conservativehome--2020-09-08--Andy Street: Coventry could provide a blueprint for the nation’s city centres

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
Five years ago , Coventry was the seventh and final Council to vote to join the West Midlands Combined Authority , embracing the new spirit of cooperation sparked by the devolution of power to the region .
As one of England ’ s top 10 Cities , Coventry ’ s inclusion alongside the other six boroughs of Birmingham , Dudley , Solihull , Sandwell , Walsall and Wolverhampton was a vital component of a confident and assertive new West Midlands .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought to the table not only a proud and distinct character , but some of the driving force that helped make the West Midlands the UK ’ s industrial heartland .
As a consequence , the city made a major contribution to the strong regional economy we had built here before COVID-19 struck , which was second only to London .
Now , as our region plots its recovery , new jobs and investment will be key .
Just as I believe an innovative ‘ can-do ’ attitude made Coventry one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe we have laid much of the groundwork to create the jobs needed for the city to bounce back , after the pandemic .
I ’ d like to use this column to navigate what lies on the road ahead for the ‘ motor city ’ – and illustrate how Coventry has benefited from taking its place at the West Midlands table .
As the UK cautiously attempts to return to normality , the future of our city centres has become a hot topic .
Coventry is on the cusp of a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s city centres , which will see old and tired tracts of retail-focused land repurposed for a new era .
More than £95m of regional funding has been set aside for the “ City Centre South ” transformation , with the plans being consulted on over the Summer .
This huge scheme represents a 21st century rethink , moving away from the reliance on big anchor stores and making city centre living a reality , by creating 1,300 new homes – all on reclaimed brownfield sites .
While there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of room for high-quality retail , leisure offerings such as bars , restaurants , a hotel , and potentially a cinema , will drive footfall from new city-centre dwellers as well as attracting residents from the suburbs .
It is estimated that City Centre South will bring at least a thousand new jobs , with another 620 when construction begins .
But this is just one facet of our plans for Coventry , which are transforming the city .
By investing in our ‘ brownfield first ’ policy , we can boost jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the high street .
We are providing funding to reclaim more brownfield sites to turn them into homes and ease the pressure on green spaces around the city ’ s edges .
For example , Coventry ’ s former National Grid depot , a derelict eyesore since 2010 , is set to be transformed into hundreds of homes backed by regional cash .
This kind of regional investment is important , as one of the biggest challenges the City faces is pressure for more homes and development – which is causing much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green Belt .
Regional investment of £51million is going into the flagship Friargate office development – right next to Coventry ’ s central railway station – bringing in good jobs to support the City Centre economy .
And the station itself is being completely upgraded from the 1960s building of the past to create the modern gateway this growing City needs – with £39.4m of regional cash underpinning the £90m+ scheme .
Added capacity at the city centre station will help us deliver a package of new suburban stations in the City , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ links and connect Coventry ’ s communities with new opportunities .
Wider investment in the City ’ s transport will include a pioneering “ Very Light Rail ” system .
Recently backed by the Government ’ s Get Britain Building Fund , the prototype of this system is being designed and built-in Coventry , before being tested in Dudley .
In the last few days , local roads have seen the roll-out of the city ’ s first modern electric buses .
These clean , eco-friendly vehicles will use battery power to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this technology that offers the biggest opportunity for the future of the UK ’ s motor city in terms of jobs .
Regional money has contributed £18m towards the National Battery Industrialisation Centre , which is due to open later this year in the City , cementing Coventry ’ s place at the heart of the technology that will transform the automotive industry .
Crucially , we want this centre to be the pilot that helps bring a “ Gigafactory ” to our region to mass-produce electric batteries for the sector .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of driverless car testing , with both Coventry and Warwick Universities providing valuable local input into the emerging technology .
Driverless vehicles are being tested on the streets of the city and the region ’ s motorways .
Cutting-edge testing facilities down the road in Warwickshire are a hotbed of autonomous motoring too .
The Prime Minister has spoken of bringing the Gigafactory here , saying our region is seeing ‘ a 21st Century industrial revolution ’ in battery and low-carbon technology ’ .
Electrification can provide the power to drive new jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole .
Finally , we are backing Coventry to shine on the national and international stage with City of Culture festivities next year .
There is £35m of regional money going into making this a success .
It is focused on projects that will leave a lasting legacy for the City and its residents – above all jobs .
In the last five years , Coventry has embraced the benefits of a collaborative West Midlands , while contributing the drive that has always made it one of the UK ’ s most industrious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jobs of the future , that combination of regional support and local innovation will be key .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
Five years ago, Coventry was the seventh and final Council to vote to join the West Midlands Combined Authority, embracing the new spirit of cooperation sparked by the devolution of power to the region.
As one of England’s top 10 Cities, Coventry’s inclusion alongside the other six boroughs of Birmingham, Dudley, Solihull, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton was a vital component of a confident and assertive new West Midlands.
Like all of its new partners, Coventry brought to the table not only a proud and distinct character, but some of the driving force that helped make the West Midlands the UK’s industrial heartland.
As a consequence, the city made a major contribution to the strong regional economy we had built here before COVID-19 struck, which was second only to London. Now, as our region plots its recovery, new jobs and investment will be key.
Just as I believe an innovative ‘can-do’ attitude made Coventry one of the big winners from working regionally, I believe we have laid much of the groundwork to create the jobs needed for the city to bounce back, after the pandemic. I’d like to use this column to navigate what lies on the road ahead for the ‘motor city’ – and illustrate how Coventry has benefited from taking its place at the West Midlands table.
As the UK cautiously attempts to return to normality, the future of our city centres has become a hot topic. Coventry is on the cusp of a major investment that could provide a blueprint for the nation’s city centres, which will see old and tired tracts of retail-focused land repurposed for a new era.
More than £95m of regional funding has been set aside for the “City Centre South” transformation, with the plans being consulted on over the Summer.
This huge scheme represents a 21st century rethink, moving away from the reliance on big anchor stores and making city centre living a reality, by creating 1,300 new homes – all on reclaimed brownfield sites.
While there will, of course, still be plenty of room for high-quality retail, leisure offerings such as bars, restaurants, a hotel, and potentially a cinema, will drive footfall from new city-centre dwellers as well as attracting residents from the suburbs.
It is estimated that City Centre South will bring at least a thousand new jobs, with another 620 when construction begins. But this is just one facet of our plans for Coventry, which are transforming the city.
By investing in our ‘brownfield first’ policy, we can boost jobs in the construction sector and provide footfall for the high street. We are providing funding to reclaim more brownfield sites to turn them into homes and ease the pressure on green spaces around the city’s edges.
For example, Coventry’s former National Grid depot, a derelict eyesore since 2010, is set to be transformed into hundreds of homes backed by regional cash.
This kind of regional investment is important, as one of the biggest challenges the City faces is pressure for more homes and development – which is causing much angst for communities facing threats to their Green Belt.
Regional investment of £51million is going into the flagship Friargate office development – right next to Coventry’s central railway station – bringing in good jobs to support the City Centre economy. And the station itself is being completely upgraded from the 1960s building of the past to create the modern gateway this growing City needs – with £39.4m of regional cash underpinning the £90m+ scheme. Added capacity at the city centre station will help us deliver a package of new suburban stations in the City, working with the Government to improve transport links and connect Coventry’s communities with new opportunities.
Wider investment in the City’s transport will include a pioneering “Very Light Rail” system. Recently backed by the Government’s Get Britain Building Fund, the prototype of this system is being designed and built-in Coventry, before being tested in Dudley.
In the last few days, local roads have seen the roll-out of the city’s first modern electric buses. These clean, eco-friendly vehicles will use battery power to help Coventrians get about. And it is this technology that offers the biggest opportunity for the future of the UK’s motor city in terms of jobs.
Regional money has contributed £18m towards the National Battery Industrialisation Centre, which is due to open later this year in the City, cementing Coventry’s place at the heart of the technology that will transform the automotive industry.
Crucially, we want this centre to be the pilot that helps bring a “Gigafactory” to our region to mass-produce electric batteries for the sector.
The West Midlands is already the UK centre of driverless car testing, with both Coventry and Warwick Universities providing valuable local input into the emerging technology. Driverless vehicles are being tested on the streets of the city and the region’s motorways. Cutting-edge testing facilities down the road in Warwickshire are a hotbed of autonomous motoring too.
The Prime Minister has spoken of bringing the Gigafactory here, saying our region is seeing ‘a 21st Century industrial revolution’ in battery and low-carbon technology’. Electrification can provide the power to drive new jobs for Coventry and the region as a whole.
Finally, we are backing Coventry to shine on the national and international stage with City of Culture festivities next year.
There is £35m of regional money going into making this a success. It is focused on projects that will leave a lasting legacy for the City and its residents – above all jobs.
In the last five years, Coventry has embraced the benefits of a collaborative West Midlands, while contributing the drive that has always made it one of the UK’s most industrious places. As we look to create the jobs of the future, that combination of regional support and local innovation will be key.


