text:
My initial view on the EU referendum
Interview with Doronieth Kernow blog
Letter of support in the St Austell Voice
Parliamentary boundary review started today
My Cornish Guardian column ... the Merlin carving
Government starter homes will not be affordable
Cornwall needs its own National Planning Policy Fr...
My latest monthly report to St Enoder Parish Counc...
The housing target in the Cornwall Local Plan, the...
New eco-community plans submitted to Cornwall Coun...
Today's vote on the budget at Cornwall Council
No to Devonwall Constituency: my Cornish Guardian ...
No to Devonwall Constituency
Positive MK meeting in St Austell and Newquay cons...
Report on Strategic Planning Committee: biogas pla...
Cornwall merits proper devolution
A response from the BBC Trust
MK demands fair coverage on BBC television
Ever since David Cameron announced that there will be a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, there have been plenty of dramatic headlines and waves of claim and counter-claim.
The United Kingdom Independence Party and others claim that the EU costs £55 million a day (or £20 billion a year). But this "gross contribution" figure is somewhat greater than the Treasury's own figures. It also neglects to reference the "UK" rebate or other monies that come back into this country.
The Treasury states that, for 2015/2016, the "net contribution" to the EU will actually be £8.5 billion.
I have also seen figures from the European Commission, which notes additional monies paid direct to the private sector such as research grants. This reduces the "net contribution" to be less than £7 billion.
One campaign organisation Leave.EU has meanwhile claimed that the "average household could be £933 better off if the UK left the EU." But Britain Stronger in Europe have countered with the argument that "trade, investment, jobs and lower prices" linked to membership of the EU is "worth £3,000 per year to every household." Others have challenged the reliability of both figures!
Is it any wonder so many people are perplexed by the whole debate? I would certainly appeal to everyone involved in the referendum campaign to reduce the "spin" and to "inform" and keep the arguments as balanced as possible.
From my perspective, I have always been instinctively supportive of the concept of the EU and I will be voting to remain.
I recognise that many positive initiatives have come out of European co-operation such as improved environmental controls and a host of protections for workers.
It is also the case that since Cornwall was recognised as a European region, it has secured significant and much-needed investment through EU structural funds.
Cornwall has been a net beneficiary of EU funding, an important investment for many local businesses – large and small – and for numerous key projects such as the university and superfast broadband.
But much of the debate so far has, inevitably, been dominated by Westminster politicians, the City of London, key participants in the various campaign groups, and peripheral concerns such as the future leadership of the Conservative Party.
Whatever your view on the referendum, I believe it is essential that we do our utmost to ensure that the significance of the issue for Cornwall (and similar areas) is also at the very heart of the debate.
[This will be my article in this week's Cornish Guardian].
On his thought-provoking Doronieth Kernow blog, Ben Gilby twice wrote Mebyon Kernow's call to make 2016 The Year of Cornish Recognition in January. This led to a wider discussion on "MK's position in contemporary politics" which, it is fair to say, did generate some criticism of MK.
I have done an interview with Ben to address some of the issues raised, the first part of which has been posted online to day.
If you want to have a read, it can be found at: https://doroniethkernow.wordpress.com
Many thanks to Julie Fox for her letter of support for MK's work, and our continuing opposition to the so-called eco-community, which appeared in this week's St Austell Voice. If you haven't seen it, her letter was as follows:
Once again, I am very disappointed at the recent coverage of the eco-community, proposed for land between Penwithick and St Austell. The article in last week's newspaper seemed more like an advert for Eco-Bos than a balanced news report.
It is also a disgrace that Cornwall Council is ignoring one thousand objections to this development, and its spokesman is crowing that councillors voted to keep the eco-community in the Cornwall Local Plan.
I am a member of Mebyon Kernow, and I am proud that at least MK councillors have consistently opposed this development.
I wonder whether those other councillors, who are happy to back yet another 1,500 houses in Clay Country, would support such a large development in their own areas, for example, on the Roseland or on the outskirts of Looe.
The "Boundary Commission for England" (BCE) has today commenced the redrawing of parliamentary boundaries in Cornwall and England.
The official press release states:
"The move follows a decision by Parliament to reduce the number of constituencies in the UK to 600, and to ensure that there are roughly the same number of electors in each constituency. The BCE is tasked with making independent recommendations about where the boundaries of English constituencies should be.
"The total UK electorate has been announced by the Office for National Statistics as 44,722,004, which means the number of electors in each mainland English constituency must be no less than 71,031 and no more than 78,507.
"England will therefore have 501 constituencies, 32 fewer than there are currently. The Commission has also decided how those constituencies will be distributed among the English regions.
"The BCE now begins work on its initial proposals for new boundaries, which are expected to be published in September 2016. The publication of those proposals will begin a 12-week consultation period, during which the BCE will invite comments on the proposals to capture the views and knowledge of local residents.
"The BCE will also be travelling across England in the autumn to hear from people in person. All comments will help the Commission further refine the boundary proposals before views are sought on any revisions later in 2017. The Commission must make its final recommendations to Parliament in 2018."
The BCE has also released figures detailing the electorates for individual areas, which will be used in the review. It is worthnotingthat the rolls are less than they were because of [dodgy] changes to the process of electoral registration.
These show that Cornwall (officially) has an electorate of 392,223, while the Isles of Scilly have an electorate of 1,651. Together, this would equate to an entitlement of 5.27 MPs.
This shows that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly could reasonably have five MPs which would not be wildly different in terms of number of recorded voters than elsewhere, but the legislation would prevent this happenning and would force a Devonwall seat on us.
I will report soon about how MK will be campaigning on this issue.
In this week's Cornish Guardian, my article will skirt over the present furore at Tintagel, concerning the Merlin carving. As an archaeologist, I guess I had to say something. My, very balanced article, will be as follows:
The decision of (the misnamed) English Heritage (EH) to carve an imagined face of Merlin into the bedrock near Tintagel Castle has certainly led to what some journalists have described as a hullabaloo!
EH released a statement setting out how the "legend of both King Arthur and Merlin" was inextricably linked to Tintagel, adding that the carving was "discreet" and positioned "just outside Merlin's Cave … so called after Victorian poet Alfred Tennyson's retelling of the legend."
They added that the carving was part of an outdoor interpretation scheme that, as well as seats and boards, would include a 2.5 metre high statue of King Arthur and a "sword installation." They argued this would "help people to understand the history and mythology" of what they described as an "internationally important site."
Much of the local reaction has been less generous. Some have described the carving as "vandalism," while others have condemned the "Disneyfication" of the site. Headlines have screamed "Merlin – magical or monstrous?" while there has also been criticism that the focus on King Arthur and Merlin has diminished the true story of Tintagel – a censure which has considerable merit.
As someone with a background in archaeology, I take the view that Tintagel is indeed a multi-layered site. It was a very important regional fortress between around 450 and 650AD, when there was significant trade with the Mediterranean, while much of the present-day upstanding castle was built between 1225 and 1233 by Richard, Earl of Cornwall.
Richard happened to be the brother of Henry III and his decision to construct his castle was clearly influenced by Arthurian associations with the headland, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain completed in about 1138.
The potential narratives that spring from this are inevitably varied and, I believe, this emphasises how we would all benefit from understanding more about the Cornwall in which we live, and what made it the place it is today.
There are many historians, academics, teachers and cultural activists, who are working hard to ensure that more people are taught about Cornwall. It is right that we applaud their work, and do all we can to ensure that their efforts are built upon.
Whether it is about Tintagel; Cornwall's Celtic origins; our national language; our traditional industries; the mass emigration of Cornish folk; the achievements of many talented Cornish men and women; as well as the struggles of the ordinary people of Cornwall who lived though many social and economic upheavals … there is so much we could be finding out more about.
Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall has today formally responded to a consultation on the Government's Housing and Planning Bill, which relates to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.
One of the key proposals is for starter homes, sold at a 20% discount, but worth up to £250,000. Printed below is an extract from our response, which includes text you may recognise from previous blogs.
It is the view of Mebyon Kernow that the proposal for starter homes (as presently defined by the Government) would be a disaster for Cornwall and communities across the United Kingdom.
We consider the shift away from affordable homes for rent to be inappropriate and we would argue that social housing – not the Government's preferred model of "affordable rent" – should be the priority in order to create balanced communities.
We note that at the Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron said: "For years, politicians have been talking about building what they call 'affordable homes' – but the phrase was deceptive. It basically meant homes that were only available to rent. What people want are homes they can actually own."
His speech which summed up the proposed changes was factually inaccurate.
Here in Cornwall, we have been providing "discounted homes for sale" for many years. Found on numerous developments, both large and small, these properties were controlled via "Section 106" agreements, which restricted the value of the property, in perpetuity, as a percentage of OMV (open market value), ensuring that the affordable home benefits future generations.
For the record, Cornwall Council recently updated this element of its affordable housing policy. It set out, for example, that the percentage discount for a two-bed house should achieve a figure of £87,000 while for a three-bed house it should equate to £104,500.
This is appropriate for Cornish communities and the wages levels of those families who would wish to access such properties.
It is an approach that has worked well, but it has been undermined by central government and the banking sector. Most banks and building societies are now refusing to grant mortgages for such properties, making it very difficult for local developers to identify purchasers.
We would formally request that the Government reform the banking sector to deal with this issue, rather than proceeding with its proposed "starter homes" (sold at a 20% discount) up to a value of £250,000 which would frankly not be affordable and very much against the spirit of affordable housing.
