Sarah Newton's reply on Devonwall

About a month ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the Devonwall threat associated with the Boundary Review and copied the letter to Cornwall’s six MPs. I have today received the following reply from Sarah Newton MP, which is not supportive of our efforts to prevent the creation of a cross-Tamar constituency.

If you live in the Truro and Falmouth seat, please contact her to make her aware of your views. I will certainly be responding in due course.

The full content of her reply to me was as follows:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to the Prime Minister.

I appreciate you taking the time to write to me to pass on your concerns regarding these important issues for Cornwall. I am sure that the Prime Minister will address your concerns but if not I would be more than happy to follow up on your behalf.

I share your concern about funding for the Cornish language. I think it is great that we have seen a revival of interest in the Cornish language and will continue to make a strong case for supporting it. 

As you may be aware, I supported the bid that Cornwall Council made to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and so I was extremely disappointed that the bid was unsuccessful on this occasion. I can assure you that this is not the end of the road, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and Cornwall Council to ensure that the Cornish language as well Cornish culture and history continues to flourish.

Along with all of Cornwall's MPs I was elected, by some margin, to do what I said I would do. That included following through on the legislation that had been voted through during the last Parliament, enabling the reduction of the number of MPs to 600 and making sure every voter was treated more equally.

The independent Boundary Commission has the task of consulting widely and updating the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies that will be used in the 2020 General Election. The current Parliamentary constituency boundaries were agreed using the electoral roll and census of 2000. They are out of date and real unfairness has crept in with some constituencies having 21,000 and others 108,000 constituents.

As a result of the proposed new constituency boundaries drawn up by The Boundary Commission, one MP will represent a constituency that includes both Cornwall and a part of Devon. The boundaries of Cornwall are not being redrawn. Cornwall remains Cornwall.

However it is worth reflecting on the fact that over time the border between Cornwall & Devon has been fluid. It's also worth noting that Bishop Tim, who in my opinion does a great job standing up for people in Cornwall in the House of Lords, is the Bishop for Cornwall and also parts of Devon. Cornish MPs work with our colleagues and authorities in Devon to secure mutually beneficial changes for our constituents, such as investment in infrastructure.

As for the Cornish Minority Status, that has been taken into consideration by The Boundary Commission too.

I am very proud of my deep Cornish roots and am passionate about Cornwall's history and unique culture. While constantly needing improvement, I am also a passionate supporter of our Parliamentary democracy. I believe that it is a matter of fairness that every vote should have an equal value.

Thank you once more for taking the time to write. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you feel that I can be of further assistance to you at the current time.

At this time, I would point out one massive contradiction in her letter. The Boundary Commission is seeking to create seats within the range of 71,031–78,507 voters, and she herself quotes the situation about ”some constituencies having 21,000 and others 108,000 constituents.”

But the two constituencies she quoted are still, in different ways, exceptions to the 71,031–78,507 rule. The constituency with 21,000 voters is Na h-Eileanan Siar and the legislation states that this will remain in 2020, while the present constituency with 108,000 voters is the Isle of Wight which, if the present proposals go forward, will have two seats in 2020 with electorates of less than 55,000!

So much for the Government's equal votes!

The Boundary Review ... "frankly a bit of a mess"

My article in this week’s Cornish Guardian covers the Devonwall threat. It includes material I have already placed on this blog, but it is all reproduced for the sake of completeness. It was as follows:

I make no apology for writing about the parliamentary boundary review for the second week running, as my initial representations have drawn a response from Chris Skidmore, the Minister for the Constitution.

I had written to him to express my opposition to the creation of a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" seat, requesting that he amend the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. As I explained last week, the Act is guiding the boundary review and its rule that individual seats must have electorates within 5% of an average UK quota means it is impossible for the Boundary Commission to propose five whole seats for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

Mr Skidmore's letter was predictably disappointing, as he asserted that central government did not wish to "change the rules."

It is all frankly a bit of a mess. The Boundary Commission is obliged to use the electoral roll from December 2015. This records Cornwall’s then electorate at 392,223, while that of the Isles of Scilly was 1,651, making a total of 393,874.

Many people who were not registered at this time because of governmental changes to registration and this does not include those individuals who, earlier this year, registered to vote in the EU referendum. The present number of voters on the electoral roll for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is actually over 427,000!

But taking the flawed December figures as their starting point, the Boundary Commission has ruled that all constituencies must have between 71,031 and 78,507 electors, except where the legislation sets out an exception for some Scottish island seats and the Isle of Wight. But how can central government seek to “protect” the Isle of Wight, allowing it to have two seats with 52,180 and 52,268 voters respectively, while choosing not to respect the historic nation of Cornwall?

Based on these inaccurate figures, if Cornwall had five seats, the average electorate would be about 78,775 – which is ridiculously close to the top end of the Commission's own range of between 71,031 and 78,507 voters. I cannot fathom why central government – for the sake of such a slight numerical difference – would seek to breach Cornwall's thousand-year-old border and erase Cornwall from the political map?

In his letter, Mr Skidmore also failed to give any weight to the recognition of the Cornish through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 2014, which took place three years after the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was agreed.

I therefore find it find it indefensible that the UK Government is failing to meet its obligations with regard to the various articles in the document and the imposition of a Devonwall seat, breaching the political integrity of Cornwall, is a stark manifestation of this neglect

To stop a cross-Tamar seat, we need a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Please join me in lobbying Chris Skidmore MP, the Minister for the Constitution, at the Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS or via chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk.

Application for costs by Greener for Life: The Inspector says no!

In addition to the main decision, the outcome of which I outlined in a previous post, the Inspector ruled against Greener for Life’s application for costs against the Council.

Greener for Life argued that the actions of Cornwall Council were “unreasonable” and resulted in “unnecessary costs” to their company. In particular, they moaned about the fact that councillors took a different view to planning officers and even criticised elected members for deferring both appeals on 19th November in order to consider the possibility of an alternative access off the A30 and deferring Appeal A on 11th February to look at the detail of specific conditions.

