The Parliamentary Boundary Commission has today confirmed –  as expected – that it is recommending a new cross-border parliamentary constituency of Bideford, Bude and Launcestonbetween that will straddle the historic borders of Cornwall and Devon.

This decision has formed part of the part of the 2018 review of parliamentary boundaries and the plan to reduce the number of MP’s from 650 to 600. 

In a statement issued by Cornwall Council in response to this news: 

“As we said in our robust submission to the Commission, we strongly object to this proposal which would create a new constituency crossing the historic border between Cornwall and Devon for the first time in Cornwall’s history.

 As well as destroying the integrity of Cornwall’s historic border, which would cause great distress to numerous residents , this proposal also conflicts with the spirit and intent of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

 We strongly believe there are cultural, legal, geographic and political reasons to maintain our border in terms of Parliamentary representation and we will be lobbying Parliament and calling on the Boundary Commission to rethink this proposal.”

From this announcement, there will be a second round of consultation on these proposal by the Commission; then following that, the final recommendations will be laid before Parliament in September 2018. If accepted the new boundaries will be active for the General Election in 2020.

More details can be found HERE

BCG (the attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis used worldwide to vaccinate people against TB) remains the only viable option at present for vaccination of cattle against TB.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (formerly Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency) has shown a protective effect of BCG in cattle and developed delivery regimes for cattle. However, a DIVA test to differentiate vaccinated from infected animals must also be developed, as vaccination with BCG can interfere with the diagnostic tests routinely used to identify TB-infected cattle. APHA has developed such a test and further studies are ongoing to determine whether this will be suitable for use in the field. Once this has been determined, cattle vaccine field trials could be taken forward.

Since 2009 Defra has spent £15 million on oral badger vaccine development, using BCG (the attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis used worldwide to vaccinate people against TB). The Animal and Plant Health Agency has identified palatable bait and practical field deployment strategies. The immunity conferred by oral vaccination of badgers with BCG tends to be more variable than that resulting from the injectable formulation of the vaccine. Therefore, current studies are focusing on producing a safe, effective and affordable vaccine which provides consistent protection when eaten by badgers.

The information requested is as follows:

There were no pro bono costs.

Year

Number of Contracts

Contract Value (£)

2010-2011

761

160,249,080

2011-2012

690

160,919,299

2012-2013

926

175,991,301

2013-2014

679

227,028,543

2014-2015

645

207,764,115

2015-2016

419

127,572,806

We, and other Departments, are working closely with the Department for Exiting the European Union on all aspects of exiting the European Union. This is to build a detailed understanding of how withdrawal will affect domestic policies and to coordinate policy work across Government.

The Civil Service is committed to being a place where everyone can thrive, regardless of background, with the aim of becoming the most inclusive employer in the UK.

Whilst it is encouraging to see a positive trajectory in terms of diversity representation in the Civil Service, we recognise that there is more to do. That is why in March 2016 the Government published its refreshed Talent Action Plan for the Civil Service, identifying actions to support our staff, increase diverstity in the Civil Service and deliver the best possible public services.

Being the lone voice in a Cabinet is sometimes difficult, but when you cannot support an item you need to make sure your voice is heard and standby those views. The case in question is the European Capital of Culture bid (ECoC). My previous post on this issue is HERE.

Prior to today’s meeting, there was enough concern about the original decision by Cabinet. This resulted in the decision being ‘called-in’ by scrutiny who felt the process getting to the Cabinet decision was flawed. As Scrutiny felt there was a ‘flaw’ in the process of the decision – and as per the Constitution – sent the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration, and to consider if it made the right decision in the first place. For those who do not want to read on, the Cabinet voted 8-1 in favour of the bid (I voted against it). For those who want to know why, please read on.

I believe the process of getting to the shortlist phase is flawed for many of the same reasons as Scrutiny. Originally, the amount to get to the shortlist phase, was £536k, but now, on ‘relooking’ at the amount, this is now £336k. However, whilst this money is already in a budget (£60m) of EU match-funding, the costs most people seem to be missing is the estimated £10m that Cornwall Council will need to commit for this bid to work. This is not in the Council’s budget plan, and there is no clear way how this could be funded.

There is one thing of using existing budgets for something, but how do you square it when you really need a lot more for this to work. At today’s Cabinet meeting I commented how projects like the ECoC will find the money. Yet, corporately, money cannot be found for vital services in Cornwall. In reference to my point today, I talked about Post-16 transport funding.  Whilst this is a discretionary service of the Council, and it is important to note, the Council receives no support from Government to pay for it; even though they have made it mandatory for young people to stay in education (or training) till 18 years old.

If I had £10m, I could fund Post-16 transport for around eight-years. This is just one case of how money could be spent rather than on this bid. My point is we must fund for the most vulnerable and concentrate on our key services as highlighted in my previous blog.

