Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's Notebook
Sunday 28th November 2004
Who arrests the Prime Minister for this crime?
Did Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Prescott all recently commit a criminal offence? The promise in the Queen's Speech of a referendum on the EU constitution makes it all the more urgent to resolve an extraordinary anomaly which arose during the referendum on a regional assembly for the North-East.
Among high-profile campaigners for a Yes vote were Messrs Blair, Brown and Prescott, all of whom visited the North-East in the run-up to polling day.
Yet, as was pointed out by Neil Herron, the director of the "North-East No" campaign, the speeches and interviews by these ministers were in breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
This makes it an offence for ministers to "publish" any material relevant to a referendum during the 28-day "purdah period" before polling day. Mr Herron has in his possession a letter from Ian Scotter of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stating that the term "publication", according to Treasury counsel, "also applies to speeches and press interviews".
A letter from one of Mr Scotter's colleagues states that "ministers are permitted to speak on the issues during the 'purdah period' if they make it clear that they are doing so in a personal or political capacity and not as a government minister".
Yet when these eminent politicians appeared in the North-East, they took no obvious steps to make clear that they were not speaking in their ministerial capacity, but only as the MPs for Sedgefield, Dunfermline and Hull East.
A series of parliamentary questions has now been tabled by Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asking the Government to confirm that these letters correctly interpret the law - and to make clear who is responsible for enforcing it.
The Electoral Commission disclaims any responsibility. Whose duty will it be, then, when Tony Blair appears on television as Prime Minister during the final days of the referendum on the European constitution, to tap him on the shoulder and say, "I am arresting you for a breach of the Act"?
It may seem ridiculous, but if politicians are allowed openly to break their own laws, does it not become a rather serious matter?
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Saturday, November 27, 2004
...from an East of England Assembly member
Hunts Post
NEWS
Walters' World
24 Nov 2004 16:39
REGIONALISM RIP
HOW delighted I was to read the result of the Regional Assemblies referendum in the North East. There can be no argument about how comprehensively the people rejected Mr Prescott's dream. And this was in the region thought to be most amenable to the idea.
With a turnout above 40 per cent and a 78 per cent vote against, it is impossible for anyone to claim that apathy ruled the day and lost the battle.
Our region (The East of England) was already right at the bottom of the Government's hit list for directly elected regional assemblies; so I hope the idea will quietly be forgotten.The result gave rise to some correspondence. I have received a mass of letters asking why we have a regional assembly in the East without having had a referendum. I thought it might be useful to explain.
We originally formed The East of England Local Government Conference covering the six counties of this region.It allowed local authorities in the region to get together to look at things appropriate in a regional context. Its members were not directly elected; but they were all elected members of local authorities.
The Government was so convinced that directly elected regional assemblies would soon be the norm, that it designated our alternative, voluntary, chamber as "The Regional Planning Body" for the East of England - the body that would make planning decisions for pan-regional items.
However, it also passed legislation making it compulsory for "at least 30 per cent" of the assembly places to be held by "stakeholders." Stakeholders are not elected (either to a local authority or to the voluntary chamber).
They are appointed.Exactly who decides which "stakeholder organisations" get a seat (and how that seat is allocated to a specific individual) is amystery to me. I am sure there is a piece of paper somewhere that explains it.
At the same time, the Government insisted that we changed the name of the chamber to The East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).That is the body which, earlier this month, accepted the need for 478,000 new homes in the region between 2001 and 2021.
Many of the letters I received complained that EERA is an "unelected QUANGO" and has no democratic mandate to make that sort of decision. To a certain extent they are right; the stakeholder representatives have no democratic mandate. But all the local authority members do - and all local authorities in the region are represented.I am the Cambridgeshire representative. I am a democratically elected county councillor and the rest of that number elected me to represent them at EERA.I claim, therefore, to have a democratic mandate.
However, as the Government's dreams recede, perhaps we should ask them to re-examine the democratic justification for allowing stakeholders to be voting members on regional planning issues.I suspect that we will get a frosty response; for the system would now require primary legislation to change it back to the Local Government Conference model. But it would be nice to watch them squirm as they explain how their placemen supposedly make good the previous democratic deficit.
NEWS
Walters' World
24 Nov 2004 16:39
REGIONALISM RIP
HOW delighted I was to read the result of the Regional Assemblies referendum in the North East. There can be no argument about how comprehensively the people rejected Mr Prescott's dream. And this was in the region thought to be most amenable to the idea.
With a turnout above 40 per cent and a 78 per cent vote against, it is impossible for anyone to claim that apathy ruled the day and lost the battle.
Our region (The East of England) was already right at the bottom of the Government's hit list for directly elected regional assemblies; so I hope the idea will quietly be forgotten.The result gave rise to some correspondence. I have received a mass of letters asking why we have a regional assembly in the East without having had a referendum. I thought it might be useful to explain.
We originally formed The East of England Local Government Conference covering the six counties of this region.It allowed local authorities in the region to get together to look at things appropriate in a regional context. Its members were not directly elected; but they were all elected members of local authorities.
The Government was so convinced that directly elected regional assemblies would soon be the norm, that it designated our alternative, voluntary, chamber as "The Regional Planning Body" for the East of England - the body that would make planning decisions for pan-regional items.
However, it also passed legislation making it compulsory for "at least 30 per cent" of the assembly places to be held by "stakeholders." Stakeholders are not elected (either to a local authority or to the voluntary chamber).
They are appointed.Exactly who decides which "stakeholder organisations" get a seat (and how that seat is allocated to a specific individual) is amystery to me. I am sure there is a piece of paper somewhere that explains it.
At the same time, the Government insisted that we changed the name of the chamber to The East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).That is the body which, earlier this month, accepted the need for 478,000 new homes in the region between 2001 and 2021.
Many of the letters I received complained that EERA is an "unelected QUANGO" and has no democratic mandate to make that sort of decision. To a certain extent they are right; the stakeholder representatives have no democratic mandate. But all the local authority members do - and all local authorities in the region are represented.I am the Cambridgeshire representative. I am a democratically elected county councillor and the rest of that number elected me to represent them at EERA.I claim, therefore, to have a democratic mandate.
However, as the Government's dreams recede, perhaps we should ask them to re-examine the democratic justification for allowing stakeholders to be voting members on regional planning issues.I suspect that we will get a frosty response; for the system would now require primary legislation to change it back to the Local Government Conference model. But it would be nice to watch them squirm as they explain how their placemen supposedly make good the previous democratic deficit.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Grim Reaper spotted on Newcastle Quayside...will the Servants remain civil?
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
26th November 2004
Stephen,
There are a number of issues which are still causing concern:
the relationship between ANEC and NEA, and also the funding and liabilities of these organisations.
I am sure the public will take a very close interest at any attempt to attach any potential cost liability of an unelected assembly to the North East taxpayer, especially after rejecting the proposals for an elected assembly so emphatically.
You will be aware that across the country, and also in the North East, that many local authorities are now preparing to withdraw (and also withdraw funding) from these unelected bodies (assemblies / chambers) as they are now perceived to be nothing more than 'talking shops.'
The emphatic no vote in the North East has highlighted the existence of these organisations.
Plus, major decisions that are being made with regard to planning and housing are being done without democratic accountability.
We are receiving many calls and letters from members of the public who feel that they have been the victims of a political con trick.
However, there are some obvious and very serious implications financially and legally should the NEA/ANEC start to lose its funding, or even attempt to continue in its present form.
Therefore, I would appreciate clarification on the points below and I am sure that in the interests of transparency, especially because of the potential compromise legally of members and local authorities, there will be nothing short of full disclosure. We are quite prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the continuance of these organisations legally, but I am sure that this will not be necessary.
1.Can you confirm that the contracts with the 32 permanent members of staff (is this figure correct?) are all in the name of ANEC as the employer?
2. Is ANEC the accountable body and registered as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ? If not, who is?
3. Can you clarify what legal advice was taken by ANEC or its members prior to creating such a large number of permanent staff especially as both ANEC and NEA are 'unincorporated associations.' Has the question of personal liability of the members been highlighted and legal advice sought?
4. Can you please forward copies, or make available, this legal advice? ( To clarify the legal position I have provided a link to the necessary section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 here )
5.Can you confirm whether there are any lease agreements and contracts in the name of NEA or are they all in the name of ANEC?
If so, could you please provide copies or arrange an appointment for us or our legal representative to inspect them?
If not, whose name are they held?
6.Can you please supply me with current copies of both the Constitution and Rules of Procedure for both the Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly?
7. Can you please advise me whether the members of the said organisations will be covered in any future action by legal representatives of ANEC and NEA, their local authorities (or social partner member) or their own legal representatives?
8. In previous correspondence you referred to an insurance policy and you made an offer to 'indemnify' local authorities from any potential liability arising from any action taken against the NEA or ANEC. Please can you please now provide a copy of this insurance policy and clarify whether the policy is held in the name of one or both of the unincorporated associations? If it was a personal indemnity from you as the Director can you tell me where the funds will be accessed to underwrite any potential financial liability?
I am copying this to the Chief Executive of Sunderland City Council, Ged Fitzgerald, David Jennings, District Auditor and also Sunderland Council's members of both bodies.
There are also a number of other interested and associated parties who have been copied in to this communication.
I am sure that you will personally make it available to the members and employees of both ANEC and NEA in order to make them aware of a potential compromise to their personal situations.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Bob Symonds, Leader,Sunderland City Council, NEA and ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Bryan Charlton, Deputy Leader,Sunderland City Council, NEA and ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Dave Allen, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Anne Hall, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Paul Watson, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director, NEA
cc. Councillor Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition, Sunderland City Council.
cc. Ian Scotter, Regional Assemblies Division
cc. Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. Jeremy Wicking, Sunderland Echo
cc. Mike Thatcher, Public Finance Magazine
cc. Peter Hetherington, The Guardian
cc. David Jennings, District Auditor
cc. Tilbrook's Solicitors
cc.Bernard Jenkin, Shadow regions Minister.
bcc. numerous including North East Council Leaders, Chief Executives and councillors.
NOTES and INFORMATION:
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 122
Definitions:
The Unincorporated Association
An unincorporated association is a group of people who have come together to a shared aim and has no distinct legal identity. They are known as the Management Committee.
Once a centre has formalised, its leases, contracts etc. will have to be in the name of one or more of these individuals. These individuals are known as trustees, and the trustees of an unincorporated centre are likely to be personally liable to third parties for the centre’s debts.
This structure is used by newly formed groups as it is cheap and quick to set up and it is flexible. It can also be appropriate for centres who have limited liabilities - i.e. they do not employ staff, do not own buildings and do not administer large grants.
The governing document of an unincorporated association is known as a constitution. Use the checklist in this briefing as a guide to what should be included in a Constitution. Source: Advice UK
F. Wherever possible, regulators should advocate the use of corporate structures for newly formed PSOs in preference to non-corporate structures. Existing non-corporate PSOs should consider obtaining a corporate structure for the greater protection of their appointees.
Appointees in non-corporate PSOs (trusts and unincorporated associations) run greater risks of personal liability than their counterparts in corporate PSOs. The Committee has noted the work of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the Charity Law Association and Liverpool University in developing and promoting a new corporate structure specifically designed for PSOs. Pending the completion of this work, the Committee recommends that existing corporate structures (in particular, the company limited by guarantee structure) should be used by PSOs, wherever possible.
Conclusions involving further study by others
G. PSOs which are not permitted to purchase personal liability insurance from the PSO's funds should review the position with their regulators. PSOs and regulators should ensure that the reasons for the prohibition on such insurance remain valid.
Most PSOs can purchase personal liability insurance from the PSO's funds as a form of protection for appointees. The exceptions are local authority schools, grant maintained schools and non-departmental public bodies. The Committee does not advocate that appointees should be entitled to personal liability insurance as of right. In every case the risks being insured against must be weighed against the costs of such insurance. But insurance does provide a valuable means of reassurance to appointees, and many PSOs are now able to purchase it (including registered charities, following the Charity Commission's relaxation of its rules on the matter). A review of a prohibition where it exists is therefore warranted. Source:Public Standards
Unincorporated association
Unincorporated associations do not have a separate legal entity, so all the members of such an organisation would have unlimited liability for its actions. It is also more difficult for an unincorporated association to hold land. In addition, from the perspective of the local community, an unincorporated association does not have the same aspect of legitimacy as a company limited by shares or guarantee. Source: URC Sharing Best Practice
Previous Correspondence...
From: Barber, Stephen
To: 'NEARA'
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: North East Assembly
Neil,
In response to your e-mail of 10 November;
(1) I expect to have the audited accounts for the Association and Assembly for 2003/04 within the next few weeks. I'll send you a copy of them as soon as they are to hand. As you know, the Association and the Assembly share a joint budget. I've put in the post to you a list of the local authority subscriptions for the current year.
(2) Members of the Assembly and of the Association have taken the decision to defer moving towards establishing new companies until June 2005.
(3) Staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils who have the usual responsibilities as employer. Staff have permanent contracts of employment. It would not be appropriate to reveal individual salaries which are personal to the person concerned. The total salary bill can be read from the accounts. The Assembly and Association websites have details of the staff.
(4) Local authorities make a single subscription payment in respect of both bodies. Each is an unincorporated association with its own Rules of Procedure, set of Members and business plan etc. All staff in the Guildhall work for both bodies.
(5) I've sent you a copy of a note setting out Members allowances relating to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly website includes details of Members.
Regards,
Stephen
From: NEARA
Sent: 22 November 2004 16:08To: Barber, Stephen
Cc: hilary@rane.gov.uk
Subject: North East Assembly
Stephen,
Just to refresh you with the questions. I am sure you haven't forgotten, but obviously there is a sense of urgency now and there are some very serious concerns growing amongst the local authorities and councillors, not just in the North East but across the country.
Regads,
Neil H
cc. Hilary Knox
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
10th November 2004
Dear Stephen,
I hope you don't mind us turning our attentions now on the unelected North East Assembly so quickly even before the embers of Prescott's bonfire have cooled, but you know how impatient we are.
May I start by saying, and I know that you know that I mean this, that this is not personal, and it is unfortunate that it is you and the unelected North East Assembly that is about to come under intense scrutiny.
We will not rest until the Assembly is disbanded and we have been contacted by thousands of people across the region who are incensed to say the least, at being deceived. They realise that they have been conned and that they are still paying for an Assembly that they never asked for, and thought they had rejected. To argue that they rejected an elected version to be content with an unelected form will unfortunately fan the flames of their anger even higher.
So, we can begin the process of assisting with transparency I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Can you please forward details (either electronically or hard copy) of the latest accounts for the North East Assembly, and the most recent subscriptions paid by the local authorities?
2. Can you please confirm that the Assembly is still pursuing incorporation? If so, under what Limited Company title?
3. Can you please provide a full list of all employees, their job description and salary and the nature of their contract (whether temporary or permanent) and the who is responsible for potential redundancy and pension arrangements?
4. Some authorities still seem to think that they are only supporting ANEC and not funding the NEA. Can you please clarify the situation and detail the relationship, administrative and financial, between ANEC and NEA for the record?
5. Can you please provide full contact details of all assembly members and the expenses remuneration package they receive for attendance?
Obviously there will be more as this whole affair comes under close scrutiny, but I am sure this will suffice for the time being.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
26th November 2004
Stephen,
There are a number of issues which are still causing concern:
the relationship between ANEC and NEA, and also the funding and liabilities of these organisations.