The Government has also made it clear that these "starter homes" would not be "affordable" in perpetuity, which we fundamentally object to. The proposal that the discount would be a "one-off," benefiting just a single family – and after five years the property could be sold at its open market value – would do even more damage to the provision of affordable homes, reducing the percentage of such properties within the wider housing market.
Cornwall needs its own National Planning Policy Framework
MK has just released a press statement from the most recent meeting in the St Austell and Newquay constituency. It is as follows:
At the most recent meeting of Mebyon Kernow members in the St Austell and Newquay constituency, Party Leader Cllr Dick Cole demanded greater local control on planning matters.
In a wide-ranging meeting, held at St Dennis, Cllr Cole pledged that MK would continue to campaign for Cornwall to have full democratic control over the planning system. He told the meeting:
"Politicians and communities in Cornwall have very limited say over planning. The planning system is dysfunctional and central government's 'presumption in favour' of development in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) means the document is a 'developers' charter.' It has certainly led to much unchecked and damaging development."
He also (i) hit out at how central government had put in place an inspection regime that had forced Cornwall to adopt a much higher housing target in its Local Plan than deemed appropriate by the majority of local residents, and (ii) condemned central government for rewriting "affordable housing" policies, undermining the very provision of proper local-needs housing.
Cllr Cole added that Mebyon Kernow was responding to a consultation on the Housing and Planning Bill, which is making further unwelcome changes to the NPPF.
Looking ahead to the future, Cllr Cole repeated MK's call for a National Assembly of Cornwall.
He said:"If we had a National Assembly, all decisions about planning and housing would be taken in Cornwall . This would include the production of a Cornish National Planning Policy Framework to replace the NPPF produced by central government, allowing policies and targets to be agreed locally without interference from Whitehall .
"Planning decisions would be taken by local councils and any appeal process would then be controlled by the National Assembly – so that inspectors from Bristol no longer over-rule the views of local communities and their elected representatives."
My latest monthly report to St Enoder Parish Council
I will be tabling my next monthly at Tuesday's meeting of St Enoder Parish Council. It covers the period from 25th January to 21st February 2016, and will be as follows:
1. Council meetings
I have attended a range of formal meetings at Cornwall Council over the last month. These included: Full Council, Strategic Planning Committee, Transport Planning Advisory Committee, Informal Planning and Development Group, China Clay Area Community Network, a meeting of Cornwall Councillors from the China Clay Area, the Cornish National Minority working group, and briefings on corporate safeguarding and partnership working.
In addition to the meetings listed above, I have had numerous informal meetings with council officers and others to discuss a range of issues. These have included the planning situation at Higher Fraddon and the operation of the Homechoice system in the China Clay Area. I also had a one-to-one meeting with the New Chief Executive Kate Keneally.
2. Other meetings
I have also attended the Annual General Meeting of the Indian Queens Pit Association, of which I am a trustee, as well as meetings of the South and East Cornwall Local Action Group and the St Austell Bay Economic Forum.
3. Penare Pig Farm, Higher Fraddon and associated AD plant
There are a number of updates relating to the above ongoing planning applications and related matters. These include the following:
- Pig farm application
As stated in my last report, the application for the redevelopment of the pig farm was agreed at November's meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee, subject to a range of conditions to be finalised by planning officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Committee, plus me.
This work is nearing completion but, at the time of writing, the conditions have not yet been signed off. As previously reported, the draft conditions will include the insertion of bio-filters or equivalent odour treatment measures into all the livestock buildings and enhanced measures to control surface water.
- Strategic Planning Committee
On 11th February, Cornwall Council's Strategic Planning Committee considered the two applications relating to the biogas plant at Higher Fraddon, namely the regularisation of the site as built (PA15/03073) and a variation of the traffic movements to the site (PA15/05220).
The session took three hours and four local residents spoke at the meeting; Emily Martin, Helen Martin, Philip Potter and Anne Woolcock. Michael Hopkins spoke on behalf of the Parish Council, while David Manley and Darren Stockley represented Greener for Life. Obviously, I inputted as well.
It is fair to say that, as at the last meeting on the 19th November 2015, the members of the Committee were universally horrified about what has happened at Higher Fraddon in planning terms.
Councillor followed councillor in criticising the two proposals and there was particular anger at the "flawed" / "inaccurate" / "misleading" non-material amendments (agreed without any democratic or community consultation), which had (i) allowed the amount of feedstock imported into the site to be increased from just over 6,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes, and (ii) led to a larger number of 44-tonne vehicles assessing the site.
Numerous councillors set out their stalls early that they wished to refuse the first "Section 73" application to "regularise" the site which had not been constructed in accordance with plans (while lowering one of the three domes).
However, the planning officers argued that if councillors wished to refuse the application they had to find a reason specifically linked to the size and shape of the domes. It was also suggested that if the applicant appealed such a refusal, it would be difficult to defend the decision at an appeal hearing.
The officers also argued that while councillors might not be able to refuse the application on grounds such as traffic, etc, they were able, through a Section 73 application, to impose new conditions to control aspects of the application (including traffic).
Councillors also expressed concern about the proposed conditions, particularly those on traffic which many felt were unworkable.
The end result was that councillors voted to defer the application so that all the conditions could be reviewed – I think many were keen to see a reduction in the number of large vehicles in Higher Fraddon – and a revised application brought back to a future meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee.
The vote was 11 to eight in favour of this, but those people in favour of the deferral made it clear that they would not necessarily be supporting the application on its return.
Planning officers, the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Committee, plus myself and other interested parties, will now be tasked to review and reconsider how such an application might be controlled through conditions.
The second application was to modify the traffic movements on the previous consent PA12/01700 and associated NMAs. It was noted that this proposal was therefore linked to a planning permission (which the applicants had failed to comply with) and which the applicants were not seeking to regularise, and therefore were unlikely to rebuild in a different form to comply with the previous consent.
Councillors understood this, and the fact that the issue of traffic was being considered under the auspices of the first (deferred) application. They also set out their concern at the extent of requested vehicle movements and voted to refuse the application. The vote was unanimous.
There is now likely to be much toing and froing before the application goes back to Strategic Planning and I will do my utmost to keep people informed.
- Higher Fraddon Community Forum
Since the last meeting of the Forum on 13th January 2016, Greener for Life have told me that they no longer wish to attend monthly meetings and would only be turning up on a quarterly basis. I am presently lobbying the company to take their community engagement role more seriously.
4. South West Water works at Trevarren
At the last Parish Council meeting, I reported that, following representations over a decade, South West Water will be undertaking works to end surcharges from the foul water sewer onto the highway through Trevarren.
I have continued to liaise with South West Water concerning the finalisation of the design of the realignment of part of the foul sewer and the construction of an associated attenuation tank. Since the last meeting of the Parish Council, the position of the tank has been modified and upsized to hold up to 280,000 litres of water.
South West Water's present timetable is still to commence construction works in March 2016.
5. Kelliers
I can report that the relevant Corporate Director has signed off the freehold transfer to St Enoder Parish Council. I will update members of the Parish Council when I have more information about the actual transfer of the land, but look forward to us being able to make improvements to this area and turn the Kelliers into a countryside area for local parishioners to enjoy.
6. Devolution fund
At the most recent Community Network meeting, councillors considered how the devolution fund of £608,000 across Cornwall could be used to assist parish councils to take over assets of services.
The funding available to the China Clay Network totals just over £27,000 and, at this recent meeting, it was discussed how the money could be used towards the costs of a Parish Council maintaining land no longer looked after by the unitary authority. I have added that some of the funding could be used towards the work on the Kelliers.
7. Indian Queens Recreation Ground
Following the submission of the application to Cornwall SITA Trust Ltd for funding towards the construction of a new play area in the Indian Queens Recreation Ground, I have been continuing to work with Amanda Kendall, the Clerk of St Enoder Parish Council, on plans to consult the local families on the layout of the suggested schemes.
I have spoken to the Indian Queens Under-5s and the Wesley Pre-School about feedback on what the Parish Council is proposing.
I have also organised a drop in session for children and parents to view and comment on the plans on 4th March. This will take place at the Indian Queens Victory Hall between 2.00 and 4.30.
8. Planning and related matters
I have been actively involved with a large number of ongoing applications, as well as related planning matters. Listed below are a few examples, though this list is by no means exhaustive:
- Pines Tip, Fraddon (PA15/00955)
This application for three wind turbines on Pines Tip will be considered by the Strategic Planning Committee on 10th March. I understand that the recommendation will be for refusal.
- Redevelopment and extension of Kingsley Village (PA15/04129)
The conditions for this application, which was consented at Strategic Planning Committee in October, have just been finalised. I have been asked to check the detail and it is likely that this application will be signed off this week.
- Mobile homes on the Kelliers (PA15/06186)
In January I reported that, following the refusal of the second (part-retrospective) application for mobile homes on the Kelliers (PA15/06186), a series of enforcement notices were served by the unitary authority in the first week of January 2016.
I have since been informed that the landowner has appealed against both the refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notices. I understand that the appeal will be heard through a hearing and, obviously, the Parish Council will need to prepare a detailed statement setting out the views of our authority.
- Former Post Office, Fraddon (PA15/08012)
This change of use application to turn the former Post Office in Fraddon into a takeaway is continuing to be quite controversial. I have requested that it be referred to the Central Sub-Area Planning Committee and understand that it will be considered on 14th March.
9. Highway issues: requests for traffic schemes
I have reported before how Cornwall Councillors were asked to put forward traffic schemes to be considered as possible projects by Highways officers, though we were left under no illusions about the lack of funding within the authority.
