Saturday, 20 November 2010

Will the Cornish LEP learn from the mistakes of the RDA?


The government plans to scrap the South West Regional Development Agency and create a Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Economic Partnership presents a great opportunity to rethink economic policy in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and to take charge of our own destinies. The RDA was geographically distant and democratically not accountable to the people of Cornwall, this resulted in the body being out of touch with public opinion. Economic solutions were delivered from above with little or no meaningful public consultation and regard for the communities involved. This approach must be resisted in creeping into the new LEP. Which hopefully will have a more bottom up approach to policy and planning and seek to foster stronger relations with the public and business communities.


There are many criticisms to be made of the RDA, bad investment decisions such as the Border Books distribution center in St Columb, which had attracted a 3.5 million investment to open. The folding of the South West Film Studios at St Agnes, which resulted in the director being imprisoned on fraud charges, for the 1.87 million of RDA funding.  Also the failed Gaia Energy Center at Delabole, a tourist attraction which had attracted 5 million in RDA funding. The Helston Business Park rounds off the failed ventures of Cornish Objective One money, attracting 2.6 million in RDA investment and has laid empty for three years. Whether the fault in these cases lies with the RDA, economic realities or other factors is beside the point. They are symptomatic of the RDA's insistence in bringing new business into Cornwall and the ignorance shown toward existing businesses and industry. Of course new business should always be sought, but there are often reasons why some businesses have grown organically and others have not. It should never have been the job of the RDA to invest Cornish Objective Money in such a reckless way. There were some successes of the RDA such as the Eden Project and the National Maritime Museum which both tapped into the existing industry of tourism. The University Campus at Tremough in Penryn which had tapped into a long term tangible need for degree level education in Cornwall. (We'll skip over the subsidy given to the Department of Transport for the A30 improvements).

It should be the job of the LEP not only to look to the new but also to foster and support the old. It is no good letting the perpetual Cornish industries of farming and fishing and mining fall by the wayside while bureaucrats experiment with introducing new business and industry. My point is that the RDA sought to impose solutions from above, this resulted in patchy performance and did little to support existing industry and business. Politically too the same approach prevailed in the RDA, far off in Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth, unelected bureaucrats (and a handful of token councillors) and the seemingly obligatory consultants envisaged grand schemes of redevelopment with no regard for the local area or existing tried and tested business and industry.
The prime example of this was South Crofty, closed in 1998 due to costs and regulation, rather than mineral exhaustion. Many hoped that the advent of Objective One money could be used to reopen the mine, to utilise the natural resources of Cornwall and the skills and ingenuity of the Cornish people to create decent jobs and bring money into the area. However this was not to be even when a new concern bought the mine the RDA for years and years spent what must have been a great deal of time and money, drafting plans to bulldoze the surface structures and to redevelop the land. Time and again Compulsory Purchase Orders, were threatened a multitude of plans were put forward including shops, houses a new road and even a leisure center all oblivious to attempts to rework the mine or even the danger and cost of building over mine workings and their associated shafts. After the best part of a decade and High Court Challenges by South Crofty's owners, the RDA finally reluctantly gave in and 'allowed' the old tin mine to be. The implications of acting like lord and master were completely out of tune with the idea of public sector bodies serving the people and encouraging business. It does occur that the fortune spent fighting this protracted battle could have been spent better by both the mine owners on reopening and the RDA on other regeneration projects. (For those interested in the long and winding battle between the mine owners and the RDA here's the Falmouth Packet archive.)



South Crofty Mine Pool, the graffiti reads the words of a folk song by Chris Bryant:
CORNISH LADS ARE FISHERMEN AND CORNISH LADS ARE MINERS TOO,
BUT WHEN THE FISH AND TIN ARE GONE WHAT ARE THE CORNISH BOYS TO DO?
A lament at the loss of the industry but also indicative of the despair felt at the RDAs solutions and methods.
Photo taken from: http://www.cornwallcam.co.uk/bestofinland/scrofty2.htm
 The real challenge for the new LEP is to learn from these mistakes. To not sit in offices and draw up good schemes on paper without any regard for anything else, but to develop organic schemes that work with not against communities. Perhaps this is a little idealistic and that any plan has the possibility of running into opposition, but it is imperative that this opposition is dealt with properly. The bulldozer approach of the RDA seen at South Crofty was not good in terms of public relations, public service or business relations. The people that work in the RDA never seemed to realise that in life problems are best resolved by negotiation and reasoning not threats and ultimatums. Most importantly of all the RDA never seemed to grasp the idea that in a democracy state workers are public servants, employed to work with the people not against them, to promote consensus not conflict. Further the new LEP needs to look at what Cornwall is strong at and nurture existing industries into bigger ones. Hopefully the new LEP will not gamble with Cornish public money in the way the RDA did and invest in strong cases not outside chances.
I sincerely hope that the approach taken by members of Cornwall Council toward the Route Partnership scheme in Penzance is not indicative of what we can expect from the LEP. For the activities there ranked alongside the RDA in terms of bulldozer diplomacy....