I am sure the public will take a very close interest at any attempt to attach any potential cost liability of an unelected assembly to the North East taxpayer, especially after rejecting the proposals for an elected assembly so emphatically.
You will be aware that across the country, and also in the North East, that many local authorities are now preparing to withdraw (and also withdraw funding) from these unelected bodies (assemblies / chambers) as they are now perceived to be nothing more than 'talking shops.'
The emphatic no vote in the North East has highlighted the existence of these organisations.
Plus, major decisions that are being made with regard to planning and housing are being done without democratic accountability.
We are receiving many calls and letters from members of the public who feel that they have been the victims of a political con trick.
However, there are some obvious and very serious implications financially and legally should the NEA/ANEC start to lose its funding, or even attempt to continue in its present form.
Therefore, I would appreciate clarification on the points below and I am sure that in the interests of transparency, especially because of the potential compromise legally of members and local authorities, there will be nothing short of full disclosure. We are quite prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the continuance of these organisations legally, but I am sure that this will not be necessary.
1.Can you confirm that the contracts with the 32 permanent members of staff (is this figure correct?) are all in the name of ANEC as the employer?
2. Is ANEC the accountable body and registered as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ? If not, who is?
3. Can you clarify what legal advice was taken by ANEC or its members prior to creating such a large number of permanent staff especially as both ANEC and NEA are 'unincorporated associations.' Has the question of personal liability of the members been highlighted and legal advice sought?
4. Can you please forward copies, or make available, this legal advice? ( To clarify the legal position I have provided a link to the necessary section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 here )
5.Can you confirm whether there are any lease agreements and contracts in the name of NEA or are they all in the name of ANEC?
If so, could you please provide copies or arrange an appointment for us or our legal representative to inspect them?
If not, whose name are they held?
6.Can you please supply me with current copies of both the Constitution and Rules of Procedure for both the Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly?
7. Can you please advise me whether the members of the said organisations will be covered in any future action by legal representatives of ANEC and NEA, their local authorities (or social partner member) or their own legal representatives?
8. In previous correspondence you referred to an insurance policy and you made an offer to 'indemnify' local authorities from any potential liability arising from any action taken against the NEA or ANEC. Please can you please now provide a copy of this insurance policy and clarify whether the policy is held in the name of one or both of the unincorporated associations? If it was a personal indemnity from you as the Director can you tell me where the funds will be accessed to underwrite any potential financial liability?
I am copying this to the Chief Executive of Sunderland City Council, Ged Fitzgerald, David Jennings, District Auditor and also Sunderland Council's members of both bodies.
There are also a number of other interested and associated parties who have been copied in to this communication.
I am sure that you will personally make it available to the members and employees of both ANEC and NEA in order to make them aware of a potential compromise to their personal situations.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Bob Symonds, Leader,Sunderland City Council, NEA and ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Bryan Charlton, Deputy Leader,Sunderland City Council, NEA and ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Dave Allen, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Anne Hall, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Councillor Paul Watson, Sunderland City Council, ANEC member.
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director, NEA
cc. Councillor Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition, Sunderland City Council.
cc. Ian Scotter, Regional Assemblies Division
cc. Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. Jeremy Wicking, Sunderland Echo
cc. Mike Thatcher, Public Finance Magazine
cc. Peter Hetherington, The Guardian
cc. David Jennings, District Auditor
cc. Tilbrook's Solicitors
cc.Bernard Jenkin, Shadow regions Minister.
bcc. numerous including North East Council Leaders, Chief Executives and councillors.
NOTES and INFORMATION:
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 122
Definitions:
The Unincorporated Association
An unincorporated association is a group of people who have come together to a shared aim and has no distinct legal identity. They are known as the Management Committee.
Once a centre has formalised, its leases, contracts etc. will have to be in the name of one or more of these individuals. These individuals are known as trustees, and the trustees of an unincorporated centre are likely to be personally liable to third parties for the centre’s debts.
This structure is used by newly formed groups as it is cheap and quick to set up and it is flexible. It can also be appropriate for centres who have limited liabilities - i.e. they do not employ staff, do not own buildings and do not administer large grants.
The governing document of an unincorporated association is known as a constitution. Use the checklist in this briefing as a guide to what should be included in a Constitution. Source: Advice UK
F. Wherever possible, regulators should advocate the use of corporate structures for newly formed PSOs in preference to non-corporate structures. Existing non-corporate PSOs should consider obtaining a corporate structure for the greater protection of their appointees.
Appointees in non-corporate PSOs (trusts and unincorporated associations) run greater risks of personal liability than their counterparts in corporate PSOs. The Committee has noted the work of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the Charity Law Association and Liverpool University in developing and promoting a new corporate structure specifically designed for PSOs. Pending the completion of this work, the Committee recommends that existing corporate structures (in particular, the company limited by guarantee structure) should be used by PSOs, wherever possible.
Conclusions involving further study by others
G. PSOs which are not permitted to purchase personal liability insurance from the PSO's funds should review the position with their regulators. PSOs and regulators should ensure that the reasons for the prohibition on such insurance remain valid.
Most PSOs can purchase personal liability insurance from the PSO's funds as a form of protection for appointees. The exceptions are local authority schools, grant maintained schools and non-departmental public bodies. The Committee does not advocate that appointees should be entitled to personal liability insurance as of right. In every case the risks being insured against must be weighed against the costs of such insurance. But insurance does provide a valuable means of reassurance to appointees, and many PSOs are now able to purchase it (including registered charities, following the Charity Commission's relaxation of its rules on the matter). A review of a prohibition where it exists is therefore warranted. Source:Public Standards
Unincorporated association
Unincorporated associations do not have a separate legal entity, so all the members of such an organisation would have unlimited liability for its actions. It is also more difficult for an unincorporated association to hold land. In addition, from the perspective of the local community, an unincorporated association does not have the same aspect of legitimacy as a company limited by shares or guarantee. Source: URC Sharing Best Practice
Previous Correspondence...
From: Barber, Stephen
To: 'NEARA'
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: North East Assembly
Neil,
In response to your e-mail of 10 November;
(1) I expect to have the audited accounts for the Association and Assembly for 2003/04 within the next few weeks. I'll send you a copy of them as soon as they are to hand. As you know, the Association and the Assembly share a joint budget. I've put in the post to you a list of the local authority subscriptions for the current year.
(2) Members of the Assembly and of the Association have taken the decision to defer moving towards establishing new companies until June 2005.
(3) Staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils who have the usual responsibilities as employer. Staff have permanent contracts of employment. It would not be appropriate to reveal individual salaries which are personal to the person concerned. The total salary bill can be read from the accounts. The Assembly and Association websites have details of the staff.
(4) Local authorities make a single subscription payment in respect of both bodies. Each is an unincorporated association with its own Rules of Procedure, set of Members and business plan etc. All staff in the Guildhall work for both bodies.
(5) I've sent you a copy of a note setting out Members allowances relating to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly website includes details of Members.
Regards,
Stephen
From: NEARA
Sent: 22 November 2004 16:08To: Barber, Stephen
Cc: hilary@rane.gov.uk
Subject: North East Assembly
Stephen,
Just to refresh you with the questions. I am sure you haven't forgotten, but obviously there is a sense of urgency now and there are some very serious concerns growing amongst the local authorities and councillors, not just in the North East but across the country.
Regads,
Neil H
cc. Hilary Knox
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
10th November 2004
Dear Stephen,
I hope you don't mind us turning our attentions now on the unelected North East Assembly so quickly even before the embers of Prescott's bonfire have cooled, but you know how impatient we are.
May I start by saying, and I know that you know that I mean this, that this is not personal, and it is unfortunate that it is you and the unelected North East Assembly that is about to come under intense scrutiny.
We will not rest until the Assembly is disbanded and we have been contacted by thousands of people across the region who are incensed to say the least, at being deceived. They realise that they have been conned and that they are still paying for an Assembly that they never asked for, and thought they had rejected. To argue that they rejected an elected version to be content with an unelected form will unfortunately fan the flames of their anger even higher.
So, we can begin the process of assisting with transparency I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Can you please forward details (either electronically or hard copy) of the latest accounts for the North East Assembly, and the most recent subscriptions paid by the local authorities?
2. Can you please confirm that the Assembly is still pursuing incorporation? If so, under what Limited Company title?
3. Can you please provide a full list of all employees, their job description and salary and the nature of their contract (whether temporary or permanent) and the who is responsible for potential redundancy and pension arrangements?
4. Some authorities still seem to think that they are only supporting ANEC and not funding the NEA. Can you please clarify the situation and detail the relationship, administrative and financial, between ANEC and NEA for the record?
5. Can you please provide full contact details of all assembly members and the expenses remuneration package they receive for attendance?
Obviously there will be more as this whole affair comes under close scrutiny, but I am sure this will suffice for the time being.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director
Epping Guardian...the clans are gathering...
Editor speaks out about regional assembly
25th November 2004
Read here
It has a £2m annual revenue budget that includes over £500,000 in subscriptions from local councils. Epping Forest District Council is paying over £10,000 a year to be a member, but it only meets "approximately" twice a year.
The East of England Regional Assembly recently backed plans for 11,000 new homes in our district as part of a regional scheme for 478,000 new properties in the next 17 years.
So what do we get for our money, being part of an organisation that has been branded "unnecessary and ineffective"?
And what right does this unelected body have to make decisions that will affect all our lives?
Epping Forest MP Eleanor Laing condemns it as "an unnecessary and ineffective and unacceptable tier of government".
The assembly has 106 members none of whom was specifically elected to it. Only two-thirds of the membership are elected councillors from local authoriities, yet the assembly is making key decisions that will have a widespread impact on not just our district but the east of England for decades to come.
The assembly's 2004 revenue account shows it received £591,490 in subscriptions from local authorities and £690,000 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Chambers Fund. With other grants and income its revenue budget topped £2m.
Yet the full assembly, its website states, meets only "approximately twice a year" while an assembly executive of 40 members meets six times per year.
It costs Epping Forest District Council £10,170 to be a member a subscription that could rise to £12,310 in the next financial year.
Even the district council's own representative, councillor Robert Glozier, says the assembly runs the risk of becoming an "expensive talking shop".
While voters in the north east of England recently gave a resounding no to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's plans for regional government, those of us in the eastern region were not even given a chance to have a say before the East of England Regional Assembly, which employs some 45 staff came into being.
Following consultation with local government and other interests during 1998 the assembly's inaugural meeting was held in March 1999 after, the assembly's website states, it became clear there was a wish to establish a voluntary regional chamber in the east of England.
But who decided? It was not the electorate.
Mrs Laing said: "At least the people of the north-east had a chance to express their views. Epping Forest taxpayers spend £10,000 a year and have absolutely no say in what goes on."
Theydon Bois district councillor Robert Glozier, one of the members nominated by the 54 east of England local authorities, takes his seat as Epping Forest Council's planning and economic development portfolio holder.
He said: "I think most of the criticism levied against the assembly is perfectly fair. Only two-thirds of the members are elected by anybody and one-third of the members are purely nominated by non-elected bodies. The risk of the assembly is that it's just an expensive talking shop.
"The assembly was set up by the Government in response to its own policy of being in favour of regional government and also in response to the EU policy that it likes to deal with the regions rather than with national government.
"At the moment I feel that I and my colleagues have no option but to work with the regional assembly because the Government has given it certain powers. However I feel those powers would be better exercised by the existing authorities the county councils and district councils."
Mrs Laing said: "I know our own councillors such as Robert Glozier do their best within the perimeters of the regional assembly, and of course while it exists he and his colleagues have to do that, but it's an affront to democracy to call it an assembly. It misleads people into thinking that it has some kind of democratic validity."
DAVID JACKMAN GUARDIAN EDITOR
7:28pm Thursday 25th November 2004
25th November 2004
Read here
It has a £2m annual revenue budget that includes over £500,000 in subscriptions from local councils. Epping Forest District Council is paying over £10,000 a year to be a member, but it only meets "approximately" twice a year.
The East of England Regional Assembly recently backed plans for 11,000 new homes in our district as part of a regional scheme for 478,000 new properties in the next 17 years.
So what do we get for our money, being part of an organisation that has been branded "unnecessary and ineffective"?
And what right does this unelected body have to make decisions that will affect all our lives?
Epping Forest MP Eleanor Laing condemns it as "an unnecessary and ineffective and unacceptable tier of government".
The assembly has 106 members none of whom was specifically elected to it. Only two-thirds of the membership are elected councillors from local authoriities, yet the assembly is making key decisions that will have a widespread impact on not just our district but the east of England for decades to come.
The assembly's 2004 revenue account shows it received £591,490 in subscriptions from local authorities and £690,000 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Chambers Fund. With other grants and income its revenue budget topped £2m.
Yet the full assembly, its website states, meets only "approximately twice a year" while an assembly executive of 40 members meets six times per year.
It costs Epping Forest District Council £10,170 to be a member a subscription that could rise to £12,310 in the next financial year.
Even the district council's own representative, councillor Robert Glozier, says the assembly runs the risk of becoming an "expensive talking shop".
While voters in the north east of England recently gave a resounding no to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's plans for regional government, those of us in the eastern region were not even given a chance to have a say before the East of England Regional Assembly, which employs some 45 staff came into being.
Following consultation with local government and other interests during 1998 the assembly's inaugural meeting was held in March 1999 after, the assembly's website states, it became clear there was a wish to establish a voluntary regional chamber in the east of England.
But who decided? It was not the electorate.
Mrs Laing said: "At least the people of the north-east had a chance to express their views. Epping Forest taxpayers spend £10,000 a year and have absolutely no say in what goes on."
Theydon Bois district councillor Robert Glozier, one of the members nominated by the 54 east of England local authorities, takes his seat as Epping Forest Council's planning and economic development portfolio holder.
He said: "I think most of the criticism levied against the assembly is perfectly fair. Only two-thirds of the members are elected by anybody and one-third of the members are purely nominated by non-elected bodies. The risk of the assembly is that it's just an expensive talking shop.
"The assembly was set up by the Government in response to its own policy of being in favour of regional government and also in response to the EU policy that it likes to deal with the regions rather than with national government.
"At the moment I feel that I and my colleagues have no option but to work with the regional assembly because the Government has given it certain powers. However I feel those powers would be better exercised by the existing authorities the county councils and district councils."
Mrs Laing said: "I know our own councillors such as Robert Glozier do their best within the perimeters of the regional assembly, and of course while it exists he and his colleagues have to do that, but it's an affront to democracy to call it an assembly. It misleads people into thinking that it has some kind of democratic validity."
DAVID JACKMAN GUARDIAN EDITOR
7:28pm Thursday 25th November 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
North East Assembly employees frantically check their contracts of employment
Have they also been deceived? They could end up jobless and penniless and forced to sue the Assembly members to uphold their contractual obligations.
The North East public were certainly duped by the political con trick as the unelected assembly (the vast majority of the public were wholly unaware of its existence) still exists, but once they realise who is funding the con trick there will be another very heavy political price to pay.
As more threads unravel the more precarious the position of the assembly will become until it becomes every man for himself.
Sales of the Guardian at the Guildhall newsagents next to the Assembly have soared.
16th November
Dear Mr ******** (name witheld)
Thank you for your email of 6th October.
I referred your concerns to the National Audit Office whose work is examined by the Committee. They have advised me that you have already raised your concerns with them and that they can only re-iterate the information contained in their earlier response.
