption .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioners been ?
This is just the sort of challenge where they should be ensuring that the police do not behave in a way that alienates people – either by exceeding their authority or penalising people who are behaving responsibility by maintaining social distancing .
Hardyal Dhindsa , the PCC for Derbyshire , would seem to have no criticism of his police officers – but nor has he offered any convincing justification of their conduct .
PCCs have the responsibility to show some leadership .
But they generally seem to be keeping rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ properly , highlighted the achievement in building new field hospitals at impressive speed .
The ExCel arena in the London ’ s Docklands is now a hospital with 4,000 beds .
Birmingham ’ s National Exhibition Centre has had a similarly rapid transformation and will provide up to 2,000 beds .
But also important is to avoid “ bed blocking ” – as it is unattractively called .
This is where patients are well enough to leave hospital but they are waiting for their local authority to sort out arrangements for their “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the director of adult social care at the Isle of Wight Council and a trustee of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services .
She says that she and her colleagues are fully aware of the special priority to avoid delay at this time .
She says : “ The Adult Social Care sector is playing its fullest role in getting out everyone out of hospital who is medically fit for discharge .
It has never been more important to eliminate delayed transfers of care ( DTOCs ) and many ASC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My own department had not one person who delayed last week – and I am not alone.
” The Isle of Wight has one of the oldest populations in England .
Nearly one in five people are aged over 80 – and 65 per cent of the elderly live alone .
So if undue delay is being avoided there , that is a pretty good sign .

Some councils are doing more to galvanise volunteers than others
This site has run some encouraging examples of the number of volunteers that have come forward to help their vulnerable neighbours. Many have been informal community efforts operating independently of the state. There has been a huge response to appeals for volunteers to help the NHS – over 750,000 people have offered to help. But local authorities will also be under strain due to the increased pressure on providing social care to the elderly. So it is important to encourage people to come forward and then to make the most effective use of these offers that is possible.
Given the obvious priority, the home page of each local authority website should feature information about coronavirus prominently – including how people can register their willingness to assist. By this measure, some councils are responding better than others. Wandsworth does this well on its website – the guidance is easy to follow, both for those who need help and those offering it. So does Westminster. The good citizens of Kensington and Chelsea wishing to do their bit, first have to navigate around their Council’s website – though if they look hard they can see a link to register with the local volunteer centre. I would have thought simplicity would be an advantage. Surrey County Council has lots of information about local groups – perhaps too much. Nottinghamshire offers a single email address where everyone can register – which is more straightforward.
Where are the Police and Crime Commissioners?
In these extraordinary times, most police officers have responded with restraint and common sense. But there have been some high profile exceptions. As Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge says:
“The tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform, they are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government’s command. The police have no power to enforce ministers’ preferences but only legal regulations which don’t go anything like as far as the government’s guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of Derbyshire Police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to travel to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the fells so people don’t want to go there is frankly disgraceful. This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions.”
Some will think this a bit strong – others will agree with Sumption. But where have the Police and Crime Commissioners been? This is just the sort of challenge where they should be ensuring that the police do not behave in a way that alienates people – either by exceeding their authority or penalising people who are behaving responsibility by maintaining social distancing. Hardyal Dhindsa, the PCC for Derbyshire, would seem to have no criticism of his police officers – but nor has he offered any convincing justification of their conduct. PCCs have the responsibility to show some leadership. But they generally seem to be keeping rather quiet.
Freeing up the beds
The media has, quite properly, highlighted the achievement in building new field hospitals at impressive speed. The ExCel arena in the London’s Docklands is now a hospital with 4,000 beds. Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre has had a similarly rapid transformation and will provide up to 2,000 beds.
But also important is to avoid “bed blocking” – as it is unattractively called. This is where patients are well enough to leave hospital but they are waiting for their local authority to sort out arrangements for their “care package,”
Dr Carol Tozer is the director of adult social care at the Isle of Wight Council and a trustee of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. She says that she and her colleagues are fully aware of the special priority to avoid delay at this time. She says:
“The Adult Social Care sector is playing its fullest role in getting out everyone out of hospital who is medically fit for discharge. It has never been more important to eliminate delayed transfers of care (DTOCs) and many ASC departments are reporting low levels of DTOC. My own department had not one person who delayed last week – and I am not alone.”
