VICTORY IN BATTLE OVER WIND FARMS
East Lincolnshire Echo
Campaigners have won a major battle in the war to stop wind farms being built near their homes.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has finally agreed to drop a highly controversial map which designates huge chunks of Lincolnshire as "highly suitable" for on-shore turbines.
He has also agreed to allow all planning applications involving wind turbines to be assessed on the basis of their "landscape and visual impact" and the effects on the natural, cultural and urban environments, including noise.
Responsibility for assessing such effects has also been handed to councils instead of a regional quango.
In November 2003, county planners were angry when a draft copy of the East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance designated vast areas of Lincolnshire as "highly suitable" for on-shore turbines.
A map showed that more land in Lincolnshire had been earmarked for turbines than any other neighbouring county over the next 16 years.
It was published by the East Midlands Regional Assembly, a Quasi-autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation (quango) made up of both elected and non-elected members
Lincolnshire County Council members objected, saying the map would leave authorities powerless to prevent a spread of turbines.
In response, the assembly has agreed to exclude the map and has issued new guidance giving planning authorities more power to reject applications.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has finally published the finished document - which includes the changes the council fought for.
The county council's planning policy manager Peter Raspin said: "Obviously the map has gone but, in addition, there's new guidance that allows planning authorities to take things like environment impact into consideration."
George Martin, head of planning at West Lindsey District Council, said: "Allowing landscape and visual impacts to be taken into consideration like this will give local people a fighting chance to be involved."
Yet, at the same time, original targets specifying how much on-shore wind energy must be produced within Lincolnshire remain the same. The county is still expected to hold enough on-shore turbines to produce 42 mega-watts of electricity per year - more than any other county in the region.
Anti-wind farm campaigner Steve Taylor, from Scothern, near Lincoln, said: "I'm very pleased with the changes. It gives us a chance to have a proper debate over each application. It was very important that we had the chance to challenge the original document."
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Regional responsibilities in the UK — and in the EU
The Times
From the Chief Executive of the South East England Regional Assembly
Sir, Regional assemblies in England are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and stakeholders representing constituencies of interest, such as business and the environment. Dr Matthew Portal (letter, March 22) has become alive to their role precisely because, with new responsibilities for advising ministers on regional planning, they are reaching out to engage the public. Our leaflet on the South East Plan has been sent to over three million households in the region.
Far from being a bureaucratic imposition, the eight English assemblies are small, light-touch bodies bringing bottom-up accountability to regional governance. In the South East every county and district council has an assembly member speaking for its community.
Regional planning, although vitally important, has been going on since the Sixties pretty much out of the public eye. Dr Portal should be welcoming the chance to shape the future of the South East, not buying the myth that a body that his elected councillors voluntarily created for that purpose is the product of an EU conspiracy.
Yours faithfully,
PAUL BEVAN,
Chief Executive,South East England Regional Assembly,
Berkeley House,
Cross Lanes,
Guildford
GU1 1UN.
March 23.
From Mr Peter O. Miles
Sir, The English regions (letters, March 15 and 22) were established in 1965 not by Brussels, but to co-ordinate the administration of UK government policies and funds for regional regeneration, industrial and employment development, and inward-investment programmes.
The following 30 years saw a steady proliferation of government regional development agencies, quangos and public-private sector partnerships, much of which was apparently uncoordinated and certainly confusing to business and politicians, let alone the electorate.
Acting on recommendations in 1995 of the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, the Government in 1997 attempted to bring order and accountability to the regions through the establishment of the regional development agencies, and the assemblies, so far unselected, except through the appointment of local councillors on to the assemblies. More rationalisation is planned through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004.
The direct election of the regional assemblies would be a further welcome step forward.
Yours faithfully,
PETER O. MILES,
(Editorial director, Regional Development International magazine, 1980-89),
27 Roman Way,
Lechlade,
Gloucestershire
GL7 3BS.
March 22.
From Mr Dennis Abbott
Sir, Critics of the EU constitutional treaty frequently fail to acknowledge the checks and balances incorporated into the text which will prevent Brussels ever becoming the superstate of Eurosceptic imagination.
For instance, the constitution will give national parliaments, as well as local and regional government, a much bigger role in EU decisions as guardians of subsidiarity, which recognises that law-making should be the prerogative of member states unless the EU can demonstrate real added value.
Rights will be given to local and regional politicians to challenge at the European Court of Justice laws that have been made in breach of subsidiarity. The EU Committee of the Regions, whose membership consists of 317 city mayors and councillors, including 24 representatives from the UK, will be empowered under the constitution to launch annulment proceedings at the ECJ to enforce this principle.
The committee believes that voters should be able to make an informed choice in the coming referendums. Its members, including those from Britain, are overwhelmingly in favour of a “yes”.
Yours faithfully,
DENNIS ABBOTT,
(Administrator),
Committee of the Regions,
Rue Belliard 101,
B-1040 Brussels.
dennis.abbott@cor.eu.int
March 28.
From the Chief Executive of the South East England Regional Assembly
Sir, Regional assemblies in England are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and stakeholders representing constituencies of interest, such as business and the environment. Dr Matthew Portal (letter, March 22) has become alive to their role precisely because, with new responsibilities for advising ministers on regional planning, they are reaching out to engage the public. Our leaflet on the South East Plan has been sent to over three million households in the region.
Far from being a bureaucratic imposition, the eight English assemblies are small, light-touch bodies bringing bottom-up accountability to regional governance. In the South East every county and district council has an assembly member speaking for its community.
Regional planning, although vitally important, has been going on since the Sixties pretty much out of the public eye. Dr Portal should be welcoming the chance to shape the future of the South East, not buying the myth that a body that his elected councillors voluntarily created for that purpose is the product of an EU conspiracy.
Yours faithfully,
PAUL BEVAN,
Chief Executive,South East England Regional Assembly,
Berkeley House,
Cross Lanes,
Guildford
GU1 1UN.
March 23.
From Mr Peter O. Miles
Sir, The English regions (letters, March 15 and 22) were established in 1965 not by Brussels, but to co-ordinate the administration of UK government policies and funds for regional regeneration, industrial and employment development, and inward-investment programmes.
The following 30 years saw a steady proliferation of government regional development agencies, quangos and public-private sector partnerships, much of which was apparently uncoordinated and certainly confusing to business and politicians, let alone the electorate.
Acting on recommendations in 1995 of the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, the Government in 1997 attempted to bring order and accountability to the regions through the establishment of the regional development agencies, and the assemblies, so far unselected, except through the appointment of local councillors on to the assemblies. More rationalisation is planned through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004.
The direct election of the regional assemblies would be a further welcome step forward.
Yours faithfully,
PETER O. MILES,
(Editorial director, Regional Development International magazine, 1980-89),
27 Roman Way,
Lechlade,
Gloucestershire
GL7 3BS.
March 22.
From Mr Dennis Abbott
Sir, Critics of the EU constitutional treaty frequently fail to acknowledge the checks and balances incorporated into the text which will prevent Brussels ever becoming the superstate of Eurosceptic imagination.
For instance, the constitution will give national parliaments, as well as local and regional government, a much bigger role in EU decisions as guardians of subsidiarity, which recognises that law-making should be the prerogative of member states unless the EU can demonstrate real added value.
Rights will be given to local and regional politicians to challenge at the European Court of Justice laws that have been made in breach of subsidiarity. The EU Committee of the Regions, whose membership consists of 317 city mayors and councillors, including 24 representatives from the UK, will be empowered under the constitution to launch annulment proceedings at the ECJ to enforce this principle.
The committee believes that voters should be able to make an informed choice in the coming referendums. Its members, including those from Britain, are overwhelmingly in favour of a “yes”.
Yours faithfully,
DENNIS ABBOTT,
(Administrator),
Committee of the Regions,
Rue Belliard 101,
B-1040 Brussels.
dennis.abbott@cor.eu.int
March 28.
Where's Michael Howard's Balls?
TORIES CAN WALK OUT OF UNELECTED ASSEMBLIES
12:30 - 25 January 2005
Many readers will remember the recent 'no' vote in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum. John Prescott's attempt to foist elected regional assemblies on them was rejected when they realised what the extra costs would be and how remote the institution would be.
What your readers may not be aware of is that these regional assemblies are already in place as unelected regional assemblies. The leaders and representatives of the local authorities, business, unions and charities in the associated region currently run them. They were set up as precursors to elected assemblies and cost taxpayers approximately £30-million a year. Their official role is to oversee the work of the regional development agencies, which were set up in 1999 to encourage inward investment. They have however also taken over some strategic planning roles from local authorities.
Michael Howard has openly demanded Labour should abolish this unwanted tier of government and has vowed the Conservatives, if elected, will do so. Tony Blair has quite reasonably responded that, in that case, Mr Howard should insist Conservative councillors at once resign from the assemblies.
I must agree with Mr Blair. If the Conservatives believe the assemblies are an abuse of council tax, an addition to the self-serving, self-perpetuating political class to no perceived public benefit, a gross and brazen violation of the principle that there should be no taxation without representation and an initiative with no purpose save to increase the powers of Brussels and to diminish those of democratic national and local government alike, how can they contribute to the perpetuation of such a system?
Mr Howard countered Mr Blair by saying: "As long as they are there, Conservative councillors have to minimise the damage they do."
However, if three-quarters of the appointed members vote for its abolition, an assembly must at once be dissolved.
The assemblies have no claim to democratic validity, but, if all Conservatives now walked out, even the most specious of Labour and Liberal Democrat fantasists could no longer maintain that they had any representative status.
Therefore, what is preventing Mr Howard from dissociating himself and his party from a system, to which they claim they are vehemently opposed? The answer is that the last Conservative Government agreed to the Maastricht Treaty and its support for a Committee of the Regions. It also introduced Government offices for the Regions so they would benefit from EU Development Funds. It is the Conservatives who started the ball rolling in the first place!
This is just another instance of Conservatives paying lip service to the notion of conserving British institutions and freedoms, while enthusiastically collaborating in their destruction.
I hope our current representative to the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly, Conservative councillor Alan Holgate, leader of North Lincolnshire Council, will take this opportunity to address the issue.
David George Baxendale
Elm Way,
Messingham.
12:30 - 25 January 2005
Many readers will remember the recent 'no' vote in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum. John Prescott's attempt to foist elected regional assemblies on them was rejected when they realised what the extra costs would be and how remote the institution would be.
What your readers may not be aware of is that these regional assemblies are already in place as unelected regional assemblies. The leaders and representatives of the local authorities, business, unions and charities in the associated region currently run them. They were set up as precursors to elected assemblies and cost taxpayers approximately £30-million a year. Their official role is to oversee the work of the regional development agencies, which were set up in 1999 to encourage inward investment. They have however also taken over some strategic planning roles from local authorities.
Michael Howard has openly demanded Labour should abolish this unwanted tier of government and has vowed the Conservatives, if elected, will do so. Tony Blair has quite reasonably responded that, in that case, Mr Howard should insist Conservative councillors at once resign from the assemblies.
I must agree with Mr Blair. If the Conservatives believe the assemblies are an abuse of council tax, an addition to the self-serving, self-perpetuating political class to no perceived public benefit, a gross and brazen violation of the principle that there should be no taxation without representation and an initiative with no purpose save to increase the powers of Brussels and to diminish those of democratic national and local government alike, how can they contribute to the perpetuation of such a system?
Mr Howard countered Mr Blair by saying: "As long as they are there, Conservative councillors have to minimise the damage they do."
However, if three-quarters of the appointed members vote for its abolition, an assembly must at once be dissolved.
The assemblies have no claim to democratic validity, but, if all Conservatives now walked out, even the most specious of Labour and Liberal Democrat fantasists could no longer maintain that they had any representative status.
Therefore, what is preventing Mr Howard from dissociating himself and his party from a system, to which they claim they are vehemently opposed? The answer is that the last Conservative Government agreed to the Maastricht Treaty and its support for a Committee of the Regions. It also introduced Government offices for the Regions so they would benefit from EU Development Funds. It is the Conservatives who started the ball rolling in the first place!
This is just another instance of Conservatives paying lip service to the notion of conserving British institutions and freedoms, while enthusiastically collaborating in their destruction.
I hope our current representative to the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly, Conservative councillor Alan Holgate, leader of North Lincolnshire Council, will take this opportunity to address the issue.
David George Baxendale
Elm Way,
Messingham.
Bemused by brochure from 'rejected' assembly
Northumberland Today
I WAS more than a little bemused the other day when, with the morning post, a heavy envelope landed on the doormat containing two beautifully produced ring-bound booklets entitled View: Shaping the North East.
No expense on these booklets had been spared. Heavy, translucent covers, thick glossy paper and full colour printing, and the postage alone was £3.10.
I have no idea how many of these booklets have been distributed, but I am certain that the cost was not small.
Why all the fuss? The source of this expense is written on the front cover. North East Assembly, the voice of the region.
The voice of the region? Did I miss something?
I seem to remember that a few months ago, four out of five people in the North East voted against such an assembly. Odd isn't it, that before we were asked whether or not we wanted a regional assembly, one was already in place, and after an assembly was firmly rejected by the electorate, it is still there.
I phoned the number advertised on the booklet to ask what the North East Assembly is, who are its members and how are they appointed.
After being passed to four different departments I was promised a reply within two hours – I am still waiting.
In the meantime, I can only wonder how many of us it took to pay, via our council tax, for this one document, and marvel at the bare-faced arrogance of Mr Prescott and his minions as they totally and unashamedly ignore the wishes of the electorate by imposing on us an unwanted North East Assembly.
So much for democracy.
Clive Hallam-Baker,
Branxton,
Cornhill on Tweed.
10 March 2005
I WAS more than a little bemused the other day when, with the morning post, a heavy envelope landed on the doormat containing two beautifully produced ring-bound booklets entitled View: Shaping the North East.
No expense on these booklets had been spared. Heavy, translucent covers, thick glossy paper and full colour printing, and the postage alone was £3.10.
I have no idea how many of these booklets have been distributed, but I am certain that the cost was not small.
Why all the fuss? The source of this expense is written on the front cover. North East Assembly, the voice of the region.
The voice of the region? Did I miss something?
I seem to remember that a few months ago, four out of five people in the North East voted against such an assembly. Odd isn't it, that before we were asked whether or not we wanted a regional assembly, one was already in place, and after an assembly was firmly rejected by the electorate, it is still there.
I phoned the number advertised on the booklet to ask what the North East Assembly is, who are its members and how are they appointed.
After being passed to four different departments I was promised a reply within two hours – I am still waiting.
In the meantime, I can only wonder how many of us it took to pay, via our council tax, for this one document, and marvel at the bare-faced arrogance of Mr Prescott and his minions as they totally and unashamedly ignore the wishes of the electorate by imposing on us an unwanted North East Assembly.
So much for democracy.
Clive Hallam-Baker,
Branxton,
Cornhill on Tweed.
10 March 2005
Regional assembly powers defended
Mar 25 2005
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
The Government has defended its plans to introduce an elected regional assembly to the North-East, saying it had plenty of powers and would have attracted high-quality people to work for it.
After coming under heavy fire from campaigners on all sides, ministers yesterday issued a staunch defence of their proposals, dismissing fears the powers on offer were "inadequate" and that only the retired and unemployed would get involved.
It followed a report from MPs earlier this year which warned John Prescott's dream of regional devolution had been thwarted by the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to convince Whitehall departments to surrender their powers to the initiative.
However, a response issued last night insisted the powers offered were credible and possessed "a significant degree of flexibility".
Even though 78pc of the public dismissed the idea of an assembly out of hand, the Government yesterday said a new breed of politicians could have been attracted to regional politics.
They did concede though: "This could ultimately only be tested when the assemblies were established."
The plan for directly elected regional assemblies was quickly dropped by Mr Prescott following the overwhelming result of the referendum last year, which saw almost half of all eligible voters in the region turn out to vote.
Hitting back, the Government yesterday said: "We believed that the package of responsibilities offered a feasible and credible package, but did not rule out developing these further in the future.
"If the Government does bring forward further proposals for elected regional assemblies, it will look closely at the committee's recommendations."
Legally, elected regional assemblies cannot return as an issue for another seven years, although supporters and critics both concede it is unlikely to ever return.
Metric martyr and `No' campaigner Neil Herron said the failure of assemblies was "ultimately down the public realising this was a political project about fulfilling the dreams of a minority of people."
He added: "This was a political con trick from the outset and no amount of backtracking can get away from the fact that the Government was given an absolute pasting."
Gateshead MP Joyce Quin, a keen supporter of elected assemblies, accepted the apparent lack of powers were a "factor" in people's decisions but said: "It was not the overriding reason.
"I would certainly have liked there to have been stronger powers, but I think they represented an important start for devolution.
"However the `No' campaign tended to concentrate on other issues, like not wanting an extra layer of politicians. Their arguments were wrong in my eyes because it would have democratized an existing layer of regional politics."
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
The Government has defended its plans to introduce an elected regional assembly to the North-East, saying it had plenty of powers and would have attracted high-quality people to work for it.
After coming under heavy fire from campaigners on all sides, ministers yesterday issued a staunch defence of their proposals, dismissing fears the powers on offer were "inadequate" and that only the retired and unemployed would get involved.
It followed a report from MPs earlier this year which warned John Prescott's dream of regional devolution had been thwarted by the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to convince Whitehall departments to surrender their powers to the initiative.
However, a response issued last night insisted the powers offered were credible and possessed "a significant degree of flexibility".
Even though 78pc of the public dismissed the idea of an assembly out of hand, the Government yesterday said a new breed of politicians could have been attracted to regional politics.
They did concede though: "This could ultimately only be tested when the assemblies were established."
The plan for directly elected regional assemblies was quickly dropped by Mr Prescott following the overwhelming result of the referendum last year, which saw almost half of all eligible voters in the region turn out to vote.
Hitting back, the Government yesterday said: "We believed that the package of responsibilities offered a feasible and credible package, but did not rule out developing these further in the future.
"If the Government does bring forward further proposals for elected regional assemblies, it will look closely at the committee's recommendations."
Legally, elected regional assemblies cannot return as an issue for another seven years, although supporters and critics both concede it is unlikely to ever return.
Metric martyr and `No' campaigner Neil Herron said the failure of assemblies was "ultimately down the public realising this was a political project about fulfilling the dreams of a minority of people."
He added: "This was a political con trick from the outset and no amount of backtracking can get away from the fact that the Government was given an absolute pasting."
Gateshead MP Joyce Quin, a keen supporter of elected assemblies, accepted the apparent lack of powers were a "factor" in people's decisions but said: "It was not the overriding reason.
"I would certainly have liked there to have been stronger powers, but I think they represented an important start for devolution.
"However the `No' campaign tended to concentrate on other issues, like not wanting an extra layer of politicians. Their arguments were wrong in my eyes because it would have democratized an existing layer of regional politics."
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Freedom of Information Act
Watchdog backs FOI with a pat and a prod
Rob Evans and David Hencke
Friday March 25, 2005
The Guardian
Government departments have received at least 7,000 freedom of information requests since the act came into force three months ago, and are already disclosing a large number of documents, the watchdog responsible for policing the legislation said yesterday.
Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, gave an optimistic assessment of the act so far, despite complaints that the government has been abusing the legislation and not disclosing much of substance.
He rejected the argument that the act, which came into force on January 1, should be written off.
"I have been encouraged by how much new material is being released every day," he said.
"The act is already making a real difference in getting public access to previously secret official information. A lot of information is being disclosed. We are kick-starting a change in the culture of secrecy."
He was aware that many departments were agonising over what to disclose, but were eventually releasing documents which could be embarrassing or awkward. "In general, most public bodies are taking [the act] seriously."
He had been impressed by the wide range of information made public, citing documents obtained by parents in North Wales protesting against the planned closure of a school.
Other examples included details of the amount received from parking fines by local councils, books missing from the British Library and NHS use of private hospitals.
This week's publication of the amount of EU agriculture subsidies received by every farmer in Britain was a "significant" disclosure.
Once the information was in the open, it was clear that there had been no valid reason for keeping it secret.
"The act will not be a damp squib, nor will it be the end of civilisation," he said.
People can complain to him if they believe a government body has not released information it should have disclosed.
His officials are scrutinising 285 complaints, the most prominent of which concerns the government's refusal to release the contents of the attorney general's legal advice on the invasion of Iraq.
Mr Thomas has the authority to order public bodies to release information, and he has used it for the first time to require Westminster council in central London to make good its failure to release information in a personal case.
More than 7,000 information requests have been submitted to Whitehall departments, the largest number to the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, and thousands more have been made to local authorities and NHS trusts, although there is not yet a figure for those areas.
Police forces received more than 2,000 requests in the first six weeks, covering everything from the addresses of released paedophiles - requests that were refused - to neighbourhood policing.
They included the most amusing request: one to the Hampshire constabulary asking how many eligible bachelors in uniform it had and their email addresses, salaries and pension packages.
Health authorities have received many requests, ranging from ward closures to the mortality rates in operations performed by heart surgeons.
Mr Thomas urged public bodies to respond out of "enlightened self-interest".
"In a mature 21st century democracy people are more tolerant of mistakes.
"They are not tolerant of public bodies that are not straight with them. They forgive mistakes. What they want is government departments to be open with them."
Rob Evans and David Hencke
Friday March 25, 2005
The Guardian
Government departments have received at least 7,000 freedom of information requests since the act came into force three months ago, and are already disclosing a large number of documents, the watchdog responsible for policing the legislation said yesterday.
Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, gave an optimistic assessment of the act so far, despite complaints that the government has been abusing the legislation and not disclosing much of substance.
He rejected the argument that the act, which came into force on January 1, should be written off.
"I have been encouraged by how much new material is being released every day," he said.
"The act is already making a real difference in getting public access to previously secret official information. A lot of information is being disclosed. We are kick-starting a change in the culture of secrecy."
He was aware that many departments were agonising over what to disclose, but were eventually releasing documents which could be embarrassing or awkward. "In general, most public bodies are taking [the act] seriously."
He had been impressed by the wide range of information made public, citing documents obtained by parents in North Wales protesting against the planned closure of a school.
Other examples included details of the amount received from parking fines by local councils, books missing from the British Library and NHS use of private hospitals.
This week's publication of the amount of EU agriculture subsidies received by every farmer in Britain was a "significant" disclosure.
Once the information was in the open, it was clear that there had been no valid reason for keeping it secret.
"The act will not be a damp squib, nor will it be the end of civilisation," he said.
People can complain to him if they believe a government body has not released information it should have disclosed.
His officials are scrutinising 285 complaints, the most prominent of which concerns the government's refusal to release the contents of the attorney general's legal advice on the invasion of Iraq.
Mr Thomas has the authority to order public bodies to release information, and he has used it for the first time to require Westminster council in central London to make good its failure to release information in a personal case.
More than 7,000 information requests have been submitted to Whitehall departments, the largest number to the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, and thousands more have been made to local authorities and NHS trusts, although there is not yet a figure for those areas.
Police forces received more than 2,000 requests in the first six weeks, covering everything from the addresses of released paedophiles - requests that were refused - to neighbourhood policing.
They included the most amusing request: one to the Hampshire constabulary asking how many eligible bachelors in uniform it had and their email addresses, salaries and pension packages.
Health authorities have received many requests, ranging from ward closures to the mortality rates in operations performed by heart surgeons.
Mr Thomas urged public bodies to respond out of "enlightened self-interest".
"In a mature 21st century democracy people are more tolerant of mistakes.
"They are not tolerant of public bodies that are not straight with them. They forgive mistakes. What they want is government departments to be open with them."
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Can't pay, won't pay
The Independent, 29 March 2005
Robert Verkaik reports on a novel challenge to the whole system of fixed penalties
There has been much principled discussion recently about the threat to civil liberties from anti-terror legislation. Now Britain's motorists believe they have identified an even more insidious attack on our unwritten constitution - one allowed to go unchecked for more than 14 years.
Since the fixed-penalty notices system was "decriminalised" in 1991, the partly privatised fines-enforcement industry has grown into a multi-million-pound revenue-gathering business. Now motorists are set to challenge the premise on which this industry is built.
Neil Herron, 42, a former fishmonger and market trader, plans to contest the right of a local authority to impose fines against an unlawfully parked motorist without first giving him a fair hearing.
Mr Herron has collected a number of parking tickets in his home city of Sunderland which he is refusing to pay. He argues that the system for fine collection in this country is in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from "fine or forfeiture before conviction".
Dozens of other motorists have joined his campaign for a right to a fair trial. One is Robin de Crittenden, a pensioner from Sandwell, Birmingham. He too is refusing to pay a parking tickets. Both men have tried to provoke their local councils into taking them to court but they have not taken the bait.
These cases have far-reaching implications for collection of fines. The legal authority on which councils rely when imposing fixed penalties is the Road Traffic Act 1991. This legislation meant that parking in a restricted place was no longer a criminal offence. It enabled a revolution in revenue collection, sparing councils the burden of prosecuting defaulters.
But Herron and de Crittenden believe the legislation breached the British constitution. And only now, they argue, has anyone been prepared to go to prison to challenge the law. If this hard-line campaigning has a familiar ring, this is because it is born out of the same kind of martyrdom that characterised the legal challenge to the abolition of metric weights and measures in the UK.
Herron is a founder-member of the metric martyrs and intends to use the same judgment that defeated this cause to support his present campaign. The men have already anticipated what they believe will be the councils' defence: that the parking appeal tribunal provides an opportunity to fairly contest the imposition of a parking ticket.
"These tribunals are not independent; they are funded by the local authority collecting the fine," argues Herron.
In the metric martyrs case Lord Justice Laws relied on the doctrine of constitutional hierarchy, which gives legal documents such as the Bill of Rights primacy over subsequent legislation, unless there is an expressed intention to overrule the established law.
In the 2002 judgment he said: "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689... Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." This was an argument that helped to defeat the metric martyrs' challenge.
Says Herron: "If the Divisional Court's ruling is true, every local authority, government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a constitutional Act. The Road Traffic Act 1991 and others like it are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts."
Robert Verkaik reports on a novel challenge to the whole system of fixed penalties
There has been much principled discussion recently about the threat to civil liberties from anti-terror legislation. Now Britain's motorists believe they have identified an even more insidious attack on our unwritten constitution - one allowed to go unchecked for more than 14 years.
Since the fixed-penalty notices system was "decriminalised" in 1991, the partly privatised fines-enforcement industry has grown into a multi-million-pound revenue-gathering business. Now motorists are set to challenge the premise on which this industry is built.
Neil Herron, 42, a former fishmonger and market trader, plans to contest the right of a local authority to impose fines against an unlawfully parked motorist without first giving him a fair hearing.
Mr Herron has collected a number of parking tickets in his home city of Sunderland which he is refusing to pay. He argues that the system for fine collection in this country is in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from "fine or forfeiture before conviction".
Dozens of other motorists have joined his campaign for a right to a fair trial. One is Robin de Crittenden, a pensioner from Sandwell, Birmingham. He too is refusing to pay a parking tickets. Both men have tried to provoke their local councils into taking them to court but they have not taken the bait.
These cases have far-reaching implications for collection of fines. The legal authority on which councils rely when imposing fixed penalties is the Road Traffic Act 1991. This legislation meant that parking in a restricted place was no longer a criminal offence. It enabled a revolution in revenue collection, sparing councils the burden of prosecuting defaulters.
But Herron and de Crittenden believe the legislation breached the British constitution. And only now, they argue, has anyone been prepared to go to prison to challenge the law. If this hard-line campaigning has a familiar ring, this is because it is born out of the same kind of martyrdom that characterised the legal challenge to the abolition of metric weights and measures in the UK.
Herron is a founder-member of the metric martyrs and intends to use the same judgment that defeated this cause to support his present campaign. The men have already anticipated what they believe will be the councils' defence: that the parking appeal tribunal provides an opportunity to fairly contest the imposition of a parking ticket.
"These tribunals are not independent; they are funded by the local authority collecting the fine," argues Herron.
In the metric martyrs case Lord Justice Laws relied on the doctrine of constitutional hierarchy, which gives legal documents such as the Bill of Rights primacy over subsequent legislation, unless there is an expressed intention to overrule the established law.
In the 2002 judgment he said: "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689... Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." This was an argument that helped to defeat the metric martyrs' challenge.
Says Herron: "If the Divisional Court's ruling is true, every local authority, government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a constitutional Act. The Road Traffic Act 1991 and others like it are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts."
Thursday, March 24, 2005
NORTH-EAST ASSEMBLY
Northern Echo Letters, Hear all Sides
Thursday 24th March 2005
Thursday 24th March 2005
In response to Chris Foote-Wood, Northern Echo, 22nd March 2005
IT APPEARS that Chris Foote-Wood's ability to bend the truth is on a par with what Beckham does with balls.
Mr Foote-Wood is opposed to all quangos except the biggest one of all: the unelected North-East Assembly.
The referendum last November was for an elected assembly. The one to which Mr Foote-Wood refers is unelected. It has no elected members. They are appointees, appointed by their local authority. These individuals were elected to serve as local authority councillors and not to speak for, or represent the region. It is therefore deceitful to say the assembly has "democratic accountability".
Perhaps Mr Foote-Wood will expand on how the assembly's generous allowance system works. I am sure that he would not wish to give the impression that assembly members fund things out of their own pocket.
In the Government's information leaflet sent to every household before the referendum, the question was asked: "What happens if there is a No vote?" The answer was clear. There will be no assembly and decisions will continue to be made by Government and quangos in the region.
I look forward to your new campaign, Mr Foote-Wood, to rid us of the biggest quango of all: the unelected, unwanted and unaccountable assembly.
Neil Herron, Sunderland.
AS the last man this side of Mars to support the unelected North-East Assembly, it might have been apt to print Chris Foote-Wood's letter (HAS, Mar 21) on April Fool's Day.
He uses political double-talk by way of attempting to justify something, which he proudly sits upon, and that nearly 80 per cent of folk voted against.
Members are appointed by each local council - hardly democratically elected by the public of the North-East, and hardly accountable. And allowances are afforded to members, so "volunteer" and "unpaid" are not strictly true.
Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives.
I WOULD dearly love to know how Chris Foote-Wood worked out his statements (HAS, Mar 21). The assembly is not elected by the populous, therefore it is not accountable to them. Many requests for information on the workings of the assembly under the Freedom of Information Act have been met with a refusal. Why will its members not disclose what "expenses" they are paid?
Archi Hipkins, Blyth.
De-selection leaves Labour in turmoil
The Northern Echo, by Stuart Arnold, Thursday 24th March 2005
THE ruling Labour party on the region's biggest council was in turmoil last night after its leader was de-selected from his seat.
Councillor Ken Manton, who represents Sedgefield on Durham County Council, will have to step down after elections in May after he was de-selected by his local Labour branch.
The Northern Echo first revealed in December last year how Coun Manton's position was under threat amid claims that he had lost the confidence of members of the Sedgefield constituency Lab-our party.
It is understood that one of the issues that brought matters to a head was over a lane in the town regularly used as a stopping point for travellers.
Residents repeatedly called for a lockable gate to be installed to close it, but Coun Manton consistently refused to support the request.
He was heavily criticised at a series of fiery public meetings over the issue, culminating in a vote of no confidence in him last year.
His de-selection has shocked many people in Labour circles, and also brought condemnation from political opponents.
It was thought that he could be replaced by a woman under party plans to increase the number of elected female representatives.
But party officials confirmed that his replacement will be John Robinson, a Sedgefield town and borough councillor.
Last night, Coun Manton, who has been a member of the county council for 16 years and spent the past four as leader, said he fully accepted the outcome.
He said: "It has been an honour and privilege to be a member and leader of Durham County Council.
"I fully intend to go on working within the Labour Party to achieve our objectives, and would hope that I can continue to play an active and major role in Labour politics for the foreseeable future."
Meanwhile, one of Coun Manton's former Labour colleagues, Bill Blenkinsopp, has criticised the party.
Coun Blenkinsopp, who was recently de-selected as a Labour candidate, said: "The Labour Party are just a disgrace. People are using their authority to witch hunt people out of their positions."
Independent county councillor John Shuttleworth said: "Ken Manton has done a very good job as leader of this council.
"I have had many a run-in with him, but all for the right reasons, and it is a scandal that someone of his calibre should be deselected."
Coun Manton's deputy, Don Ross, said many at County Hall were disgusted by his treatment.
