Hugo and Neil: between a rock and a hard place

Gove: Brexiter, the man who always said he didn’t want to be Prime Minister and wouldn’t be good at the job

Crabb: Remainer, the man who thinks homosexuality is a disease that can be cured and is married to a French woman

Liam Fox: Brexiter, the man who resigned because he took his flatmate “informal adviser” Adam Wherry on too many of his Ministry of Defence jaunts

Andrea Leadsom: Brexiter, a woman and someone who took advantage of offshore banking

Theresa May: Remainer, a woman who said there were no grounds for investigating widespread phone tapping by journalists

Tough one, boys!

Owl’s guess (note: Owl has no political nous or nose whatsoever) Hugo for Gove, Neil for Theresa. But not going to the bookies to put a bet on after the Boris Johnson shenanigans!

OK Hugo, who is your choice for PM? And Neil, what about you?

Will it be an old Etonian (Boris), a woman (May) a bloke from the working class (Crabbe) or Hunt – that chap you say you talked to a lot about our NHS but who doesn’t seem to have helped much?

How long will you sit on the fence? Or might you stand yourself? Or will you be campaigning to see which one will give you another ministerial post? Or the one offering you a peerage, perhaps?

Oh, the irony if you end up as just another common or garden constituency MP – who doesn’t have even a second home in it.

Owl feels your pain.

And Neil – now presumably so disliked by your Minister George Eustace for batting for the wrong side. And no hope of going back to the European Parliament!

Will the A303 now ever be completed … Will animal welfare continue to be protected by Brexiters? And forever destined to live with the fact that you were one of the 79 MPs who defied your party whip to force this Referendum.

But at least you do live in YOUR constituency.

Claire Wright: even more important that MPs represent their constituency

“Brexit: It is now more important than ever that this country has MPs who will represent the people

Tuesday, 28 June 2016 1 Comment by Claire

Since Friday events have moved so fast I haven’t even written a blog as each time I think of an angle it gets superseded by another major news story!

The only clear thing among all the chaos and confusion, is that this country has probably never been more divided – politically and socially – and in my view, more in peril than at any other time in living memory.

The party system seems to have totally fractured. Not only has the Conservative parliamentary party become bitterly broken, the Labour party is also at war.

Last Friday morning I felt shellshocked and upset that we had left an institution I believed worked for the greater good, despite its many faults. Since then I have watched fascinated as the subsequent dramatic events unfolded.

The economic fallout came swiftly and is very worrying. The value of the pound has plummeted to a 31 year low, we are told that the UK’s credit rating has been downgraded from a triple A to a double A rating, we have dropped from being the fifth largest economy in the world to the fourth and the Bank of England is on standby to pump £250bn of public money into the markets to reduce the jitters currently reverberating across the globe from our EU exit.

More than £200bn has been wiped from the value of the UK stock market – equivalent to 24 years worth of EU contributions.

A general election is now looking possible in October, to tie in with the selection of a new prime minister.

Lies and exaggeration were undoubtedly the order of the day for both the Leave and Remain campaigns, but what is really galling to me is that the Leave movement won people over on false pretences. On the NHS and immigration in particular – two major planks of their operation, their claims have been found to be resoundingly untrue.

The Remain campaign focused too much on scaremongering and too little on how the EU helps us, which only riled people and forced them into entrenched positions , setting family member and friend against one another.

The conservative IN bandwagon, seemed to be blinkered on issues mainly linked to the economy and immigration, discounting all the positive things that the EU does for us, for example on employment, the environment and human rights for example. I believe that this was because these are the issues that are not valued by the right wing political elite that we currently have governing this country.

David Cameron’s supposedly one nation conservative cabinet, which campaigned WITH big business against a ban on bee killing pesticides, has already scrapped or weakened as many environmental protections as it can get away with. Planning regulations are now as relaxed and in favour of developers as they have been since the introduction of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947.

With a future hardline right wing government on the cards, possibly led by the current favourite Boris Johnson, the likelihood of the current protections remaining for our seas, clean air, recycling, waste and for rare species, landscapes and plants – the Habitats Regulations – is remote.

