A Findus lasagne anyone?

My article in today’s Cornish Guardian concentrates on the ‘horse meat’ food processing scandal. It is as follows:

At the beginning of last week, I was rushing between meetings and knew that I would fleetingly be at home at midday.

I stopped off to grab something for dinner and splashed out £1.29 on a “special price” Findus frozen “Beef Lasagne,” that I could quickly throw into a microwave.

I wasn’t expecting a gastronomic delight, but the packaging did state it was “made with three layers of fresh pasta, beef bolognese, bechamel sauce and cheddar.” It also claimed that “our pasta and bolognese are freshly made and quickly frozen to ensure that you get the best taste.”

Within two days, along with millions of other people, I was less-than-impressed to see the very same packaging featured on the six o’clock news, when it was discovered that certain beef lasagnes contained no beef at all but up to 100% horse meat.

It is manifestly clear that politicians have failed to reassure the general public about what has happened. Interviewed on Sky News, Government minister Owen Paterson argued that “he would be perfectly happy to eat a frozen ready-meal lasagne for his Friday night dinner” – though I doubt that many people can picture him tucking into a £1.29 lasagne after a busy week of pushing Coalition policies.

Indeed, he said that the issue was not one of “public safety” but “labelling.” Paterson told reporters that “what is absolutely totally unacceptable to us all is that there should be products marked as processed beef, which contain significant amounts of processed horse.” He later claimed that the whole debacle stemmed from either “gross incompetence” or an “international criminal conspiracy.”

What I think this scandal highlights most of all is the unregulated, almost shady, manner in which certain food products have been prepared for shops and supermarkets.

One newspaper columnist summed it up rather well for me. She rightly described how the scandal has “opened a window on the hidden unsavoury food world, in which live animals are transported vast distances across borders for slaughter, before being stripped down to constituent parts to be shipped back again in blocks of frozen offcuts that may be stored for months on end before being ground down to unrecognisable ingredients in our everyday meals.”

The regulation of the food processing industry in continental Europe is clearly inadequate, and the British Government needs to do more to make sure that the testing of food products on sale in the UK is greatly increased.

Last Friday, when rushing between meetings, I didn’t buy a lasagne. I chose to devour a locally-produced Cornish pasty for my dinner.

Cornwall Council sets a housing target of 42,250

The pre-submission draft of the Local Plan – which will set out Cornwall’s planning policies for 2010-2030 – was debated at Cornwall Council today.

As the Chairman of the Planning Policy Advisory Panel (PPAP), I presented a series of recommendations.  These included higher affordable housing targets, a commitment to more affordable housing when public land is redeveloped, the inclusion of Areas of Great Landscape Value and Areas of Great Historic Value, a commitment to carry out more work on the cumulative and other impacts of renewal energy developments, as well as revised policies on landfill, infill sites in rural areas, and retail developments.

I was pleased that most of these recommendations were accepted with a handful of rather limited further tweaks. The meeting did then descend into a certain amount of chaos as the housing target for the next twenty years was considered.

At the start of the debate, I spoke in favour of PPAP’s recommendation of 38,000, which we have consistently backed up with a range of detailed evidence.

The first amendment was for the officers’ latest recommendation of 45,400 – down from their earlier recommendations of 54,000, 49,000 and 48,500. This was voted down by 60 votes to 42.

A further amendment for a housing target of 29,000 was moved by Bert Biscoe and overwhelmingly defeated.

At this point, representatives from Bodmin, Falmouth and Newquay argued for higher housing allocations for their towns. An amendment was moved, adding 1,900 housing units to Bodmin, 1,100 to Falmouth, and 1,300 to Newquay, bringing the overall housing target to 43,250.

My fellow MK councillors and I could not support this increase and voted against the amendment. It was however passed by 58 votes to 33.

The document will now be consulted upon once again, with the results reported back to the new Council after the May elections for the newly-elected members to refer it to the Secretary of State so that it can be presented to the Planning Inspectorate for the necessary Inquiry.

A grant for Indian Queens Pit

I am pleased to be able to announce that I have been able to secure a grant of £6,090 for the Indian Queens Pit Association. The money comes from the latest round of funding from the Big Lottery’s Awards for All programme.

The money will be used to purchase kitchen fittings, heaters, tables and chairs for the new community building, which the Association has just constructed in the car parking area alongside the Pit.

This is great news for our project. The building itself has been completed and this latest grant will ensure it will soon be ready to be in use by the Pit Association and the wider community.”

The overall project cost over £120,000 with grant funding from the Clay Country Local Action Group (£60,000), Cornwall SITA Trust (£30,000), St Enoder Parish Council (£12,000) the former Restormel Borough Council (£4,630) and a large amount of local fundraising.

Coalition hypocrisy over Devonwall seat

My article in this week’s Cornish Guardian focused on the collapse of the parliamentary boundary review. It was as follows:

I am delighted that MPs have voted to postpone the redrawing of parliamentary boundaries. A total of 334 (mostly Labour and Liberal Democrat) MPs backed the delay, which was opposed by 292 (almost entirely Conservative) MPs.

This is great news for the territorial integrity of Cornwall and it means that a “Devonwall” seat cannot be created in advance of the next General Election.

It has also led to an undignified row between the two partners in the Coalition and their local representatives. Lib Dem MP Dan Rogerson accused the Conservatives of failing “to support the cause when the chips were down.” Tory MP George Eustice accused the Liberal Democrats of being “totally inconsistent” on the issue of “Devonwall.”

So what is the truth?

The Coalition Agreement between the two parties was cobbled together in order to deliver a reduction in the number of MPs and a greater equalisation of constituency size (which would have made it easier for the Conservatives to gain an overall majority in the future), and a referendum on a new voting system (which, if it had been successful, would have made it less difficult for the Liberal Democrats to win parliamentary seats).

The inevitable consequence of such changes would have been the creation of a cross-Tamar constituency and both parties know this.

Local MPs from both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats did support the Keep Cornwall Whole campaign, and backed an amendment in the House of Commons to protect parliamentary boundaries in a number of areas including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Sadly, their influence was very limited and the amendment failed, with over 95% of Coalition MPs voting against it.

And after the failure of the amendment, five of Cornwall’s six MPs trotted through the division lobby to vote for the Bill in the full knowledge that this would lead to “Devonwall.”

But when plans for Lord’s reform stalled, the Liberal Democrats withdrew their support for the boundary changes, claiming that the Conservatives could not “pick and choose” which Coalition policies to support. The Tories meanwhile pointed out that the boundary changes and Lords reform were not linked in the Coalition agreement, and that it was a “cynical” move by the Lib Dems to halt a measure that would have greatly benefited the electoral hopes of the Conservative Party.

Following last week’s parliamentary vote, local Liberal Democrats are crowing that they have defeated “Devonwall,” while accusing the Conservatives of putting their “party’s interest before that of Cornwall.” They seem to have conveniently forgotten that it was Liberal Democrat MPs, including those from Cornwall, who voted through the legislation for the boundary changes in the first place, and the reason for their shift had nothing to do with the views of the people of Cornwall.

All three Cornish Tories last week voted for the boundary changes and “Devonwall.” They seem to have conveniently forgotten their opposition to the creation of such a seat, which included Sheryll Murray MP telling campaigners at the Saltash Keep Cornwall Whole Rally in October 2010: “We must fight the destruction of our historic border by the political map … we will fight on and on …”

The truth is that the whole episode has highlighted the cynicism all too often found at the heart of politics, as well as the shameful double standards of the Coalition parties.

Council tax benefit, planning policy panel and an interim Chief Executive

Apologies for my failure to blog for the last ten days or so. This has simply been a consequence of back-to-back meetings, and I would like to bring readers up-to-date with some key activities of the past two weeks.

At the Full Council meeting on 29th January, Cornwall councillors debated the consequences of the decision by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition to pass responsibility for council tax benefits onto Cornwall Council, with an inadequate funding allocation that left a massive financial black-hole of over £5 million. Conservative councillors and most independents voted to impose 25% council tax on low income households of working age. It was a disappointing meeting and I am proud that all MK councillors opposed the administration on this telling vote.

Two days later, I chaired a meeting of the Planning Policy Advisory Panel to review a number of issues relating to the Cornwall Local Plan and make further representations to the next Full Council meeting on 12th February. The paperwork for the meeting totalled 594 pages. Members reiterated opposition to the long-standing officer recommendation for housing targets of about 49,000 as well as their revised target of 45,400, in favour of a figure of 38,000 that I put forward.

We also increased affordable housing targets, agreed to revise how new homes could be brought forward by local people in rural areas, sought a review of retail policy, and agreed that further work needed to be done on the cumulative impact of wind turbines. The majority of the Panel also wished to continue to support the planned eco-town near St Austell - I was one of two councillors who opposed the project.

We have also had the news that the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust (RCHT) has decided not to enter into a joint venture with Cornwall Council and British Telecom, throwing the whole “part-privatisation” project – which has consistently been opposed by MK councillors – into doubt.

 

And today, I sat on the nine-strong interview panel for the post of “interim Chief Executive,” following the decision of Kevin Lavery to resign from his employment with the Council. We were unanimous in recommending the present Assistant Chief Executive, Paul Masters (see right), for the role and this will go forward to Full Council next week.

I am very pleased with the recommendation. Paul is a Cornishman, who joined North Cornwall District Council as a young man and has worked his way up through the ranks of the former district council and into the unitary authority, building up an extremely comprehensive understanding of local government in Cornwall. Paul is wedded to Cornwall and I trust his appointment will be a good for Cornwall.