The South West Regional Assembly is a voluntary body which is primarily funded by a Central Government grant. The grant carries a set of conditions which outlines the way in which the Assembly may use it. The use to which this grant is put is scrutinised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and ODPM are satisfied that the Assembly has met the grant conditions.The accountable body for the South West Regional Assembly is the South West Regional Assembly Board which is an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
We are advised that their auditors are Robson Rhodes, 10 Queens Square, Bristol BS1 4NT. Any queries regarding the employment of staff is a matter between the Assembly and its employees. If you have any further concerns about the Assembly's legal position you should contact the Assembly directly.
Yours sincerelyChristine Randall
Committee Assistant.
Committee of Public Accounts
Unquote.This reply is really quite helpful.
It is a lot clearer than most I have received before.
Although not stated directly it says that the ODPM is not responsible for pension rights of the staff. Employment terms are a matter between the staff and the SWRA Board. This has to mean that the staff are employed by people who, having no money of their own, may not be able to honour the pension terms of the employment contracts.
By inference the position of Local Authorities is the same:
Not me, thanks They are the minor funders in any case.So the staff will have to rely on the Board which is currently talking about registration, whereby they could dodge responsibility.
A question arises in all this as to whether the SWRA's staff are public servants.
In the North East the situation is different...with £858,450 (over a third) of the NEA's total budget coming from local ratepayers via the local authorities voluntary subscriptions.
If the local authorities start to withdraw their funding then who pays the salaries, pensions and redundancy payments.
"Not me Guv!" says the ODPM.
"Not me Guv!" says the Local Authorities because legally they cannot as they will face censure from the District Auditor... the only guarantee that they have had against the threat of their councillors being pursued for 'Misfeasance of Public Office,' came from no other than the Director of the Assembly, Mr. Stephen Barber.
So who pays and who is liable?
If I was one of the members I would be taking legal advice immediately, and then handing in my resignation.
Unincorporated Association
Despite the name, this is actually a legally recognised structure. It usually consists of a management or executive committee and a number of members. The association normally has a constitution, which sets out its aims and objectives and provides the terms of reference which regulate the association's activities. The membership may attend meetings (apart from the Committee meetings). The committee is normally elected during the Annual General Meeting where members are nominated to serve as officers and members of the Committee and members attending the meeting vote on these proposals.
The classic example of this kind of group is a local community association where there will be a continuous membership, which represents the community. The members will come together to co-operate on a project but not all the members will want to be involved in the detail of everyday activity and will be happy for the Committee to take over these responsibilities. This structure is ideal where there are no serious contractual obligations (such as leases or full-time employees) for which the management committee members could become liable.
The North East public were certainly duped by the political con trick as the unelected assembly (the vast majority of the public were wholly unaware of its existence) still exists, but once they realise who is funding the con trick there will be another very heavy political price to pay.
As more threads unravel the more precarious the position of the assembly will become until it becomes every man for himself.
Sales of the Guardian at the Guildhall newsagents next to the Assembly have soared.
16th November
Dear Mr ******** (name witheld)
Thank you for your email of 6th October.
I referred your concerns to the National Audit Office whose work is examined by the Committee. They have advised me that you have already raised your concerns with them and that they can only re-iterate the information contained in their earlier response.
The South West Regional Assembly is a voluntary body which is primarily funded by a Central Government grant. The grant carries a set of conditions which outlines the way in which the Assembly may use it. The use to which this grant is put is scrutinised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and ODPM are satisfied that the Assembly has met the grant conditions.The accountable body for the South West Regional Assembly is the South West Regional Assembly Board which is an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
We are advised that their auditors are Robson Rhodes, 10 Queens Square, Bristol BS1 4NT. Any queries regarding the employment of staff is a matter between the Assembly and its employees. If you have any further concerns about the Assembly's legal position you should contact the Assembly directly.
Yours sincerelyChristine Randall
Committee Assistant.
Committee of Public Accounts
Unquote.This reply is really quite helpful.
It is a lot clearer than most I have received before.
Although not stated directly it says that the ODPM is not responsible for pension rights of the staff. Employment terms are a matter between the staff and the SWRA Board. This has to mean that the staff are employed by people who, having no money of their own, may not be able to honour the pension terms of the employment contracts.
By inference the position of Local Authorities is the same:
Not me, thanks They are the minor funders in any case.So the staff will have to rely on the Board which is currently talking about registration, whereby they could dodge responsibility.
A question arises in all this as to whether the SWRA's staff are public servants.
In the North East the situation is different...with £858,450 (over a third) of the NEA's total budget coming from local ratepayers via the local authorities voluntary subscriptions.
If the local authorities start to withdraw their funding then who pays the salaries, pensions and redundancy payments.
"Not me Guv!" says the ODPM.
"Not me Guv!" says the Local Authorities because legally they cannot as they will face censure from the District Auditor... the only guarantee that they have had against the threat of their councillors being pursued for 'Misfeasance of Public Office,' came from no other than the Director of the Assembly, Mr. Stephen Barber.
So who pays and who is liable?
If I was one of the members I would be taking legal advice immediately, and then handing in my resignation.
Unincorporated Association
Despite the name, this is actually a legally recognised structure. It usually consists of a management or executive committee and a number of members. The association normally has a constitution, which sets out its aims and objectives and provides the terms of reference which regulate the association's activities. The membership may attend meetings (apart from the Committee meetings). The committee is normally elected during the Annual General Meeting where members are nominated to serve as officers and members of the Committee and members attending the meeting vote on these proposals.
The classic example of this kind of group is a local community association where there will be a continuous membership, which represents the community. The members will come together to co-operate on a project but not all the members will want to be involved in the detail of everyday activity and will be happy for the Committee to take over these responsibilities. This structure is ideal where there are no serious contractual obligations (such as leases or full-time employees) for which the management committee members could become liable.
'Smokescreen for his failures'...oh Mr. Younger!
Referendum spending rules 'unfair to No vote'(Filed: 25/11/2004)
Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday.
He told an academic seminar that ministers should be banned from promoting the European Union constitution using taxpayers' money for at least 10 weeks before polling day.
Mr Younger said the rules should be changed because it would be wrong for the Government to be allowed to spend unlimited sums highlighting the advantages of the constitution at a time when the organisations campaigning against it could not.
His comments came only a day after Vote No, the anti-constitution campaign, said it would challenge the spending rules in the courts because it believes they are biased in favour of the Government.
Ministers are expected to publish the Bill paving the way for the referendum within the next few weeks. The referendum itself is not likely to take place until spring 2006.
Under rules laid down in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, there are limits on the amount campaigning organisations can spend in the 10-week "referendum period" before polling day.
The main group on each side can spend up to a total of £5 million.
Other organisations that register as "permitted participants" can spend up to £500,000 each.
But the Government can spend as much as it wants on pro-constitution leaflets and advertising until the last 28 days of the campaign, at which point it has to stop in the interests of neutrality. Mr Younger told a Constitution Unit seminar in London yesterday that his commission had already complained to the Government about this rule, which was enforced during the referendum on the North East assembly.
"It seemed to us that it was wrong for the Government to be spending public money from the point at which other organisations were restricted," he said.
and the necessary response...
The Letters Editor
Daily Telegraph
Dear Sir / Madam
'Silence of the Electoral Commission Lambs'
"Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage," Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday Daily Telegraph 25th November).
Perhaps it was not Vote No's threat of court action that has elicited a gentle bleat from the mainly silent and always disregarded by Government, Electoral Commission lambs, but the fact that the Commission's incompetence and inadequacy was exposed during the North East referendum.
Mr. Younger, you failed to get involved when the Government spent public money producing misleading and factually incorrect literature...hence the Electoral Commission being attached to our actual proceedings at the High Court as 'an interested party.' We were forced to withdraw after being threatened with massive costs. It should have been you bringing the action, not us.
Mr. Younger, you failed to get involved when Ministers blatantly flouted the 28 day 'purdah period' in advance of the referendum, directing our concerns to the Cabinet Office. We have since been provided with material from the Treasury Counsel, which I will forward to you, proving Ministers breached the Political Parties and Referendums Act. Your organisation misinterpreted the act.
When I heard the statement, "I do not trust the Electoral Commission," my ears pricked up thinking that finally this expensive organisation, a mere fig leaf for scrutiny and supposed political integrity was about to be exposed...but then I realised it was a broadcast from the Ukraine.
The integrity of our democracy and its processes are a precious thing and an Electoral Commission which is toothless,spineless and silent in the face of blatant abuses by Government is as useless as a referee without a pea in his whistle.
Mr. Younger, please stand down to expose your organisation's inadequacy so that we, the people, can demand something better.
Yours faithfully
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk
Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday.
He told an academic seminar that ministers should be banned from promoting the European Union constitution using taxpayers' money for at least 10 weeks before polling day.
Mr Younger said the rules should be changed because it would be wrong for the Government to be allowed to spend unlimited sums highlighting the advantages of the constitution at a time when the organisations campaigning against it could not.
His comments came only a day after Vote No, the anti-constitution campaign, said it would challenge the spending rules in the courts because it believes they are biased in favour of the Government.
Ministers are expected to publish the Bill paving the way for the referendum within the next few weeks. The referendum itself is not likely to take place until spring 2006.
Under rules laid down in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, there are limits on the amount campaigning organisations can spend in the 10-week "referendum period" before polling day.
The main group on each side can spend up to a total of £5 million.
Other organisations that register as "permitted participants" can spend up to £500,000 each.
But the Government can spend as much as it wants on pro-constitution leaflets and advertising until the last 28 days of the campaign, at which point it has to stop in the interests of neutrality. Mr Younger told a Constitution Unit seminar in London yesterday that his commission had already complained to the Government about this rule, which was enforced during the referendum on the North East assembly.
"It seemed to us that it was wrong for the Government to be spending public money from the point at which other organisations were restricted," he said.
and the necessary response...
The Letters Editor
Daily Telegraph
Dear Sir / Madam
'Silence of the Electoral Commission Lambs'
"Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage," Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday Daily Telegraph 25th November).
Perhaps it was not Vote No's threat of court action that has elicited a gentle bleat from the mainly silent and always disregarded by Government, Electoral Commission lambs, but the fact that the Commission's incompetence and inadequacy was exposed during the North East referendum.
Mr. Younger, you failed to get involved when the Government spent public money producing misleading and factually incorrect literature...hence the Electoral Commission being attached to our actual proceedings at the High Court as 'an interested party.' We were forced to withdraw after being threatened with massive costs. It should have been you bringing the action, not us.
Mr. Younger, you failed to get involved when Ministers blatantly flouted the 28 day 'purdah period' in advance of the referendum, directing our concerns to the Cabinet Office. We have since been provided with material from the Treasury Counsel, which I will forward to you, proving Ministers breached the Political Parties and Referendums Act. Your organisation misinterpreted the act.
When I heard the statement, "I do not trust the Electoral Commission," my ears pricked up thinking that finally this expensive organisation, a mere fig leaf for scrutiny and supposed political integrity was about to be exposed...but then I realised it was a broadcast from the Ukraine.
The integrity of our democracy and its processes are a precious thing and an Electoral Commission which is toothless,spineless and silent in the face of blatant abuses by Government is as useless as a referee without a pea in his whistle.
Mr. Younger, please stand down to expose your organisation's inadequacy so that we, the people, can demand something better.
Yours faithfully
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Order Your Copy of the European Constitution
The people to ring - in the Europe Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - are: Parul Ram 020 7008 3621
and Garth Davies 020 7008 3695.
Incidentally, Mr Davies, in answer to three specific questions, has stated:
1. The Constitution I will be sending you is word for word the document that Tony Blair signed on 29 October 2004
2. Although the Commons and Lords will spend ages debating it, they cannot alter a single word in it as the other 24 coutries woud then have to change it as well
3. The wording as it was on 29 October, as is in the E.U Constitution document, is now, and ever will be, precisely the same wording that will be put to us in the referendum in 2006.There is no question of any word in the document signed on 29 October 2004 being changed
and Garth Davies 020 7008 3695.
Incidentally, Mr Davies, in answer to three specific questions, has stated:
1. The Constitution I will be sending you is word for word the document that Tony Blair signed on 29 October 2004
2. Although the Commons and Lords will spend ages debating it, they cannot alter a single word in it as the other 24 coutries woud then have to change it as well
3. The wording as it was on 29 October, as is in the E.U Constitution document, is now, and ever will be, precisely the same wording that will be put to us in the referendum in 2006.There is no question of any word in the document signed on 29 October 2004 being changed
PERLEEEASE! Mr. Knapman, did you not blush?
...and this makes NESNO look modest!
Roger Knapman (Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party) speech in the EU parliament!
Wednesday 17 November
European Council of 4 and 5 November 2004
"Mr President, Parliament will be pleased to know that the UK Independence Party were the lead players in the recent 'No' to the North-East Regional Assembly campaign in Britain. Seventy-three per cent of people in that region said they did not want any more Euro-bureaucracy. I wonder what percentage would vote to get rid of the already-existing regional assemblies, with their awful appointees and their corrupt practices?"
I know this is politics and I know that Mr. Knapman wishes to jump up and down to get some medals 'cos he's a politician and I know that he was more elusive than Lord Lucan in the North East during the referendum but you would think he would make the effort to get his facts right...IT WAS 78% Mr. Knapman!!!
Oh, and by the way, we are in the process of exposing the unelected assemblies so when we do I hope he will give us a call and we can help him with a factually correct statement claiming victory for that one as well.
Roger Knapman (Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party) speech in the EU parliament!
Wednesday 17 November
European Council of 4 and 5 November 2004
"Mr President, Parliament will be pleased to know that the UK Independence Party were the lead players in the recent 'No' to the North-East Regional Assembly campaign in Britain. Seventy-three per cent of people in that region said they did not want any more Euro-bureaucracy. I wonder what percentage would vote to get rid of the already-existing regional assemblies, with their awful appointees and their corrupt practices?"
I know this is politics and I know that Mr. Knapman wishes to jump up and down to get some medals 'cos he's a politician and I know that he was more elusive than Lord Lucan in the North East during the referendum but you would think he would make the effort to get his facts right...IT WAS 78% Mr. Knapman!!!
Oh, and by the way, we are in the process of exposing the unelected assemblies so when we do I hope he will give us a call and we can help him with a factually correct statement claiming victory for that one as well.
North East Assembly Members
From the North East Assembly website
Our Membership
Partners of the North East Assembly from around the region.