Over the past few years the Conservative government has lobbied to scrap the EU Habitats Regulations – tough laws which protect some of our most precious landscapes here in East Devon, such as Woodbury Common, Aylesbeare Common, the Exe Estuary, as well as large swathes of Dartmoor.

However, despite the Habitats Regulations protecting our most rare and precious species such as the dartford warbler and the nightjar, our government announced the laws were “gold plated,” and lobbied the EU hard to get them scrapped.

The EU has so far held firm to these regulations, which also mean strong planning rules in these areas , as well as the surrounding countryside.

But I now can see on the horizon an inevitable and horrible ‘bonfire of red tape’ as a new right wing conservative leadership sets about dismantling anything that it views as in the way of “growth.”

So what is the future of East Devon now most of the country has voted to leave?

In my own council ward of Ottery, there must now be question marks for a controversial quarry proposed at Straitgate Farm, which was quietly looking less likely, due in part to the strict Habitats Regulations Protecting Woodbury Common, where Blackhill Quarry is based and where stone and gravel processing currently takes place. It was due to cease as of the end of this year because of these laws.

What will Brexit mean for East Devon’s two biggest industries? Agriculture and tourism? And what will it mean for education? What does it mean for our cash strapped NHS and our local very much at risk
community hospitals?

What will it mean for the most vulnerable people in the constituency and those on low incomes?

Certainly, both agriculture and education are forced to rely on EU subsidies and grants.

Prolonged economic hardship will surely mean even deeper public spending cuts, yet deeper cuts to public services, which as always, will have the biggest effect on those people who have the least.

If a general election does take place in October, the future of our district – and the rest of the country – rests with those politicians examining thousands of pages of EU law and policy with a view to changing, scrapping or tightening it.

The future of our vulnerable residents also rests with MPs who have a duty to stand up for people who need help and support.

East Devon’s MP needs speak and vote in favour or against new laws and policies based on how they affect local people. That’s voting FOR the people of East Devon, not his party.

Each MP has a duty, in my view, to be a diligent scrutineer of this process.

What laws or policies do we want in East Devon that will benefit us, our communities, our wildlife and our businesses? Now is the time to consider this very carefully.

If democracy is working effectively people in East Devon should have the opportunity to influence such discussions through our MP.

And our MP has a responsibility to stand up for the people of East Devon and what they see as their priorities, especially at this very turbulent time.

The question has to be as ever. Is Mr Swire up to the job?”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/brexit_it_is_now_more_important_than_ever_that_this_country_has_mps_who_wil

What MPs think about their expenses watchdogs

“Furious MPs have lashed out at the ‘rubbish’ watchdog that handed them a 10 per cent pay rise in a serious of extraordinary private rants.

Staff at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) were told to ‘grow some’, and condemned for publishing information that embarrassed politicians.

One MP lambasted the body for failing to increase their pay to more than £200,000 a year to replace expenses, and said they were preparing champagne to toast the departure of chairman Sir Ian Kennedy.

The messages have been released following a freedom of information request by MailOnline.

Ipsa handed MPs a bumper salary increase from £67,000 to £74,000 last year, despite the rest of the public sector being limited to 1 per cent.

They busted the cap again last month with a 1.3 per cent rise.

However, many MPs were angry about the timing of the increases and way they were handled, while the watchdog has also come under fire for publishing details of expenses debts.

Ipsa agreed to disclose the ‘free text’ responses from a recent survey of satisfaction levels among members and their staff, which was carried out anonymously.

One MP who was re-elected at the general election accused the watchdog of locking them in a ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’.
‘You are rubbish at acting on behalf of the Members of Parliament – you serve yourselves and are so far from ‘helping us do our job’ the complete opposite. Everyone feels the same – new and older MPs,’ they wrote.

The same politician insisted the expenses system should be ‘replaced completely by an allowance system rolled up with our salary’. That could see them handed around £140,000 a year on top of their current salary of just under £75,000. There would be no obligation to file receipts but they would have to fund their own offices.