The Inspector did not agree with Greener for Life and his ruling was very critical of them.

He wrote: “The deferral from the November 2015 Committee was sensible so that the Council could explore with Highways England whether an access could be created directly off the A30, which would have overcome most of the residents’ problems with the plant … in view of the breach of several of the conditions attached to the original permission it was not unreasonable of the Council to defer the application from the February 2016 Committee in order to carefully consider the precise wording of the conditions, given the issues raised by neighbouring residents at that Committee meeting.”

It was also quite telling that he added: “The appellant’s response at the hearing to Cllr Cole’s assertion that it had declined to discuss the wording of the proposed conditions following that deferral was unconvincing. The evidence presented by the Council, residents and Cllr Cole points to a lack of urgency on the applicant’s part in seeking to resolve problems to residential neighbours arising from the plant. The Council was obliged to relook at the conditions carefully in view of the significant number and serious nature of residents’ continuing objections.”

And in another part of the ruling, he made clear his view that Greener for Life should have been “more focussed” in trying to resolve problems they had caused.

Appeal inspector grants consent for biogas plant at Higher Fraddon

The appeal decision into the two related planning applications for a biogas plant at Higher Fraddon has just been published.

The Inspector, Nick Fagan, has issued a planning permission for the site and consented the number of vehicle movements requested by the applicant (Greener for Life), though he has also strengthened some of the 21 conditions attached to the planning permission, as suggested by myself, the Parish Council and local residents.

I will try to summarise the overall ruling as best as I can, in which he showed some sympathy for local residents and the tone of his ruling was clearly critical of both Cornwall Council and Greener for Life.

The decision notes that I had “argued that because the tanks had not been built in the exact location and to the height of the approved plans in PA12/01700” and made the case that the development was unauthorised and no planning permission therefore existed “for the biogas plant as built.” The Inspector acknowledges we argued that little weight should be given to planning permission PA12/01700 and the associated non-material amendments (NMAs), but the Inspector took a different view. He has decreed that “permission PA12/01700 and the NMAs constitute the appellant’s fall-back position and as such are relevant material considerations that must be afforded significant weight.”

The Inspector did say that: “I have read the numerous objections from neighbouring residents and have considerable sympathy for these neighbours in terms of the way the biogas plant has adversely affected their living conditions, in part as a result of the NMAs.” But, in spite of this, he went on to say that “in view of the fact that PA12/01700 has been lawfully implemented I must assess these appeals by comparing the development as permitted, including the amendments in the NMAs, with what the appellant now proposes.”

Because of this, in considering Appeal A (PA15/O3073) which related to the regularisation of the site as built and reduction of the digester closest to residents, he focussed his attention on the height of the digester and came to the view that Appeal A should be allowed.

In terms of Appeal B (PA15/05220), which related to traffic movements, he was critical of the nature of the access road, stating: “I agree that the access road is manifestly unsuitable to accommodate any increase in HGV numbers due to its blind bends, narrow width and lack of any footway or central white line.”

But he went onto state that he needed to assess “whether the appeal proposal would lead to any increase above the number and type of movements that have already been permitted,” adding that “I am concerned to minimise the impacts of HGV traffic to the AD plant on residents living on the access road. But it would be unreasonable to impose a condition limiting such movements to less than that already permitted and implemented.”

He therefore decided that the 35 HGVs per week requested by the application were “less than in the implemented permission,” which “the Council saw fit in 2013 to grant permission for the NMA allowing this.” I fundamentally disagree with his ruling on this, as the first NMA was unworkable and should never have been agreed. I am not sure that the Inspector grasped the significance of the evidence relating to traffic movements presented at the hearing, and he came to the view that Appeal B should also be allowed.

The Inspector issued a single consent for the two appeals with a single set of 21 conditions. Those of particular interest to local residents are as follows:

Condition 14
The Inspector has detailed that: “The weekly number and types of vehicles visiting the AD Plant site shall not exceed the following: 35 Heavy Goods Vehicle movements, 7 Staff/Other Vehicle movements (Light Goods Vehicles) - Total number of movements per week for the Anaerobic Digester Plant: 42.” He also agreed that: “The operators shall keep contemporaneous records of all vehicles visiting the site and shall provide written details of such vehicle movements at the request of the LPA, in order to show compliance with this condition”

One addition he made was that: “The definition of Heavy Goods Vehicles shall be agreed between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) by the appellant submitting to the LPA within one month of this decision a list of vehicles types (including dimensions) of this class that will service the plant.” He also stated that once these had been agreed, only such vehicles would be able to be used to “import material for the digesters and remove the digestate.”

I am very disappointed that he did not reduce the number of HGVs in this condition, as I do not believe that the plant would be able to operate with only seven non-HGV movements per week. Indeed, the Inspector himself noted that residents had provided “compelling evidence” that vehicle movements, particularly of smaller vehicles, were consistently are “in excess of those permitted;” but simply concluded that the Council could take enforcement action or allow more (smaller) vehicle movements.

Condition 15
The Inspector sided with local residents in terms of delivery times for the plant. He did not consider that Greener for Life should be able to undertake deliveries from 7am to 7pm, and imposed the following condition:

“During school term times, vehicles delivering to and from the site shall operate only between the hours of 9am to 3pm and 4.15pm to 6pm Monday to Friday and between 8am–1pm on Saturday. There shall be no deliveries on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. Outside of school term times, vehicles delivering to and from the site shall operate only between the hours of 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday and between 8am–1pm on Saturday. There shall be no deliveries on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays.”

Condition 20
The Inspector agreed with the unitary authority that “within two months of the date of this permission” the operators had to submit a revised Odour Management Plan to the Council for approval, which had to include “covered storage on site for all imported material.” He further defined “covered storage” as meaning “all waste and biocrops imported by lorry shall be stored either inside the main reception building or that the outside storage bays where the biocrops are currently stored shall be roofed and walled via a scheme to be submitted as part of this revised Odour Management Plan.”