The Isle of Wight has one of the oldest populations in England. Nearly one in five people are aged over 80 – and 65 per cent of the elderly live alone. So if undue delay is being avoided there, that is a pretty good sign.


conservativehome--2020-04-02--John O’Connell: Divert the aid budget. Freeze council tax. And suspend Sunday trading restrictions.

John O’Connell: Divert the aid budget. Freeze council tax. And suspend Sunday trading restrictions. Three policies for this testing time.

John O ’ Connell is the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers ’ Alliance .
After the Government ’ s significant coronavirus interventions of the last few weeks , Brits are adapting to life under lockdown .
The public health response is underway , and the NHS is facing up to a big challenge over the next few weeks ; financial support is already arriving ( at least for those who aren ’ t self-employed ) ; and the public information campaign is in full swing , complete with daily press conferences and a personal letter from the Prime Miniser to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how long it will be before we can get back to normal .
Current circumstances are , of course , very far from normal .
Last week , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance issued our response to the unprecedented measures that have been taken .
Naturally , the very idea of some of these interventions makes us wince , not least given the degree to which it equips ministers with powers much of the public would never accept in normal times .
But in the debate of the Oxford vs Imperial models , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veered on the side of caution , and rolled out a plan based on the worst case scenario .
With that choice made , the policies to tackle the public health emergency have been stringent , thereby meaning that Rishi Sunak had to step in to prevent the economy from collapsing .
We do not want to lose capital in businesses which are normally viable , but demand for their output has been temporarily suppressed .
Preventing contagion means encouraging people not to go into work .
That means totally different policies from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest 0 let alone those sensible in a typical recession .
We know about the £330 billion loan package , the furlough scheme to provide 80 per cent of salaries for PAYE staff , measures for the self-employed and the £1.1 billion handout for Britain ’ s charities .
Adding to this any future action – of which there is sure to be plenty – it is entirely reasonable for a fiscal conservative to be worried about the next decade .
Some things haven ’ t changed .
One is that money must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be at odds with the TaxPayers ’ Alliance agenda and , while there may be a lot more money going around , wasted cash is still intolerable .
Another is that taxes make up a significant proportion of the cost of living , meaning reductions will help families get through these hard times .
A third is that regulations hinder delivery and cost taxpayers a fortune .
Indeed , there have been some reassuring reports of bureaucracy – particularly in the NHS – simply falling away to let staff get on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of taxpayers ’ money is reaching the frontline services that are desperately needed .
Wards have been prepped in a matter of days , when such a task would normally have taken months .
While appreciating that this is a time of crisis , maybe afterwards those delivering public services can tell politicians that they would rather not have those regulations back .
With those three principles in mind , the TPA has recommended to the government three more policies which would also help in this effort : divert the aid budget to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax and focus money on frontline services ; and suspend Sunday trading restrictions .
In the past decade , we have consistently highlighted the level of waste in Britain ’ s overseas development spending .
We have called out spending on space programmes and Spice Girls .
Focusing the funds on genuine emergencies is a far better use of cash , and there is no more acute emergency in the world today than the coronavirus .
That is why , if we insist on keeping the 0.7 per cent target , almost all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseas aid budget should be immediately reallocated to combating the coronavirus both in developing countries and in the UK , with all non-humanitarian development operations suspended .
That could mean , for instance , allowing aid funds to be used for the rapid deployment of hospital ships to provide temporary critical care facilities .
In order to ensure this can be done swiftly and effectively , the International Development Act 2002 should be altered to ensure that spending moves beyond merely that which is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular with the public .
Polling last year from this site ’ s James Frayne showed almost three quarters of working class voters backed reallocating aid money to priority areas like the police and NHS .
It would certainly make good on the government ’ s word that it was doing whatever it takes to combat coronavirus .
Unfortunately , regardless of what measures the Government takes , the economic shock of the coronavirus is going to hit living standards in the UK .
Council tax is a significant proportion of the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , costing them eight per cent of their income .
Instead of rises of close to four per cent across the board , a nationwide freeze on council tax rates would mean one less worrying bill for anxious residents .