‘No forms just £10-12k per month to go and do the job we want to do, freed up from your Kafkaesque nightmare of a system,’ the MP wrote. ‘Office/staff costs run as now but freeing us up from the bureaucratic bullying of Ipsa and allowing us to get on with doing the job we were elected to do – not form filling, looking over our shoulder and dealing with the media storm that Ipsa wonderfully conjures up for us…

‘And you wonder why you aren’t popular… ‘

Adding £12,000 per month to MPs’ salaries would leave them earning nearly £220,000 a year.

Answering a question about how communications from the watchdog could be improved, the politician replied: ‘Grow some and put your full name on there.’

WHAT MPS SAID TO THE WATCHDOG

‘You are rubbish at acting on behalf of the Members of Parliament – you serve yourselves and are so far from “helping us do our job”, the complete opposite…

‘Can’t wait till the discredited bully Ian Kennedy receives his marching orders – 650 glasses of self-funded champagne will be raised on that great day that can’t come soon enough.’

‘To be reduced to tears due to attitude and being ignored, left me very upset and vulnerable…

‘Just sort out basic incompetence and bad attitude. I have never used a more customer unfriendly service EVER.’

‘The decision to name and shame MPs with written off claims with an Ipsa press release was disgusting, unprofessional and as it turned out erroneous in too many cases.’

‘The justification for the large pay increase was appalling.
‘In essence Ipsa took the view that at the time when some (perhaps many) MPs were submitting claims that were permitted but publicly indefensible, the total amount claimed was acceptable.

‘They therefore took the combined value of all the indefensible claims, averaged them out, and added them to everybody’s salary – thereby implicitly condoning what had happened before.’

The MP added: ‘Can’t wait till the discredited bully Ian Kennedy receives his marching orders – 650 glasses of self-funded champagne will be raised on that great day that can’t come soon enough.’

They went on: ‘Trust you have enjoyed reading the responses as much as I enjoyed writing them!… I wonder when they will be published…’

Other re-elected MPs were similarly scathing.

One wrote: ‘The decision to name and shame MPs with written off claims with an Ipsa press release was disgusting, unprofessional and as it turned out erroneous in too many cases.’

Another complained that Ipsa was not covering all the costs it should.

‘Your ‘cost neutral’ payrise will for all MPs do further damage to our reputation as no one in the media seems to mention that it is not a raise in the package at all,’ they added.

Newly-elected politicians did not hold back in their criticism either.

One commented: ‘Too complicated. Too bureaucratic. Sloppy administration of paperwork in support. Guidance unclear. Online system cumbersome and complicated.’

Another respondent said they had been reduced to tears by ‘abysmal’ treatment from Ipsa.

‘I have submitted five official complaints due to the attitude I have received,’ they said.

‘I find the Ipsa service extremely unhelpful, arrogant, and choose not to listen. The behaviour meted out towards me has left me very upset on occasion and highly stressed.

‘To be reduced to tears due to attitude and being ignored, left me very upset and vulnerable. Dealing with Ipsa has been a completely frustrating and upsetting experience. I just don’t trust them.

‘Just sort out basic incompetence and bad attitude. I have never used a more customer unfriendly service EVER.’

Among the new-intake MPs taking aim at the pay hike was one who said: ‘The justification for the large pay increase was appalling.

‘In essence Ipsa took the view that at the time when some (perhaps many) MPs were submitting claims that were permitted but publicly indefensible, the total amount claimed was acceptable.

‘They therefore took the combined value of all the indefensible claims, averaged them out, and added them to everybody’s salary – thereby implicitly condoning what had happened before.’

Another more experienced politician complained that Ipsa’s approach meant they were under ‘constant pressure’ to refuse the increase.

‘Ipsa announced MPs one off pay rise very frequently, against the wishes of the public we serve, and failed to highlight the offsetting savings being made elsewhere,’ they said.

