Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gel Feb 27 2011, 08:12 AM

See

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360998/Wealthy-minister-earns-2m-subsidies-EU-farm-subsidies-department-tried-cover-up.html

Don't think he'll be too anti EU after seeing £this£..!

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 09:43 AM

It is a conundrum - if we have politicians with knowledge and insight of the issues they will be overseeing they will fall into the trap of being revealed as having taken part in the included activities. Do we want professional politicians who do the university/researcher/political assistant/councillor/MP route, or people from mixed backgrounds who bring their experience to public service?
Whatever route politicians follow they bring baggage. As one of the major rural employers in the area Mr Benyon hardly breaks the bank with a grant history to his company of £200k a year. Proportionally, hundreds of smallholders get more, on an individual basis.
Much is made of how much the EU costs the UK as a nett contributor, but we also make capital of a company actually claiming dues.

MPs of all persuasions will find it impossible to operate if they have to completely detach themselves from all and any real life situations - including the ennoblement of friends, the appointment to Office of previous employers etc.

The story about Mr B could be written about many other MPs, with different detail.

I am not an apologist for Mr B, just pointing out he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 09:43 AM

It is a conundrum - if we have politicians with knowledge and insight of the issues they will be overseeing they will fall into the trap of being revealed as having taken part in the included activities. Do we want professional politicians who do the university/researcher/political assistant/councillor/MP route, or people from mixed backgrounds who bring their experience to public service?
Whatever route politicians follow they bring baggage. As one of the major rural employers in the area Mr Benyon hardly breaks the bank with a grant history to his company of £200k a year. Proportionally, hundreds of smallholders get more, on an individual basis.
Much is made of how much the EU costs the UK as a nett contributor, but we also make capital of a company actually claiming dues.

MPs of all persuasions will find it impossible to operate if they have to completely detach themselves from all and any real life situations - including the ennoblement of friends, the appointment to Office of previous employers etc.

The story about Mr B could be written about many other MPs, with different detail.

I am not an apologist for Mr B, just pointing out he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 10:33 AM

All I would say is that the minister who looks after these payments has agreed to give up his payments for the duration of his term as minister. Maybe the other ministers at DEFRA could have done the same? The real issue though is why they have decided not to publish this information.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2011, 10:37 AM

I perceive Benyon MP as a Concervative MP before a Newbury MP - Mr Party Line. Just look at his feeble argument against AV for instance - utter party line. Being on the inside isn't all bad. I expect that we will get a more 'sympathetic' annual settlement than we would if we were 'represented' by a Lib Dem with a Labour government.

Because there are political opponents and electorate that would be offended?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 12:18 PM

If as NWNReader states there is nothing wrong with receiving these payments then why is it being kept secret?

It just makes it seem tacky and underhand when a government tries to hide statistics such as these?

The argument that it reveals private individuals just does not stand up in most cases does it?

Reveal all I say?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 01:38 PM

I don't say there is 'nothing' wrong with receiving the payments, just that they are seen in context. What I did set out was that the payments are legal and comparatively minor over a 10 year period and for a large business. The payments are legal, and while MPs use their knowledge to aid their work we are pleased; we can barely express horror that their position in the real world also leads to them having some 'benefit' extended to their environment. If it is ok to take free holidays with distinctly odd 'world leaders', drawing on an internationally agreed public fund by an associate business is surely no scandal?

Mr Benyon as an individual receives/received nothing. The individuals in the original case that led to the disclosure guidance was a smallholder - in some European countries these people really do take the biscuit for drawing on funds and are rightly (for themselves) seeking anonymity.
The reason the Govt of the UK decided to extend the ruling to companies, when they were specifically left out, is another case of the UK going OTT with 'compliance'. I do not agree that individuals should have their payments hidden, let alone companies.

Sorry if I am dense, but I don't se a 'story' in the article.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 27 2011, 03:02 PM

It's just funny that he can take handouts from the EU, but yet when a constituent writes to him saying the change in the unversial benefits is not fair, his response back is there are hard choices to make and somebody's gotta take the fall. (paraphrase).

If he is a "farmer" who is entitled to these EU perks, then to be honest it should be a conflict of interest to sit as DEFRA minster, especially when they tried to block info on who was getting what..

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 03:07 PM

Large wealthy Companies and individual farmers getting European handouts?

Elderly, unemployed, and vulnerable getting benefits and resources cut?