conservativehome--2020-09-08--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct – 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 .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors .
The selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business , a major charitable or cultural institution , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Charity Commission has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP , wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales .
A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards ; leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related , scientific discipline ; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal justice system.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.
” “ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 .
Under the remit of the Board , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 11 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October


conservativehome--2020-09-08--The bluffs, gambits, instincts and bottom lines of Johnson’s approach to the EU trade negotiation

Boris Johnson wants a deal .
Remain diehards will claim that he ’ d be happy not to have one , because he would then blame the EU , pitch for the patriotic vote in Red Wall seats especially – and settle for what he calls an Australia-style deal , i.e : No Deal , content that it wouldn ’ t be all that different from the more Canada-flavoured deal that he wants .
Like so much that they say about the Prime Minister , this is wrong .
He wants a deal because the fewer obstacles to trading as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He wants one because he will not wish to grapple with the disruption of No Deal at the same time as he must so do with the problem of Coronavirus – and so much else .
He wants one because not having it wouldn ’ t be an electoral plus in Scotland .
Talking of which , we know above all that wants an EU deal because he has form in getting one .
It was his summit with Leo Varadkar that delivered a Withdrawal Agreement that could win public support and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was better for Great Britain than Theresa May ’ s version , but worse for the Union , because it left Northern Ireland closer to the EU than the rest of the UK .
This is why we are just a bit resistant to the repeated briefing from the Government that it will walk away from the negotiating table if a deal is not agreed by mid-October – and that it will offer no concessions .
Consider , by way of example , the row over Downing Street ’ s plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Northern Ireland protocol .
Johnson doesn ’ t seem to preparing a withdrawal from the Agreement – much though some Eurosceptics , clustered around the new Centre for Brexit Policy , wish that he would .
Rather , he appears to seeking to exploit ambiguities in the Northern Ireland Protocol , on matters about which his Government and the EU have never fully resolved , in order to minimise the role of the European Court of Justice and recover the Union ’ s position as much as possible .
This takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of the three main issues at stake is tariffs .
Under the terms of the protocol , EU tariffs could apply to goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland if they are “ at risk ” of entering the EU market via the Irish Republic .
This provision reflects the stress that some players on the EU side , such as France , put on protecting the integrity of the Internal Market .
But there is no agreement on what “ at risk ” goods might be .
The Government proposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to rule unilaterally on what these are – an insurance policy in the event of No Deal .
That would ease barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( as well as reducing the potential scope of the Court ) .
We suspect an eventual compromise – with some arbitration-type body similar that in Article 174 of the Agreement .
Which points to the other half of the truth .
Yes , the Prime Minister wants a deal .
No , he doesn ’ t want one at any price .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for others , Johnson sees No Deal as desirable .
But undesirable isn ’ t the same as unacceptable .
A core commitment of his Conservative leadership election campaign last year was that a Conservative Government must be prepared to walk away from any deal if it is to be taken seriously .
What happens next ?
On paper , a trade deal ought to be easier to strike than a Withdrawal Agreement – given the British , Irish and Northern Ireland knots that the Agreement had to untangle in order to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commission seems to understand that member states will have to accept that there will be a lessening of their fishermens ’ access post-transition .
On state aid , the Government should accept that it will have to publish proposals sooner rather than later .
We appreciate the enthusiasm of some in Downing Street , including Dominic Cummings , for maximum space for targeted investment in post-Brexit Britain .
But government in Britain has a poor record when it comes to picking winners , and Whitehall ’ s creaky response to Coronavirus doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the Northern Ireland protocol , the Irish Government ’ s prime aim has always been to prevent a hardening of the Northern Ireland border .
The integrity of the Single Market is a less visceral concern .
That ’ s an encouraging sign .
Our suspicion is that a trade deal will be struck .
But just because a Withdrawal Agreement was eventually reached , it doesn ’ t follow that a trade deal will also take place on time .
When Johnson compromised over the Withdrawal Agreement , he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has one of 80 .
Then , he had no real record of engagement with Northern Ireland ’ s affairs .
Both now and then , he had fixed ideas about a post-Brexit Britain not being a rule-taker .
There are limits to the Johnson/Cummings continuum ’ s willingness to bend .
Furthermore , there is no single player on the EU who holds the key to a solution as Veradkar did last time round .
Different member states have different interests and approaches .
They have been preoccupied with Coronavirus , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised if an agreement slips between the cracks .