He said: "A lot of people are devastated and upset.
"The man has been damned for no good reason to the detriment of the county council."
THE ruling Labour party on the region's biggest council was in turmoil last night after its leader was de-selected from his seat.
Councillor Ken Manton, who represents Sedgefield on Durham County Council, will have to step down after elections in May after he was de-selected by his local Labour branch.
The Northern Echo first revealed in December last year how Coun Manton's position was under threat amid claims that he had lost the confidence of members of the Sedgefield constituency Lab-our party.
It is understood that one of the issues that brought matters to a head was over a lane in the town regularly used as a stopping point for travellers.
Residents repeatedly called for a lockable gate to be installed to close it, but Coun Manton consistently refused to support the request.
He was heavily criticised at a series of fiery public meetings over the issue, culminating in a vote of no confidence in him last year.
His de-selection has shocked many people in Labour circles, and also brought condemnation from political opponents.
It was thought that he could be replaced by a woman under party plans to increase the number of elected female representatives.
But party officials confirmed that his replacement will be John Robinson, a Sedgefield town and borough councillor.
Last night, Coun Manton, who has been a member of the county council for 16 years and spent the past four as leader, said he fully accepted the outcome.
He said: "It has been an honour and privilege to be a member and leader of Durham County Council.
"I fully intend to go on working within the Labour Party to achieve our objectives, and would hope that I can continue to play an active and major role in Labour politics for the foreseeable future."
Meanwhile, one of Coun Manton's former Labour colleagues, Bill Blenkinsopp, has criticised the party.
Coun Blenkinsopp, who was recently de-selected as a Labour candidate, said: "The Labour Party are just a disgrace. People are using their authority to witch hunt people out of their positions."
Independent county councillor John Shuttleworth said: "Ken Manton has done a very good job as leader of this council.
"I have had many a run-in with him, but all for the right reasons, and it is a scandal that someone of his calibre should be deselected."
Coun Manton's deputy, Don Ross, said many at County Hall were disgusted by his treatment.
He said: "A lot of people are devastated and upset.
"The man has been damned for no good reason to the detriment of the county council."
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
TRADER'S FIGHT OVER SCALES
South Devon Herald Express
Tuesday 22nd March 2005
A Torquay shopkeeper is locked in a battle with the council's trading standards department over alleged damage to his shop scales.
Dennis Webb, of Valley Fruit in Sherwell Valley Road, has been fighting the authority for compensation after a trading standards officer decommissioned the scales.
The British Weights and Measures Association has taken up his case and is seeking compensation of £1,050.
The council has offered £100 and has insisted the scales were not damaged.
John Gardner, director of the BWMA, says the association is submitting a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
He said the authority took eight months to respond to letters and explain under which powers it had acted.
It has also claimed the council also failed to respond to the compensation request by a set deadline.
Under new laws, Mr Webb's scales were illegal as they measured weight in pounds and ounces rather than metric kilograms.
But Mr Webb said: "I was complying with the new law. I was waiting for a new scale which weighs out in both measures to come.
"Ninety per cent of my customers are elderly and I never get them asking for kilograms. They don't understand it.
"If that's all I used they wouldn't buy anything."
Torbay Council has offered to pay Mr Webb £100 but Mr Gardner is demanding more.
He said: "Mr Webb is entitled to compensation to the value of the machine and also because the council tried to avoid its responsibility for eight months.
"We gave them a deadline of the end of last month to our call for compensation, and when we heard nothing we extended this until the middle March 14. We have not heard from them."
The case is also being backed by the Devon Federation of Small Businesses.
Spokesman Ian Handford said they had taken up Mr Webb's case, even though he is not a member, because of its implications.
He added: "The latest offer from the council is to reimburse him £100, but the weights and measures board consider that inadequate and so do I."
A council spokeswoman said they believed their offer was "fair".
She said: "We apologise that it took so long to respond to this letter, and we acknowledge that we fell seriously below our normal standards, which is to acknowledge letters within 10 working days.
"We do not feel the scales were damaged and our goodwill offer of compensation reflects the delay in responding to the letter.
"We feel Mr Webb understood what he had to do to comply with the law and was given numerous opportunities to do so.
"Decommissioning the scales was a last resort.
"We believe our offer was fair and we would like to resolve this amicably with Mr Webb, at no further cost to the council tax payer, but are happy to work with the local government ombudsman, if that is his wish."
Tuesday 22nd March 2005
A Torquay shopkeeper is locked in a battle with the council's trading standards department over alleged damage to his shop scales.
Dennis Webb, of Valley Fruit in Sherwell Valley Road, has been fighting the authority for compensation after a trading standards officer decommissioned the scales.
The British Weights and Measures Association has taken up his case and is seeking compensation of £1,050.
The council has offered £100 and has insisted the scales were not damaged.
John Gardner, director of the BWMA, says the association is submitting a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
He said the authority took eight months to respond to letters and explain under which powers it had acted.
It has also claimed the council also failed to respond to the compensation request by a set deadline.
Under new laws, Mr Webb's scales were illegal as they measured weight in pounds and ounces rather than metric kilograms.
But Mr Webb said: "I was complying with the new law. I was waiting for a new scale which weighs out in both measures to come.
"Ninety per cent of my customers are elderly and I never get them asking for kilograms. They don't understand it.
"If that's all I used they wouldn't buy anything."
Torbay Council has offered to pay Mr Webb £100 but Mr Gardner is demanding more.
He said: "Mr Webb is entitled to compensation to the value of the machine and also because the council tried to avoid its responsibility for eight months.
"We gave them a deadline of the end of last month to our call for compensation, and when we heard nothing we extended this until the middle March 14. We have not heard from them."
The case is also being backed by the Devon Federation of Small Businesses.
Spokesman Ian Handford said they had taken up Mr Webb's case, even though he is not a member, because of its implications.
He added: "The latest offer from the council is to reimburse him £100, but the weights and measures board consider that inadequate and so do I."
A council spokeswoman said they believed their offer was "fair".
She said: "We apologise that it took so long to respond to this letter, and we acknowledge that we fell seriously below our normal standards, which is to acknowledge letters within 10 working days.
"We do not feel the scales were damaged and our goodwill offer of compensation reflects the delay in responding to the letter.
"We feel Mr Webb understood what he had to do to comply with the law and was given numerous opportunities to do so.
"Decommissioning the scales was a last resort.
"We believe our offer was fair and we would like to resolve this amicably with Mr Webb, at no further cost to the council tax payer, but are happy to work with the local government ombudsman, if that is his wish."
but will they withdraw and stop paying?
West Sussex C.C.
A Notice of Motion went before West Sussex County Council last week as follows:
"West Sussex County Council calls on Her Majesty's government to abolish SEERA and to distribute its powers to the appropriate authority of directly elected councils"
The motion was carried.
A Notice of Motion went before West Sussex County Council last week as follows:
"West Sussex County Council calls on Her Majesty's government to abolish SEERA and to distribute its powers to the appropriate authority of directly elected councils"
The motion was carried.
European Commission buck passing begins
----- Original Message -----
From: SG-Code-de-bonne-conduite@cec.eu.int
To: neara@btconnect.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: Formal Complaint
Dear Mr Herron,
Thank you for your message. I have to inform you that SG/B/4 is not competent to deal with this complaint, as the provisions of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour are not applicable in this case. When he sent the e-mail, Mr Jones was acting in a personal capacity and not in his capacity as an official of the European Commission.
Your message was, therefore, sent to the office in the Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration responsible for staff discipline.
Yours sincerely,
Agnes Andrews
Secretariat-General
-----Original Message-----
From: NEARA [mailto:neara@btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:09 AM
To: SG CODE-DE-BONNE-CONDUITE
Subject: Formal Complaint
Secretariat General of the European Commission ,
Unit SG/B/4rue de la Loi 200,
B- 1049
BRUXELLES
10th March 2005
Dear Sir / Madam,
I wish to make a formal complaint against a Commission employee. Before I initiate the complaint on your standard forms I would be grateful for confirmation of the correct address and department concerned.
From information received I believe that John Jones works for the Translation Service in Brussels and his superior is Gillian Colledge.
The reason for the complaint is the unsolicited offensive e-mail I received on Monday (copied below in red) which comes from John Jones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Jones" <john.jones@cec.eu.int>
To: <metricmartyrs@btconnect.com>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of fucking luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we
learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric units
names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The
imperialists are dead in the water.
ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countrieslike
australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england
make me sick.
I trust you will treat this breach of the provisions of your employees Code of Conduct very seriously.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 00 44 191 565 7143
From: SG-Code-de-bonne-conduite@cec.eu.int
To: neara@btconnect.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: Formal Complaint
Dear Mr Herron,
Thank you for your message. I have to inform you that SG/B/4 is not competent to deal with this complaint, as the provisions of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour are not applicable in this case. When he sent the e-mail, Mr Jones was acting in a personal capacity and not in his capacity as an official of the European Commission.
Your message was, therefore, sent to the office in the Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration responsible for staff discipline.
Yours sincerely,
Agnes Andrews
Secretariat-General
-----Original Message-----
From: NEARA [mailto:neara@btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:09 AM
To: SG CODE-DE-BONNE-CONDUITE
Subject: Formal Complaint
Secretariat General of the European Commission ,
Unit SG/B/4rue de la Loi 200,
B- 1049
BRUXELLES
10th March 2005
Dear Sir / Madam,
I wish to make a formal complaint against a Commission employee. Before I initiate the complaint on your standard forms I would be grateful for confirmation of the correct address and department concerned.
From information received I believe that John Jones works for the Translation Service in Brussels and his superior is Gillian Colledge.
The reason for the complaint is the unsolicited offensive e-mail I received on Monday (copied below in red) which comes from John Jones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Jones" <john.jones@cec.eu.int>
To: <metricmartyrs@btconnect.com>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of fucking luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we
learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric units
names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The
imperialists are dead in the water.
ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countrieslike
australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england
make me sick.
I trust you will treat this breach of the provisions of your employees Code of Conduct very seriously.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 00 44 191 565 7143
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Chris Foote Wood bends it like Beckham
NORTH-EAST ASSEMBLY, Northern Echo
THE Government has created yet another quango, the Finance for Investment Advisory Board. It will have a chairman on £60,000-a-year for "four to six days a month", and four non-executive board members, each earning £25,000-a-year for two days a month.
There are well over 1,000 such quangos, over 100 in the North-East alone. All spend vast amounts of public money. All are appointed by government. None are accountable to the public. Each quango has its own expensive bureaucracy.
Yet these unelected, unaccountable bodies are ignored (HAS, Mar 19) by those who want to abolish the only regional body that has any democratic accountability, the North-East Assembly, whose members are elected, accountable and unpaid.
The assembly gives powers of scrutiny and regional planning not only to local councils, but also to business and community organisations who make up 30 per cent of its membership.
For the first time ever, there is a genuinely open and democratic public debate about the Regional Spatial Strategy (the fancy name for regional planning). Without the Assembly, this debate would not be taking place and decisions would once more be made in secret.
Coun Chris Foote-Wood, North-East Assembly LibDem Leader
THE Government has created yet another quango, the Finance for Investment Advisory Board. It will have a chairman on £60,000-a-year for "four to six days a month", and four non-executive board members, each earning £25,000-a-year for two days a month.
There are well over 1,000 such quangos, over 100 in the North-East alone. All spend vast amounts of public money. All are appointed by government. None are accountable to the public. Each quango has its own expensive bureaucracy.
Yet these unelected, unaccountable bodies are ignored (HAS, Mar 19) by those who want to abolish the only regional body that has any democratic accountability, the North-East Assembly, whose members are elected, accountable and unpaid.
The assembly gives powers of scrutiny and regional planning not only to local councils, but also to business and community organisations who make up 30 per cent of its membership.
For the first time ever, there is a genuinely open and democratic public debate about the Regional Spatial Strategy (the fancy name for regional planning). Without the Assembly, this debate would not be taking place and decisions would once more be made in secret.
Coun Chris Foote-Wood, North-East Assembly LibDem Leader
European Commission employees given a little 'reminder.'
Following the little offensive outburst by European Commission employee, John Jones of the English Translation Service, it appears that the Commission has been forced to issue a little 'reminder' to all of its staff. The following e-mail circular has been leaked to us.
"Dear colleagues,
We have recently had a major revision of the Staff Regulations which has made more explicit the rights and duties of individual officials, particularly in contacts with the public outside the Commission.
This review of the Staff Regulations was in fact preceded by a particular insistence on professional ethics by the Prodi Commission, which resulted in two codes of conduct, one for Commissioners and their cabinets and one for officials in general (see last link below). It is worth noting the distinction now made between circumspection (being generally careful and keeping a sense of proportion in dealings with the world outside the Commission) and discretion (keeping quiet about facts and other information to which you have had privileged access as a Commission servant).
The former would include not actively seeking contacts with e.g. journalists.
The relevant articles of the Staff Regulations are Articles 12 and 17:
"Articles 12 and 17 call for circumspection
First of all and as a general rule Articles 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations imply that officials and other servants must observe circumspection in their behaviour. Circumspection calls in particular for a degree of moderation and for officials to conduct themselves at all times with a due sense of proportion and propriety. It is more incumbent on the most senior officials to show self-control in what they say and write, as well as in their attitudes.
Assessment is also based on the amount of publicity given to an expression of opinion or a particular action. A distinction must also be drawn in terms of specific actions, depending on whether they occur in or outside the line of duty or in connection with trade-union activity, in respect of which freedom of expression is guaranteed. The obligation as regards circumspection is different from discretion with regard to facts and information to which officials or other servants have become privy while performing their duties."
Particular attention should be drawn to the limits on freedom of expression, especially in view of the current period of ratification of the draft Treaty on a Constitution and the run-up to the referendums in France and some other countries and - eventually - the UK, when political tempers may be running high. Special caution needs to be exercised in using e-mail and in particular one's Commission mailbox for the dissemination of personal opinions.
Although there is more explicit protection of whistleblowers in the new Staff Regulations and their implementing rules, everyone ought at least to have learned from the van Buitenen case that officials who believe they have uncovered untoward goings-on have a duty to inform their line manager and senior management first. If they think those persons may be implicated, there is an alternative pathway now set out in the implementing rules. Only after these avenues have been exhausted is it acceptable for officials to turn to the European Parliament or the public.
"Freedom of expression
The Staff Regulations' hitherto stringent confidentiality requirement must be brought into line with the Commission's declared political intention to work as transparently as possible. Freedom of speech remains a fundamental right of every official. In order to function, however, the Commission has to be able to rely on a certain degree of confidentiality. In this respect the Commission must, as an employer, steer a careful course between divergent demands.
As part of the reform, the areas in which officials must maintain confidentiality are therefore to be defined more precisely.
Officials are, as in the past, to be required to refrain from any public comment, which could adversely reflect on their position as officials.
As in the past, officials are also to be required to preserve the confidentiality of all facts and matters of which they become aware in the course of their work. A new rule, however, is that the confidentiality principle is no longer to apply to information and documents which are publicly accessible. A fair procedure is established for officials wishing to publish information relating to the activities of the Institutions in a manner that is compatible with basic rights without compromising the legitimate interests of the Communities. Officials will be bound to inform the Appointing Authority of their intention to publish such material. If the Appointing Authority is able to demonstrate that the matter is liable to seriously prejudice the legitimate interests of the Communities, it must inform the official in writing within 30 working days or it will be deemed to have no objections."
Here are some other useful references:
The webpage of DG ADMIN giving the Golden Rules on conduct in the service:
A note on circumspection:
Guidance on freedom of expression:
Integrity in general:
"Dear colleagues,
We have recently had a major revision of the Staff Regulations which has made more explicit the rights and duties of individual officials, particularly in contacts with the public outside the Commission.
This review of the Staff Regulations was in fact preceded by a particular insistence on professional ethics by the Prodi Commission, which resulted in two codes of conduct, one for Commissioners and their cabinets and one for officials in general (see last link below). It is worth noting the distinction now made between circumspection (being generally careful and keeping a sense of proportion in dealings with the world outside the Commission) and discretion (keeping quiet about facts and other information to which you have had privileged access as a Commission servant).
The former would include not actively seeking contacts with e.g. journalists.
The relevant articles of the Staff Regulations are Articles 12 and 17:
"Articles 12 and 17 call for circumspection
First of all and as a general rule Articles 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations imply that officials and other servants must observe circumspection in their behaviour. Circumspection calls in particular for a degree of moderation and for officials to conduct themselves at all times with a due sense of proportion and propriety. It is more incumbent on the most senior officials to show self-control in what they say and write, as well as in their attitudes.
Assessment is also based on the amount of publicity given to an expression of opinion or a particular action. A distinction must also be drawn in terms of specific actions, depending on whether they occur in or outside the line of duty or in connection with trade-union activity, in respect of which freedom of expression is guaranteed. The obligation as regards circumspection is different from discretion with regard to facts and information to which officials or other servants have become privy while performing their duties."
Particular attention should be drawn to the limits on freedom of expression, especially in view of the current period of ratification of the draft Treaty on a Constitution and the run-up to the referendums in France and some other countries and - eventually - the UK, when political tempers may be running high. Special caution needs to be exercised in using e-mail and in particular one's Commission mailbox for the dissemination of personal opinions.
Although there is more explicit protection of whistleblowers in the new Staff Regulations and their implementing rules, everyone ought at least to have learned from the van Buitenen case that officials who believe they have uncovered untoward goings-on have a duty to inform their line manager and senior management first. If they think those persons may be implicated, there is an alternative pathway now set out in the implementing rules. Only after these avenues have been exhausted is it acceptable for officials to turn to the European Parliament or the public.
"Freedom of expression
The Staff Regulations' hitherto stringent confidentiality requirement must be brought into line with the Commission's declared political intention to work as transparently as possible. Freedom of speech remains a fundamental right of every official. In order to function, however, the Commission has to be able to rely on a certain degree of confidentiality. In this respect the Commission must, as an employer, steer a careful course between divergent demands.
As part of the reform, the areas in which officials must maintain confidentiality are therefore to be defined more precisely.
Officials are, as in the past, to be required to refrain from any public comment, which could adversely reflect on their position as officials.
As in the past, officials are also to be required to preserve the confidentiality of all facts and matters of which they become aware in the course of their work. A new rule, however, is that the confidentiality principle is no longer to apply to information and documents which are publicly accessible. A fair procedure is established for officials wishing to publish information relating to the activities of the Institutions in a manner that is compatible with basic rights without compromising the legitimate interests of the Communities. Officials will be bound to inform the Appointing Authority of their intention to publish such material. If the Appointing Authority is able to demonstrate that the matter is liable to seriously prejudice the legitimate interests of the Communities, it must inform the official in writing within 30 working days or it will be deemed to have no objections."
Here are some other useful references:
The webpage of DG ADMIN giving the Golden Rules on conduct in the service:
A note on circumspection:
Guidance on freedom of expression:
Integrity in general:
Copy of letter of letter from Miss H Buchan 13.01.05, Newcastle City Council to Neil Herron
Newcastle City Council
Our Ref: PHEP/PBM/HXB/
Your Reference:
This matter is being dealt with by Miss H. Buchan, extension 26008
13 January 2005
c.c Ian Stratford
Peter Arnold
Dear Sir,
Excess Charge Notice Number 96256134
Vehicle Registration Number R24PJR
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above. You have raised a number of points and in order to provide clarity, I shall respond in the same order as set out in your letter.
It is a criminal offence under s108 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for non compliance with notice (Excess Charge). I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section for your information which I hope you will find helpful.
In paragraph 3 you suggest that we are requesting that you pay £60 for an alleged offence. I can inform you that this is not the case. It would appear that you may be confusing the offence under s108 and Excess Charge Notice payment that we are requesting. S32 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19847 (RTRA) allows a Local Authority to provide off street parking places. S35 of the same act allows the Local Authority to make provision as to the use of the parking place including provision for charges for its use. This is precisely what the Local Authority has done in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne (off Street parking places) Order 2001.
This order applies to the area in which your vehicle was parked. Article 8 of the Order deals with excess charge payments and under article 8 (7) the 2nd excess charge shall be £60 reduced to £30 if paid within 7 calendar days of the notice. You are of course more than welcome to view the orders; you need only make an appointment to do so.
Given the above, I believe that all of your remaining points including the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union and Reform Act etc are irrelevant as we are not requesting payment for an offence but rather requesting payment for a charge which we are legally entitled to do.
You are of course entitled to a fair trial and we have never suggested otherwise. Should you wish to dispute the charge you may raise your defence in a court of law who will then adjudicate the matter.
Given the above, I am unable to waive the charge and £60 is due. Payment should be made within 14 days of the date of this letter. Should the ticket not be paid, I will have no other option than to refer this matter to the magistrates Court for their consideration.
Yours faithfully
Parking Management Co-ordinator
S.P Savage, Head of Public Health & Environmental Protection
Regeneration Directorate
Civic Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8PB
Tel: (0191) 232 8520, ext. 26008 Fax: (0191) 2616163
E-mail: phep@newcastle.gov.uk www.newcastle.gov.uk
Regeneration Directorate
Civic Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8PB
Tel: (0191) 232 8520, ext. 26008 Fax: (0191) 2616163
E-mail: phep@newcastle.gov.uk www.newcastle.gov.uk
Our Ref: PHEP/PBM/HXB/
Your Reference:
This matter is being dealt with by Miss H. Buchan, extension 26008
13 January 2005
c.c Ian Stratford
Peter Arnold
Dear Sir,
Excess Charge Notice Number 96256134
Vehicle Registration Number R24PJR
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above. You have raised a number of points and in order to provide clarity, I shall respond in the same order as set out in your letter.
It is a criminal offence under s108 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for non compliance with notice (Excess Charge). I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section for your information which I hope you will find helpful.
In paragraph 3 you suggest that we are requesting that you pay £60 for an alleged offence. I can inform you that this is not the case. It would appear that you may be confusing the offence under s108 and Excess Charge Notice payment that we are requesting. S32 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19847 (RTRA) allows a Local Authority to provide off street parking places. S35 of the same act allows the Local Authority to make provision as to the use of the parking place including provision for charges for its use. This is precisely what the Local Authority has done in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne (off Street parking places) Order 2001.
This order applies to the area in which your vehicle was parked. Article 8 of the Order deals with excess charge payments and under article 8 (7) the 2nd excess charge shall be £60 reduced to £30 if paid within 7 calendar days of the notice. You are of course more than welcome to view the orders; you need only make an appointment to do so.
Given the above, I believe that all of your remaining points including the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union and Reform Act etc are irrelevant as we are not requesting payment for an offence but rather requesting payment for a charge which we are legally entitled to do.
You are of course entitled to a fair trial and we have never suggested otherwise. Should you wish to dispute the charge you may raise your defence in a court of law who will then adjudicate the matter.
Given the above, I am unable to waive the charge and £60 is due. Payment should be made within 14 days of the date of this letter. Should the ticket not be paid, I will have no other option than to refer this matter to the magistrates Court for their consideration.
Yours faithfully
Parking Management Co-ordinator
Copy of Local Government Ombudsman’s report concerning Scarborough Council (02/C/13683)
Scarborough Borough Council (02/C/13683)
Highways
‘Mr Ray’ (not his real name) complained on behalf of his daughter (to whom a parking ticket was issued in October 2002) that the Council was wrongly:
Highways
‘Mr Ray’ (not his real name) complained on behalf of his daughter (to whom a parking ticket was issued in October 2002) that the Council was wrongly:
- issuing parking tickets in a controlled parking zone;
- which did not conform to relevant regulations; and
- pursuing enforcement action for non-payment of such tickets without prosecutions.
The relevant scheme was introduced in June 2000 and covered about 400 streets in the central area of Scarborough, with on-street pay and display parking and residents’ priority parking.
The scheme was a ‘criminalised’ scheme. The Council was proposing to change it to a ‘decriminalised’ scheme in the near future. When that took place, appeals against parking fines would be dealt with by the National Parking Adjudication Service.
Since the inception of the scheme about 18,000 tickets a year had been issued for alleged on‑street parking offences.
The Council’s practice was to pass unpaid tickets to a debt collection agency and up to end 2002 10 unpaid tickets were pursued to county (civil) court proceedings.
The Council accepted that there were flaws in its scheme but argued that these were minor and had been rectified. The Ombudsman concluded that they were more than minor. She sympathised with the difficulties the Council faced interpreting complex regulations but said this was no excuse for the initial non-conformity of the scheme, which was maladministration. She was pleased to learn that the Council had carried out significant extra works but noted that Mr Ray alleged there were still flaws. She recommended that the Council should review its current scheme in the light of those alleged flaws.
The Ombudsman received legal advice that the Council’s practice of pursuing unpaid tickets with civil action was incorrect. The Council agreed that it would proceed in future through the magistrates’ court, until a decriminalised scheme was introduced.
The Council also agreed to waive the outstanding charge against Mr Ray’s daughter. The Ombudsman saw that, together with its action to remedy defects in its scheme and agreeing to stop civil debt recovery action, as a satisfactory remedy for any injustice to Mr Ray’s daughter arising from the Council’s maladministration.
26 August 2004
Letter from Neil Herron to Newcastle City Council 07.12.04
Address Withheld
7th December 2004
7th December 2004
Your ref: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
Our ref:96256134
Ms K Valentine
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB
Dear Ms. Valentine,
Our ref:96256134
Ms K Valentine
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB
Dear Ms. Valentine,
Excess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh. Reg. No R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)
I have been forwarded the enclosed form by Mr. Colin Moran the registered keeper of the vehicle above in relation to the alleged offence. We were attending a function in St. James’ Park and had been advised to use the space by the organisers but I understand that Mr. Moran has, or is in the process of challenging this alleged offence.
You make reference to the fact that I am required ‘pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984’ to return the statement of facts within seven days. I would be grateful, as you allude to the fact that this is an offence and could result in legal action, if you could send me a copy of the relevant section of the act and the nature and scale of offence.
Secondly, you are asking me to pay ‘a cheque/postal order for £60,’ for an alleged offence.
I do believe that Newcastle City Council are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. I have enclosed a copy of the Bill of Rights 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section highlighted :
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. Therefore, Newcastle City Council have no authority to demand money for an alleged offence unless it is dealt with by a Court of Law and your actions are unlawful.
I would be grateful if you could also clarify the nature of the alleged offence committed by myself and provide a copy of the section of the relevant statute because neither the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
As stated in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgment in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a full copy of the Judgment with the relevant sections 62 and 63 highlighted):
62 “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union, the Reform Acts etc.”
63. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”
As you are no doubt aware, Sunderland City Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgment and the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is clear and unambiguous. In highlighting this and enclosing the relevant documentation members of Newcastle City Council can now have no excuse for ignorance in this matter.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that the ultimate legal responsibility not only lies with the Chief Executive, but also with all the elected members of Newcastle City Council and I would be grateful if you could confirm that you will advise the relevant officers of Newcastle City Council that they are breaking the law by attempting to claim powers forbidden to them.
Therefore, please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be specified and referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Cc .Ian Stratford, Chief Executive, Newcastle City Council
cc. Peter Arnold, leader, Newcastle City Council
ENCLOSURES:
1. Copy of Your communication PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
2. Copy of Road Traffic Act 1991
3. Copy of the Bill of Rights4 .Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgment
Letter from Ms. Valentine, Newcastle City Council 30.11.04 to Colin Moran containing the Section 108 Declaration.
Newcastle City Council
Head of Public Health & Environmental Protection
Ecxess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh Reg. No. R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above.
I have examined the circumstances surrounding this matter and unfortunately I am unable on this occasion to waive the charge.
The notice was issued because your vehicle was parked without a valid ticket. As you can see from the enclosed photograph there is a nearby sign which states “Have you paid and displayed.” It is the users responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with prevailing regulations.
Pursuant to Section 108 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, you are required to complete the statement of facts overleaf and return it to this office in the enclosed addresses envelope within 7 days of the date of this letter.
It is important to note that failure to comply with this notice is an offence, which could result in legal action being taken.
A cheque/postal order for £60.00 made payable to Newcastle City Council – Parking Account should be sent to Newcastle Parking Control, PO Box 2BL, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE99 2BL within 7 days of the date of this letter. Your ticket number/vehicle registration number should be written on the rear of your cheque/postal order. Alternatively, you may pay by credit/debit card by telephoning out direct line on 0191 2116111
Should you require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me on the above telephone number.
Yours faithfully,
K Valentine
For Parking and Business Services Manager
Head of Public Health & Environmental Protection
Enterprise Environment and Culture Directorate
Civic Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8PB
Tel: (0191) 232 8520, ext. 26008 Fax: (0191) 2616163
E-mail: phep@newcastle.gov.uk www.newcastle.gov.uk
Civic Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8PB
Tel: (0191) 232 8520, ext. 26008 Fax: (0191) 2616163
E-mail: phep@newcastle.gov.uk www.newcastle.gov.uk
Our Reference: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
Your Reference: 96256134
30/11/2004
Dear C Moran
This matter is being dealt with by MS K VALENTINE
30/11/2004
Dear C Moran
This matter is being dealt with by MS K VALENTINE
Ecxess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh Reg. No. R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above.
I have examined the circumstances surrounding this matter and unfortunately I am unable on this occasion to waive the charge.
The notice was issued because your vehicle was parked without a valid ticket. As you can see from the enclosed photograph there is a nearby sign which states “Have you paid and displayed.” It is the users responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with prevailing regulations.
Pursuant to Section 108 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, you are required to complete the statement of facts overleaf and return it to this office in the enclosed addresses envelope within 7 days of the date of this letter.
It is important to note that failure to comply with this notice is an offence, which could result in legal action being taken.
A cheque/postal order for £60.00 made payable to Newcastle City Council – Parking Account should be sent to Newcastle Parking Control, PO Box 2BL, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE99 2BL within 7 days of the date of this letter. Your ticket number/vehicle registration number should be written on the rear of your cheque/postal order. Alternatively, you may pay by credit/debit card by telephoning out direct line on 0191 2116111
Should you require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me on the above telephone number.
Yours faithfully,
K Valentine
For Parking and Business Services Manager
Letter from Nasreen Ahktar, 15.02.05, Newcastle City Council
Newcastle City Council
Valerie A Dodds, Solicitor, Head of Legal Services
Chief Executive’s office
Civic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE99 2BN
Tel: 0191 232 8520 ext.25175. Fax. 0191 277 7127
Direct Line 0191 211 5175 DX No. 62552 – Jesmond.
E-mail legal@newcastle.gov.uk
Website www.newcastle.gov.uk
Valerie A Dodds, Solicitor, Head of Legal Services
Chief Executive’s office
Civic Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE99 2BN
Tel: 0191 232 8520 ext.25175. Fax. 0191 277 7127
Direct Line 0191 211 5175 DX No. 62552 – Jesmond.
E-mail legal@newcastle.gov.uk
Website www.newcastle.gov.uk
Our Ref: NA/PGK00239
Your Ref:
This matter is being dealt with by Nasreen Akhtar
15 February 2005
Address Withheld
Your Ref:
This matter is being dealt with by Nasreen Akhtar
15 February 2005
Address Withheld
FIRST CLASS
Dear Mr Herron
RE: Car Parking Ticket 96256134 – Stadium Car park (OFF)
Thank you for your letter dates 24th January 2005 I apologise for the delay in replying, however I simply re-iterate the content of Miss Buchan’s letter to you dated 13th January 2005.
Putting matters quite simply to you, you parked in a parking space that required payment for use of the space, you failed to purchase a ticket and pay the charge and therefore you were issued a ticket for not having a valid ticket on display.
You have previously been advised as to the legal position surrounding the issue of the ticket and I do not wish to repeat the content of that information. I would point out to you that under s35A of the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 a person shall be guilty of an offence in the event of any contravention off, or non compliance with a provision of an order made under s35 (1) by the Local Authority.
In relation to your comments concerning the issue of a fair trial, be rest assured that we would not have been in apposition to prosecute you for this offence without issuing a summons against you at the Magistrates Court and subsequently serving this upon you so that you are given an adequate opportunity to defend yourself should you so wish. We have not convicted you of any offence and neither have we suggested this at any point. We do believe that you are guilty of an offence, as highlighted above, and we will in due course be placing this matter before a Magistrates Court.