Responses to these "member requests" were issued last week and I am very disappointed at the responses. Examples of the feedback are as follows:
Indian Queens Primary School Transportation Improvements … "Whilst there is no specific funding available to carry out this work, the request will be retained on a list for consideration as part of any future development related issues."
Summercourt Crossroads - pedestrian crossing … "It may be possible for pedestrian phases to be installed at signals, at marginal cost, as part of future maintenance work. Again, not aware of any significant proposed developments in this area. A pedestrian/vehicle count and review of accidents will be carried out to see if the location meets the numeric criteria set out in Cornwall Council policy."
Speed reduction measures at various locations … "Since April 2013, there has been significant structural change within the Council, with the result that some funded programmes and the corresponding management teams, no longer exist. There are no longer any funded programmes aimed specifically at works of this type. Analysis of the accident records at these locations indicates a limited accident history and further investigation will be carried out by the Road Safety Team to assess whether this warrants more detailed attention. In the meantime, subject to the outcome of further analysis by the Accident Team, there is insufficient evidence to justify funding for measures at this location. However, as this location is in an area which may be considered for development in the future the requests will be retained on a list for consideration as part of any future planning or development related issues."
20 mph speed limit at Summercourt School plus associated works: "A meeting with the Planning Team did not reveal any proposed developments of sufficient scale in the Summercourt area which could generate circumstances to warrant financial support for this request. This will be retained on list for development officer consideration in the event of any large scale developments which arise. There is currently no funded programme of 20 mph zones or single stretches of road. Analysis of the accident records at this location identifies limited accident history and further investigation will be carried out by the Road Safety Team to assess whether this warrants more detailed attention."
I am not happy and I intend to challenge the limited nature of the responses that I have received.
10. Highway issues
Since the last meeting of St Enoder Parish Council, I have been following up on a number of highway-related issues. A few examples are listed below:
- Speed checks
In addition to the speed checks which I reported last month (Chapeltown, Summercourt; Newquay Road, St Columb Road; and Sea View Terrace), I can report that a speed check has been carried out on Moorland Road, Indian Queens.
The findings are available on request.
11. Flooding / water run-off
During the recent bad weather, I have monitored a number of areas where flooding has been encountered in recent years. As well as the areas I mentioned at last month's meeting, I have also reported a range of problems with road drains at various points in Fraddon, Indian Queens and Summercourt, including Chapeltown, as well as an overflowing road ditch near St Denis Junction. There also continues to be serious problems with an overflowing ditch at the entrance to Gaverigan Manor Farm.
I am continuing to follow-up these incidents with the relevant staff at the unitary authority.
12. Local playgroups
I continue to be in contact with both the Indian Queens Under-5s and the Wesley Pre-School. I have helped the Indian Queens Under-5s with an application for funding towards a hard surface in their outside area, and I twice met with members of the Committee of the Wesley Pre-School to assist with their project for a new Pre-School building.
13. Dog fouling
In recent weeks, there has been an upsurge in complaints about dog mess on local pavements and verges. The Wesley Pre-School has been running a strong campaign, with numerous posters on local telegraph poles, seeking that all dog owners pick up any mess from their animals. I have been in contact with the local dog warden who has been making a number of targeted visits and there will also be a street clean in the near future.
14. Council tax increase
At the Full Council meeting on 16th February, councillors on the unitary authority voted to increase council tax by 3.97%. This included a 2.0% uplift from the previous year, which central government has stated could be levied as long as the monies raised are used to fund adult social care.
I voted in favour of this increase, which is very important to mitigate the ongoing reduction in central government funding and rising costs.
15. Electoral Review Panel
Following the announcement that unitary authority has to commence a (two year) Boundary Review to consider the number of Cornwall Councillors and new division boundaries, I can now report that I have been appointed to the Electoral Review Panel, which is to be tasked to carry out the work.
16. Inquiries
Throughout the last two months, I have also helped numerous people with advice and guidance. Issues have included housing problems, speeding traffic, various enforcement matters and more.
The housing target in the Cornwall Local Plan, the debates and MK
In recent weeks, Mebyon Kernow has come in for some criticism that it has failed to do enough to push for a lower housing target during the work towards the Cornwall Local Plan.
I am saddened by this, and I have been asked by a colleague to put the record straight.
Firstly though, on general planning matters, MK councillors have often taken a very strong lead in opposing inappropriate developments – both large and small. Speaking for myself, I am particularly proud of the role I played in fighting the incinerator near St Dennis, producing a 33,000 "proof of evidence" on behalf of the local Parish Council and an associated campaign group for the Public Inquiry. It was certainly a privilege to present the 11,000 closing statement. We have also helped a number of groups with support and guidance, much of which our critics will not have seen.
In terms of the Local Plan and the overall housing target, we have been persistently plugging away for years and, though people may not like the result (largely because of central government pressures). I feel MK's efforts should be recognised.
At Cornwall Council, I very much took the lead on this matter for MK. In the last Council (2009-2013), I chaired the Planning Policy Advisory Panel (PPAP) and, since 2013, the Environment, Heritage and Planning PAC (later rejigged as the Planning PAC). In this time, I have attended dozens and dozens of meetings, I repeatedly challenged the proposals put to elected members, and twice put forward a detailed proposal for a lower housing target for the Local Plan.
On Thursday 4th August 2011, the Planning Policy Advisory Panel met to consider the officer recommendation to set a housing target of 54,000 new properties for the period 2010 to 2030.
At this meeting, I argued that Cornwall had had growth rates higher than almost all other parts of the United Kingdom and that this could not go on indefinitely. I also challenged (i) ONS projections, (ii) projections on the extent of new households being generated from within Cornwall by the trend towards smaller household sizes, and also (iii) suggested levels of in-migration.
I moved an amendment for 40,000, arguing that the priority was far-reaching policies to maximise the delivery of proper local-needs housing - not high growth dominated by open market housing. The vote was extremely close and the votes were split across parties. Six members supported the 40,000 figure, which was opposed by five others.
The Cabinet member with responsibility for planning chose to ignore the recommendation of PPAP and asked officers to develop an initial target of 48,000 for consultation. At a meeting of the Conservative/Independent Cabinet on 12th October 2011, the figure of 48,000 was agreed for consultation. I attended and argued in favour of the lower figure. The vote in support of 48,000 was five votes to three.
The following year, I chaired another meeting of PPAP (28th September 2012) which again focussed on Cornwall's housing target for the next two decades.
The officers had tabled a report which recommended that the number of new housing units should total 49,000. They argued this was based on population projections from the ONS.
I noted that, between 1991 and 2010, 42,000 new properties had been built in Cornwall, and argued that the evidence did not merit the proposed increase in the levels of house construction. I presented an alternative proposal for a lower housing target of 38,000 with the support of Camborne Councillor Dave Biggs. This document is available on request.
In making my recommendation for a lower figure, I argued for significantly less growth in Bodmin and Newquay. This certainly brought me considerable criticism from the councillors in those two towns. Members of the PPAP voted by six votes to three to recommend to the ruling Cabinet that the housing target for 2010-2030 should be 38,000, but this was rejected by the Conservative-led Cabinet at a meeting on 7th November 2012.
The Cabinet member recommended a figure of 48,500 new properties for the period 2010-2030, which was endorsed by four votes to three.
The Local Plan finally made it to a meeting of Full Council on Tuesday 12th February 2013. At the start of the debate, I spoke in favour of PPAP's recommendation of 38,000, which I felt we had backed up with a range of detailed evidence.
The officers' latest recommendation of 45,400 was voted down, as was a further amendment of 29,000. This was moved by Bert Biscoe, but the proposal had not been worked up in any detail.
Councillors from Bodmin, Falmouth and Newquay then argued for higher housing allocations for their towns. An amendment was moved which started with a target of 38,000 but added 1,900 housing units to Bodmin, 1,100 to Falmouth, and 1,300 to Newquay, bringing the overall housing target to 42,250. MK councillors voted against the amendment, but it was passed by 58 votes to 33.
Following the unitary elections in 2013, I was elected as the Chairman of the Environment, Heritage and Planning PAC. The content of the Local Plan was revisited and a range of meetings were organised.
I sought to engage with members across the authority and asked that they consider the various options including the 38,000 authored by myself and David Biggs, the previous Council's agreed 42,250 and the officers' new recommended figure of 47,500 contained within the recent Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment – which equated to the Government's so-called "objectively assessed need" as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
It was clear there was an overwhelming majority of councillors who wished to accept the officer's recommendation. This was principally founded on an analysis of how Core Strategies and Local Plans had fared, once submitted to a Planning Inspector for public examination – a process which all Plans have to go through. It made sober reading and confirmed that localism is truly a farce. The Coalition had a massive growth agenda and pretty much every single Plan with a target set below projections from the ONS had – after significant delays – been forced to accept higher numbers. It was a disgrace, but it was also a reality.
The PAC worked up two options for Cabinet and Council, as requested by members – namely the view of the previous Council and the officers' recommendation. No councillors put forward an alternative proposal to the PAC.
The resultant Full Council meeting took place on 14 January 2014, at which the 47,500 target was agreed.