Other conditions
It is also the case that Greener for Life has much work to do in the coming few weeks. As well as agreeing the detail of HGVs entering the site with the Council (within one month) and submitting the Odour Management Plan within two months, Greener for Life will have to supply further information to meet three other conditions. These are as follows: (i) details of surface water drainage, (ii) the company’s vehicle management policy and (iii) the proposed scheme of planting; and must all be submitted within two months. It is also stated that the planting must be carried out within six months.

Costs ...
At the appeal, Greener for Life also attempted to persuade the Inspector that an award of costs be made against Cornwall Council, but failed. I will cover this in a separate blog entry.

My latest report to St Enoder Parish Council

My latest report will be presented to tomorrow night's meeting of St Enoder Parish Council. It covers the period 25th July to 25th September. It will be as follows:

1. Council meetings

I have attended a range of formal meetings at Cornwall Council over the last two months. These included: Planning Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) plus two associated briefings / pre-agenda sessions, Constitution and Governance Committee and associated informal meeting, Electoral Review Panel (two) and associated informal meeting, Farms Panel and associated pre-agenda session, China Clay Area Network meeting, “peer review” meeting about council communications, heritage forum, meeting of Cornwall councillors from the China Clay Area, national minority working group (and two associated meetings), incinerator liaison group, and three member briefings covering topics such as the outcome of the EU referendum, housing and requests to central government for more devolved responsibilities.

As well as the meetings listed above, I have had numerous informal meetings with council officers.

2. Other meetings

I have attended meetings of ClayTAWC (Chairman), the Indian Queens Pit Committee (trustee) and South & East Cornwall Local Action Group, when its Community Led Local Development programme for submission to central government was agreed. In addition, I have had informal meetings with a number of local groups.



3. New play area in Indian Queens Recreation Ground

Much of my time in the last two weeks has been taken up with the construction of the new play area in the Recreation Ground. It has been quite frustrating, as we were told the construction would take four-five weeks but, because of various delays, it has taken about eleven weeks.

It was very disappointing that we were not able to open in August as planned, but I am relieved that the park is now open and it has been getting some very heavy usage over the few days.

The providers have knocked £400 off the bill – because of the delay – so that we could spend this amount on turf to be laid around the new rubber surface to ensure a better finish to the project. I would like to thank everyone who helped with the laying of the turf on the evening of 8th September – your help was much appreciated.

Three picnic benches have been placed around the play area, and the Parish Clerk and I are presently negotiating with the suppliers about a few small “snags” which have yet to be dealt with.

The Parish Council worked for a number of years to pull together the package of funding for this proposal, and we are grateful to everyone who is providing financial support.

As well as the monies from the Parish Council’s own reserves, additional funding for the project has come from:

- Sun Edison; who built a solar farm at Burthy near Fraddon. As part of their planning permission, the company agreed to provide a one-off community payment to St Enoder Parish Council to put towards improvements in the local area.
- Kingsley Developers; who agreed to provide funding towards play equipment in St Enoder Parish (as part of Section 106 agreements) in lieu of not providing small play areas on two of their developments within the locality.
- Cornwall SITA Trust; who awarded St Enoder Parish a grant, which meant that the project had the full funding to go ahead.

It is my hope that we will soon have a formal opening of the new play area, so that we can celebrate the provision of this wonderful new facility for the local area.

4. New path to play area in Queens

As reported previously, on behalf of the Parish Council I submitted an application to the National Lottery’s Awards for All programme for a grant of £10,000 to construct a tarmac path from the car park area to the new play area in the Recreation Ground. This was because of the need to improve access across the Recreation Ground during the winter months when the field can get quite wet and boggy.

I can report that the National Lottery will be publicising the outcome of our grant application on 11th October.

5. Fraddon Millennium Green

As one of the trustees for the Fraddon Millennium Green, I am pleased that it has had a bit of a “facelift” over the summer.

A new rocker has been put in the play area in the place of the old one that had been removed quite a while ago; some small repairs have been undertaken on the play equipment; gaps in the rubber surfacing around the equipment have also been filled; while contractors have trimmed around the field and cleared vegetation from the path.

Many people probably don’t realise that, unlike the Recreation Ground at Indian Queens and Summercourt’s Thomas Playing Field, the Green is not owned by the Parish Council. The Millennium Green is actually an independent Trust, run by five volunteer trustees, though we are very grateful for the annual grant from the Parish Council towards our running costs.

I can also report that a contractor will be on site during September / October, when all of the play equipment will be repainted.

6. Thomas Playing Field

Now that the longstanding project to construct the new play area in the Indian Queens Recreation Ground has been completed, I can report that it is the intention of St Enoder Parish Council to review what is being provided in the Thomas Playing Field in Summercourt.

Local residents may recall that the last new equipment to be provided were a replacement climbing frame and a replacement roundabout in 2010 and the skate park, which was built in 2012.

I will be circulating a newsletter in the autumn which will seek views from local people about what improvements they would like to see.

7. Planning hearing; Land to east of the Kelliers

On 16th August, I attended the informal hearing into the part-retrospective appeal into the proposal for seventeen caravans on land to the east of the Kelliers (PA15/06186).

Councillors will recall that the landowner placed seven caravans on the site without any form of planning permission in the autumn of 2014. Subsequent applications for 12 and then 17 caravans were refused by Cornwall Council and the landowner went to appeal.

Cornwall Council was represented by two planning officers and an enforcement officer, while I was there with Cllr Michael Bunyan on behalf of the Parish Council. I did however address some of the policy issues relating to Cornwall Council’s position.

In our detailed representations, we made the case that this was an inappropriate location for such a development, that deliberate unlawful development is now a material consideration and the applicant did not even own all of the land on which he wished to build.

The landowner was represented by a planning agent, a consultant on transport matters and, even though this was meant to be an “informal” hearing, a top-level barrister or QC (Queens Counsel).

I had a number of meetings with affected local representatives in advance of the hearing. A number of these residents were present at the hearing and made a series of points against the development.