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Who voted to Keep Cornwall Whole? and who didn't?

I have been chewing the fat of the amendment that would have protected Cornwall's political integrity and I find some of it quite difficult to chew through, and some of it hard to swallow. There are some surprises senior Tories (D, Cameron and L, Fox) and Senior Labour MPs (Miliband (both) G, Brown) that didn't vote and a shortfall in Labour votes. Looking at the figures of who voted which way there are two things that occour, firstly the amendment could have mathematically been voted through and secondly that there are some surprises over who did vote who and didn't vote. To quickly illustrate the first point the amendment was defeated by 315 to 257, a government majority of 58 in simple terms this means that 80 Members of Parliaments did not bother to vote. Mathematically at least these 80 MPs could have forced through the bill that protected not only Cornwall's integrity but Anglesey, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and the Isle of Wight too. I know it is simplistic to guess the votes of absentee parliamentarians but bear with me while I illustrate my second point.

In terms of broad strokes, the Coaliton Government -give or take a few- voted against the amendment, whilst the opposition voted for it. Voting against the bill was every notable Liberal Democrat from Clegg, Cable, Alexander, Campbell et al through to the back benches. Voting for the bill Cornwall's Lib Dem trio, joined by Charles Kennedy and John Thurso and Adrian Sanders MP for Torbay (unlike his fellow Devonian Lib Dem Nick Harvey who voted against.)

Cornwall's 3 Tories voted for the amendment as did the Isle of Wight MP, but the picture across Conservative party is slightly different, David Cameron did not vote either way, whether in a way of an apology for the Amazon comment or on behalf of his Cornish born daughter we will never know. The much vaunted Shadow Minister for Cornwall Mark Prisk voted for Devonwall as did most senior Tories. Devon Tories; Morris, Parish, Stride, Cox, Colville and Wollaston all voted against the amendment.  However 2 Devon Tories did not vote either way (Swire and Streeter) the same was true of Liam Fox.

Moving on to Labour, no doubt the majority of votes came from this party -including Devon MPs Seabeck and Bradshaw- but the fact that Labour has 258 MPs, and MPs voting for the amendment totalled 243 here there is a shortfall. We've already named 10 from the coaliton and 11 from small parties that voted against and at least 6 who (see below) considering I may have missed a few coaliton MPs at least 44 Labour MPs did not vote either way. I do not have a full list but the party leader Ed Miliband, his brother David Miliband, ex PM Gordon Brown were amongst the Labour MPs who did not vote.

Moving on to the small parties the 3 Plaid Cymru, 5 of the SNPs 6,  2 of the  DUPs 6 and 1 of the SDLPs 3 all voted in favour. The MP for the Northern Ireland Alliance Party, an Independent and the Green MP all did not vote. In other words from the small parties none voted against the amendment, with 11 for and 12 abstaining. To round up some of the information, all Cornwall's MPs voted for the amendment, Devon's MP were divided 7 against, 3 for, 2 abstaining. I must apologise for throughout this blog I have not specified exact details of how Labour, Lib Dem and Tory voted, unfortunately Hansard does not list MPs by party on voting results and not myself being burdened with knowing which party 600 odd MPs are in, I can not be more specific.

Support for the amendment in the Coaliton was extremely thin on the ground, but to return to my first  point, could the oppositon have voted the amendment into the bill? I believe so, if all Labour members had voted (from the Leader down), small parties had been persuaded and Devon MPs brought alongside the Cornish 6 and their allies may well have won. That's as maybe I suppose, but there are some hard questions to be posed by the Cornish members of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens over how they were not able to persuade their fellow party members to support this amendment.

Anyway perhaps as a fitting epitaph to the loss of the Tamar I leave you with the parliamentary exchange between Andrew George LD and Angus Macneil SNP:

 Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned history and culture, and there is of course the Gaelic proverb:
    "S fhearr caraid sa chuirt na crun san sporran"-
it is better to have a friend in court-and, indeed, Parliament -than money in the purse. With that in mind, I say to my Celtic cousins from Cornwall that Karl Marx in one of his madder moments said that the fate of the Celtic races was to be ruled by the Nordic races. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the treatment of Cornwall could thus be construed as Marxist? Did he ever imagine that when this coalition Government set out their aims, they would end up with Marxism in Cornwall?

Andrew George: Let me quote someone else. It was Matthew Arnold who said that it was the desire of a centralised state

    "to render its dominions... homogenous".