At that meeting, the Conservative Group – the majority of whom had argued for higher numbers in the previous Council – put forward a confused amendment to Full Council for 33,000 properties for the period 2010-2030. But the proposal was not even for 33,000 new units. It had 33,000 properties as a baseline and added that "no area will be allocated a lower figure than their extant consents." This automatically added another 3,000-plus to the target. The proposal stated that local members be given a period to "request … that a higher number be allocated" which – given the other recent debates – meant that the several thousand properties would have been added to the total. This would have made the target much greater than the 38,000 we had pushed in the previous Council and probably even higher than the 42,250 that was also an option at the time
The MK group did vote against this poorly worked up proposal, and a couple of Conservative councillors spoke to me after the meeting and admitted that they considered the proposal a political stunt to simply get a positive headline! To be fair though, the Tory councillor behind the proposal did push it with the best of intentions.
The Conservative MP Sarah Newton also made a number of claims that the Council could successfully argue for a lower target than was actually agreed.
Around this time, I also took the initiative, on behalf of a cross-party handful of councillors, to write to the local government minister Brandon Lewis seeking a meeting to discuss housing numbers. The government wrote to the Council consenting to such a meeting, but the leadership of the authority decreed that the meeting only be attended by the Cabinet Member. There was nothing I could do about this, even though I had personally secured the meeting. I was pretty angry about it all, but the main outcome of the meeting was that Mr Lewis basically contradicted Sarah Newton and gave no succour whatsoever to those of us arguing for a lower target.
At this point, it had been my intention to put forward additional information for the Examination in Public, but the time leading up to the EiP was when MK was contesting the General Election. This was the one time when I wished that I could have done more, but it was simply not possible with my other commitments.
Obviously people are aware that, at the EiP, the Inspector demanded a range of changes to the document which were consistent with instructions from central government – whatever MPs might say!
The revised document was agreed on 15th December 2015, when councillors had no real option other than to accept the bitter pill of bowing to the Inspector's will.
At this time, MK decided to focus on trying to get the so-called "eco-community" allocation for West Carclaze and Baal be removed from the document. For the record I have consistently opposed this development since 2007/2008, when I produced the objections agreed by Restormel Borough Council.
The reason for this was that the Government's Planning Policy Statement, which specified that an eco-town had to be built, was cancelled on 6th March 2015 and it councillors could therefore legitimately reconsider whether the proposed development near Penwithick was appropriate.
I was pretty gutted when the amendment was only supported by eight councillors; namely the four MK councillors plus four independents. I also thought it was also very symbolic of the whole debate.
I hope the above information does show how MK councillors have been worked hard on this issue.
But I would add that this update only covers the key meetings which relate to the housing targets, and it does not record the plethora of briefings and debates which we took part in. This update also doesn't consider issues relating to the elements in the Local Plan, such as affordable housing. This could be a blog for another day, in terms of how Government policies are destroying the very concept of affordable housing.
New eco-community plans submitted to Cornwall Council
Here we go again … updated plans for the so-called eco-comunity have been submitted to Cornwall Council.
The St Austell Voice even placed the "sustainable new eco-community at West Carclaze" [their words not mine] on its front cover, allowing the developers to claim their "pioneering" development is "not just another housing estate."
Cornwall Council portfolio holder for Economy and Culture is even quoted, reminding everyone how Cornwall Councillors "voted to keep the eco-community in the Cornwall Local Plan submission."
Even though only eight councillors – the four MK members and four independents – backed my motion opposing the eco-community in December, I will be continuing to oppose this unsustainable housing estate on a hill.
Cornwall Council today set its budget for 2016/17, with the majority of councillors supporting a 3.97% increase in council tax.
Previously, central government dictated that councils could not increase council tax by more than 2% without a referendum, but recently announced that councils could raise council tax by a further 2% to specifically secure additional monies for adult social care.
The four MK members supported the increase put forward by the Independent and Liberal Democrat administration. Put simply, we felt there was no alternative, due to the ongoing reduction in funding due to the Conservative's austerity measures and the increasing cost of providing local services.
Recent announcements from central government included an additional £6 million cut as it redistributed funding from rural to urban areas. This was in addition to the expected and already draconian cuts from the Tories, though pressure led to the Government providing a one-off payment of £2.9 million to partially offset its extra cuts!
Speaking on behalf of Mebyon Kernow, I made it clear that our support for the council tax increase did not mean that we supported everything that was contained with the associated Corporate Business Plan.
I made it clear that we would continue to oppose those proposals with which we did not agree, but today we had to focus on the "big picture" and support the attempt of the administration to safeguard the council's finances at this very, very difficult time.
I also appealed to the administration to be as strong as possible in opposing the Government's cuts agenda, and pushing for fair funding for Cornwall.
The increase was supported by almost all Independent and Liberal Democrat councillors, as well as the sole Green councillor and one of the three UKIP councillors. The Labour Group said they were in favour of the council tax increase but voted against the overall package. Most of the Tories abstained.
No to Devonwall Constituency: my Cornish Guardian article
My article in this coming week's Cornish Guardian covers the upcoming review of parliamentary boundaries. It includes some of the information that I covered in another blog entry earlier today. But it is here for the sake of completeness. It will be as follows:
A few days ago, I attended a meeting at which some friends of mine remarked how all MPs representing local constituencies are keen to publicly display elements of Cornish identity.
I tend to agree. Some of them took their parliamentary oaths in Cornish, certain male MPs seem to wear Cornish tartan ties most weeks, and it often appears that every leaflet has a St Piran's cross in the corner.
But the question for Cornish MPs is a simple one: are these displays cosmetic or will they really stand up for Cornwall?
Such a challenge is relevant to all manner of cultural, economic and social issues, but one particularly symbolic question on the horizon relates to the very integrity of Cornwall.
The Government has just confirmed it intends to push through a boundary review of parliamentary seats, following the guidelines set out in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which became law in 2011.
Leading Conservatives have also confirmed that they intend to ignore the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that have raised serious concerns about the process.
The legislation states that seats must have an electorate within 5% of the average, and this means that a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" constituency would inevitably be created.
In 2015, I wrote to Cornwall's six MPs expressing my view that the territorial integrity of Cornwall – a historic Celtic nation – must be protected and that all future MPs should serve constituencies that lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly).
I even pointed out that, as the Cornish people had been recognised as a "national minority" in 2014, it would be inconsistent to treat the historic border of Cornwall differently from those of Scotland and Wales, which the Government intends to respect when it comes to the delineation of new constituencies.
I received four responses, which I found extremely disappointing. One stated that she supported the changes irrespective of the impact on Cornish parliamentary representation, while another said it was too late to change things.
I would question whether that they have bothered to lobby their party bosses on this issue, but that is something that Cornwall's six MPs can put right straight away.
They are in a position to put pressure on their colleagues in the Conservative Party to ensure the legislation is revisited and to prevent the creation of a cross-Tamar seat.
As the leader of Mebyon Kernow, I have today challenged Cornwall's six Conservative MPs to use their influence to derail any attempts to create a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" seat.
This follows the announcement from senior Conservatives that they intend to push through a boundary review of parliamentary seats, following rules set out in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act.
The Conservatives have also confirmed that they intend to ignore the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that raised serious concerns about the process.
In my statement, I stated:
"The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, if enacted, would inevitably lead to the creation of a cross-Tamar 'Devonwall' seat, but Cornwall's MPs are in a position to challenge the leadership of their own party on this matter. They can push for the legislation to be revisited and the creation of a cross-Tamar constituency to be prevented.
"It remains my view that the territorial integrity of Cornwall – a historic Celtic nation – must be protected and that our future MPs must serve constituencies that lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly).
"The Cornish people have been recognised as a "national minority" and it would inconsistent to treat the historic border of Cornwall differently from those of Scotland and Wales, which the Government intends to respect when it comes to the delineation of new constituencies."
I also challenged the six MPs to "stand up for Cornwall and do what is right for the integrity of our historic nation – not what is helpful to the short-term political advantage of the Tory party."
In 2011, the Coalition Government voted through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. It sought to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies across the UK from 650 to 600 and sought to ensure that all seats (unless specifically named) had a population of within 5% of the average constituency size.
A consequence of the legislation is that, if it is not modified, it will lead to a cross-Tamar Devonwall seat.
The Boundary Commission currently plans to formally begin working on the next review in the spring of 2016, with the intention of submitting its final recommendations to central government by the early autumn of 2018.
Positive MK meeting in St Austell and Newquay constituency
Thanks to everyone who attended last night's constituency meeting. It was wonderful to sign up three new members for Mebyon Kernow at the meeting.
Our detailed discussions around planning and housing matters were also extremely helpful and will form the basis of considerable party activity in the coming weeks. Watch this space …
Thanks also to Joanie Willett for setting up a new Facebook page for the constituency – Mebyon Kernow, St Austell & Newquay. If you haven't already – why not join the group.
And if you are not already a member of MK, why not join up now and support our work for Cornwall. You can do it online at https://www.mebyonkernow.org/support/membership/
Report on Strategic Planning Committee: biogas plant at Higher Fraddon
This morning, Cornwall Council's Strategic Planning Committee considered the two applications relating to the biogas plant at Higher Fraddon, namely the regularisation of the site as built (PA15/03073) and a variation of the traffic movements to the site (PA15/05220).
I will do my best to explain what happened … though it is very complex.
Councillor followed councillor in criticising the two proposals and there was particular anger at the "flawed" / "inaccurate" / "misleading" non-material amendments (agreed without any democratic or community consultation), which had (i) allowed the amount of feedstock imported into the site to be increased from just over 6,000 tonnes to 35 tonnes, and (ii) led to a larger number of 44-tonne vehicles assessing the site.
If I take the applications in turn.