Finally, it has come to my attention that you have never been sent a notice under s108 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 following the information provided by the registered keeper of vehicle R24PJR. The registered keeper has advised that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time the ticket was issued to the vehicle, in those circumstances I now require you to complete the s108 notice attached and return it to this office within 7 days of receipt of the same.
I must advise you that a failure with this notice is an offence, which could result in legal action being taken.
I Look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Nasreen Akhtar
Solicitor
Dear Mr Herron
RE: Car Parking Ticket 96256134 – Stadium Car park (OFF)
Thank you for your letter dates 24th January 2005 I apologise for the delay in replying, however I simply re-iterate the content of Miss Buchan’s letter to you dated 13th January 2005.
Putting matters quite simply to you, you parked in a parking space that required payment for use of the space, you failed to purchase a ticket and pay the charge and therefore you were issued a ticket for not having a valid ticket on display.
You have previously been advised as to the legal position surrounding the issue of the ticket and I do not wish to repeat the content of that information. I would point out to you that under s35A of the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 a person shall be guilty of an offence in the event of any contravention off, or non compliance with a provision of an order made under s35 (1) by the Local Authority.
In relation to your comments concerning the issue of a fair trial, be rest assured that we would not have been in apposition to prosecute you for this offence without issuing a summons against you at the Magistrates Court and subsequently serving this upon you so that you are given an adequate opportunity to defend yourself should you so wish. We have not convicted you of any offence and neither have we suggested this at any point. We do believe that you are guilty of an offence, as highlighted above, and we will in due course be placing this matter before a Magistrates Court.
Finally, it has come to my attention that you have never been sent a notice under s108 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 following the information provided by the registered keeper of vehicle R24PJR. The registered keeper has advised that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time the ticket was issued to the vehicle, in those circumstances I now require you to complete the s108 notice attached and return it to this office within 7 days of receipt of the same.
I must advise you that a failure with this notice is an offence, which could result in legal action being taken.
I Look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Nasreen Akhtar
Solicitor
Letter from Neil Herron to Newcastle City Council 24.01.05
Address Withheld
Your ref: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
And PHEP/PBM/HXB/
Our ref:96256134
Miss H. Buchan,
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB
Dear Miss H Buchan,
Excess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh. Reg. No R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)
Thank you for your communication of 13th January 2005.
It appears as though there is some confusion. You mention that it is a criminal offence for non-compliance with notice (Excess Charge). There has been no ‘non-compliance’ as the necessary form was returned.
Therefore, I wish you to address the facts referred to in my initial communication, namely, that Newcastle City Council are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. The Bill of Rights 1689 (you have a copy provided in my initial communication with Ms. Valentine), enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689 clearly states:
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine (or ‘charge’ as it appears you wish to call it) can be imposed. Therefore, Newcastle City Council have no authority to demand money from me for an offence which is not yet proven before a court of law, therefore your actions are unlawful.
None of the statutes to which you refer, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the City of Newcastle upon Tyne (off street parking places) Order 2001 make any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
As stated in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgement in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice John Laws and Justice Peter Crane (again, I have provided full copies with earlier correspondence)
62 “ We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional right. Examples are Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union. The Reform Acts etc.”
63. Ordinary Statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”
As you are no doubt aware, Sunderland City Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgment and the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is clear and unambiguous.
Therefore, I wish you to answer a number of questions before I pursue this matter:
1. Are you alleging that I have committed an offence? Mr. Moran, the registered keeper of the vehicle has already attempted to explain the circumstances involved in the parking of the vehicle in earlier correspondence.
2. Can you clarify exactly what that offence is and why did you attempt to impose a fine or ‘charge’ without offering me an opportunity to have the matter dealt with by a court of law? At no point in communication with myself or with Mr. Moran was I offered the opportunity to have the dispute resolved in a court of law. Can you explain why this was omitted from your communications?
3. As I previously stated, it appears as though Newcastle City Council are attempting to claim powers to which they are not entitled and attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. In the penultimate paragraph of your communication you state, “You are of course entitled to as fair trial and we have never suggested otherwise.” I would therefore like copies of all communications from your department detailing where I was offered the opportunity of a ‘fair trial’ or for the disputed matter to be dealt with by a court of law?
I look forward to this matter being dealt with by a court of law and would be grateful if you could also confirm that because of the precedent set out in my defence that the matter will not be able to be dealt with by a magistrates court but will have to be dealt with by the higher, Divisional Court?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Newcastle City Council Parking Tickets 'Illegal?'
Address Withheld
Your ref.NA/PGK00239
Your previous ref. PHEP/PBM/HXB/
And PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
7th March 2005
Dear Nasreen Akhtar,
Please accept my apologies for not formally addressing you but it is not clear from the correspondence as to whether you are Mr., Mrs, Ms or Miss.
Previous correspondence had been dealt with by Miss Buchan and Ms K Valentine. As a courtesy I have included copies of previous correspondence to assist you.
In order to assist you, and from your letter of 15th February 2005, you like to ‘put matters quite simply’ I wish you to ‘quite simply’specifically respond to each of the points raised in bold type.
On Tuesday 15th February 2005 I contacted the Public Health and Environmental Protection Regeneration Directorate by telephone (perhaps reducing your Department’s title may, over time, reduce the amount of paper used by the Council) as I had received no response to my communication posted 24th January 2005 (1).
I was advised by Mr. Don Bartlett that I should have received acknowledgement within three working days unless it was a complaint. If the complaint could not be dealt within 15 working days then an acknowledgement has to be sent out.
I received neither.
But I did then receive a response from yourself, the following day, dated 15th February which was received 16th February 2005 (2). Assuming Royal Mail works effectively (and you make the same assumption by sending all communications by ordinary post) this appears to be outside the 15 working day period.
However, the telephone call to Mr. Bartlett was to enquire as to why a response had not been forthcoming and also to request a copy of the Council’s Code of Conduct.
I have yet to receive a copy of the Code of Conduct.
Can you please advise as to why this request was not carried out and could you please supply a copy of the Council’s Code of Conduct?
Can you please confirm that you fell short of the requirements within the Code of Conduct (as described by Mr. Bartlett) by not responding within 15 working days?
Can you please confirm that you fell short of the requirements within the Code of Conduct (as described by Mr. Bartlett) by not responding within 15 working days?
I will now attempt to deal with matters in as simple a way as possible, and this will assist matters when the case is referred to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Magistrates Court.
Mr. Moran, the registered keeper of the vehicle R24 PJR, received an Excess Ticket ( No. 96256134) (3) when we attended a speaking engagement at St. James’ Park. We were advised by the event organisers to park in the club’s numbered bays. I parked the vehicle for Mr. Moran. Upon return to the vehicle Mr. Moran found that he had been issued with the above ticket.
I do believe he then made representations to Ms.Valentine with regard to the ‘pay and display’ request and the fact that bays we had parked in did not appear to be part of the ‘pay and display’ area. I do not have copies of his correspondence but Mr. Moran is quite prepared to disclose these to the courts and attend as a witness.
I was then asked by Mr. Moran to complete the ‘Statement of Facts’ pursuant to Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act following the letter he received from Ms. Valentine (4) who stated that, “…unfortunately I am unable to waive this charge.”
I duly completed and posted this on the 7th December 2004 along with representations that Newcastle City Council were attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner (5). Nowhere in the communication from yourselves does it state the fact that you are operating a ‘criminalised’ parking regime and I could have the opportunity to have the matter relating to the ‘alleged offence’ dealt with by a Magistrates Court.
You simply re-iterate the request to pay the £60 Excess Charge.
Can you please advise as to how you are communicating with me at my home address if my details had not been supplied on the ‘Statement of Facts’ in the communication (Enclosure 4 page 2) of 7th December 2004? I have highlighted the copy of the ‘Statement of Facts’ in yellow to assist you.
Can you please tell me why the Excess Charge Notice (3) and the communication of 30/11/04 (4) does not advise me of my rights and ability to challenge the alleged offence through the relevant court process?
It appears as though Newcastle City Council are attempting to bypass the court process and simply go straight to collection without advising of the correct statutory procedure. This non-conformity with the correct procedure appears to be a case of ‘maladministration’ and will form part of the case, along with your later communications, to the Local Government Ombudsman.
I have enclosed a copy of a similar case involving Scarborough Council (Ref 02/C/13683) for your information (6). I had brought to the attention of Newcastle City Council the relevant sections of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Metric Martyrs Judgment (Enclosure 4 pages 3 and 4) and that by attempting to bypass the court procedure that you were acting unlawfully.
Can you confirm that the relevant section of the Bill of Rights 1689 has been breached. It clearly states:
“ that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This, as mentioned in previous correspondence, is referred to by Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs Judgment as a ‘constitutional’ statute and can only be expressly repealed.
For clarification, therefore, is the ‘Excess Charge’ for an ‘alleged offence’ or is it for failure to meet a contractual obligation?
Therefore, if it is the latter, is it not a civil matter and not a criminal one and you are attempting to bypass the fundamental provisions contained in the Bill of Rights 1689?
Or, is the ‘Excess Charge’ a penalty for the offence you cite under the Road Traffic Act 1984. If so, can you clarify where the Road Traffic Act 1984 expressly repealed the Bill of Rights 1689?
I received a response from Miss H Buchan dated 13th January 2005 (7). In it she detailed the fact that it was a criminal offence under Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act but unfortunately did not enclose a copy, nor did she detail which sub-section I was being charged with. I had already completed the Section 108 Statutory Declaration. (I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 (8))
If I had not, as I previously mentioned, filled in the Statutory Declaration, then it would have been rather difficult to then begin communications with me at my home address.
I had made it clear in my communication that I wished to dispute the ‘Excess Charge.’ Miss Buchan surely should then have advised that I could have a Magistrates Court adjudicate. However, the final paragraph of the communication again demands £60, although the matter would be referred to the Magistrates Court…”should the ticket not be paid.”
Therefore, I will keep things simple.
You are alleging that I have committed an offence. I am disputing this and disputing the powers which you are attempting to claim. Please refer the matter to a Magistrates Court in a proper and orderly manner and can you please provide:
- Copies of all communications, from the raising of the Excess Charge Notice to your most recent communication, where you advised me that this option (a court hearing) was available and made it abundantly clear that this was an alleged offence and that the penalty or ‘excess charge’ was only able to be pursued once there had been a conviction for the offence by the Magistrates Court?
- Reasons why you mistakenly believe I have not completed the Notice under Section 108 when it is obvious that communications with me from Newcastle City Council could not have commenced until I had done so?
- Copies of all internal communications between departments about this matter, including telephone conversations (Data Protection Act 1998)?
- You make reference to serving a summons where I would have, ‘an adequate opportunity to defend myself.’ Can you clarify whether this was to a Magistrates Court over the ‘alleged criminal offence’ or to the County Court for civil proceedings for the recovery of the ‘ Excess Charge’ of £60? If it is the latter, can you please detail the authority on which you rely, as it appears you are bypassing the criminal court procedure
I look forward to your response and look forward to taking this matter further and having it placed before a Court of Law.
I would be grateful if you could also provide me with the necessary forms to initiate the complaint about maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman.
However, this will not be necessary should Newcastle City Council accept the fact that their Parking Regime practices are flawed and the current scheme be reviewed in order to allow any alleged offences to be challenged in the correct and proper manner, including details of the legal rights of the ‘alleged offender’on every excess charge ticket issued and every communication be conducted in an open and correct manner instead of the current threatening and intimidatory tone.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Neil Herron
ENCLOSURES
3. Excess Charge Notice
8. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Monday, March 21, 2005
Local Authorities becoming worried over their 'illegal' parking regimes.
As more and more peeople are beginning to challenge their parking tickets in decriminalised enforcement areas using the Metric Martyrs Judgment and Bill of Rights defence that we have used here in Sunderland, more and more local authorities are becoming increasingly worried.
How do we know?
We have received information from employees in various local authorities that their authority is concerned over the recent developments. Calls and information so far have come from a number of authorities including Brighton and Hove, Bradford, Nottingham, Newham, Wandsworth, Newcastle, Sunderland, Scarborough to name a few.
Should anyone else wish to get in touch, their anonimity will be protected. You can e-mail us at metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call us on 0191 565 7143.
Any material can be sent to us at PO Box 526, Sunderland, SR1 3YS.
How do we know?
We have received information from employees in various local authorities that their authority is concerned over the recent developments. Calls and information so far have come from a number of authorities including Brighton and Hove, Bradford, Nottingham, Newham, Wandsworth, Newcastle, Sunderland, Scarborough to name a few.
Should anyone else wish to get in touch, their anonimity will be protected. You can e-mail us at metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call us on 0191 565 7143.
Any material can be sent to us at PO Box 526, Sunderland, SR1 3YS.
Open Letter to MacShane
19.3.2005.
Dear Mr MacShane,
Re your Speech European Law and Integration.
Joining the then European Community believing it to be about trade and a free trade area is, according to you a “myth”. You quote various snippets from some of the debates in our Parliament from before we joined the European Community. Whilst I agree with you that the legislators in both Houses knew, and that it was perfectly clear that they were about to take (using your own words) “a step that had serious implications in terms of “sharing” sovereignty in some areas covered by the then constitutional treaties defining the European Community” and that there was “no doubt that European law and the European Court would have been superior to British Courts”, this certain knowledge was, without doubt, most certainly kept from the then gullible public.
In the Government Research Paper 96/82 page 40 reinforces my one point, “For many years the UK courts managed to avoid having to pronounce directly and unequivocally on the supremacy or otherwise of Community Law in relation to traditional Diceyan sovereignty. Some early case law even suggested that the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’ still applied so that later UK statutory provisions would prevail over inconsistent Community law after 1972. Generally though, potential conflicts between UK and Community law were reconciled and resolved through techniques of statutory interpretation and construction, although this approach had its limits if the conflict was apparently irreconcilable. This point came to widespread public and Parliamentary attention in the Factortame cases concerning Spanish owned fishing vessels, (see esp. Lord Bridge [1991] AC 603, 658-9) where the House of Lords appeared unequivocally to accept the supremacy of European law in appropriate cases”.
There is more of course but it kind of shoots down your argument that we knew or were told that the European Community was to become a full political and social Union, in fact should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” be ratified, it will, as you well know, eventually become one State of Union for it is most definitely not, “just another Treaty”. It is the other “treaties” that will be repealed should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” come into being leaving only the EU constitution and the mechanism with which to install it.
Up until the present time, we, the people have been told that all we would have to do to come out of this Union would be to repeal the European Communities Act. (See Lord Denning’s ruling on this-repudiation of the treaties also) You give the impression that this method would also apply if we accepted the EU Constitution. Why then, is there an ‘exit clause’ that, having ratified the EU Constitution with that clause in, and accepted that method of withdrawal, how on earth could you go on pretending that the EU constitution “is just another treaty”? It would take about two years to come out and even then it would need all the other countries to agree.
Your constant childish ‘name calling’ of people that are true to their allegiance to their own Country as “Anti-European”, is not worthy of a man of your years or position in government, and eventually may bring about the retort from those that prefer to be governed by a British Government, as Anti-British.
Looking back at old records of the debates on the subject of the European Community, and remembering that there was no “Internet” then, the same arguments were going on in Parliament all those years ago that are going on in this present day. Let me see, if I can, how much the people were told about the Community in those days?
I will commence with 3rd August 1961 and by Mr Shinwell, “In the course of the Lord Privy Seal’s speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite relevant to his speech. It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed. His reply was astonishing. He said that it was not in the public’s interest to disclose the Government’s intentions. What does that mean? It means either that Government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the Common Market, or that they are asking the House for a blank cheque.”
The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the Government’s policy is right and desirable in their interests. There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the Government’s decision”.
16th November 1966. Sir D Walker-Smith. “Two truths are surely apparent-first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved.”
Further on a Mr F Bellenger said, ”We must make it clear to the British public just what they will have to face if we join the Common Market, and while I am sure that an immense task lies ahead in relation to the legal references made by the right hon., and learned Gentleman, particularly in terms of changes in our statute law, the British people at large must understand precisely what is happening. I agree, nevertheless, that we must consider the legal implications, including the question of Britain’s sovereignty”.
Mr Orm in the same debate, “It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market. This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people. It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on our economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services. It is also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled. The Community is undemocratic”. (So the legislative knew that fact even then)
Mr Jennings, “The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet. It is almost a sin to talk about it.” (And there it stayed, “under the carpet”). And a little later on he goes on to say, “But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt”. …….”It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe. That is the way that it is put over to the electorate. “Let us go into Europe” is the theme. We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean? Do we mean trade? Is that all?”
Mr Thomson quotes “from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He said, “The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty…One cannot talk about world government on one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next….The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see” (Official Report, 3rd August 1961: Vol 645, c 1667) And you sir, speak of Pooling Sovereignty? World Government eh?
There are many, many more quotes, and yes, I have many pages of them, and as at Maastricht when Parliamentarians were reputed not have read the actual treaty they were about to ratify, in these old debates too it becomes obvious that many MP’s of those days had not read the Treaty of Rome that applied to the “Common Market” they were trying so hard to join, in fact there is quite an argument about it.
You say reading of the debates (you quoted) gives lie to those who claim that Parliament was unaware in 1972 what it was agreeing to. I agree the LEGISLATURE knew very well indeed what it was getting into, but the people were not told the truth then and they are not being told the truth now. Remember this bit Mr MacShane? “ The Common Law will remain the basis of our legal system, and our Courts will continue to operate as they do at present. In certain cases however they would need to refer points of Community Law to the European Court of Justice. All the essential features of our law will remain, including the safeguards for individual freedom such as trial by Jury and habeas corpus and the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty, as well as the law of contract and tort (and its Scottish equivalent), the law of landlord and tenant, family law, nationality law and land law.”
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Civil Contingences Act and now the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is going through Parliament will remove much of the above and the latter, as they will not swear allegiance to the Crown, will eventually come under Europol.
We have heard the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights likened to “the Beano” comic. That even Golf Clubs have “Constitutions”, and that the EU constitution is “just another Treaty”, and that most of what is IN it, has already been in previous Treaties. No Mr MacShane, the people have not been told the truth at all, nor the effect incorporating the EU Constitution into our system will have on our Country.
To really find out what effect saying “Yes” to the EU constitution would do, I suggest that you and the people of this Country take heed of what Hans Martin Bury, the Foreign Minister for Germany has to say on the subject. He said,” This Constitution (not “treaty”) is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”.
I will make one observation, and that is the extraordinary welcome by this Government to Sinn Féin a few years ago, and how it is viewed now. Yet this Government knew all along that “Sinn Féin sought an end to partition which is, in their eyes, the cause of conflict, injustice and division in Ireland and that Sinn Féin is an Irish Republican Party. Their objective is to end British Rule in Ireland. (that is from their Website) Just as all those that wish to integrate fully in every way into the European Union and happily destroy this Country’s Constitution in order to do it. To all those that belittle those that would protect their own County’s Constitution and be true to their oaths of allegiance to their Queen and Country, I say that the tide will turn and soon the situation will be as it is with the Irish Republican Party at present.
The EU will disintegrate, whether before the EU constitution is ratified or not remains to be seen, but it will end in terrible bitter conflict. The fault will fall on all those that did not dare to spell out the true meaning of the requirement for a European Constitution.
While we are busy reducing our forces, the army, navy etc, and while we are eagerly following all EU Regulation re competition, etc, other Countries are not. While we are disarming and reducing our forces, others have conscription and rearming quite strongly. To me it is déjà vu, the 1930’s all over again.
All of our Members of Parliament, will have to decide soon, do they want to govern this Country, to actually earn the money the people pay them, or do they want to go down in history as the government that has given this Country away and continue to have laws and an alien constitution foisted upon us, which nothing we can say or do can alter or block them. Or, do we obey our own Constitutional laws we have had in this Country for hundreds of years, even though we have had to fight to keep them rather than be ruled by others in the past, and which we are duty bound to fight to protect and keep.
The myths you speak of Sir, are your own, especially ”The Constitutional Treaty is not only a simplification of the existing forest of interlocking Treaties, but encapsulates many of these British themes”. As Minister for Europe, you appear to have forgotten the meaning of a “True Brit”, that is your loss sir, not mine. My solemn oath of allegiance remains to the Crown and this country for all time coming.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Palmer.
As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter.
Anne Palmer.
As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Straight answers required from North East Assembly Director
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly / Association of North East Councils
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
16th March 2005
Stephen,
Perhaps it may be simpler to avoid a 'ping-pong' dialogue if the questions were answered as simply as possible. No doubt you will now be aware of the seriousness of where we are coming from and the fact that Superintendent Campell of Northumbria Police has been contacted by Bob Rayner, City of Sunderland's solicitor, to make him aware of the potential situation. The District Auditor and the Local Government Ombudsman will also need to be brought in.
We have always attempted to seek a straightforward resolution following clarification, but are acutely aware of the potential legal and financial consequences for your members and this is something we have tried to avoid at all costs. However, if we are forced to make the complaint official it will be out of our hands and the consequences could be catastrophic for many individuals who were unaware that they have been compromised, either through incompetence or neglect because of an ill-thought out political construct.
I would therefore appreciate a simple and direct response to the questions (A-I) in bold red type.
For ease of reference I have interspersed your original answers (in blue) to my original questions (in black).
Let's hope we don't end up with a rainbow!
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Neil,
My comments on your questions are as follows;
1. Can you confirm whether ANEC is registered as an employer under Section 122 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? If you are not, can you please explain why not?
S.B. (1) As I understand it, section 122 relates to employers associations, whose principal purpose relates to the, "regulation of relations between employers and workers or trade unions". Can you clarify - are you maintaining that the Association falls into this category?
Some assemblies have registered or attempted to include themselves within a 'local government' employers framework
A. The question was 'have you ( ANEC or NEA or both ) registered?' Yes or No?
Section 127 of the same act would have provided possible protection for an 'unincorporated association,' and perhaps does so for in the case of Local Authority appointees to bodies which are 'public bodies.'
It states,
127.—(1) An employers' association may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association.
(2) Where an employers' association is unincorporated—
(a) it is capable of making contracts;
(b) it is capable of suing and being sued in its own name, whether in proceedings relating to property or founded on contract or tort or any other cause of action; and
(c) proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed by it or on its behalf may be brought against it in its own name.
(3) Nothing in section 716 of the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 (associations of over 20 members to be incorporated or otherwise formed in special ways) shall be taken to prevent the formation of an employers' association which is neither registered as a company under that Act nor otherwise incorporated.
Therefore, as the ANEC / NEA has not gone down this route they have not afforded their members potential protection under this Act.
Back to the position that the members are 'jointly and severally' liable.
B. You have already stated that the Assembly is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Therefore, can you confirm that it is not a 'public body' or 'public authority?'
You are going to confirm or clarify the same for ANEC?
(2) Again, can you clarify what you mean by your question. What do you mean by "underwriting the contracts of employment"?
C. Quite simple. If the funding to ANEC / NEA ceases, then who will fulfil the contracts of employment, pensions, redundancies of the permanent members of staff? Has this been discussed in budget meetings?
In YHA, Wakefield has provided a guarantee that they will be responsible.
In NW a similar guarantee has been provided by St. Helen's, I do believe
D. The question quite simply is, 'Is any one NE local authority doing the same?'
(3) As you know, both the Association and the Assembly were considering going down the route of incorporation. During discussions around this issue I commented upon the implications of being an unincorporated association.
You stated that individual members had been informed. From correspondence received from a number of sources, some seem aware, others are not.
E. Did you formally advise, in writing, all ANEC and NEA members of the legal status of the ANEC and NEA and their potential personal liabilities? Yes or No?
F. If you did not advise after our request to do so, do you think that this was negligent in the light of the potential compromising of the members?
(4) I work closely with the two trade unions representing staff in the Association and have responded positively to all requests for information put to me.
Again Stephen, you did not answer the question.
G. Did you approach the unions, or the union representatives, to advise them of the potential compromise of their members' employment and rights should the assembly funding question and liability of the members be raised?
Further Questions:
1. Can you confirm that NEA and ANEC are 'public bodies exercising public functions' and therefore covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000?
(1) My understanding is that the Assembly is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. If you have a legal view that points to this not being the position, I'd be happy to check things out further. I'm currently checking the position of the Association of North East Councils.
H. Why is NEA not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Is it not a 'public body'?
Is ANEC covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Is it not a 'public body'?
Director
North East Assembly / Association of North East Councils
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
16th March 2005
Stephen,
Perhaps it may be simpler to avoid a 'ping-pong' dialogue if the questions were answered as simply as possible. No doubt you will now be aware of the seriousness of where we are coming from and the fact that Superintendent Campell of Northumbria Police has been contacted by Bob Rayner, City of Sunderland's solicitor, to make him aware of the potential situation. The District Auditor and the Local Government Ombudsman will also need to be brought in.
We have always attempted to seek a straightforward resolution following clarification, but are acutely aware of the potential legal and financial consequences for your members and this is something we have tried to avoid at all costs. However, if we are forced to make the complaint official it will be out of our hands and the consequences could be catastrophic for many individuals who were unaware that they have been compromised, either through incompetence or neglect because of an ill-thought out political construct.
I would therefore appreciate a simple and direct response to the questions (A-I) in bold red type.
For ease of reference I have interspersed your original answers (in blue) to my original questions (in black).
Let's hope we don't end up with a rainbow!
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Neil,
My comments on your questions are as follows;
1. Can you confirm whether ANEC is registered as an employer under Section 122 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? If you are not, can you please explain why not?
S.B. (1) As I understand it, section 122 relates to employers associations, whose principal purpose relates to the, "regulation of relations between employers and workers or trade unions". Can you clarify - are you maintaining that the Association falls into this category?
Some assemblies have registered or attempted to include themselves within a 'local government' employers framework
A. The question was 'have you ( ANEC or NEA or both ) registered?' Yes or No?
Section 127 of the same act would have provided possible protection for an 'unincorporated association,' and perhaps does so for in the case of Local Authority appointees to bodies which are 'public bodies.'
It states,
127.—(1) An employers' association may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association.
(2) Where an employers' association is unincorporated—
(a) it is capable of making contracts;
(b) it is capable of suing and being sued in its own name, whether in proceedings relating to property or founded on contract or tort or any other cause of action; and
(c) proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed by it or on its behalf may be brought against it in its own name.
(3) Nothing in section 716 of the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 (associations of over 20 members to be incorporated or otherwise formed in special ways) shall be taken to prevent the formation of an employers' association which is neither registered as a company under that Act nor otherwise incorporated.
Therefore, as the ANEC / NEA has not gone down this route they have not afforded their members potential protection under this Act.
Back to the position that the members are 'jointly and severally' liable.
B. You have already stated that the Assembly is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Therefore, can you confirm that it is not a 'public body' or 'public authority?'
You are going to confirm or clarify the same for ANEC?
(2) Again, can you clarify what you mean by your question. What do you mean by "underwriting the contracts of employment"?
C. Quite simple. If the funding to ANEC / NEA ceases, then who will fulfil the contracts of employment, pensions, redundancies of the permanent members of staff? Has this been discussed in budget meetings?
In YHA, Wakefield has provided a guarantee that they will be responsible.
In NW a similar guarantee has been provided by St. Helen's, I do believe
D. The question quite simply is, 'Is any one NE local authority doing the same?'
(3) As you know, both the Association and the Assembly were considering going down the route of incorporation. During discussions around this issue I commented upon the implications of being an unincorporated association.
You stated that individual members had been informed. From correspondence received from a number of sources, some seem aware, others are not.
E. Did you formally advise, in writing, all ANEC and NEA members of the legal status of the ANEC and NEA and their potential personal liabilities? Yes or No?
F. If you did not advise after our request to do so, do you think that this was negligent in the light of the potential compromising of the members?
(4) I work closely with the two trade unions representing staff in the Association and have responded positively to all requests for information put to me.
Again Stephen, you did not answer the question.
G. Did you approach the unions, or the union representatives, to advise them of the potential compromise of their members' employment and rights should the assembly funding question and liability of the members be raised?
Further Questions:
1. Can you confirm that NEA and ANEC are 'public bodies exercising public functions' and therefore covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000?
(1) My understanding is that the Assembly is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. If you have a legal view that points to this not being the position, I'd be happy to check things out further. I'm currently checking the position of the Association of North East Councils.
H. Why is NEA not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Is it not a 'public body'?
Is ANEC covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Is it not a 'public body'?
2. Can you please supply all the information you have on me and any communications with other bodies concerning me, including telephone conversations, e-mails and letters, under the Data Protection Act 1998.(2) I'm checking this out. At first glance the information we hold looks to comprise mainly the exchenge of correspondence and e-mails between yourself and myself, copies of which you will already hold.I. Can you confirm for the record that there are no communications (written, telephone or e-mail) regarding me, between yourself and Bob Rayner or any other officers at Sunderland Council / the same and the ODPM / the same and GONE / the same and the District Auditor / the same and any ANEC / NEA member?
Regards,
Stephen
My apologies for being somewhat persistent, but as this whole affair involves a very seriously large sum of public money then I think all the questions raised and the insistence on clear, unambiguous answers is fundamental.
Regards,
Neil Herron
PRESS RELEASE FROM CORNISH TRADERS
It is with regret and sadness that Cornwall's Metric Martyrs have seen major changes whilst
fighting the cause which they have maintained and been proud to have been a part off,
John Dove(Fishmonger) has closed up and ceased trading, ending 200 hundred years of his family selling fish in Cornwall' Julian Harman (Greengrocer) has had a major setback in the fact that both his duel weighing scales suffered a power surge and are now useless' upon replacing them, discovered that only Metric scales are available' as duel scales are no longer manufactured !, He is therefore being forced to weigh in Metric. ( If possible items will be sold as each ) rather than metric weighed. And Imperial measurements will be the language of the day!
Both men are still 100% behind the campaign and hope that one day there Unjust Criminal Convictions are overturned.
A Fighting Fund collection box is still proudly available at A1 Fruiterers in Camelford.
Best Regards
Julian & John
fighting the cause which they have maintained and been proud to have been a part off,
John Dove(Fishmonger) has closed up and ceased trading, ending 200 hundred years of his family selling fish in Cornwall' Julian Harman (Greengrocer) has had a major setback in the fact that both his duel weighing scales suffered a power surge and are now useless' upon replacing them, discovered that only Metric scales are available' as duel scales are no longer manufactured !, He is therefore being forced to weigh in Metric. ( If possible items will be sold as each ) rather than metric weighed. And Imperial measurements will be the language of the day!
Both men are still 100% behind the campaign and hope that one day there Unjust Criminal Convictions are overturned.
A Fighting Fund collection box is still proudly available at A1 Fruiterers in Camelford.
Best Regards
Julian & John
MEP's salary, expenses and allowances...and no voting record?
MEPs’ allowances – 2005 rates
€3,785 per month (halved in the case of Members who, for no valid reason, do not attend half the number of plenary sittings).
To cover: office management costs, telephone and postal charges, computer equipment (purchase and maintenance), and cost of travel within home Member State.
Travel allowance
To cover cost of travel undertaken by Members within the European Union in order to attend official meetings of the European Parliament. It also covers associated expenses such as accommodation, meals and taxis.
If travelling by air:
cost of economy class unrestricted normal fare between airport nearest to Member’s residence and the airport of the place of work concerned (boarding pass must be presented)
local travel costs between Member’s residence and airport at €0.34 per km
plus distance allowance
if travelling by train or private car:
€0.69 per km for the first 500 km and €0.29 per km for the rest of the journey (rail ticket or personal travel declaration must be presented)
plus distance allowance
(Distance allowance: 501-1000 km €115, 1001-1500 km €274, 1501-2000 km €365, 2001-2400 km €457, more than 2400 km €571)
Annual Travel Allowance
Up to €3,736. To cover expenditure incurred in travelling anywhere in the world in performance of their duties (for purposes other than official meetings) – supporting documents must be presented.
Subsistence Allowance
Flat rate allowance of €268 per day for each day of attendance at official meetings of Parliament bodies on which the Member serves, paid if the Member has signed the official attendance register. To cover accommodation, meals and all other expenses. (€131 plus accommodation/breakfast expenses for meetings held outside the EU.)
During plenary sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels, reduced by half in the case of Members who have not taken part in half of the roll-call votes.
Secretarial Assistance Allowance
Up to €12,576 per month to cover the expenses arising from the engagement or employment of one or more assistants. The European Parliament pays this allowance either directly to the assistant(s), or to a paying agent.