‘As a result, colleagues were under constant media pressure to refuse their pay rises, as the public were unaware of the offsetting reductions. It did nothing to help the reputation of politicians.

A spokesman for Ipsa said today: ‘We recognise that there is room for improvement and we are committed to working with MPs and their staff to continue to improve our services and systems, to make them more efficient, whilst still regulating MPs’ business costs and expenses effectively.
‘From the survey feedback, we are developing a new website that will be launched later this year.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3592539/Grow-200-000-year-MPs-private-rants-watchdog-awarded-bumper-10-pay-rise.html

The meaning of “housing supply policies”

“The Court of Appeal may have brought clarity to what are relevant housing supply policies (at least until the Supreme Court has its say), but it is not open season for housebuilders, argues John Pugh-Smith.

On 17 March 2016 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the linked appeals Suffolk District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & SSCLG and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council & SSGLG [2016] EWCA Civ 168.

The issue before the Court concerned the meaning of the phrase ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ in paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (‘NPPF49’) …”

Postscript: On 14 April the two unsuccessful authorities applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

see article for more information:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26705%3Athe-meaning-of-housing-supply-policies&catid=63&Itemid=31

Swire and Parish reject unaccompanied refugee children

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-mps-voted-on-whether-to-accept-3000-unaccompanied-syrian-child-refugees-who-travelled-to-europe-a7001016.html

Neil Parish gets pompous (and evasive) about his tax affairs too

Note: MP Mel Stride represents a small part of the East Devon area. Mr Parish was an MEP from 1999 to 2007.

THREE out of four Devon MPs would not answer questions about wjhether they have benefited from offshore accounts, the Echo can reveal.

Hugo Swire, Neil Parish and Mel Stride chose not to respond to questions from the Echo about their tax affairs.

It comes after leaked documents showed politicians, footballers and celebrities had benefited from offshore investments designed to avoid UK taxes. Following calls for greater transparency amongst politicians, the Echo asked the MPs if they had ever used offshore accounts and whether they were prepared to publish their tax returns.

But Mr Swire, whose family was listed at 42 in the most recent Sunday Times Rich List, mounted robust defence of MPs’ right to keep their tax affairs private, which the Echo is publishing in full [see Owl’s post below for Swire’s letter].

His family’s business, which owns a stake in Cathay Pacific, has scores of subsidiaries operating from Panama, Bermuda and the British Virgin Isles.

A county councillor has criticised the 56-year-old foreign office minister for failing to answer the questions posed to him and said he should reveal his tax affairs.

Councillor Claire Wright, who represents Ottery St Mary Rural, said: “Hugo needs to be open and transparent about whether he has offshore investments or not.”

Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter, was the only politician in the Echo’s circulation area to respond to all five questions.

He answered “no” to questions one, two and three, meaning he and his family to the best of his knowledge had not benefited from any offshore investments.

Mr Bradshaw said: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I have no problem with MPs who, after all, make the laws, being required to publish their tax returns and perhaps the same should apply to our tax-exiled newspaper proprietors too.”

Meanwhile an assistant to Mel Stride, MP for Central Devon, said he was not prepared to make a statement on whether Mr Stride had benefited from offshore accounts at the moment.

The assistant said: “All I can state is he has no offshore trusts.”

The office for Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, did not respond to any of the questions, but came back with the following statement.

Mr Parish said: “This Conservative Government has done more than any other Government to close tax loopholes, a move which I welcome and I voted in favour of these measures.

“All of the items where I have a pecuniary interest have been registered in the Register of Members’ Interest which can be found online.”

Cllr Wright, however, said she believed MPs should be open following the scandal.

She said: “Tax avoidance has been a growing public concern and after the release of the Panama papers, it has reached a point where it is a top story on the news every day.”

“It is beholden on every MP to be open and transparent. They are in a position of public trust if they do have money in off-shore accounts,” Cllr Wright said.

“Hugo is a government minister and as the government make attempts to try and tighten up tax avoidance, the public needs to have confidence in its MPs so we know that they are practicing what they preach.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, however said he thought it would be unfair for MPs to have to publish their tax returns.