The second application was tt modify the traffic movements on the previous consent PA12/01700 and associated NMAs. It was noted that this proposal was therefore linked to a planning permission (which the applicants had failed to comply with) and which the applicants were not seeking to regularise, and therefore were unlikely to rebuild in a different form to comply with the previous consent.
I trust that made some sense!
MK meeting in St Austell & Newquay constituency: Friday 12th February
The next meeting for Mebyon Kernow members in the St Austell & Newquay Constituency has been arranged to take place on the evening of Friday 12th February.
The meeting will take place at ClayTAWC in St Dennis and start at 7.30.
At our previous constituency meeting, it was felt that MK should run a wide-ranging campaign across the constituency on planning and housing, along with the need to secure greater control through devolution. It was felt that the campaign could cover a number of issues such as unsustainable developments and housing numbers, the non-local "Local Plan," the government's housing and planning bill, the growth in second homes, problems with affordable homes, etc.
This will be discussed in length at this next meeting and anyone from the St Austell & Newquay Constituency, who would be interested in attending and finding more about the campaign, can call me on 07791 876607 for more details.
Quite often, I meet people who tell me how pleased they are that Cornwall has achieved "devolution."
They have obviously seen the headlines about the so-called "devolution deal" agreed between central government and the unitary authority.
But sadly, many individuals do not seem to fully appreciate that the "deal" was extremely feeble and only allowed very limited new powers to the unitary authority while giving other responsibilities to unelected bodies such as the Local Enterprise Partnership. This, I believe, has actually undermined democracy locally.
Cornwall has certainly not secured significant powers like the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament, which have democratic control over much of the public sector.
Just compare Cornwall's "deal" with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where there have been referendums and numerous bills in parliament. Indeed, the Silk Commission (Wales) and Smith Commission (Scotland) both reported in 2014, proposing the devolution of even greater powers to the respective legislative bodies, which now form the basis of further legislation.
Cornwall's "deal" was so insignificant that it did not even get debated in Parliament.
As the leader of Mebyon Kernow, I have spent much of my adult life campaigning for meaningful devolution which, I feel, needs to be to a new legislative body – namely a Cornish Assembly.
But it really saddens me that many politicians only wish to debate very limited new powers for Cornwall in the context of cash-strapped local government and a host of unaccountable quangos of limited democratic legitimacy.
This was very much the case in last week's Cornish Guardian in the Andrew Gordon column and reported comments from local MPs.
I found it particularly disappointing to see Scott Mann criticizing calls for greater devolution – in this case on policing – because Cornwall Council has had difficulties in this age of austerity.
It is little wonder that councils are struggling because the Conservative Government has so massively reduced funding to local government. The MP for North Cornwall was particularly cheeky to raise the examples of toilets and the BT deal to have a dig at Cornwall Council, as these initiatives were brought forward by the previous Conservative administration on the authority of which he was a part.
From my perspective, the day-to-day trials of under-funded councils across the UK cannot be used as some political excuse to keep real power tightly wrapped up in London.
In 2016, I would appeal to one and all to stop "talking down" Cornwall and its democracy, and to be ambitious to push for proper devolution.
Mebyon Kernow has received its first response from the "BBC" following our formal complaint about the lack of coverage during the 2015 General Election and in the period leading up to that election. The MK complaint letter was posted on this blog earlier this week.
The response is from the BBC Trust, it is not helpful and it is as below:
I'm afraid the Trust cannot currently engage in discussions around PEB allocation criteria or Election Guidelines post 2016 , as the future regulation of the BBC is a matter which is currently being reviewed by Sir David Clementine as part of the Charter renewal process.
The BBC uses published criteria that have been approved by the BBC Trust for allocating Party Election Broadcasts in respect of elections.
However, the criteria are developed by the BBC Executive Board (which is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the BBC) and implemented by them. The Trust has no role in this process. It is the governing body of the BBC and independent from the BBC Executive. The Trust is also the final appeal body in the BBC complaints process.
Therefore any discussions you hope to set up would have to be with the BBC. I understand you are currently in touch with them and hope this reaches a satisfactory outcome for you.
MK has yet to receive a response from the BBC itself.
I have today seen the publicity generated by the Green Party regarding fair political coverage on BBC television. It has prompted me to share the letter that I sent to various representatives of the BBC prior to Christmas, including Chairman of the BBC Trust, the BBC Chief Advisor on Politics (Editorial Policy and Standards), as well as representatives of BBC South West and BBC Sunday Politics.
It challenges the manner in which MK was treated during the 2015 General Election. MK has only had one reply so far, which was less than satisfactory (more about that later).
Here is the actual text of the letter, though I have chosen not to include the letter's four appendices, which are referenced in the text.
UNDER-REPRESENTATION OF MEBYON KERNOW ON BBC TELEVISION
I am writing on behalf of the registered political party Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall (MK) to formally complain about the BBC's coverage of the 2015 General Election campaign in Cornwall.
We wish to raise a number of concerns about how MK was not afforded reasonable coverage on the BBC's televison channels. The content of this letter will address the refusal of the BBC Trust to allow MK a Party Election Broadcast, as well as the extremely limited coverage allowed to MK on state-wide television, state-wide radio, and "south west" regional television.
In addition to this, this formal complaint will seek to address what we consider to be a historic under-representation of Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall on regional television in the years prior to 2015.
1.0 Dominance of television media in political debates
A BBC feature on 9th May 2015 reported a Panelbase survey of 3,019 people which concluded that television was "by far the most influential media source" in the recent General Election, outscoring newspapers and social media. It stated that 38% of people were influenced by the leaders' debates, 23% by news coverage on the television and 10% by party political broadcasts.
This is a telling conclusion and shows how the refusal of the BBC to allow meaningful coverage for Mebyon Kernow during the General Election added greatly to the disadvantage suffered by our Party.
2.0 No PEB for MK
Mebyon Kernow has made numerous representations over the last few years to demand the opportunity to have a Party Election Broadcast (PEB) at the General Election. This has included regular communication with the BBC's Chief Advisor on Politics (Editorial Policy and Standards) and the Broadcasters' Liaison Group.
Earlier this year, we challenged the "draft criteria" for PEBs for the 2015 General Election as provided by the Liaison Group, which stated that, a "political party would qualify for one PEB" if it stands in a "minimum of one sixth of the seats" in any of the "home nations" of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
In our representation we made the following points:
"We consider this recommendation, which would deny Mebyon Kernow airtime, is both absurd and undemocratic. How can it be fair that MK, a Cornish political party, would need to stand in all six seats within the historic nation of Cornwall, as well as a further 83 seats outside of Cornwall, in order to be allowed a broadcast?
"We believe it is wrong to exclude a political party from being allowed a PEB when it is standing in all constituencies reasonably available to it.
"In the 2015 General Election, MK will be standing candidates in all six Cornish seats.
"By contrast, the recommendation would mean that political parties in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would only have to stand in three, ten and seven seats respectively. This has meant that, over recent elections, a host of political parties – including the Christian Party (Wales), Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Trade Union and Socialist Coalition – have all been allocated airtime.
"It is our view that genuine 'regional' or 'national' parties, which stand candidates in most (or all) of the seats in a particular region or nation – including Cornwall – should be allowed a PEB."
In our representation to the BBC Trust for a fair element of television coverage, we offered to meet with members of the BBC Trust but that offer was not taken up by the Trust.
2.1 Response from the BBC Trust
The members of Mebyon Kernow were very disappointed with the decision of the BBC Trust to refuse MK the option of a Party Election Broadcast for the 2015 General Election. The Trust's letter of 20th February 2015 is attached as Appendix 1.
Having studied the ruling, it was our view that the decision was flawed and should have been revisited. We made a further representation to the BBC, as advised by the BBC Trust consultation, which we asked to be treated as stage 1 of the BBC's PEBs complaints process.
However, the response from BBC's Chief Advisor on Politics (Editorial Policy and Standards) was less than helpful. He did not address any of the concerns raised by MK, but responded as follows:
"… my view is that your complaint, technically, is not against the allocation of PEBs, which is the responsibility of the BBC Executive, but against the criteria for allocating broadcasts. These were approved by the BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee at its meeting last month … therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to make any change to the BBC's proposed allocation of PEBs, which in our view comply with the approved criteria."
The correspondence from the BBC's Chief Advisor on Politics (Editorial Policy and Standards) of date 2015 is attached as Appendix 2.
We would wish to repeat the following points, which we made to the BBC following the response from the BBC Trust.
2.1.1 Response from the BBC Trust / "Overspill"
The BBC Trust stated:
"… given that the broadcasting region and the hypothetical electoral region do not match, there would be substantial 'overspill.' i.e. that voters outside the areas where Mebyon Kernow candidates are standing would receive any regional PEBs, including from parties for whom they could not vote, and this would risk discrediting PEBs, creating viewer and listener indifference, and inducing 'PEB fatigue'."
We did not, and do not, accept the logic of this argument. As long as the BBC and other broadcasters employ the "one-sixth" rule, there will almost certainly always be broadcasts from political parties not standing a full slate of candidates across England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. And this will inevitably mean that some people would be able to view broadcasts "from parties for whom they could not vote."
It is our view that – as long as the "one-sixth" rule continues to operate – the BBC Trust's ruling is prejudicial against MK in a manner that is not prejudicial against other political parties.
Indeed, in 2015 there were no candidates in Cornwall from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, but a TUSC broadcast was viewable by all residents of Cornwall.