And you are unable to see a story in the article?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 05:07 PM

'He' has taken nothing from the EU. The company that operates the family business has taken grants it is entitled to. Or are you suggesting he has subverted that money for his own use?

I'd rather like the EU to reduce the handouts too.
As outlined previously - if someone brings experience to the table are they automatically having conflict of interest when they use that experience? Would we really prefer professional politicians with no experience of real life - who would then employ consultants for every issue?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 05:12 PM

Where are they mentioned in the article? Are you saying no benefits should be reduced?

European handouts is a far more contentious issue. The proportion of benefit Englefield Estates have received over 10 years is not enough to pay for anything you have angst about.

I would happily see the level of EU CAP handouts reduced substantially as they are a farce.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 27 2011, 06:00 PM

How much of that 3 billion came from the UK only to go back to the UK, and how much of it went to folks just like our local MP?

Of the 200k our local MP received, how many local centers or services to be cut would be saved this year?



Poor dinkins, that's a place I wish I could be in :-)

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 06:09 PM

Unfortunately for the case you seek to make, Mr B received none of the money. The business received the grant. As the UK pays more to the EU than it gets from it, the sum is more a rebate than a gift.

I do not think there is a way funds can be donated to a Local Authority so that a post/facility is kept open.

My point is there is no real link between EU grants to a business and the debate over whether local facilities could be retained and budget issues delivered. Certainly not in the simple way some imply.

The 'rock and a hard place' comment was about being damned for bringing experience to the table or for knowing nothing about the subject and making (even more) crass decisions.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 27 2011, 06:55 PM

The business that he is an owner of. So people pay taxes, some of it goes to the EU, which in turn goes back to the UK. How much is lost in that round trip. The real link is that how much of it goes to those rich farmers who don't really need it. You don't think there is a way the funds can be donated to a local authority, how about a personal check.

The rich keep getting richer, as the old boys keep patting themselves on the back. The rest of us bear the brunt of these old boys and their ways.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 27 2011, 07:03 PM

Not £200k but £2million

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2011, 08:04 PM

There's debate to be had about the CAP, but this isn't it. This story is about Richard Benyon coming from a wealthy family. Good luck to him I say. He's a decent enough MP - and I'm hugely grateful for the decision he took over the eagle owls and that alone will probably win him my vote.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 08:53 PM

£200k a year goes to the MP's business. If he is entitled to it, fine. But why is he and hismates at DEFRA trying to hide these payments?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2011, 09:15 PM

Yes, but he would have had a difficult time going against the opinion of the RSPB.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 09:52 PM

I gather he has severed his involvement in the company. What would you have someone do, delete their past entirely? Not realistic, whoever they are.

Too much EU money by far is wasted and syphoned off.

There are so many EU grants available, so without knowing which ones the Company claimed it is hard to say whether the funds were needed. Many living in the area will tell of the way the family contributes to the local community, so I suspect the money could well have benefitted more than just the individuals who 'own' the family business.

I said funds cannot be donated to a specific activity. If anyone can give money to WBC - and I do not know if the rules allow that - such funds almost certainly cannot be 'to keep a youth club open'. Having been a volunteer in a Council owned facility for many years I know only too well the crazy bureaucracy that restricts ways of creating income.

I think your bitterness is preventing you see the wider issues that exist. I am not rich (I wish!!) I have to take extra work to keep my head above water. I'd love to have access to allowances and expenses to enhance my income, but the rules I work under do not provide any. That does not mean someone with a different employment may not claim proper expenses etc they do have access to. It also doesn't mean I ignore greed by those people.

From what I know/see/believe, Mr Benyon is not a good target for the investigative journalists - there are far meatier candidates for 'exposure'.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 09:55 PM

They should not be when the payments are made to a business, according to the case summary that led to the policy. For years the UK Government has been OTT on the application and enforcement of EU missives. I do not know what part Mr Benyon had in the decision - probably drafted by a Civil Servant, and maybe (?) before his tenure.

It is no longer his business.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 10:10 PM

They are not mentioned in the article. I was trying to make the point that when money is tight in general the rich carry on as though nothing has happened? Look at the mess the bankers have caused worldwide and how much it has cost taxpayers worldwide? Now they are back to business as normal and the ordinary taxpayer is having to pay for their mistakes. How can it be fair for the taxpayer to subsidies large companies and family business when the already suffering are having their meager pittances cut even more?