At the same time , of course , councils must be able to assist with the public health and social care efforts needed to combat coronavirus .
To that end , all non-statutory and low-level council spending should be suspended .
Councils should take up this call : alongside the necessary cancellation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a recruitment freeze and an immediate end to extras like hard copy council tax letters , council newspapers , canteen subsidies and councillor allowances and pensions could send a powerful signal that local authorities really were pulling out all the stops .
Unnecessary regulations must be suspended , particularly if they stop us tackling the outbreak .
Sunday trading rules are currently doing this .
Supermarkets , including those with premises of over 280 square metres , should be encouraged to open for as many hours as possible on Sundays as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus .
Social distancing is threatened when people are on top of each other in supermarkets .
With bookings for online delivery slots permanently full at present , large physical stores can help to clear the backlog and spread the demand .
Moves such as this will allow the heroes in the private sector to play their part in the national effort .
See , for example , firms moving heaven and earth to produce ventilators for the health service , produce hand sanitiser and keep the shelves stocked for desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do what they do best .
The extraordinary economic measures announced by the Chancellor are justifiable , but at some point soon they will no longer be – and they will need to be reversed .
Significant fiscal repair will be needed in the coming years : debt levels will need to be brought back down rapidly through growth-enhancing measures and spending restraint .
It is clearer than ever that sound public finances are needed during good times to ensure the country is ready in case of a crisis .
Taxpayers can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent .

John O’Connell is the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
After the Government’s significant coronavirus interventions of the last few weeks, Brits are adapting to life under lockdown. The public health response is underway, and the NHS is facing up to a big challenge over the next few weeks; financial support is already arriving (at least for those who aren’t self-employed); and the public information campaign is in full swing, complete with daily press conferences and a personal letter from the Prime Miniser to every household. Most are wondering aloud how long it will be before we can get back to normal.
Current circumstances are, of course, very far from normal. Last week, the TaxPayers’ Alliance issued our response to the unprecedented measures that have been taken. Naturally, the very idea of some of these interventions makes us wince, not least given the degree to which it equips ministers with powers much of the public would never accept in normal times. But in the debate of the Oxford vs Imperial models, it’s understandable that the Government has veered on the side of caution, and rolled out a plan based on the worst case scenario.
With that choice made, the policies to tackle the public health emergency have been stringent, thereby meaning that Rishi Sunak had to step in to prevent the economy from collapsing. We do not want to lose capital in businesses which are normally viable, but demand for their output has been temporarily suppressed. Preventing contagion means encouraging people not to go into work. That means totally different policies from those that any reasonable person would usually suggest 0 let alone those sensible in a typical recession.
We know about the £330 billion loan package, the furlough scheme to provide 80 per cent of salaries for PAYE staff, measures for the self-employed and the £1.1 billion handout for Britain’s charities. Adding to this any future action – of which there is sure to be plenty – it is entirely reasonable for a fiscal conservative to be worried about the next decade.
Some things haven’t changed. One is that money must be spent well. Not all measures need to be at odds with the TaxPayers’ Alliance agenda and, while there may be a lot more money going around, wasted cash is still intolerable.
Another is that taxes make up a significant proportion of the cost of living, meaning reductions will help families get through these hard times.
A third is that regulations hinder delivery and cost taxpayers a fortune. Indeed, there have been some reassuring reports of bureaucracy – particularly in the NHS – simply falling away to let staff get on with their jobs and ensure every penny of taxpayers’ money is reaching the frontline services that are desperately needed. Wards have been prepped in a matter of days, when such a task would normally have taken months. While appreciating that this is a time of crisis, maybe afterwards those delivering public services can tell politicians that they would rather not have those regulations back.
With those three principles in mind, the TPA has recommended to the government three more policies which would also help in this effort: divert the aid budget to help fight the virus; freeze council tax and focus money on frontline services; and suspend Sunday trading restrictions.
In the past decade, we have consistently highlighted the level of waste in Britain’s overseas development spending. We have called out spending on space programmes and Spice Girls. Focusing the funds on genuine emergencies is a far better use of cash, and there is no more acute emergency in the world today than the coronavirus. That is why, if we insist on keeping the 0.7 per cent target, almost all of the UK’s £14.6 billion overseas aid budget should be immediately reallocated to combating the coronavirus both in developing countries and in the UK, with all non-humanitarian development operations suspended.