€3,785 per month (halved in the case of Members who, for no valid reason, do not attend half the number of plenary sittings).
To cover: office management costs, telephone and postal charges, computer equipment (purchase and maintenance), and cost of travel within home Member State.
Travel allowance
To cover cost of travel undertaken by Members within the European Union in order to attend official meetings of the European Parliament. It also covers associated expenses such as accommodation, meals and taxis.
If travelling by air:
cost of economy class unrestricted normal fare between airport nearest to Member’s residence and the airport of the place of work concerned (boarding pass must be presented)
local travel costs between Member’s residence and airport at €0.34 per km
plus distance allowance
if travelling by train or private car:
€0.69 per km for the first 500 km and €0.29 per km for the rest of the journey (rail ticket or personal travel declaration must be presented)
plus distance allowance
(Distance allowance: 501-1000 km €115, 1001-1500 km €274, 1501-2000 km €365, 2001-2400 km €457, more than 2400 km €571)
Annual Travel Allowance
Up to €3,736. To cover expenditure incurred in travelling anywhere in the world in performance of their duties (for purposes other than official meetings) – supporting documents must be presented.
Subsistence Allowance
Flat rate allowance of €268 per day for each day of attendance at official meetings of Parliament bodies on which the Member serves, paid if the Member has signed the official attendance register. To cover accommodation, meals and all other expenses. (€131 plus accommodation/breakfast expenses for meetings held outside the EU.)
During plenary sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels, reduced by half in the case of Members who have not taken part in half of the roll-call votes.
Secretarial Assistance Allowance
Up to €12,576 per month to cover the expenses arising from the engagement or employment of one or more assistants. The European Parliament pays this allowance either directly to the assistant(s), or to a paying agent.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Labour elite join pre-election rush for safe seats
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian
Wednesday March 16, 2005
A last-minute rush of Labour MPs are standing down ahead of a likely May general election, prompting a scramble for seats by high-flying political operators close to No 10 and No 11.
The latest MP to stand aside is Iain Coleman, MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, who announced yesterday that he intended to leave parliament because of poor health.
Two Conservative candidates - both in Labour seats - also announced they were quitting yesterday. Danny Kruger, the man set to challenge Tony Blair in Sedgefield, was forced to resign by Michael Howard because of inappropriate remarks about the party's policy on the public sector.
Adrian Hilton, a 41-year-old local teacher, became the second Tory candidate to resign in the Labour marginal of Slough - the first quit after being photographed with his collection of guns. In a Spectator article Mr Hilton suggested that the European Union was a "Papist plot" and he was forced to stand down by the party last night, three weeks after his selection.
Among sitting Labour MPs there have been late resignations in 14 seats. Under Labour rules local parties are not entitled to draw up a shortlist in such cases - local parties have to select through a one member, one vote ballot from a shortlist drawn up by a national executive panel.
The late selection process, used in previous general elections, is often criticised as a device to promote the favourite sons and daughters of the party elite and to exclude run-of-the-mill local figures. The most glaring example so far has been Shaun Woodward, the defecting Tory MP, given the safe constituency of St Helens South.
The current spate of late resignations attracted publicity at the beginning of the week when the chief secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, announced he was standing down from Brent South after being offered the post of high commissioner to South Africa if Labour is re-elected.
Three or four leading black figures are likely to go for Mr Boateng's seat, especially after the local party in Tony Banks's seat, West Ham, which has a large ethnic minority population, selected a white woman.
Two leading Brownites, Ian Austin and Ed Miliband, are seeking to join the chancellor's former chief economic adviser, Ed Balls, as Labour candidates.
Mr Austin is front-runner for the seat of Dudley North, vacated by the former law officer Ross Cranston. Mr Miliband, currently an adviser to the chancellor, is looking to run for Doncaster North, vacant since Kevin Hughes announced he was standing down after being diagnosed with motor neurone disease.
Mr Miliband is contesting the seat against Michael Dugher, special adviser to Geoff Hoon and a man with strong union and local links.
Labour has decreed that nine of the 14 late-selecting seats must select from all-women shortlists. In Bishop Auckland, Labour has selected the former treasury civil servant Helen Goodman, beating off a challenge from Mo O'Toole, a former MEP and the ex-wife of general election planner Alan Milburn.
A total of 41 sitting Labour MPs have said they are standing down at the election.
Wednesday March 16, 2005
A last-minute rush of Labour MPs are standing down ahead of a likely May general election, prompting a scramble for seats by high-flying political operators close to No 10 and No 11.
The latest MP to stand aside is Iain Coleman, MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, who announced yesterday that he intended to leave parliament because of poor health.
Two Conservative candidates - both in Labour seats - also announced they were quitting yesterday. Danny Kruger, the man set to challenge Tony Blair in Sedgefield, was forced to resign by Michael Howard because of inappropriate remarks about the party's policy on the public sector.
Adrian Hilton, a 41-year-old local teacher, became the second Tory candidate to resign in the Labour marginal of Slough - the first quit after being photographed with his collection of guns. In a Spectator article Mr Hilton suggested that the European Union was a "Papist plot" and he was forced to stand down by the party last night, three weeks after his selection.
Among sitting Labour MPs there have been late resignations in 14 seats. Under Labour rules local parties are not entitled to draw up a shortlist in such cases - local parties have to select through a one member, one vote ballot from a shortlist drawn up by a national executive panel.
The late selection process, used in previous general elections, is often criticised as a device to promote the favourite sons and daughters of the party elite and to exclude run-of-the-mill local figures. The most glaring example so far has been Shaun Woodward, the defecting Tory MP, given the safe constituency of St Helens South.
The current spate of late resignations attracted publicity at the beginning of the week when the chief secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, announced he was standing down from Brent South after being offered the post of high commissioner to South Africa if Labour is re-elected.
Three or four leading black figures are likely to go for Mr Boateng's seat, especially after the local party in Tony Banks's seat, West Ham, which has a large ethnic minority population, selected a white woman.
Two leading Brownites, Ian Austin and Ed Miliband, are seeking to join the chancellor's former chief economic adviser, Ed Balls, as Labour candidates.
Mr Austin is front-runner for the seat of Dudley North, vacated by the former law officer Ross Cranston. Mr Miliband, currently an adviser to the chancellor, is looking to run for Doncaster North, vacant since Kevin Hughes announced he was standing down after being diagnosed with motor neurone disease.
Mr Miliband is contesting the seat against Michael Dugher, special adviser to Geoff Hoon and a man with strong union and local links.
Labour has decreed that nine of the 14 late-selecting seats must select from all-women shortlists. In Bishop Auckland, Labour has selected the former treasury civil servant Helen Goodman, beating off a challenge from Mo O'Toole, a former MEP and the ex-wife of general election planner Alan Milburn.
A total of 41 sitting Labour MPs have said they are standing down at the election.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
City of Sunderland – Continuing Breach to/of Constitutional Provisions -
16th March, 2005.
Mr David Jennings,
The District Auditor,
Nickalls House,
Metro Centre,
GATESHEAD.
NE11 9NH.
Dear Sir,
Re: City of Sunderland – Continuing Breach to/of Constitutional Provisions -
With Unlawful Collections & Disposals of Public Money.
The City of Sunderland, by its Chief Executive & Others, is fully aware of the fact that the Council (acting by and/or with its Agent/Contractual Partner, NCP Ltd) continues with the unlawful process of collecting money from members of the public, under the provisions of arrangements based on a policy of so-called de-Criminalised Parking.
You will be aware that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688/89 provide that there can no penalties &/or forfeitures before conviction, and you will be aware that any lawful conviction requires the involvement of a Court of Law that has been fully charged with the responsibility for conducting an independent and impartial trial of any issue that involves any payment of any penalty or forfeiture.
The Judgment of Lord Justice Laws in the case of the Metric Martyrs (a case that was prosecuted by the Sunderland Council itself) has most specifically provided that Constitutional Statutes (most specifically including the Bill of Rights) may not be amended or repealed by subsequent enactment, unless the text of any such subsequent enactment provides & includes a most specific pronouncement of the intention to amend and/or repeal the provisions of any Constitutional Statute that may be relevant.
The provisions of the Road Traffic Act which allegedly permit the implementation of a de-criminalised parking regime contain no stated intention to repeal the provisions of the Bill of Rights, in part or in whole, and since this is the case then there can be no excuse for the Sunderland City Council to fail in its duty to maintain the Bill of Rights.
At this present time, Sunderland is attempting to avoid its responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights by use of the very transparent excuses a) that authority for its unlawful conduct is granted by the Road Traffic Act; b) that penalties and/or forfeitures are not involved, because the process of collecting the relevant money from the public involves only ‘an administrative procedure’ and c) that the wording of the Road Traffic Act is so specific as to provide for the clear intention (of the legislature) to cause amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
These excuses offer no legitimacy of argument, and I must now turn to you for appropriate action, because you have distinct & direct responsibilities to ensure a) that all moneys collected by the Sunderland Council are collected in accordance with the law; b) that all such moneys are applied in accordance with the law and c) that all such moneys are properly and fully accounted-for, in accordance with the law.
The circumstances surrounding the collection and disposal of moneys that are now being collected by the Council &/or its Agent/Contractual Partner under the guise of de-Criminalised Parking, give rise to concerns of a very serious nature that I must now bring to your attention, for all purposes of appropriate response and action.
In brief, it would seem that the Sunderland Council has entered into some detailed Contract or Contracts with National Car Parks (NCP) and that under the terms of this contract/these contracts NCP is receiving money for itself that is greater in value than the amount of money that is being paid to the Council by NCP.
In other words, NCP is receiving a profit from its activities as the Agent/Contractual Partner of the Sunderland Council and it seems equally clear that the Council itself is receiving a direct profit-revenue by way of a franchise fee that is being paid to the Council by NCP.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 makes clear that parking charges must not be levied for the purpose of raising revenue, but only for the purpose of making appropriate provisions for traffic management.
Under the very suspicious circumstances that are now prevailing, I must ask you to explain why it is that the Sunderland Council has been and is receiving an apparent profit-revenue from NCP and I must further ask you to describe in precise detail how this revenue has been/is being applied directly to the cost of traffic-management.
The explanation and financial details now requested should cover all accounting periods from the time that Sunderland first applied its unlawful regime of de-criminalised parking and should provide all details to date. In asking for this information, I must mention that I rely upon the Freedom of Information Act of 2000.
I have noted with some interest that the Sunderland Council has not entered appeal against the judgment of Lord Justice Laws and must assume that this failure to appeal has arisen only because this judgment served to justify the Council’s own prosecution of Mr Thorburn, with others?
In consequence of its own failure to appeal the judgment of Laws LJ, it must be considered that the Sunderland Council is now pursuing members of the public for money, in wilful breach of the law as defined by the judgment that was obtained by the Council itself.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to examine this point for its relevance to your own position as District Auditor, with financial responsibility for the Council’s conduct. It would seem that public money has been spent to justify the conduct of the Council in one direction, and that the terms of the justification itself now deny all validity to the Council’s action in promoting a regime of de-Criminalised Parking.
I look forward to the benefit of your early and detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Mr David Jennings,
The District Auditor,
Nickalls House,
Metro Centre,
GATESHEAD.
NE11 9NH.
Dear Sir,
Re: City of Sunderland – Continuing Breach to/of Constitutional Provisions -
With Unlawful Collections & Disposals of Public Money.
The City of Sunderland, by its Chief Executive & Others, is fully aware of the fact that the Council (acting by and/or with its Agent/Contractual Partner, NCP Ltd) continues with the unlawful process of collecting money from members of the public, under the provisions of arrangements based on a policy of so-called de-Criminalised Parking.
You will be aware that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688/89 provide that there can no penalties &/or forfeitures before conviction, and you will be aware that any lawful conviction requires the involvement of a Court of Law that has been fully charged with the responsibility for conducting an independent and impartial trial of any issue that involves any payment of any penalty or forfeiture.
The Judgment of Lord Justice Laws in the case of the Metric Martyrs (a case that was prosecuted by the Sunderland Council itself) has most specifically provided that Constitutional Statutes (most specifically including the Bill of Rights) may not be amended or repealed by subsequent enactment, unless the text of any such subsequent enactment provides & includes a most specific pronouncement of the intention to amend and/or repeal the provisions of any Constitutional Statute that may be relevant.
The provisions of the Road Traffic Act which allegedly permit the implementation of a de-criminalised parking regime contain no stated intention to repeal the provisions of the Bill of Rights, in part or in whole, and since this is the case then there can be no excuse for the Sunderland City Council to fail in its duty to maintain the Bill of Rights.
At this present time, Sunderland is attempting to avoid its responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights by use of the very transparent excuses a) that authority for its unlawful conduct is granted by the Road Traffic Act; b) that penalties and/or forfeitures are not involved, because the process of collecting the relevant money from the public involves only ‘an administrative procedure’ and c) that the wording of the Road Traffic Act is so specific as to provide for the clear intention (of the legislature) to cause amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
These excuses offer no legitimacy of argument, and I must now turn to you for appropriate action, because you have distinct & direct responsibilities to ensure a) that all moneys collected by the Sunderland Council are collected in accordance with the law; b) that all such moneys are applied in accordance with the law and c) that all such moneys are properly and fully accounted-for, in accordance with the law.
The circumstances surrounding the collection and disposal of moneys that are now being collected by the Council &/or its Agent/Contractual Partner under the guise of de-Criminalised Parking, give rise to concerns of a very serious nature that I must now bring to your attention, for all purposes of appropriate response and action.
In brief, it would seem that the Sunderland Council has entered into some detailed Contract or Contracts with National Car Parks (NCP) and that under the terms of this contract/these contracts NCP is receiving money for itself that is greater in value than the amount of money that is being paid to the Council by NCP.
In other words, NCP is receiving a profit from its activities as the Agent/Contractual Partner of the Sunderland Council and it seems equally clear that the Council itself is receiving a direct profit-revenue by way of a franchise fee that is being paid to the Council by NCP.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 makes clear that parking charges must not be levied for the purpose of raising revenue, but only for the purpose of making appropriate provisions for traffic management.
Under the very suspicious circumstances that are now prevailing, I must ask you to explain why it is that the Sunderland Council has been and is receiving an apparent profit-revenue from NCP and I must further ask you to describe in precise detail how this revenue has been/is being applied directly to the cost of traffic-management.
The explanation and financial details now requested should cover all accounting periods from the time that Sunderland first applied its unlawful regime of de-criminalised parking and should provide all details to date. In asking for this information, I must mention that I rely upon the Freedom of Information Act of 2000.
I have noted with some interest that the Sunderland Council has not entered appeal against the judgment of Lord Justice Laws and must assume that this failure to appeal has arisen only because this judgment served to justify the Council’s own prosecution of Mr Thorburn, with others?
In consequence of its own failure to appeal the judgment of Laws LJ, it must be considered that the Sunderland Council is now pursuing members of the public for money, in wilful breach of the law as defined by the judgment that was obtained by the Council itself.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to examine this point for its relevance to your own position as District Auditor, with financial responsibility for the Council’s conduct. It would seem that public money has been spent to justify the conduct of the Council in one direction, and that the terms of the justification itself now deny all validity to the Council’s action in promoting a regime of de-Criminalised Parking.
I look forward to the benefit of your early and detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Party Lines - EU
Party lines
Mar 16 2005
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
IT appears the North-East's Euro-MPs should not bother applying for jobs as detectives if they ever lose their seats.
When anti-EU campaigner Neil Herron received an email last week describing him as a "f****** Luddite", all three immediately promised, via The Journal, to investigate the incident.
However, their policing skills seem to be limited. By yesterday, none had actually got as far as contacting Mr Herron himself for a copy of the email in question.
Still, they seem to be very much suited for their current jobs.
After all, it took the European Commission - which has occasionally been criticised for bloated bureaucracy - four days to establish whether the sender worked for it or not.
Mar 16 2005
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
IT appears the North-East's Euro-MPs should not bother applying for jobs as detectives if they ever lose their seats.
When anti-EU campaigner Neil Herron received an email last week describing him as a "f****** Luddite", all three immediately promised, via The Journal, to investigate the incident.
However, their policing skills seem to be limited. By yesterday, none had actually got as far as contacting Mr Herron himself for a copy of the email in question.
Still, they seem to be very much suited for their current jobs.
After all, it took the European Commission - which has occasionally been criticised for bloated bureaucracy - four days to establish whether the sender worked for it or not.
In a file note from the Parliament and Constitution Centre of the House of Commons Library comes an explosive statement:
"The opinion of Justice Laws is not universally accepted amongst judges or legislators."
As we begin to engineer the conflict over Parking Fines the pressure on the Metric Martyrs Judgment grows.
You can see the file note below. Simply click on it to enlarge.
"The opinion of Justice Laws is not universally accepted amongst judges or legislators."
As we begin to engineer the conflict over Parking Fines the pressure on the Metric Martyrs Judgment grows.
You can see the file note below. Simply click on it to enlarge.
The Jaws of the Trap Are Closing: The Courts and the Constitution by Sean Gabb
Extract from - Free Life Commentary
Issue Number 131
Monday, 14 March 2005
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc131.htm
The Jaws of the Trap Are Closing: The Courts and the Constitution
by Sean Gabb
At the end of last week, the new Prevention of Terrorism Act came in to force Pushed through with the most indecent haste, and justified throughout its passage by what has become the usual pack of lies about vague but tremendous dangers, this gives extraordinary powers to the State. It allows indefinite house arrest for those suspected of certain intentions, together with electronic monitoring and restrictions on Internet and other correspondence. All this is allowed without charge or trial, and on the basis of unsworn evidence given in secret.
It has, then, been a bad week for liberty in this country. Rather than turn, however, to an examination of the new Act - and the newspapers for once have already done this very well - I prefer to discuss what grounds we might have for optimism. And there are grounds for optimism. If we look away from the raucous pantomime that is the House of Commons, and look instead to the more sedate proceedings of the civil courts, not all is yet lost. Undoubtedly, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is a constitutional disgrace. The legal historians, though, may one day agree that the most important constitutional change of this year was effected by the judgment given on the 16th February by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Attorney General ex parte Jackson & Ors.
……According to the orthodox theory of the British Constitution, Parliament is sovereign - Parliament being defined as the combination of Crown, Lords and Commons. Whatever these three agree on enacting has the force of law. Parliament, if it pleases, can make gambling in Monte Carlo a criminal offence. It can repeal the Government of India Act and appoint a new Viceroy. It can order every left handed man in the country to have his head cut off. No matter how immoral or unwise or simply impossible they may be, whatever Acts are made in Parliament are to be regarded as the supreme, unquestionable law of this country. We have no written constitution, nor any formal division of powers, nor any supreme court charged with upholding some entrenched bill of rights Instead, the latest expression of parliamentary will is law. If even accidentally, some section of a Road Traffic Amendment Act should abolish the Magna Carta, the courts will be obliged to enforce the later Act. Parliament is sovereign in a manner that no other legislature now existing approaches. It is perhaps the only body in the world to which the maxim of Ulpian can be applied: quod principi placuit legis uigorem habet.
During its first two centuries of orthodoxy, this theory of the Constitution was attended by none of the inconveniences that might in the abstract be imagined of it. During those centuries, indeed, England was the freest and wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. It was and its recalled example remains the inspiration for the constitutional arrangements of every other civilised country. Freedom and legislative despotism were reconciled by the fact that the rulers of this country did not try to insist in practice on the fullness of their power. They accepted the restraints of custom and of prudence, and the implications of their theoretical sovereignty were matters for the lawyers to reflect upon and the more intelligent conservatives to fear.
The problem is that, during the past hundred years, our rulers have increasingly insisted on their full powers. They have made so many laws that whole forests have been cut down to feed the government press. They have legislated in defiance of common sense and ancient right. They have taxed. They have regulated. They have centralised. In doing so, they have squeezed much of the life from what used to be our defining customs and institutions. They have placed us in various ways under the rule of foreigners. They have just largely abolished habeas corpus, and are taking the first unambiguous steps into a police state.
There was a time when the internal balance of Parliament might have served to check what can only be called a naked will to power. But, during the past hundred years, these balances have failed. Because of their understandable but unwise opposition to the programme of the Asquith Government, the Lords had their absolute veto removed by the Parliament Act 1911. They were left instead with a temporary veto during three consecutive sessions. The Parliament Act 1949 - passed using the procedure of the 1911 Act - reduced the delaying veto from three to two consecutive sessions. This was hardly a necessary amendment. Knowing their constitutional weakness, the Lords have tended since 1911 not to provoke the use of the Parliament Acts. They will amend and harry and protest, but will normally defer to whoever controls the lower house of Parliament.
The Commons will not resist. They did once, but this has not been their main function since the end of the 17th century. The main function since then of the House of Commons has been to form a caucus acceptable to the current public opinion, and from which a government has been drawn. It did much incidentally to hold our rulers to account, but was chiefly the place where the governing class competed for office. It now serves neither function. In its days of greatness, it was filled with conspicuous ability and integrity. It has now declined into a rubber stamp for bureaucratic despotism. Its less ambitious Members, by and large, are controlled by a combination of financial and sexual bribes combined with blackmail. With a few exceptions, they owe their seats to party machines that reward pliability. In one of the divisions the week before last on theTerrorism Bill, the Government majority was cut to 14. The Members may now congratulate each other, and the media give praise. But this division can hardly be taken as proof that parliamentary supervision is a living force. Bearing in mind the contents of that Bill, it is a scandal that the Prime Minister could count on that many votes, let alone that large a majority.
As for the parliamentary leaders, these emerge not through any display of abilities in Parliament, but because of connections possessed elsewhere and a fluency in modern public relations techniques to lie directly to the people. Though they stand in the chamber where Disraeli and Cobden and Churchill and F.E. Smith once stood, they possess all the spontaneity and persuasive force of a Kremlin teleprinter. Their speeches are written for them, their jokes rehearsed. In any real parliamentary body, they would sit silent and justly ashamed of their mediocrity.
For generations now, the more conservative lawyers have watched this decline of political quality with increasing distaste. At first, the Judges paid continued respect to the notion of legislative sovereignty. But while accepting every Act ofParliament as the highest law, they refined their modes of interpretation so that these Acts could often be given a meaning that they projectors had not intended; and they brought the increasing volume of secondary legislation within the scope of judicial review.
Then, in 2002, the Judges saw their chance. In 1995, the Government had made a law to criminalise the use of the English system of weights and measures and to impose the metric system in its place. This came into effect in January 2000, and a market trader in Sunderland was prosecuted for selling bananas by the pound. His case might otherwise have been an unreported act of oppression. Through some legislative oversight, however, the law by which he was punished had been made under the enabling clause of the European Communities Act 1972; and this, his lawyers went into court to argue, had been accidentally repealed at least in part by the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
According to what seemed the settled doctrine of our constitution, in which any conflict between Acts is resolved by giving precedence to the most recent, the metrication law would be struck down as ultra uires. Since the 1985 Act allowed the use of English measures, no power to abolish their use could beadmitted from the 1972 Act. But this otherwise obvious conclusion could not [be] reached. That would have entailed the political and diplomatic necessity of admitting that the country was in fundamental breach of the Treaty of Rome and might therefore have been withdrawn from the European Union since the passage of the 1985 Act. The only other alternative seemed to be for the judges to claim that the European Communities Act was uniquely exempt from repeal, and that formal sovereignty had passed out of the country.
What the Judges did, however, and to general astonishment, was to decide the case on their own motion. Without having heard any submissions on the point, they revived the apparently obsolete doctrine of fundamental law. There were certain laws, they said, so important - either to the structure of the Constitution or to the protection of liberty - that they occupied a special place. They could be amended or even repealed by Parliament, but only if Parliament should first make this explicit. No implied amendment or repeal would be recognised. The European Communities Act was placed among these fundamental laws -together with all the great constitutional statutes of our history. The implied repeal in the 1985 Act was ignored, not because the European Communities Act had passed sovereignty to Brussels, but because that Act was, by the rules of our own Constitution, given a special but not supreme status.
While the metrication law was upheld, this judgment was the first legal victory for the forces of conservatism. The protection of the European Communities Act was of no consequence, since the first euro-sceptic government we have in this country will leave the European Union by explicit repeal. The significance of the judgment is that it prevents the politicians from shredding the Constitution by stealth. Under this judgment, they can still shred it, but only by openly acknowledging what they are about.
……..Let me clarify what has been done. Under the old doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, all Acts of Parliament were absolutely binding on the courts. Any conflict was resolved by taking the more recent Act as an amendment to or repeal of the earlier. Since 2002, we have three classes of Act. There are constitutional Acts, which can be amended or repealed only by the explicit wording of a later Act. We have ordinary Acts, which can be impliedly amended or repealed, but until then are absolutely binding, unless they touch a constitutional Act. And we have Acts made under the Parliament Acts, which are not absolutely binding, but may be reviewed by the courts, and even set aside if they do not comply with the procedure laid down by the Parliament Acts.
Turning to the procedure, we come to the second new doctrine. The 20th century consensus set aside, the Parliament Acts cannot be used to force through any law whatever against the wishes of the Lords. The Judges explain:
"The purpose of the 1911 Act was to establish a new constitutional settlement that limited the period during which the Lords could delay the enactment of legislation first introduced to the Commons but which preserved the role of the Lords in the legislative processes. In our view it would be in conflict with the 1911 Act for it to be used as an instrument for abolishing the House of Lords. This would be so whether or not there was initially an attempt to use the 1911 Act process to amend the 1911 Act to provide an express power to abolish the Lords. We would view such an endeavour in the same way as an attempt to delete the prohibition on extending the life of Parliament. The preamble of the 1911 Act … indicates that the 1911 Act was to be a transitional provision pending further reform. It provides no support for an intention that the 1911 Act should be used, directly or indirectly, to enable more fundamental constitutional changes to be achieved than had been achieved already.
"Thus, it does not necessarily follow that because there is compliance with the requirements in the 1911 Act, the result is a valid Act of Parliament. Following the reasoning in the previous paragraph, if, without amending the 1911 Act further,the Commons attempted to extend the life of Parliament in excess of five years without the consent of the Lords the attempt would be ineffective and, if necessary, the Court's jurisdiction that we are now exercising could be invoked." (para. 42-43)
The politicians cannot use their majority in the House of Commons to force through amendments to the Parliament Acts allowing elections to be delayed. Nor can they use the Acts as they stand to force through an abolition of the Lords. Nor can they use the Acts to make fundamental changes to the Constitution. What is the nature of these changes the politicians cannot make? In their final paragraph, the Judges observe:
"What, if any, further power of amending the 1911 Act that Act authorises should not be determined in advance of an attempt to make a more significant amendment than that contained in the 1949 Act. It is, however, obvious that on our approach, the greater the scale of the constitutional change proposed by any amendment, the more likely it is that it will fall outside the powers contained in the 1911 Act." (para. 100)
We need just one more judgment like this to be told that the constitutional Acts named in the 2002 judgment are in fact beyond amendment or repeal using the machinery of the Parliament Acts, and that the Lords have their absolute legislative veto, apparently taken away in 1911, restored where such Acts are concerned.
Either we have, or we are acquiring, a new constitutional settlement. Formal sovereignty remains in Parliament as a whole, but the House of Commons has been deprived of its supreme legislative competence. It must share power to some degree again with the Lords - but much more with the Judges. This is, Istrongly believe, a welcome development. Look at the evil or [sic] simply absurd Acts of Parliament made over the past generation. Look only at the Bills now being hurried through the formality of their readings. Unless it is to be destroyed in whole, some remodelling of the Constitution is inevitable. Since there is neither will nor ability to make some internal correction to the abuses of Parliament, we must be grateful that the Judges have begun their own remodelling.
But though to be welcomed, this judicial remodelling may not be wholly the saving of the Constitution. The Judges have provided us with a new set of mechanisms to challenge the secretive despotic state that masquerades as the ancient Crown in Parliament. But such mechanisms can only be effective if there is some feeling that public opinion is on the side of the challengers. This does not require mass demonstrations. It does not mean that the overwhelming majority of people need to be against the Government. I doubt if politics in any time or place have worked in that way. Unless it is in matters that affect them directly and unambiguously - and perhaps not even then - most people are either ignorant of, or simply indifferent to, what their rulers have in mind for them. What I mean by public support is that the majority of those connected with or interested in the process of government should have at least a vague preference for the challengers. There must be some feeling on the part of our rulers that their actions are not popular. Let that not be present, and no constitutional balances, however ingenious, can be effective.
Now, it seems to be that public opinion wants the Government to provide services on a scale that requires an enlarged and broadly absolute state. Where the removal of our historic rights and national identity are concerned, the habits of thought and language of challenge seem to have been forgotten among all but an educated minority. Or it could be that the public at large is so intimidated by political correctness, or so deceived by lies about the dangers to be avoided, that the anger that I find in just about everyone I meet - an I meet several hundred people a week - cannot find its usual expression. Whatever the case, the Judges ill not resist if they think they are acting alone.
A further difficulty is that while the Judges, and the House of Lords as revived by the Judges, have the right now to challenge the Government, they are both subject to packing by the Government. During the past eight years, Mr Blair has removed most of the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, and in their place has appointed more life Peers than any other Prime Minister before him. The Government is also talking about making judicial selection more "inclusive" - which plainly means that it wants to appoint Judges from groups that are favourable to its project of cultural and political transformation. This is adangerous weakness to our remodelled Constitution. But I am not sure if it is in the short term a very dangerous weakness.
When the hereditary peers were replaced after 1998 by hundreds of new life Peers, I assumed that the House of Lords would cease to be a problem for the Government. I was wrong. The traditions of the House remained strong enough for the newcomers to be largely assimilated Mr Blair has found to his cost that patents of nobility and ermine robes have mostly turned friends and clients into political opponents. There is the possibility that the Government will turn from packing to flooding the Lords with new Peers, and then legislating without further need of the Parliament Acts. But this would bring the Crown into politics.Though on the advice of the Prime Minister, every peerage is created by the Crown. If the power of creation were plainly being used to subvert the Constitution, it would be the sworn duty of Her Majesty or of her successor not to create the requested peerages. It may be Her customary duty to act only on advice. But it is Her legal duty, as set forth in the Coronation Oath, to respect our constitutional liberties. If that oath were to be so openly broken, it would be arguable that the Constitution as a whole had been dissolved, and that any citizen or group of citizens was at liberty to throw off such despotism, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Where the Judges are concerned, the weakness may also be more theoretical than real. Without any disturbance to the process of modern government, the House of Commons could easily be filled with people resembling the extras in one of Mr Romero's zombie films. The Judges are a different matter. They are needed most of the time to adjudicate efficiently on what are often complexissues of law. No matter how wide the net is cast, there are only so many people at any one time qualified by education and ability to do this; and these are the people who already tend to become Judges. Our last ruler who resolutely tried to pack the Bench was James II. He found himself with a few able villains like Jeffreys, but otherwise with non-entities who failed their first real test, when they let themselves be overawed by the barristers.
A more likely weakness to the new scheme of things is that the Judges will not use the new powers they have given themselves to preserve the Constitution, but will attempt subversions of their own. They might follow the lead of their American counterparts, and begin finding "emanations" in our constitutional documents, so that Magna Carta might one day be found to give lesbianasylum seekers the right to abortions on demand paid for by the National Health Service. Already, some of their judgments have been of this nature. If in lesser degree than the politicians, the Judges have their own taint of political correctness. Democracy has been made a rubber stamp for despotism by absolute whim. There is no reason why judicial review should notsimilarly be corrupted.
But while this is possible, the real threat now to life, liberty and property comes from whoever controls the House of Commons. When the problem faced now is so great, future problems arising from its solution must be left to the future. For the moment, the Judges are creating a set of checks and balances against asystem of legislative sovereignty that has been an occasional danger for over a century, and that, with this government of former student radicals, has become a daily nuisance.
The headline news is grim. We have just had imposed on us a Prevention of Terrorism Act more subversive of due process than any law made in peacetime since the 1650s. Add to this the Civil Contingency Act, the abolition of the double jeopardy rule and the allowance of similar fact evidence made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Proceeds of Crime Act, and all the lesser invasions that have come and are yet to come from this current Parliament, and we might suppose all was already lost. And look before this Government, to the Thatcher and Major Governments - those, to be fair, laid the foundations on which the present structure of despotism is now being raised. But look beyondParliament, to those quiet places where the lawyers gather and discuss what the politicians have in mind for us, and there is a counter revolution under way.