I know when you look at it there is nothing illegal in what is being done but morally it is completely wrong surely? At the end of the day it is robbing Peter so that Paul gets even more? We are all in it together just some are having to go a very long way deeper than others?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 10:40 PM

I don't know enough rich people to know if they 'just carry on'. I do know the Englefield Estate looks after the local community better than many employers.
Bringing the 'banking crisis' into this debate is a bit of a quantum leap, and still does not make the 'Englefield' story valid. Many of the 'bail-outs' are structured so the repayments are quite beneficial to the Government/taxpayer. That is why the new Irish Government will be working to re-structure their bail-out as Main Effort.
Fair? That is a rare ideal in government circles!! Sometimes it is better on balance to subsidise a business than for it to go under? That would surely create more beggars on the streets and weeping urchins?

I find the EU immoral, but we still fund it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 11:50 PM

So he is not the trustee of the business? He doesn't call the shots? I don't mind him taking the money if he is entitled, but why hide the evidence? Why not do what his colleague did and give up the payments whilst in office? I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, but this government just seem to be making some silly choices. This would be a non story if there had been no attempted cover up.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 11:51 PM

He is still trustee and beneficiary.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 12:14 AM

I don't know the arrangements as well as you, and I see no reason for angst.

Was the decision not to publish business recipients' grants his? What was the guidance he received from the Civil Servants?

I once queried the way things are in France - seat of the EU half the time. The answer was 'We have all the regulations just the same as the UK. We just don't enforce them'. For many years the UK has pandered to the EU in a wholly inappropriate way.

At least the Englefield business is a genuine one, not constructed to claim grants.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 28 2011, 12:49 AM

Are they going to subsidise those folks who are losing benefits? I don't think so. The grants the estate are getting are probably very legit, but it stinks when this same person is getting these grants while voting to cut services and benefits to those worse off.

The rich aren't still getting richer in this crisis? While the cash bonus to those working in finances are getting smaller, they are still a whole lot more than what most people will get in bonuses and cost of living wage rises. I am sure that the makeup of stock in lieu of the lower cash bonuses have those guys crying all the way to the Bahamas.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 28 2011, 09:28 AM

He is a rich tory toff who is quick to judge yet as long as things are 'legal' but some would argue immoral then he'll quaff all the cash he can from the EU trough. Money go's to money. Always has done. Always will.

Posted by: Bofem Feb 28 2011, 10:13 AM

Kind of. Englefield hands out around £250,000 a year to mostly local good causes, which their http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ScannedAccounts/Ends23/0000258123_ac_20090405_e_c.pdf shows support for hundreds of things (including cash for six WBerks state-run schools, Corn Exchange, Watermill, and even the conservation of red squirrels!).

I don't know if you're aware that the Benyons made six figure donation towards the Arlington Arts building in Snelsmore.

If you look hard, you'll find that the EU grants Englefield receives are largely dished out to the voluntary sector. The family just don't like shouting about it.

For the record, I'm neither grateful or jealous. But before sounding off, it's always worth checking the facts.

Posted by: Sidney Feb 28 2011, 11:49 AM

I used to have a business in Newbury - which Mr Benyon visited. Times were tough and his advice was "hang on in there". I am sure with those sorts of subsidies I would have !!!!!! But back in the real world ......

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 28 2011, 11:59 AM

http://farmsubsidy.org/lists/28/englefield-estate-richard-benyon-mp/

Ching Ching.....

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 28 2011, 12:44 PM

How much of that is tax deductable?

The trust has 8.5 million tied up in investments, not bad...

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 02:10 PM

So your real point is you are jealous?

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 28 2011, 03:19 PM

Jealous, no try enraged.

When I wrote to him asking for an explanation on why a family on 50K with one person earning over the 43K threshold will lose their child benefit while a two income family on 80K will keep theirs, his feedback was somebodies gotta lump it.

Meanwhile, with his 8 million in investments is also getting subsidies, the situation could be called hypocritical.

I too have investments, but they are called pension plans for my retirement, which keeps moving further and further away. How many terms in Whitehall will he have to serve before he gets a big fat pension?

