This story doesn't seem to have received much coverage locally:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...d-cover-up.html

Interesting that it was run by the Daily Mail. They do rather seem to have it in for Prime Minister Dave and his pals.

Thoughts, anyone?

Hardly secret or hidden is it? Not surprised nothing was made of it locally - it's not exactly a story. Its the family business that's gained here - not him personally. At least it maintains jobs in West Berkshire. Anyway, about time some English farmers started to benefit.

The story isn't about who gained anything though, it's about the attempted cover up.

Must've been a quiet day for news, as this non-story ran last year and was discussed on here at length.....

It would seem we went to great lengths to try to 'protect' the recipients of the bonus.

Yeah, the Daily Mail... of course, the integrity that paper has accumulated over the years...read almost exclusively by racist everything seems to mention immigrants, the EU or Princess Diana..

It's a classic example of why information should be made public. By hiding things (or attempting to hide them) DEFRA and it's ministers are easily accused of corruption.

It would be interesting to see if Benyon declared any interests in any meetings associated with the issue. If he failed to declare interests in these issues then he could quite rightly be accused of inappropriate behaviour and even corruption.

Why are the farm subsidies paying up for very rich estates? Time for reform of the CAP.

"Mr Benyon has declared his family business in the Commons register of interests. ... Mr Benyon resigned his chairmanship of the family business, Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited, when he became a Minister"

What the article says is that the EU only required the privacy of individuals be upheld, but the government went further and protected the privacy of industrial farming enterprises, such as the Englefield Estate.

'Resigning Chairmanship' is different from 'not receiving benefit from'.

I was unaware of the coverage of this here last year. As I say, it's interesting that the Mail should pick up on this. Perhaps Cameron and co aren't quite right wing enough for them but the Mail have run some really good campaigns - notably the long term one related to the prosecution of Steven Lawrence's murderers.

On the EU handouts, it does seem a little hypocritical that Englefield should be taking so much taxpayer's money at a time when such severe cuts are being pushed through by the government to which Mr Benyon belongs.

We long ago gave up the idea that we should be self sufficient in food in this country so I fail to see why we are giving handouts to farmers but not, for example, to town centre retailers. And even if a handout is available surely there's no compulsion to actually fill in the form and take it?

It is in fact, but his interests receiving the money isn't the issue, it is the government's 'eagerness' to protect those that have received it that is concerning.

The attempted cover up was down to the Civil Servants - who would doubtless claim they were simply trying to be 'helpful'. The three main parties all say they want 'open government' - but its the hired help that stops it.

So its a bit rich to throw words like corruption about which simply devalues the word and the argument.

Of course, our own dear local Council isn't exactly immune from such behaviour - covering up all sorts of things we really ought to know about.

Almost exactly a year.......

What difference does it make whether it has been reported before or not? I assume the issue still exists, and I think these things should be kept in the public's consciousness.

Reported, and discussed. I wonder at the motivation for raising it again (I don't like to assume, but I trust the story has developed in some way since last year).
There will be many farmer MPs in the same situation. What makes the Benyon situation so attractive to the DM?

Higher profile subject?

Given the range of 'interests' MPs will have, I wonder if that is so? That he is the highest profile Member?
I see nothing added to the story run last year that makes the situation any more sinister.

To maintain the veil of secrecy, where one might not be necessary could be one reason. There is a growing concern that the government might be seeking to increase secrecy in some areas.

I find it funny that he has no issue ensuring his family receives "subsidies" but the rest of us will lose benefits. I will lose 134 quid a month in child benefits based on my income, which will be no where what his family receives.

Double standards at it's best.

You too can be a Daily Mail editor

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/