It may be worth giving our support and best wishes to those charismatic outsiders who are now beating on the doors of Parliament. It is still more worth while, though, to thank and support those old men in wigs, whose often pedantic and always long decisions about pounds of bananas and hunting bans arerestoring to fact what once seemed the theory of a limited constitutional order.
==========================
Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment,published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, click here mailto:sean@libertarian.co.uk
To donate money to me, so that I may be encouraged to keepwriting, give via my PayPal account:
Issue Number 131
Monday, 14 March 2005
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc131.htm
The Jaws of the Trap Are Closing: The Courts and the Constitution
by Sean Gabb
At the end of last week, the new Prevention of Terrorism Act came in to force Pushed through with the most indecent haste, and justified throughout its passage by what has become the usual pack of lies about vague but tremendous dangers, this gives extraordinary powers to the State. It allows indefinite house arrest for those suspected of certain intentions, together with electronic monitoring and restrictions on Internet and other correspondence. All this is allowed without charge or trial, and on the basis of unsworn evidence given in secret.
It has, then, been a bad week for liberty in this country. Rather than turn, however, to an examination of the new Act - and the newspapers for once have already done this very well - I prefer to discuss what grounds we might have for optimism. And there are grounds for optimism. If we look away from the raucous pantomime that is the House of Commons, and look instead to the more sedate proceedings of the civil courts, not all is yet lost. Undoubtedly, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is a constitutional disgrace. The legal historians, though, may one day agree that the most important constitutional change of this year was effected by the judgment given on the 16th February by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Attorney General ex parte Jackson & Ors.
……According to the orthodox theory of the British Constitution, Parliament is sovereign - Parliament being defined as the combination of Crown, Lords and Commons. Whatever these three agree on enacting has the force of law. Parliament, if it pleases, can make gambling in Monte Carlo a criminal offence. It can repeal the Government of India Act and appoint a new Viceroy. It can order every left handed man in the country to have his head cut off. No matter how immoral or unwise or simply impossible they may be, whatever Acts are made in Parliament are to be regarded as the supreme, unquestionable law of this country. We have no written constitution, nor any formal division of powers, nor any supreme court charged with upholding some entrenched bill of rights Instead, the latest expression of parliamentary will is law. If even accidentally, some section of a Road Traffic Amendment Act should abolish the Magna Carta, the courts will be obliged to enforce the later Act. Parliament is sovereign in a manner that no other legislature now existing approaches. It is perhaps the only body in the world to which the maxim of Ulpian can be applied: quod principi placuit legis uigorem habet.
During its first two centuries of orthodoxy, this theory of the Constitution was attended by none of the inconveniences that might in the abstract be imagined of it. During those centuries, indeed, England was the freest and wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. It was and its recalled example remains the inspiration for the constitutional arrangements of every other civilised country. Freedom and legislative despotism were reconciled by the fact that the rulers of this country did not try to insist in practice on the fullness of their power. They accepted the restraints of custom and of prudence, and the implications of their theoretical sovereignty were matters for the lawyers to reflect upon and the more intelligent conservatives to fear.
The problem is that, during the past hundred years, our rulers have increasingly insisted on their full powers. They have made so many laws that whole forests have been cut down to feed the government press. They have legislated in defiance of common sense and ancient right. They have taxed. They have regulated. They have centralised. In doing so, they have squeezed much of the life from what used to be our defining customs and institutions. They have placed us in various ways under the rule of foreigners. They have just largely abolished habeas corpus, and are taking the first unambiguous steps into a police state.
There was a time when the internal balance of Parliament might have served to check what can only be called a naked will to power. But, during the past hundred years, these balances have failed. Because of their understandable but unwise opposition to the programme of the Asquith Government, the Lords had their absolute veto removed by the Parliament Act 1911. They were left instead with a temporary veto during three consecutive sessions. The Parliament Act 1949 - passed using the procedure of the 1911 Act - reduced the delaying veto from three to two consecutive sessions. This was hardly a necessary amendment. Knowing their constitutional weakness, the Lords have tended since 1911 not to provoke the use of the Parliament Acts. They will amend and harry and protest, but will normally defer to whoever controls the lower house of Parliament.
The Commons will not resist. They did once, but this has not been their main function since the end of the 17th century. The main function since then of the House of Commons has been to form a caucus acceptable to the current public opinion, and from which a government has been drawn. It did much incidentally to hold our rulers to account, but was chiefly the place where the governing class competed for office. It now serves neither function. In its days of greatness, it was filled with conspicuous ability and integrity. It has now declined into a rubber stamp for bureaucratic despotism. Its less ambitious Members, by and large, are controlled by a combination of financial and sexual bribes combined with blackmail. With a few exceptions, they owe their seats to party machines that reward pliability. In one of the divisions the week before last on theTerrorism Bill, the Government majority was cut to 14. The Members may now congratulate each other, and the media give praise. But this division can hardly be taken as proof that parliamentary supervision is a living force. Bearing in mind the contents of that Bill, it is a scandal that the Prime Minister could count on that many votes, let alone that large a majority.
As for the parliamentary leaders, these emerge not through any display of abilities in Parliament, but because of connections possessed elsewhere and a fluency in modern public relations techniques to lie directly to the people. Though they stand in the chamber where Disraeli and Cobden and Churchill and F.E. Smith once stood, they possess all the spontaneity and persuasive force of a Kremlin teleprinter. Their speeches are written for them, their jokes rehearsed. In any real parliamentary body, they would sit silent and justly ashamed of their mediocrity.
For generations now, the more conservative lawyers have watched this decline of political quality with increasing distaste. At first, the Judges paid continued respect to the notion of legislative sovereignty. But while accepting every Act ofParliament as the highest law, they refined their modes of interpretation so that these Acts could often be given a meaning that they projectors had not intended; and they brought the increasing volume of secondary legislation within the scope of judicial review.
Then, in 2002, the Judges saw their chance. In 1995, the Government had made a law to criminalise the use of the English system of weights and measures and to impose the metric system in its place. This came into effect in January 2000, and a market trader in Sunderland was prosecuted for selling bananas by the pound. His case might otherwise have been an unreported act of oppression. Through some legislative oversight, however, the law by which he was punished had been made under the enabling clause of the European Communities Act 1972; and this, his lawyers went into court to argue, had been accidentally repealed at least in part by the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
According to what seemed the settled doctrine of our constitution, in which any conflict between Acts is resolved by giving precedence to the most recent, the metrication law would be struck down as ultra uires. Since the 1985 Act allowed the use of English measures, no power to abolish their use could beadmitted from the 1972 Act. But this otherwise obvious conclusion could not [be] reached. That would have entailed the political and diplomatic necessity of admitting that the country was in fundamental breach of the Treaty of Rome and might therefore have been withdrawn from the European Union since the passage of the 1985 Act. The only other alternative seemed to be for the judges to claim that the European Communities Act was uniquely exempt from repeal, and that formal sovereignty had passed out of the country.
What the Judges did, however, and to general astonishment, was to decide the case on their own motion. Without having heard any submissions on the point, they revived the apparently obsolete doctrine of fundamental law. There were certain laws, they said, so important - either to the structure of the Constitution or to the protection of liberty - that they occupied a special place. They could be amended or even repealed by Parliament, but only if Parliament should first make this explicit. No implied amendment or repeal would be recognised. The European Communities Act was placed among these fundamental laws -together with all the great constitutional statutes of our history. The implied repeal in the 1985 Act was ignored, not because the European Communities Act had passed sovereignty to Brussels, but because that Act was, by the rules of our own Constitution, given a special but not supreme status.
While the metrication law was upheld, this judgment was the first legal victory for the forces of conservatism. The protection of the European Communities Act was of no consequence, since the first euro-sceptic government we have in this country will leave the European Union by explicit repeal. The significance of the judgment is that it prevents the politicians from shredding the Constitution by stealth. Under this judgment, they can still shred it, but only by openly acknowledging what they are about.
……..Let me clarify what has been done. Under the old doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, all Acts of Parliament were absolutely binding on the courts. Any conflict was resolved by taking the more recent Act as an amendment to or repeal of the earlier. Since 2002, we have three classes of Act. There are constitutional Acts, which can be amended or repealed only by the explicit wording of a later Act. We have ordinary Acts, which can be impliedly amended or repealed, but until then are absolutely binding, unless they touch a constitutional Act. And we have Acts made under the Parliament Acts, which are not absolutely binding, but may be reviewed by the courts, and even set aside if they do not comply with the procedure laid down by the Parliament Acts.
Turning to the procedure, we come to the second new doctrine. The 20th century consensus set aside, the Parliament Acts cannot be used to force through any law whatever against the wishes of the Lords. The Judges explain:
"The purpose of the 1911 Act was to establish a new constitutional settlement that limited the period during which the Lords could delay the enactment of legislation first introduced to the Commons but which preserved the role of the Lords in the legislative processes. In our view it would be in conflict with the 1911 Act for it to be used as an instrument for abolishing the House of Lords. This would be so whether or not there was initially an attempt to use the 1911 Act process to amend the 1911 Act to provide an express power to abolish the Lords. We would view such an endeavour in the same way as an attempt to delete the prohibition on extending the life of Parliament. The preamble of the 1911 Act … indicates that the 1911 Act was to be a transitional provision pending further reform. It provides no support for an intention that the 1911 Act should be used, directly or indirectly, to enable more fundamental constitutional changes to be achieved than had been achieved already.
"Thus, it does not necessarily follow that because there is compliance with the requirements in the 1911 Act, the result is a valid Act of Parliament. Following the reasoning in the previous paragraph, if, without amending the 1911 Act further,the Commons attempted to extend the life of Parliament in excess of five years without the consent of the Lords the attempt would be ineffective and, if necessary, the Court's jurisdiction that we are now exercising could be invoked." (para. 42-43)
The politicians cannot use their majority in the House of Commons to force through amendments to the Parliament Acts allowing elections to be delayed. Nor can they use the Acts as they stand to force through an abolition of the Lords. Nor can they use the Acts to make fundamental changes to the Constitution. What is the nature of these changes the politicians cannot make? In their final paragraph, the Judges observe:
"What, if any, further power of amending the 1911 Act that Act authorises should not be determined in advance of an attempt to make a more significant amendment than that contained in the 1949 Act. It is, however, obvious that on our approach, the greater the scale of the constitutional change proposed by any amendment, the more likely it is that it will fall outside the powers contained in the 1911 Act." (para. 100)
We need just one more judgment like this to be told that the constitutional Acts named in the 2002 judgment are in fact beyond amendment or repeal using the machinery of the Parliament Acts, and that the Lords have their absolute legislative veto, apparently taken away in 1911, restored where such Acts are concerned.
Either we have, or we are acquiring, a new constitutional settlement. Formal sovereignty remains in Parliament as a whole, but the House of Commons has been deprived of its supreme legislative competence. It must share power to some degree again with the Lords - but much more with the Judges. This is, Istrongly believe, a welcome development. Look at the evil or [sic] simply absurd Acts of Parliament made over the past generation. Look only at the Bills now being hurried through the formality of their readings. Unless it is to be destroyed in whole, some remodelling of the Constitution is inevitable. Since there is neither will nor ability to make some internal correction to the abuses of Parliament, we must be grateful that the Judges have begun their own remodelling.
But though to be welcomed, this judicial remodelling may not be wholly the saving of the Constitution. The Judges have provided us with a new set of mechanisms to challenge the secretive despotic state that masquerades as the ancient Crown in Parliament. But such mechanisms can only be effective if there is some feeling that public opinion is on the side of the challengers. This does not require mass demonstrations. It does not mean that the overwhelming majority of people need to be against the Government. I doubt if politics in any time or place have worked in that way. Unless it is in matters that affect them directly and unambiguously - and perhaps not even then - most people are either ignorant of, or simply indifferent to, what their rulers have in mind for them. What I mean by public support is that the majority of those connected with or interested in the process of government should have at least a vague preference for the challengers. There must be some feeling on the part of our rulers that their actions are not popular. Let that not be present, and no constitutional balances, however ingenious, can be effective.
Now, it seems to be that public opinion wants the Government to provide services on a scale that requires an enlarged and broadly absolute state. Where the removal of our historic rights and national identity are concerned, the habits of thought and language of challenge seem to have been forgotten among all but an educated minority. Or it could be that the public at large is so intimidated by political correctness, or so deceived by lies about the dangers to be avoided, that the anger that I find in just about everyone I meet - an I meet several hundred people a week - cannot find its usual expression. Whatever the case, the Judges ill not resist if they think they are acting alone.
A further difficulty is that while the Judges, and the House of Lords as revived by the Judges, have the right now to challenge the Government, they are both subject to packing by the Government. During the past eight years, Mr Blair has removed most of the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, and in their place has appointed more life Peers than any other Prime Minister before him. The Government is also talking about making judicial selection more "inclusive" - which plainly means that it wants to appoint Judges from groups that are favourable to its project of cultural and political transformation. This is adangerous weakness to our remodelled Constitution. But I am not sure if it is in the short term a very dangerous weakness.
When the hereditary peers were replaced after 1998 by hundreds of new life Peers, I assumed that the House of Lords would cease to be a problem for the Government. I was wrong. The traditions of the House remained strong enough for the newcomers to be largely assimilated Mr Blair has found to his cost that patents of nobility and ermine robes have mostly turned friends and clients into political opponents. There is the possibility that the Government will turn from packing to flooding the Lords with new Peers, and then legislating without further need of the Parliament Acts. But this would bring the Crown into politics.Though on the advice of the Prime Minister, every peerage is created by the Crown. If the power of creation were plainly being used to subvert the Constitution, it would be the sworn duty of Her Majesty or of her successor not to create the requested peerages. It may be Her customary duty to act only on advice. But it is Her legal duty, as set forth in the Coronation Oath, to respect our constitutional liberties. If that oath were to be so openly broken, it would be arguable that the Constitution as a whole had been dissolved, and that any citizen or group of citizens was at liberty to throw off such despotism, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Where the Judges are concerned, the weakness may also be more theoretical than real. Without any disturbance to the process of modern government, the House of Commons could easily be filled with people resembling the extras in one of Mr Romero's zombie films. The Judges are a different matter. They are needed most of the time to adjudicate efficiently on what are often complexissues of law. No matter how wide the net is cast, there are only so many people at any one time qualified by education and ability to do this; and these are the people who already tend to become Judges. Our last ruler who resolutely tried to pack the Bench was James II. He found himself with a few able villains like Jeffreys, but otherwise with non-entities who failed their first real test, when they let themselves be overawed by the barristers.
A more likely weakness to the new scheme of things is that the Judges will not use the new powers they have given themselves to preserve the Constitution, but will attempt subversions of their own. They might follow the lead of their American counterparts, and begin finding "emanations" in our constitutional documents, so that Magna Carta might one day be found to give lesbianasylum seekers the right to abortions on demand paid for by the National Health Service. Already, some of their judgments have been of this nature. If in lesser degree than the politicians, the Judges have their own taint of political correctness. Democracy has been made a rubber stamp for despotism by absolute whim. There is no reason why judicial review should notsimilarly be corrupted.
But while this is possible, the real threat now to life, liberty and property comes from whoever controls the House of Commons. When the problem faced now is so great, future problems arising from its solution must be left to the future. For the moment, the Judges are creating a set of checks and balances against asystem of legislative sovereignty that has been an occasional danger for over a century, and that, with this government of former student radicals, has become a daily nuisance.
The headline news is grim. We have just had imposed on us a Prevention of Terrorism Act more subversive of due process than any law made in peacetime since the 1650s. Add to this the Civil Contingency Act, the abolition of the double jeopardy rule and the allowance of similar fact evidence made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Proceeds of Crime Act, and all the lesser invasions that have come and are yet to come from this current Parliament, and we might suppose all was already lost. And look before this Government, to the Thatcher and Major Governments - those, to be fair, laid the foundations on which the present structure of despotism is now being raised. But look beyondParliament, to those quiet places where the lawyers gather and discuss what the politicians have in mind for us, and there is a counter revolution under way.
It may be worth giving our support and best wishes to those charismatic outsiders who are now beating on the doors of Parliament. It is still more worth while, though, to thank and support those old men in wigs, whose often pedantic and always long decisions about pounds of bananas and hunting bans arerestoring to fact what once seemed the theory of a limited constitutional order.
==========================
Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment,published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, click here mailto:sean@libertarian.co.uk
To donate money to me, so that I may be encouraged to keepwriting, give via my PayPal account:
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Sunderland Echo Letters - EU
The Letters Page 14th March 2005
No EU mandate
THE leaders of the 25 EU member states met in Rome in December 2004 at a lavish ceremony to sign the proposed European Constitution Document, our representative Prime Minister Blair arrived last and left first declining to stay for the sumptuous lunch. He was of course acutely aware that back home he had no mandate from the people who are conscious of the implications of the constitution namely more power to the unelected EU institutions. So last week we see the first action of the tactical battle to influence voters of the EU countries. Before the ink is dry, and with as much haste as possible, without any information campaign, any debate, or any opposition Spain held it's Referendum. This entirely academic exercise resulting in a yes vote from a very low turn out from the Spanish electorate, which observers in Spain reporting that over 90% of the people knew absolutely nothing about the constitution. The Spanish Prime Minster earned himself some serious brownie points from his pro EU friends for registering a Yes vote in the hope of influencing others in the forth-coming contest.As someone who was deceived and lied to in the 1975 UK Referendum and so persuaded to vote Yes to stay in the then "Common Market" I cannot wait to register a very big No in the Referendum to be held here. I have no doubt that I will be in the good company of the vast majority of the people who will also vote No and send the message that this country must be returned to its people to govern themselves.
Colin Moran, Sunderland
EU ambitions
FOR those in any doubt as to what the European Constitution is really all about one needs to look past the statements made by the likes of Peter Hain, Jack Straw and Tony Blair to statements made by politicians on the continent. German Europe Minister: The Constitution is, "the birth certificate of the United States of Europe."Spanish Foreign Minister: "We are witnessing the last remnants of national politics." The recently-announced spending figures for the North East referendum showed the Yes campaigners outspending the No campaigners by at least five to one (and that is without factoring in the cost of the Government's propaganda campaign). Despite this, the public were not fooled and delivered on overwhelming and emphatic no vote ... equivalent to Gateshead FC beating Manchester United at Old Trafford.. After the election, there will be a similar disproportionate amount of money spent trying to dupe the public on what is the greatest political deception of all time, put together by stealth over the last thirty years. Our relationship with the European Union is a fraud perpetrated on the British public by a self-serving political elite. Some deceiving deliberately and some through their naivety. The referendum will expose all the lies and all the deceit. Yes campaigners, such as Fiona Hall MEP, will say that they welcome the debate and then avoid the debate. My prediction. The long suffering British public ain't gonna buy the lies and the propaganda for this one either and the referendum result will be even bigger than the one achieved in the North East. The public will again indulge themselves to deliver another damning message to an arrogant political elite...that the sovereignty and power lies with the people not the politicians.
Neil Herron,Sunderland
No EU mandate
THE leaders of the 25 EU member states met in Rome in December 2004 at a lavish ceremony to sign the proposed European Constitution Document, our representative Prime Minister Blair arrived last and left first declining to stay for the sumptuous lunch. He was of course acutely aware that back home he had no mandate from the people who are conscious of the implications of the constitution namely more power to the unelected EU institutions. So last week we see the first action of the tactical battle to influence voters of the EU countries. Before the ink is dry, and with as much haste as possible, without any information campaign, any debate, or any opposition Spain held it's Referendum. This entirely academic exercise resulting in a yes vote from a very low turn out from the Spanish electorate, which observers in Spain reporting that over 90% of the people knew absolutely nothing about the constitution. The Spanish Prime Minster earned himself some serious brownie points from his pro EU friends for registering a Yes vote in the hope of influencing others in the forth-coming contest.As someone who was deceived and lied to in the 1975 UK Referendum and so persuaded to vote Yes to stay in the then "Common Market" I cannot wait to register a very big No in the Referendum to be held here. I have no doubt that I will be in the good company of the vast majority of the people who will also vote No and send the message that this country must be returned to its people to govern themselves.
Colin Moran, Sunderland
EU ambitions
FOR those in any doubt as to what the European Constitution is really all about one needs to look past the statements made by the likes of Peter Hain, Jack Straw and Tony Blair to statements made by politicians on the continent. German Europe Minister: The Constitution is, "the birth certificate of the United States of Europe."Spanish Foreign Minister: "We are witnessing the last remnants of national politics." The recently-announced spending figures for the North East referendum showed the Yes campaigners outspending the No campaigners by at least five to one (and that is without factoring in the cost of the Government's propaganda campaign). Despite this, the public were not fooled and delivered on overwhelming and emphatic no vote ... equivalent to Gateshead FC beating Manchester United at Old Trafford.. After the election, there will be a similar disproportionate amount of money spent trying to dupe the public on what is the greatest political deception of all time, put together by stealth over the last thirty years. Our relationship with the European Union is a fraud perpetrated on the British public by a self-serving political elite. Some deceiving deliberately and some through their naivety. The referendum will expose all the lies and all the deceit. Yes campaigners, such as Fiona Hall MEP, will say that they welcome the debate and then avoid the debate. My prediction. The long suffering British public ain't gonna buy the lies and the propaganda for this one either and the referendum result will be even bigger than the one achieved in the North East. The public will again indulge themselves to deliver another damning message to an arrogant political elite...that the sovereignty and power lies with the people not the politicians.
Neil Herron,Sunderland
Conservative MEP Martin Callanan on the case of 'offensive' European Commission employee
Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan is the first of the three North East MEP's to respond my request to assist in the complaint against European Commission employee, John Jones.
He has provided the following:
Dear Neil,
Thank you for your patience with this matter.
I have written a letter on your behalf to Mr. Figel, the member of the European Commission responsible for translation services. I will keep you up to date on any response that I receive (but as I said, sometimes Commission responses can be slow).
As requested, please find Mr. Jones' superiors, in increasing order of rank:
Ms. Diane Sutherland, Chef d'unité de traduction of Unit EN 4, +(32) 2 2950936
Ms. Gillian Colledge, Chef de Département linguistique de langue anglaise, +(32) 2 2962069
Mr. George Vlachopoulos, Director of Translation for Brussels, +(32) 2 2958618
Mr. Karl-Johan Lonnroth, Directeur général, +(32) 2 2967825
Mr. Ján Figel, Commissioner of Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, jan.figel@cec.eu.int
I hope you find this information of assistance.
Sincerely,
Martin
Although Lib Dem, Fiona Hall was first to acknowledge the e-mail, so far nothing else is forthcoming.
Labour MEP, Stephen Hughes has not yet had the courtesy to reply, but I am sure he is very busy with important things, but he did state in the press that he is assisting me. I have had to send him an e-mail (copied below) because he seems to be a bit mixed up about the difference between Europe and the European Union (can be seen in the Journal Article here).
Dear Stephen,
I have copied the letter sent by e-mail on Thursday to which I have not yet received a reply.
It does concern me somewhat that I read in the Journal this morning that you will be working with me, " To find out what has happened."
I would therefore have expected at least to have had an acknowledgement of my e-mail, but I am sure that this is just a simple oversight.
Stephen, I think I may perhaps agree with your views on Europe...I love Switzerland having been a number of times. I love the French Alps where I frequently go skiing and have holidayed in Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium. I love the different climates, cultures and peoples. Strasbourg is a beautiful city and one memory etched on my mind was watching the sun set on the red brick cathedral as an operetta played as I enjoyed a chilled beer. Wasn't quite the same as the Bigg Market on a Friday night. I also like Brussels, especially the architecture around La Grande Place where I have enjoyed many a memorable evening as I am sure that you have too.
I think therefore you must have confused Europe with the European Union.
On that score I do not like being governed by a corrupt, unaccountable, profligate bureaucracy which has no mandate from the British people whatsoever to exist, and compromises our absolute right to self-determination.I am aware that it is on this you hold the opposing view. I do hope that it wasn't a typographical error on behalf of the Journal. I am sure that you will clarify.
Look forward to hearing from you with regard to Mr. Jones' offensive behaviour and how you will be assisting taking the complaint forward to a satisfactory conclusion. As you will appreciate, everything must be done in an open and transparent manner when it involves such behaviour by publicly paid officials and we will be keeping everyone up to speed with all developments.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
I am sure Mr. Jones will now be contemplating his actions and wondering whether we will be suing him, or the Commission, for libel (we are neither Luddites or anti-metric). All will be dependent on the nature of the Commission's investigation.
He has provided the following:
Dear Neil,
Thank you for your patience with this matter.
I have written a letter on your behalf to Mr. Figel, the member of the European Commission responsible for translation services. I will keep you up to date on any response that I receive (but as I said, sometimes Commission responses can be slow).
As requested, please find Mr. Jones' superiors, in increasing order of rank:
Ms. Diane Sutherland, Chef d'unité de traduction of Unit EN 4, +(32) 2 2950936
Ms. Gillian Colledge, Chef de Département linguistique de langue anglaise, +(32) 2 2962069
Mr. George Vlachopoulos, Director of Translation for Brussels, +(32) 2 2958618
Mr. Karl-Johan Lonnroth, Directeur général, +(32) 2 2967825
Mr. Ján Figel, Commissioner of Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, jan.figel@cec.eu.int
I hope you find this information of assistance.
Sincerely,
Martin
Although Lib Dem, Fiona Hall was first to acknowledge the e-mail, so far nothing else is forthcoming.
Labour MEP, Stephen Hughes has not yet had the courtesy to reply, but I am sure he is very busy with important things, but he did state in the press that he is assisting me. I have had to send him an e-mail (copied below) because he seems to be a bit mixed up about the difference between Europe and the European Union (can be seen in the Journal Article here).
Dear Stephen,
I have copied the letter sent by e-mail on Thursday to which I have not yet received a reply.
It does concern me somewhat that I read in the Journal this morning that you will be working with me, " To find out what has happened."
I would therefore have expected at least to have had an acknowledgement of my e-mail, but I am sure that this is just a simple oversight.
Stephen, I think I may perhaps agree with your views on Europe...I love Switzerland having been a number of times. I love the French Alps where I frequently go skiing and have holidayed in Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium. I love the different climates, cultures and peoples. Strasbourg is a beautiful city and one memory etched on my mind was watching the sun set on the red brick cathedral as an operetta played as I enjoyed a chilled beer. Wasn't quite the same as the Bigg Market on a Friday night. I also like Brussels, especially the architecture around La Grande Place where I have enjoyed many a memorable evening as I am sure that you have too.
I think therefore you must have confused Europe with the European Union.
On that score I do not like being governed by a corrupt, unaccountable, profligate bureaucracy which has no mandate from the British people whatsoever to exist, and compromises our absolute right to self-determination.I am aware that it is on this you hold the opposing view. I do hope that it wasn't a typographical error on behalf of the Journal. I am sure that you will clarify.
Look forward to hearing from you with regard to Mr. Jones' offensive behaviour and how you will be assisting taking the complaint forward to a satisfactory conclusion. As you will appreciate, everything must be done in an open and transparent manner when it involves such behaviour by publicly paid officials and we will be keeping everyone up to speed with all developments.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
I am sure Mr. Jones will now be contemplating his actions and wondering whether we will be suing him, or the Commission, for libel (we are neither Luddites or anti-metric). All will be dependent on the nature of the Commission's investigation.
European Commission employee, John Jones, to be investigated
Following the foul and abusive (with atrocious syntax and grammar) e-mail received by European Commission employee, John Jones, of the Translation Service the following has been received from the European Commission press office:
The investigation begins. We have had calls that he has also posted on other websites. Any further information would be appreciated.
Valerie.RAMPI@cec.eu.int
To: ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk
03/14/05 03:12 PM
Subject: RE: Dear Mr Smith,
The Commission has opened the formal investigation of this process. The matter will be dealt appropriately once we have the results of the investigation.We understand that the official concerned has acknowledged that this e-mail was inappropriate and will send an apology to Metric Martyrs.The views expressed were of a private nature and certainly do not reflect the views of the Commission.
Best regards,
Valérie Rampi
----Original Message-----
From: ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk
[mailto:ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:37 PM
To: RAMPI Valerie (PRESS)Subject:
Fw:
Dear Valerie,
Below is a copy of the emails that have been forwarded to me by Neil Herron at the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund.I shall also forward to you a copy of the press release he sent about the original email.The message below is the history of a series of emails that seem to have been sent between Mr Herron and Mr Jones over recent days. Mr Herron believes Mr Jones works in the English translation department.
Thank you,
Ross Smith
Regional Affairs Correspondent
The Journal
The investigation begins. We have had calls that he has also posted on other websites. Any further information would be appreciated.
Valerie.RAMPI@cec.eu.int
To: ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk
03/14/05 03:12 PM
Subject: RE: Dear Mr Smith,
The Commission has opened the formal investigation of this process. The matter will be dealt appropriately once we have the results of the investigation.We understand that the official concerned has acknowledged that this e-mail was inappropriate and will send an apology to Metric Martyrs.The views expressed were of a private nature and certainly do not reflect the views of the Commission.
Best regards,
Valérie Rampi
----Original Message-----
From: ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk
[mailto:ross.smith@ncjmedia.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:37 PM
To: RAMPI Valerie (PRESS)Subject:
Fw:
Dear Valerie,
Below is a copy of the emails that have been forwarded to me by Neil Herron at the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund.I shall also forward to you a copy of the press release he sent about the original email.The message below is the history of a series of emails that seem to have been sent between Mr Herron and Mr Jones over recent days. Mr Herron believes Mr Jones works in the English translation department.
Thank you,
Ross Smith
Regional Affairs Correspondent
The Journal
Bombshell for the Assemblies across the country
The following letter was received yesterday from the City of Sunderland. When you read it you will understand the devastating consequences it has for all the councillors who sit on regional assemblies across the country.
To various degrees, depending on their understanding of the legality of their assemblies make-up, and the advice they have received from their own Local Authority legal advisors, they have been committing one or more of the offences described below.
Therefore, the same line needs to be followed with all local authorities. It would be beneficial to inform all assembly members of their vulnerable personal positions...then watch the domino effect.
Perhaps the Conservatives will see sense and unilaterally withdraw from the assemblies which will then be in breach of their own constitutions (must have a political balance) and therefore will be forced to wind up.
The original questions to Sunderland Council can be viewed here
The partial response to those questions is below, with the rest to follow:
City of
SUNDERLAND
CITY SOLICITOR
Bob Rayner LLB
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
Elaine Waugh LLB
SUNDERLAND
CITY SOLICITOR
Bob Rayner LLB
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
Elaine Waugh LLB
Po Box 100, Civic Centre
Sunderland,
Sunderland,
SR2 7DN
Telephone (0191) 553 1000
Fax (0191) 553 1033
DX60729, Sunderland
Mr R Rayner
1003
(0191) 553 1003
RCR/AGH/62600/A
11 March 2005-03-14 Bob.Rayner@sunderland.gov.uk
Mr N Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Dear Mr Herron
Complaints concerning ANEC/NEA and Declarations if Interest
Further to my acknowledgement of 7 march and having regard to the numerous issues you have raised I consider it would be beneficial if I set out the legal framework in respect of your complaints.
Alleged Breaches of S137 and 143 Local Government Act 1972 and S2 Local Government Act 2000
First, I would reiterate that leading Counsel confirmed in April 2003 that it was lawful for the Council to rely upon Section 137 and 143 of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of previous contributions and could rely on the power contained in S2 of the 2000 Act to support the Association and the Assembly to pursue the objectives set out in their Constitution and Rules of Procedure respectively.
The legal test for the exercise of the discretionary power in Section 2 is whether an authority considers that it is “likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area. The inclusion of the word “likely” means that the activities do not actually have to achieve that objective, but the discretion must be exercised properly within the public law framework.
The referendum result is a relevant matter for members to consider but is not determinative of the issue.
In my view the issue for an Authority is whether it considers the overall effect of membership id likely to achieve the objects set out in Section 2, and is not to be determined by reference to one single aspect.
Turning to the specific matter you raise, in summary the salient points are as follows:
- It is not the Assembly’s regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
- The RSS is a statement of the Secretary of States policy
- The assembly is undertaking the function of Regional Planning Body (RPB) for the North east as designated by the Minister and Council’s involvement is lawful.