The same person who is helping to take away with one hand is putting it in his pocket with the other. Dress it up as you like, he is still associate with the fact that his concern is getting subsidised while the rest of us are getting scr*wed without getting kissed first.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 28 2011, 03:49 PM

The Common Agricultural Policy is a license for landowners to print money. An absolutely disgraceful piece of EU legislation. The CAP costs an average family of four in Europe £16 a week in taxes and higher food prices. So you are in effect lining Benyons pocket.

http://www.ukfg.org.uk/docs/Cafod_The%20rough%20guide%20to%20the%20CAP.pdf

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2011, 04:48 PM

Some very good points. Child benefit should be for everyone I guess, however if you're going to put a threshold on it it should be less than £50k surely?

Posted by: Bofem Feb 28 2011, 05:26 PM

Reading this, I would say definitely green with envy

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Feb 28 2011, 05:50 PM

A two family income of 80K will be fine, as long as each of them is making below the 43k. If I am on 47K, and my wife is on 3K, my income is taken into consideration and we lose the child benefit. Not really fair..



If I can make 30 to 35 K combined per annum in my retirement, I will be very content. I am saving my butt off now so I don't have to leave below the breadline after 40 plus years of working.

Again, if you are an MP, how many terms/years do you have to serve before you get that fat payout. Do MP's give good value for money, at least enough to justify their MP pension? How many committee and votes to they attend per year? How many surguries/town hall meetings do you schedule and meet with the voters? How many years in jail will you get for defrauding the tax payers out of expenses? Will a middle income person do less of a job compared to a rich man in an old boy network?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 06:19 PM

Whatever level it is set at there would be complaints. The rules re joint claimants are unavoidable in these days of equality, I suspect. Personally I think the cut-off is too high - £40k tops.

When looking at someones asset base, do not mix personal and business/trust funds.

MP pensions and allowances are a scandal, as they grant themselves benefits others are barred from receiving. As it happens Mr B claims far less than the system allows him to.

As for the claims - look through the list more deeply. EU grants are obtuse to say the least, but on inspection the ones Englefield receive in various forms are modest by comparison with, say, Suttons Settled Estates (and no criticism of them intended).

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 1 2011, 02:20 PM

But the payments aren't the issue as such, it is the conflict of interest. One of the DEFRA ministers has given up these payments whilst in office to avoid the conflict. The other ministers appear to want to cover up what they are getting, and that is where the problem lies.

Maybe Mr Benyon could just publish what his interests recieve on his website, despite all other payments to other estates not being disclosed. That way there is no way people can attack him for wanting to hide these payments?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 1 2011, 04:58 PM

Richard, I don't see a conflict of interest. Would you expect Ken Clarke not to call the police if he'd been burgled, or Andrew Lansley not to go to an NHS doctor if he was sick, or Michael Gove not to be able to send his children to a state school, or George Osborne not to claim income tax relief? It makes an awful lot of sense for an under-secretary of state at Defra to be a farmer, and it's in the nature of things that his farm will get CAP payments, and he doesn't even have responsibilty for the CAP, that's in Caroline Spelman's portfolio. Debate the merits of the CAP by all means, but there's nothing here to embarrass Richard Benyon, and yah-boo politicking undermines the debate.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 1 2011, 05:13 PM

None of the other names are getting services that are not available to anyone else.

I am not here to embarrass Mr. Benyon, just to point out the injustice of claiming a freebie, while the rest of us are losing our universal benefits.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 1 2011, 05:48 PM

What point are you trying to make here? CAP payments are available to qualifying farms, in much the same way as child allowance is available to qualifying parents.


What rest of us are you championing here? We all benefit from CAP payments because they reward stewardship, and it's important to preserve our environmental and cultural heritage. Conversely child allowance is at best a necessary drain on a civilised society to support the weak and feckless, and there's no justification in my mind for paying it to anyone living above the bread-line.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2011, 06:29 PM

Do you know what, if any EU Grants they may have access to through connections?
The Englefield grants are available to every like organisation in the country (and the whole of the EU). Buy your pigs, goats, sheep, plant your maize and, like any other European smallholder, claim your grants.

How distant do you require MPs to be from the real world?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2011, 06:33 PM

What is the conflict of interest?

If Mr Benyon has severed his involvement with the business while in office why should he then publish what they receive?

I agree the UK interpretation of the Court ruling is OTT, but that is more due to the Civil Servants being used to a method of operation they have had applied for some years now.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 1 2011, 09:58 PM

No point scoring here, it's a national press story and I actually feel a little sorry for our MP that it's been reported in this way. However, when all but one of the DEFRA ministers have apparently agreed to stop details being published of how much their interests recieve, it would appear to some as an abuse of power. I repeat, I have no problem with the payment if he is entitled to it, but by hiding what he is recieving is where he will take flack. If he was to come out and say "I've got no problem publishing what my interests recieve", it kills the story dead.

