Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall has submitted its formal response to the Cornwall Council consultation on the so-called “devolution deal.” It is as follows
The proposed “deal” is not a devolution deal at all, but a range of possible accommodations between central government and Cornwall’s unitary authority. The “deal” does not include the transfer of far-reaching powers from Westminster to Cornwall, as has happened in Wales and Scotland since 1999.
Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall calls on the Conservative administration at the unitary authority to acknowledge that the “deal” is inadequate and to work with Cornwall’s six MPs to persuade the Conservative Government in London to bring forward a more significant devolution settlement for Cornwall.
An example of such a settlement can be found in MK’s policy document “Towards a Cornish Parliament / Troha Senedh a Gernow.”
Cornwall is a special case for meaningful devolution
The proposed deal does reference Cornwall’s distinct heritage, culture and language, as well as the national minority status of the Cornish people, but it then ignores Cornish nationhood and fails to look beyond treating Cornwall as a local government unit of England. This is unacceptable.
Mebyon Kernow is also extremely concerned at the reference to the “Great South West alliance” in paragraph 19 of the “deal” document, which shows that there is an unacceptable lack of respect for the primacy of Cornwall as a geographical / political entity.
When the UK Government recognised the Cornish as a national minority (through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) in 2014, it pledged that the Cornish would be afforded the same status “as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.” That commitment to parity with the other Celtic parts of the United Kingdom (which already have their own parliaments) must surely include meaningful devolution for the nation of Cornwall through the creation of a Cornish Parliament.
It is the view of Mebyon Kernow that the provision of a parliament for Cornwall would demonstrate that the UK Government is finally starting to meet its obligations to the Cornish and Cornwall as set out in the Framework Convention.
There is a lack of devolution in the proposed “devolution deal”
The inadequacy of what is presently proposed by central government is shown in paragraph 24 of the “deal” document, which lists the functions that would be devolved. But only two functions are listed, namely, control over an adult education budget and the ability of the “directly elected mayor” to “designate a Mayoral Development Area” and “set up a Mayoral Development Corporation.” Far from representing a devolution of aspects of planning, this would more likely undermine the democratic basis of planning in Cornwall’s one principal council.
Cornwall does not need MDAs or an MDC. It needs full Cornish control over all aspects of planning, planning policy and housing through a legislative parliament, which should include the power to produce a Cornish National Planning Policy Framework to replace the NPPF produced by central government.
There is an almost total lack of devolution in the actual “deal” and it is the view of Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall that the current approach by central government devalues the very concept of devolution as previously understood.
The “deal” is a “local government deal”
As noted above, the proposed deal contains a number of possible accommodations between central government and Cornwall Council, which might happen in the future. Many of the potential initiatives would be welcome, but they cannot be deemed devolution.
There is also much uncertainty in the “deal” about what will actually happen.
The document published by the UK Government contains numerous pledges to “work with” the unitary authority on various matters or to “consider” or to “explore” specific proposals. Some commitments are further undermined as the text often says they will be taken forward “where appropriate” or are subject to business cases (that have to be approved by central government).
The document also references certain initiatives already happening and are therefore not dependent upon any “deal,” such as Cornwall being one of fifty-five new Education Investment Areas. Likewise, there are numerous things in the document which should be happening anyway, and would not need to be dependent upon any “deal.”
Funding should not be linked to imposition of a mayor
The “deal” does include promises of more money for Cornwall Council and we would like to be in a position to welcome additional funding, especially for local government, in Cornwall. Such financial accommodations between central government and local councils are an established part of political life in the United Kingdom, but it is shameful that the UK Government wishes to link future investment in Cornwall to the imposition of a mayor.
The scale of the promised funding is also disappointing. It is significantly less than the real-terms cuts in funding suffered by local government in Cornwall since 2010 and it is also significantly less than the monies lost to Cornwall, because the UK’s Shared Prosperity Fund is failing to fully match what would have been received from EU structural funds. In terms of the “deal,” the annual funding from the proposed “Cornwall Investment Fund” is worth only half of what will be secured from a council tax surcharge on second homes (allowable from 2024/25). All taken together, these figures show that the financial aspects of the proposed “deal” are less than adequate for the needs of Cornwall and its communities.
More support for Cornish language and identity needed
The UK Government recognised Cornish through the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 2002 but, over the last 20 years, it has failed to fully meet its obligations to the language. The “deal” does include a one-off payment for 2023-24, but this is inadequate. The UK Government needs to meet its obligations to the language through guaranteed long-term (year-on-year) funding to safeguard Cornish and ensure that, for example, it can be taught in all schools to the west of the Tamar.
It is noted that central government “commits to work with the Council to explore ways further to support the ongoing protection and promotion of the Cornish language in private and public life,” and to “include Cornish in any list of regional and minority languages that appears in forthcoming legislation where appropriate …” But this should be happening anyway.
It also remains a ridiculous scenario that, following the passing of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, Cornish is the only Celtic language within the United Kingdom that does not enjoy some form of legislative protection. This needs to change as a matter of urgency.
A mayor is not appropriate for local government in Cornwall
MK does not support the imposition of a mayor on Cornwall’s unitary authority. This would be a retrograde step and further undermine local government in Cornwall following the (i) centralisation of local government in 2009 and the (ii) further reduction in councillor numbers in 2021.
The disappointing scope of the proposed “local government deal” cannot in any way be seen as a justification for a change in the governance of Cornwall Council. It would place authority into the hands of one individual, while reducing the influence of councillors over budgets and council strategies.
The argument of supporters of the “deal” that the “direct” election of a council leader or mayor is more democratic than the present local government system is also absolute nonsense. The present manner in which Cornwall Council identifies its leader is similar to how politicians in Westminster choose the Prime Minister.
Mebyon Kernow is also concerned that Cornish democracy will be further undermined given the possibility that the political affiliation of the mayor will be different from the make-up of the unitary authority, as has happened at Bristol where, because of the mayoralty, Labour has total control of the Council’s Cabinet even though it only has 35% of elected councillors.
Cornwall deserves a much better democratic settlement
We reject the notion that tweaks to the arrangements for local government in Cornwall can be deemed devolution and we also reject Cornwall being treated as nothing more than a “local government unit” within the context of the English local government system.
Cornwall is a historic nation and merits democratic parity with the other Celtic parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland and Wales.
With this in mind, we repeat our call that the Conservative administration at the unitary authority should work with Cornwall’s six MPs to persuade the Conservative Government in London to bring forward a more significant devolution settlement for Cornwall, which includes a Cornish Parliament.