Government Sector
Alnwick District Council
Councillor JJ Rutherford (Ind)
Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council
Councillor A Hughes (Con)
Blyth Valley Borough Council
Councillor R Watson (Lab)
Castle Morpeth Borough Council
Councillor DJ Parker (LD)
Chester le Street District Council
Councillor L Ebbatson (Lab)
Darlington Borough Council
Councillor J Williams (Lab)
Councillor L Vasey (Lab)
Derwentside District Council
Councillor A Watson - Assembly Vice Chair (Lab)
Durham City Council
Councillor F Reynolds (LD)
Durham County Council
Councillor NDP Ross (Lab)
Councillor K Manton (Lab)
Easington District Council
Councillor A Napier (Lab)
Gateshead Council
Councillor I Mearns (Lab)
Councillor M F Henry (Lab)
Hartlepool Borough Council
Mr S Drummond (Mayor)
Councillor C Richardson (Lab)
Middlesbrough Borough Council
Councillor R K Brady (Lab)
Councillor P Thompson (Lab)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor P Arnold (LD) Newcastle City Council
Councillor D Huddart (LD)
North Tyneside Council
Councillor WH Jackson (Con)
Councillor D Ord (LD)
Northumberland County Council
Councillor M Davey OBE (Lab)
Councillor D Luke (Lab)
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Councillor G Jeffery (Con)
Councillor G Nightingale (LD)
Sedgefield Borough Council
Councillor RS Fleming (Lab)
South Tyneside Council
Councillor P Waggott (Lab)
Councillor I Malcolm (Lab)
Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Councillor DW Coleman (Lab)
Councillor R Gibson - Assembly Chair (Lab)
Sunderland City Council
Councillor B Charlton (Lab)
Councillor R Symonds (Lab)
Teesdale District Council
Councillor GK Robinson (Lab)
Tynedale District Council
Councillor HJC Herron (Con)
Wansbeck District Council
Councillor D Ledger (Lab)
Wear Valley District Council
Councillor O Brown (Lab)
Minority Party Balancing Seats
Councillor D Blackie - Teesdale District Council (Ind)
Councillor AR Bowlas - Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council (Ind)
Councillor H Cairns - Alnwick District Council (LD)
Councillor S Fletcher MBE - Stockton on Tees Borough Council (LD)
Councillor C Foote Wood - Wear Valley District Council (LD)
Councillor RM Jeans - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor SAC Oliver - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor EA Richmond OBE - Darlington Borough Council (Con)
Councillor W Stelling - Derwentside District Council (Ind)
Members of Parliament
Mr J Cummings MP
Members of the European Parliament
Mr. Stephen Hughes (Lab)
Town & Parish Councils
Councillor T Batson
Economic & Social Partners
Culture / Tourism / Sport
Ms O Grant OBE DL
Environment
Mr G Warren
Ethnic Minorities
Ms B Prevatt Goldstein
Faiths
Bishop P Richardson
Further Education
Mr A G Dixon
Health
Mr PD Carr CBE DL
Higher Education
Professor G Henderson
Learning & Skills Councils
Mr C Roberts
National Parks
Mr A Hinchcliffe
Non Profit Making Organisations
Mr T Morton
Private / Business
Mr P Briggs - Assembly Vice-Chair
Private / Business
Mr L Brown
Sir M Darrington
Mr EM Nunn
Rural
Mr DM Middleton
Trade Unions
Mr R D'Emidio
Ms G Hale
Mr D Hall
Ms M Meling
Mr K Rowan
Voluntary
Ms C Dobson
Mr J Robinson
Our Membership
Partners of the North East Assembly from around the region.
Government Sector
Alnwick District Council
Councillor JJ Rutherford (Ind)
Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council
Councillor A Hughes (Con)
Blyth Valley Borough Council
Councillor R Watson (Lab)
Castle Morpeth Borough Council
Councillor DJ Parker (LD)
Chester le Street District Council
Councillor L Ebbatson (Lab)
Darlington Borough Council
Councillor J Williams (Lab)
Councillor L Vasey (Lab)
Derwentside District Council
Councillor A Watson - Assembly Vice Chair (Lab)
Durham City Council
Councillor F Reynolds (LD)
Durham County Council
Councillor NDP Ross (Lab)
Councillor K Manton (Lab)
Easington District Council
Councillor A Napier (Lab)
Gateshead Council
Councillor I Mearns (Lab)
Councillor M F Henry (Lab)
Hartlepool Borough Council
Mr S Drummond (Mayor)
Councillor C Richardson (Lab)
Middlesbrough Borough Council
Councillor R K Brady (Lab)
Councillor P Thompson (Lab)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor P Arnold (LD) Newcastle City Council
Councillor D Huddart (LD)
North Tyneside Council
Councillor WH Jackson (Con)
Councillor D Ord (LD)
Northumberland County Council
Councillor M Davey OBE (Lab)
Councillor D Luke (Lab)
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Councillor G Jeffery (Con)
Councillor G Nightingale (LD)
Sedgefield Borough Council
Councillor RS Fleming (Lab)
South Tyneside Council
Councillor P Waggott (Lab)
Councillor I Malcolm (Lab)
Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Councillor DW Coleman (Lab)
Councillor R Gibson - Assembly Chair (Lab)
Sunderland City Council
Councillor B Charlton (Lab)
Councillor R Symonds (Lab)
Teesdale District Council
Councillor GK Robinson (Lab)
Tynedale District Council
Councillor HJC Herron (Con)
Wansbeck District Council
Councillor D Ledger (Lab)
Wear Valley District Council
Councillor O Brown (Lab)
Minority Party Balancing Seats
Councillor D Blackie - Teesdale District Council (Ind)
Councillor AR Bowlas - Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council (Ind)
Councillor H Cairns - Alnwick District Council (LD)
Councillor S Fletcher MBE - Stockton on Tees Borough Council (LD)
Councillor C Foote Wood - Wear Valley District Council (LD)
Councillor RM Jeans - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor SAC Oliver - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor EA Richmond OBE - Darlington Borough Council (Con)
Councillor W Stelling - Derwentside District Council (Ind)
Members of Parliament
Mr J Cummings MP
Members of the European Parliament
Mr. Stephen Hughes (Lab)
Town & Parish Councils
Councillor T Batson
Economic & Social Partners
Culture / Tourism / Sport
Ms O Grant OBE DL
Environment
Mr G Warren
Ethnic Minorities
Ms B Prevatt Goldstein
Faiths
Bishop P Richardson
Further Education
Mr A G Dixon
Health
Mr PD Carr CBE DL
Higher Education
Professor G Henderson
Learning & Skills Councils
Mr C Roberts
National Parks
Mr A Hinchcliffe
Non Profit Making Organisations
Mr T Morton
Private / Business
Mr P Briggs - Assembly Vice-Chair
Private / Business
Mr L Brown
Sir M Darrington
Mr EM Nunn
Rural
Mr DM Middleton
Trade Unions
Mr R D'Emidio
Ms G Hale
Mr D Hall
Ms M Meling
Mr K Rowan
Voluntary
Ms C Dobson
Mr J Robinson
From the North East Assembly Website
How many people work in the Assembly Directorate?
Currently 32 people are employed in the Directorate, which is headed by Stephen Barber, the Director.
Who are North East Assembly’s members?
Our 72 members include local authorities, business, trade, culture, media, sport, education, training, MPs and MEPs, health, rural, the environment and voluntary sectors.
How does the North East Assembly differ from the Association of North East Councils?
The Association of North East Councils exists to represent the interests of the 25 local authorities in the North East on issues affecting them. It aims to speak with a clear voice on behalf of local government and to ensure that the collective voice of local government in the North East is heard.The North East Assembly includes representation from the 25 local authorities but draws in a much wider membership from the public, private and voluntary sector. The Assembly has a role for expressing the interests of the region as a whole and responding to the needs of the region. The wide cross- representation on the Assembly has enabled it to build up effective working relationships at the regional level with a wide range of interests and stakeholders.The Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly are separate bodies, each with its own constitution in the form of Rules of Procedure and membership. In the interests of efficiency, the organisations have a shared staff and premises.
Do Regional Assemblies exist in other parts of the country?
Yes, there is a regional assembly for each of the eight English regions. So, in addition to the North East Assembly, the following are in existence:East of England Regional AssemblyEast Midlands Regional AssemblyNorth West Regional AssemblySouth East England Regional AssemblySouth West Regional AssemblyWest Midlands Regional AssemblyYorkshire and Humber Assembly
How is the North East Assembly funded?
The North East Assembly is funded by subscriptions from local authority members, together with Government funding to carry out its responsibilities under the Strengthening Regional Accountability initiative.
Currently 32 people are employed in the Directorate, which is headed by Stephen Barber, the Director.
Who are North East Assembly’s members?
Our 72 members include local authorities, business, trade, culture, media, sport, education, training, MPs and MEPs, health, rural, the environment and voluntary sectors.
How does the North East Assembly differ from the Association of North East Councils?
The Association of North East Councils exists to represent the interests of the 25 local authorities in the North East on issues affecting them. It aims to speak with a clear voice on behalf of local government and to ensure that the collective voice of local government in the North East is heard.The North East Assembly includes representation from the 25 local authorities but draws in a much wider membership from the public, private and voluntary sector. The Assembly has a role for expressing the interests of the region as a whole and responding to the needs of the region. The wide cross- representation on the Assembly has enabled it to build up effective working relationships at the regional level with a wide range of interests and stakeholders.The Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly are separate bodies, each with its own constitution in the form of Rules of Procedure and membership. In the interests of efficiency, the organisations have a shared staff and premises.
Do Regional Assemblies exist in other parts of the country?
Yes, there is a regional assembly for each of the eight English regions. So, in addition to the North East Assembly, the following are in existence:East of England Regional AssemblyEast Midlands Regional AssemblyNorth West Regional AssemblySouth East England Regional AssemblySouth West Regional AssemblyWest Midlands Regional AssemblyYorkshire and Humber Assembly
How is the North East Assembly funded?
The North East Assembly is funded by subscriptions from local authority members, together with Government funding to carry out its responsibilities under the Strengthening Regional Accountability initiative.
But will they withdraw funding?
Mayor attacks regional assembly
Nov 24 2004
By The Journal
A north mayor last night labelled the North- East Assembly an "expensive talking shop" and called for it to be scrapped.
Despite the decisive 78pc vote against creating an elected assembly for the region, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said he is determined to allow the unelected NEA to continue.
But last night, North Tyneside's Mayor Linda Arkley said that the NEA was a waste of taxpayers' money and its limited functions should be handed back to councils.
She said: "John Prescott should listen to the people of the North-East. The unelected assembly is an expensive talking shop.
"Its powers should be handed back to local councils so we can have some real democratic control."
Chair of the NEA Bob Gibson last night said: "The North-East Assembly is the only region-wide body to bring together public, private and voluntary sector representation.
"The work of the Assembly touches on almost every aspect of life in the North- East and focuses on addressing the key priorities, such as transport, planning, housing, crime and community safety, health, skills and the environment.
"The Assembly will continue to fulfil its statutory role and is much encouraged by the support regional assemblies have received from the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament in recent weeks."
Nov 24 2004
By The Journal
A north mayor last night labelled the North- East Assembly an "expensive talking shop" and called for it to be scrapped.
Despite the decisive 78pc vote against creating an elected assembly for the region, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said he is determined to allow the unelected NEA to continue.
But last night, North Tyneside's Mayor Linda Arkley said that the NEA was a waste of taxpayers' money and its limited functions should be handed back to councils.
She said: "John Prescott should listen to the people of the North-East. The unelected assembly is an expensive talking shop.
"Its powers should be handed back to local councils so we can have some real democratic control."
Chair of the NEA Bob Gibson last night said: "The North-East Assembly is the only region-wide body to bring together public, private and voluntary sector representation.
"The work of the Assembly touches on almost every aspect of life in the North- East and focuses on addressing the key priorities, such as transport, planning, housing, crime and community safety, health, skills and the environment.
"The Assembly will continue to fulfil its statutory role and is much encouraged by the support regional assemblies have received from the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament in recent weeks."
Show me the money!
Local Authorities Subscriptions to ANEC / NEA 2004/05
AUTHORITY 2004 /05 SUBSCRIPTION (£)
Unitary Authorities
AUTHORITY 2004 /05 SUBSCRIPTION (£)
Unitary Authorities
Darlington £33,439.01
Hartlepool £30,125.85
Redcar and Cleveland £47,613.87
Middlesbrough £45,735.27
Stockton £61,378.85
218,292.84
Metropolitan Districts
Gateshead £65,136.04
Newcastle £88,908.82
North Tyneside £65,340.98
South Tyneside £52,020.03
Sunderland £95,296.05
366,701.91
Counties
Durham £84,075.70
Northumberland £52,651.92
136,727.62
Districts
Chester Le Street £9,102.65
Derwentside £14,533.50
Durham £14,977.53
Easington £16,002.22
Sedgefield £14,823,83
Teesdale £4,184.15
Wear Valley £10,451.82
Alnwick £5,362.54
Berwick £4,457.40
Blyth Valley £13,935.77
Castle Morpeth £8,368.29
Tynedale £10,110.26
Wansbeck £10,417.67
136,727.62
REGION 858,450.00
Director of the Assembly fails to answer the questions
Assembly Director, Stephen Barber, was asked a series of questions on 10th November. His answers are in blue below and were received on 23rd November 2004. Neil Herron's observations are in red.
Answers required from the North East Assembly Director
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
GuildhallQuayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
10th November 2004
Dear Stephen,
I hope you don't mind us turning our attentions now on the unelected North East Assembly so quickly even before the embers of Prescott's bonfire have cooled, but you know how impatient we are.May I start by saying, and I know that you know that I mean this, that this is not personal, and it is unfortunate that it is you and the unelected North East Assembly that is about to come under intense scrutiny.We will not rest until the Assembly is disbanded and we have been contacted by thousands of people across the region who are incensed to say the least, at being deceived. They realise that they have been conned and that they are still paying for an Assembly that they never asked for, and thought they had rejected. To argue that they rejected an elected version to be content with an unelected form will unfortunately fan the flames of their anger even higher.
So, we can begin the process of assisting with transparency I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Can you please forward details (either electronically or hard copy) of the latest accounts for the North East Assembly, and the most recent subscriptions paid by the local authorities?
Neil,
In response to your e-mail of 10 November;
(1) I expect to have the audited accounts for the Association and Assembly for 2003/04 within the next few weeks. I'll send you a copy of them as soon as they are to hand. As you know, the Association and the Assembly share a joint budget. I've put in the post to you a list of the local authority subscriptions for the current year.
This was received 24th November and details of the 2004/5 subscriptions will be posted in the following post.
2. Can you please confirm that the Assembly is still pursuing incorporation? If so, under what Limited Company title?
(2) Members of the Assembly and of the Association have taken the decision to defer moving towards establishing new companies until June 2005.
They will still find it difficult to do so as Neil Herron has already registered North East Assembly Ltd. as a company.
However, this leaves ANEC/NEA in a difficult position as they have no legal personality, therefore the members appear to be jointly and severally liable.
3. Can you please provide a full list of all employees, their job description and salary and the nature of their contract (whether temporary or permanent) and the who is responsible for potential redundancy and pension arrangements?4. Some authorities still seem to think that they are only supporting ANEC and not funding the NEA. Can you please clarify the situation and detail the relationship, administrative and financial, between ANEC and NEA for the record?(3) Staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils who have the usual responsibilities as employer. Staff have permanent contracts of employment. It would not be appropriate to reveal individual salaries which are personal to the person concerned. The total salary bill can be read from the accounts. The Assembly and Association websites have details of the staff.
Stephen makes the mistake here by saying that ANEC is the employer, but the subscriptions are paid to ANEC/NEA and they have shared staff and a shared budget. Therefore ANEC/NEA must be the employer. It will be interesting to find out exactly what the employment contract states.
Points to be made include:
'Who is responsible for the redundancy payments should the assembly be forced to close?
'Is ANEC/NEA legally entitled to create a cost burden on the ratepayers of individual North East authorities?'
' As an unincorporated association will it be the members personal responsibility to fulfil the financial obligations and meet any shortfall arising from the creation of the permanent posts of the assembly?'
' Should the assembly be caught out again misusing public money then will the members be liable and guilty of 'Misfeasance of Public Office?'
5. Can you please provide full contact details of all assembly members and the expenses remuneration package they receive for attendance?