That could mean, for instance, allowing aid funds to be used for the rapid deployment of hospital ships to provide temporary critical care facilities. In order to ensure this can be done swiftly and effectively, the International Development Act 2002 should be altered to ensure that spending moves beyond merely that which is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
A move like this would undoubtedly be popular with the public. Polling last year from this site’s James Frayne showed almost three quarters of working class voters backed reallocating aid money to priority areas like the police and NHS. It would certainly make good on the government’s word that it was doing whatever it takes to combat coronavirus.
Unfortunately, regardless of what measures the Government takes, the economic shock of the coronavirus is going to hit living standards in the UK. Council tax is a significant proportion of the cost of living, particularly the poorest households, costing them eight per cent of their income. Instead of rises of close to four per cent across the board, a nationwide freeze on council tax rates would mean one less worrying bill for anxious residents.
At the same time, of course, councils must be able to assist with the public health and social care efforts needed to combat coronavirus. To that end, all non-statutory and low-level council spending should be suspended. Councils should take up this call: alongside the necessary cancellation of any planned trip, conference or event, a recruitment freeze and an immediate end to extras like hard copy council tax letters, council newspapers, canteen subsidies and councillor allowances and pensions could send a powerful signal that local authorities really were pulling out all the stops.
Unnecessary regulations must be suspended, particularly if they stop us tackling the outbreak. Sunday trading rules are currently doing this. Supermarkets, including those with premises of over 280 square metres, should be encouraged to open for as many hours as possible on Sundays as possible, to reduce overcrowding and the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing is threatened when people are on top of each other in supermarkets.
With bookings for online delivery slots permanently full at present, large physical stores can help to clear the backlog and spread the demand. Moves such as this will allow the heroes in the private sector to play their part in the national effort. See, for example, firms moving heaven and earth to produce ventilators for the health service, produce hand sanitiser and keep the shelves stocked for desperate shoppers. The Government must let them do what they do best.
The extraordinary economic measures announced by the Chancellor are justifiable, but at some point soon they will no longer be – and they will need to be reversed. Significant fiscal repair will be needed in the coming years: debt levels will need to be brought back down rapidly through growth-enhancing measures and spending restraint. It is clearer than ever that sound public finances are needed during good times to ensure the country is ready in case of a crisis. Taxpayers cannot afford this pause in fiscal conservatism becoming permanent.


conservativehome--2020-04-02--Henry Hill: Anger grows as devolution hinders coordinated response to the Covid-19 crisis

As the country settles into what may be a long period of lockdown , this week saw the coronavirus crisis highlight some of the damage done to the UK ’ s ability to respond effectively by the wholesale devolution of health .
For starters , the Scottish Government are facing claims that their own poor testing regime is creating a ‘ misleading picture ’ of Covid-19 deaths north of the border , according to the Daily Record .
Their official figures record only those who died after testing positive for the disease , and not those who pass away after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP are also under fire for their decision not to follow the ‘ Nightingale ’ naming convention for the new emergency hospitals .
Whilst the styling will be used across England , Wales , and Northern Ireland , the Nationalists have decided instead to name their first field hospital after a Scottish nurse .
But anger is more acute in Wales , where voters are growing increasingly unhappy about their exclusion from various relief and support programmes the Government has rolled out in England , such as the ability for vulnerable people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is on top of the growing outcry over the Welsh Government ’ s insistence on setting up ( and then botching the setting up of ) a separate volunteer scheme to the ‘ GoodSAM ’ programme , which we covered last week .
Some Welsh Conservative MPs are apparently starting to get worried by the tone of their constituency post .
But any call for more intervention by the Government would almost certainly spark a furious row with the Assembly group , who will naturally oppose any move which might diminish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of themselves ) .
Nor is this problem confined to the UK .
Politico reports that the left-wing government in Spain is apparently finding it extremely difficult to corral regional leaders behind a nationwide response , with devolved governments reportedly viewing the declaration of a state of emergency as a ‘ power grab ’ .