8. Planning hearing; biogas plant at Higher Fraddon

On 2nd September, I attended the informal hearing relating to the “non-determination” appeal into the “regularisation” application for the biogas plant (PA15/03073) and the associated appeal of Cornwall Council’s decision to refuse the related application (PA15/05220) to modify traffic movements to the site.

Councillors will recall that I had produced a quite comprehensive statement on behalf of St Enoder Parish Council, which ran to over 11,000 words, and this was the basis of the arguments at the hearing which lasted from 10.00 through to around 7.00.

Cornwall Council was represented by a planning officer and an enforcement officer, while Greener for Life (GfL)were represented by one of their members of staff, a legal representative, two transport consultants and a noise consultant.

I had a number of meetings with local representatives in advance of the hearing. A number of these residents were present at the hearing and made a series of points against the development.

Topics covered were wide-ranging, as previously detailed in my updates to the Parish Council, such as the weight to be given to the non-material amendments which allowed the consent to be modified, the extent of traffic movements, the impact on the amenity of local people and more.

GfL did put forward a statement setting out their recent traffic movements, which contradicted what they had claimed in previous documents. Residents meanwhile put forward their records of GfL traffic movements, which showed them to be much more extensive.

9. Pines Tip

I have just been informed that REG Windpower Ltd has appealed the refusal of their application for three wind turbines on Pines Tip (Strategic Planning Committee; 10th March 2016). It is my understanding that they have requested the appeal should be by written representations, and I will update members when I have more information.

10. Other planning matters

There have also been a range of other planning applications or associated matters, where I have been in regular contact with planning officers. These have included the potential changes to the conditions controlling the holiday village at Carvynick near Summercourt, and the discharge of conditions relating to the redevelopment of Kingsley Village, where the issue of surface water drainage is presently being considered.

11. Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

The most recent meeting of the Working Group took place on 2nd August, when the next consultation document was scoped. This is presently being worked on and it is planned that this document will be distributed this autumn.

I am also pleased to report that I have secured a grant of £3,950 towards the cost of this work, which must be spent by the end of this financial year.

12. Road traffic issues in St Enoder Parish

I can further report that two projects have been placed on the unitary authority’s capital programme following requests from me. The first will be the problem area to the east of Queens Garage, where water regularly rises up through the pavement. The second is the road drains through Fraddon, but in this case, the initial work includes further investigation to understand more about how the below-ground pipework is interlinked.

13. South West Water works at Trevarren

I am pleased to report that the main works to realign part of the foul sewer around Trevarren and the construction of an associated attenuation tank, to end flooding problems in the hamlet, have been completed. I ampresently liaising with South West Water about future monitoring and other related issues.

14. Ocean Housing properties in Fraddon

The new properties on Ocean Housing’s Harvenna Heights scheme is Fraddon are nearing completion. The company is presently seeking expressions of interest in the six shared ownership properties (three 2-bed and three 3-bed). For the 15 rental properties, there will be a “coming soon” advert on Homechoice on 29th October while the actual opportunity to bid will open on 12th November. This will be for four 1-bed, seven 2-bed and four 3-bed properties.

An open day was held by Ocean Housing on 21st September, which was attended by many local people.

15. The Kelliers

I have been pushing Cornwall Council to speed up the transfer of the land known as the Kelliers into the ownership of the Parish Council so that it can be improved as a countryside area. This is now happening and I can confirm that, on behalf of the Parish Council, I have requested a grant of £4,950 from the unitary authority’s “devolution fund” for some of the works on the site. I understand this application will be supported at “County Hall.”

16. War memorial at St Enoder

One hundred years on from the First World War, I am very pleased that St Enoder Parish Council has successfully requested that the war memorial in St Enoder Churchtown be Listed. Well done to the Clerk for all her hard work on this.

17. My Community Fund

I can confirm that I will be awarding the £2,000 in my personal Community Fund for 2015-2016 (allocated to all Cornwall Councillors) as follows:

· Fraddon Millennium Green – £500
· Indian Queens Pantomine Society – £500
· St Enoder Age Concern – £500
· Wesley Under-5s – £500

18. Political campaigns

In addition to my local activities, I have been involved in a range of political campaigns. These include the battle against the creation of a cross-Tamar “Devonwall” seat for the 2020 General Election, and I spoke on this topic at the Conference of the Cornish Gorseth in St Keverne on 2nd September.

19. Inquiries

During the last two months, I have also helped numerous people with advice and guidance. Issues have included planning concerns, housing problems, various enforcement matters and so much more.

AN IMPORTANT DATE FOR YOUR DIARY … MK’s 2016 CONFERENCE

Mebyon Kernow’s Annual Conference will take place on Saturday 19th November 2016 in the Council Chamber at Lys Kernow (“New County Hall”), Truro.

The Conference will be a fully open event and, as well as party members, anyone interested in finding out more about Mebyon Kernow would be very welcome to attend.

There will be a range of speakers and there will be many updates on campaigns such as MK’s call for meaningful devolution to a National Assembly, our opposition to the cross-Tamar “Devonwall” seat, our push for greater investment in Cornwall’s public services, our demand for greater control over planning, and so much more.

In addition, there will be a range of interesting stalls and the chance to meet up with many friends.

Watch out for regular updates about the 2016 Conference on the MK website in the coming weeks.

Advice on how to oppose the Devonwall seat … UPDATED

Earlier this year, the UK Government has commenced a review of parliamentary constituencies and, on Tuesday 13th September, the Boundary Commission (for England) announced recommendations which include a “Devonwall” seat, Known as “Bideford, Bude and Launceston.”

Please join Mebyon Kernow and other Cornish organisations in opposing the creation of such a cross-Tamar constituency. The creation of such a seat would be an unprecedented disaster, breaching the very territorial integrity of the historic nation of Cornwall.

Here is some advice on what you can do:

Please demand an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act

The Boundary Review process is being driven by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which became law in 2011.