(5) I've sent you a copy of a note setting out Members allowances relating to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly website includes details of Members.
This will be posted along with a full list of members in the following posts.
Obviously there will be more as this whole affair comes under close scrutiny, but I am sure this will suffice for the time being.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director
Answers required from the North East Assembly Director
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
GuildhallQuayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
10th November 2004
Dear Stephen,
I hope you don't mind us turning our attentions now on the unelected North East Assembly so quickly even before the embers of Prescott's bonfire have cooled, but you know how impatient we are.May I start by saying, and I know that you know that I mean this, that this is not personal, and it is unfortunate that it is you and the unelected North East Assembly that is about to come under intense scrutiny.We will not rest until the Assembly is disbanded and we have been contacted by thousands of people across the region who are incensed to say the least, at being deceived. They realise that they have been conned and that they are still paying for an Assembly that they never asked for, and thought they had rejected. To argue that they rejected an elected version to be content with an unelected form will unfortunately fan the flames of their anger even higher.
So, we can begin the process of assisting with transparency I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Can you please forward details (either electronically or hard copy) of the latest accounts for the North East Assembly, and the most recent subscriptions paid by the local authorities?
Neil,
In response to your e-mail of 10 November;
(1) I expect to have the audited accounts for the Association and Assembly for 2003/04 within the next few weeks. I'll send you a copy of them as soon as they are to hand. As you know, the Association and the Assembly share a joint budget. I've put in the post to you a list of the local authority subscriptions for the current year.
This was received 24th November and details of the 2004/5 subscriptions will be posted in the following post.
2. Can you please confirm that the Assembly is still pursuing incorporation? If so, under what Limited Company title?
(2) Members of the Assembly and of the Association have taken the decision to defer moving towards establishing new companies until June 2005.
They will still find it difficult to do so as Neil Herron has already registered North East Assembly Ltd. as a company.
However, this leaves ANEC/NEA in a difficult position as they have no legal personality, therefore the members appear to be jointly and severally liable.
3. Can you please provide a full list of all employees, their job description and salary and the nature of their contract (whether temporary or permanent) and the who is responsible for potential redundancy and pension arrangements?4. Some authorities still seem to think that they are only supporting ANEC and not funding the NEA. Can you please clarify the situation and detail the relationship, administrative and financial, between ANEC and NEA for the record?(3) Staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils who have the usual responsibilities as employer. Staff have permanent contracts of employment. It would not be appropriate to reveal individual salaries which are personal to the person concerned. The total salary bill can be read from the accounts. The Assembly and Association websites have details of the staff.
Stephen makes the mistake here by saying that ANEC is the employer, but the subscriptions are paid to ANEC/NEA and they have shared staff and a shared budget. Therefore ANEC/NEA must be the employer. It will be interesting to find out exactly what the employment contract states.
Points to be made include:
'Who is responsible for the redundancy payments should the assembly be forced to close?
'Is ANEC/NEA legally entitled to create a cost burden on the ratepayers of individual North East authorities?'
' As an unincorporated association will it be the members personal responsibility to fulfil the financial obligations and meet any shortfall arising from the creation of the permanent posts of the assembly?'
' Should the assembly be caught out again misusing public money then will the members be liable and guilty of 'Misfeasance of Public Office?'
5. Can you please provide full contact details of all assembly members and the expenses remuneration package they receive for attendance?
(5) I've sent you a copy of a note setting out Members allowances relating to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly website includes details of Members.
This will be posted along with a full list of members in the following posts.
Obviously there will be more as this whole affair comes under close scrutiny, but I am sure this will suffice for the time being.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director
Friday, November 19, 2004
Ooooh...Sticks and Stones!
Anyone who wishes to help Mr. Sinclair understand why people do stand up to be counted cand let him know what we are fighting can e-mail the Sunderland Echo Letters page at:
rob.ford@northeast-press.co.uk
By the way, the new cause will be unveiled shortly ;-) ...
Sunderland Echo
18th November
Letters Page
New cause needed
AFTER banning the kilogram, becoming Emperor of the EU and now single-handedly bringing down the Government with his No campaign, we are left with the problem of finding another way for Neil Herron to draw attention to himself.
The news is not the same without a fishmonger-cum-philosopher rallying to his latest undertaking. And how will we know what to think?
What is needed is a new cause for Neil to lead us in. Our cause should be to find him a cause, and I have some suggestions for our self-appointed leader.
* Double glazing Penshaw Monument. We need it.
* Say "No" to double glazing Penshaw Monument. It's a silly idea.
* Save the plankton.
* Prevent the contravention of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Bring back Bullseye
* Anything!
Donald Sinclair
rob.ford@northeast-press.co.uk
By the way, the new cause will be unveiled shortly ;-) ...
Sunderland Echo
18th November
Letters Page
New cause needed
AFTER banning the kilogram, becoming Emperor of the EU and now single-handedly bringing down the Government with his No campaign, we are left with the problem of finding another way for Neil Herron to draw attention to himself.
The news is not the same without a fishmonger-cum-philosopher rallying to his latest undertaking. And how will we know what to think?
What is needed is a new cause for Neil to lead us in. Our cause should be to find him a cause, and I have some suggestions for our self-appointed leader.
* Double glazing Penshaw Monument. We need it.
* Say "No" to double glazing Penshaw Monument. It's a silly idea.
* Save the plankton.
* Prevent the contravention of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Bring back Bullseye
* Anything!
Donald Sinclair
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Can we go for a double on the next referendum?
How saying no will help a stables to say yes
Nov 18 2004
By Daniel Thomson, The Journal
They say you should never look a gift horse in the mouth. But North stables Stepney Bank are unlikely to do that.
They received a much-needed cash donation of £250 yesterday from Neil Herron and Colin Moran of the North East No Campaign - who won the money betting on the result of the regional assembly.
The No campaigners were the only two men in the country to place a bet on the outcome of the North East Referendum and decided to share their good fortune with two North charities close to their hearts.
Stepney Bank Stables in Byker, Newcastle, is the only inner city community horse project in the country and provides people who have personal, social and educational needs with the opportunity to look after horses and ponies.
Stable manager Susan Tron said: "Despite being a strange concept, Stepney Bank has proven to be a highly effective, long-term method of engaging disaffected and hard to reach groups.
"Horses provide enormous scope for moral development and confidence building and caring for horses provides purpose, structure and routine where it may not have previously existed. It is a unique atmosphere where teenagers work alongside adults with learning difficulties to form a team with a common interest."
Mr Herron last night said they had chosen Stepney Bank as one of two charities they will be donating money to because it was an exceptional and unique project.
He said: "Stepney Bank Stables and manager Susan Tron are an inspiration. They have a fantastic operation in what is now an improving inner city area and demonstrate a `can do' attitude second to none.
"We always knew our horse would come in and our only disappointment was that Ladbrokes restricted our bet to £2,000 because from the outset the referendum result was a certainty.
"We always said we would share our good fortune with other deserving causes.
Today we are handing over cash to Stepney Bank, and our other nominated charity is the Grace House Appeal in Sunderland. We will also be giving money to Kirsty Anderson, a young woman who needs to raise £1,500 to travel to Africa to work educating children."
Susan said: "The money from the North East No Campaigners will be used to support out Youth Project, which is an extremely important element of our work."
Nov 18 2004
By Daniel Thomson, The Journal
They say you should never look a gift horse in the mouth. But North stables Stepney Bank are unlikely to do that.
They received a much-needed cash donation of £250 yesterday from Neil Herron and Colin Moran of the North East No Campaign - who won the money betting on the result of the regional assembly.
The No campaigners were the only two men in the country to place a bet on the outcome of the North East Referendum and decided to share their good fortune with two North charities close to their hearts.
Stepney Bank Stables in Byker, Newcastle, is the only inner city community horse project in the country and provides people who have personal, social and educational needs with the opportunity to look after horses and ponies.
Stable manager Susan Tron said: "Despite being a strange concept, Stepney Bank has proven to be a highly effective, long-term method of engaging disaffected and hard to reach groups.
"Horses provide enormous scope for moral development and confidence building and caring for horses provides purpose, structure and routine where it may not have previously existed. It is a unique atmosphere where teenagers work alongside adults with learning difficulties to form a team with a common interest."
Mr Herron last night said they had chosen Stepney Bank as one of two charities they will be donating money to because it was an exceptional and unique project.
He said: "Stepney Bank Stables and manager Susan Tron are an inspiration. They have a fantastic operation in what is now an improving inner city area and demonstrate a `can do' attitude second to none.
"We always knew our horse would come in and our only disappointment was that Ladbrokes restricted our bet to £2,000 because from the outset the referendum result was a certainty.
"We always said we would share our good fortune with other deserving causes.
Today we are handing over cash to Stepney Bank, and our other nominated charity is the Grace House Appeal in Sunderland. We will also be giving money to Kirsty Anderson, a young woman who needs to raise £1,500 to travel to Africa to work educating children."
Susan said: "The money from the North East No Campaigners will be used to support out Youth Project, which is an extremely important element of our work."
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Now a personal view of Mr. Frayne's 'personal view.'
This 'personal' view from James Frayne (New Frontiers) only tells a very small part of the story and is selective in what it exposes and discloses but, we fully expected this.
The referendum fight in the North East was merely a platform for profile raising of Dominic Cummings' think tank, New Frontiers, and not about the issue or working with the people up who had spent over two years on the campaign.
From the outset it was about the setting up of a rival campaign and controlling the agenda.
You can draw your own conclusions as to why NESNO was set up when the North East No Campaign was pro-active and very effective, non-party political with massive support from the North East public.
Why jeopardise that?
Why despite our numerous attempts did NESNO not wish to form even a loose coalition?
How did NESNO receive designation from the Electoral Commission when they had no profile, no history and no public profile?
Why will NESNO and the Electoral Commission not disclose details of their application for designation?
I have briefly responded to some of the points raised by Mr. Frayne (in red below). Our full warts and all report on the campaign and the result will follow.
TELEGRAPH 15/11/04
Personal view:
North East 'no' vote to Assembly looks like bad news for Blair's Europereferendum hopes
By James Frayne
Those who oppose the euro, the European Constitution and further integration in the European Union should be greatly encouraged by the result in theNorth East referendum. An anti-Constitution campaign already has many advantages over the anti-Assembly campaign and it is difficult to see how Tony Blair could win a referendum over Europe.
Not difficult to win...it is an impossible task. One of the tactics that he will attempt to use will be exactly what NESNO allowed to happen in the North East...to try and polarise the issue into a party political one. NESNO naively, or deliberately walked straight into that trap, and the Conservative connections were all to transparent. Added to that, UKIP allied themselves to the Conservatives and NESNO, and not the long established People's No Campaign, ..."Because Neil Herron stood against us in the European Elections..." ( from recollection I think the Conservatives stood too)
The scale of the "no" vote - 78-22 against a regional assembly - suggests that a big victory was sure from the start.
Yes it was. The whole agenda had been built on spin and deception, and anyone involved from the outset would have been fully aware of this. The agenda could be driven forward but the Achilles Heel was always going to be getting it past the public, and the public would simply ask for details. Once the details confirmed their ssuspicions it would be 'game over.' We always knew this.
Every meeting I spoke at in front of an 'ordinary' people's audience returned a similar margin. Sometimes even higher. (Lanchester 44-1. Gateshead Arthritis Support Group 45-3).
Those which were closer still had the 'undecideds' as the majority...but they weren't prepared to buy the Yes dream. They wanted facts and those facts were lways going to be forthcoming once the ballot papers started to drop and the press and media conducted the analysis.
However, because events organised by stakeholder or vested interest groups produced split votes the Yes campaign thought they had a chance and it was all to play for. These results were false indicators and we knew that. Most ordinary members of the public would not attend such events. We knew what the feeling was 'on the streets.'
More politicians?
Higher Council Tax?
Expensive Buildings?
Jobs for the Boys?
These are the lines that were coming back from the people.
It was not. The Yes campaign had years to prepare, a far larger budget, the BBC and newspapers on their side, state support, and, as late as August, ICM polls predicted a 2-1 "yes" vote.
It is necessary for Mr. Frayne to make big play of this so that it looks like the NESNO cavalry arrived and massively shifted public opinion. They did not and the reason is simple.
All polls which were conducted had been dissected by us and exposed for what they were...an outrageous manipulation and misrepresentation, but for the newspapers to expose this would have sunk the ship before it got out of port. The BBC had known that their poll from 2002 was an absolute fraud...we exposed it, and exposed them for repeatedly using it. They dropped it.
There was never a 2:1 in favour of Yes. That poll was conducted by the Yes Campaign...and would you believe that not one journalist that ran the story thought to ask what the question was. We would all vote for a better voice for the North East and greater wealth and prosperity. The question was asked in such a way to produce the misleading information. What NESNO don't reveal about that poll was the fact that from the raw data only 4% of those questioned felt as though they had enough information to make an educated and informed decision. We always knew that although eveyone wished to 'buy the dream' pragmatism, cynicism and reality would win the day and as the referendum date approached it would be inevitable that the dream would be shattered in the face of the reality of what was on offer. Visions are impossible to sell to a public that has to pay.
However, as the campaign began properly in mid-September and people focused on it, the polls moved quickly in our favour.
As above. They were always going to anyway. The Yes campaign had nothing more than emotional rhetoric. However, the hearts and minds had been won over and influenced during the past two years with the letter writing to the local media, the comments in the press and the appearances countering the Yes arguments at every turn.
The first and most important reason is that our message was simple,believed, and we stuck to it. Everything we did or said was aimed at delivering our three key messages: vote no to higher council tax; vote no to more politicians; vote no to a white elephant that doesn't have the power to help the North East. The three were summed up in the slogan "Politicians talk, We Pay", which tapped into the widespread contempt for modern politics.
Did it really need a separate campaign and all the contention to deliver this? Did it really need a think tank from London to parachute in a strategy director to come up with that slogan? Was the risk of turning the whole referendum fight into a party political battle worth it for a slogan and an elephant? Was it necessary to 'use' John Elliott as a front man and create a rival campaign when John was already working closely with (and funding) the People's No Campaign? Does Mr. Frayne doubt the ability of those who were already here? Apparently so as there has been no reference anywhere in anything done by NESNO, to the People's No Campaign.
So, NESNO didn't invent the simple message... we had been saying precisely that for over two years. NESNO didn't need to set up a new campaign to re-invent the wheel, unless there was another agenda.
In contrast, the Yes campaign focused, like the pro-euro campaign, on showing off a "historic coalition" and attacking the enemy as "Tory" and extreme. This meant the two campaigns diverged widely in strategy.
We predicted this would be the Yes Campaign's strategy and that is why the People's Campaign was 'untouchable' in that regard.
NESNO by setting up a separate conservative construct played straight into this 'attacking the enemy as "Tory"' strategy by the Yes Campaign, but we did warn them in all our meetings. The People's Campaign could never be accused of being Tory because we had Labour / Lib Dem and Liberal supporters on board as well as people from no political background.
Immediately the Yes Campaign had NESNO on the back foot...a place where we had NEVER been, and played on the Tory connections which NESNO looked foolish when they denied them:
-Spokesman...Graham Robb. Conservative Candidate in Hartlepool against Mandelson. Conservative spokesman for the North East. Former spin doctor to William Hague.
-NESNO Council Members list...gave over £200,000 to the Tory Party and included many Tory grandees. Sir David Kelly was the one who had written to potential supporters.
-Website hosted by Politico's Iain Dale, Conservative ppc.