- Participation provides the opportunity for Sunderland’s perspective to be articulated as part of the process.
- Individual authorities retain the right to make representations and objections and pursue their interests, as they deem appropriate at the examination in public.
The detailed legal position is that under Section (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) must set out the Secretary of State’s policy in relation to the development and use of land within the region. RPG1 is prescribed as the initial RSS for the North East.
Under Section 2 of the 2004 Act, the Secretary of State may give a direction recognising a body as the Regional Planning Body (RPB) and he has designated the North East Assembly as the RPB for the North East. Not less that 60% of the members of that body must be members of district, county or metropolitan district councils in the Town and Country planning (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004 S12004/2203. The Regulations provide that at least 30% of the members of the RPB must include at least one member from each type of “relevant authority”, including district councils, county councils and metropolitan district councils. All Members of the RPB are entitled to vote when any decision relating to the exercise of the RPB of its functions under the Act is taken.
The RPB’s general functions are to keep the RSS under review; monitor its implementation throughout the region and consider whether the implementation achieving the purposes of the RSS; and report annually to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the RSS. In addition the RPB must keep under review the matters, which may be expected to affect both development in the region or any party of it and the planning of that development, and must give advice to any other person/body if it thinks that will help to achieve RSS implementation. The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS.
However the RSS is a statement of the policies of the Secretary of State, not of the local planning authorities. The Secretary of State’s role is to set the national policies within which the RSS (or its revision) is prepared, to consider the draft and any representations and consider holding an examination in public, and to approve the revisions or proposed changes to it.
The Regulations provide that before submitting a draft revision of the RSS to the Secretary of State, and RPB must consult inter alia all of the Councils, each of which will have an opportunity of making representations and pursuing the matter if they deem it appropriate at the examination in public.
2. Alleged Breaches of the Local government Act 1972 and of the Code of Conduct
Sections 94 to 98 of the Local Government 1972 were repealed by paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 2000. The provisions were disapplied when the Council adopted the new code of conduct under the 2000 Act (see Article 4 of the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001 on 20 March 2002.
Accordingly, the issue of criminal charges needs to be considered only in respect of matter prior to 20 March 2002. No declarations of pecuniary interests were made and nor does it appear that members were advised to do so by my predecessor.
It is not considered they were required for the following reasons. Section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a Member of a Local Authority has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, proposed contract or other matter, he must declare it and take no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.
Section 95 provides that for the purposes of Section 94, a person shall be treated, subject to the provisions of the section and section 97, as having an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter if he is a member of a company or other body shall not by reason only of his membership be treated as having interest in any contract, proposed contract or other matter if he has no beneficial interest in any securities of that company or other body.
If ANEC is a public body, then any member of the body or employee of the body will not have a pecuniary interest by virtue of Section 95 (1). There are two definitions of “Public body” under the 1972 Act. Section 98 provides that “public body” includes any body established for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, the governing body of any university, university college or college, and various other matters, none of which could apply to ANEC. For the purpose of S95 the narrower definition is applicable but it is pertinent to note for the overall context that ANEC would qualify as a public body under section 270(1) which provides that “public body” includes and trustees, commissioners or other persons who, for public purposes and not for their own profit, act under any enactment or instrument for the improvement of any place”. The Members of ANEC/NEA act under instruments for the improvement of a place.
However, on the basis that ANEC is not deemed a public body, that is not the end of the matter because under Section 95 (2) a member of a company or other body shall not by reason only of his membership be treated as having an interest in any matter if he has no beneficial interest in any securities of the company or body, A member does not have an indirect pecuniary interest just because they are members of the body.
You have stated that the Members of ANEC have a pecuniary interest because they have a potential liability in view of the fact that ANEC is an unincorporated association.
There is however no restriction on the application of Section 95 (2). The only reason that the councillors have a potential pecuniary interest is by virtue of their membership. There is nothing in the section to suggest that it does not apply to situations where there is a potential liability upon the individual. It clearly states that they will not be treated as having an interest if they have no beneficial interest in any securities. The definition of “securities” is set out in Section 98 and it includes the usual things such as shares, instruments relating to indebtness, instruments giving entitlement to invests, certificates representing securities, rights to money deposited with a building society etc. Clearly the councillors have no beneficial interests in these matters and therefore they should not be treated as having an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter.
Turning now to the position under the code of conduct, the obligation on members is to register their relevant interests by providing written notice to myself and to notify changes within 28 days. There is no requirement to state that the nature of the interest is ‘pecuniary’ or ‘prejudicial’. Members are obliged to disclose personal interests (which arise in relation to matters which they have or ought to have registered and which includes membership of a position of general control in various specified bodies) at meetings of the Authority at the commencement of that consideration or when it becomes apparent (see paragraph 9 of the Code)
A member must then consider whether a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest. If so, the member should declare a prejudicial interest and withdraw from the meeting at which the matter is being considered.
Paragraph 10 (2) deals with situations where members have an interest arising from service on other authorities and public bodies. This paragraph provides that members may treat such interests as personal only, if the matter relates to various specifies bodies.
I would draw your attention to the category in paragraph © which includes ANEC.
Paragraph 10 aims to balance three principles:
· That Members must withdraw from consideration of issues where their interests conflict with their public duties;
· That the rules on interest should not obstruct Members who are involved on other forms of public service, such as another tier of local government;
· That the rules on interests are not intended to interfere with the proper conduct of council business.
In respect of the budget meetings held in 2003 and 2004 my advice was that Members on ANEC could exercise their discretion under this paragraph and treat the interest as personal only.
In November 2004 the Standards Board’s guidance on “Lobby groups, dual hated Members and the “Code of Conduct” (was received and copies sent to members). I also wrote to all Members summarising the guidance. Having regard to that guidance, my advice to members for the Budget item in respect of ANEC this year was to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter, which they all did and withdrew from the meeting whilst the matter was considered. For the avoidance of doubt this included the earlier consideration of the matter at Cabinet, which occurred prior to the receipt of your letter.
Relevant information, which you have requested, is being assembled and a colleague will be writing to you shortly in respect of certain requests.
In relation to the allegations of possible offences under the Local Government Act 1972, I have spoken to Superintendent Campbell of Northumbria Police who has confirmed that if notwithstanding the foregoing you consider offences have been committed then you should refer your concerns to the Police as the relevant investigating body. They would seek independent legal advice on the matter if they considered it necessary and determine whether to refer the matter to the DPP. Accordingly it would not be appropriate for me to correspond with you further on this aspect of your complaint.
Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 introduced a new regime for the regulation of the conduct of members, which involves reporting alleged breaches to the Standards Board. I have enclosed a further copy of the relevant booklet, which explains what to do if you decide in the light of all the information to proceed with a complaint and it will be for the Standards Boards to decide whether and by whom it should be investigated.
Yours sincerely
R C Rayner
City Solicitor
C.c District Auditor, Mr D Jennings
Supt J Campbell, Northumbria Police
Ms Michelle Witton, (Standards Board for England)
ANEC Members Chief Executive
Fax (0191) 553 1033
DX60729, Sunderland
Mr R Rayner
1003
(0191) 553 1003
RCR/AGH/62600/A
11 March 2005-03-14 Bob.Rayner@sunderland.gov.uk
Mr N Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Dear Mr Herron
Complaints concerning ANEC/NEA and Declarations if Interest
Further to my acknowledgement of 7 march and having regard to the numerous issues you have raised I consider it would be beneficial if I set out the legal framework in respect of your complaints.
Alleged Breaches of S137 and 143 Local Government Act 1972 and S2 Local Government Act 2000
First, I would reiterate that leading Counsel confirmed in April 2003 that it was lawful for the Council to rely upon Section 137 and 143 of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of previous contributions and could rely on the power contained in S2 of the 2000 Act to support the Association and the Assembly to pursue the objectives set out in their Constitution and Rules of Procedure respectively.
The legal test for the exercise of the discretionary power in Section 2 is whether an authority considers that it is “likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area. The inclusion of the word “likely” means that the activities do not actually have to achieve that objective, but the discretion must be exercised properly within the public law framework.
The referendum result is a relevant matter for members to consider but is not determinative of the issue.
In my view the issue for an Authority is whether it considers the overall effect of membership id likely to achieve the objects set out in Section 2, and is not to be determined by reference to one single aspect.
Turning to the specific matter you raise, in summary the salient points are as follows:
- It is not the Assembly’s regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
- The RSS is a statement of the Secretary of States policy
- The assembly is undertaking the function of Regional Planning Body (RPB) for the North east as designated by the Minister and Council’s involvement is lawful.
- Participation provides the opportunity for Sunderland’s perspective to be articulated as part of the process.
- Individual authorities retain the right to make representations and objections and pursue their interests, as they deem appropriate at the examination in public.
The detailed legal position is that under Section (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) must set out the Secretary of State’s policy in relation to the development and use of land within the region. RPG1 is prescribed as the initial RSS for the North East.
Under Section 2 of the 2004 Act, the Secretary of State may give a direction recognising a body as the Regional Planning Body (RPB) and he has designated the North East Assembly as the RPB for the North East. Not less that 60% of the members of that body must be members of district, county or metropolitan district councils in the Town and Country planning (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004 S12004/2203. The Regulations provide that at least 30% of the members of the RPB must include at least one member from each type of “relevant authority”, including district councils, county councils and metropolitan district councils. All Members of the RPB are entitled to vote when any decision relating to the exercise of the RPB of its functions under the Act is taken.
The RPB’s general functions are to keep the RSS under review; monitor its implementation throughout the region and consider whether the implementation achieving the purposes of the RSS; and report annually to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the RSS. In addition the RPB must keep under review the matters, which may be expected to affect both development in the region or any party of it and the planning of that development, and must give advice to any other person/body if it thinks that will help to achieve RSS implementation. The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS.
However the RSS is a statement of the policies of the Secretary of State, not of the local planning authorities. The Secretary of State’s role is to set the national policies within which the RSS (or its revision) is prepared, to consider the draft and any representations and consider holding an examination in public, and to approve the revisions or proposed changes to it.
The Regulations provide that before submitting a draft revision of the RSS to the Secretary of State, and RPB must consult inter alia all of the Councils, each of which will have an opportunity of making representations and pursuing the matter if they deem it appropriate at the examination in public.
2. Alleged Breaches of the Local government Act 1972 and of the Code of Conduct
Sections 94 to 98 of the Local Government 1972 were repealed by paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 2000. The provisions were disapplied when the Council adopted the new code of conduct under the 2000 Act (see Article 4 of the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001 on 20 March 2002.
Accordingly, the issue of criminal charges needs to be considered only in respect of matter prior to 20 March 2002. No declarations of pecuniary interests were made and nor does it appear that members were advised to do so by my predecessor.
It is not considered they were required for the following reasons. Section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a Member of a Local Authority has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, proposed contract or other matter, he must declare it and take no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.
Section 95 provides that for the purposes of Section 94, a person shall be treated, subject to the provisions of the section and section 97, as having an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter if he is a member of a company or other body shall not by reason only of his membership be treated as having interest in any contract, proposed contract or other matter if he has no beneficial interest in any securities of that company or other body.
If ANEC is a public body, then any member of the body or employee of the body will not have a pecuniary interest by virtue of Section 95 (1). There are two definitions of “Public body” under the 1972 Act. Section 98 provides that “public body” includes any body established for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, the governing body of any university, university college or college, and various other matters, none of which could apply to ANEC. For the purpose of S95 the narrower definition is applicable but it is pertinent to note for the overall context that ANEC would qualify as a public body under section 270(1) which provides that “public body” includes and trustees, commissioners or other persons who, for public purposes and not for their own profit, act under any enactment or instrument for the improvement of any place”. The Members of ANEC/NEA act under instruments for the improvement of a place.
However, on the basis that ANEC is not deemed a public body, that is not the end of the matter because under Section 95 (2) a member of a company or other body shall not by reason only of his membership be treated as having an interest in any matter if he has no beneficial interest in any securities of the company or body, A member does not have an indirect pecuniary interest just because they are members of the body.
You have stated that the Members of ANEC have a pecuniary interest because they have a potential liability in view of the fact that ANEC is an unincorporated association.
There is however no restriction on the application of Section 95 (2). The only reason that the councillors have a potential pecuniary interest is by virtue of their membership. There is nothing in the section to suggest that it does not apply to situations where there is a potential liability upon the individual. It clearly states that they will not be treated as having an interest if they have no beneficial interest in any securities. The definition of “securities” is set out in Section 98 and it includes the usual things such as shares, instruments relating to indebtness, instruments giving entitlement to invests, certificates representing securities, rights to money deposited with a building society etc. Clearly the councillors have no beneficial interests in these matters and therefore they should not be treated as having an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter.
Turning now to the position under the code of conduct, the obligation on members is to register their relevant interests by providing written notice to myself and to notify changes within 28 days. There is no requirement to state that the nature of the interest is ‘pecuniary’ or ‘prejudicial’. Members are obliged to disclose personal interests (which arise in relation to matters which they have or ought to have registered and which includes membership of a position of general control in various specified bodies) at meetings of the Authority at the commencement of that consideration or when it becomes apparent (see paragraph 9 of the Code)
A member must then consider whether a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest. If so, the member should declare a prejudicial interest and withdraw from the meeting at which the matter is being considered.
Paragraph 10 (2) deals with situations where members have an interest arising from service on other authorities and public bodies. This paragraph provides that members may treat such interests as personal only, if the matter relates to various specifies bodies.
I would draw your attention to the category in paragraph © which includes ANEC.
Paragraph 10 aims to balance three principles:
· That Members must withdraw from consideration of issues where their interests conflict with their public duties;
· That the rules on interest should not obstruct Members who are involved on other forms of public service, such as another tier of local government;
· That the rules on interests are not intended to interfere with the proper conduct of council business.
In respect of the budget meetings held in 2003 and 2004 my advice was that Members on ANEC could exercise their discretion under this paragraph and treat the interest as personal only.
In November 2004 the Standards Board’s guidance on “Lobby groups, dual hated Members and the “Code of Conduct” (was received and copies sent to members). I also wrote to all Members summarising the guidance. Having regard to that guidance, my advice to members for the Budget item in respect of ANEC this year was to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter, which they all did and withdrew from the meeting whilst the matter was considered. For the avoidance of doubt this included the earlier consideration of the matter at Cabinet, which occurred prior to the receipt of your letter.
Relevant information, which you have requested, is being assembled and a colleague will be writing to you shortly in respect of certain requests.
In relation to the allegations of possible offences under the Local Government Act 1972, I have spoken to Superintendent Campbell of Northumbria Police who has confirmed that if notwithstanding the foregoing you consider offences have been committed then you should refer your concerns to the Police as the relevant investigating body. They would seek independent legal advice on the matter if they considered it necessary and determine whether to refer the matter to the DPP. Accordingly it would not be appropriate for me to correspond with you further on this aspect of your complaint.
Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 introduced a new regime for the regulation of the conduct of members, which involves reporting alleged breaches to the Standards Board. I have enclosed a further copy of the relevant booklet, which explains what to do if you decide in the light of all the information to proceed with a complaint and it will be for the Standards Boards to decide whether and by whom it should be investigated.
Yours sincerely
R C Rayner
City Solicitor
C.c District Auditor, Mr D Jennings
Supt J Campbell, Northumbria Police
Ms Michelle Witton, (Standards Board for England)
ANEC Members Chief Executive
Monday, March 14, 2005
Labour MP launches devastating attack on Blair...just wish he did the same for other 'freedoms.'
A Labour MP of principle prepared to stand up and be counted on the issue of 'freedom.'...but I can't remember such a cry when Hackney greengrocer, Colin Hunt, faced the oppression of the Metrication Police over his freedom to obey an Act of Parliament as opposed to a European Directive.
Subject: Prevention of Terrorism Bill
- devastating attack by Labour MP Hansard
23 Feb 2005 : Column 366
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab):
As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall tryhard not to upset anyone.
However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too.
Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look toParliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this,politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency andself-respect.
Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmesejustice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded thatour fathers fought and died for liberty my own father literally believing that these things should not happen here, and we would neverallow them to happen here. But now we know better.
The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House ofLords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would befrightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us.
They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian PrimeMinister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it?
Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read.
Why does he insult theHouse?
Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh?
I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood,about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word ofapology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that onceone has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, itbecomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote todestroy them.Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury inmore serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, tocreate a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes.It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent intohell, which is not a place where I want to be.I hope that but doubt whether ethical principles and liberal thoughtwill triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences thatmake Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament sounprincipled..It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it.
ends
Subject: Prevention of Terrorism Bill
- devastating attack by Labour MP Hansard
23 Feb 2005 : Column 366
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab):
As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall tryhard not to upset anyone.
However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too.
Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look toParliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this,politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency andself-respect.
Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmesejustice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded thatour fathers fought and died for liberty my own father literally believing that these things should not happen here, and we would neverallow them to happen here. But now we know better.
The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House ofLords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would befrightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us.
They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian PrimeMinister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it?
Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read.
Why does he insult theHouse?
Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh?
I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood,about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word ofapology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that onceone has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, itbecomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote todestroy them.Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury inmore serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, tocreate a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes.It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent intohell, which is not a place where I want to be.I hope that but doubt whether ethical principles and liberal thoughtwill triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences thatmake Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament sounprincipled..It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it.
ends
Unelected assembly branded waste of money
Northern Echo
A CAMPAIGNER has branded the unelected North-East Assembly a waste of money after it approved plans to spend £2.1m in the new financial year.
The assembly adopted its first separate budget after the decision was taken to separate the finances of it and its sister organisation, The Association of North-East Councils (ANEC).
From April, the money that the region's councils paid into the same fund for the two organisations will be split.
In 2005/2006 they will pay £880,000, of which £800,000 will go to lobbying organisation ANEC, and will almost entirely fund its work.
The remainder will go to the assembly, which says it needs the contribution if it is access other funding, such as Government grants.
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron has lodged a complaint about council funding for the assembly and wants the District Auditor and the Standards Board for England and Wales to investigate.
He said the two organisations shared the same building and staff and that this would continue under the new arrangement.
He said £2.1m of public money will be spent on "Something that nobody wants and nobody asked for".
He added: "It flies in the face of the verdict delivered by the people of the North-East in the referendum on the elected assembly."
Chris Foote-Wood, the leader of the LibDem group on the assembly, said the separation of the two organisations would clarify the situation for the public.
He said: "Although a proportion of the grant will be allocated to the assembly in order to qualify for Government grant, it is small and it is to ensure that both organisations have proper funding."
The assembly said its spending has risen in line with inflation.
A CAMPAIGNER has branded the unelected North-East Assembly a waste of money after it approved plans to spend £2.1m in the new financial year.
The assembly adopted its first separate budget after the decision was taken to separate the finances of it and its sister organisation, The Association of North-East Councils (ANEC).
From April, the money that the region's councils paid into the same fund for the two organisations will be split.
In 2005/2006 they will pay £880,000, of which £800,000 will go to lobbying organisation ANEC, and will almost entirely fund its work.
The remainder will go to the assembly, which says it needs the contribution if it is access other funding, such as Government grants.
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron has lodged a complaint about council funding for the assembly and wants the District Auditor and the Standards Board for England and Wales to investigate.
He said the two organisations shared the same building and staff and that this would continue under the new arrangement.
He said £2.1m of public money will be spent on "Something that nobody wants and nobody asked for".
He added: "It flies in the face of the verdict delivered by the people of the North-East in the referendum on the elected assembly."
Chris Foote-Wood, the leader of the LibDem group on the assembly, said the separation of the two organisations would clarify the situation for the public.
He said: "Although a proportion of the grant will be allocated to the assembly in order to qualify for Government grant, it is small and it is to ensure that both organisations have proper funding."
The assembly said its spending has risen in line with inflation.
Assemblies exempt from FoI Act
Press Gazzette
The Government has been urged to close a loophole which means unelected regional assemblies are exempt from the new Freedom of Information Act.
Kent Messenger political editor Paul Francis has asked Constitutional Affairs minister Lord Falconer why these assemblies are not among the 100,000 public bodies covered by the act.
He is particularly concerned about the South East England Regional Assembly which, though unelected, has much influence over regional planning and strategic development issues.
In a letter to Falconer, Francis said: Five leading science journals will receive funding to switch to an online "open access" model, in a blow to traditional publishers.
The Government-financed Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) allocated a first round of funding last year, and is now expanding the programme to include a £150,000 total grant to the New Journal of Physics , Nucleic Acids Research , the Journal of Medical Genetics , the journals of the International Union of Crystallography, and the Journal of Experimental Botany .
Libraries are increasingly unable to afford subscriptions to journals, so under the new model, the author (or funders) of the article pay for publication, which is then free to all readers.
Reed Elsevier, one of the sector's leading traditional publishers, has dismissed the "open access" model as commercially unviable and a threat to standards.
But Lorraine Estelle, JISC collections team manager, said: "The first round of this programme has been a significant success, giving us some much-needed evidence of the potential of open access to stimulate research and to make visible the outputs of researchers in the UK.
"We look forward to the further success of this programme."
"To its credit, SEERA does appear to have an information policy that closely mirrors the provisions of the FOI Act.
"Nevertheless, should they choose to, regional assemblies could turn down requests for information from individuals or the media if they took the view that such requests lay outside the scope of FOI. Equally, they could give no reasons for doing so.
"These assemblies should, in my view, be among the public authorities that fall under FOI.
"They are spending taxpayers' money and are taking an increasingly influential role in strategic issues such as housing, transport and the environment.
"An example is their role in drawing up the new spatial strategies for the region.
"These strategies include setting house-building targets for the area, an issue of enormous public interest, especially in the south east, and a role the assembly has taken from county councils.
"Given that the assemblies are strictly unelected, it seems even more important that they are captured by FOI.
"It is rather perverse that the regional development agencies that assemblies are supposed to hold to account are among the public bodies that do fall under by FOI."
The Government has been urged to close a loophole which means unelected regional assemblies are exempt from the new Freedom of Information Act.
Kent Messenger political editor Paul Francis has asked Constitutional Affairs minister Lord Falconer why these assemblies are not among the 100,000 public bodies covered by the act.
He is particularly concerned about the South East England Regional Assembly which, though unelected, has much influence over regional planning and strategic development issues.
In a letter to Falconer, Francis said: Five leading science journals will receive funding to switch to an online "open access" model, in a blow to traditional publishers.
The Government-financed Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) allocated a first round of funding last year, and is now expanding the programme to include a £150,000 total grant to the New Journal of Physics , Nucleic Acids Research , the Journal of Medical Genetics , the journals of the International Union of Crystallography, and the Journal of Experimental Botany .
Libraries are increasingly unable to afford subscriptions to journals, so under the new model, the author (or funders) of the article pay for publication, which is then free to all readers.
Reed Elsevier, one of the sector's leading traditional publishers, has dismissed the "open access" model as commercially unviable and a threat to standards.
But Lorraine Estelle, JISC collections team manager, said: "The first round of this programme has been a significant success, giving us some much-needed evidence of the potential of open access to stimulate research and to make visible the outputs of researchers in the UK.
"We look forward to the further success of this programme."
"To its credit, SEERA does appear to have an information policy that closely mirrors the provisions of the FOI Act.
"Nevertheless, should they choose to, regional assemblies could turn down requests for information from individuals or the media if they took the view that such requests lay outside the scope of FOI. Equally, they could give no reasons for doing so.
"These assemblies should, in my view, be among the public authorities that fall under FOI.
"They are spending taxpayers' money and are taking an increasingly influential role in strategic issues such as housing, transport and the environment.
"An example is their role in drawing up the new spatial strategies for the region.
"These strategies include setting house-building targets for the area, an issue of enormous public interest, especially in the south east, and a role the assembly has taken from county councils.
"Given that the assemblies are strictly unelected, it seems even more important that they are captured by FOI.
"It is rather perverse that the regional development agencies that assemblies are supposed to hold to account are among the public bodies that do fall under by FOI."
Euro probe into abusive email
Mar 14 2005
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Brussels chiefs launched an investigation after a Euro-sceptic campaign group in the North-East received an abusive email from a European Commission address.
The Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, run by traders who opposed the use of metric weights and measures, was called "f****** Luddites" in the message.
It was sent from an email address using the same cec.eu.int domain name used by workers at the Commission.
Neil Herron, who runs the Sunderland-based campaign, last night demanded an inquiry to find if it came from a member of staff.
The email went on to say "long live metric", and ended with the words "you Luddites in England make me sick."
The European Commission was last night investigating whether the message came from a member of staff.
The three Euro-MPs for the North-East region have pledged to investigate the incident.
Mr Herron said: "We find this is inappropriate use of equipment funded by taxpayers.
"We don't mind someone having personal views, but we do mind European Commission employees venting their personal frustrations by email.
"We expect a full and thorough investigation and disciplinary action against the person who sent it."
Mr Herron, who along with four fellow traders shot to fame when they were prosecuted for using imperial weights and measures, stood for election in last June's European polls and collected 39,658 votes.
Conservative Euro-MP Martin Callanan said: "I take this very seriously.
"People should not be writing letters like that and I will investigate it on his behalf.
"I will be tabling questions to find if this is genuine, and if so I will be asking for appropriate action to be taken against them. This is unacceptable."
His Labour counterpart Stephen Hughes added: "If anyone inside the Commission or any other European institution is denigrating him because of his views, I will work with him to find out how that has happened.
"I don't agree with Neil's views on Europe for a moment, but we live in a democracy and he has got every right to his views - and he does represent the views of a number of people in this region."
Liberal Democrat Fiona Hall also said she would look into the incident.
Despite being informed of the email on Thursday, the Commission was last night still unable to confirm if it had come from a member of staff.
The Journal received no reply from the address the email was sent from.
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Brussels chiefs launched an investigation after a Euro-sceptic campaign group in the North-East received an abusive email from a European Commission address.
The Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, run by traders who opposed the use of metric weights and measures, was called "f****** Luddites" in the message.
It was sent from an email address using the same cec.eu.int domain name used by workers at the Commission.
Neil Herron, who runs the Sunderland-based campaign, last night demanded an inquiry to find if it came from a member of staff.
The email went on to say "long live metric", and ended with the words "you Luddites in England make me sick."
The European Commission was last night investigating whether the message came from a member of staff.
The three Euro-MPs for the North-East region have pledged to investigate the incident.
Mr Herron said: "We find this is inappropriate use of equipment funded by taxpayers.
"We don't mind someone having personal views, but we do mind European Commission employees venting their personal frustrations by email.
"We expect a full and thorough investigation and disciplinary action against the person who sent it."
Mr Herron, who along with four fellow traders shot to fame when they were prosecuted for using imperial weights and measures, stood for election in last June's European polls and collected 39,658 votes.
Conservative Euro-MP Martin Callanan said: "I take this very seriously.
"People should not be writing letters like that and I will investigate it on his behalf.
"I will be tabling questions to find if this is genuine, and if so I will be asking for appropriate action to be taken against them. This is unacceptable."
His Labour counterpart Stephen Hughes added: "If anyone inside the Commission or any other European institution is denigrating him because of his views, I will work with him to find out how that has happened.
"I don't agree with Neil's views on Europe for a moment, but we live in a democracy and he has got every right to his views - and he does represent the views of a number of people in this region."
Liberal Democrat Fiona Hall also said she would look into the incident.
Despite being informed of the email on Thursday, the Commission was last night still unable to confirm if it had come from a member of staff.
The Journal received no reply from the address the email was sent from.
FUTURE FOR REGIONAL ASSSEMBLIES
Cllr Bransby Thomas
Chair
English Regions Network
C/o West Midlands regional Assembly
Regional Partnership Centre
3rd Floor
Albert House
Quarry Place
92-93 Edward Street
Birmingham
B1 2RA
FUTURE FOR REGIONAL ASSSEMBLIES
Following the North East’s decision not to have an elected regional assembly, there has been some comment and debate about the existing regional assemblies. Much of this has been misinformed and reflects misunderstanding both of the role of the existing assemblies and our proposals for elected assemblies. In his statement to parliament on 8 November the Deputy Prime Minister made clear his continuing commitment to the regional agenda. This letter shares this more widely with yourself and the chairs of the assemblies.
Successive Governments have recognized that there are important issues which must be dealt with below the national level but which need to be co-ordinate over an area larger than even the biggest local authority. Since 1962 there has been a regional input into the planning process because issues have to be addressed that cross local authority boundaries. The previous administration established the government offices in 1994. We remain firmly committed to a regional dimension and will continue to build upon the progress we have made since 1997 by decentralising work to the regions.
We need to ensure that central decisions are properly informed and influenced by people in the regions and want to continue the progress that has been made by regional assemblies who have developed we since1999. You now play a valuable role on housing, planning, transport. economic development and sustainable development issues across your regions. So that people in the regions can have a voice and an input to these regional issues, we need the assemblies to remain representative of their region and work for the benefit of their regions.
We expect the role and responsibilities of regional assemblies to continue to evolve. The consultation exercise on merging regional housing and planning boards has just ended. As part of the Pre-Budget report on 2 December we issued a consultation document on proposals for regional funding allocations. This will be an important vehicle for establishing regional priorities and integrating regional strategies, and I know the assemblies will want to be proactive in responding to the consultation and in subsequent action.
On structure and membership, we want assemblies to remain representative of their whole region to have a balance between local authority members and regional stakeholders, and to have appropriate procedures in plan to handle government grant. We think it is right that local authority members should play a leading role in assemblies. It is vitally important that local authorities send to the assemblies members who will make a real contribution to the assembly’s work and who will think about the priorities of the region as a whole. It is equally important that the assemblies are able to draw on the valuable experience of other regional stakeholders who are, in their own ways, working towards bringing improvements to the regions.
Some of your members have raised the issue of nomenclature. We would now be content to adopt your suggestions of standardising the term “regional assemblies “, except where a statute or legal usage requires us to refer to regional chambers, in line with your designation under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.
I look forward to a busy New Year, working closely with the regional assemblies on the key issues of housing, planning and sustainable economic development that are so important for all the English regions.
Nick Raynsford
Chair
English Regions Network
C/o West Midlands regional Assembly
Regional Partnership Centre
3rd Floor
Albert House
Quarry Place
92-93 Edward Street
Birmingham
B1 2RA
FUTURE FOR REGIONAL ASSSEMBLIES
Following the North East’s decision not to have an elected regional assembly, there has been some comment and debate about the existing regional assemblies. Much of this has been misinformed and reflects misunderstanding both of the role of the existing assemblies and our proposals for elected assemblies. In his statement to parliament on 8 November the Deputy Prime Minister made clear his continuing commitment to the regional agenda. This letter shares this more widely with yourself and the chairs of the assemblies.
Successive Governments have recognized that there are important issues which must be dealt with below the national level but which need to be co-ordinate over an area larger than even the biggest local authority. Since 1962 there has been a regional input into the planning process because issues have to be addressed that cross local authority boundaries. The previous administration established the government offices in 1994. We remain firmly committed to a regional dimension and will continue to build upon the progress we have made since 1997 by decentralising work to the regions.
We need to ensure that central decisions are properly informed and influenced by people in the regions and want to continue the progress that has been made by regional assemblies who have developed we since1999. You now play a valuable role on housing, planning, transport. economic development and sustainable development issues across your regions. So that people in the regions can have a voice and an input to these regional issues, we need the assemblies to remain representative of their region and work for the benefit of their regions.
We expect the role and responsibilities of regional assemblies to continue to evolve. The consultation exercise on merging regional housing and planning boards has just ended. As part of the Pre-Budget report on 2 December we issued a consultation document on proposals for regional funding allocations. This will be an important vehicle for establishing regional priorities and integrating regional strategies, and I know the assemblies will want to be proactive in responding to the consultation and in subsequent action.
On structure and membership, we want assemblies to remain representative of their whole region to have a balance between local authority members and regional stakeholders, and to have appropriate procedures in plan to handle government grant. We think it is right that local authority members should play a leading role in assemblies. It is vitally important that local authorities send to the assemblies members who will make a real contribution to the assembly’s work and who will think about the priorities of the region as a whole. It is equally important that the assemblies are able to draw on the valuable experience of other regional stakeholders who are, in their own ways, working towards bringing improvements to the regions.
Some of your members have raised the issue of nomenclature. We would now be content to adopt your suggestions of standardising the term “regional assemblies “, except where a statute or legal usage requires us to refer to regional chambers, in line with your designation under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.