Posted by: user23 Mar 1 2011, 10:01 PM

I agree with you Simon.

Surely it's of benefit to the country if a minister actually has a background in the area of government he works in.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 2 2011, 08:40 AM

It does. All he has to do is do what one of his colleagues has done by giving up the payments whilst a minister, or publish payments made to him. Then he kills the story dead.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 2 2011, 12:32 PM

I do not know who the colleague is, but are the two sets of circumstances on all fours with each other?

A person who is a farmer in their own right can easily choose not to accept/claim grant funding. Someone who is 'just' linked to a company that has access to such facilities can hardly single-handedly stop the company following that line.

As best I know Mr B, as an individual, receives not a penny.

This is a valid indicator:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/Allowances/Members-allowance-expenditure-table-09-10.xls

He is not alone in what he does not claim, but 491st in the list of spenders seems reasonable.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 2 2011, 02:37 PM

I accept what you are saying, but what is his link to the companies?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 2 2011, 02:46 PM

Not a scoobie. However, as they appear to be Limited, he is not the owner or a Sole Trader

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 2 2011, 03:20 PM

Michael Bloomberg stepped down as CEO of Bloomberg, and only takes 1 dollar a year annually for his services as Mayor of NYC.

Granted the man is worth 18 billion dollars, and what he gives out to charity each year is below, but as a 69 year old man, do you think it is within his right to take and use a free travel card?

Philanthropy: Bloomberg's personal net worth, in addition to aiding his political career, has allowed him to engage in substantial philanthropic endeavors, including the donation of over $300 million to Johns Hopkins University, where he served as the chairman of the board from 1996 to 2002.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Bloomberg, through his Bloomberg Family Foundation, donated and/or pledged $138 million in 2004, $144 million in 2005, $165 million in 2006, and $205 million in 2007, making him the seventh largest individual contributor to philanthropy in the United States for 2007. 2006 recipients include the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School for Public Health; World Lung Foundation and the World Health Organization. In 2008, Bloomberg's website announced a combined donation of $500 million with Bill Gates to help governments in developing countries with tobacco control.

According to The New York Times, Bloomberg has been an “anonymous donor” to the Carnegie Corporation each year for the last several years, with gifts ranging from $5 to $20 million. The Carnegie Corporation has distributed this contribution to hundreds of New York City organizations ranging from the Dance Theater of Harlem to Gilda's Club, a non-profit organization that provides support to people and families living with cancer.

In 1996, Bloomberg endowed the William Henry Bloomberg Professorship at Harvard with a $3 million gift in honor of his father, who died in 1963, saying, "throughout his life, he recognized the importance of reaching out to the nonprofit sector to help better the welfare of the entire community." He also endowed his hometown synagogue, Temple Shalom, which was renamed for his parents as the William and Charlotte Bloomberg Jewish Community Center of Medford.

Bloomberg reports giving $254 million in 2009 to almost 1,400 nonprofit organizations, saying: "I am a big believer in giving it all away and have always said that the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker."

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 2 2011, 03:32 PM

He is the trustee and beneficiary. That is where the media are trying to say the conflict is. All he had to do was say he'll publish what his interests get paid and it would have killed their stories dead. But his judgement has been to try and keep his head down and keep quiet, which allows people to question the motives of the DEFRA ministers, of which our MP is one.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 2 2011, 03:44 PM

If he lives in an area where a free travel card is offered then he is clearly within his right to a travel card.

Looks like he probably would choose not to, even if only because he probably wouldn't use it.

Posted by: Criddleback Mar 7 2011, 02:35 PM

@NWNREADER "I am not an apologist for Mr B"

LoL

Posted by: Criddleback Mar 7 2011, 03:26 PM

You mean like the case of RB do you? He is overseeing fisheries matters as Fisheries Minister and he has a very well known knowledge and insight into fisheries matters, doesn't he?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345709/Theres-fishy-minister-TV-chef-catches-politician-doesnt-know-subject.html

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 07:01 PM

You perceive otherwise?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 07:11 PM

The comments after the story are interesting and wide ranging...