Boris Johnson wants a deal. Remain diehards will claim that he’d be happy not to have one, because he would then blame the EU, pitch for the patriotic vote in Red Wall seats especially – and settle for what he calls an Australia-style deal, i.e: No Deal, content that it wouldn’t be all that different from the more Canada-flavoured deal that he wants.
Like so much that they say about the Prime Minister, this is wrong. He wants a deal because the fewer obstacles to trading as an independent country, the better. He wants one because he will not wish to grapple with the disruption of No Deal at the same time as he must so do with the problem of Coronavirus – and so much else. He wants one because not having it wouldn’t be an electoral plus in Scotland.
Talking of which, we know above all that wants an EU deal because he has form in getting one. It was his summit with Leo Varadkar that delivered a Withdrawal Agreement that could win public support and get through Parliament. In a nutshell, it was better for Great Britain than Theresa May’s version, but worse for the Union, because it left Northern Ireland closer to the EU than the rest of the UK.
This is why we are just a bit resistant to the repeated briefing from the Government that it will walk away from the negotiating table if a deal is not agreed by mid-October – and that it will offer no concessions. Consider, by way of example, the row over Downing Street’s plan to legislate in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement’s Northern Ireland protocol.
Johnson doesn’t seem to preparing a withdrawal from the Agreement – much though some Eurosceptics, clustered around the new Centre for Brexit Policy, wish that he would. Rather, he appears to seeking to exploit ambiguities in the Northern Ireland Protocol, on matters about which his Government and the EU have never fully resolved, in order to minimise the role of the European Court of Justice and recover the Union’s position as much as possible.
This takes us back to the point about concessions. One of the three main issues at stake is tariffs. Under the terms of the protocol, EU tariffs could apply to goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland if they are “at risk” of entering the EU market via the Irish Republic. This provision reflects the stress that some players on the EU side, such as France, put on protecting the integrity of the Internal Market.
But there is no agreement on what “at risk” goods might be. The Government proposes that UK ministers be given the legal power to rule unilaterally on what these are – an insurance policy in the event of No Deal. That would ease barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as well as reducing the potential scope of the Court). We suspect an eventual compromise – with some arbitration-type body similar that in Article 174 of the Agreement.
Which points to the other half of the truth. Yes, the Prime Minister wants a deal. No, he doesn’t want one at any price. For the reasons we set out above and for others, Johnson sees No Deal as desirable. But undesirable isn’t the same as unacceptable. A core commitment of his Conservative leadership election campaign last year was that a Conservative Government must be prepared to walk away from any deal if it is to be taken seriously.
What happens next? On paper, a trade deal ought to be easier to strike than a Withdrawal Agreement – given the British, Irish and Northern Ireland knots that the Agreement had to untangle in order to be reached at all. On fishing, the Commission seems to understand that member states will have to accept that there will be a lessening of their fishermens’ access post-transition.
On state aid, the Government should accept that it will have to publish proposals sooner rather than later. We appreciate the enthusiasm of some in Downing Street, including Dominic Cummings, for maximum space for targeted investment in post-Brexit Britain. But government in Britain has a poor record when it comes to picking winners, and Whitehall’s creaky response to Coronavirus doesn’t suggest that much has changed.
On the Northern Ireland protocol, the Irish Government’s prime aim has always been to prevent a hardening of the Northern Ireland border. The integrity of the Single Market is a less visceral concern. That’s an encouraging sign. Our suspicion is that a trade deal will be struck. But just because a Withdrawal Agreement was eventually reached, it doesn’t follow that a trade deal will also take place on time.
When Johnson compromised over the Withdrawal Agreement, he had no Commons majority. Now, he has one of 80. Then, he had no real record of engagement with Northern Ireland’s affairs. Both now and then, he had fixed ideas about a post-Brexit Britain not being a rule-taker. There are limits to the Johnson/Cummings continuum’s willingness to bend.
Furthermore, there is no single player on the EU who holds the key to a solution as Veradkar did last time round. Different member states have different interests and approaches. They have been preoccupied with Coronavirus, and much else. Don’t be surprised if an agreement slips between the cracks.


conservativehome--2020-09-08--Switching to more unitary authorities and directly elected mayors must be achieved by consent

“ More elected mayors and fewer councils to break Labour ’ s red wall strongholds , ” declared the Sunday Times over the weekend .
It is already Government policy to encourage more areas to become unitary authorities and for more directly elected mayors to be installed .
But this report suggests that a White Paper on devolution , to be published next month , will give these changes more impetus .
It says : Dozens more elected mayors and the abolition of many councils are being planned under a shake-up of local government due to be unveiled next month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to areas that agree to new elected mayors , who they argue are more accountable and better at boosting local economies .
Conservatives have also proved more successful in winning mayoralties in “ red wall ” areas than they have in winning Labour-controlled councils .
However , a fight looms over plans to abolish significant numbers of district councils , many of them Tory-controlled , as part of plans for a slimmed-down local government system .
“ Downing Street denied that they wanted to abolish two thirds of authorities by replacing district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change would happen only with local consent .
However , ministers do want to move towards more single-tier council areas , which the County Councils Network estimates would save £3 billion a year .
“ District councils oppose the move , saying it would create unwieldy mega-authorities responsible for more than a million people each , far larger than local government units in other countries .
A cap of about 600,000 people in any unitary authority is being considered as one way of avoiding this.
” Ben Houchen , the Conservative mayor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prototype for winning Tory control of local government in the north and Midlands.
” It will be interesting to see what the devolution White Paper comes up with .
But if the principle is maintained of local consent , it is hard to see how the change could be as dramatic as the tone of the Sunday Times piece suggests .
A quote from a Ministry of Housing , Communities and Local Government spokesman in the Daily Telegraph yesterday sought to offer calm : “ We want to devolve and decentralise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing opportunities for all areas to enjoy devolution .
“ But there will be no blanket abolishment of district councils and no top-down restructuring of local government .
The devolution White Paper , which will be published this autumn , will set out our detailed plans and we continue to work closely with local areas to establish solutions to local government reform.
” The Telegraph report added some welcome news : “ Local communities could also seek to scrap modern municipal area names to give people a better sense of the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another Government insider said : “ We want to extend devolution to the whole country so that all areas benefit from this .
It should not just be the big urban areas , it should be shires too , working closely with local areas to establish solutions to local government reform.
” Campaigners who have been urging the Government to reinstate historic county names welcomed the news .
Pam Moorhouse , the British Counties campaign , said : “ Traditional county names were taken off us by Edward Heath in 1974 so it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions want them.
” Under the changes , west Midlands could revert to Warwickshire , Cumbria could be replaced by Cumberland and Westmorland while Merseyside could be scrapped and replaced by a larger Lancashire.
” Last year , James Brokenshire , when he was Housing , Communities and Local Government Secretary , said : “ Locally-led changes to the structure of local government , whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers , can – with local support – be an appropriate means of ensuring more sustainable local government and local service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowered local communities .
This statement today continues the Government ’ s commitment to supporting those councils that wish to combine , to serve their communities better and will consider unitarisation and mergers between councils when locally requested .
However , I recognise that unitarisation may not be appropriate everywhere .
I also recognise that it is essential that any local government restructuring should be on the basis of locally led proposals and should not involve top-down Whitehall solutions being imposed on areas .
The Government does not support top-down unitary restructuring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent approach since 2010.
” I suspect that approach will continue .
Not least because a significant shift towards unitary authorities is already happening and has been taking place for a number of years .
The Conservative Manifesto last year merely stated : “ We remain committed to devolving power to people and places across the UK .
Our ambition is for full devolution across England , building on the successful devolution of powers to city region mayors , Police and Crime Commissioners and others , so that every part of our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destiny .
We will publish an English Devolution White Paper setting out our plans next year.
” It would be a bit of stretch to take that as a mandate for forced abolition of all the district councils .
There is a strong case for unitary status – with respect to both democracy and efficiency – in terms of ending duplication .
The waste and confusion of residents of a town having two sets of councillors , a town hall and a county hall , two local authority chief executives on six-figure salaries… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for accountability that if the county council puts up the Council Tax , but the district council is blamed – because the bills are sent out at district level .
More contentious is the “ economies of scale ” argument .
The logic of this is that the bigger the resulting unitary authority , the better .
Ken Livingstone proposed replacing the 32 London boroughs with five “ sub-regional partnerships ” that would appear by dividing the map of London into slices of cake .
That was not inspiring for local identity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Councils have alternatives to running everything themselves – such as sharing services or contracting them out to private companies .
Flexibility is an example .
The tri-borough arrangements for Hammersmith and Fulham , Kensington and Chelsea , and Westminster delivered great savings .
But offering big contracts can also limit competition by making it harder for smaller firms to tender – I have written for this site about this being a difficulty in terms of school transport for disabled children .
It may make sense for a compromise where , rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district councils , we have two or three unitary councils across a district .
Directly elected mayors come in two types .
There are the Metro Mayors who run “ combined authorities ” as an extra layer on top of other local authorities .
Examples include Andy Street in the West Midlands and Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester .
They have powers for regeneration and integrated transport .
They will naturally lobby for more power and larger budgets .
They are a legacy from the Labour Government ’ s Local Democracy , Economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost inevitably a corporatist force seeking greater state intervention .
Then there is the situation where a local authority replaces a council leader with a directly elected Mayor .
Examples of where this has happened include Bristol , Middlesbrough , Leicester , and Watford .
It has been implemented in several London boroughs – most unhappily in Tower Hamlets .
It does provide an opportunity to shake up complacent , monolithic councils – not least by giving a chance for independents with a strong background in business or community service .
Unlike the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are created ( and could be abolished ) via a referendum .
Why not allow referendums to get rid of the Metro Mayors ?
Eric Pickles , was a fearless radical as Communities and Local Government Secretary .
Yet before entering Government he told this site : “ I ’ ll have a pearl-handled revolver waiting in my drawer for the first civil servant who suggests another local government reorganisation.
” Those of us who would like to see more unitary councils and directly-elected Mayors have to persuade others in our communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Downing Street , a different approach would be unlikely to be politically acceptable .
Nor would it be justified .