The quote is from Column 680 and the voting record deduced from column 696 which also details the defeated amendment, both from the same -November the second- Hansard entry. 

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Saving money? the Lords and constitutional reform

As the Cornish border prepares to take on no more political significance to London than the Amazon, news about the creation of more peers in the Lords has me truly perplexed. The argument for the reduction in numbers of MPs is justified as saving money, part of the Governments obsession with cutting public spending. It is argued that 50 less MPs will save money and at the same time constituencies can be made roughly the same size in population. Which results in at least one cross Tamar constituency and communities everywhere in the UK being ignored for the sake of cold hard mathematics.

This reduction in MPs will save the public purse an estimated £12 million pounds a year. That's all well and good but in the same stroke the government is creating 300 new peers to the House of Lords, a cost that one peer estimates at £60 million pounds a year.  So it would seem that Cornwall stands to lose its border and democratic representation will be reduced throughout the UK, yet the unelected unaccountable Lords will be increased by 300. Which will either increase the House of Lords to over a thousand peers or prompt golden handshakes for retirees.

So, what kind of democracy is this that favour unpopular traditions like the Lords over popular traditional borders?
That favours electoral reform of the elected house whilst bolstering the unelected house?
That has more unelected representatives than elected?
Surely a fortune could be saved by trimming the Lords down to size leaving the Commons be and thus keeping Cornwall's border intact?

Monday, 1 November 2010

Keep Cornwall Whole amendment defeated

Not long ago the amendment proposed by Andrew George and carrying the name of all of the Cornish MPs was defeated by a government majority of 58. Now it is not clear who voted which way at this stage, but it seems very much like those that voted for the Keep Cornwall Whole amendment were from the opposition benches, bar say a dozen Conservative and Liberal Democrats.

Really thats by the by as we have moved one step closer to losing our historic territorial integrity.


I don't really know what to say at this stage but I would suggest something like this would be nice:

"...to give local people far more control over how their local area is run..."

So we could have Cornwall being:

"... heard at the heart of the Shadow Cabinet and the heart of the Conservative party..."

To try to avoid a situation where Cornwall is:

"... almost completely ignored by the government..."

These words of course come from the now Prime Minister, spoken upon the announcement of a Shadow Minister for Cornwall and meant to be an attack on the Labour Party. Now whats that saying about stones and glass houses?


Thursday, 21 October 2010

Scrapping Coastguard Tugs, is the Government oblivious to maritime safety?

The Anglian Princess taken from http://www.mcga.gov.uk/
Amidst the large amount of cuts announced during the Conservative/ Liberal Democrat spending review yesterday,there was one great cut that will effect the high seas aound Cornwall, unnoticed by many, save the eagle eyed reporters at BBC Cornwall. (and the MP for Shetland.) Despite the claim in the article that it is a Falmouth tug, the Anglian Princess has become something of a landmark in Mount's Bay it's usual station.

The vessel is classed as an Emergency Tow Vessel, designed for the towing of stricken vessels in the Western Approaches and Channel but it also has a firefighting capability, (in conjunction with Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service.) The Anglian Princess is one of four HM Coastguard ETVs that stand ready to assist vessels in distress. The Cornish based vessel has an important job, the seas around Cornwall are very busy with shipping coming to and from the UK and Ireland as well the continental ports of the Channel. The reason that the ETV system was introduced was threefold, to prevent loss of life at sea that could be avoided, to prevent loss of shipping and cargoes and to try to avoid environmental disasters, e.g. Torrey Canyon.

The service record of the Anglian Princess is long and eventful, the most notable being the assistance given to the Napoli -and along with the French ETV Abeille Bourbon- the eventual beaching of that vessel in Devon, follow this link for more of the story and some great pictures like this:


There follows a long list of vessels that the Anglian Princess has aided:

Sabre of Newquay 14/3/2004 fishing vessel overdue in Newlyn, assisted in search, link.
Sea Fox 11/1/2004 fire in engine room, off Land's End, towed into Falmouth, link.
Galina 3/11/2005 vessel drifting off Dodman Point, towed into Falmouth, link.
Goliath 8/3/2006 tow parted from barge, towed to Mount's Bay, link.
Spar Garnet 7/12/2006 disabled in heavy seas off Berry Head, towed to Torbay, link.
MV Petra 13/12/2006 navigation problem off Land's End, towed to Falmouth, link.
RFA Largs Bay 6/5/2007 vessel lost ability to steer off Eddystone Rock, escorted to Plymouth, link.
Antigoni 23/11/2009 gas tanker suffering machinery failure off Lizard Point, tasked to assist, link.
Oscar Wilde 4/2/2010 fire aboard passenger ferry, sent to assist, link.
Swanland 20/8/2010 engine failure off Lizard Point, towed to Famouth, link.