He said: “David Cameron made a rod for his own back by moralising about the legal tax arrangements of others in the past and was clearly clumsy in his handling of questions about the Panama papers.

“But it would be unfair to start forcing politicians into publishing their tax returns. MPs already have to declare external sources of income, significant shareholdings and so on in the publicly-available Register of Members’ Financial Interests but enforced publication of full tax returns would be an undue invasion of privacy.

“Our politicians’ energy would be far better spent simplifying our labyrinthine tax code instead of pontificating about the tax arrangements of those abiding by the very laws which they have written.”

Our questions

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

A letter from East Devon MP Hugo Swire in response to The Echo’s Offshore Tax questions

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/asked-MPs-simple-questions-tax-returns-just/story-29106254-detail/story.html

Parish and Swire vote to cut disability benefits

“The House of Lords has been unable to stop a planned £30-a-week cut to disability benefits forced through by Government MPs.

Charities have warned that the cut to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) WRAG would make it more difficult for disabled people to find work and that many struggled to afford food on the benefit at its current level.

The Government however says the cut, which applies to new claimaints, will incentivise disabled people to find work.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/esa-wrag-disability-benefit-cut-disabled-mps-vote-tories-iain-duncan-smith-a6918556.html

“Devon Tory MP ‘undecided’ on EU vote – because he is overseas”

A Devon MP is yet to make up his mind on whether Britain should leave the European Union – because he is overseas.

Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who represents East Devon, is yet to indicate where he stands on the vote – due to him being away from the UK.

A spokesman for Mr Swire, who is Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said: “Mr Swire is in support of the idea of a referendum. He has been in New Zealand and is now in Canada on ministerial business. So I can’t give a yes or no. Hopefully we will be able to say by the end of this week or early next week. … ”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-Tory-MP-8216-undecided-8217-EU-vote-8211/story-28784122-detail/story.html

So they don’t have email or phones in New Zealand and Canada then?

Or is he waiting to see which side of the fence others take before choosing whether to sit on it, do as Dave says, or do as his constituency party wishes?

Big dilemma for such a busy, busy traveller.

Neil Parish (Con Tiverton and Honiton) and Ben Bradshaw (Lab Exeter) have both declared themselves for IN.

80 MPs ( including Neil Parish) in line for third payrise within a year

“Senior MPs could be in line for their THIRD bumper pay rise in a year.
Around 80 members who also help chair committee meetings and debates are set to get the eye-watering wage hike.

Half are in line for an extra £3,700 a year – the other half could see up to £15,000 more in their pay packets.

Chairs – who lead meetings of the influential groups – already get up to £15,000 on top of the £74,000 they get for being an MP, depending on their length of service.

In April, all MPs are in line for a 1.3% increase in their basic salary – which is already more than three times the national average.”

Daily Mirror online

Do you want your MP to be better behaved?

Review of the Code of Conduct 2016

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is asked to review the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members once in each Parliament.

On 21 January 2016 the Commissioner launched a public consultation exercise to help her with a review of the current Code of Conduct adopted by the House on 17 March 2015, following a review by her predecessor, John Lyon CB on 12 October 2011.

The consultation document is available here:

Click to access Code-of-Conduct-Consultation-Paper-2016.pdf

Responses to the consultation may be posted to:
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA

Or emailed to standardscommissioner@parliament.uk

Responses should be submitted by 14 March 2016

Both our MPs vote against a bill to ensure rented properties are fit for human habitation

Conservative MPs have voted against proposed new rules requiring private sector landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation.

A Labour amendment to the government’s housing and planning bill, designed to ensure that all rented accommodation was safe for people to live in, was defeated by 312 votes to 219 on Tuesday, a majority of 93.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/tories-reject-move-to-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation

At least 73 of the MPs who rejected proposals to ensure rented homes are “fit for human habitation” are themselves residential landlords, Political Scrapbook can reveal. …

… The full list of MPs who voted against the measure and had recorded their income as a residential landlord under Section 6(ii) of the current register of members’ interests, “Income derived from property: over £10,000 in a calendar year …”

72 landlord MPs voted down law to ensure housing is ‘fit for humans’

One of those 73 named in the article is Tiverton and Honiton MP Neil Parish.
East Devon MP Hugo Swire also voted against it.