“More elected mayors and fewer councils to break Labour’s red wall strongholds,” declared the Sunday Times over the weekend. It is already Government policy to encourage more areas to become unitary authorities and for more directly elected mayors to be installed. But this report suggests that a White Paper on devolution, to be published next month, will give these changes more impetus. It says:
Dozens more elected mayors and the abolition of many councils are being planned under a shake-up of local government due to be unveiled next month.
“Ministers want to devolve more power to areas that agree to new elected mayors, who they argue are more accountable and better at boosting local economies. Conservatives have also proved more successful in winning mayoralties in “red wall” areas than they have in winning Labour-controlled councils. However, a fight looms over plans to abolish significant numbers of district councils, many of them Tory-controlled, as part of plans for a slimmed-down local government system.
“Downing Street denied that they wanted to abolish two thirds of authorities by replacing district councils with unitary authorities, and insisted change would happen only with local consent. However, ministers do want to move towards more single-tier council areas, which the County Councils Network estimates would save £3 billion a year.
“District councils oppose the move, saying it would create unwieldy mega-authorities responsible for more than a million people each, far larger than local government units in other countries. A cap of about 600,000 people in any unitary authority is being considered as one way of avoiding this.”
Ben Houchen, the Conservative mayor of Tees Valley, “is seen as the prototype for winning Tory control of local government in the north and Midlands.”
It will be interesting to see what the devolution White Paper comes up with. But if the principle is maintained of local consent, it is hard to see how the change could be as dramatic as the tone of the Sunday Times piece suggests.
A quote from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman in the Daily Telegraph yesterday sought to offer calm:
“We want to devolve and decentralise to give more power to local communities, providing opportunities for all areas to enjoy devolution.
“But there will be no blanket abolishment of district councils and no top-down restructuring of local government. The devolution White Paper, which will be published this autumn, will set out our detailed plans and we continue to work closely with local areas to establish solutions to local government reform.”
The Telegraph report added some welcome news:
“Local communities could also seek to scrap modern municipal area names to give people a better sense of the history of where they live under the plans.
Another Government insider said: “We want to extend devolution to the whole country so that all areas benefit from this. It should not just be the big urban areas, it should be shires too, working closely with local areas to establish solutions to local government reform.”
Campaigners who have been urging the Government to reinstate historic county names welcomed the news. Pam Moorhouse, the British Counties campaign, said: “Traditional county names were taken off us by Edward Heath in 1974 so it is about time they came back because millions want them.”
Under the changes, west Midlands could revert to Warwickshire, Cumbria could be replaced by Cumberland and Westmorland while Merseyside could be scrapped and replaced by a larger Lancashire.”
Last year, James Brokenshire, when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, said:
“Locally-led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can – with local support – be an appropriate means of ensuring more sustainable local government and local service delivery, enhanced local accountability, and empowered local communities. This statement today continues the Government’s commitment to supporting those councils that wish to combine, to serve their communities better and will consider unitarisation and mergers between councils when locally requested. However, I recognise that unitarisation may not be appropriate everywhere. I also recognise that it is essential that any local government restructuring should be on the basis of locally led proposals and should not involve top-down Whitehall solutions being imposed on areas. The Government does not support top-down unitary restructuring. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010.”
I suspect that approach will continue. Not least because a significant shift towards unitary authorities is already happening and has been taking place for a number of years.
The Conservative Manifesto last year merely stated:
“We remain committed to devolving power to people and places across the UK. Our ambition is for full devolution across England, building on the successful devolution of powers to city region mayors, Police and Crime Commissioners and others, so that every part of our country has the power to shape its own destiny. We will publish an English Devolution White Paper setting out our plans next year.”
It would be a bit of stretch to take that as a mandate for forced abolition of all the district councils.
There is a strong case for unitary status – with respect to both democracy and efficiency – in terms of ending duplication. The waste and confusion of residents of a town having two sets of councillors, a town hall and a county hall, two local authority chief executives on six-figure salaries… For example, it is not good for accountability that if the county council puts up the Council Tax, but the district council is blamed – because the bills are sent out at district level.
More contentious is the “economies of scale” argument. The logic of this is that the bigger the resulting unitary authority, the better. Ken Livingstone proposed replacing the 32 London boroughs with five “sub-regional partnerships” that would appear by dividing the map of London into slices of cake. That was not inspiring for local identity. But nor is it necessary for efficiency. Councils have alternatives to running everything themselves – such as sharing services or contracting them out to private companies. Flexibility is an example. The tri-borough arrangements for Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster delivered great savings. But offering big contracts can also limit competition by making it harder for smaller firms to tender – I have written for this site about this being a difficulty in terms of school transport for disabled children.
It may make sense for a compromise where, rather than a county council swallowing up all the district councils, we have two or three unitary councils across a district.
Directly elected mayors come in two types. There are the Metro Mayors who run “combined authorities” as an extra layer on top of other local authorities. Examples include Andy Street in the West Midlands and Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester. They have powers for regeneration and integrated transport. They will naturally lobby for more power and larger budgets. They are a legacy from the Labour Government’s Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and are almost inevitably a corporatist force seeking greater state intervention.
Then there is the situation where a local authority replaces a council leader with a directly elected Mayor. Examples of where this has happened include Bristol, Middlesbrough, Leicester, and Watford. It has been implemented in several London boroughs – most unhappily in Tower Hamlets. It does provide an opportunity to shake up complacent, monolithic councils – not least by giving a chance for independents with a strong background in business or community service. Unlike the Metro Mayors, these local authority mayors are created (and could be abolished) via a referendum. Why not allow referendums to get rid of the Metro Mayors?
Eric Pickles, was a fearless radical as Communities and Local Government Secretary. Yet before entering Government he told this site:
“I’ll have a pearl-handled revolver waiting in my drawer for the first civil servant who suggests another local government reorganisation.”
Those of us who would like to see more unitary councils and directly-elected Mayors have to persuade others in our communities. However frustrating it might be for those in Downing Street, a different approach would be unlikely to be politically acceptable. Nor would it be justified.