The Act reduces the number of constituencies to 600 and states that, apart from four specific constituencies (Orkney & Shetland, the Western Isles, and two seats for the Isle of Wight), the electorates for individual seats must be within 5% of the United Kingdom average. This equates to between 71,031 and 78,507 votes in each seat.

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were protected as entities in the legislation, but sadly Cornwall was not.

The electorate of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (recorded in December) means we would be entitled to about 5.27 MPs and it was therefore a statistical impossibility for the Boundary Commission to propose five seats for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

That is why we need to build a massive campaign to put pressure on central government and Members of Parliament to modify the existing legislation to ensure that Cornish constituencies remain whole and lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly).

Please lobby the UK Government and Cornwall’s six MPs

Please also join us in writing to the UK Government to demand that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act be amended.

Please send correspondence to:

Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution, Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS and / or chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk

Theresa May MP, Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA and / or via https://email.number10.gov.uk

Your local Cornish MPs c/o House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA and / or
steve.double.mp@parliament.uk
george.eustice.mp@parliament.uk
scott.mann.mp@parliament.uk
sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk
sarah.newton.mp@parliament.uk
derek.thomas.mp@parliament.uk

Please write to the Boundary Commission

Even though the Boundary Commission does not have the power to make recommendations to protect Cornwall’s historic border, we also need to swamp them with letters and other representations showing that a cross-Tamar seat is not appropriate.

Please send correspondence to:

Boundary Commission for England, 35 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BQ and / or information@boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk.

The Boundary Commission has also set up a new website through which people can comment on the proposed new constituencies. This can be found at:www.bce2018.org.uk.

There will be plenty of opportunities to make your views known. There will be an initial 12-week consultation, which started on 13th September, and a public hearing will be held in Cornwall on 10th and 11th November in Truro. There will then be a secondary consultation on representations received. Once the Boundary Commission has reviewed the evidence it will produce further reports in advance of a further eight-week consultation on its final proposals.

But the key message must be that we request the Boundary Commission supports our calls for the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act to be amended to Keep Cornwall Whole.

And here are some key arguments that you can use in your letters and emails ...

Cornwall is a Celtic nation with its own distinct identity, culture and language – just like Scotland and Wales. The border between Cornwall and England has been in place since the early tenth century and should have been respected by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, just as the borders between England & Scotland and England & Wales are reinforced by the legislation. Cornwall also has a unique constitutional position which sets it apart from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill becoming an Act in 2011, central government bowed to years of pressure and recognised the Cornish as a national minority (April 2014) through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Central government stated that: “The decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status … as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.” But the Act is in conflict with the Framework Convention which, as well as protecting the culture and identity of national minorities, also seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with such groups.

In the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, the territories of other national minorities within the United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are not breached and it is therefore illogical that the same safeguards should not be applied to Cornwall.

Cornwall is not seeking to be over-represented in the Westminster Parliament. In December 2015, Cornwall’s electorate was 392,223, while that of the Isles of Scilly was 1,651, making a total of 393,874. If Cornwall had five seats, the average electorate would be about 78,775, which is extremely close to the top end of the Government's own range of between 71,031 and 78,507 electors per seat.

It would also be relatively simple for central government to do amend the Act. Only a few months ago, the Government agreed “emergency” legislation to extend the deadline for people seeking to register to vote in the referendum on the European Union following the failure of the Government’s registration website. The Government could likewise deliver a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, to respect the Framework Convention and Keep Cornwall Whole.

And watch out for the protest coming up on 30 October ...

My latest letter to Chris Skidmore on Devonwall

Last Saturday, I received a letter from the Minister for the Constitution, Chris Skidmore, following representations I made on the likely imposition of a Devonwall seat. I have today responded with a further letter to him.

The letter was as follows.

The Parliamentary Boundary Review; Cornwall and the implications of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
Thank you for your response, dated 15th September, to my letter, dated 18 August, about the present review into parliamentary boundaries and the proposed creation of a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" seat. You will recall that (i) I requested central government amend the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (The Act) in order ensure that all Cornish constituencies would lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly), and (ii) brought your attention to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, through which the Cornish have been recognised since April 2014.

I have to say that I was very disappointed with the nature of the reply and your assertion that “the Government does not believe it should now seek to change the rules that the Boundary Commissions must apply when proposing new constituency boundaries.”

I would request that you look again at the issues raised in my original letter and, in addition, I would ask that you also consider the following:

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

I note that in your response to my original letter, you stated that “this matter was debated at length by Parliament in its consideration of the legislation.” But there has been a significant shift since the Act was agreed in 2011.

This was, of course, the landmark decision of central government to recognise the Cornish people through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, when the official governmental press release stated that “the decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status … as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.”

As well as protecting the culture and identity of national minorities, the Framework Convention also seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with such groups.

It remains our view, therefore, that the legislation which guides the Boundary Review is in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Framework Convention, and the Act should be revisited in order to address that conflict.

In the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, the territories of other national minorities within the United Kingdom (namely the Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish) are safeguarded and no seats can be proposed which would cross the land borders between England and Scotland or England and Wales. It is therefore illogical that Cornwall – the territory of the fourth national minority – is not treated in the same manner.

It concerns us that, having recognised that the Cornish through the Framework Convention, the UK Government is failing to meet its obligations with regard to the various articles in the document. Indeed, the likely imposition of a Devonwall seat is a stark manifestation of this neglect

Please take the time to review the significance of the Framework Convention, how it should impact on government policy and, in particular, how it relates to the Boundary Review. We are confident that you will come to the conclusion that the Act needs to be amended to safeguard the territorial integrity of Cornwall, and we would formally request that you promote this course of action.

Fair and equal representation

In your reply to my original letter, you stated that the Government was “committed to fair and equal representation" and wanted to "make sure that everyone's vote carries more equal value."

But with respect, the decision to except four constituencies from the ruling that "all constituencies are to be within 95 per cent to 105% of a single United Kingdom electoral quota" (71,031 and 78,507 electors) does somewhat undermine the central tenet of this argument and the original legislation.