I look forward to a busy New Year, working closely with the regional assemblies on the key issues of housing, planning and sustainable economic development that are so important for all the English regions.
Nick Raynsford
Think again John
Think again John, From Herts and Essex Mercury, Nigel Clark
THERE are just five days left to save East Herts from irreversible damage.
Vast Government housing plans dubbed 'Prescottshire' by the Mercury will not only lead to the destruction of countryside and wildlife, they could cripple public services.
Today, we urge all our readers to respond to a public consultation on these ill-formed plans before it closes at 5pm on Wednesday.
The fight against the proposals was described by Hertford and Stortford's MP Mark Prisk this week as "the greatest challenge in a generation to my constituents' environment and quality of life".
He warned that plans to build 20,800 extra homes in the district by 2021 would result in an urban sprawl linking Hertford and Ware with Harlow and Sawbridgeworth and would lead to thousands of acres of Green Belt land being lost FOREVER.
Schools, health services, water supplies and transport networks which are already overheated will FAIL to cope with a predicted population surge of 47,000 people in the next 16 years.
In a House of Commons debate on Tuesday, Tory MP Mr Prisk spelled out what the housing plans would mean to his constituency. There will be:
* 28,000 more cars on the roads;
* 2,500 more peak-time commuters on the railways;
* 300 more pupils at EVERY school; and
* a need for 300 more doctors.
Pressure groups, countryside campaigners and anxious residents have joined local authorities across Hertfordshire in condemning the proposals, part of a super-plan for 79,600 extra homes in the county by 2021.
No-one doubts that new homes especially affordable homes are needed in Hertfordshire.
But why not let the elected representatives in Hertfordshire have a proper say in where these should go?
And why ignore the studies conducted by our local authorities into how many homes the county can support?
These proposals have been tabled by the UNELECTED East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) in response to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's vision of creating so-called 'sustainable communities' in the South East.
Independent consultants, a cross-party panel of MPs and even the Government's own Environment Agency have all poured scorn on the draft East of England plan, which has been described as "an environmental time bomb".
In a farcical twist to the tale, even EERA withdrew its support from its own plan in December.
Mr Prisk fumed: "We have a nonsense of a plan being promoted by a body that does not support it to a community that does not want it."
The district and county councils and Stop Harlow North which is campaigning against 10,000 homes swallowing up 3,000 acres of East Herts countryside north of Harlow were finalising their strongly-worded objections this week.
But worrying statistics issued by Herts County Council on Wednesday revealed that only 19 per cent of East Herts residents who are aware of the consultation had submitted their views.
Just 1,000 of Hertfordshire's 1m-plus population have contacted EERA since the process began on December 15.
Herts North East Tory MP Oliver Heald issued a rallying cry during the Commons debate. Coining the Mercury's phrase, he said: "Say 'No' to Prescottshire!"
The clock is ticking.
THERE are just five days left to save East Herts from irreversible damage.
Vast Government housing plans dubbed 'Prescottshire' by the Mercury will not only lead to the destruction of countryside and wildlife, they could cripple public services.
Today, we urge all our readers to respond to a public consultation on these ill-formed plans before it closes at 5pm on Wednesday.
The fight against the proposals was described by Hertford and Stortford's MP Mark Prisk this week as "the greatest challenge in a generation to my constituents' environment and quality of life".
He warned that plans to build 20,800 extra homes in the district by 2021 would result in an urban sprawl linking Hertford and Ware with Harlow and Sawbridgeworth and would lead to thousands of acres of Green Belt land being lost FOREVER.
Schools, health services, water supplies and transport networks which are already overheated will FAIL to cope with a predicted population surge of 47,000 people in the next 16 years.
In a House of Commons debate on Tuesday, Tory MP Mr Prisk spelled out what the housing plans would mean to his constituency. There will be:
* 28,000 more cars on the roads;
* 2,500 more peak-time commuters on the railways;
* 300 more pupils at EVERY school; and
* a need for 300 more doctors.
Pressure groups, countryside campaigners and anxious residents have joined local authorities across Hertfordshire in condemning the proposals, part of a super-plan for 79,600 extra homes in the county by 2021.
No-one doubts that new homes especially affordable homes are needed in Hertfordshire.
But why not let the elected representatives in Hertfordshire have a proper say in where these should go?
And why ignore the studies conducted by our local authorities into how many homes the county can support?
These proposals have been tabled by the UNELECTED East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) in response to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's vision of creating so-called 'sustainable communities' in the South East.
Independent consultants, a cross-party panel of MPs and even the Government's own Environment Agency have all poured scorn on the draft East of England plan, which has been described as "an environmental time bomb".
In a farcical twist to the tale, even EERA withdrew its support from its own plan in December.
Mr Prisk fumed: "We have a nonsense of a plan being promoted by a body that does not support it to a community that does not want it."
The district and county councils and Stop Harlow North which is campaigning against 10,000 homes swallowing up 3,000 acres of East Herts countryside north of Harlow were finalising their strongly-worded objections this week.
But worrying statistics issued by Herts County Council on Wednesday revealed that only 19 per cent of East Herts residents who are aware of the consultation had submitted their views.
Just 1,000 of Hertfordshire's 1m-plus population have contacted EERA since the process began on December 15.
Herts North East Tory MP Oliver Heald issued a rallying cry during the Commons debate. Coining the Mercury's phrase, he said: "Say 'No' to Prescottshire!"
The clock is ticking.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Prescott's regionalisation programme by stealth being sussed!
NEWS ANALYSIS: The era of the EERA, By Emma Hutchings
The Government wants 4,200 new homes built in Hertsmere, and a total of 79,600 in the county, by 2021.
The proposal has caused controversy across the region. Some believe the infrastructure — transport, schools, hopsitals, utilities, etc. — will not be able to cope with the increased population, while others believe that more affordable homes are needed so that young people can get on the property ladder.
Yet it is not up to the Government where the homes will go and how the developments will be handled. It is not even up to the county council or the borough councils. The decision rests with an organisation called the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).
It was established by the Government in 1999, following plans laid out by the previous Conservative government. Its aim is to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of the East of England and it does this by creating regional strategies.
There are three regional strategies — on the environment, the economy and tackling social exclusion. In addition there is the controversial East of England Plan, which sets out a framework for new housing and the accompanying development of infrastructure.
For example, the Regional Economic Strategy aims, among other things, to: create 55,800 new jobs in Hertfordshire; strengthen the economy, strengthen cultural, heritage and leisure assets; and improve the position of businesses in the global marketplace.
Although it is not directly elected, EERA's accountability is garnered by the majority of its members being councillors.
There are currently 107 members — 75 local councillors and 32 non-elected community 'stakeholder' members.
Each year the 54 local authorities in the region nominate one councillor to the assembly.
Political parties then nominate extra top-up councillors from anywhere in the region to make the membership representative of the overall votes they received at the last local elections.
Finally, stakeholder organisations nominate representatives to provide a minimum 30 per cent of the assembly membership. These include people from trade unions, environmental organisations, employee groups, the voluntary sector and the NHS.
Borehamwood has three representatives on the assembly — Labour county councillors Brian York and John Metcalf, and Conservative leader of Hertsmere Borough Council, Neil Payne.
Councillor York said: "It's a bit remote. I'm always saying that Borehamwood should be related to London, not East Anglia. Borehamwood people relate to London, they don't relate to Great Yarmouth. But it's good for Borehamwood that it's got two councillors in the assembly."
Martin Saunders, Conservative councillor for Hertsmere's Aldenham West ward, said: "Our policy is to get rid of regional assemblies and return everything back to the county councils. We would be far better off in Hertfordshire without it.
"But in the mean time we've got to work with them. It does no good for Hertfordshire whatsoever.
"It's an undemocratic and unaccountable layer of local government — and it's not even local."
There are 45 members of staff employed at EERA's headquarters near Bury St Edmunds.
The assembly is funded from central government grants as well as subscriptions from local
authorities. It also has an income from providing training courses and consultancy.
Hertsmere Borough Council paid £12,203 (plus VAT)for the current financial year. Hertfordshire County Council paid £34,000.
There are no plans for a referendum on an elected regional assembly in the region, as happened in Yorkshire.
• Next week's News Analysis will focus on the debate over the East of England plan
5:36pm Thursday 10th March 2005
The Government wants 4,200 new homes built in Hertsmere, and a total of 79,600 in the county, by 2021.
The proposal has caused controversy across the region. Some believe the infrastructure — transport, schools, hopsitals, utilities, etc. — will not be able to cope with the increased population, while others believe that more affordable homes are needed so that young people can get on the property ladder.
Yet it is not up to the Government where the homes will go and how the developments will be handled. It is not even up to the county council or the borough councils. The decision rests with an organisation called the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).
It was established by the Government in 1999, following plans laid out by the previous Conservative government. Its aim is to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of the East of England and it does this by creating regional strategies.
There are three regional strategies — on the environment, the economy and tackling social exclusion. In addition there is the controversial East of England Plan, which sets out a framework for new housing and the accompanying development of infrastructure.
For example, the Regional Economic Strategy aims, among other things, to: create 55,800 new jobs in Hertfordshire; strengthen the economy, strengthen cultural, heritage and leisure assets; and improve the position of businesses in the global marketplace.
Although it is not directly elected, EERA's accountability is garnered by the majority of its members being councillors.
There are currently 107 members — 75 local councillors and 32 non-elected community 'stakeholder' members.
Each year the 54 local authorities in the region nominate one councillor to the assembly.
Political parties then nominate extra top-up councillors from anywhere in the region to make the membership representative of the overall votes they received at the last local elections.
Finally, stakeholder organisations nominate representatives to provide a minimum 30 per cent of the assembly membership. These include people from trade unions, environmental organisations, employee groups, the voluntary sector and the NHS.
Borehamwood has three representatives on the assembly — Labour county councillors Brian York and John Metcalf, and Conservative leader of Hertsmere Borough Council, Neil Payne.
Councillor York said: "It's a bit remote. I'm always saying that Borehamwood should be related to London, not East Anglia. Borehamwood people relate to London, they don't relate to Great Yarmouth. But it's good for Borehamwood that it's got two councillors in the assembly."
Martin Saunders, Conservative councillor for Hertsmere's Aldenham West ward, said: "Our policy is to get rid of regional assemblies and return everything back to the county councils. We would be far better off in Hertfordshire without it.
"But in the mean time we've got to work with them. It does no good for Hertfordshire whatsoever.
"It's an undemocratic and unaccountable layer of local government — and it's not even local."
There are 45 members of staff employed at EERA's headquarters near Bury St Edmunds.
The assembly is funded from central government grants as well as subscriptions from local
authorities. It also has an income from providing training courses and consultancy.
Hertsmere Borough Council paid £12,203 (plus VAT)for the current financial year. Hertfordshire County Council paid £34,000.
There are no plans for a referendum on an elected regional assembly in the region, as happened in Yorkshire.
• Next week's News Analysis will focus on the debate over the East of England plan
5:36pm Thursday 10th March 2005
North East Referendum mystery may be cleared up
In a courtesy call today from Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums at the Electoral Commission, he confirmed that they had received a 'Freedom of Information' request with regard to the designation decision in the North East referendum. As a courtesy he wished to make us aware. They do have 20 working days to comply with the request, which brings it to on or about 6th April. There are a few Data Protection Act issues which need sorting out first with regard to names and addresses mentioned in the applications.
Hopefully, we will possibly clear up the mystery as to why a Conservative backed campaign, set up so late in the day, ended up with designated status. If anyone is in any doubt as to the sham the NESNO campaign was with regard to its genuine concern for the North East and the regional assembly agenda one need look no further than their website www.northeastsaysno.co.uk which doesn't even have the courtesy to publish the result of the referendum.
Bags packed. Up and away back to London to tell all the backers for the No Campaign for the referendum on the European Constitution what a great job they did.
We hear from an insider at a Conservative Party briefing by their Campaign Director, James Frayne, that he personally came to the North East and sorted the shambles out because there was nothing here. Oh Mr Frayne...and we thought Pinnocchio stretched the truth. Shame on you!
Now that the actual campaign spending figures have been disclosed it will be interesting to find out the name of the print firm that produced NESNO's A5 referendum address for the free mailshot to all 1.9m voters. Our quotes came in at around the £15,000 mark. NESNO spent over£49,000 but I am sure that they shopped around.
If anyone wishes to see the content of the request for information to the Electoral Commission it is copied below (along with the response) although I can't quite recall how we came to have a copy ;-)
From:
Ms *******
3rd March 2005
To:
Jacqui Dixon
The Secretary to The Commission
Electoral Commission
Trevelyan House
30 Great Peter Street
London
SW1P 2HW
0207 271 0500
info@eletoralcommission.org.uk
Dear Ms Dixon
I am conducting independent reasearch on referendum campaign strategies with a view to publishing a paper in advance of the referendum on the European Constitution.
I am therefore very interested in the recent referendum held in the North East for an Elected Regional Assembly, especially in light of the recently published figures on the relative spends of each of the campaign groups.
I am also very interested in why there were more than one group applying for the position of those officially representing the 'No' outcome.
I understand that there was only one submission on behalf of Yes4theNorth East for designation for the 'Yes' outcome but three for the 'No' outcome. They were from BNP, North East Says No Ltd. and the North East No Campaign.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could release, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following:
I refer to your e-mail request of 4 March 2005.
As you may be aware the Commission has 20 working days in which to respond to your request, and taking account of the impending bank holidays, this means that you may expect a response by 6 April 2005.
Yours sincerely,
Jacqui Dixon
Secretary to the Commission
0207 271 0616
Hopefully, we will possibly clear up the mystery as to why a Conservative backed campaign, set up so late in the day, ended up with designated status. If anyone is in any doubt as to the sham the NESNO campaign was with regard to its genuine concern for the North East and the regional assembly agenda one need look no further than their website www.northeastsaysno.co.uk which doesn't even have the courtesy to publish the result of the referendum.
Bags packed. Up and away back to London to tell all the backers for the No Campaign for the referendum on the European Constitution what a great job they did.
We hear from an insider at a Conservative Party briefing by their Campaign Director, James Frayne, that he personally came to the North East and sorted the shambles out because there was nothing here. Oh Mr Frayne...and we thought Pinnocchio stretched the truth. Shame on you!
Now that the actual campaign spending figures have been disclosed it will be interesting to find out the name of the print firm that produced NESNO's A5 referendum address for the free mailshot to all 1.9m voters. Our quotes came in at around the £15,000 mark. NESNO spent over£49,000 but I am sure that they shopped around.
If anyone wishes to see the content of the request for information to the Electoral Commission it is copied below (along with the response) although I can't quite recall how we came to have a copy ;-)
From:
Ms *******
3rd March 2005
To:
Jacqui Dixon
The Secretary to The Commission
Electoral Commission
Trevelyan House
30 Great Peter Street
London
SW1P 2HW
0207 271 0500
info@eletoralcommission.org.uk
Dear Ms Dixon
I am conducting independent reasearch on referendum campaign strategies with a view to publishing a paper in advance of the referendum on the European Constitution.
I am therefore very interested in the recent referendum held in the North East for an Elected Regional Assembly, especially in light of the recently published figures on the relative spends of each of the campaign groups.
I am also very interested in why there were more than one group applying for the position of those officially representing the 'No' outcome.
I understand that there was only one submission on behalf of Yes4theNorth East for designation for the 'Yes' outcome but three for the 'No' outcome. They were from BNP, North East Says No Ltd. and the North East No Campaign.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could release, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following:
-copies of the applications from the above parties campaigning for both outcomes ( I understand that now the outcome is decided there will be no 'sensitive' campaign tactics or information).
-copies of the minutes of all the meetings with the commissioners involved in the designation decision and details of correspondence between the commissioners and the Head of Referendums, Douglas Stewart.
-copies of any reports by Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums, which I understand from press reports, were not considered by the commissioners.
I am quite happy with the figures available on your website with regard to the relevant spends of each of the groups, and I understand that the Yes4theNorthEast figures will be published shortly.
Many thanks for your co-operation.
Yours sincerely,
******** ***********
And the response
Dear Ms ***********,I refer to your e-mail request of 4 March 2005.
As you may be aware the Commission has 20 working days in which to respond to your request, and taking account of the impending bank holidays, this means that you may expect a response by 6 April 2005.
Yours sincerely,
Jacqui Dixon
Secretary to the Commission
0207 271 0616
Prescott does not understand the word No
Prescott 'is imposing tyranny'
Mar 11 2005
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
John Prescott has been accused of imposing `a regional tyranny' by opponents for ignoring the wishes of North-East voters and pressing ahead regardless with his plans for regionalisation.
The Deputy Prime Minister will come under attack from the Tories today who said he was in danger of creating a "regional tyranny" by continuing to transfer power to unelected quangos despite 78pc of voters saying No to the idea of an assembly.
The party's local government spokesman Eric Pickles will tell the Conservative spring conference that Mr Prescott's disregard for the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly last November risks creating "a regional tyranny - government by officialdom with no mandate, legitimacy or accountability".
The attack follows criticism of Mr Prescott's plans to give regional bodies power to clamp down on smoking, impose housing targets, deal with waste strategies and for unelected regional development agencies to decide whether Las Vegas-style super casinos are built.
It also follows recent reports that Mr Prescott's office is ordering councils to give travellers special rights to build homes and for planners to take "positive action" to help them.
Now the Tories are alleging this regionalisation by stealth is creating an undemocratic layer of government, with Mr Pickles saying: "What part of No does John Prescott not understand?
"Month after month since November's No vote, more and more power is being transferred to expensive and distant, regional pen pushers and politicians.
"John Prescott has shown contempt for the voice of the people in rejecting places for a new tier of regional politicians.
"The contempt for the referendum result threatens a regional tyranny - government by officialdom with no mandate, legitimacy or accountability."
There was no reply from the ODPM last night.
Mar 11 2005
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
John Prescott has been accused of imposing `a regional tyranny' by opponents for ignoring the wishes of North-East voters and pressing ahead regardless with his plans for regionalisation.
The Deputy Prime Minister will come under attack from the Tories today who said he was in danger of creating a "regional tyranny" by continuing to transfer power to unelected quangos despite 78pc of voters saying No to the idea of an assembly.
The party's local government spokesman Eric Pickles will tell the Conservative spring conference that Mr Prescott's disregard for the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly last November risks creating "a regional tyranny - government by officialdom with no mandate, legitimacy or accountability".
The attack follows criticism of Mr Prescott's plans to give regional bodies power to clamp down on smoking, impose housing targets, deal with waste strategies and for unelected regional development agencies to decide whether Las Vegas-style super casinos are built.
It also follows recent reports that Mr Prescott's office is ordering councils to give travellers special rights to build homes and for planners to take "positive action" to help them.
Now the Tories are alleging this regionalisation by stealth is creating an undemocratic layer of government, with Mr Pickles saying: "What part of No does John Prescott not understand?
"Month after month since November's No vote, more and more power is being transferred to expensive and distant, regional pen pushers and politicians.
"John Prescott has shown contempt for the voice of the people in rejecting places for a new tier of regional politicians.
"The contempt for the referendum result threatens a regional tyranny - government by officialdom with no mandate, legitimacy or accountability."
There was no reply from the ODPM last night.
Tories lead as even a 70% majority fails to bring the ass to its' knees
Tories bid to prevent 'control by Brussels'
Mar 9 2005
BERKSHIRE Tories failed in their bid to persuade John Prescott's unelected South East England Regional Assembley to abolish itself - even through more than 70% of delegates thought it a good idea.
Wokingham District Council leader Frank Browne's motion was aimed at persuading the govern-ment-appointed collection of local politicians, and business, religious and environmental representatives, to vote themselves out of exstence.
Critics say SEERA is one step along the path towards regional government run from Brussels.
One of SEERA's main responsibilities is drawing up the South East Plan - with its contentious house building proposals - to decide how the region develops over the next 20 years.
SEERA wants to build 28,000 or 32,000 homes a year to keep up with population and moving trends.
But the Tory dissolution bid was outvoted by Lib Dem and Labour council-lors and a majority of SEERA's special interest respresentatives.
Reading Borough Council's representative, transport leader Cllr John Howarth, said: "I would describe it as a cynical and counter productive scheme by the Conservative party to appease the far right Euro-sceptic wing.
"Had this succeeded, the result would have been to leave the south east with no voice in the current planning system, which would not benefit people living here."
Cllr Browne said: "I feel very strongly that the assembly is quietly supporting the introduction of regional government by the back door. "It has no democratic mandate to do this and it is time to stop this creeping regionalisation."
He said the bid failed despite getting 70.7% of the vote from local authorities, because only 4% of the social, economic and environmental groups were in favour - and a majority from both sections is needed.
He said: "It is a moral victory and we will have to think next how we take this forward."
Mar 9 2005
BERKSHIRE Tories failed in their bid to persuade John Prescott's unelected South East England Regional Assembley to abolish itself - even through more than 70% of delegates thought it a good idea.
Wokingham District Council leader Frank Browne's motion was aimed at persuading the govern-ment-appointed collection of local politicians, and business, religious and environmental representatives, to vote themselves out of exstence.
Critics say SEERA is one step along the path towards regional government run from Brussels.
One of SEERA's main responsibilities is drawing up the South East Plan - with its contentious house building proposals - to decide how the region develops over the next 20 years.
SEERA wants to build 28,000 or 32,000 homes a year to keep up with population and moving trends.
But the Tory dissolution bid was outvoted by Lib Dem and Labour council-lors and a majority of SEERA's special interest respresentatives.
Reading Borough Council's representative, transport leader Cllr John Howarth, said: "I would describe it as a cynical and counter productive scheme by the Conservative party to appease the far right Euro-sceptic wing.
"Had this succeeded, the result would have been to leave the south east with no voice in the current planning system, which would not benefit people living here."
Cllr Browne said: "I feel very strongly that the assembly is quietly supporting the introduction of regional government by the back door. "It has no democratic mandate to do this and it is time to stop this creeping regionalisation."
He said the bid failed despite getting 70.7% of the vote from local authorities, because only 4% of the social, economic and environmental groups were in favour - and a majority from both sections is needed.
He said: "It is a moral victory and we will have to think next how we take this forward."
Thursday, March 10, 2005
European Commission Vice President to get involved?
Vice President and 'Information' Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, wishes to portray the 'nice' face' of the European Commission. It appears as though her colleague, John Jones, wishes simply to show its backside.
This e-mail has been sent to her. We wait with anticipation as to how the face and the backside are reconciled.
Dear Margot,
As the Commission Vice President and Information Commissioner can you confirm that the following e-mail (received from Mr. John Jones who works in the European Commission's English Translation Department) is not in accordance with the Commission's communication policy.
You can ead the offensive e-mail here
We will be making a formal complaint, as it has caused a great deal of offence not to mention concern that an employee could act in such a fashion, and I hope that you will make it your personal business to get involved.
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
Sunderland
00 44 191 565 7143
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
To Support the campaign click here
This e-mail has been sent to her. We wait with anticipation as to how the face and the backside are reconciled.
Dear Margot,
As the Commission Vice President and Information Commissioner can you confirm that the following e-mail (received from Mr. John Jones who works in the European Commission's English Translation Department) is not in accordance with the Commission's communication policy.
You can ead the offensive e-mail here
We will be making a formal complaint, as it has caused a great deal of offence not to mention concern that an employee could act in such a fashion, and I hope that you will make it your personal business to get involved.
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
Sunderland
00 44 191 565 7143
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
To Support the campaign click here
"Is this the true face of the European Commission?"
Press Release
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 noon 12th March
"Is this the true face of the European Commission?"
On Monday 7th March 2005 the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund received the following unsolicited, foul and abusive e-mail:
(I have added asterisks to the e-mail to avoid causing any offence)
Original messageFrom: "John M. Jones" john.jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f***ing luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metricunits names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water. ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england make me sick.
Although very rare, is not the first we have received, and it will probably not be the last. However, what is significant is that the e-mail address is a European Commission employee's address. It appears that Mr. John Jones works for the Translation Service in Brussels.
We have requested that the Secretariat General of the European Commission initiates an investigation as this is not the type of behaviour we would expect from anyone who is employed at the taxpayer's expense.
We intend to make an official complaint and have requested the assistance from the three North East MEP's, Martin Callanan (Cons), Stephen Hughes (Lab) and Fiona Hall ( Lib Dem). It is unusual in the North East that we have equal representation from the three main parties and we hope that their response to this type of behaviour by a Commission employee is one of unilateral condemnation.
It appears that there has been a very serious breach of the European Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
Objectivity and impartiality –
Staff shall always act objectively and impartially, in the Community interest and for the public good. They shall act independently within the framework of the policy fixed by the Commission and their conduct shall never be guided by personal or national interest or political pressure.
In a week when Vice President of the European Commission, Margot Wallstrom, is desperately attempting, on her website, to show the 'nice face' of the Commission, it appears as though Mr. Jones has exposed perhaps the true and unacceptable 'rear end' of the whole of the European Project.
Metric Martyrs Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "It is rather distressing for us to receive such an offensive e-mail especially so close to the anniversary of Steven Thoburn's tragic and untimely death. We offered Mr. Jones the opportunity to apologise but he refused. His offensive, foul and abusive remarks are wholly unacceptable and are made even more astounding because of the nature of his employment. I will be amazed if he is allowed to remain in the employ of the Commission and paid for by the public purse. We expect nothing less than a full and thorough, transparent investigation into this gentleman's behaviour."
ENDS
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 00 44 191 565 7143
Mob. 00 44 7776202045
Full text of all e-mail correspondence can be viewed here
http://www.metricmartyrs@btconnect.com/
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
To support the campaign click here
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 noon 12th March
"Is this the true face of the European Commission?"
On Monday 7th March 2005 the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund received the following unsolicited, foul and abusive e-mail:
(I have added asterisks to the e-mail to avoid causing any offence)
Original messageFrom: "John M. Jones" john.jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f***ing luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metricunits names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water. ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england make me sick.
Although very rare, is not the first we have received, and it will probably not be the last. However, what is significant is that the e-mail address is a European Commission employee's address. It appears that Mr. John Jones works for the Translation Service in Brussels.
We have requested that the Secretariat General of the European Commission initiates an investigation as this is not the type of behaviour we would expect from anyone who is employed at the taxpayer's expense.
We intend to make an official complaint and have requested the assistance from the three North East MEP's, Martin Callanan (Cons), Stephen Hughes (Lab) and Fiona Hall ( Lib Dem). It is unusual in the North East that we have equal representation from the three main parties and we hope that their response to this type of behaviour by a Commission employee is one of unilateral condemnation.
It appears that there has been a very serious breach of the European Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
Objectivity and impartiality –
Staff shall always act objectively and impartially, in the Community interest and for the public good. They shall act independently within the framework of the policy fixed by the Commission and their conduct shall never be guided by personal or national interest or political pressure.
In a week when Vice President of the European Commission, Margot Wallstrom, is desperately attempting, on her website, to show the 'nice face' of the Commission, it appears as though Mr. Jones has exposed perhaps the true and unacceptable 'rear end' of the whole of the European Project.
Metric Martyrs Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "It is rather distressing for us to receive such an offensive e-mail especially so close to the anniversary of Steven Thoburn's tragic and untimely death. We offered Mr. Jones the opportunity to apologise but he refused. His offensive, foul and abusive remarks are wholly unacceptable and are made even more astounding because of the nature of his employment. I will be amazed if he is allowed to remain in the employ of the Commission and paid for by the public purse. We expect nothing less than a full and thorough, transparent investigation into this gentleman's behaviour."
ENDS
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 00 44 191 565 7143
Mob. 00 44 7776202045
Full text of all e-mail correspondence can be viewed here
http://www.metricmartyrs@btconnect.com/
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
To support the campaign click here
What Tony Says doesn't appear to be what Raynsford says
Regional rule
“Personally I am in favour of extending the mayoral system.
“People say it hasn’t worked but I disagree. I think you would find it quite hard to take it off any city that has got its mayor now.
“For the rest of us, it’s to try to get decision-making down to a local level. That is one of the reasons why we are giving parish councils and local neighbourhoods greater powers to influence their local policing and so on.
“People want to feel that their local voice is heard and that is where I think this will go now.
“The problem always with regional devolution in England is that in Wales and Scotland there is a clear national identity. In Northern Ireland people are aware Northern Ireland is an entity.
“[But] even in the Northwest and North-east, where you probably have a greater regional coherence than anywhere else, they don’t quite feel the same. And that’s the problem with it.
“We said it was a manifesto commitment, we gave people a shot at it, and I’m not saying if people came forward in the North-west or anywhere else and said we want a regional government then we wouldn’t facilitate that, but I don’t notice that happening a great deal at the moment.”
To read what Tony Says click here
To read what Raynsford says click here
“Personally I am in favour of extending the mayoral system.
“People say it hasn’t worked but I disagree. I think you would find it quite hard to take it off any city that has got its mayor now.
“For the rest of us, it’s to try to get decision-making down to a local level. That is one of the reasons why we are giving parish councils and local neighbourhoods greater powers to influence their local policing and so on.
“People want to feel that their local voice is heard and that is where I think this will go now.
“The problem always with regional devolution in England is that in Wales and Scotland there is a clear national identity. In Northern Ireland people are aware Northern Ireland is an entity.
“[But] even in the Northwest and North-east, where you probably have a greater regional coherence than anywhere else, they don’t quite feel the same. And that’s the problem with it.
“We said it was a manifesto commitment, we gave people a shot at it, and I’m not saying if people came forward in the North-west or anywhere else and said we want a regional government then we wouldn’t facilitate that, but I don’t notice that happening a great deal at the moment.”
To read what Tony Says click here
To read what Raynsford says click here
Your Elected Representatives. Who are they?
Here are a few links to help you :
http://www.election-maps.co.uk
http://www.upmystreet.co.uk
http://www.theyworkforyou.com
http://www.election-maps.co.uk
http://www.upmystreet.co.uk
http://www.theyworkforyou.com
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The response to Mr. Jones' abuse...the true face of Brussels
This is a copy of the e-mail sent by me to the 'foul and abusive' Mr. Jones. His e-mail address, and he is a public servant, should you wish to contact him is listed also.
His contact details in Brussels are:
----- Original Message -----
From: Metric Martyrs
To: John.Jones@cec.eu.int
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Formal Complaints Procedure
Dear Mr. Jones,
I take it from your latest communication that you are not prepared to apologise for the foul and abusive unsolicited e-mail that you sent us.
I take it also, that from your e-mail address that you work, in some capacity, for the European Commission and are therefore using equipment or an address provided by the taxpayer for the venting of your own personal frustrations.
I have no wish to continue the dialogue with you only for you to provide the information requested below.
We will obviously be taking the matter further with a view to legal action.
It is rather distressing for us to receive such an offensive e-mail especially so close to the anniversary of Steven Thoburn's tragic and untimely death however, it is perhaps somewhat fortunate for you that your offensive comments were intercepted by me and were not seen by his widow.
Can you please provide me with details of the European Commission's formal complaints procedure and confirm that you work for the Translation Service and your superior is Gillian Colledge?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
His contact details in Brussels are:
----- Original Message -----
From: Metric Martyrs
To: John.Jones@cec.eu.int
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Formal Complaints Procedure
Dear Mr. Jones,
I take it from your latest communication that you are not prepared to apologise for the foul and abusive unsolicited e-mail that you sent us.
I take it also, that from your e-mail address that you work, in some capacity, for the European Commission and are therefore using equipment or an address provided by the taxpayer for the venting of your own personal frustrations.
I have no wish to continue the dialogue with you only for you to provide the information requested below.
We will obviously be taking the matter further with a view to legal action.
It is rather distressing for us to receive such an offensive e-mail especially so close to the anniversary of Steven Thoburn's tragic and untimely death however, it is perhaps somewhat fortunate for you that your offensive comments were intercepted by me and were not seen by his widow.
Can you please provide me with details of the European Commission's formal complaints procedure and confirm that you work for the Translation Service and your superior is Gillian Colledge?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
The true face of the Commission (part 2)
In this bizarre statement Mr. Jones, who e-mailed the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund's e-mail address with an unsolicited foul and abusive e-mail accuses me of insulting him!