conservativehome--2020-09-08--With NHS Test and Trace repeatedly failing to meet targets, confidence in the Government’s tracing s

With NHS Test and Trace repeatedly failing to meet targets, confidence in the Government’s tracing strategy is faltering

From the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis , contact tracing has been hailed as the main way for countries to get back to normal .
The World Health Organization says this strategy can “ break the chains of transmission ” , and many watched in awe as South Korea successfully delivered its programme .
The Government has since been under a huge amount of pressure to get its own system up and running .
Although there are different programmes in the UK , they all follow roughly the same idea .
If someone comes into contact ( defined as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes ) with another person who has Covid-19 , they will be notified by their respective health authority ( or a phone app , in the case of Northern Ireland ) to self-isolate for 14 days .
They must then stay at home for 14 days while avoiding others , even those that they live with .
NHS Test and Trace ( England ) advises that if the person gets symptoms of Covid-19 , they should take a test as soon as possible , and anyone they live with must self-isolate until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test negative , they must keep self-isolating for the rest of the 14 days , but those they live with can stop if they don ’ t have symptoms .
If they test positive they must self-isolate for at least 10 days from when their symptoms started , and anyone they live with must self-isolate for 14 days .
Some of these systems are facilitated by local contact tracing teams .
Scotland ’ s Test and Protect scheme uses these , for instance , as well as having a National Contact Tracing Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person .
And while England originally relied on thousands of call centre workers to carry out tracing , it has since switched approach after it was found that local teams could trace 98 per cent of contacts ( compared to 56.1 per cent for call centres ) .
These staff members can knock on people ’ s doors to obtain close contacts ’ information .
As with much of the Covid-19 crisis , there have been different results across different regions .
The Government has come under huge criticism , however , over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its contact tracing app didn ’ t work ( all the while 300,000 users have downloaded Northern Ireland ’ s ) .
It originally wanted to run a centralised app – something tech experts warned would cause problems , and they were proven right ; hence the Government is having to rehaul its initial plan .
The second area of pressure for NHS Test and Trace is its inability to meet a target of 80 per cent for finding close contacts ( of those who ’ ve tested positive for Covid-19 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only 69.4 per cent of contacts were reached ( down from 77.1 per cent the previous week ) .
As The Huffington Post points out , it ’ s the tenth week running that the target has been missed .
The Welsh government ’ s Test Trace Protect programme , on the other hand , showed that out of 237 positive cases that were eligible for a follow-up , 228 ( 96 per cent ) were reached and asked to provide details of their recent contacts ( in the week of August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the figures , Dido Harding , who heads NHS Test and Trace , said that “ we reach 80 per cent of all contacts we have information for ” .
In other words , the lower figure is because some people haven ’ t provided details for their close contacts .
Interestingly , The Telegraph recently found that a third of cafes and restaurants are failing to obtain customers ’ contact details , so it ’ s worth bearing in mind that compliance is a big factor , as not everyone is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps this problem is amplified in countries with bigger populations .
Indeed , differences between sample sizes may skew the percentages reached , with some of Wales ’ s statistics taken from 4,610 people , versus 31,388 for England .
Even with bigger teams of contact tracers , they are dealing with enormous numbers of people .
To bolster track and trace , the Government is investing £500 million in increasing testing capacity .
Using a range of pilot schemes , it will expand its network of testing sites and invest in new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This should help things substantially , as one issue that has been identified is regional imbalances in the availability of track and trace .
There have been reports of people being directed to centres over 100 miles away to get tested , and one article suggests that the system failed to reach over half of contacts in Hackney and the City of London since it was introduced ( compared to other boroughs such as Merton , where 73 per cent of close contacts were reached ) .
Whether health officials can get up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains to be seen , and pressure on the Government is only going to ramp up .
But the area it will be most criticised over is its contact tracing app , which is currently in trials .
With Northern Ireland having a degree of success with its own , and Scotland set to use the same technology , it will only lead to more questions of why ministers can not get the NHS Test and Trace app moving faster too .