From our perspective, we do not understand how central government can allow the Isle of Wight to have two seats with 52,180 and 52,268 voters respectively but, at the same time, choose not to protect the historic nation of Cornwall.

We would consider it fair and equitable for Cornwall to be treated in the same manner as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, befitting of the Framework Convention.

It is also the case that we are not arguing that Cornwall should be over-represented in the Westminster Parliament – only that our political representatives should serve whole Cornish constituencies. The Boundary Commission has confirmed Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly would be entitled to approximately 5.27 MPs based on an electorate of “just under 394,000” (as recorded in December 2015).

The reality is that the statistics show Cornwall’s electorate was 392,223, while that of the Isles of Scilly is 1,651, making a total of 393,874. If Cornwall had five seats, the average electorate would be about 78,775. This is ridiculously close to the top end of the Government's own range of between 71,031 and 78,507 electors.

We cannot fathom why central government – for the sake of such a slight numerical difference – would seek to breach Cornwall's thousand-year-old border, erase Cornwall from the political map, and go against its own commitment to the Framework Convention.

Please think again and act to keep Cornwall Whole.

The Boundary Commission

We are also disappointed that, in your letter, you stated: “The Boundary Commission for England has published its initial proposals for the new parliamentary constituencies and there is now a public consultation on them, which will provide an opportunity for representations to be submitted on the proposed boundaries."

The recommendations include a Devonwall seat, but in correspondence with Cornwall Council the Boundary Commission has made it clear that, while they sympathise with the concerns of the residents of Cornwall, they are bound by the Act and cannot propose Cornwall-only seats.

In particular, they told the unitary authority that: “The decision on the rules under which the BCE operates is for the legislature to make … We have no power, nor discretion, to act otherwise. The Commission is not an advocate or critic of the rules Parliament has set, nor a lobbying body that will take a view on those rules as they exist now. You will understand that the Commission has been tasked with a statutory role and it will complete that within the rules Parliament has set."

The reality is that you, as the Minister, have the power to intervene to prevent the creation of a Devonwall seat by modifying the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Please do what is right for Cornwall.

“We are stronger when we recognise our different regional and cultural differences and celebrate them”

When the announcement was made in 2014 that the Cornish were to be protected by the Framework Convention, David Cameron stated that the United Kingdom was "stronger" when its different regional identities were recognised.

The former Prime Minister told the media that: “There is a distinctive, history, culture and language in Cornwall which we should celebrate and make sure is properly looked after and protected. It is a very special part of our country and I think we are stronger when we recognise our different regional and cultural differences and celebrate them."

It is our hope that you will look to live up to the fine words of David Cameron and deliver a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, in order to respect the Framework Convention and Keep Cornwall Whole.

We look forward to hearing from you and would welcome the opportunity to make further representations if that would be helpful.

The Boundary Commission view on the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act 2011

Cornwall Council received a letter from the Boundary Commission for England in July, which clearly sets out why the priority from the campaign against Devonwall must be representations to central government seeking modifications to the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act 2011.

For everyone's information, the relevant section in the letter is as follows:

"The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and impartial advisory non-departmental public body. It is bound by statute (the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended (the Act)) to conduct a review of all Parliamentary boundaries in England every five years. The current review, which began in February 2016, will be reported to Parliament (through the Secretary of State) in September 2018 - it is therefore known as the 2018 Review of Parliamentary boundaries.

"In conducting the review and making recommendations to Parliament, the Commission is statutorily obliged to adhere to the rules set out in the Act. One of these rules - a non-discretionary one - states that the number of electors in every constituency we recommend (with two exceptions - see below) must be within 5% of the average number of electors across the UK (for the 2018 Review, this means every constituency must contain between 71,031 and 78,507 electors). As you acknowledge in your letter... one consequence of this statutory rule is that the electorate of the County of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is such that one cannot allocate a whole number of constituencies to it; you rightly state that it is therefore inevitable that at least one constituency will combine parts of Cornwall with parts of Devon.

"The decision on the rules under which the BCE operates is for the legislature to make. When passing the most recent legislation that amended the Act and its rules (in 2011), Parliament decided to exempt two English constituencies from the statutory rule relating to the number of electors in each constituency - those covering the Isle of Wight. The Commission is therefore not bound by this rule when making recommendations for the Isle of Wight. This is the only area in England where the Commission can legally make recommendations for constituencies that contain more or fewer electors than those figures set out above. We have no power, nor discretion, to act otherwise. The Commission is not an advocate or critic of the rules Parliament has set, nor a lobbying body that will take a view on those rules as they exist now. You will understand that the Commission has been tasked with a statutory role and it will complete that within the rules Parliament has set."

Initial response on Devonwall from Government Minister Chris Skidmore

I have today received a response from Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution, to a representation I sent to him in August about the Boundary Review. I had formally requested that he make an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act to safeguard Cornwall's territorial integrity. I made specific reference to the importance of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, the reply is less than helpful and he ignores the significance of the FCPNM. The text of the letter is as follows:

"The Government is committed to fair and equal representation for voters, and updating the historical constituency boundaries will make sure that everyone's vote carries more equal value. Under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which was agreed in the last Parliament, all constituencies are to be within 95 per cent to 105% of a single United Kingdom electoral quota, with the exception of four island constituencies - two in Scotland (Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar) and two in England (Isle of Wight). I am aware that it has been argued that other geographical areas should be treated as a special case and be included in the list of protected areas. However, this matter was debated at length by Parliament in its consideration of the legislation. The Government does not believe it should now seek to change the rules that the Boundary Commissions must apply when proposing new constituency boundaries.

"I note that you have explained that Cornwall has now been included in the Framework for the Protection of National Minorities (sic). However, the Government considers that equality and fairness must be the overriding principles when the Commissions carry out boundary reviews. For something as important as the right to choose the Government of the day, it is important that votes carry a more equal weight across the country. For this to be the case between, as well as within constituencies, each must contain an approximately equal number of electors.