South-West MEPs urge transparency on lobbying

South-West Conservative, Labour and Green MEPs have all agreed to publish details of all meetings they have in the course of their work so that any lobbying events are clearly identified and transparent:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/South-West-MEPs-push-greater-transparency/story-28486427-detail/story.html

Now, all we need is all the south-west’s MPs to do the same, starting with our own MPs, Swire and Parish. Oh, and of course, councillors, particularly their meetings with developers.

Gypsies- not in my back yard says Swire – stick ’em in Neil Parish’s bit of East Devon!

“East Devon MP Hugo Swire has urged a rethink on council plans to locate a large gypsy and traveller site in Cranbrook.

East Devon District Council, which is obliged to provide 37 new gypsy and traveller pitches in East Devon between now and 2034, is proposing in the latest draft of the local plan to create 30 new pitches in Cranbrook – 81per cent of the council’s overall allocation.

Cranbrook Town Council have opposed the plans.

Mr Swire said: “Obviously the easy thing to do is to put the majority of pitches in the same place but that does not mean it is the right thing to do.

There is more to East Devon than Cranbrook and I believe that other areas such as Axminster and Seaton should all take their fair share.

‘This looks to me like a rushed solution as the lack of identified sites is holding up the Local Plan. The majority of my constituents in Cranbrook have no objection in principle to taking on their share of pitches but it is clearly unfair for the town to have to accommodate over 80% of EDDC’s entire allocation.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-MP-urges-rethink-Cranbrook-gypsy/story-28231277-detail/story.html

No matter that EDDC itself has said that gypsy and traveller sites should be on arterial road routes.

One can only imagine what our two MPs have to say to each other – if, indeed, they speak at all.

Wonder what EDDC councillors in Axminster and Seaton think?

Neil Parish supports government on tax credits then criticises them

Owl can’t really get its head around MPs who vote FOR something and then criticise it, feeling that it should really be the other way around.

Still, at least he said something, unlike our other MP Hugo Swire who probably thinks tax credits are something wealthy bankers deserve:

“Neil Parish, the MP for [Honiton and] Tiverton, said: “W
e have just lost our way a little, but we can come back out of the wilderness and put this right. It is not a crime to be lowly paid. We have got to put this right, because the Conservative party and the government’s reputation is at stake.”

People would be driven back on to benefits if the government were not careful with its tax credit changes, he warned.

The environment select committee chairman added: “I think we are standing up for what we believe to be right because as far as I am concerned it’s absolutely fundamental people that work are better off than those that don’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/29/tax-credit-cuts-face-major-mitigation-as-tory-mps-fear-they-go-too-far

“WESTCOUNTRY TOURISM IS THE BIGGEST SECTOR FOR JOB GROWTH”

And what does East Devon District Council do? Sells its tourism assets to the highest bidder who inevitably develops “clone tourism” of the type you can get anywhere. And gives a councillor the title “Tourism Champion” when said champion then becomes invisible.

And do you think Hugo Swire (busy jetting off all over the world) or Neil Parish (who devotes himself to farming and roads) have the necessary “spine” required in the article.

And recall that EDDC slated former Independent Councillor Claire Wright when she had the temerity to suggest a cut in VAT for tourism!

Non-tourism, big business, preferably with massive development, has always been EDDC’s choice. What will they do now that our local economy is showing that isn’t working?