The Trust's argument on "overspill" is further undermined by the BBC's decision to broadcast a live election debate on 16th April 2015 which featured the leaders of five opposition parties including Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru.
How can the BBC claim that it would be inappropriate to allow meaningful coverage of Mebyon Kernow because of "overspill," but that it is appropriate to allow coverage of Scottish and Welsh political parties across the whole of the United Kingdom?
2.1.2 Response from the BBC Trust / Regional broadcasts
The BBC Trust also stated:
"… if there were regional PEBs, national parties might feel it necessary to produce both national and regional PEBs (e.g. to meet the arguments of regional parties), and that could cause practical (e.g. resource) difficulties for national parties, some of which might feel disadvantaged as a result, in particular smaller parties."
It is our view that this argument is frankly ridiculous. Surely, it is the "regional" party that is disadvantaged by being denied airtime with a PEB. The larger political parties are already afforded a much greater access to the mainstream media than political groups such as MK – and the refusal of the BBC Trust to allow MK the opportunity to have a PEB has greatly added to this disadvantage.
2.1.3 Response from the BBC Trust / Separate areas
"The Committee observed that there would be difficulties for broadcasters in identifying and defining hypothetical regional electoral areas. From this perspective, the cases of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were materially different from that of an English region, given the recognised boundaries of those nations and their constitutionally separate identities."
We do not believe this to be true in the case of Cornwall. Cornwall is a Celtic nation, just like "Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
This has recently been reinforced by the decision of the Westminster Government, in April 2014, to recognise the Cornish as a national minority through the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
2.1.4 Response from the BBC Trust / Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
"The Committee considered the terms of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, noting that the UK Government had recently recognised "the Cornish people" (not Mebyon Kernow itself) as a national minority. The Committee did not consider that the draft criteria placed the UK in breach of any obligations in the Convention, and that the Convention should not alter their conclusion that (for the reasons stated) the criteria were rational and justifiable."
All national minorities within the United Kingdom such as the Welsh and Scotland are associated with a specific historic territory. This is also the case with the Cornish people. Surely it is unfair that political groups operating in certain territories (eg. Wales and Scotland) are allowed PEBs, but those in Cornwall are not.
Indeed, why are the Cornish the only officially recognised national minority in the United Kingdom discriminated against in this fashion?
2.1.5 Response from the BBC Trust / "Standing for Election": Electoral Commission
The BBC Trust also included reference to the Electoral Commission's January 2015 report "Standing for Election," which concluded that the "UK-wide criteria for PEBs are working well and did not suggest any need for immediate change." The Trust added:
"However the Electoral Commission also stated: 'We also appreciate the clear problems expressed by the broadcasters in making provision for separate PEBs in different English regions, including for Mayoral elections, outside London. However, this also presents the risk of smaller parties or independent candidates that command significant support in a particular area being disadvantaged. Whilst we agree that provision for PEBs on this basis is not practicable at this stage, broadcasters should keep under review technological developments that may make such provision more feasible in the future'."
Our representations have been about fairness in terms of the electoral process. From our perspective, the UK-wide criteria for PEBs is not working well as we are not allowed a PEB even when standing in all seats open to us.
The comment from the Electoral Commission about practical difficulties with regard to regional PEBs is also noted, but it is our view that MK should not be denied appropriate airtime because of administrative problems for the BBC.
2.1.6 Response from the BBC Trust / Other media
"The Committee also took account of the fact that PEBs are not the only medium by which political parties can put their views across to voters … it is of course open to regional parties to make use of the internet, and in particular, social media."
It is our view that this issue is irrelevant and somewhat disrespectful. All political parties – large and small – can and do use a range of medias. The representation to the BBC Trust is about the fact that MK is being denied fair access to one specific form of promotion.
2.2 The 2015 General Election
In the 2015 General Election, six political parties put forward a full slate of candidates for the six constituencies in Cornwall. Of these, five political parties (the Conservative Party, Green Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP) were all allowed PEBs, while one (Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall) was denied access to a PEB.
In a democratic society, it is intrinsically undemocratic that only one political party, standing in all the seats available to it, is denied the opportunity to make its case through a PEB on terrestrial TV.
How can it possibly make sense to rule that, in order to qualify for a PEB, a regionalist party in Cornwall has to stand in far more seats than similar parties in the other constituent parts of the UK? The SNP needs to stand in just ten seats to qualify, Plaid Cymru in seven and the Northern Irish parties only five. Yet, MK in contrast has to stand in 89 seats. This appears even more curious, even bizarre, when we only have six seats in Cornwall in which to stand candidates.
3.0 News coverage on state-wide BBC television /radio / web
Coverage of Mebyon Kernow's General Election campaign on state-wide BBC television channels, and its associated website, was restricted to the single appearance of MK Party Leader Cllr Dick Cole on the Daily Politics. To our knowledge, MK did not feature on state-wide BBC media at all between the start of April and polling day, and the Party was ignored in a number of news segments about Cornwall during the election period.
3.1 BBC Daily Politics
During the election, the Daily Politics programme featured a series of interviews with representatives of "smaller" political parties across the UK. Dick Cole was interviewed on 30th March 2015 which, to be fair to the Corporation, allowed MK to fairly present its views on a number of issues.
3.2 BBC Newsnight
On Tuesday 5th May 2015, BBC Newsnight broadcast a feature about the St Austell and Newquay constituency. It had been recorded earlier in April and included content relating specifically to Cornish distinctiveness, nationalism and the relative strength of the Liberal Democrats.
The leader of Mebyon Kernow had initially been contacted by the BBC to take part, but was later told that they had decided not to feature any politicians, but a selection of local people. It was implied to Cllr Cole by BBC journalists that MK had been frequently mentioned by those local people interviewed and would be referenced in the actual programme.
However, in spite of the nature of the topic under discussion and the filming of a Gorsedh proclamation in St Austell, MK did not even merit a mention – even though the Conservatives, Lib Dems and UKIP did. And, having been told that no politicians were to be featured within the piece, the film was followed by a discussion with a prominent Liberal Democrat politician about the issues raised in the feature.
3.3 BBC Radio 4
Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall would acknowledge that the Party did receive fair coverage on Radio Cornwall, but this was not replicated during the General Election from the wider BBC.
For example, the Radio 4 Today programme included two features on Cornwall. The first was titled "Camborne and Redruth: Candidates hope to improve marginal's future," which was broadcast on 27th April. The Mebyon Kernow candidate in the constituency was not even mentioned. Likewise, the second feature was titled "Cornwall: Isolation of the South West," which was broadcast on 1st May. It also focussed on issues around Cornwall's distinctiveness, but once again declined to even acknowledge the existence of MK.
3.4 BBC online
Through its website, the BBC provided access to all Party Election Broadcasts broadcast on the channel. Even though, MK had produced its own broadcast which was posted on Youtube, this was not referenced in any way on the BBC website.
3.5 The scorecard
Perhaps most telling of all, the BBC's negative perspective on MK meant that it did not even include Mebyon Kernow in its scorecard which recorded the total number of votes achieved by political parties contesting the General Election. The scorecard is included at Appendix 3.
Other parties on the list included the British National Party (eight candidates), Class War (seven candidates) and the Socialist Labour Party (six candidates) – who all polled less than MK – as well as the regional party Yorkshire First.
We would like to remind the BBC that, last year, our organisation was "featured" in the comedy / mockumentary W1A, which had a storyline about complaints from Mebyon Kernow that "Cornwall and the Cornish are shamefully under-represented on the BBC."
It seems strange to us that, instead of seeking to ensure fair and reasonable access to television media for our political party, the BBC prefers to follow – in real life – the content of one of its own spoofs.
4.0 News coverage on regional BBC television
While we did not anticipate that Mebyon Kernow would generate significant coverage on state-wide television, but we did hope that there would greater coverage on "regional" television which would offset this to a reasonable degree. Sadly, this more localised coverage was extremely limited.
One political commentator Dr Bernard Deacon (see the 28th April entry on his blog https://psephologyfromtheperiphery.wordpress.com), wrote that, in terms of television coverage, MK was "invisible," adding, "indeed, anyone relying on the BBC for information might be surprised to discover they're standing in this election."
4.1 Coverage on BBC Spotlight
The extent of coverage on BBC Spotlight was much less than what we would consider fair.
The main report on MK's election campaign featured excerpts from a pre-recorded interview with Party Leader Cllr Dick Cole, which was interspersed with a range of graphic representations. It was much shorter than the "in the spotlight" interviews with representatives of each of the "five largest parties" as described the BBC, and was also dwarfed by the other publicity afforded to these other parties. A very short snippet was also broadcast on 13th April to coincide with the launch of the Mebyon Kernow manifesto.
On 28th April, Spotlight also featured a constituency profile for the Camborne and Redruth constituency. Only four of the six candidates – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP – were interviewed.
Politics SW responded to complaints about the exclusion of MK with the following Facebook post: "The BBC's election guidelines base party coverage primarily on previous electoral support. Hence the choice of the four parties featured in this report, which can all demonstrate far greater success in previous elections than MK (or other parties)." Please see sections 4.2, and 5.0 for further comment on this.
4.2 Coverage on BBC Sunday Politics
During the General Election campaign, there were five editions of the Sunday Politics Show, which each featured a South West regional segment. Studio guests included spokespeople from the Conservatives (5), Liberal Democrats (4), Labour (3), UKIP (2) and the Green Party (1).
By contrast, no representatives of Mebyon Kernow were invited to appear on these programmes as a guest, and coverage of MK was restricted to a 19-second segment of a pre-recorded interview which was included as part of a wider feature on devolution.