- Domain Name originally registered to Amanda Vigar (3rd on the Conservative Party list in the European Election)
- NESNO staff included Alex Ray on secondment from New Frontiers.
-Initial strategy by Dominic Cummings, Director of New Frontiers and former Head of Strategy for the Conservative Party.
-Chief Executive of NESNO, Philip Cummings...Uncle of Dominic!
-Upon designation, James Frayne of New Frontiers becomes Campaign Director of NESNO. (New Frontiers is funded by Stuart Wheeler, Stanley Kalms and Lord Salisbury among others)
-initial company set up and research done by William Guy Norton, a close associate of Bernard Jenkin, Shadow Regions Minister.
The Yes campaign had a four-minute documentary-style film designed to show who was voting yes - celebrities, nursing unions, etc - saying "be proud, be positive". Our broadcast was split into four mini-ads, each delivering avery simple message based on cost, politicians, and the lack of powers being proposed.
A very effective and simple broadcast. It will be interesting to see costings and spend. We had a provisional estimate to bring in the broadcast for < £5,000. Simple and effective.This difference in strategy also showed in the campaigns' stunts. We burned£1m of fake £50 notes to show how much money would be wasted; we unveiled a huge blank cheque; we "began construction" on a new Assembly building by hiring JCBs and cranes and we took our 15ft high inflatable white elephant around the region.
The NESNO White elephant was effective.
The Yes campaign were more concerned about showing what nice people they were by unveiling things like a cultural manifesto promising more rights for artists. We did not fight on their ground. We did not bother with offering"alternatives" to the Assembly and we never fought on party politics.
We did offer alternatives which negated that line of argument. The alternative offered was never challenged and is now being mooted by some of the 30 North East MP's who now know that with an election coming up they have to get back onside with the 700,000 North East voters who rejected something which they (except the Conservative Peter Atkinson) had endorsed.
The other side did fight on party politics and had NESNO on the back foot as mentioned earlier. A line of argument that was never used against us.
Even when Middlesbrough Mayor Ray Mallon used this line of attack we engineered a challenge to him to come to Sunderland and call us Tory southerners. This neutered Mr. Mallon and gained the necessary publicity for the alternative No Campaign.
In the North East, any suggestion that this was a Tory versus Labour battle would have been a problem.
It was a problem and Prescott made great play of it immediately upon designation.
NESNO's creation and connections played straight into this and allowed Prescott and the Yes Campaign to descend down this route. The fact that this backfired was not down to strategy by NESNO. The bizarre decision by the Electoral Commission to award designation to the recently formed NESNO needs to be exposed because it smacks of political interference. There have been no answers to something which should be so transparent. We, and others have been met with obfuscation from all concerned.
The Labour Party sensed this. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott personally unveiled ads attacking our campaign as being "run by Southern Tories";Chancellor Gordon Brown also parroted the same attacks, as did the once independent Ray Mallon.
Our excellent campaign spokesmen - made up of North East business people - just carried on delivering our messages.
Graham Robb, North East Conservative Party spokesman being one of them. He did a good job, but could always be knocked for the Conservative connection which put him immediately on the back foot when other points could have been delivered. He could never be aggressive and go on the attack because of the political baggage.
Chairman, John Elliott always came across as sincere but not fully comfortable with the arguments and delivery.
Some, such as Ian Dormer and David Lockie were good.
Others lacked the depth of knowledge of the issue when the debate got deeper and trickier. None were aware of the deceit behind the polls. None were aware of the misuse of public money by the unelected assembly. None were aware of the funding relationships between the trade unions, the Campaign For English Regions and the Yes Campaign.
All of these were killer points which we had at our finger tips.
Yes, the spokesmen did well in delivering the soundbites and the necessary lines, but often fared badly in head to head confrontations.
As far as strategy goes, if you want to avoid the campaign being branded a Tory campaign, first shout would not to have put William Hague's former spin doctor as the front man.
The campaigners against the Constitution will be starting from a much stronger position. They are already significantly ahead in the polls; they already have strong business support; they will be at least as well funded as the Yes campaign (though the abuse of state power will be a major threat).
There is not a cat in hell's vote of a Yes vote to the Constitution...and we also said that two years ago when we exposed the unelected assembly for misusing public money (and no NESNO can't claim credit for that one either) about a Yes vote to an elected assembly when NESNO wasn't even a twinkle in Bernard Jenkin's eye.
They will also have more obvious cross-party support and the Tories have wisely made clear that while they would obviously play a prominent part in the campaign, they would not run it (a crucial distinction).
In the North East referendum they kept well away BUT there were times nationally when Prescott and Raynsford could have done with a kicking and the Tories were nowhere to be seen. An example of this was on the BBC Politics Show when UKIP Leader Roger Knapman went head to head with Prescott and failed miserably to land even one punch. Prescott should have been on the floor!
Just as the pro-Assembly campaign could not persuade people of its merits, the dynamics of EU politics suggest Blair will not be able to persuade people that the EU is a success that ought to have more powers.
A cross party campaign has to come from the people and not from a NESNO type construct. There was no grassroots structure at all to NESNO and they wouldn't have first clue about creating one...except to use the Conservative party branch structure. Hardly cross party.
However, we are not naive to think that a People's Campaign will be running or even be attempting to run THE national No Campaign in a referendum on the European Constitution. But, a true, independent People's Campaign will be a valuable asset to the official No Campaign and create what is necessary in the way of spontaneous local campaigns, dissemination of information through established networks and the creation of the umbrella coalition necessary to pull together all disparate groups and organisations. No to the Euro, Vote No and NESNO do not have this ability. The People's No Campaign and Referendum04 have proved that they do...and proved that they can work with others and without conflict towards a common goal. NESNO had a different agenda and therefore were never interested in creating a coalition.
However, there are a couple of things that did cause us problems in the North East that need to be addressed. The BBC's coverage was slanted to help the Yes campaign.
We have an in depth analysis and exposure of some of the BBC's agenda on the blog and will further expose it this week in the Sunday Telegraph.
Can't remember NESNO attempting to expose this. Can't remember them asking a representative from the People's No Campaign to stand alongside them at any point to help represent the people.
At no point did NESNO make reference to the People's No Campaign.
The BBC deliberately avoided reference to the 'other' No Campaign and there was no coverage on referendum night on BBC TV.
Tyne Tess on the other hand gave the People's No Campaign ample coverage.
It undermined our launch by linking it to the BNP and, at London's direction, insisted that if Mr Prescott was speaking for Yes, then the BBC would only take a Tory or UKIP figure to represent No.
Did they think to say no, we will not provide a spokesperson on those terms and issue a press statement saying so...which would have forced a BBC backtrack or exposed their agenda?
Given that Mr Prescott's message was that it was a party political battle,
who allowed him to do this?this obviously helped Yes and showed that the BBC would try to shape perceptions of the official No campaign - leading Labour politicians clearly had to be protected from non-political opponents.
...and when did NESNO ever attempt to bring the people into this, considering we were already here?
This is obviously unacceptable and has major implications for a referendum on Europe.
Only if those behind NESNO learn the lessons from their naivity.
The problems with the Electoral Commission are too numerous to go into here
Cannot find anything on the NESNO site about problems with the Electoral Commission. Perhaps they are too numerous to go into because they are on our site and Mr. Frayne hasn't had time to read them all yet.
We will be very interested to see how they can make a detailed analysis of designation and produce a critical appraisal of that decision. We hope that in the interests of all in the European Constitution referendum NESNO will make available their application in order to expose the reasons behind the Electoral Commission's decision. After all, if the decision was clear cut then we will have no problems and can learn for the future. However, the continued obfuscation simply perpetuates the conspracy that this was an attempted political stitch-up.
but nobody should be under any illusion that the commission exists to police conduct at referenda. There was rarely anyone available that could give timely advice on the conduct of government ministers.
Can't recall NESNO bringing this to the attention of the press the way we and our networks did. Check the blog and we are ongoing with the complaints to the ODPM, the Electoral Commission and the Audit Commission. Would appreciate Mr. Frayne's comments on that one as well before he again steals someone else's clothes.
We are continuing down this line because the behaviour of Government Ministers has obvious impications for future referenda. No personal glory in following these up...just hard slog.
When we complained to the Electoral Commission, it said there was nothing it could do, that it assumed the Government had taken legal advice, and that anyway there was no enforcement mechanism to deal with any illegal action.
So what did NESNO do? Didn't see or hear anything.
We did not accept that and exposed the Electoral Commission as well. Check the website and the blog...we served a High Court writ on the EC as well as the Secretary of State.The anti-Constitution campaign will need to work out how it will issue legalchallenges during a referendum when similar problems inevitably occur.
We can show them...we did it. We also asked if NESNO wished to join us in the action. That would have created the story of the two campaigns uniting (another one of the many offers at creating unity). We got no response or offer of support except from Petrina Holdsworth from UKIP who had the courtesy of replying and giving reasons. We were forced to discontinue proceedings but the legal point was made that the public were being misled.
The biggest challenge the opponents of EU integration have is the development of an alternative vision to the status quo relationship with the EU and how to sequence its development with a pure anti-Constitution campaign that may not happen.
And there Ladies and Gentlemen is the real reason for setting up a 'rival' No Campaign in the North East.
A campaign run and won by the people would not have given New Frontiers the ability or apparent credibility to go to the big backers and say, "Look what we did."
Will the alternative vision will come from those at New Frontiers...the ones who won the referendum for everyone in the North East?
Now is it clear why they made no contact with, or reference to the People's No Campaign?
The North East No Campaign was created by the people to challenge a political class that has simply stopped listening and has lost touch with the mood and attitude of the average voter. For any group to impose itself on a growing and winning partnership as a rival to the already winning people's non-political organisation that was vigorously representing the 'No' perspective is unfogiveable.
James Frayne is director of research at the New Frontiers Foundation and was Campaign Director for the official No campaign in the North East referendum.
Response to James Frayne by Neil Herron, Campaign Director of the North East No Campaign
The referendum fight in the North East was merely a platform for profile raising of Dominic Cummings' think tank, New Frontiers, and not about the issue or working with the people up who had spent over two years on the campaign.
From the outset it was about the setting up of a rival campaign and controlling the agenda.
You can draw your own conclusions as to why NESNO was set up when the North East No Campaign was pro-active and very effective, non-party political with massive support from the North East public.
Why jeopardise that?
Why despite our numerous attempts did NESNO not wish to form even a loose coalition?
How did NESNO receive designation from the Electoral Commission when they had no profile, no history and no public profile?
Why will NESNO and the Electoral Commission not disclose details of their application for designation?
I have briefly responded to some of the points raised by Mr. Frayne (in red below). Our full warts and all report on the campaign and the result will follow.
TELEGRAPH 15/11/04
Personal view:
North East 'no' vote to Assembly looks like bad news for Blair's Europereferendum hopes
By James Frayne
Those who oppose the euro, the European Constitution and further integration in the European Union should be greatly encouraged by the result in theNorth East referendum. An anti-Constitution campaign already has many advantages over the anti-Assembly campaign and it is difficult to see how Tony Blair could win a referendum over Europe.
Not difficult to win...it is an impossible task. One of the tactics that he will attempt to use will be exactly what NESNO allowed to happen in the North East...to try and polarise the issue into a party political one. NESNO naively, or deliberately walked straight into that trap, and the Conservative connections were all to transparent. Added to that, UKIP allied themselves to the Conservatives and NESNO, and not the long established People's No Campaign, ..."Because Neil Herron stood against us in the European Elections..." ( from recollection I think the Conservatives stood too)
The scale of the "no" vote - 78-22 against a regional assembly - suggests that a big victory was sure from the start.
Yes it was. The whole agenda had been built on spin and deception, and anyone involved from the outset would have been fully aware of this. The agenda could be driven forward but the Achilles Heel was always going to be getting it past the public, and the public would simply ask for details. Once the details confirmed their ssuspicions it would be 'game over.' We always knew this.
Every meeting I spoke at in front of an 'ordinary' people's audience returned a similar margin. Sometimes even higher. (Lanchester 44-1. Gateshead Arthritis Support Group 45-3).
Those which were closer still had the 'undecideds' as the majority...but they weren't prepared to buy the Yes dream. They wanted facts and those facts were lways going to be forthcoming once the ballot papers started to drop and the press and media conducted the analysis.
However, because events organised by stakeholder or vested interest groups produced split votes the Yes campaign thought they had a chance and it was all to play for. These results were false indicators and we knew that. Most ordinary members of the public would not attend such events. We knew what the feeling was 'on the streets.'
More politicians?
Higher Council Tax?
Expensive Buildings?
Jobs for the Boys?
These are the lines that were coming back from the people.
It was not. The Yes campaign had years to prepare, a far larger budget, the BBC and newspapers on their side, state support, and, as late as August, ICM polls predicted a 2-1 "yes" vote.
It is necessary for Mr. Frayne to make big play of this so that it looks like the NESNO cavalry arrived and massively shifted public opinion. They did not and the reason is simple.
All polls which were conducted had been dissected by us and exposed for what they were...an outrageous manipulation and misrepresentation, but for the newspapers to expose this would have sunk the ship before it got out of port. The BBC had known that their poll from 2002 was an absolute fraud...we exposed it, and exposed them for repeatedly using it. They dropped it.
There was never a 2:1 in favour of Yes. That poll was conducted by the Yes Campaign...and would you believe that not one journalist that ran the story thought to ask what the question was. We would all vote for a better voice for the North East and greater wealth and prosperity. The question was asked in such a way to produce the misleading information. What NESNO don't reveal about that poll was the fact that from the raw data only 4% of those questioned felt as though they had enough information to make an educated and informed decision. We always knew that although eveyone wished to 'buy the dream' pragmatism, cynicism and reality would win the day and as the referendum date approached it would be inevitable that the dream would be shattered in the face of the reality of what was on offer. Visions are impossible to sell to a public that has to pay.
However, as the campaign began properly in mid-September and people focused on it, the polls moved quickly in our favour.
As above. They were always going to anyway. The Yes campaign had nothing more than emotional rhetoric. However, the hearts and minds had been won over and influenced during the past two years with the letter writing to the local media, the comments in the press and the appearances countering the Yes arguments at every turn.
The first and most important reason is that our message was simple,believed, and we stuck to it. Everything we did or said was aimed at delivering our three key messages: vote no to higher council tax; vote no to more politicians; vote no to a white elephant that doesn't have the power to help the North East. The three were summed up in the slogan "Politicians talk, We Pay", which tapped into the widespread contempt for modern politics.
Did it really need a separate campaign and all the contention to deliver this? Did it really need a think tank from London to parachute in a strategy director to come up with that slogan? Was the risk of turning the whole referendum fight into a party political battle worth it for a slogan and an elephant? Was it necessary to 'use' John Elliott as a front man and create a rival campaign when John was already working closely with (and funding) the People's No Campaign? Does Mr. Frayne doubt the ability of those who were already here? Apparently so as there has been no reference anywhere in anything done by NESNO, to the People's No Campaign.
So, NESNO didn't invent the simple message... we had been saying precisely that for over two years. NESNO didn't need to set up a new campaign to re-invent the wheel, unless there was another agenda.
In contrast, the Yes campaign focused, like the pro-euro campaign, on showing off a "historic coalition" and attacking the enemy as "Tory" and extreme. This meant the two campaigns diverged widely in strategy.
We predicted this would be the Yes Campaign's strategy and that is why the People's Campaign was 'untouchable' in that regard.