This should serve as a warning sign to those who believe the British constitution can be balanced by more devolution : Spain ’ s strategy of café para todos – “ coffee for all ” – was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devolving power equally to regional units and hasn ’ t got close .
Meanwhile in an interview given before the outbreak of Covid-19 Jackson Carlaw , the Scottish Conservative leader , launched a broad-spectrum assault on Sturgeon ’ s domestic record .
Scottish justice : SNP retreat from bid to suspend jury trials and more reading on Salmond This week saw an important defeat for the Scottish Nationalists when opposition parties united to force them to abandon proposals to suspend trial by jury in response to the Covid-19 crisis .
Ministers advanced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently substantial backlog of cases .
But it was attacked by senior lawyers as a “ sinister attack on justice ” , and the other opposition parties joined Tory MSPs in blocking the move .
Whilst we ’ re on the subject of courts… Last week ’ s column reported on the augeries of a civil war inside the SNP on the back of Alex Salmond ’ s acquittal .
Although coronavirus rightly dominates the headlines , this week has seen the publication of some great pieces on it for those of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the list must be this piece by Dani Garavelli at Tortoise Media , ‘ Scotland after the Trial of Alex Salmond ‘ .
It ’ s a great overview of how the trial was conducted and a cold first look at what the impact is and might be both on the women who brought the allegations and on Scotland more widely .
Next I ’ d recommend Ian Smart ’ s three–part series , ‘ Grope over Fear ’ , examining what happened from his perspective not only as a long-time political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trial lawyer .
Finally , following Ian ’ s recommendation , this piece by Maurice Smith at the Scottish Review is worth your time too .

Growing anger as constitution handicaps coordinated response to Covid-19
As the country settles into what may be a long period of lockdown, this week saw the coronavirus crisis highlight some of the damage done to the UK’s ability to respond effectively by the wholesale devolution of health.
For starters, the Scottish Government are facing claims that their own poor testing regime is creating a ‘misleading picture’ of Covid-19 deaths north of the border, according to the Daily Record. Their official figures record only those who died after testing positive for the disease, and not those who pass away after developing symptoms but going untested.
The SNP are also under fire for their decision not to follow the ‘Nightingale’ naming convention for the new emergency hospitals. Whilst the styling will be used across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the Nationalists have decided instead to name their first field hospital after a Scottish nurse.
But anger is more acute in Wales, where voters are growing increasingly unhappy about their exclusion from various relief and support programmes the Government has rolled out in England, such as the ability for vulnerable people to sign up for priority supermarket deliveries. This is on top of the growing outcry over the Welsh Government’s insistence on setting up (and then botching the setting up of) a separate volunteer scheme to the ‘GoodSAM’ programme, which we covered last week.
Some Welsh Conservative MPs are apparently starting to get worried by the tone of their constituency post. But any call for more intervention by the Government would almost certainly spark a furious row with the Assembly group, who will naturally oppose any move which might diminish the importance of their institution (and thus, of themselves).
Nor is this problem confined to the UK. Politico reports that the left-wing government in Spain is apparently finding it extremely difficult to corral regional leaders behind a nationwide response, with devolved governments reportedly viewing the declaration of a state of emergency as a ‘power grab’.
This should serve as a warning sign to those who believe the British constitution can be balanced by more devolution: Spain’s strategy of café para todos – “coffee for all” – was supposed to achieve precisely this outcome by devolving power equally to regional units and hasn’t got close.
Meanwhile in an interview given before the outbreak of Covid-19 Jackson Carlaw, the Scottish Conservative leader, launched a broad-spectrum assault on Sturgeon’s domestic record.
Scottish justice: SNP retreat from bid to suspend jury trials and more reading on Salmond
This week saw an important defeat for the Scottish Nationalists when opposition parties united to force them to abandon proposals to suspend trial by jury in response to the Covid-19 crisis.
Ministers advanced the plan in order to help clear an apparently substantial backlog of cases. But it was attacked by senior lawyers as a “sinister attack on justice”, and the other opposition parties joined Tory MSPs in blocking the move.
Whilst we’re on the subject of courts…
Last week’s column reported on the augeries of a civil war inside the SNP on the back of Alex Salmond’s acquittal. Although coronavirus rightly dominates the headlines, this week has seen the publication of some great pieces on it for those of you who want to know more.