“IT’S OFFICIAL –
…”Without doubt, those national figures hide a much bigger message for the Westcountry, where tourism is a huge contributor to the regional economy. This should provide all Westcountry politicians with the ‘spine’ to demand the things that this vital sector needs to deliver its potential for the region’s economy:

A reduction in VAT, in line with continental competitors;
A review of the Government’s cuts to funding tourism promotion;
A commitment to delivering the long-promised improvements to road access to the Westcountry”, said Mr Hanbury.
“Right now, the Westcountry’s tourism providers are coping with the need for a total rethink of our traditional seaside product, and many providers are coming up with magnificent solutions. But those providers are competing on unfair terms with Continental rivals, who have far better transport links and lower VAT rates”, said Bishop Fleming’s Will Hanbury.”
http://www.exeterchamber.co.uk/its-official-westcountry-tourism-is-the-biggest-sector-for-job-growth/news/

Strange things happening on the Devon-Dorset border

http://www.trinitymatters.co.uk/index.php/planning-applications-east-devon/planning-applications-uplyme/item/1123-updated-4th-aug-application-15-0851-mout-land-west-of-shire-lane-uplyme

It appears that, whatever the decision, the Minister at the Department of Communities and Local Government had already decided to call it in.

Whilst this might be an unpopular development, it is no more or no less unpopular than many other current applications, so what has made it so special? It might, however, be the first of several applications that eventually could link Axminster to Lyme Regis.

The Devon MP is Neil Parish, the Dorset MP is Oliver Letwin, good friend of David Cameron. The site is closer to Dorset’s Lyme Regis than Devon’s Seaton and Axminster.

Following the 2015 election, Letwin remained Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as Cameron reappointed him as an official ministerial member of the new Conservative government’s Cabinet. He has been given responsibility for overall charge and oversight of the Cabinet Office.

Wonder what they think of this really strange situation?

It also appears to have been decided by “Chairman’s Delegation Committee” – anyone heard of this before?

See Councillor Ian Thomas’s comments on this in Comments section.

Which begs the question: if a developer or one single interested party can persuade the DCLG to consider call-in of a planning application BEFORE a decision is made – what is the point of having the meeting!

Should the DCLG be asked to clarify their behaviour?

Neil Parish to campaign to keep Axminster hospital open

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Letter-Neil-Parish-campaign-reopen-ward-beds/story-27512283-detail/story.html

Now, where is the same sort of letter from Hugo Swire about Ottery? Not just the anodyne phrases he has trotted out so far – some real fighting words.

He will say that, as a Minister, he cannot bring this up in Parliament. So why did people choose to vote for him?

Imagine what an Independent MP could have done, free from party shackles – including joining forces with Neil Parish to double exposure of the situation in Parliament.

It is all up to former parliamentary candidate and current DCC councillor Claire Wright now – and a great job she is doing.

Fracking: get ready to rumble!

Honiton and Tiverton MP Neil Parish has said the government should do more to “get people behind fracking” (see earlier post). However, those in the fracking areas of Oklahoma might disagree:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/25/oklahoma-fracking-regulations-earthquakes

Neil Parish MP says the public should be encouraged to “buy into fracking”: Green MEP disagrees

“The new head of Parliament’s environment and rural affairs committee has urged ministers to do more to encourage people to “buy into” fracking.

Neil Parish, chairman of the Efra select committee and MP for Tiverton and Honiton, suggested the controversial practice would be “good for the country”. But he said it was important for the Government to demonstrate “tangible” benefits to local communities first in order to get their support.

His comments came during a Westminster debate in which he acknowledged there were no current plans to extract shale gas in Devon. But large areas of the Westcountry are open to applications, and the energy secretary is pushing for extraction to be permitted in national parks.

Mr Parish argued a “competitive and efficient” shale gas industry would be “good for the country”, adding that the UK could end up producing “a lot more” of the resource than expected. He qualified this by saying the gas “should not be brought out of the ground at any price” and recommending investment in infrastructure to ensure minimal disruption to communities and landscapes.

However, his comments drew criticism from Green MEP Molly Scott Cato, who said the Government’s approach to fracking was proof of its willingness “to prioritise corporations over people’s rights and their health”.”

Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Devon-MP-suggests-public-buy-idea-fracking/story-26822148-detail/story.html