From the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis, contact tracing has been hailed as the main way for countries to get back to normal. The World Health Organization says this strategy can “break the chains of transmission”, and many watched in awe as South Korea successfully delivered its programme. The Government has since been under a huge amount of pressure to get its own system up and running.
The UK process
Although there are different programmes in the UK, they all follow roughly the same idea. If someone comes into contact (defined as being within two metres for more than 15 minutes) with another person who has Covid-19, they will be notified by their respective health authority (or a phone app, in the case of Northern Ireland) to self-isolate for 14 days. They must then stay at home for 14 days while avoiding others, even those that they live with.
NHS Test and Trace (England) advises that if the person gets symptoms of Covid-19, they should take a test as soon as possible, and anyone they live with must self-isolate until the result comes back. Even if they test negative, they must keep self-isolating for the rest of the 14 days, but those they live with can stop if they don’t have symptoms. If they test positive they must self-isolate for at least 10 days from when their symptoms started, and anyone they live with must self-isolate for 14 days.
Local teams
Some of these systems are facilitated by local contact tracing teams. Scotland’s Test and Protect scheme uses these, for instance, as well as having a National Contact Tracing Service to identify close contacts of an infected person.
And while England originally relied on thousands of call centre workers to carry out tracing, it has since switched approach after it was found that local teams could trace 98 per cent of contacts (compared to 56.1 per cent for call centres). These staff members can knock on people’s doors to obtain close contacts’ information.
Success rates
As with much of the Covid-19 crisis, there have been different results across different regions. The Government has come under huge criticism, however, over two things.
The first is that its contact tracing app didn’t work (all the while 300,000 users have downloaded Northern Ireland’s). It originally wanted to run a centralised app – something tech experts warned would cause problems, and they were proven right; hence the Government is having to rehaul its initial plan.
The second area of pressure for NHS Test and Trace is its inability to meet a target of 80 per cent for finding close contacts (of those who’ve tested positive for Covid-19). New figures show, in fact, that only 69.4 per cent of contacts were reached (down from 77.1 per cent the previous week). As The Huffington Post points out, it’s the tenth week running that the target has been missed.
The Welsh government’s Test Trace Protect programme, on the other hand, showed that out of 237 positive cases that were eligible for a follow-up, 228 (96 per cent) were reached and asked to provide details of their recent contacts (in the week of August 23 to 29).
When quizzed about the figures, Dido Harding, who heads NHS Test and Trace, said that “we reach 80 per cent of all contacts we have information for”. In other words, the lower figure is because some people haven’t provided details for their close contacts.
Interestingly, The Telegraph recently found that a third of cafes and restaurants are failing to obtain customers’ contact details, so it’s worth bearing in mind that compliance is a big factor, as not everyone is on board with the process.
And perhaps this problem is amplified in countries with bigger populations. Indeed, differences between sample sizes may skew the percentages reached, with some of Wales’s statistics taken from 4,610 people, versus 31,388 for England. Even with bigger teams of contact tracers, they are dealing with enormous numbers of people.
To bolster track and trace, the Government is investing £500 million in increasing testing capacity. Using a range of pilot schemes, it will expand its network of testing sites and invest in new technologies to reach even more people.
This should help things substantially, as one issue that has been identified is regional imbalances in the availability of track and trace. There have been reports of people being directed to centres over 100 miles away to get tested, and one article suggests that the system failed to reach over half of contacts in Hackney and the City of London since it was introduced (compared to other boroughs such as Merton, where 73 per cent of close contacts were reached).
Whether health officials can get up to their target of 80 per cent remains to be seen, and pressure on the Government is only going to ramp up. But the area it will be most criticised over is its contact tracing app, which is currently in trials. With Northern Ireland having a degree of success with its own, and Scotland set to use the same technology, it will only lead to more questions of why ministers cannot get the NHS Test and Trace app moving faster too.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct –


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Is it really worth breaking international law to curb the role of the European Court?

The Government is not on the verge of breaking international law .
It may not do so , at least in the context of Brexit , and doesn ’ t want to .
One aim of the plan of which Brandon Lewis ’ extraordinary admission in the Commons was a part may be to wind up the pressure on the EU for a trade deal .
If that happens , the ambiguities in arrangements for Northern Ireland will be smoothed out .
And if that happens , there will be no need for the Government , as Downing Street now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland Protocol contained in the Withdrawal Agreement that is now enshrined in law – in a “ very specific and limited way ” .
Perhaps the effect of Lewis ’ words will be to stampede the EU towards a deal , rather than risk seeing the elaborate arrangements in the Protocol dramatically unwound in the event of No Deal .
And maybe the effect will be exactly the opposite : to persuade our interlocutors that Boris Johnson ’ s Government can ’ t be trusted .
But either way , the main objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with trade .
That may be a part of it , but it ’ s not the most important one , let alone the whole .
For Johnson and Dominic Cummings ’ thinking is concentrated not on trade , nor on Northern Ireland alone , but on our national independence .
One of the cardinal aims of Vote Leave was to minimise – if not void – the impact of decisions by the European Court on Britain .
Until Lewis ’ admission , it appeared that the Government might be able to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland ’ s position and in the event of No Deal , without breaking international law .
Cummings and Johnson are now conceding that it can ’ t .
In their view , Britain will be vulnerable to legal challenges in the court , if No Deal happens , under the terms of the Protocol .
So their solution is for the forthcoming UK Internal Market Bill to contain clauses that override the Withdrawal Agreement .
Which if applied would put the Government in breach of the Treaty which enshrined the Agreement – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s leave for the moment the question of in what circumstances ECJ decisions might continue to apply , and ask whether a British Government should ever deliberately act in this way ?
Lewis suggested that at least one previous government has done so .
He cited a Coalition Finance Act .
And was swiftly contradicted by George Osborne .
We wait for further examples .
He also implied that other liberal democracies that respect the rule of law do so too .
Again , we wait for evidence .
These are early days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill as yet , and thus no legal text .
No Deal hasn ’ t happened , and may not at all .
Even if it does , the Government may not seek to over-ride the Withdrawal Agreement and thus break International Law .
But the implications of Downing Street ’ s plan are momentous .
First , it raises an obvious question .
If the Prime Minister believes that the Withdrawal Agreement didn ’ t deal satisfactorily with the ECJ , why did he sign it ?
And if it is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the Centre for Brexit Policy suggests ?
In which case , why not go the whole hog – all out for No Deal ?
Or , if you like neither that idea , nor the Agreement , nor breaching international law , go back to Theresa May ’ s approach ?
Or seek to reverse Brexit altogether ?
Johnson ’ s election victory put the debate about leaving the EU to bed .
Lewis ’ statement has woken it up again .
Second , Conservative MPs will worry away about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many will look at it in the light of the Government ’ s performance as a whole , and their disquiet about the role of Cummings , the centrality of decision-making , the quality of the Cabinet – and , in the view of some , its marginalistion .
They will ask : who agreed this approach ?
Did the Cabinet sign it off ?
( Answer : almost certainly not . )
Or has it been fomed by a band of Vote Leave brothers ?
Is Robert Buckland content ?
Would Suella @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Downing Street ?
Why has the top Government lawyer quit ?
Where is Michael Gove ?
Third , ConservativeHome is not at all sure of the consequences for the Bill .
To be sure , Johnson has a Commons majority of 80 , and an authority he didn ’ t possess before December ’ s election .
But as we are all beginning to see elsewhere , a majority of 80 is not what it was .
One expects former Remainers who have never been members of the Johnson fan club – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question to Lewis yesterday set off this furore – or , say , Roger Gale to emerge from the shadows to criticise the Government .
Nonetheless , Neil is a Select Committee Chairman .
So is Tobias Ellwood , who has also criticised the decision .
May , who piled in yesterday in advance of Neil ’ s question , could scarcely be more senior .
( That the former Prime Minister might have done better to have held off is another matter . )
Furthermore , the Bill will now meet stiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not come into effect before the end of transition .
Which in turn would then leave Britain open to the ECJ in the way that Johnson and Cummings are seeking to prevent .
And Nicola Sturgeon will kick off in Scotland , as support for independence rises .
The big question seems to us to be : would it really be worth breaking international law , with all the consequences that might flow from it , in order to further minimise the role of the ECJ ?
After all , the Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , Martin Howe cited four examples of its “ long term subjection of the UK to rulings by the ECJ ” .
The Conservative Party was more than prepared for the EU referendum when it came : the question of Britain ’ s relationship with the European project had been a matter of public debate since the war .
It is also prepared for future debate about relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights .
The Conservative manifestos of both 2010 and 2015 promised a British Bill of Rights – in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other European Court , the ECHR .
Johnson ’ s own manifesto ’ s commitment to a Constitution , Democracy and Human Rights Commission arguably points in the same direction .
However , the Party is not prepared at all for a debate on whether or not British governments should ever deliberately breach international law .
The pitch has not been rolled .
Cummings ’ focus groups have doubtless given the plan a thumbs-up .
Tory MPs may turn out to be a different proposition .
There is no International Supreme Court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may that continue .
But this is not for a moment to claim that it has no value .
British Governments have been committed to international law – a fact that underpins criticisms it makes of injustices committed by , to pick a topical example , China .
Johnson and Cummings ’ previous assaults on the pre-Brexit order have been brilliantly conceived .
This site will need a lot of convincing that this one is up to the same standard .