(It must also be noted that in nearly all of these cases the brave men of the RNLI's lifeboats have also played their parts.In addition to the equally brave Search and Rescue 771 Squadron from RNAS Culdrose)

I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of missions by the Anglian Princess but it gives a great idea over the number of incidents that happen around our coast and the number of tragedys that have been potentially avoided, in terms of lives, cargoes and pollution. It is dreadful to ponder what could possibly happen without this vital service. I am completely at a loss how this government plans to protect shipping, ferries and fishermen at sea. I have no doubt that the cost of the Anglian Princess and her sister ships throughout the UK is high, but so are the risks...

Postscript:

There seems to be somewhat more of a stir in Scotland than Cornwall about this with Charles Kennedy MP and John Farquhar Munro MSP both Liberal Democrat, calling on the government to rethink the scrapping of the Coastguard tugs. Also has some details of the Anglian Princesses twin the Anglian Prince's missions.

Further BBC Cornwall have updated their story with a statement from the MCA:
"The government believes state provision of emergency towing vessels does not represent a correct use of taxpayers' money, and that ship salvage should be a commercial matter between a ship's operator and the salvor."
Although it appears as a fair point, it does not seem to take into account the fact that once a vessel is adrift at sea that time is of the essence. The time between a vessel being in trouble and smashing against the shore could potentially be very short. Therefore it seems in the interests of saving money the government is gambling that either: a tanker filled with oil or a passenger ship would not immediate assistance. And if so that a private company could fill this need very quickly.

It also lists the potential savings apparently 32.5 million over four years, (if all four of the rescue tugs are scrapped). Whether an environmental disaster -from an oil tanker for example- anywhere around the UK would cost more than this is anyones guess. Not to mention the untangible costs of the potential loss of life. I greatly fear that if there was a disaster off Cornwall or Scotland or South East England the government would regret this saving. The second BBC story.

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Duchy of Cornwall, time to pay it's own way?

As we all know every ones belts are being tightened in this age of austerity. Cornwall Council has already identified the largest chunk of saving but now wants public input and indeed ideas for the rest of the £10 million short fall in funding from Westminster. These cuts will be severe, lets not make fools of ourselves and imagines that they will not effect front line services.

This situation prompted me to look into the financial transactions between the Duchy of Cornwall and Cornwall Council. The Duchy of Cornwall is a massive landowner in Cornwall, owning among other things in Cornwall the: "Tamar, Looe, Helford and Camel estuaries and coastal foreshore around Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly." (taken from the official Duchy of Cornwall website: http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/aroundthe) So this prompted me to try to investigate the financial dealings between HRH the Duke of Cornwall and Cornwall Council. Now the Duchy is very hard to investigate, it is immune from Freedom of Information requests and not a limited company so nothing to be found through Companies House. Interestingly Duchy of Cornwall accounts are audited and scrutinized by the Treasury. However public institutions dealings with the Duchy are not immune from FOI requests.

So, I filled out a Freedom of Information Request, asking Cornwall Council whether the Duchy paid for upkeep of it's own waterways and whether profits from ports and harbours were given to the Duchy. After a while of asking the answer was:
"The Council does not pay for the upkeep of any Duchy owned
ports/harbours/waterways and no profits are paid to the local authority
owned harbours to the Duchy. There may be some privately owned or Trust
ports which pay the Duchy a rental for the use of their seabed but I do
not know which ones."
That was the official answer and the only one forthcoming, so we shall leave at that. It did however transpire that in terms of beaches there are financial transactions between the Duchy and the council. Parts of the beaches of Porthtowan, Crantock, Trevone and Porthcothnan (perhaps others) are leased by the council from the Duchy. Now I am at a complete loss as to why this is (it also turns out that the council owns a number of beaches in Cornwall), what interest does the council have in owning beaches let alone renting them? What purpose does it serve? Hopefully Cornwall Council, will reassess the need to lease beaches from the Duchy, we have lots of beaches already but what we need now is money.

It also transpires that the council are currently reviewing some of their arrangements regarding lifeguard cover. Cornwall Council is quite unique amongst councils that it actually pays the RNLI to provide lifeguard cover. This is despite whether they own them or not, the beaches of Porthtowan, Crantock, Trevone and Porthcothnan for example are part owned by the Duchy but Cornish taxpayers money funds the lifeguard cover. There are other examples of beaches owned privately others by the National Trust and others by Parish Councils, that are in a similar situation.