Top of the list must be this piece by Dani Garavelli at Tortoise Media, ‘Scotland after the Trial of Alex Salmond‘. It’s a great overview of how the trial was conducted and a cold first look at what the impact is and might be both on the women who brought the allegations and on Scotland more widely.
Next I’d recommend Ian Smart’s three–part series, ‘Grope over Fear’, examining what happened from his perspective not only as a long-time political opponent of the SNP but also as a trial lawyer. Finally, following Ian’s recommendation, this piece by Maurice Smith at the Scottish Review is worth your time too.


conservativehome--2020-04-02--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Board of the Office for Tax Simplication –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Board of the Office for Tax Simplication – 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 last few years have seen major changes to NHS Resolution ’ s role and standing in the system as a result of both its revised strategy and the new clinical negligence scheme for GPs .
It has been a pleasure and privilege to Chair the organisation through this period of significant change .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years some of these changes are still at an early stage and need to be embedded , there is now a need to progress the development of our infrastructure to support the enhanced role and the NHS will continue to evolve .
I am sure therefore that the next Chair will also find the role both challenging and rewarding.
” “ The Office of Tax Simplification ( OTS ) provides the government with independent advice on simplifying the tax system , to make things easier for taxpayers .
The OTS Board is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cearns OBE ) and Tax Director ( Bill Dodwell ) and has representatives from HM Treasury and HMRC and up to four independent members , supported by a diverse staff team drawn from the civil service and the private sector , led by the OTS Head of Office David Halsey .
The four independent members of the OTS Board are currently Dame Teresa Graham , John Cullinane , Kathleen Russ and – until his recent resignation – Paul Johnson .
To support its work and further development , the OTS would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to join its Board as one of its independent members.
” “ Science , technology and demography are changing the way health care services are provided and this has implications for the education and training of the future workforce .
The World Health Organisation ( WHO ) are predicting worldwide shortages of doctors and nurses .
These developments provide the context for the work of HEE over the next few years .
How do we use finite resources most effectively to ensure that we have the right people in the right place with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these developments ?
This is an exciting and fundamentally important task and our purpose is to improve the quality and safety of healthcare through the development , education and training of the current and future workforce.
” “ The Office of the Complaints Commissioner is headed by the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner ( the Commissioner ) who is a statutory appointment required under the Financial Services Act 2012 .
This is a senior position and , whilst the appointment is made by the regulators , it is an independent role , subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current Commissioner carries out his duties through a company limited by guarantee ( Office of the Complaints Commissioner ) from premises based in the City of London .
He is assisted by three staff .
The Commissioner ’ s role is to review independently complaints about the actions or inactions of the UK ’ s current financial services regulators , the Financial Conduct Authority , the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England ( but only in respect of its oversight of the banking clearing houses and payment schemes ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level with judicial salaries , pro-rated as appropriate.
” “ The Prudential Regulation Committee ( PRC ) governs the Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA ) which is responsible for the prudential regulation of banks , building societies , other deposit takers , insurance companies and certain investment firms .
Chaired by the Governor , and accountable to Parliament , the PRC takes the most significant and high impact supervisory decisions .
It is responsible for overseeing and holding to account the PRA ’ s strategy and policy making functions , and for setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also adopts the budget of the PRA.The Government is seeking to appoint up to three external members to fill vacancies which arise from retirements in 2020/21 .
These are high profile and influential roles .
Appointees will be independent and will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” Time : “ The PRC meets 15 to 20 times a year .
The nature of the role will require flexibility.
” “ Having celebrated our 156 year anniversary last year , we are looking forward to the challenge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural haven on the east coast of England .
We cover an area across the River Stour , the lower part of the River Orwell , Harwich Harbour and an area seaward extending 12 nautical miles from the harbour entrance .
We provide services for shipping using the commercial ports of Felixstowe , Ipswich , Harwich International , Harwich Navyard and Mistley and also pilot boarding and landing services for the rivers Thames , Medway , Blackwater , Colne and Crouch .