"The current boundary review should, therefore, take its course in line with the legislation agreed by Parliament. It is for the independent Boundary Commissions to make recommendations, weighing the factors in legislation. The Boundary Commission for England has published its initial proposals for the new parliamentary constituencies and there is now a public consultation on them, which will provide an opportunity for representations to be submitted on the proposed boundaries."

I will be writing a response over the weekend, which I will also post on this blog.

Cornish Nation no. 73 … out now!

Mebyon Kernow has just published its latest edition of Cornish Nation magazine, which is in the process of being sent out to all party members.

It includes features about the Man Engine, MK’s ongoing call for greater Cornish recognition, our opposition to the cuts to Cornish language funding, a tribute to Stanley Tregidga, numerous news updates and much, much more.

Anyone who would like a complimentary copy of the magazine – either as a pdf or in hard copy – can request one from me at dickcole@btinternet.com.

So it is official … the Boundary Commission proposal is for a Bideford, Bude and Launceston seat

As we knew would happen, the Boundary Commission has recommended a cross-Tamar constituency. It has been named the “Bideford, Bude and Launceston” constituency and would include land stretching from St Teath and St Breward, to Bude and Launceston.

But the Commission very much blames the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act.

In its report, it makes the following statement:

“If considered alone, the electorate of the County of Cornwall (including the electorate of the Isles of Scilly), at nearly 394,000, would result in an allocation of 5.27 constituencies to the county. While we are sensitive to the strength of feeling about the Cornish border, with its single land border, it is simply not possible to develop a proposal under which five whole constituencies, each with electorates within 5% of the electoral quota, are contained within the county boundary. Therefore we have included the counties of Cornwall and Devon (and the unitary authorities Plymouth and Torbay) in one sub-region, to which we have allocated 17 constituencies. Consequently, our proposals include one constituency that crosses the boundary between these two counties – under the rules within which we work, this is unavoidable.”

The Boundary Commission has also announced that a hearing into the proposals will take place in Truro on 10th and 11th November.

As the Leader of MK, I have released a statement which describes the Devonwall proposal as a “travesty of history, democracy and Cornwall’s very nationhood.” 

My statement can be read in full on the MK website: www.mebyonkernow.org

The Leader of Cornwall Council John Pollard has also confirmed the authority’s total opposition to the creation of a cross border constituency.

He has described it as an “inequitable and unlawful proposal.” His press release makes reference to the “Opposition to Devonwall Constituency” motion discussed at the meeting of Full Council on 17th May, proposed by myself and Andrew Long, and the fact that Cllr Pollard has also written to the new Minister for the Constitution Chris Skidmore.

John also said: “We believe there is a serious legal and constitutional conflict between the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 (“the Act”), which requires MP’s to represent the same number of electors, and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Government’s recognition of the Cornish as a national minority under the Framework Convention in 2014 came after the Act came into force and we are arguing that the Act needs amending to address this conflict “.

It has certainly been a busy morning for me. I have, so far, done interviews with Radio Cornwall, Radio Devon and Pirate FM, and I am lined up to do interviews with ITV Westcountry and BBC Spotlight later today.

Please see yesterday's blog entry for information on how you can campaign against Devonwall.

Join us in opposing the Devonwall seat

The UK Government has commenced a review of parliamentary constituencies and tomorrow (Tuesday 13th September) the Boundary Commission (for England) will announce recommendations which will include a “Devonwall” seat.

Please join Mebyon Kernow and other Cornish organisations in opposing the creation of such a cross-Tamar constituency. The creation of such a seat would be an unprecedented disaster, breaching the very territorial integrity of the historic nation of Cornwall.

Here is some advice on what you can do:

Please demand an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act

The Boundary Review process is being driven by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which became law in 2011.

The Act reduces the number of constituencies to 600 and states that, apart from four specific constituencies (Orkney & Shetland, the Western Isles, and two seats for the Isle of Wight), the electorates for individual seats must be within 5% of the averages for “England,” “Wales,” “Scotland” or “Northern Ireland.”

Cornwall is sadly not treated as a national entity by the legislation.

The electorate of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly means we would be entitled to about 5.3 MPs and it is therefore a statistical impossibility for the Boundary Commission to propose five seats for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

That is why we need to build a massive campaign to put pressure on central government and Members of Parliament to modify the existing legislation to ensure that Cornish constituencies remain whole and lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly).

Please lobby the UK Government and Cornwall’s six MPs

Please also join us in writing to the UK Government to demand that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act be amended.

Please send correspondence to:

Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution, Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS and / or chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk

Theresa May MP, Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA and / or via https://email.number10.gov.uk

Your local Cornish MPs c/o House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA and / or
steve.double.mp@parliament.uk
george.eustice.mp@parliament.uk
scott.mann.mp@parliament.uk
sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk
sarah.newton.mp@parliament.uk
derek.thomas.mp@parliament.uk

Please write to the Boundary Commission

Even though the Boundary Commission does not have the power to make recommendations to protect Cornwall’s historic border, we also need to swamp them with letters and other representations showing that a cross-Tamar seat is not appropriate.

Please send correspondence to:

Boundary Commission for England, 35 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BQ and / or information@boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk.

The Boundary Commission has also set up a new website through which people can comment on the proposed new constituencies. This can be found at: www.bce2018.org.uk.

There will be plenty of opportunities to make your views known. There will be an initial 12-week consultation, starting this week, and a public hearing will be held in Cornwall, probably in November. There will then be a secondary consultation on representations received. Once the Boundary Commission has reviewed the evidence it will produce further reports in advance of a further 8-week consultation on its final proposals.

But the key message must be that we request the Boundary Commission supports our calls for the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act to be amended to Keep Cornwall Whole.

And here are some key arguments that you can use in your letters and emails ...

