Our MP's family doing well out of EU Farm payouts, Huge sums doled out to Benyon's Englefield Trust Options

[Phil_D11102]

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.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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

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.

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.

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.

[NWNREADER]

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

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?

[NWNREADER]

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?

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.

[Richard Garvie]

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.

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.

[user23]

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.

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.

[Richard Garvie]

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.

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.

[NWNREADER]

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.

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:
Expenses

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

[Richard Garvie]

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:
Expenses

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

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

[NWNREADER]

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

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

[Phil_D11102]

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."

[Richard Garvie]

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

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.

[NWNREADER]

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?

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.

[Criddleback]

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

LoL

[Criddleback]

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.

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-13...ow-subject.html

[NWNREADER]

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

LoL

You perceive otherwise?

[NWNREADER]

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-13...ow-subject.html

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.......

[Cognosco]

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.......

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.

[NWNREADER]

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.

I would have left the wink off

[Criddleback]

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

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 here and here.