The Government is not on the verge of breaking international law. It may not do so, at least in the context of Brexit, and doesn’t want to.
One aim of the plan of which Brandon Lewis’ extraordinary admission in the Commons was a part may be to wind up the pressure on the EU for a trade deal. If that happens, the ambiguities in arrangements for Northern Ireland will be smoothed out.
And if that happens, there will be no need for the Government, as Downing Street now sees it, to break the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the Withdrawal Agreement that is now enshrined in law – in a “very specific and limited way”.
Perhaps the effect of Lewis’ words will be to stampede the EU towards a deal, rather than risk seeing the elaborate arrangements in the Protocol dramatically unwound in the event of No Deal. And maybe the effect will be exactly the opposite: to persuade our interlocutors that Boris Johnson’s Government can’t be trusted.
But either way, the main objective of its plan is nothing to do with trade. That may be a part of it, but it’s not the most important one, let alone the whole. For Johnson and Dominic Cummings’ thinking is concentrated not on trade, nor on Northern Ireland alone, but on our national independence.
One of the cardinal aims of Vote Leave was to minimise – if not void – the impact of decisions by the European Court on Britain. Until Lewis’ admission, it appeared that the Government might be able to meet this aim, in relation to Northern Ireland’s position and in the event of No Deal, without breaking international law.
Cummings and Johnson are now conceding that it can’t. In their view, Britain will be vulnerable to legal challenges in the court, if No Deal happens, under the terms of the Protocol. So their solution is for the forthcoming UK Internal Market Bill to contain clauses that override the Withdrawal Agreement.
Which if applied would put the Government in breach of the Treaty which enshrined the Agreement – thus breaching international law. Let’s leave for the moment the question of in what circumstances ECJ decisions might continue to apply, and ask whether a British Government should ever deliberately act in this way?
Lewis suggested that at least one previous government has done so. He cited a Coalition Finance Act. And was swiftly contradicted by George Osborne. We wait for further examples. He also implied that other liberal democracies that respect the rule of law do so too. Again, we wait for evidence.
These are early days. There is no UK Internal Market Bill as yet, and thus no legal text. No Deal hasn’t happened, and may not at all. Even if it does, the Government may not seek to over-ride the Withdrawal Agreement and thus break International Law. But the implications of Downing Street’s plan are momentous.
First, it raises an obvious question. If the Prime Minister believes that the Withdrawal Agreement didn’t deal satisfactorily with the ECJ, why did he sign it? And if it is so flawed, why not chuck it altogether, as the Centre for Brexit Policy suggests?
In which case, why not go the whole hog – all out for No Deal? Or, if you like neither that idea, nor the Agreement, nor breaching international law, go back to Theresa May’s approach? Or seek to reverse Brexit altogether? Johnson’s election victory put the debate about leaving the EU to bed. Lewis’ statement has woken it up again.
Second, Conservative MPs will worry away about the consequences – and the whole strategy. Many will look at it in the light of the Government’s performance as a whole, and their disquiet about the role of Cummings, the centrality of decision-making, the quality of the Cabinet – and, in the view of some, its marginalistion.
They will ask: who agreed this approach? Did the Cabinet sign it off? (Answer: almost certainly not.) Or has it been fomed by a band of Vote Leave brothers? Is Robert Buckland content? Would Suella Braverman ever be willing to stand up to Downing Street? Why has the top Government lawyer quit? Where is Michael Gove?
Third, ConservativeHome is not at all sure of the consequences for the Bill. To be sure, Johnson has a Commons majority of 80, and an authority he didn’t possess before December’s election. But as we are all beginning to see elsewhere, a majority of 80 is not what it was.
One expects former Remainers who have never been members of the Johnson fan club – such as Bob Neil, whose Commons question to Lewis yesterday set off this furore – or, say, Roger Gale to emerge from the shadows to criticise the Government.
Nonetheless, Neil is a Select Committee Chairman. So is Tobias Ellwood, who has also criticised the decision. May, who piled in yesterday in advance of Neil’s question, could scarcely be more senior. (That the former Prime Minister might have done better to have held off is another matter.)
Furthermore, the Bill will now meet stiff resistance in the Lords. So it may not come into effect before the end of transition. Which in turn would then leave Britain open to the ECJ in the way that Johnson and Cummings are seeking to prevent. And Nicola Sturgeon will kick off in Scotland, as support for independence rises.
The big question seems to us to be: would it really be worth breaking international law, with all the consequences that might flow from it, in order to further minimise the role of the ECJ? After all, the Agreement has not voided its role. Last year, Martin Howe cited four examples of its “long term subjection of the UK to rulings by the ECJ”.
The Conservative Party was more than prepared for the EU referendum when it came: the question of Britain’s relationship with the European project had been a matter of public debate since the war. It is also prepared for future debate about relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Conservative manifestos of both 2010 and 2015 promised a British Bill of Rights – in order to clip the wings of that other European Court, the ECHR. Johnson’s own manifesto’s commitment to a Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission arguably points in the same direction.
However, the Party is not prepared at all for a debate on whether or not British governments should ever deliberately breach international law. The pitch has not been rolled. Cummings’ focus groups have doubtless given the plan a thumbs-up. Tory MPs may turn out to be a different proposition.
There is no International Supreme Court to adjudicate on international law, and long may that continue. But this is not for a moment to claim that it has no value. British Governments have been committed to international law – a fact that underpins criticisms it makes of injustices committed by, to pick a topical example, China.
Johnson and Cummings’ previous assaults on the pre-Brexit order have been brilliantly conceived. This site will need a lot of convincing that this one is up to the same standard.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Darren Grimes: We must reject demands that the EU would make of no other independent state