Much has been made of this is a Cornwall-wide bid and not just Truro. Yet, Truro City Council was not really consulted prior to the bid paperwork going public. Furthermore, the City Council has only supported the ECoC bid by a narrow margin of 9-8. Hardly a ringing endorsement, but a democratic decision nonetheless.

A puzzling question that needs to be answered is how in reality will a Cornwall-wide bid work? Will it just concentrate on the existing sites like Eden and other large tourist attractions? If so, how will those who do not have a site like this near to them feel the ‘benefit’ of the ECOC? If commercial businesses are to benefit, it is a must they have to contribute, rather than the taxpayer footing the bill.

If town and villages are to be involved why haven’t they been asked?  Will it be left to the town and parish councils to find funding? A of example on costs is Helston Town Council made a decision not to have the Man Engine due to the costs of this one day event. If it is Cornwall-wide, then serious consideration needs to be made how these town and parish council will fund it, or will it be only the ones with the precepts large enough to contribute?

Another point I made today was on political support for the ECoC. Cabinet is made up of two group/party, Independent and Lib Dem. Yet the Council is made up of eight groups/party/standalone. I made an amendment for this decision to be made by full council as all 123 members can have a say, especially on the commitment of further funding like the £10m. This was not supported, but I am hopeful when there is money assigned, this can be debated via the capital programme which has to come to full council at a later date. A long-winded route to a simple debate on a yes/no option on the bid.

It is should be noted, the bid rule makes it clear any bid needs to be grassroots and supported from there. No reference has been made of this, or asked the public about their views.

In short, I voted against this because the bid is flawed on the timeline needed, monies could be spent on the most vulnerable, and there is not full political support for the ECoC. Not to mention post Brexit, there is little chance of winning the bid. As I said before, I was the lone voice, and the other eight members of Cabinet voted in favour for a bid and the £336k to proceed.

We are currently analysing all EU fisheries legislation. No decision has yet been made on which elements of EU legislation governing the Common Fisheries Policy will be replaced after the UK leaves the EU.

We are currently analysing all EU fisheries legislation. No decision has yet been made on the extent to which the EU legislation governing the Common Fisheries Policy will be incorporated into domestic law.

We are currently assessing options to determine how the fishing resources within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) should be managed after we have left the EU.

Discussions on future fisheries management will form part of the Government's negotiations after Article 50 has been triggered.

Work is being undertaken to determine the Total Allowable Catch of fish in the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

We are carrying out an assessment of the effect that leaving the EU will have on the UK’s seafood processing sector. The processing industry is involved in this work.

Our new relationship with the EU should aim for the freest possible trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU through a new comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. This needs to include trade in fish products, where the UK and EU have a mutual interest in ensuring continued high levels of market access in future.

The PM has made clear that the UK will be seeking a new customs agreement with the EU which allows the freest possible trade in goods and services. This agreement will cover fisheries products.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs employs 14 civil servants to oversee contracts awarded to external providers.

Seafish, the UK-wide levy-funded Non-Departmental Public Body, launched the Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS) in January 2016. It is a voluntary vessel-based programme certifying high standards of crew welfare and responsible catching practices on fishing vessels. The RFS does not currently have the capability to audit, or the legal authority to police serious labour and human rights abuses at sea.

The RFS is overseen by an independent Oversight Board, which decided on 14 February 2017 that the health, safety & welfare elements of the standard should be strengthened and that the “crew voice” should be included in the audit methodology. This proposal will be put to the Seafish Board, as the Standard holder, for a decision at its meeting on 7 March.

If a case of modern slavery is reported or suspected at sea, within UK territorial waters, the police will investigate as they would any other criminal offence. The Modern Slavery Act gave law enforcement agencies, including the police and Border Force, new powers to investigate modern slavery offences at sea, including the power to stop, board, divert, detain and search a vessel, and to make arrests and seize any relevant evidence.

The Government is considering this issue very carefully.

We recently announced that we will modernise the licensing scheme for dog breeding and selling to improve the welfare of dogs, including requiring anyone breeding and selling three or more puppies in a twelve month period to hold a licence; prohibiting the sale of puppies under eight weeks’ of age; imposing tougher animal welfare standards on licensed dog breeders and sellers; and requiring all licensed sellers to include their licence number when advertising.

We aim to have the new regulations in place next year.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has accrued no income from premium rate telephone lines in the last five years.

The Government would prefer animals to be slaughtered close to the point of production, however, the unilateral banning of live animal exports would be illegal under EU free trade rules. Once the UK has left the EU, there will be the possibility to consider further measures in this area.

Core Defra did not make any payments to Uber for Business between 28 October 2016 and 21 February 2017.

Staff within Core Defra who claim expenses for taxis used for work-related travel are not required to specify the name of the taxi company they used. The Department’s finance system lists only two transactions between 28 October 2016 and 21 February 2017 where the traveller has identified that they used Uber. These transactions total £13.99.