NESNO by setting up a separate conservative construct played straight into this 'attacking the enemy as "Tory"' strategy by the Yes Campaign, but we did warn them in all our meetings. The People's Campaign could never be accused of being Tory because we had Labour / Lib Dem and Liberal supporters on board as well as people from no political background.
Immediately the Yes Campaign had NESNO on the back foot...a place where we had NEVER been, and played on the Tory connections which NESNO looked foolish when they denied them:
-Spokesman...Graham Robb. Conservative Candidate in Hartlepool against Mandelson. Conservative spokesman for the North East. Former spin doctor to William Hague.
-NESNO Council Members list...gave over £200,000 to the Tory Party and included many Tory grandees. Sir David Kelly was the one who had written to potential supporters.
-Website hosted by Politico's Iain Dale, Conservative ppc.
- Domain Name originally registered to Amanda Vigar (3rd on the Conservative Party list in the European Election)
- NESNO staff included Alex Ray on secondment from New Frontiers.
-Initial strategy by Dominic Cummings, Director of New Frontiers and former Head of Strategy for the Conservative Party.
-Chief Executive of NESNO, Philip Cummings...Uncle of Dominic!
-Upon designation, James Frayne of New Frontiers becomes Campaign Director of NESNO. (New Frontiers is funded by Stuart Wheeler, Stanley Kalms and Lord Salisbury among others)
-initial company set up and research done by William Guy Norton, a close associate of Bernard Jenkin, Shadow Regions Minister.
The Yes campaign had a four-minute documentary-style film designed to show who was voting yes - celebrities, nursing unions, etc - saying "be proud, be positive". Our broadcast was split into four mini-ads, each delivering avery simple message based on cost, politicians, and the lack of powers being proposed.
A very effective and simple broadcast. It will be interesting to see costings and spend. We had a provisional estimate to bring in the broadcast for < £5,000. Simple and effective.This difference in strategy also showed in the campaigns' stunts. We burned£1m of fake £50 notes to show how much money would be wasted; we unveiled a huge blank cheque; we "began construction" on a new Assembly building by hiring JCBs and cranes and we took our 15ft high inflatable white elephant around the region.
The NESNO White elephant was effective.
The Yes campaign were more concerned about showing what nice people they were by unveiling things like a cultural manifesto promising more rights for artists. We did not fight on their ground. We did not bother with offering"alternatives" to the Assembly and we never fought on party politics.
We did offer alternatives which negated that line of argument. The alternative offered was never challenged and is now being mooted by some of the 30 North East MP's who now know that with an election coming up they have to get back onside with the 700,000 North East voters who rejected something which they (except the Conservative Peter Atkinson) had endorsed.
The other side did fight on party politics and had NESNO on the back foot as mentioned earlier. A line of argument that was never used against us.
Even when Middlesbrough Mayor Ray Mallon used this line of attack we engineered a challenge to him to come to Sunderland and call us Tory southerners. This neutered Mr. Mallon and gained the necessary publicity for the alternative No Campaign.
In the North East, any suggestion that this was a Tory versus Labour battle would have been a problem.
It was a problem and Prescott made great play of it immediately upon designation.
NESNO's creation and connections played straight into this and allowed Prescott and the Yes Campaign to descend down this route. The fact that this backfired was not down to strategy by NESNO. The bizarre decision by the Electoral Commission to award designation to the recently formed NESNO needs to be exposed because it smacks of political interference. There have been no answers to something which should be so transparent. We, and others have been met with obfuscation from all concerned.
The Labour Party sensed this. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott personally unveiled ads attacking our campaign as being "run by Southern Tories";Chancellor Gordon Brown also parroted the same attacks, as did the once independent Ray Mallon.
Our excellent campaign spokesmen - made up of North East business people - just carried on delivering our messages.
Graham Robb, North East Conservative Party spokesman being one of them. He did a good job, but could always be knocked for the Conservative connection which put him immediately on the back foot when other points could have been delivered. He could never be aggressive and go on the attack because of the political baggage.
Chairman, John Elliott always came across as sincere but not fully comfortable with the arguments and delivery.
Some, such as Ian Dormer and David Lockie were good.
Others lacked the depth of knowledge of the issue when the debate got deeper and trickier. None were aware of the deceit behind the polls. None were aware of the misuse of public money by the unelected assembly. None were aware of the funding relationships between the trade unions, the Campaign For English Regions and the Yes Campaign.
All of these were killer points which we had at our finger tips.
Yes, the spokesmen did well in delivering the soundbites and the necessary lines, but often fared badly in head to head confrontations.
As far as strategy goes, if you want to avoid the campaign being branded a Tory campaign, first shout would not to have put William Hague's former spin doctor as the front man.
The campaigners against the Constitution will be starting from a much stronger position. They are already significantly ahead in the polls; they already have strong business support; they will be at least as well funded as the Yes campaign (though the abuse of state power will be a major threat).
There is not a cat in hell's vote of a Yes vote to the Constitution...and we also said that two years ago when we exposed the unelected assembly for misusing public money (and no NESNO can't claim credit for that one either) about a Yes vote to an elected assembly when NESNO wasn't even a twinkle in Bernard Jenkin's eye.
They will also have more obvious cross-party support and the Tories have wisely made clear that while they would obviously play a prominent part in the campaign, they would not run it (a crucial distinction).
In the North East referendum they kept well away BUT there were times nationally when Prescott and Raynsford could have done with a kicking and the Tories were nowhere to be seen. An example of this was on the BBC Politics Show when UKIP Leader Roger Knapman went head to head with Prescott and failed miserably to land even one punch. Prescott should have been on the floor!
Just as the pro-Assembly campaign could not persuade people of its merits, the dynamics of EU politics suggest Blair will not be able to persuade people that the EU is a success that ought to have more powers.
A cross party campaign has to come from the people and not from a NESNO type construct. There was no grassroots structure at all to NESNO and they wouldn't have first clue about creating one...except to use the Conservative party branch structure. Hardly cross party.
However, we are not naive to think that a People's Campaign will be running or even be attempting to run THE national No Campaign in a referendum on the European Constitution. But, a true, independent People's Campaign will be a valuable asset to the official No Campaign and create what is necessary in the way of spontaneous local campaigns, dissemination of information through established networks and the creation of the umbrella coalition necessary to pull together all disparate groups and organisations. No to the Euro, Vote No and NESNO do not have this ability. The People's No Campaign and Referendum04 have proved that they do...and proved that they can work with others and without conflict towards a common goal. NESNO had a different agenda and therefore were never interested in creating a coalition.
However, there are a couple of things that did cause us problems in the North East that need to be addressed. The BBC's coverage was slanted to help the Yes campaign.
We have an in depth analysis and exposure of some of the BBC's agenda on the blog and will further expose it this week in the Sunday Telegraph.
Can't remember NESNO attempting to expose this. Can't remember them asking a representative from the People's No Campaign to stand alongside them at any point to help represent the people.
At no point did NESNO make reference to the People's No Campaign.
The BBC deliberately avoided reference to the 'other' No Campaign and there was no coverage on referendum night on BBC TV.
Tyne Tess on the other hand gave the People's No Campaign ample coverage.
It undermined our launch by linking it to the BNP and, at London's direction, insisted that if Mr Prescott was speaking for Yes, then the BBC would only take a Tory or UKIP figure to represent No.
Did they think to say no, we will not provide a spokesperson on those terms and issue a press statement saying so...which would have forced a BBC backtrack or exposed their agenda?
Given that Mr Prescott's message was that it was a party political battle,
who allowed him to do this?this obviously helped Yes and showed that the BBC would try to shape perceptions of the official No campaign - leading Labour politicians clearly had to be protected from non-political opponents.
...and when did NESNO ever attempt to bring the people into this, considering we were already here?
This is obviously unacceptable and has major implications for a referendum on Europe.
Only if those behind NESNO learn the lessons from their naivity.
The problems with the Electoral Commission are too numerous to go into here
Cannot find anything on the NESNO site about problems with the Electoral Commission. Perhaps they are too numerous to go into because they are on our site and Mr. Frayne hasn't had time to read them all yet.
We will be very interested to see how they can make a detailed analysis of designation and produce a critical appraisal of that decision. We hope that in the interests of all in the European Constitution referendum NESNO will make available their application in order to expose the reasons behind the Electoral Commission's decision. After all, if the decision was clear cut then we will have no problems and can learn for the future. However, the continued obfuscation simply perpetuates the conspracy that this was an attempted political stitch-up.
but nobody should be under any illusion that the commission exists to police conduct at referenda. There was rarely anyone available that could give timely advice on the conduct of government ministers.
Can't recall NESNO bringing this to the attention of the press the way we and our networks did. Check the blog and we are ongoing with the complaints to the ODPM, the Electoral Commission and the Audit Commission. Would appreciate Mr. Frayne's comments on that one as well before he again steals someone else's clothes.
We are continuing down this line because the behaviour of Government Ministers has obvious impications for future referenda. No personal glory in following these up...just hard slog.
When we complained to the Electoral Commission, it said there was nothing it could do, that it assumed the Government had taken legal advice, and that anyway there was no enforcement mechanism to deal with any illegal action.
So what did NESNO do? Didn't see or hear anything.
We did not accept that and exposed the Electoral Commission as well. Check the website and the blog...we served a High Court writ on the EC as well as the Secretary of State.The anti-Constitution campaign will need to work out how it will issue legalchallenges during a referendum when similar problems inevitably occur.
We can show them...we did it. We also asked if NESNO wished to join us in the action. That would have created the story of the two campaigns uniting (another one of the many offers at creating unity). We got no response or offer of support except from Petrina Holdsworth from UKIP who had the courtesy of replying and giving reasons. We were forced to discontinue proceedings but the legal point was made that the public were being misled.
The biggest challenge the opponents of EU integration have is the development of an alternative vision to the status quo relationship with the EU and how to sequence its development with a pure anti-Constitution campaign that may not happen.
And there Ladies and Gentlemen is the real reason for setting up a 'rival' No Campaign in the North East.
A campaign run and won by the people would not have given New Frontiers the ability or apparent credibility to go to the big backers and say, "Look what we did."
Will the alternative vision will come from those at New Frontiers...the ones who won the referendum for everyone in the North East?
Now is it clear why they made no contact with, or reference to the People's No Campaign?
The North East No Campaign was created by the people to challenge a political class that has simply stopped listening and has lost touch with the mood and attitude of the average voter. For any group to impose itself on a growing and winning partnership as a rival to the already winning people's non-political organisation that was vigorously representing the 'No' perspective is unfogiveable.
James Frayne is director of research at the New Frontiers Foundation and was Campaign Director for the official No campaign in the North East referendum.
Response to James Frayne by Neil Herron, Campaign Director of the North East No Campaign
Monday, November 15, 2004
It was a racing certainty from day one
Unlike Mr. Frayne of NESNO, we always knew the result was going to be a 'No' and an emphatic one at that. It is because we had spent over two years on the campaign trail and speaking to the people on every level that we were so confident.
We exposed the BBC Poll...72% in favour.
We exposed the Journal poll and we exposed the Yes Campaign poll.
There was no shift in public opinion from 2:1 in favour. That was a manipulation by the press and pollsters and people wishing to buy into a dream...a one that everyone would have bought into. A great North East...more jobs and prosperity.Problem was that we don't vote for dreams and that wasn't on offer.
If Mr. Frayne and NESNO hadn't been such late arrivals to the campaign then they would also have understood that the people would never fallen for what was on offer.
By the way, no-one else placed a bet.
'No' men say yes to £1,361.54
Nov 12 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
View online here
If anti-regional assembly campaigner Neil Herron wants to thank the people who helped him beat the bookies, he needs to share his winnings 696,519 ways.
North East No campaign leader Mr Herron and strategy director Colin Moran staked £2,000 on a "No" vote in last week's assembly poll.
And after North-East voters overwhelmingly turned it down - with 696,519 saying "No" - they walked out of a Ladbrokes shop in Sunderland yesterday with a £1,361.54 profit.
They were able to stake their first £600 at odds of 5/6, but Ladbrokes shortened them to 8/13 for the rest of the wager.
And though they had walked in prepared to lay £18,000 on the counter, the £2,000 limit was agreed.
Mr Moran joked: "Had Ladbrokes been prepared to really take us on, we might own them by now.
"But when the trainer and the jockey are ready to put such big money on a horse, you can't blame them for starting to get worried. Now and again a bet comes along that's an absolute stonewall certainty.
"We knew beyond any doubt that this was one of them, because we campaigned on behalf of the people and we were always in touch with the people."
The pair have pledged to give some of the money to Stepney Bank Stables in Newcastle, which helped with a photo stunt for their campaign and to the Grace House Children's Hospice Appeal in Sunderland.
The rest will go on a few celebration drinks for their supporters - but they said that would not include members of the North East Says No campaign, which was given official status by the Electoral Commission ahead of Mr Herron's "North East No" organisation amid a storm of controversy.
"It's very disappointing that they haven't acknowledged the work we did," said Mr Moran.
"We're still going now to keep the pressure up on the unelected assembly.
"That body has no support and no legitimacy."
We exposed the BBC Poll...72% in favour.
We exposed the Journal poll and we exposed the Yes Campaign poll.
There was no shift in public opinion from 2:1 in favour. That was a manipulation by the press and pollsters and people wishing to buy into a dream...a one that everyone would have bought into. A great North East...more jobs and prosperity.Problem was that we don't vote for dreams and that wasn't on offer.
If Mr. Frayne and NESNO hadn't been such late arrivals to the campaign then they would also have understood that the people would never fallen for what was on offer.
By the way, no-one else placed a bet.
'No' men say yes to £1,361.54
Nov 12 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
View online here
If anti-regional assembly campaigner Neil Herron wants to thank the people who helped him beat the bookies, he needs to share his winnings 696,519 ways.
North East No campaign leader Mr Herron and strategy director Colin Moran staked £2,000 on a "No" vote in last week's assembly poll.
And after North-East voters overwhelmingly turned it down - with 696,519 saying "No" - they walked out of a Ladbrokes shop in Sunderland yesterday with a £1,361.54 profit.
They were able to stake their first £600 at odds of 5/6, but Ladbrokes shortened them to 8/13 for the rest of the wager.
And though they had walked in prepared to lay £18,000 on the counter, the £2,000 limit was agreed.
Mr Moran joked: "Had Ladbrokes been prepared to really take us on, we might own them by now.
"But when the trainer and the jockey are ready to put such big money on a horse, you can't blame them for starting to get worried. Now and again a bet comes along that's an absolute stonewall certainty.
"We knew beyond any doubt that this was one of them, because we campaigned on behalf of the people and we were always in touch with the people."
The pair have pledged to give some of the money to Stepney Bank Stables in Newcastle, which helped with a photo stunt for their campaign and to the Grace House Children's Hospice Appeal in Sunderland.
The rest will go on a few celebration drinks for their supporters - but they said that would not include members of the North East Says No campaign, which was given official status by the Electoral Commission ahead of Mr Herron's "North East No" organisation amid a storm of controversy.
"It's very disappointing that they haven't acknowledged the work we did," said Mr Moran.
"We're still going now to keep the pressure up on the unelected assembly.
"That body has no support and no legitimacy."
Complaint to the Audit Commission...Ministerial Visits
Please feel free to follow the lead and raise the complaints in an individual capacity citing statements and references from Ministers who failed to inform the public that they were not speaking as a Minister but as a Labour Party member.