Political commentator Dr Bernard Deacon did a review of the coverage of the first four of these programmes (28th March; 12th April; 19th April; 26th April) which demonstrated the appalling level of coverage afforded to MK. He produced the following graph which showed the "total coverage (expressed purely in the number of seconds allocated to party spokespersons speaking)" for the four shows.
It should also be noted that Mebyon Kernow was not featured on the fifth programme (3rd May), showing the disparity between MK and the other political parties would be even greater than that shown in the above table.
Dr Deacon also made comments about the programmes broadcast on 12th, 19th and 26th April. For example, he noted that in the programme on 12th April;
"There was a piece on Declan Lloyd, Labour's candidate in South East Cornwall, one of the youngest standing in the election. Declan had not appeared at a hustings, having gone on holiday with his mum instead … as the hustings was shown it was stated that all the candidates for the other parties, including MK, were there. MK's candidate Andrew Long was briefly seen although not named. The piece then interviewed three of the candidates about the missing Labour lad – but not Martin Corney of the Greens or Andrew Long. Corney was then mentioned by name but it was a case of seen, but not heard, or named, for Long. His name didn't even appear on the list of candidates shown at the end of the piece!"
In the programme on the 19th April, he noted:
"A Cornish Assembly and affordable homes were among the topics. Any fair-minded and objective observer might have thought that here at last was a chance for the distinctive voice of MK to be heard on these issues. And yes, here was Dick Cole of MK … being interviewed. But not live in the studio. Instead he was given a generous 19 seconds to camera somewhere near St Dennis."
The programme on the 26th April covered a recent new story about the Labour candidate for Camborne and Redruth (Michael Foster) launching a verbal attack at MK's candidate Loveday Jenkin. Mr Deacon noted:
"We again had the spectacle of presenter Martyn Oates refusing to name an MK candidate on air. Loveday Jenkin was transformed into just an anonymous 'opposing candidate,' despite being at the receiving end of one of Michael Foster's alleged anger management problem episodes."
4.3 BBC Spotlight Election Special
A BBC Spotlight Election Special was broadcast on 29th April. A Question Time style debate, it was filmed at the University of St Mark and St John in Plymouth, and the panel included representatives from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens and UKIP.
Mebyon Kernow was however denied the opportunity to be represented on the Panel, even though we made numerous representations during the election period. The final letter on this matter received on 9th April from Leo Devine is included as Appendix 4. As you will see, he wrote:
"Unlike the other parties included in the regional TV debate, Mebyon Kernow is not fielding candidates in any other part of the region. As with any programme, we have the editorial discretion to make a judgement about limiting contributions in a way that ensures the best understanding for the whole of the audience. For that reason, the debate panel has been limited to those parties that can demonstrate significant electoral support right across the region and/or the UK."
As noted previously, this is frankly ridiculous given that the BBC also broadcast a live election debate on 16th April 2015 which featured the leaders of five opposition parties including Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru.
Mr Devine also stated that the BBC seeks to "ensure that the views of political parties are reported in a balanced and proportionate way," and stated that "we would also like to film a short recorded statement from you to be included in the programme."
We acknowledge that a very short segment featuring MK was included within the programme though we consider that this "token" acknowledgement of the existence of Mebyon Kernow could even be deemed counter-productive and did much to emphasise the lack of respect given to MK by broadcasters.
It is the view of MK members that the election coverage on BBC Spotlight, the Sunday Politics and the Election Special was not balanced or proportionate with regard to Mebyon Kernow.
Indeed, we believe that it cannot be denied that the exclusion of MK from regional television seriously undermined our General Election campaign with local voters denied the opportunity to see MK on television, which the BBC itself reported was – "by far the most influential media source" for the General Election.
5.0 Historic under-representation on Sunday Politics
As noted above in section 4.1, BBC SW has stated that the coverage of political parties is based on levels of past support but, it is our view, that MK has suffered significant under-representation on the Sunday Politics Show.
We acknowledge that MK has been featured on the show on a small number of occasions, particularly around the time of the Scottish independence referendum, though most were short pre-recorded segments inserted into reports.
The reality is that the show normally has two or three guests in the studio each week, and sometimes has an additional guest to comment on a specific issue. Between 2009 and 2015, only once did an MK representative feature as a main guest and, from recollection, only two or three times have we been represented in the studio as an extra guest to comment on a specific issue.
In a Cornish context, we consider it frankly unacceptable that, between 2009 and 2013, the show did not once feature a MK representative as a studio guest, though we do acknowledge that an interview was recorded with Cllr Andrew Long to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of MK.
At this time, Mebyon Kernow had more Cornwall Councillors than the Labour Party, Green Party and Ukip – none of whom won any seats at the 2009 unitary authority elections.
[Three MK councillors were elected to Cornwall Council in 2009, a fourth was elected at a by-election in 2011, and two more councillors defected to the Party bringing our number to six.]
Sadly, for Mebyon Kernow, this relative strength was studiously ignored by the BBC.
In order to emphasise the unfairness of the BBC's approach, we would like to compare coverage given to MK and the Labour Party between 2009 and 2013. It is fair to say that representatives of the Labour Party appeared on the regional element of the Sunday Politics, week in and week out. And yet, during this period, Labour did not have any unitary authority seats until it won a single seat in a by-election in 2010, it had no MPs in Cornwall, it was not represented in the European Parliament and, in the 2009 EU election, polled less votes than MK.
Indeed, the single Labour Cornwall Councillor became a regular guest on the programme immediately following her election, whereas councillors from the larger MK group on the unitary authority were never invited to take part as studio guests.
This under-representation continues and we can confirm that over the last 12 months, no MK guests have been invited to appear on the programme.
6.0 The way forward
We would request that the BBC seriously consider the points raised in this letter, and to meet with representatives of Mebyon Kernow to address how we can be assured of fairer coverage in the future.
We look forward to hearing from you in the near-future.


text:
Joy Division to New Order
Interview by David Gill
Phone interviews are the bane of music journalism, multiplying all the horribleness of a regular phone call to a stranger. Imagine that stranger is an important person from whom you hope to solicit new, interesting, and exciting information. And the interviewee, most likely, is sitting in a room somewhere, doing interview after interview until the calls blend into one seamless, faceless interrogation regarding their latest album or tour. You don't get any context, what they're wearing, how they look, smell, their body language, and you don't get to hang out with these stars, basking in the opulence of a green room backstage, hoping to get a hit off the joint they're passing.
Generally the interviewee, or their representative, calls the interviewer. This works well for any number of reasons. Phone interviews are also tricky, because, without a specialized app, it's unlikely that your smartphone will record the call because of privacy laws etc.
So this interview with Peter Hook was a little different, as I was to call him—in England—at his home, at 9am California time.
Realizing that it was too late to download one of these apps and that I couldn't record the interview on my smartphone, I tried to call Peter using my ancient landline that I have in case I fall and can't get up. A recorded operator informs me that due to my wife's cheapness, my landline is restricted from making international calls. But I need to use my landline, on speakerphone, to record the interview with teh voice memo app on my smartphone - thanks, technology, for making life so fucking easy.
So, with a stab of discomfort, I realize I have to call Peter on my smartphone and then ask him to call me back on my landline. I get that sinking feeling in my stomach like you get in fourth grade when everybody is sharing their reports on the states, California, Arizona, Delaware, and you wrote your report on the state of depression.
So I dial the number on my smartphone, 012&^$%#()* And after a bit there's a thick British accent on the other end of the line, "Ello?"
"May I speak to Peter Hook, please?" I say.
"Yes, this is Peter," he responds.
"Hi Peter, my name is Dave and I'm calling from RIFF Magazine."
"Ello Dave."
"Hi Peter, can I ask you a favor? If I give you my number, would you mind calling me back?"
I imagined Peter struggling with this unprecedented turn of events. After a moment he says, "Can you text me your number?"
Of course, because otherwise he has to find something to write on and then a pen that works; it's too much hassle. I agree and set out to try to text him my home number.
I already have Peter's number, so I go to text him, but it's so weird, it's international. Do I dial the 0, like I dial a 1 before the area code? Is there an additional set of numbers that I have to add before the regular phone number? A country code?
I'm freaking out as I race to Google and try to figure this out, as I'm picturing Peter Hook staring despondently at his phone waiting, with his other business on hold, for me to text him my number so he can get this bloody interview over and done with.
Working from home, writing for a small music news website, already made me feel like a bit of an impostor and none of this phone shit is helping at all.
Eventually I managed to get a text through to Peter and he called me back right away. Here is the exact transcription of that phone call, which, when you look at it, was perfect.
RW: Tell me a little about this tour you're doing.
HOOK: (laughs): This is the eleventh and twelfth LPs we'll be touring as we play our way through Joy Division's complete catalog and New Order's complete catalog. The LPs are Technique by New Order and Republic by New Order. Technique was our best selling album in England, and Republic was our best selling album in America.
RW: Fantastic, I appreciate getting the boilerplate out of the way first off. As a bass player, what do you think the role of the bass is in music generally and in your music specifically?
HOOK: (laughs) Good question if ever I've heard one, is that from a bass player?
Photo courtesy: Phil King/Flickr
RW: No, a guitar player.
HOOK: Ah, interesting. Well, you know in the old days the bass player was the one that brought width to the music, shall we say, and followed the guitar. That's been something I've been unable to do ever since I began, so that answers your question in both ways.
