Devonwall - the final score

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill got its third and final reading in the House of Commons last night with a government majority of 57. Ayes 321, Noes 264. All six of Cornwall's MPs voted in favour of the measure which will abolish Cornwall's political border with Devon.

Apart from the potential for embarrassing the MPs, does it matter? I think the answer is that potentially, yes it does, and the MPs themselves recognised this in their failed attempts to amend the Bill. The reasons have nothing (or very little) to do with nationalist sentiment but are rooted in hard-nosed economics.

For more than a decade now, Cornwall has been able to draw upon a huge treasury of European economic aid. A pre-condition for securing this aid had been Cornwall's "divorce" from Devon, for statistical purposes, to present a greater contrast between rich and poor parts of the Cornwall and Devon economic areas. As a result, Cornwall's Members of Parliament had been able to make a much more coherent case.

Similarly, Business Secretary Vince Cable has just approved a new Local Enterprise Partnership for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to take over the economic regeneration responsibilities held formerly by the South West Regional Development Agency. The new LEP may well find that in the months and years ahead it is competing for funds with similar organisations in Plymouth and the rest of Devon. Any MPs with a foot each side of the Tamar will consequently find their jobs much more difficult and constituents in both Cornwall and Devon risk losing out.

A final thought on Devonwall, which has consumed far too much of this blog since I first wrote about it on 2nd June - hardly a word has been heard about the thing which was supposed to be really important, the referendum on the Alternative Vote system. Polling day is only six months away.

How to be Cornish

I know of few better ways to wind up some of my BBC colleagues than to start a discussion about what it is that makes them Cornish. Birthplace? Ancestry? A five-year-residential qualification? Suggestions, within House Rules, please.

On the topic of being off-topic

Some blog comments stray signficantly off the subject of the original post. The House Rules are clear and designed to promote discussion and debate - not censorship.

MPs lose their virginity

Four of Cornwall's MPs did something they'd never done before last - they voted against their own political parties. To be fair, Sheryll Murray, George Eustice, Sarah Newton and Stephen Gilbert have been Members of Parliament for only six months and it takes a while to pluck up courage...but when the moment is right, you just know, and I'm sure none will have cause for regret.

Andrew George and Dan Rogerson have been MPs rather longer and have both managed to rebel on various issues before. Last night, of course, was Devonwall and the MPs found themselves in the same lobby as (mostly) Labour MPs, nationalists, and Charles Kennedy.

The reason I say the MPs will have no cause for regret is that come the time of the next election, they now have some Parliamentary evidence they can point to to defend themselves against the allegation that they connived to abolish Cornwall's political border with Devon. This could prove extremely useful, as it seems inevitable that such allegations will still be made, and to some extent, those allegations might yet stick.

It was Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who pushed through the coalition government's case last night and I'm sure opposition party candidates will be keen to remind us of this fact at the next election. Ultimately, it still comes down to a choice between a referendum on the Alternative Vote system and Keeping Cornwall Whole. Nye Bevan would no doubt have talked about the language of priorities.

Tonight is the Third Reading in the House of Commons and the last opportunity MPs have to vote on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I expect Cornwall's MPs to have put last night's indescretion behind them and to troop loyally as directed by their party whips. So tomorrow's Hansard will record that Cornwall's MPs actually voted in favour of the law which shares Cornish constituencies with Devon.

This will leave Cornwall's MPs vulnerable to the same "flip-flop" line of attack which harmed US Democrat candidate John Kerry when he said (of the decision to invade Iraq): "I voted in favour of it before I voted against it." At best, his supporters were confused.

Andrew George tells me he still has hopes of working some magic in the House of Lords. Possibly, although personally I doubt it - the timetable is so tight (to meet the deadline of a May 2011 referendum) that the chance of building a campaign in the Lord is vanishingly small.

Cornwall's MPs defy government but lose by 58

The Devonwall Bill prompted the first serious rebellion by Cornwall's coalition MPs last night - all six of them voted against the government on the key pro-Cornwall amendment, but were defeated 315 votes to 257. The Bill has its Third Reading tonight. Will the MPs defy the government again?

A message from Alec Robertson

My thanks to Alec for releasing to me the message he sent to Cornwall councillors on Friday:

"Dear Colleagues

You have probably heard of recent media coverage around one of our interim employees, Clare Metcalf, interim head of customer services, who was employed during the One Cornwall process, previous to Cornwall Council being formed. A number of you have asked questions and raised concerns around the subject, and I would like to address these with you.

First, to explain our position on temporary, interim and contract employees it is important to understand the difference.

At the inception of the new Council, there were a number of management consultants employed across the organisation carrying out different projects. We have now removed all of these management consultant groups from the organisation, and saved over £6 million this year.

We have, at any one time, around 1,000 temporary staff who fill roles where there is a short term need due to staff shortages. This might be in areas such as libraries, contact centres and other roles where the work must be carried out to deliver services efficiently.

We also employ senior management interims, who serve one of two purposes. They will either have been employed to fill a vacant post, and will be with the organisation until that post is filled, or they will be carrying out a role that is not deemed to be permanent but may not have a fixed term. In the latter instance, this means we have more flexibility on when we choose to remove the post from the organisation, without the associated costs and difficulties of a permanent member of staff. We currently have nine staff employed under this arrangement.

Finally, we use senior project staff to cover specialist roles during fixed term projects. We currently have seven contracted project staff carrying out this type of role. These staff are carrying out roles specific to the change programme and have been employed for the level of expertise they have in their particular field. In addition to these 16 employees (the total number of interim and contract staff), there is one person who fulfils half an interim post, for electoral services, while the electoral services manager is off sick and half a project role in the shared services area.

It is crucial to the success of the change programme that we use these kinds of experts to ensure we drive through the efficiencies needed to achieve the 90% savings as outlined in the emergency budget - which is £90 million of the £110 million savings required. As you are all aware, if we don't make those savings this will mean future cuts to services and jobs for permanent members of staff. High day rates can be justified in the short term to gain the necessary expertise and to get the job done, but clearly to sustain this over a long period of time is unacceptable and it is regrettable that this has happened.

There has been understandable concern that Members were not aware of the costs of senior interim and project staff. I would point out that elected Members would not ordinarily be involved in employing staff other than Directors and the Chief Executive. This is a management responsibility. However, in the interest of openness and transparency, please see the table below with full details of current interim and project management arrangements.

I would like to reassure you that, in line with the rest of the organisation, our interim and project employees will be having their contracts examined and where necessary renegotiated to ensure value for money for the organisation, and a fixed end date in line with whichever project or role they are fulfilling.

I hope this has answered your questions and please be assured that this is not an approach that we take without due consideration to the best outcome and value for the organisation."

Alec's message then details the day rates paid to various temporary staff as per Andrew Wallis's blog.

Who knew what, and when?

In response to my question about the £1,000/day temp, Cornwall Council has issued this statement:

"Clare Metcalf was appointed by the One Cornwall management team under the authority of the Implementation Executive, prior to Kevin Lavery being appointed. Elected Members are only involved in the recruitment of the Chief Executive and Directors."

Not sure that this really answers my question - or if it does, if it's good news or bad news! Meanwhile Indy councillor Andrew Wallis has posted a very interesting entry on his blog, detailing several other highly paid council temps.