48 Frederick Street, Sunderland SR1 1NF
15 November 2004
Mr David Corner
Director ODPM VFM
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
LondonSW1W 9SP
Dear Mr Corner
Referendum in the North East on a Regional Assembly
Thank you for your letter of 4 November.
I note that “ministers are permitted to speak on the issues…if they make it clear that they are doing so in a personal or political capacity and not as a government minister” and that there was a question in the Commons about Mr Prescott’s visit to the area on 12 October.
There were several visits to the North East by Mr Prescott, Mr Hain and Mr Brown during the purdah period. All of these visits were well covered by the newspapers, radio and TV; in no instance did any of these ministers ever state clearly that he was visiting the are in a personal or political capacity. What evidence do you have that steps were taken to ensure that the public was not under the misapprehension that the visits were official?
It is worth noting that no backbench Labour Members of Parliament chose to come to the area during the campaign; it was clearly the intention (and,indeed, the effect) that the visits of ministers were part of official Government endorsement of the “Yes” campaign.
I note also that ministers are required to “distinguish their party expenses from their official expenses”. What evidence do you have that the expenses were so distinguished?
Please also advise me how much was actually charged to the public purse for these visits.
Yours faithfully
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
Mr David Corner
Director ODPM VFM
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
London
SW1W 9SP
48 Frederick Street, Sunderland SR1 1NF
15 November 2004
Mr David Corner
Director ODPM VFM
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
LondonSW1W 9SP
Dear Mr Corner
Referendum in the North East on a Regional Assembly
Thank you for your letter of 4 November.
I note that “ministers are permitted to speak on the issues…if they make it clear that they are doing so in a personal or political capacity and not as a government minister” and that there was a question in the Commons about Mr Prescott’s visit to the area on 12 October.
There were several visits to the North East by Mr Prescott, Mr Hain and Mr Brown during the purdah period. All of these visits were well covered by the newspapers, radio and TV; in no instance did any of these ministers ever state clearly that he was visiting the are in a personal or political capacity. What evidence do you have that steps were taken to ensure that the public was not under the misapprehension that the visits were official?
It is worth noting that no backbench Labour Members of Parliament chose to come to the area during the campaign; it was clearly the intention (and,indeed, the effect) that the visits of ministers were part of official Government endorsement of the “Yes” campaign.
I note also that ministers are required to “distinguish their party expenses from their official expenses”. What evidence do you have that the expenses were so distinguished?
Please also advise me how much was actually charged to the public purse for these visits.
Yours faithfully
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
Mr David Corner
Director ODPM VFM
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
London
SW1W 9SP
Just what we expected...
Daily Telegraph
Personal view: North East 'no' vote to Assembly looks like bad news for Blair's Europe referendum hopes
By James Frayne (Filed: 15/11/2004)
Those who oppose the euro, the European Constitution and further integration in the European Union should be greatly encouraged by the result in the North East referendum.
To view the piece in the Telegraph please click here.
Our response, from the unofficial No Campaign, to the late (arriving) Mr. Frayne's piece will follow in due course.
Personal view: North East 'no' vote to Assembly looks like bad news for Blair's Europe referendum hopes
By James Frayne (Filed: 15/11/2004)
Those who oppose the euro, the European Constitution and further integration in the European Union should be greatly encouraged by the result in the North East referendum.
To view the piece in the Telegraph please click here.
Our response, from the unofficial No Campaign, to the late (arriving) Mr. Frayne's piece will follow in due course.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Keeping the pressure on...
'Axe unelected assembly' call
Nov 11 2004
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
Read online here
The North-East's unelected regional assembly should be abolished and "buried" for good, according to Tory leader Michael Howard.
Challenging the Prime Minister on the Government's commitment to the existing body, Mr Howard said the decision of 78pc of voters last week to reject an elected version proved the regional assembly issue was "dead" in the public's mind.
"The people have spoken: regional assemblies are dead," he said during Tony Blair's weekly question time in the Commons. "Why don't you bury them?"
However, with an unusual burst of energy for the Prime Minister on the issue of regions, Mr Blair declared unelected assemblies were here to stay for good, saying they did "a perfectly good task".
"We won't abolish them because they perform a perfectly good task of co-ordinating action in the regions," he said amid cries and jeers from all sides of the House.
In one of the most raucous sessions of Prime Minister's question time seen in recent weeks, Mr Blair said the unelected organisations, whose membership is made up primarily of local councillors, "certainly do serve a purpose".
The Conservatives had created government offices for the regions, he said. "That is precisely what we have recognised with the regional chambers (assembly). There won't be a regional assembly in the North-East because they didn't vote for one."
North-East Labour MPs are also struggling to overcome their disappointment with the referendum decision - and how the region can best take forward its agenda to reduce the North-South divide.
A meeting of the regional parliamentary group in Westminster saw MPs agree not to press forward with more "structural" solutions to the North's problems, but to focus instead on "delivering" for the public.
Alan Campbell, MP for Tynemouth, told The Journal: "We have to recognise that people in the region are not interested in structures, they want delivery instead. What is clear is that the Northern group of MPs now has to listen to that message, which was very loud and clear.
"The No vote was in essence a sign of confidence in the region, that people don't want to be spoon-fed or put on special measures.
"What we do have to do, though, is make sure elected representatives connect with the people, and that we all work with interested partners in the region, who also have the interests of the North-East at heart."
He was joined by Durham North's Kevan Jones, who said: "We all recognise that we need a bit more time to think about what we are all going to do now. That's the best approach because we've been told structures are not the answer to this." Some North-East MPs have suggested creating a special regional select committee or grand committee to allow politicians to present a single voice, however that is unlikely to get off the ground.
Yesterday, Mr Blair said he also accepted the referendum result adding: "We abide by the result and will now continue to strengthen local democracy in other ways."
Tory leader Mr Howard used the No vote to push his demands for more devolution to local councils, saying: "Isn't it clear that the lesson of last week is that people want local government and less government not more government?
"There are now eight regional assemblies in England. They cost millions of pounds. We now know they have no popular support at all. When will you abolish them?"
Nov 11 2004
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
Read online here
The North-East's unelected regional assembly should be abolished and "buried" for good, according to Tory leader Michael Howard.
Challenging the Prime Minister on the Government's commitment to the existing body, Mr Howard said the decision of 78pc of voters last week to reject an elected version proved the regional assembly issue was "dead" in the public's mind.
"The people have spoken: regional assemblies are dead," he said during Tony Blair's weekly question time in the Commons. "Why don't you bury them?"
However, with an unusual burst of energy for the Prime Minister on the issue of regions, Mr Blair declared unelected assemblies were here to stay for good, saying they did "a perfectly good task".
"We won't abolish them because they perform a perfectly good task of co-ordinating action in the regions," he said amid cries and jeers from all sides of the House.
In one of the most raucous sessions of Prime Minister's question time seen in recent weeks, Mr Blair said the unelected organisations, whose membership is made up primarily of local councillors, "certainly do serve a purpose".
The Conservatives had created government offices for the regions, he said. "That is precisely what we have recognised with the regional chambers (assembly). There won't be a regional assembly in the North-East because they didn't vote for one."
North-East Labour MPs are also struggling to overcome their disappointment with the referendum decision - and how the region can best take forward its agenda to reduce the North-South divide.
A meeting of the regional parliamentary group in Westminster saw MPs agree not to press forward with more "structural" solutions to the North's problems, but to focus instead on "delivering" for the public.
Alan Campbell, MP for Tynemouth, told The Journal: "We have to recognise that people in the region are not interested in structures, they want delivery instead. What is clear is that the Northern group of MPs now has to listen to that message, which was very loud and clear.
"The No vote was in essence a sign of confidence in the region, that people don't want to be spoon-fed or put on special measures.
"What we do have to do, though, is make sure elected representatives connect with the people, and that we all work with interested partners in the region, who also have the interests of the North-East at heart."
He was joined by Durham North's Kevan Jones, who said: "We all recognise that we need a bit more time to think about what we are all going to do now. That's the best approach because we've been told structures are not the answer to this." Some North-East MPs have suggested creating a special regional select committee or grand committee to allow politicians to present a single voice, however that is unlikely to get off the ground.
Yesterday, Mr Blair said he also accepted the referendum result adding: "We abide by the result and will now continue to strengthen local democracy in other ways."
Tory leader Mr Howard used the No vote to push his demands for more devolution to local councils, saying: "Isn't it clear that the lesson of last week is that people want local government and less government not more government?
"There are now eight regional assemblies in England. They cost millions of pounds. We now know they have no popular support at all. When will you abolish them?"
Contemptuous arrogance of the Government over assemblies
Blair refuses to scrap assemblies
Yorkshire Post
11th November 2004
Simon McGee Political Editor
Read online here
PRIME Minister Tony Blair has refused demands from Tory leader Michael Howard to scrap Yorkshire's controversial unelected regional assembly, and the seven others like it around England, in light of last week's overwhelming rejection of plans for regional devolution.
It was now time to "bury" assemblies, Mr Howard said, but Mr Blair insisted the network of appointed chambers – which critics in Yorkshire have accused of being expensive talking shops – served "a useful purpose".
The explosive row at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday came in the wake of the overwhelming vote last week against the introduction of elected mini-parliaments in the North-East, which saw an unexpected 78 per cent of voters say "no", and led to Monday's cancellation of the previously-postponed referendums in Yorkshire and the North-West."We abide by the result and will now continue to strengthen local democracy in other ways," Mr Blair told MPs. But Mr Howard asked: "Isn't it clear that the lesson of last week is that people want local government and less government not more government? There are now eight regional assemblies in England. They cost millions of pounds. We now know they have no popular support at all. When will you abolish them?"
Mr Blair replied: "We won't abolish them because they perform a perfectly good task of coordinating action in the regions."He added that they "built on" the work of Government Offices in the regions.
But Mr Howard persisted: "People don't want important matters like planning and housing taken away from local councils that people do identify with and given instead to regional assemblies that they don't identify with."
The people have spoken: Regional assemblies are dead. Why don't you bury them?"Mr Blair asked why, if Tories opposed the chambers, so many served on them."Because as long as they are there Conservative councillors have to minimise the damage they do," Mr Howard countered.
Dismissing the call to scrap them, Mr Blair insisted: "They most certainly do serve a purpose."
The Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, created in 2001, has 39 officers in Wakefield and Brussels and collects more than £1.5m in subscriptions from the region's 22 local authorities. It is voluntary and nothing like John Prescott's failed elected version, although it was widely seen as an elected chamber's bureaucracy-in-waiting.The organisation undertakes studies on region-wide issues and has statutory powers in two specific areas – regional planning and scrutinising the work of the regional development agency.But the assembly has spent recent months under siege, following revelations in the Yorkshire Post of mounting discontent over the body's rising subscription rates and the decision by two major local authorities, East Riding and North-East Lincolnshire, to pull out. Two more are debating withdrawal.Last month, a majority of Yorkshire's council leaders demanded massive budget cuts and put the assembly "on notice".The warning – from Tory, Liberal Democrat and Independent leaders – came as the assembly already faced a root-and-branch review, which is in the process of being overseen by a group of eight of Yorkshire's 22 council chief executives. They are due to report back at the end of January.
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly chairman Peter Box said last night: "Our assembly is a voluntary body, made up of partners from across Yorkshire and Humber who are determined to help create a better future for the region."The challenges to create that future remain the same and it is only by working on important issues such as transport, economic development, rural matters and together as a region that we can hope to tackle them and address the prosperity gap between the North and the South."
Last night, local Tories added their voices to their leader's demand.Vale of York MP Anne McIntosh said: "This vote shows that people do not want an expensive extra layer of regional government. The existing, unelected regional assembly is an expensive talking shop which should be shut down, and the money saved should be spent on frontline services, like cleaner streets."Harrogate leader Mike Gardner, whose council is one of two considering withdrawal, claimed the result last week "justified everything we've been saying".He said: "Damn the politicians. The ordinary man on the street has seen through it all."
simon.mcgee@ypn.co.uk
11 November 2004
Yorkshire Post
11th November 2004
Simon McGee Political Editor
Read online here
PRIME Minister Tony Blair has refused demands from Tory leader Michael Howard to scrap Yorkshire's controversial unelected regional assembly, and the seven others like it around England, in light of last week's overwhelming rejection of plans for regional devolution.
It was now time to "bury" assemblies, Mr Howard said, but Mr Blair insisted the network of appointed chambers – which critics in Yorkshire have accused of being expensive talking shops – served "a useful purpose".
The explosive row at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday came in the wake of the overwhelming vote last week against the introduction of elected mini-parliaments in the North-East, which saw an unexpected 78 per cent of voters say "no", and led to Monday's cancellation of the previously-postponed referendums in Yorkshire and the North-West."We abide by the result and will now continue to strengthen local democracy in other ways," Mr Blair told MPs. But Mr Howard asked: "Isn't it clear that the lesson of last week is that people want local government and less government not more government? There are now eight regional assemblies in England. They cost millions of pounds. We now know they have no popular support at all. When will you abolish them?"
Mr Blair replied: "We won't abolish them because they perform a perfectly good task of coordinating action in the regions."He added that they "built on" the work of Government Offices in the regions.
But Mr Howard persisted: "People don't want important matters like planning and housing taken away from local councils that people do identify with and given instead to regional assemblies that they don't identify with."
The people have spoken: Regional assemblies are dead. Why don't you bury them?"Mr Blair asked why, if Tories opposed the chambers, so many served on them."Because as long as they are there Conservative councillors have to minimise the damage they do," Mr Howard countered.
Dismissing the call to scrap them, Mr Blair insisted: "They most certainly do serve a purpose."
The Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, created in 2001, has 39 officers in Wakefield and Brussels and collects more than £1.5m in subscriptions from the region's 22 local authorities. It is voluntary and nothing like John Prescott's failed elected version, although it was widely seen as an elected chamber's bureaucracy-in-waiting.The organisation undertakes studies on region-wide issues and has statutory powers in two specific areas – regional planning and scrutinising the work of the regional development agency.But the assembly has spent recent months under siege, following revelations in the Yorkshire Post of mounting discontent over the body's rising subscription rates and the decision by two major local authorities, East Riding and North-East Lincolnshire, to pull out. Two more are debating withdrawal.Last month, a majority of Yorkshire's council leaders demanded massive budget cuts and put the assembly "on notice".The warning – from Tory, Liberal Democrat and Independent leaders – came as the assembly already faced a root-and-branch review, which is in the process of being overseen by a group of eight of Yorkshire's 22 council chief executives. They are due to report back at the end of January.
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly chairman Peter Box said last night: "Our assembly is a voluntary body, made up of partners from across Yorkshire and Humber who are determined to help create a better future for the region."The challenges to create that future remain the same and it is only by working on important issues such as transport, economic development, rural matters and together as a region that we can hope to tackle them and address the prosperity gap between the North and the South."
Last night, local Tories added their voices to their leader's demand.Vale of York MP Anne McIntosh said: "This vote shows that people do not want an expensive extra layer of regional government. The existing, unelected regional assembly is an expensive talking shop which should be shut down, and the money saved should be spent on frontline services, like cleaner streets."Harrogate leader Mike Gardner, whose council is one of two considering withdrawal, claimed the result last week "justified everything we've been saying".He said: "Damn the politicians. The ordinary man on the street has seen through it all."
simon.mcgee@ypn.co.uk
11 November 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