I am not for a minute arguing that RNLI cover should be waived because Cornwall Council doesn't own or lease the land, but neither do I think its fair that our taxpayer money should be used in lieu of Duchy or private money. Hopefully the very rich Duchy will see the light and pay it's fair share and help save essential public services. After all, would the Duke even notice:

"Its record profits follow strong financial results from the Duchy of Cornwall, the property estate of the Prince of Wales, which saw profits up seven per cent to £16.3 million. The Duchy's overall value rose eight per cent to £647 million." 09 Jul 2008 Daily Telegraph

The full correspondence of my FOI request.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Undemocratic, disengaging, insulting, stupid and unsympathetic, five reasons why Devonwall is a bad idea

Undemocratic, disengaging, insulting,
stupid and unsympathetic,
five reasons why Devonwall is a bad idea

There are many reasons why a Devonwall constituency is a bad idea. It’s tempting to list 1074 for this is the number of years since the Cornish border was established (in 936AD) , this would certainly be possible. However for the sake of your sanity and mine the number of objections to Devonwall can be summed up in five reasons. I know there are many more and I haven’t included for example the historical and cultural significance of the Tamar, Cornwall’s constitutional position and the fact that the Cornish like the Welsh, Scottish and English deserve equal political respect under law. I feel these subjects have been ably covered by other writers on their blogs. Anyway my five are perhaps a little procedural and dry but here they are.

1. Firstly and most importantly, the decision to create a Parliamentary Cross- Tamar constituency is wholly undemocratic. The move is opposed by Cornwall’s six Members of Parliament (both the 3 Liberal Democrat and the 3 Conservative), Cornwall Council has voted unanimously against and in addition a large proportion of town and parish councils are opposed. Democratically elected officials from across the Duchy and from all of the political parties do not want a Cross-Tamar MP at the next parliament. There is no desire for a Devonwall constituency in Cornwall.

2. There has been no public consultation about this move, even as the bill is passing through parliament, the public have still not been told if the proposed Devonwall constituency will join West Devon to North Cornwall or Plymouth to South East Cornwall. Before the coalition government came to power all boundary changes were open to public consultation, not anymore. The public simply have no avenue of official interaction with the government over this matter, thus a public rally has been organised.

3. The plans for a Devonwall constituency are part of the plans for reducing the number of MPs which in turn is part of the reform of the electoral system (the AV referendum). So Cornwall stands to lose its political integrity and millennia old border as a footnote to another issue. However insulting this is, it also means that Liberal Democrat MPs in Cornwall will be whipped into voting for electoral reform and forsaking their own beliefs and those of their constituents. 

4. The most prescient practical reason for opposing the Cross-Tamar is the extra unnecessary work for both the MP and local authorities. Again before the Coalition came to power, great attempts were made to keep constituencies within administrative divisions, not anymore. Say for example if the constituency straddles Plymouth and South East Cornwall, the MP will have to liaise with Cornwall Council, Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council, as well as town and parish councils. This would lead to a lot of unnecessary work for both the MP and the Councils, making everyone’s job harder, much more inefficient and reduce the effectiveness of all involved.

5. Although there are historical, cultural and political arguments to be made for keeping ‘Cornwall Whole’ these have so far been ignored by Nick Clegg and the coaliton government.. This is a great shame for there have been special dispensations made to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on similar grounds. In the case of our Celtic cousins the strict new rules on constituency size have been waived in favour of common sense. So if there can be exceptions elsewhere in the Celtic nations, why not Celtic Cornwall?

I have listed below some links for those of you that might be interested in reading more/ getting involved:
Keep Cornwall Whole site, including details of the rallies on the 8th, 9th and 10th October.
This campaign is being considered by 38 degrees, please vote for it here.
The Cornish Republican's blog which provides an overview of the subject.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Sita confident of an incinerator in St Dennis?

The waste managment firm Sita -who are contracted to deal with Cornwall's waste and recycling- are currently in the middle of a planning appeal with Cornwall Council. The French firm sought planning permission for an energy from waste incinerator in St Dennis. This was opposed by a local campaign group St Dennis Anti Incinerator Group. Cornwall Council rejected the planning application over health concerns and the size of the project, Sita appealed this decision. At the moment this appeal is winding up and as the West Briton reported on September the eighth
"Closing statements by all parties will be heard at the planning inquiry from October 5 to 7 in the One Stop Shop Council Offices in Penwinnick Road. The final decision is not expected to be made until Autumn 2011."
This same impression can be gleaned from the local councillor Dick Cole's blog and from the Cornwall Council website page about the appeal. However this does not seem to coincide with Sita's actions who have on the 23.9.2010 opened the project to public tender. An article in the Construction Enquirer explains about the planning appeal:
"Sita is currently appealing against a decision by councillors in March 2009 to refuse planning permission and expects a decision shortly."
Really am puzzled, will the decision be made after the appeal or are we kidding ourselves that this planning inquiry is in fact a charade?