How long would it take for a person to gain sufficient knowledge of the industry to qualify as Minister of a portfolio that includes it? If (s)he had that level of knowledge would they then be cronies of the people involved? Might they even end up with 'interests' that were held against them.

That is exactly the conundrum I outlined.......

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 7 2011, 08:11 PM

I don't believe it matters what experience a MP has they only do as they are instructed by the paymasters who payroll their party.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 08:41 PM

I would have left the wink off

Posted by: Criddleback Mar 8 2011, 09:06 AM

But he hasn't "severed his involvement with the business". He continues to receive the profits he is entitled to, through a ministerial "blind trust" as published in February.

Details are http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/45648/ministers-interests-blind-trusts-bank-bonuses-and-beekeeping.thtml and http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/04/coalition-ministers-blind-trusts.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 09:15 AM

And this is why he leaves himself open to criticism. All he has to do is say he will publish payments that are mde to his personal interests. For him, it would kill this story dead and other ministers in DEFRA may follow his lead.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 8 2011, 11:24 AM

I'm afraid I can't get worked up about this issue - Englefield Estates are getting EU subsidies, big deal, so are all other farmers. Richard Benyon has a financial interest in the family assets - hardly a surprise. Until he becomes involved in negotiating a raise (or preventing a fall) in the EU subsidies the story is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 8 2011, 12:33 PM

Having read both articles I do not see that Mr B is mentioned as benfitting from the Trust at the moment, or that the established family Trust is a 'blind' one (whatever that is).

I am not defending him, but still do not see any grounds to find against him.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 02:02 PM

The only potential issue is DEFRA deciding not to publish what minister recieves what. Just publish it on his website and it kills the story dead. There will always be people sniping about things like this, and he could easily prevent it.

Posted by: Criddleback Mar 8 2011, 02:27 PM

You're right - it refers to children, parents and siblings. Unfortunately the full list is unavailable due to an error at the Cabinet Office website.

A "blind trust" is what ministers' investments are put into while they are ministers. They still get money from them - they just don't make decisions about those investments or attend or vote at board meetings, as described in the Guardian article:

"The number of ministers setting up blind trusts in order to continue profiting from financial interests that could present a conflict with their government responsibilities has increased threefold under the coalition, official documents revealed today
Ministers are allowed to keep financial interests that could conflict with their ministerial briefs if they hand over their management to a trustee of a blind trust. They are allowed no further information about what investments are bought and sold through the trust and only receive updates of their profits and losses. The system is entirely legal. A cabinet office spokesman said: "If ministers have got financial assets and shares this is the fairest way for them to be handled so there is no perception of personal interest playing a part in their decisions in office.""

In the PoliticsHome article you will that Richard Benyon is listed on the ministerial blind trust list recently published by the cabinet office:

"The register of ministers’ interests was released this afternoon by the Cabinet Office....
...A few other salient points from the list:

...Richard Benyon, Parliamentary under-secretary at Defra, records that his ‘parents, children and siblings are beneficiaries of family trusts with residential, agricultural and commercial properties including a landfill and an inert waste recycling site. Mr Benyon’s brother is employed by one of the trusts’. Read our full profile of Richard Benyon here."

Posted by: Criddleback Mar 8 2011, 03:17 PM

The Cabinet Office list of ministerial interests is now up here:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ministers-interests.pdf

I stand corrected - Richard Benyon doesn't have anything in category 1 - blind trusts. Apologies. What it says is:

"Mr Benyon’s parents, children and siblings are beneficiaries of family trusts with residential, agricultural and commercial properties including a landfill and an inert waste recycling site. Mr Benyon’s brother is employed by one of the trusts."

Also in the http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/110228/110228.pdf is this:

"1. Remunerated directorships
Payment of £3000 as director’s salary from the Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited,
the trustee of various family trusts (see Category 8), in all of which either I or members of my
wider family have beneficial interests. I have resigned as chairman and director of this
company. Address: The Englefield Estate Trust Corporation, Englefield Road, Theale,
Reading RG7 5DU. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 4 June 2010)"

"8. Land and Property
Landholdings in Hampshire and Berkshire (some in my constituency) comprising farmland,
residential and commercial property, some potential development land, woodlands and gravel
workings, for some of which rent is received.
Residential and commercial property in Hackney, for which rent is received.
Rural land and property in Inverness-shire.
The majority of property in these estates is held in family trusts in the trusteeship of
Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited (see Category 1)."