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
The line parroted at us Brexiteers more times than anything else is back with a vengeance : “ You didn ’ t know what you were voting for !
” Yet no objective spectator could reasonably conclude that we voted for the self-humiliation of accepting EU satellite status in our vote to take back control .
A political and media class so blinded by their Boris and Brexit Derangement Syndromes are refusing to accept what is patently not in the national interest .
Brexit is back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s news about Number 10 ’ s plans for the Northern Ireland Protocol in the event of a No Deal Bexit .
Predictably pro-EU commentators are back to dismissing British independence as fantasy .
It ’ s this view of our country and its electorate that saw Theresa May ’ s Conservative Party slump to its lowest national vote share since it was formed in 1834 , and Labour swept from its one-time heartlands .
Whatever one thinks of the current row over future Government policy and international law , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ask of no other independent , sovereign nation state .
Brussels wants EU trawlers access they currently enjoy under the much-hated Common Fisheries Policy , and that wants is to slavishly follow the Unions ’ s laws to guarantee a ‘ level playing field ’ for firms in the EU .
These demands would bind the UK ’ s legislative hands to the asphyxiating clutches of the EU ’ s regulatory orbit .
All we ’ re asking is to be treated like Canada , South Korea or Japan with a low-fat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If not , we trade on much the same terms as our Australian cousins do with the EU .
Sure , there ’ ll be some disruption – and even with a deal there would be disruption in leaving the single market and the Customs Union .
But no self-respecting democracy and the world ’ s fifth largest economy could accept the sort of concessions demanded by the victor after a war had been won – with a financial penalty , and a surrender document signed and sealed .
Whilst I find comparisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit to be intellectually lazy , there are comparisons to be made in the telling response by those who were rejected wholesale at the ballot box , despite the full machinery of the state , the media , the political class , the moneyed elite and every organisation with an acronym swinging in behind them .
In a new book on Trump : You ’ re Hired !
: Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President , Casey Mulligan details the administration ’ s successes , failures and scandals .
The book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s man in Washington until he was booted out for a leaked cache of classified Foreign Office communications , in which Sir Kim described Mr Trump as “ radiating insecurity ” and called his early administration “ inept ” .
The book recalls how at a large reception at the British embassy in Washington , hosted by Sir Kim and with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and blocker of all things No Deal Brexit , Philip Hammond , was the guest of honour .
Hammond is reported as being delighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we did not exit and you did not build that wall !
” Another comment was reportedly that “ we don ’ t know what will be the royal-baby name , except that it will not be Donald !
” The potentially damaging comments and disregard for democratic mandates were allegedly made at an event with a dozen or so of Trump ’ s staff and journalists .
These events highlight precisely what our issue was until December last year .
Our vote for Brexit was led by a political class that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what ’ s good for them in ignoring their sage , sophisticated and high-brow wisdom by voting for Brexit and Trump .
The same sneering set refuse to learn this lesson , time and again .
For the last four years they have swallowed every single line from Brussels and used it as a stick with which to beat their own country ’ s national interest and reasonable request for fairness .
It ’ s easy to forget just how much better things have got .
Boris Johnson saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament that was doing all it could to thwart our vote , the Supreme Court decision and much else .
Vote Leave is now in Number 10 and determined to deliver on that fundamental pledge to take back control .
With David Frost , or “ Frosty The No Man ” as the UK ’ s Chief Negotiator , the EU Commission is riled in a way in which May ’ s Number 10 operation never riled it .
When she would threaten No Deal in an attempt to keep the Brexit spartans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU Commission would reliably call her bluff .
But when Frosty The No Man and Boris Johnson do it , as we ’ ve seen by the response from Brussels this week , the EU has no idea how this is all going to play out .
One thing seems clear : the bravery of the British people to stand up and be proud of country and place against the Anywheres , against those who told them they ’ re stupid , ignorant and bigoted for their vote for greater democratic accountability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to home .
It has paid off in the end .
The blood-curdling screams of the sneering commentariat are back with a vengeance , revealing to us one thing : this time they know we have a Prime Minister who really means it when he says that No Deal is better than a Bad Deal .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK. The line parroted at us Brexiteers more times than anything else is back with a vengeance: “You didn’t know what you were voting for!” Yet no objective spectator could reasonably conclude that we voted for the self-humiliation of accepting EU satellite status in our vote to take back control. A political and media class so blinded by their Boris and Brexit Derangement Syndromes are refusing to accept what is patently not in the national interest. Brexit is back in the news with this week’s news about Number 10’s plans for the Northern Ireland Protocol in the event of a No Deal Bexit. Predictably pro-EU commentators are back to dismissing British independence as fantasy. It’s this view of our country and its electorate that saw Theresa May’s Conservative Party slump to its lowest national vote share since it was formed in 1834, and Labour swept from its one-time heartlands. Whatever one thinks of the current row over future Government policy and international law, there is no fantasy in rejecting demands that the EU would ask of no other independent, sovereign nation state. Brussels wants EU trawlers access they currently enjoy under the much-hated Common Fisheries Policy, and that wants is to slavishly follow the Unions’s laws to guarantee a ‘level playing field’ for firms in the EU. These demands would bind the UK’s legislative hands to the asphyxiating clutches of the EU’s regulatory orbit. All we’re asking is to be treated like Canada, South Korea or Japan with a low-fat, bog standard Free Trade Agreement. If not, we trade on much the same terms as our Australian cousins do with the EU. Sure, there’ll be some disruption – and even with a deal there would be disruption in leaving the single market and the Customs Union. But no self-respecting democracy and the world’s fifth largest economy could accept the sort of concessions demanded by the victor after a war had been won – with a financial penalty, and a surrender document signed and sealed.
Whilst I find comparisons between the election of Donald Trump and Brexit to be intellectually lazy, there are comparisons to be made in the telling response by those who were rejected wholesale at the ballot box, despite the full machinery of the state, the media, the political class, the moneyed elite and every organisation with an acronym swinging in behind them. In a new book on Trump: You’re Hired!: Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President, Casey Mulligan details the administration’s successes, failures and scandals. The book features Kim Darroch, who was once Britain’s man in Washington until he was booted out for a leaked cache of classified Foreign Office communications, in which Sir Kim described Mr Trump as “radiating insecurity” and called his early administration “inept”. The book recalls how at a large reception at the British embassy in Washington, hosted by Sir Kim and with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and blocker of all things No Deal Brexit, Philip Hammond, was the guest of honour. Hammond is reported as being delighted that “In the past year, we did not exit and you did not build that wall!” Another comment was reportedly that “we don’t know what will be the royal-baby name, except that it will not be Donald!” The potentially damaging comments and disregard for democratic mandates were allegedly made at an event with a dozen or so of Trump’s staff and journalists.
These events highlight precisely what our issue was until December last year. Our vote for Brexit was led by a political class that would sneer at the working class who clearly don’t know what’s good for them in ignoring their sage, sophisticated and high-brow wisdom by voting for Brexit and Trump. The same sneering set refuse to learn this lesson, time and again. For the last four years they have swallowed every single line from Brussels and used it as a stick with which to beat their own country’s national interest and reasonable request for fairness. It’s easy to forget just how much better things have got. Boris Johnson saw off the Bercow speakership, a Remain Parliament that was doing all it could to thwart our vote, the Supreme Court decision and much else. Vote Leave is now in Number 10 and determined to deliver on that fundamental pledge to take back control. With David Frost, or “Frosty The No Man” as the UK’s Chief Negotiator, the EU Commission is riled in a way in which May’s Number 10 operation never riled it. When she would threaten No Deal in an attempt to keep the Brexit spartans within her parliamentary party at bay, the EU Commission would reliably call her bluff. But when Frosty The No Man and Boris Johnson do it, as we’ve seen by the response from Brussels this week, the EU has no idea how this is all going to play out.