Thursday, 23 September 2010

NHS funding boost, meagre crumbs for Kernow

Today's BBC news broadcasts on the radio,television and on the internet, triumphantly announced that Cornwall was to receive an extra NHS funding boost from central government. Now, before we break out the champagne lets put this in some context and not simply rely upon a press release to tell us whats good and whats not. At the outset I must say I do think it is a good thing that the Cornwall and Scilly PCT has been  received this money in a form of a grant, however its not as great as the news first seems. We are still a long way from getting our fair share of funding from central government and despite Mebyon Kernow's effort as Dick Cole's blog explains, there has so far been no discernable action by the Conservative led council.

According to Department of Health figures, Cornwall is joint bottom in terms of underfunding. The table below is taken from the DoH website (PDF file), I have reordered the columns from alphabetical to descending in terms of Distance from Target (DFT). These DFT figures are shown as a percentage, a positive number meaning over target funding and negative numbers under target funding. I apologise for the size of the table, but nothing makes the case better than seeing how many PCTs that Cornwall sadly lags behind.

2009-10 AND 2010-11 PCT REVENUE ALLOCATIONS

PCT
2009-10 allocation £000s
2010-11 allocation £000s
Two year increase £000s
Two year increase %
2010-11 closing DFT %
Richmond and Twickenham PCT
267,442
281,193
27,031
10.6%
23.4%
Westminster PCT
447,789
470,813
45,259
10.6%
20.8%
Kensington and Chelsea PCT
337,424
354,773
34,104
10.6%
20.4%
Hammersmith and Fulham PCT
326,448
343,232
32,995
10.6%
16.2%
Lambeth PCT
580,017
609,840
58,624
10.6%
14.8%
Wandsworth PCT
488,965
514,106
49,421
10.6%
14.4%
Kingston PCT
249,459
262,286
25,213
10.6%
13.5%
Camden PCT
453,989
477,331
45,886
10.6%
12.4%
Lewisham PCT
484,939
509,873
49,014
10.6%
12.0%
Islington PCT
412,126
433,316
41,655
10.6%
11.7%
Surrey PCT
1,565,807
1,646,316
158,260
10.6%
11.6%
Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT
523,451
550,366
52,906
10.6%
10.2%
Sutton and Merton PCT
583,188
613,174
58,944
10.6%
9.7%
Bromley PCT
466,265
490,239
47,126
10.6%
8.6%
Ealing PCT
545,775
573,837
55,163
10.6%
8.0%
Brent Teaching PCT
501,538
527,325
50,692
10.6%
7.7%
Brighton and Hove City PCT
438,902
461,469
44,361
10.6%
7.7%
Trafford PCT
340,332
357,831
34,398
10.6%
7.7%
Harrow PCT
313,370
329,483
31,673
10.6%
7.4%
Barnet PCT
528,745
555,931
53,442
10.6%
6.7%
City and Hackney Teaching PCT
472,222
496,502
47,729
10.6%
6.6%
Hillingdon PCT
379,496
399,009
38,357
10.6%
6.4%
Southwark PCT
492,748
518,084
49,803
10.6%
5.7%
West Hertfordshire PCT
773,604
813,380
78,190
10.6%
5.3%
Berkshire West PCT
597,061
627,760
60,346
10.6%
5.1%
Croydon PCT
526,752
553,836
53,240
10.6%
5.1%
Hounslow PCT
362,964
381,627
36,686
10.6%
5.1%
Bath and North East Somerset PCT
255,385
268,516
25,812
10.6%
4.4%
Greenwich Teaching PCT
424,160
445,968
42,871
10.6%
4.0%
Berkshire East PCT
532,623
560,009
53,833
10.6%
3.7%
West Sussex PCT
1,172,602
1,232,894
118,518
10.6%
3.7%
Bournemouth and Poole Teaching PCT
509,384
535,575
51,485
10.6%
3.6%
Stockport PCT
431,751
453,950
43,638
10.6%
3.4%
Tower Hamlets PCT
447,591
470,605
45,239
10.6%
3.4%
Oxfordshire PCT
830,948
873,673
83,986
10.6%
3.2%
Newcastle PCT
466,097
490,062
47,110
10.6%
2.8%
East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT
513,310
539,702
51,881
10.6%
2.4%
Wirral PCT
565,696
594,782
57,176
10.6%
2.3%
South Gloucestershire PCT
323,108
339,722
32,657
10.6%
2.2%
Waltham Forest PCT
395,510
415,846
39,977
10.6%
2.2%
Buckinghamshire PCT
652,120
685,650
65,911
10.6%
2.1%
Enfield PCT
436,718
459,173
44,140
10.6%
2.1%
Haringey Teaching PCT
424,321
446,139
42,887
10.6%
2.1%
Hastings and Rother PCT
303,746
319,363
30,700
10.6%
2.1%
Sefton PCT
479,220
503,861
48,463
10.6%
1.9%
Liverpool PCT
906,876
953,504
91,817
10.7%
1.7%
West Essex PCT
390,481
410,562
39,470
10.6%
1.6%
Bexley Care Trust
321,350
337,896
32,552
10.7%
1.4%
Barking and Dagenham PCT
301,080
316,599
30,789
10.8%
1.3%
Gloucestershire PCT
825,908
868,490
83,597
10.7%
1.3%
Peterborough PCT
244,676
257,356
24,830
10.7%
1.0%
Darlington PCT
166,081
174,705
16,913
10.7%
0.9%
Newham PCT
510,371
536,897
51,869
10.7%
0.9%
Sheffield PCT
885,052
931,076
90,381
10.8%
0.9%
Western Cheshire PCT
375,103
394,678
38,320
10.8%
0.8%
Hampshire PCT
1,709,698
1,799,471
175,170
10.8%
0.7%
Wiltshire PCT
610,462
642,526
62,527
10.8%
0.6%
Havering PCT
376,447
396,316
39,278
11.0%
0.5%
South Tyneside PCT
279,272
294,039
29,326
11.1%
0.5%
Bristol PCT
660,306
695,459
68,412
10.9%
0.4%
Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT
645,100
679,543
67,099
11.0%
0.4%
Medway PCT
391,582
412,814
41,635
11.2%
0.2%
Sunderland Teaching PCT
510,293
537,800
54,110
11.2%
0.2%
Gateshead PCT
357,224
376,601
38,000
11.2%
0.1%
Salford PCT
425,994
449,125
45,339
11.2%
0.1%
Solihull Care Trust
294,018
310,080
31,371
11.3%
0.1%
South Birmingham PCT
587,304
619,168
62,482
11.2%
0.1%
Portsmouth City Teaching PCT
311,043
328,095
33,267
11.3%
0.0%
South West Essex PCT
602,217
635,283
64,461
11.3%
0.0%
West Kent PCT
926,518
977,459
98,922
11.3%
0.0%
Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT
358,484
378,201
38,405
11.3%
-0.0%
Knowsley PCT
303,843
320,554
32,552
11.3%
-0.1%
East Lancashire Teaching PCT
629,300
663,912
67,419
11.3%
-0.2%
Coventry Teaching PCT
529,616
558,745
56,739
11.3%
-0.3%
Dorset PCT
580,964
613,261
62,584
11.4%
-0.6%
East and North Hertfordshire PCT
759,311
803,338
83,612
11.6%
-0.6%
Middlesbrough PCT
257,714
271,888
27,610
11.3%
-0.6%
Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT
1,151,643
1,216,563
124,958
11.4%
-0.8%
Devon PCT
1,088,020
1,152,427
121,128
11.7%
-1.0%
Redbridge PCT
365,515
385,618
39,159
11.3%
-1.1%
Bradford and Airedale Teaching PCT
810,920
856,745
88,101
11.5%
-1.2%
Isle of Wight NHS PCT
232,671
245,882
25,341
11.5%
-1.2%
North Tyneside PCT
345,791
364,810
37,046
11.3%
-1.2%
Swindon PCT
277,524
294,545
31,489
12.0%
-1.3%
Calderdale PCT
308,563
325,895
33,418
11.4%
-1.4%
Northamptonshire Teaching PCT
927,249
983,436
104,527
11.9%
-1.4%
Oldham PCT
379,096
399,946
40,614
11.3%
-1.4%
Warrington PCT
290,606
306,628
31,172
11.3%
-1.4%
Warwickshire PCT
739,819
781,747
80,496
11.5%
-1.4%
Tameside and Glossop PCT
383,015
404,080
41,033
11.3%
-1.5%
Redcar and Cleveland PCT
233,544
246,388
25,020
11.3%
-1.6%
Leeds PCT
1,169,992
1,235,149
126,152
11.4%
-1.7%
Kirklees PCT
598,931
631,872
64,165
11.3%
-1.8%
North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus
259,146
273,399
27,763
11.3%
-1.9%
Southampton City PCT
368,298
388,555
39,457
11.3%
-1.9%
Cumbria Teaching PCT
783,807
826,917
83,971
11.3%
-2.0%
Cambridgeshire PCT
777,313
827,498
90,708
12.3%
-2.1%
Central Lancashire PCT
688,006
725,915
73,777
11.3%
-2.2%
South East Essex PCT
500,226
527,738
53,591