Our vision is to be an exemplary Trust Port offering world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a flourishing Haven.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development : a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
NHS Resolution – Chair
“The last few years have seen major changes to NHS Resolution’s role and standing in the system as a result of both its revised strategy and the new clinical negligence scheme for GPs. It has been a pleasure and privilege to Chair the organisation through this period of significant change. Although the course is set for the next few years some of these changes are still at an early stage and need to be embedded, there is now a need to progress the development of our infrastructure to support the enhanced role and the NHS will continue to evolve. I am sure therefore that the next Chair will also find the role both challenging and rewarding.”
Time: 2-3 days per week.
Remuneration: £63,000 per annum.
Closes: 06 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Office of Tax Simplification – Board Member
“The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) provides the government with independent advice on simplifying the tax system, to make things easier for taxpayers. The OTS Board is led by an independent Chair (Kathryn Cearns OBE) and Tax Director (Bill Dodwell) and has representatives from HM Treasury and HMRC and up to four independent members, supported by a diverse staff team drawn from the civil service and the private sector, led by the OTS Head of Office David Halsey. The four independent members of the OTS Board are currently Dame Teresa Graham, John Cullinane, Kathleen Russ and – until his recent resignation – Paul Johnson. To support its work and further development, the OTS would like to identify an exceptional individual with relevant experience to join its Board as one of its independent members.”
Time: Approx. 10 days per annum.
Remuneration: “Reasonable expenses”.
Closes: 06 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Health Education England – Non-Executive Director
“Science, technology and demography are changing the way health care services are provided and this has implications for the education and training of the future workforce. The World Health Organisation (WHO) are predicting worldwide shortages of doctors and nurses. These developments provide the context for the work of HEE over the next few years. How do we use finite resources most effectively to ensure that we have the right people in the right place with the right skills and knowledge to respond to these developments? This is an exciting and fundamentally important task and our purpose is to improve the quality and safety of healthcare through the development, education and training of the current and future workforce.”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,883 per annum.
Closes: 07 April
– – – – – – – – – –
HM Treasury – Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner
“The Office of the Complaints Commissioner is headed by the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner (the Commissioner) who is a statutory appointment required under the Financial Services Act 2012. This is a senior position and, whilst the appointment is made by the regulators, it is an independent role, subject to approval by HM Treasury. The current Commissioner carries out his duties through a company limited by guarantee (Office of the Complaints Commissioner) from premises based in the City of London. He is assisted by three staff. The Commissioner’s role is to review independently complaints about the actions or inactions of the UK’s current financial services regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England (but only in respect of its oversight of the banking clearing houses and payment schemes).”
Time: Est. three days per week.
Remuneration: “Remuneration is on a level with judicial salaries, pro-rated as appropriate.”
Closes: 13 April
– – – – – – – – – –
HM Treasury – External Member to the Prudential Regulation Committee
“The Prudential Regulation Committee (PRC) governs the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) which is responsible for the prudential regulation of banks, building societies, other deposit takers, insurance companies and certain investment firms. Chaired by the Governor, and accountable to Parliament, the PRC takes the most significant and high impact supervisory decisions. It is responsible for overseeing and holding to account the PRA’s strategy and policy making functions, and for setting the levy on regulated firms. It also adopts the budget of the PRA.The Government is seeking to appoint up to three external members to fill vacancies which arise from retirements in 2020/21. These are high profile and influential roles. Appointees will be independent and will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: “The PRC meets 15 to 20 times a year. The nature of the role will require flexibility.”
Remuneration: £108,300 per annum.
Closes: 15 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Harwich Haven Authority – Non-Executive Chair
“Having celebrated our 156 year anniversary last year, we are looking forward to the challenge of strengthening our role in safeguarding the best natural haven on the east coast of England. We cover an area across the River Stour, the lower part of the River Orwell, Harwich Harbour and an area seaward extending 12 nautical miles from the harbour entrance. We provide services for shipping using the commercial ports of Felixstowe, Ipswich, Harwich International, Harwich Navyard and Mistley and also pilot boarding and landing services for the rivers Thames, Medway, Blackwater, Colne and Crouch. Our vision is to be an exemplary Trust Port offering world class services, working with all stakeholders for a flourishing Haven.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £37,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 24 April