4th November 2005
Anti-assembly campaigners turn on
unelected officials
by Tony Kearney
Read the political comment here
A YEAR after North-East voters overwhelmingly rejected plans for an elected regional assembly, senior figures in the victorious No campaign marked the anniversary by turning their fire on the unelected North-East Assembly.
Despite the decisive result of the historic referendum on November 4 last year - in which 78 per cent of the electorate voted against John Prescott's plans for an elected body to run the region's affairs - the unelected North-East Assembly continues.
The body, made up of 72 appointed members, including representatives from the region's councils, was set up in 1999 and has an annual budget of about £2.5m, including £100,000 a year contributed by local councils.
Yesterday, a delegation from North-East No - one of the two main groups that campaigned against an elected assembly - demonstrated at the Assembly's headquarters in Newcastle's Guildhall and served what they said was a "Notice To Quit" on the organisation.
The notice described the continued existence of the assembly as "a political con trick" and "a tax burden on the taxpayers of Newcastle".
Campaign director Neil Herron described the assembly as: "an expensive, useless, toothless talking shop whose contempt for the people of the North-East is an arrogant affront to democracy.
"Assembly chairman Alex Watson and his aco- lytes should concentrate on what they were elected to do, not espouse and opine on North-East matters at our expense."
Councillor Watson, who is also leader of Derwentside District Council, said the assembly was doing excellent work in scrutinising regional development agency One NorthEast and overseeing planning issues through the Regional Spatial Strategy.
He said: "The assembly was put in place by central government and has a statutory responsibility and we are not in the business of abdicating our responsibilities."
Meanwhile, John Elliott - the Bishop Auckland businessman who led the official North-East Says No campaign - also criticised the continued existence of the assembly, saying voters had already rejected paying "higher taxes for a posh talking shop".
He said: "It beggars belief that one year later, our councils are using council taxes to support a regional assembly. How can this be seen as anything but arrogant contempt for the voters?"
However, Mr Elliott widened the argument to accuse the region's politicians of "failing to raise their game" in the 12 months since the referendum and said that the region was "sleepwalking in the wrong direction".
Mr Elliott said: "When we won last year's referendum, we challenged the region's politicians to raise their game. They have failed to do so and merely ignored the result.
"Too often, politicians have been dreaming and scheming instead of delivering tangible results.
"The region's MPs have continued to be disconnected from the aspirations of the people. For example, new buildings are a common theme of Government policy - educational academies and arts centres.
"Too often, monuments to political vanity have become more important than effective public services and a dynamic economy."
3 comments:
Stephen Byers told the Commons in 2001 that planning was to be open and transparent. Yet the Planning and Compulsory Purchase ACT 2004 brought with it a new planning system which gives the public less participation in strategic planning. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is prepared by the unelected North East Assembly, an unaccountable authority, shaping our lives for the years to 2010 and beyond.
Durham Branch of CPRE had a delegate place at the Westminster briefing on October 20TH “Is the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act working in your area? I attended the ‘demonstration’ so I would be able to take the correct message. My impression was very different from that of S Robson and the message came across loud and clear, The PCP Act is not working here. .The people obviously cared passionately about the issues and yet it seemed the decisions were to be taken regardless of those most affected. In London when I raised this point it was answered by an MP. He stated that if the concerns of the people were ignored they should not vote for those councilors in future
CPRE are concerned that the interests of local communities and the environment do not lose out as the new system takes place.
Elizabeth Mann
DURHAM bRANCH CPRE
I make this commment as a concerned member of the community and not as a member of any organisation to which I belong.
At a meeting in Durham County Hall on Nov 3rd 2004 a presentation from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister offered some helpful hints with future Development Plans.
"Forget old battles (we now have the law)"
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRATIC NOR IS IT ACCEPTABLE.
The new Spatial Planning System has evolved over the years.Please visit www.wind-farm.co.uk for more details`and read about the threat to the North East.
May I add a postscript to my comment earlier in which I mentioned a 'demonstration' but did not explain clearly which 'demonstration' I was making reference to.The following paragraph has the details.
The community in Darlington is up in arms regarding Transport, Education, Houses ,Airport Business Park, Greenfield and other issues, Overall the biggest problem and covering many topics is a lack of consultation with those who will be most affected by the proposals coming forward. At a 'demonstration' on Saturday there was talk of a vote of no confidence in the Council and serving an ASBO order on the PM. This unrest all stems from The Compulsory Purchase Act which brought with it the new Planning system, the RSS prepared by the unelected NEA. S Robson later wrote to the Echo giving his/her impression of the 'demonstration' very different from mine and it is to that I refer.
Post a Comment