Cornwall is a Celtic nation with its own distinct identity, culture and language –just like Scotland and Wales. The border between Cornwall and England has been in place since the early tenth century and should have been respected by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, just as the borders between England & Scotland and England & Wales are reinforced by the legislation. Cornwall also has a unique constitutional position which sets it apart from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill becoming an Act in 2011, central government bowed to years of pressure and recognised the Cornish as a national minority (April 2014) through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Central government stated that: “The decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status … as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.” But the Act is in conflict with the Framework Convention which, as well as protecting the culture and identity of national minorities, also seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with such groups.

In the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, the territories of other national minorities within the United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are not breached and it is therefore illogical that the same safeguards should not be applied to Cornwall.

It would also be relatively simple for central government to do amend the Act. Only a few months ago, the Government agreed “emergency” legislation to extend the deadline for people seeking to register to vote in the referendum on the European Union following the failure of the Government’s registration website. The Government could likewise deliver a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, to respect the Framework Convention and Keep Cornwall Whole.

Next meeting in St Austell and Newquay Constituency

The next meeting for Mebyon Kernow members in the St Austell & Newquay Constituency has been arranged to take place on the evening of Friday 16th September.

The meeting will take place at ClayTAWC in St Dennis and start at 7.30, and we will be discussing a range of issues including the threat of a Devonwall constituency, local planning matters, the upcoming 2017 elections to the unitary authority and a range of local campaigns.



Anyone from the St Austell & Newquay Constituency, who would be interested in finding more about MK and its local campaigns, can call me on 07791 876607 or email me on dickcole@btinternet.com for more details about the meeting.

Poldark, the Sunday Express and Cornwall's dysfunctional housing market

My article in this week’s Cornish Guardian uses a recent piece in the Sunday Express as my source material. Enjoy ... it will be as follows:

The return of Poldark to our television screens has certainly brought Cornwall back into the homes of millions and millions of people across the UK and the wider world.

The extent and variety of newspaper reports into the series is also quite remarkable though, as a former farm worker, I have decided not to enter into the ongoing technical discussion about the scything undertaken by a bare-chested Aiden Turner / Ross Poldark in series one.

And it is undeniable that the drama has showcased much of Cornwall’s beautiful countryside, though it saddens me that it is being linked to reports in the property pages of Sunday newspapers which frankly distort the reality of modern Cornwall.

I saw one recent article from the Sunday Express that even renamed our homeland as “Poldark land” and went on to wax lyrically about Cornwall’s “golden beaches,” “rugged cliffs” and how the sea was of the “bluest-greenest perfection.”

But everyone quoted in the piece seemed to be an estate agent and these men only wanted to talk about places such as the Camel Estuary, Feock, Mylor, Restronguet Point, St Mawes and Truro – along with expensive restaurants and “other foodie outlets,” properties with sought-after “sea or estuary views,” the lifestyle choices of the affluent and the inevitable boosts to the “second home market.”

From my perspective, the Cornwall imagined by the metropolitan writers of the Sunday Express is very different from the Cornwall in which I live.

The newspaper did acknowledge that Cornwall was also “one of the UK’s poorest regions.” But it was only a tokenistic mention, followed by the less-than-thoughtful comment of “and it’s not always sunny.”

It all reminds me of so many similar articles including one from the Sunday Times in 2013. You may remember that one claimed Cornwall was a “playground for the super-rich,” and it had a lot to say about celebrities, helipads, polo on the beach” and hotel rooms with “the scent of fig electronically pumped into the air.” 

They also renamed Cornwall. Not as “Poldark land” but as the “Champagne Coast,” adding that “with the drive down from London taking just three hours in a Porsche, Cornwall is becoming something of a millionaire’s paradise.”

I refuse to recognise this almost mythical “lifestyle Cornwall.” And I want to see more properly-researched articles from the mainstream media about what Dr Bernard Deacon once described as “life-struggle Cornwall,” the reality in which local people struggle to make ends meet and access affordable housing in a low-wage area that has an economic performance which is only 70% of the UK average.

The Human Rights Act

My article in last week’s Cornish Guardian covered the threat to the Human Rights Act. It was as follows:

The Human Rights Act received Royal Assent in 1998 and came into force in October 2000. An important piece of legislation, it incorporated the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights directly into British law.

The Convention itself had been produced in the years immediately following the Second World War by the Council of Europe – the leading human rights body across the continent.

The Council of Europe is backed by 47 different member-states, all of which have signed up the Convention which promotes “human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” It should not be confused with the European Union (presently made up of 28 member-states) and it is my understanding that the referendum vote to leave the EU will not impact on the UK’s membership of the Council.

In my view, the European Convention and the UK’s Human Rights Act are extremely important, safeguarding the rights and freedoms of ordinary people.These include the right to life, the prohibition of torture, protection against slavery, the right to a fair trial, respect for privacy and family life, freedom of thought and religion and belief, the right to free speech and peaceful protest, the protection of property, the right to an education, the right to free elections, and an end to discrimination.

British people should be extremely proud of the UK’s role in bringing this European Convention to fruition. This involved many lawyers from the United Kingdom and the committee which drafted the document was even chaired by David Patrick Maxwell Fyfe, a prominent Conservative politician who, as well as serving as Attorney General and Home Secretary had been one of the prosecuters at the Nuremberg Trials in the late 1940s.

And here in Cornwall, we should not forget that it was through the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities that the UK Government finally recognised the Cornish as a national group, pledging equality with the Welsh and Scottish.

But it is worrying that the Conservative Party is continuing to talk up proposals to replace the Human Rights Act with a weaker and less-encompassing “British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.”

The independent organisation Liberty is one of many groups campaigning to defend the Human Rights Act which it says “protects all of us – young and old, rich and poor,” and has brought together over one hundred organisations to fight the proposals.

These groups include a wide range of “charities supporting children, older people, carers, victims of trafficking and slavery, disabled people and asylum-seekers and refugees, as well as national groups representing psychiatrists, teachers, football supporters and students.”

I stand with Liberty and believe that we should do our utmost to protect the European Convention and the Human Rights Act.