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....

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. 

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.