11.3%
-2.2%
Walsall Teaching PCT
425,164
448,548
45,549
11.3%
-2.2%
Blackburn with Darwen PCT
258,536
272,755
27,698
11.3%
-2.4%
Luton PCT
282,841
298,802
30,707
11.5%
-2.4%
North Yorkshire and York PCT
1,076,587
1,139,019
118,557
11.6%
-2.4%
Birmingham East and North PCT
674,108
711,184
72,219
11.3%
-2.5%
Bolton PCT
439,803
463,992
47,117
11.3%
-2.6%
Somerset PCT
751,518
796,505
84,166
11.8%
-2.6%
Wolverhampton City PCT
408,545
431,015
43,769
11.3%
-2.6%
Worcestershire PCT
771,728
815,248
83,752
11.4%
-2.6%
Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT
361,014
381,535
39,341
11.5%
-2.9%
North Staffordshire PCT
316,252
333,646
33,881
11.3%
-2.9%
Bury PCT
282,130
297,647
30,225
11.3%
-3.1%
Herefordshire PCT
256,778
272,050
28,658
11.8%
-3.1%
Milton Keynes PCT
315,520
338,522
39,450
13.2%
-3.2%
Northumberland Care Trust
498,897
526,337
53,448
11.3%
-3.2%
Torbay Care Trust
236,008
249,424
25,720
11.5%
-3.4%
Bedfordshire PCT
551,987
585,386
62,176
11.9%
-3.5%
Manchester PCT
925,276
979,818
102,780
11.7%
-3.5%
Mid Essex PCT
461,830
488,887
51,133
11.7%
-3.5%
Blackpool PCT
263,731
278,236
28,254
11.3%
-3.6%
North Lancashire Teaching PCT
520,037
549,674
56,748
11.5%
-3.7%
Shropshire County PCT
412,573
436,629
45,564
11.7%
-3.8%
Dudley PCT
461,918
487,324
49,487
11.3%
-3.9%
Suffolk PCT
820,056
869,582
92,277
11.9%
-4.0%
Hartlepool PCT
163,405
172,392
17,506
11.3%
-4.3%
Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT
511,831
539,982
54,834
11.3%
-4.5%
Halton and St Helens PCT
537,116
566,657
57,543
11.3%
-4.5%
Norfolk PCT
1,069,968
1,133,968
119,781
11.8%
-5.1%
North Somerset PCT
287,957
306,265
33,320
12.2%
-5.2%
North East Essex PCT
489,796
520,205
55,943
12.0%
-5.3%
County Durham PCT
886,825
935,601
95,008
11.3%
-5.4%
Sandwell PCT
523,488
552,279
56,083
11.3%
-5.4%
Doncaster PCT
502,312
529,939
53,814
11.3%
-5.5%
Stoke on Trent PCT
451,376
476,202
53,205
12.6%
-5.5%
Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT
830,158
879,975
93,096
11.8%
-5.6%
Derby City PCT
405,847
428,169
43,479
11.3%
-5.8%
Plymouth Teaching PCT
393,303
416,482
43,682
11.7%
-5.9%
Hull Teaching PCT
455,982
481,061
48,959
11.3%
-6.0%
Stockton-on-Tees Teaching PCT
287,728
303,980
31,252
11.5%
-6.0%
Leicester City PCT
488,731
515,611
58,787
12.9%
-6.1%
Barnsley PCT
409,151
437,291
57,837
15.2%
-6.2%
Bassetlaw PCT
167,978
182,407
26,671
17.1%
-6.2%
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly PCT
808,369
856,214
94,181
12.4%
-6.2%
Derbyshire County PCT
1,048,875
1,107,225
118,065
11.9%
-6.2%
East Riding of Yorkshire PCT
432,198
458,519
49,720
12.2%
-6.2%
Lincolnshire Teaching PCT
1,060,265
1,127,697
136,737
13.8%
-6.2%
North Lincolnshire PCT
238,152
252,197
28,256
12.6%
-6.2%
Nottingham City PCT
487,694
514,727
53,945
11.7%
-6.2%
Nottinghamshire County Teaching PCT
943,520
997,415
105,012
11.8%
-6.2%
Rotherham PCT
409,554
432,140
45,922
11.9%
-6.2%
South Staffordshire PCT
826,224
873,709
104,752
13.6%
-6.2%
Telford and Wrekin PCT
237,482
251,590
26,636
11.8%
-6.2%
Wakefield District PCT
564,093
595,118
66,463
12.6%
-6.2%



I hope this puts the funding boost in some context. With these unfair funding formulas in mind it is easy to see why Cornwall only has one major hospital in stark contrast to English counties and London boroughs.

A breath of fresh air at Penzance Town Council

The election has certainly rung a great many changes at Penzance Town Council. There are now 12 brand new councillors (although Simon Reed...