I don't know really what made me play the way I do, probably ego, maybe every bass player is a frustrated guitarist, so yeah. As soon as I began, I had a knack for writing very unique sounding riffs that sound, the Hook-based sound has become very well known and very well emulated by everybody including New Order, from what I've heard, which makes me laugh.
So, it depends on what kind of person you are, doesn't it? I've known a hell of a lot of bass players—they always drive the van, they tend to be soberer than the rest, but maybe crash spectacularly when they do crash. But you know groups are full of clichés aren't they? You know the drummer is generally a cliché unto himself; the lead guitarist is always into black magic; you know the singer is always a complete tightwad; the bass player is usually deemed to be the quiet dependable one; so I think I'm sort of happy with that cliché. And I will say this conforms to every group I've ever been in or met
RW: Oh, that's fascinating. Can you tell me a little about the bass line for "Love Will Tear Us Apart"? I think that's probably your most iconic creation.
HOOK: Yeah, I mean "Love Will Tear Us Apart" was written in about three hours. Steven and I wrote the rhythm tracks, you know the bass playing the melody etc and the breaks, and Ian said, "ooh, you know what, I'm going to go and write some lyrics to that. We did it in an hour and a half on a Wednesday night we did the rhythm track.
I have the feeling Bernie wasn't actually there, as we didn't have any keyboard or guitar on it until afterwards. Ian came back on Sunday afternoon, cuz we practiced on Sunday afternoons and in another hour and a half we'd written the chorus which follows the bass (half sings "Love Will Tear Us Apart" chorus) and the verse.
Bernard put the bass notes on the synthesizer for the verse and joined in with the bass riffs on the chorus, further enhancing, and nailing down as we musicians say, the melody. And Ian then added guitar over it when we recorded it when we had various overdubs done, and mainly emulating the Ronettes actually.
RW: Really?
HOOK: Yeah, the guitar riff at the end. Yeah, it was really quick songwriting. Literally, insanely, provided me with a wonderful, wonderful life. When you can write a song that quickly and people love it enough to buy it, even now, forty years later it's nuts.
RW: So, did you just come up with that melody on the spot or was that something you had in your pocket for a couple of weeks?
HOOK: No, no, every Joy Division song was jammed.
RW: Really, that's fascinating.
HOOK: Every one. Every acoustic New Order song was jammed live. Every single one, the only exception was "Dreams Never End" which I wrote in my back bedroom of my house on a Sunday afternoon before we formed New Order on the Monday morning. I came in with that riff that I'd written on the six-string bass guitar.
RW: Can you tell me what you get out of going back and revisiting this older material?
HOOK: You know what I've actually banished a lot of pain and a lot of frustration by doing the music the way that I have done. I always felt that when we were together as New Order before we split up that we'd got into a terrible habit of ignoring, not only all of Joy Division, but also a vast quantity of New Order's songs. We just didn't play them, for one reason or another. We didn't play them, and I just thought it was a great shame and we also got stuck in a rut where we were just playing the same songs over and over again—very little actually now that I look at it.
We were just—we hardly gigged and when we did gig we played the same songs over and over again, mainly to a backing track and in my opinion I was deathly bored and frustrated by it, so when we split up it gave me a chance to explore Joy Division's catalog which was the best thing that happened to me, it banished the pain and the sort of grief that I felt not only losing a great friend and a great singer, a great compatriot, but also losing the whole of Joy Division's catalog.
The whole thing was utterly heartbreaking so to be able to stand up and play those songs was absolutely amazing.
RW: Fantastic.
HOOK: Which is judged to be one of the best albums ever written by any group. It's right up there at the top of those lists. To never be able to play those songs off Closer was utterly devastating for me, and I got to do that. We toured both Unknown Pleasures and Closer. We're touring for Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures and Closer next year to celebrate 40 years of Ian's life.
So, that was fantastic and made me sooo happy, and then to move into New Order and to sort of brush the dirt off those gems that have been ignored for years and years and years, I mean like for instance,(names some song indecipherable "Age of Consent"? ) look at those lists on the internet, where they list everything and see that we haven't played it for twenty three years—Consent—so it was absolutely nuts. The interesting thing for the fans is that me digging them all up again has made so-called New Order dig them up again as well, because I suppose they had to keep up with the competition, so you know we've actually unearthed a lot of our gems shall we say; the fans have got two incarnations playing it and I'd like to say everyone's a winner, but you know, the relationship that we had and have now are absolutely awful so that was the biggest loserthe relationship, arguing, constantly as we still do. And I'd love to know why because I've actually gotten to the point where I don't even remember why we were arguing to begin with.
RW: Yeah. I know how that is. Do you think it's weird that our culture is so fixated on the Unknown Pleasures record cover? There are endless mashups and t-shirts. Does that strike you as strange now? Do you care?
HOOK: The interesting thing about the artwork is that the designer, who we liked and trusted, was given was given full reign because, to be honest with you, we were having so much fun playing, getting drunk, et cetera, and writing the music, that we weren't really bothered about, you know, our achievement, we'd've been happy getting the music out if it came in a paper bag.
Really, we weren't that interested in trying to, you know, politicize anything or make it enigmatic or anything like that. We just wanted to get it out and by giving Peter full reign, you lot, the journalists, thought we were up to something. "Why don't you put the names on it, why don't you put the name of the LP on it? This is weird. They must be strange." But in reality, Peter thought it would spoil the album and we didn't care. So we created this wonderful subplot, because we never spoke to journalists at that time, there was no one to contradict you or correct you so, yeah, it was great, it worked in our favor.
RW: If you want a record cover to be iconic, just keep your mouth shut, I guess...
HOOK: Yeah, well we were very lucky that Bernard, you know, opened that encyclopedia and found that particular image and stole it (laughs) because it grabs people's imagination because of the music.
Yeah, I mean I remember having a massive argument with Peter, several ones, because he said to me, "people buy Joy Division records and New Order records because of my covers." And I said, "Peter, they don't play your covers on the radio." And he was like, "Oh." He'd never thought of that.
But you know, he was a great friend but we're all capable of, shall we say, being silly at times. Me especially. The thing about the sleeve is, you know, it worked to our advantage and we hated self-promotion. We didn't believe in self-promotion. We were sticking to that weird punk ethic: letting the music talk for itself and not entering into this sort of niche that we'd seen and preached against for many years. We wanted to try to be true to the fans.
In a weird way that was why we never put singles on the LPs because we didn't see why anyone should pay for something twice. I mean how wonderfully naive; now we have a whole world that works around people paying for tracks on many different platforms in many different ways.
RW: Are you still teaching some classes on the music business?
HOOK: I have a masters course in Preston College where we are mentors and co-promote, I suppose you'd say. The idea of that is that I hated the fact that when people learned about music they were learning it in a classroom without any hands-on experience. It just didn't make sense.
So, myself and my partner in my nightclub in town we educate the kids. You know, instead of reading about how to deal with a drunken drug dealer at twelve o'clock on a dancefloor, you can actually go and experience it.
Or you can come with me on the road, as they do, and they work for us at an actual gig, so they're actually in the firing line. The thing is they're not just learning about it on a blackboard or writing about it from sources in the library; they're actually in the business and that to me makes complete sense, as the other way didn't.
I met the kids last week actually, of my masters course; there's thirteen this year, two from China and eleven from England, and they are a great bunch, very bright and, interestingly, both me and my partner learn a lot from them in the hopes that we don't scare them off with our stories of our ups and downs.
So yeah, I mean, my managers always said to me you need to give something back, always, to keep the wheel going round and that to me is part of you know helping people not to make the mistakes that I did.
You do have to be careful that you don't make those mistakes seem attractive, do you know what I mean? But again, it's nice, it's grounding to see the people interested in this business especially when they've been inspired by you.
You know if a bass player comes up to me and says, "aw, man, I play the bass because of you." I was watching some kid on Instagram today actually, funnily enough I stumbled upon it, and he was trying to play "Atmosphere" on the bass and he wasn't doing a great job of it, so I just sent him a little message going, "Come on, mate, you can do it. Keep trying."
I mean, I remember when I was like that and I couldn't play and I was scared and you know that some people back down and some people go for it, don't they? And I suppose my only message to anybody is, "My god, I've had a fantastic life and I still have a fantastic life and if you go for it, mate, so you don't sit there spending your whole life regretting not going for it. You know if you go for it and you can't do it, that's perfectly fine, you had a go, and if you go for it and you make it, wow, what a world, it's fantastic.
RW: You might have just answered my next question. What do you think is the most important lesson you can impart to your students about the music industry?
HOOK: The most important lesson is to never give up, it's as simple as that.
RW: Tell me about playing with your son….
HOOK: My son's gone on to bigger and better things; he now plays with the Smashing Pumpkins.
RW: So he won't be on this tour?
HOOK: No, he's not coming this time; he's literally just finished playing with the Smashing Pumpkins. He's decorating his flat. He tends to boss me about when we're on tour. And he's got better ears than me; he can pick up my riffs much easier than I can.
HOOK: Yeah, I work in a different way. He can play Smashing Pumpkin tunes. I couldn't play a Smashing Pumpkins tune if you put a gun to me head.
RW: Is there anything you wish I had asked? Got any stories or anecdotes you're dying to share?
HOOK: You know what I always find, and I was talking to my wife about this before, is that American journalists actually ask much better questions (laughs) than most English journalists. Don't tell them I said that. It's all about enjoying yourself, like I said to you at the start.
More interviews by David Gill
Andy Gill (Gang of Four)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl