Questions on the unitary decision

I have written to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to express concern at the undemocratic way in which the County Council’s proposal for a single unitary authority was given the go-ahead.

The decision letter to the Chief Executive of Cornwall County Council stated "the Secretary of State considers that ... the proposal would command a broad cross-section of support from a range of stakeholders, both public and private sector, as well as some support from the general public. She notes that whilst certain districts carried out polling which came down heavily against the unitary proposal, the climate in which the polls took place suggests that the results need to be viewed with caution."

I have requested to be informed how, in spite of such overwhelming opposition, the Secretary of State was able to come to the conclusion that there was a 'broad cross-section of support' for the proposal in Cornwall. At the same time I have asked to be provided with full lists of those organisations and individuals who supported the unitary bid and those who opposed it.

I have also raised concerns about the County Council’s ‘supplementary submission’ to DCLG which contained considerable misinformation and have asked how the Secretary of State assessed this documentation and what weight she gave to it.

The response will be posted as soon as I receive it.

Another blow to Cornish democracy

It is a sad day for democracy with the announcement that the Department for Communities and Local Government intends to impose unitary local government on the people of Cornwall.

One of the criteria by which the DCLG claimed it would assess the various bids for unitary status was a 'broad cross-section of support.' So how could they allow the County Council's bid to proceed, when it was opposed by all six district councils, a majority of town and parish councils, over 80% of local people in a series of district polls and a large number of community and political groups?

I simply cannot comprehend how the views of all these people and organisations can have so easily been disregarded in favour of a bid founded on spin and misrepresentation that even Peter Mandelson would be ashamed to promote.

I find it is particularly galling that the Liberal Democrat county councillors and MPs , who have failed to honour their manifesto commitment to fight for a Cornish Assembly, had the gall to co-opt the language of devolution to justify their local government reforms. They have made claim after claim that by shrinking democracy in Cornwall, we will somehow be allowed extra powers. Such claims are nonsense and do a disservice to the whole political process.

Unlike the Liberal Democrats, MK will continue to campaign for the meaningful devolution of political power to a Cornish Assembly.

Fair funding for MK?

Public funding of political parties is a topical issue with the ‘cash for honours’ scandal, but many people will be unaware that a Review has already reported on the issue of political funding.

The Hayden Phillips Review has recommended that donations from individuals should be capped at £50,000 but, to compensate for this, there should be greater funding allocated to political parties from the public purse. The Review recommends that parties should receive 50p a year for each vote cast for them in the most recent General Election, as well as 25p for every vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament.

However, only eligible parties will qualify for taxpayers’ money. To be eligible, parties must have two seats at Westminster or the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or European Parliament and therefore Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall and other small political parties will be excluded from the arrangement.

This proposal is manifestly unfair. Why should parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Greens all receive 50p per General Election vote – but not MK?

It will be a disgrace if the main parties and then parliament accept the report’s recommendations, which will further institutionalise inequality in Britain’s democratic system. The larger political parties already receive public funding through such mechanisms as policy development grants and in-kind support through free media time for political broadcasts – another part of the political process from which MK is excluded.

I have made representations to Hayden Phillips and the representatives of the three main political parties who are already involved in inter-party talks on this matter and I will keep and one and all posted on developments.

Good riddance to SW Assembly

Mebyon Kernow has welcomed the Government announcement that unelected regional assemblies are to be abolished by 2010. But this good news has been well and truly damaged with the Government’s insistence that the Assembly's ‘responsibilities’ will be passed over to the Regional Development Agency.

What is the point in doing away with one unelected and unaccountable quango, only for another unelected and equally unaccountable quango to take over its role! Where is the democracy in this?

If Gordon Brown is serious about putting trust back into the political system, he needs to devolve decision-making on things such as housing, economic development, planning and the environment to democratically elected politicians that are truly accountable to their local areas. In Cornwall’s case, that means working with local people to create a Cornish Assembly and Cornish Development Agency.”

Spin, spin and yet more Lib Dem spin

Having just read Cornwall County Council’s ‘supplementary submission’ to the Department of Communities and Local Government in support of their bid for a single unitary authority, I have to say I am very disturbed by their blatant use of misinformation and spin to fabricate a ‘broad cross section of support’ for their proposal.

Misleading document

The County Council document states that it sought the views of the public through a MORI poll, focus groups and the distribution of information leaflets. But it fails to inform central government that the MORI poll was carried out in advance of the details for their bid being worked up and that 91% of those surveyed stated that "they would like more information on any proposal before making up their mind."

The document also fails to include the full facts about the County Council’s disastrous leaflet consultation which did not even reach most homes and were returned by only 665 households. Interestingly, their incredibly biased leaflet still generated more opposition to the County Council’s proposal than support for it.

Rather than acknowledge the widespread opposition to their proposal, their ‘supplementary submission’ prefers to note “the feedback we have received suggests that many people have not fully understood our proposals.”

Considerable space in the document is used to rubbish the polls by four of the district councils and the sample survey carried out by North Cornwall District Council, which shows over 80% of respondents are opposed to the unitary bid. The County Council criticises the content of the material distributed by the district councils, though it was much less biased than their own material and they even had the nerve to “call into question the validity of the result.”

Factually inaccurate

The County Council claims that Restormel Borough Council did not vote to oppose the bid. That is completely incorrect and the Borough Council remains opposed to the ‘One Cornwall’ bid. They also claim that “many of the larger town and parish council have reacted positively” but the reality is that the majority of town and parish councils oppose the bid.

The Council’s ‘supplementary submission’ is shameful propaganda and I believe that the County Council has no option other than to withdraw it immediately and apologise to the people of Cornwall.