Is this the true face of the European Commission? Not the nice, soft, people friendly approach of Margot Wallstrom's blog...but the true arrogant and offensive hatred which lurks beneath the surface. Hatred of anyone that dare attempt to challenge or disagree with 'their Project.'
The final response to him will be posted above.
From: John.Jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: RE:
I have just read you email as I have not been reading emails since Monday.
You insist on continuing with this dialogue.
Expecting anyone to apologise 'by return' is a bit short notice, and apart from using a swear word there is nothing to apologise for.
I obviously don't understand 'what it's all about' because my remarks about people holding up progress being luddities is true not only of this time in our history but of the past as well.
What I obviously do not understand is why your organisation politicises and attempts to frustrate what should have been in essence a simple changeover in the national interest as with decimal currency (perhaps you oppose that too).
I clearly do not understand the point of wishing to perpetuate the current mess of units of weight and measurement that are found in the country today. Two generations have suffered already, and children leaving school with a a complete metric education but coming out into a parallel world will be the next to suffer.
So, perhaps you are right and I don't understand 'what it's all about' - at least not what you are trying to achieve over this particular issue.
We'll see who history proves to be right - and thanks.
Now perhaps you'd like to aplogise for insulting me!
Is this the true face of the European Commission? Not the nice, soft, people friendly approach of Margot Wallstrom's blog...but the true arrogant and offensive hatred which lurks beneath the surface. Hatred of anyone that dare attempt to challenge or disagree with 'their Project.'
The final response to him will be posted above.
From: John.Jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: RE:
I have just read you email as I have not been reading emails since Monday.
You insist on continuing with this dialogue.
Expecting anyone to apologise 'by return' is a bit short notice, and apart from using a swear word there is nothing to apologise for.
I obviously don't understand 'what it's all about' because my remarks about people holding up progress being luddities is true not only of this time in our history but of the past as well.
What I obviously do not understand is why your organisation politicises and attempts to frustrate what should have been in essence a simple changeover in the national interest as with decimal currency (perhaps you oppose that too).
I clearly do not understand the point of wishing to perpetuate the current mess of units of weight and measurement that are found in the country today. Two generations have suffered already, and children leaving school with a a complete metric education but coming out into a parallel world will be the next to suffer.
So, perhaps you are right and I don't understand 'what it's all about' - at least not what you are trying to achieve over this particular issue.
We'll see who history proves to be right - and thanks.
Now perhaps you'd like to aplogise for insulting me!
The true face of the European Commission
We received the following e-mail yesterday.
(I have added asterisks to the e-mail to avoid causing offence)
Original message
From: "John M. Jones" john.jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f***ing luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metricunits names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water.
ps: what in hell are you actually defending?
look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe.
you luddites in england make me sick.
I then replied to Mr. Jones (e-mail copied below):
Looks like understanding (or writing) plain English is not one of your strong points. Read what the whole thing was actually about and not what you assume it was about. You probably didn't really pay that much attention at school either.
Love Europe.
Just can't abide the corrupt, profligate undemocraticEuropeanUnion, and object to having laws made by the unaccountable.
You wouldn't happen to have a vested interest in the institution, would you?
Look forward to your reply.
ps. No comment on great countries...USA?
Are they metric? Being a luddite I couldn't even spell Apollo...was he the Greek god named after US metric moonrockets or sumfink?
When you know what you're talking about I'll send you a couple of tickets to the real world where we live... assuming that you would have someone for theother ticket.
Loser!
What then followed was a lengthy missive from him which I have copied below. However, it concerned me that this gentleman was, because of his e-mail address, working for the European Commission in some capacity. He was using resources paid for by the taxpayer to conduct his private, and offensive business. His reply below is followed up with my response in the next blog posting above.
With all due respect, Mr Herron,
(a) you do not understand British humour and
(b) I suggest you are the one in need of a ticket to the real world.
Bar the obvious exception of the United States, which I take it is the only´great´ country you could think of, the rest of the world is totally metric.
Go and see for yourself if you don´t believe me.
Take a tour of Europe to start with (just put the EU out of your mind first) and make sure you visit the Republic of Ireland which successfully switched to metric road signage in January.
You say you like Europe but not the EU.
Well,take your choice.
All the EU countries are fully metric, even little old Malta (funny that they should want to join such a corrupt outfit as the EU) and our own dependency Gibraltar, staunchly British but not ashamed to have metric road signage and no les British for it. And of course part of the EU too.
You prefer the English speaking world? (I guessed!)
Most people like you do.
Well, try Australia and New Zealand.
Great places, though I only knowAustralia. Fully metric because they want the best system of weights and measures and want to be part of the modern world.
Try South Africa. AnotherCommonwealth country and fully metric.
Try Canada.As to the EU, I won´t dwell on the subject because clearly it is something you dislike.
Shame.
Britain has played a vital part in shaping it over thelast 30 years. Without it we wouldn´t have any environmental regulation because the concept didn´t exist in Europe until the EU put it on the agenda.
I don´t suppose you see any link between the inexorable rise inliving standards in the UK over the last 30 years and Britain´s membership of the EU.
Well, you wouldn´t, would you.
Imperialists I have spoken to invariably hate the EU and see metrication as a product of Brussels.
Clearly most of the world does not see it that way.The modern metric system is the only way forward for Britain and has benefited from substantial input from British scientists and workers. 5metric units are named in honour of UK scientists.
I won´t bore you with them as you are mainly concerned with trying to stop the progress of kilometres and kilograms. But if you don´t like metric, don´t ever use electricity because the whole system is metric.
Come to that, don´t buy a car either. It was all designed in metric.
I could go on, but I don´t want to waste your time.
Completing metrication in our country is in the national interest and patriots support the country´s progress. Blocking progress and naturaldevelopment is undemocratic and unpatriotic. My great-grandfather demonstrated against the great evil invention of his time, the motor car.He was the equivalent of the imperialist of his day (to think of it, why dowe need an imperial system? We don´t have an empire. And the empire we hadis totally metric).
I trust you will have found the English more to your own accustomed standard this time. There is little point in continuing this dialogue though because we will probably not agree on anything.I won´t have convinced you of anything, I know.
Your motto is: don´t confuse me with the facts, I´ve made up my mind.
And as for your insults, if you need to resort to them in order to bolster your argument, then you´ve really lost it, haven´t you? So who´s the real loser?
Don´t bother replying.
(I have added asterisks to the e-mail to avoid causing offence)
Original message
From: "John M. Jones" john.jones@cec.eu.int
To: metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f***ing luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metricunits names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water.
ps: what in hell are you actually defending?
look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe.
you luddites in england make me sick.
I then replied to Mr. Jones (e-mail copied below):
Looks like understanding (or writing) plain English is not one of your strong points. Read what the whole thing was actually about and not what you assume it was about. You probably didn't really pay that much attention at school either.
Love Europe.
Just can't abide the corrupt, profligate undemocraticEuropeanUnion, and object to having laws made by the unaccountable.
You wouldn't happen to have a vested interest in the institution, would you?
Look forward to your reply.
ps. No comment on great countries...USA?
Are they metric? Being a luddite I couldn't even spell Apollo...was he the Greek god named after US metric moonrockets or sumfink?
When you know what you're talking about I'll send you a couple of tickets to the real world where we live... assuming that you would have someone for theother ticket.
Loser!
What then followed was a lengthy missive from him which I have copied below. However, it concerned me that this gentleman was, because of his e-mail address, working for the European Commission in some capacity. He was using resources paid for by the taxpayer to conduct his private, and offensive business. His reply below is followed up with my response in the next blog posting above.
With all due respect, Mr Herron,
(a) you do not understand British humour and
(b) I suggest you are the one in need of a ticket to the real world.
Bar the obvious exception of the United States, which I take it is the only´great´ country you could think of, the rest of the world is totally metric.
Go and see for yourself if you don´t believe me.
Take a tour of Europe to start with (just put the EU out of your mind first) and make sure you visit the Republic of Ireland which successfully switched to metric road signage in January.
You say you like Europe but not the EU.
Well,take your choice.
All the EU countries are fully metric, even little old Malta (funny that they should want to join such a corrupt outfit as the EU) and our own dependency Gibraltar, staunchly British but not ashamed to have metric road signage and no les British for it. And of course part of the EU too.
You prefer the English speaking world? (I guessed!)
Most people like you do.
Well, try Australia and New Zealand.
Great places, though I only knowAustralia. Fully metric because they want the best system of weights and measures and want to be part of the modern world.
Try South Africa. AnotherCommonwealth country and fully metric.
Try Canada.As to the EU, I won´t dwell on the subject because clearly it is something you dislike.
Shame.
Britain has played a vital part in shaping it over thelast 30 years. Without it we wouldn´t have any environmental regulation because the concept didn´t exist in Europe until the EU put it on the agenda.
I don´t suppose you see any link between the inexorable rise inliving standards in the UK over the last 30 years and Britain´s membership of the EU.
Well, you wouldn´t, would you.
Imperialists I have spoken to invariably hate the EU and see metrication as a product of Brussels.
Clearly most of the world does not see it that way.The modern metric system is the only way forward for Britain and has benefited from substantial input from British scientists and workers. 5metric units are named in honour of UK scientists.
I won´t bore you with them as you are mainly concerned with trying to stop the progress of kilometres and kilograms. But if you don´t like metric, don´t ever use electricity because the whole system is metric.
Come to that, don´t buy a car either. It was all designed in metric.
I could go on, but I don´t want to waste your time.
Completing metrication in our country is in the national interest and patriots support the country´s progress. Blocking progress and naturaldevelopment is undemocratic and unpatriotic. My great-grandfather demonstrated against the great evil invention of his time, the motor car.He was the equivalent of the imperialist of his day (to think of it, why dowe need an imperial system? We don´t have an empire. And the empire we hadis totally metric).
I trust you will have found the English more to your own accustomed standard this time. There is little point in continuing this dialogue though because we will probably not agree on anything.I won´t have convinced you of anything, I know.
Your motto is: don´t confuse me with the facts, I´ve made up my mind.
And as for your insults, if you need to resort to them in order to bolster your argument, then you´ve really lost it, haven´t you? So who´s the real loser?
Don´t bother replying.
This man works for the European Union!
I received this e-mail via the Metric Martyrs' website. It appears from his e-mail address that he works for the European Commission in Brussels.
We will be registering an official complaint about misuse of official equipment and foul and abusive language once we find out exactly which department Mr. Jones works in. We have offered him the opportunity to apologise and he has not done so. Any further information about this unsavoury employee, especially if he has contacted other organisations or individuals with offensive comments, would be appreciated before we hand it to our press contacts.
Neil H
Original Message From: "John M. Jones" <john.jones@cec.eu.int>To: <metricmartyrs@btconnect.com>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f*****g luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what welearnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric unitsnames after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. Theimperialists are dead in the water.ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries likeaustralia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites inengland make me sick.
We will be registering an official complaint about misuse of official equipment and foul and abusive language once we find out exactly which department Mr. Jones works in. We have offered him the opportunity to apologise and he has not done so. Any further information about this unsavoury employee, especially if he has contacted other organisations or individuals with offensive comments, would be appreciated before we hand it to our press contacts.
Neil H
Original Message From: "John M. Jones" <john.jones@cec.eu.int>To: <metricmartyrs@btconnect.com>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:55 PM
youre a bunch of f*****g luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what welearnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric unitsnames after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. Theimperialists are dead in the water.ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries likeaustralia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites inengland make me sick.
Oh what a tangled web they weave!
6 March 2005
Ms Christine Randall,
Committee Assistant,
Committee of Public Accounts.
Dear Ms Randall,
South West Regional Assembly
I refer to your helpful letter H1372/24/647 of the 16th November 2004. I feel that you would most certainly want to know of an error that it contains.
You say, presumably from advice from the National Audit Office which you mention early in your letter, that the accountable body for the South West Regional Assembly is the South West Regional Assembly Board as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, it has emerged that this is not the case owing to the SWRA Board failing to certificate itself as required under this Act. This position has persisted for at least four years. I expect that the National Audit would want this brought to their attention. I understand that much overdue discussions are now in hand between the Certification Office and the SWRA Board.
Matters are further complicated by the SWRA apparently representing itself to the Certificating Officer as an associated body, the SW Provincial Employers Organisation, which is indeed certificated. In fact the SWPEO has it’s own constitution. Again, the SWRA Board has lately changed its name to the SW Region Board. All this conflicts with the 1992 Act’s insistence that there be no ambiguities in naming of an association.
Since the SWRA has not been operating under S122, the legal status of the staff appointments appears uncertain. You note that if I have any concerns over such matters I should take them up with the SWRA. I cannot believe that it is up to me to sort out such things, and I don’t think the SWRA is a reliable arbiter in them. One has to wonder whether the National Audit is either. The PAC or other appropriate authority may well wish to investigate further this extraordinary state of affairs.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Martin-Kaye
Ms Christine Randall,
Committee Assistant,
Committee of Public Accounts.
Dear Ms Randall,
South West Regional Assembly
I refer to your helpful letter H1372/24/647 of the 16th November 2004. I feel that you would most certainly want to know of an error that it contains.
You say, presumably from advice from the National Audit Office which you mention early in your letter, that the accountable body for the South West Regional Assembly is the South West Regional Assembly Board as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, it has emerged that this is not the case owing to the SWRA Board failing to certificate itself as required under this Act. This position has persisted for at least four years. I expect that the National Audit would want this brought to their attention. I understand that much overdue discussions are now in hand between the Certification Office and the SWRA Board.
Matters are further complicated by the SWRA apparently representing itself to the Certificating Officer as an associated body, the SW Provincial Employers Organisation, which is indeed certificated. In fact the SWPEO has it’s own constitution. Again, the SWRA Board has lately changed its name to the SW Region Board. All this conflicts with the 1992 Act’s insistence that there be no ambiguities in naming of an association.
Since the SWRA has not been operating under S122, the legal status of the staff appointments appears uncertain. You note that if I have any concerns over such matters I should take them up with the SWRA. I cannot believe that it is up to me to sort out such things, and I don’t think the SWRA is a reliable arbiter in them. One has to wonder whether the National Audit is either. The PAC or other appropriate authority may well wish to investigate further this extraordinary state of affairs.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Martin-Kaye
Will another one bite the dust?
Break away ballot
Mar 2 2005
By Gary Stewart, Midweek Advertiser, Sefton and West Lancs
A COUNCIL vote will tonight decide whether or not West Lancashire will jump ship from the North West Regional Assembly.
A motion tabled by council leader Cllr Geoff M. Roberts will put the issue before the full chamber:
"That this authority gives notice to the North West Regional Assembly by the 31st March 2005 that it intends to withdraw from the Assembly and cease paying its subscription on the 31st March 2006."
Speaking to the Advertiser ahead of the vote, Cllr Roberts explained why he had tabled the motion: "There are a number of reasons. First it's our party's policy not to have regional assemblies anyway. So that's one.
"More important is that the North West Regional Assembly now appears to be a dead duck."
Cllr Roberts said that issues over the assembly budget had prompted his action.
"We had a meeting of the policy committee three or four weeks ago at which the budget for the forthcoming year was discussed,'" he said. "We found that there was an overall increase in the budget and that Labour and Liberal Democrats had voted against a reduced budget."
Following the well-publicised failure of a regional government referendum in the North East he said that he could not reconcile a body whose powers were reducing with one whose budget was increasing.
"All the Conservative members of the body agreed that we would give notice and withdraw," said Cllr Roberts, who pointed out that WLDC would not be the first council to leave the assembly.
"Local authorities still have to be consulted on issues such as transport and housing so we will not be disadvantaged just as Lancashire County Council have not been.
" William Roberts, a Labour county councillor and district councillor for Tanhouse in Skelmersdale, said: "There is quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the unelected assembly
"Lancashire County Council of course pulled out of it at the start of the regional campaign when they thought the assembly was using its funds wrongly. Cheshire County Council has also withdrawn.
"West Lancashire probably feels it is paying into it and getting nothing out of it."
However he warned against the district council losing its influence on such issues as council housing: "If they can persuade their tenants to transfer the housing stock then that might be fine.
"However if they withdraw and leave the regional assembly to make decisions about housing and West Lancs has no representative to challenge them it could be a costly move."
One year's membership of the North West Regional Assembly currently costs around £4,800.
Mar 2 2005
By Gary Stewart, Midweek Advertiser, Sefton and West Lancs
A COUNCIL vote will tonight decide whether or not West Lancashire will jump ship from the North West Regional Assembly.
A motion tabled by council leader Cllr Geoff M. Roberts will put the issue before the full chamber:
"That this authority gives notice to the North West Regional Assembly by the 31st March 2005 that it intends to withdraw from the Assembly and cease paying its subscription on the 31st March 2006."
Speaking to the Advertiser ahead of the vote, Cllr Roberts explained why he had tabled the motion: "There are a number of reasons. First it's our party's policy not to have regional assemblies anyway. So that's one.
"More important is that the North West Regional Assembly now appears to be a dead duck."
Cllr Roberts said that issues over the assembly budget had prompted his action.
"We had a meeting of the policy committee three or four weeks ago at which the budget for the forthcoming year was discussed,'" he said. "We found that there was an overall increase in the budget and that Labour and Liberal Democrats had voted against a reduced budget."
Following the well-publicised failure of a regional government referendum in the North East he said that he could not reconcile a body whose powers were reducing with one whose budget was increasing.
"All the Conservative members of the body agreed that we would give notice and withdraw," said Cllr Roberts, who pointed out that WLDC would not be the first council to leave the assembly.
"Local authorities still have to be consulted on issues such as transport and housing so we will not be disadvantaged just as Lancashire County Council have not been.
" William Roberts, a Labour county councillor and district councillor for Tanhouse in Skelmersdale, said: "There is quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the unelected assembly
"Lancashire County Council of course pulled out of it at the start of the regional campaign when they thought the assembly was using its funds wrongly. Cheshire County Council has also withdrawn.
"West Lancashire probably feels it is paying into it and getting nothing out of it."
However he warned against the district council losing its influence on such issues as council housing: "If they can persuade their tenants to transfer the housing stock then that might be fine.
"However if they withdraw and leave the regional assembly to make decisions about housing and West Lancs has no representative to challenge them it could be a costly move."
One year's membership of the North West Regional Assembly currently costs around £4,800.
Heard this somewhere before?
Postal vote open to fraud, says judge
By Nick Britten, The Telegraph
The postal voting system is open to widespread corruption because the authorities are powerless to tackle fraud, a judge said yesterday.
Richard Mawrey, the deputy High Court judge overseeing a hearing into alleged election fraud by six Labour councillors, said that the function of returning officers in such elections was "nil" because they had no authority or resources to investigate suspected wrongdoing.
The police, he said, were inexperienced and were thus forced to be reactive rather than proactive.
The councillors are accused of vote rigging in two Birmingham city council wards, Aston and Bordersley Green, in last June's local elections.
They are said to have illegally tampered with 2,500 ballots to ensure that Labour councillors were returned in both wards.
The election court hearing in Birmingham was told that police who raided a warehouse on the eve of the June 10 election found the three Aston councillors, Mohammed Kazi, Mohammed Islam and Muhammed Afzal, surrounded by ballot papers.
The warehouse, it is alleged, was a "vote-forging factory" where Labour supporters altered papers in favour of their candidates. Police confiscated the papers, but handed them in to the council and they were included in the final count. No action was taken against anyone in the warehouse.
Lin Homer, the returning officer and chief executive of Birmingham council, told the inquiry: "I agreed to accept the votes as they didn't seem to have been tampered with."
Mr Mawrey told her: "It's quite clear from all the evidence that the function of the returning officer is nil. If something seems wrong with the postal ballot papers you have no powers or resources to ferret around to see if the votes are legitimate. You also have no way of verifying the signatures of the witnesses who sign the ballot papers.
"Police have to be reactive rather than proactive in postal votes and they have very little experience in these matters. It is far easier to police ballot box elections where the issue is personation."
The court heard that the department dealing with requests for postal vote applications had been overwhelmed after receiving 70,000 requests. So many ballot papers were received that they had to be stored in plastic bags because there were not enough sealed ballot boxes.
Election officials were under pressure because the council was holding its first "full" election in 20 years because of boundary changes.
John Owen, the election officer, described by Mrs Homer as the "expert" in election matters, had taken the plastic bag containing 275 votes from the police. He said: "The police constable asked me to accept votes and they were unsealed to my knowledge. I had to consider whether there was any reason why I could reject them and I could not."
Mr Mawrey said allegations of witness intimidation were "unsubstantiated" after a key witness failed to turn up on Monday.
The Labour councillors deny any wrongdoing. The case continues.
By Nick Britten, The Telegraph
The postal voting system is open to widespread corruption because the authorities are powerless to tackle fraud, a judge said yesterday.
Richard Mawrey, the deputy High Court judge overseeing a hearing into alleged election fraud by six Labour councillors, said that the function of returning officers in such elections was "nil" because they had no authority or resources to investigate suspected wrongdoing.
The police, he said, were inexperienced and were thus forced to be reactive rather than proactive.
The councillors are accused of vote rigging in two Birmingham city council wards, Aston and Bordersley Green, in last June's local elections.
They are said to have illegally tampered with 2,500 ballots to ensure that Labour councillors were returned in both wards.
The election court hearing in Birmingham was told that police who raided a warehouse on the eve of the June 10 election found the three Aston councillors, Mohammed Kazi, Mohammed Islam and Muhammed Afzal, surrounded by ballot papers.
The warehouse, it is alleged, was a "vote-forging factory" where Labour supporters altered papers in favour of their candidates. Police confiscated the papers, but handed them in to the council and they were included in the final count. No action was taken against anyone in the warehouse.
Lin Homer, the returning officer and chief executive of Birmingham council, told the inquiry: "I agreed to accept the votes as they didn't seem to have been tampered with."
Mr Mawrey told her: "It's quite clear from all the evidence that the function of the returning officer is nil. If something seems wrong with the postal ballot papers you have no powers or resources to ferret around to see if the votes are legitimate. You also have no way of verifying the signatures of the witnesses who sign the ballot papers.
"Police have to be reactive rather than proactive in postal votes and they have very little experience in these matters. It is far easier to police ballot box elections where the issue is personation."
The court heard that the department dealing with requests for postal vote applications had been overwhelmed after receiving 70,000 requests. So many ballot papers were received that they had to be stored in plastic bags because there were not enough sealed ballot boxes.
Election officials were under pressure because the council was holding its first "full" election in 20 years because of boundary changes.
John Owen, the election officer, described by Mrs Homer as the "expert" in election matters, had taken the plastic bag containing 275 votes from the police. He said: "The police constable asked me to accept votes and they were unsealed to my knowledge. I had to consider whether there was any reason why I could reject them and I could not."
Mr Mawrey said allegations of witness intimidation were "unsubstantiated" after a key witness failed to turn up on Monday.
The Labour councillors deny any wrongdoing. The case continues.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
EU Constitution and the Metric Martyrs Judgment
The Business,
London
The EU's judicial land grab
March 6, 2005 12:00 AM (GMT)
WHEN the British are asked what they think about the proposed EuropeanConstitution, they regularly claim not to know enough about it.
The puzzlement is understandable: with the campaign to sell the constitution heating up across the European Union (EU), barely a day went by last week without a senior European politician arguing that it will change Europe forever; yet in Britain the government continues to claim - wholly implausibly- that the constitution is no more than a minor "tidying-up exercise" to"simplify" existing EU treaties.
The blunt truth is that, when it comes to this crucial constitution, the British public will be better informed if it stops listening to its own government and pays close heed instead to what continental leaders are saying. While British ministers deliberately distort the truth by downplaying the constitution's significance, British voters will have to reply on continental politicians for plain speaking and the facts.
For example, Hans Martin Bury, Germany's minister for Europe, was right when he said last week: "This constitution is, in spite of all justified calls forfurther regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe";
and Denis MacShane, the British minister for Europe - who would never dare to be as honest with the British people as Mr Bury is with his - was typically wrong when he claimed that the constitution would change little becauseEuropean law already enjoys primacy over UK law. To understand why Mr Bury and other European politicians are right, consider the most explicit and recent judgment on who possesses legal supremacy inthe United Kingdom - and hence where sovereignty truly lies. It was made by Lord Justice Laws in the famous "Metric Martyrs" case of 2002. Far from being an irrelevant judgment of interest only to market traders or imperial measurement buffs, this was a case of political and constitutional significance for the future of Britain's relations with the EU. In his ruling, the judge made a crucial distinction between substantive law- day-to-day laws and regulations such as those limiting the working week or harmonising goods or services - and constitutional law. His judgment reflected on the crucial fact that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has stated since the 1960s that EU law is superior to all national law including national constitutional law - itself a quasi-coup by the Luxembourg judges and one of the most blatant judicial land grabs in history, given that such powers were never mentioned anywhere in the Treaty of Rome.
But Lord JusticeLaws dismissed the ECJ's view and restated instead that the British Parliament is "sovereign" in the sense that it has ultimate authority to pass whatever statutes it likes; and that this sovereignty is protected byEnglish common law.
To the extent that this power may be curtailed, he ruled, this can only be done by domestic courts and the common law - not by the EU. In a ruling which is no more than a repetition of English constitutional traditions but which filled Foreign Office officials and the Europhile liberal-left elite who understood it with horror, Lord Justice Laws said that Parliament could not give away this ultimate authority to any foreign jurisdiction even if it wished to and even if it passed an explicit act to such an effect; if it attempted to do that and hence to bind future Parliaments, the courts would reject it as anti-constitutional.
British membership of the EU does not affect this: Parliament has delegated certain powers to the EU and its courts - such as the right to make policyand pass laws on agriculture or the single market - by virtue of joining theEU and passing the European Communities Act 1972 But the terms of this(perhaps temporary) delegation are ultimately defined by the British Parliament and courts, not the EU and ECJ. In other words, EU law is not superior to national constitutional law; day-to-day EU law usually trumps domestic law - but only because Parliament allows it to do so. Regardless of the views of Brussels bureaucrats or Luxembourg judges, theBritish Parliament, if it were so to decide, could repeal the EuropeanCommunity Act in whole (and hence leave the EU altogether); or in part (and hence cease to delegate certain powers to the EU) - so long as it did so explicitly; and the English courts would immediately give effect to it.
In another part of his remarkable ruling, Lord Justice Laws warned that theEnglish courts would stand prepared to strike down substantive EU law if it infringes on what they consider the fundamental rights of British citizens, as defined by traditional common law and the Human Rights Act. It is at this point that the European Constitution becomes directly relevant Article I-6 states that "the Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States". Read in isolation, this section does not make it clear whether the constitution is referring to substantive EU law being supreme over national substantive law - in other words, the usual day-to-day EU directives and rules must be followed whenever they clash with UK laws (roughly but not quite the current position of the UK courts); or whether it means that EU law is supreme over national constitutional law, which would officially signify the end of member states as independent countries.To make sure that everyone understands what is being talked about, an explanatory note was added to the final version of the constitution duringthe closing stages of the negotiations.
It states: "The conference notes that the provisions of Article I-6 reflect existing Court of Justice case law."
So there you have it: the European Courts think that EU law is superior to national constitutional law, a position explicitly rejected by the High Court in London; the reference to "existing Court of Justice case law" therefore means that the British Government is asserting its support for the ECJ's position and repudiating that of the British courts.
This is an astonishing, perhaps unprecedented, situation.
Either the Government is incompetent in claiming that the constitution is no big deal (and, since incompetence is becoming the hallmark of the Blair government, this explanation cannot be ruled out of hand); or it is deliberately hiding the revolutionary significance of the EU declaration in a desperate attempt to downplay the dramatic implications of theconstitution. Apart from anything else, the British government has set itself on a collision course with the courts, of a kind which will make the battles over the enforcement of criminal justice in recent years look like a Sunday tea-party at a rural vicarage.
To repeat: the British Government, by signing the constitution, wishes to endorse "ECJ case law", which asserts that EU law is supreme even over British constitutional law and can determine the nature of the relationship between the UK and EU, explicitly going against the position of the British courts as stated by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case.
The ECJ would regard the ratification of the constitution by Parliament as a deliberate renunciation of Lord Justice Laws' judgment - and hence a British desire to renounce his ruling; this would create an enormous constitutional crisis over the central question of who has ultimate legal authority in theUK - and signal a massive power struggle.Given Lord Justice Laws' view that the British Parliament does not have theright to abandon its own sovereignty, would the British courts refuse togive effect to the Constitution?
Or would they regard a "Yes" vote in the referendum as explicit public support for terminating the common law principle of parliamentary sovereignty - the foundation of the British constitution for centuries - and hence accept what would in effect be a revolution, in the strictest meaning of that word?
Given the number of lawyers in the Blair government (including the PrimeMinister and First Lady), someone must be aware of what is happening. The conspiracy of silence and deliberate dissembling (MacShane-style) that surrounds this whole affair is intolerable. It is a new nadir in British public life that such critical issues are neither discussed nor widely understood; for that, we suspect the Foreign Office cabal that has set Britain's European policy for decades is to blame. The outcome of the forthcoming British referendum on the constitution is therefore of the utmost importance - far more so than the result of the imminent British general election.
London
The EU's judicial land grab
March 6, 2005 12:00 AM (GMT)
WHEN the British are asked what they think about the proposed EuropeanConstitution, they regularly claim not to know enough about it.
The puzzlement is understandable: with the campaign to sell the constitution heating up across the European Union (EU), barely a day went by last week without a senior European politician arguing that it will change Europe forever; yet in Britain the government continues to claim - wholly implausibly- that the constitution is no more than a minor "tidying-up exercise" to"simplify" existing EU treaties.
The blunt truth is that, when it comes to this crucial constitution, the British public will be better informed if it stops listening to its own government and pays close heed instead to what continental leaders are saying. While British ministers deliberately distort the truth by downplaying the constitution's significance, British voters will have to reply on continental politicians for plain speaking and the facts.
For example, Hans Martin Bury, Germany's minister for Europe, was right when he said last week: "This constitution is, in spite of all justified calls forfurther regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe";
and Denis MacShane, the British minister for Europe - who would never dare to be as honest with the British people as Mr Bury is with his - was typically wrong when he claimed that the constitution would change little becauseEuropean law already enjoys primacy over UK law. To understand why Mr Bury and other European politicians are right, consider the most explicit and recent judgment on who possesses legal supremacy inthe United Kingdom - and hence where sovereignty truly lies. It was made by Lord Justice Laws in the famous "Metric Martyrs" case of 2002. Far from being an irrelevant judgment of interest only to market traders or imperial measurement buffs, this was a case of political and constitutional significance for the future of Britain's relations with the EU. In his ruling, the judge made a crucial distinction between substantive law- day-to-day laws and regulations such as those limiting the working week or harmonising goods or services - and constitutional law. His judgment reflected on the crucial fact that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has stated since the 1960s that EU law is superior to all national law including national constitutional law - itself a quasi-coup by the Luxembourg judges and one of the most blatant judicial land grabs in history, given that such powers were never mentioned anywhere in the Treaty of Rome.
But Lord JusticeLaws dismissed the ECJ's view and restated instead that the British Parliament is "sovereign" in the sense that it has ultimate authority to pass whatever statutes it likes; and that this sovereignty is protected byEnglish common law.
To the extent that this power may be curtailed, he ruled, this can only be done by domestic courts and the common law - not by the EU. In a ruling which is no more than a repetition of English constitutional traditions but which filled Foreign Office officials and the Europhile liberal-left elite who understood it with horror, Lord Justice Laws said that Parliament could not give away this ultimate authority to any foreign jurisdiction even if it wished to and even if it passed an explicit act to such an effect; if it attempted to do that and hence to bind future Parliaments, the courts would reject it as anti-constitutional.
British membership of the EU does not affect this: Parliament has delegated certain powers to the EU and its courts - such as the right to make policyand pass laws on agriculture or the single market - by virtue of joining theEU and passing the European Communities Act 1972 But the terms of this(perhaps temporary) delegation are ultimately defined by the British Parliament and courts, not the EU and ECJ. In other words, EU law is not superior to national constitutional law; day-to-day EU law usually trumps domestic law - but only because Parliament allows it to do so. Regardless of the views of Brussels bureaucrats or Luxembourg judges, theBritish Parliament, if it were so to decide, could repeal the EuropeanCommunity Act in whole (and hence leave the EU altogether); or in part (and hence cease to delegate certain powers to the EU) - so long as it did so explicitly; and the English courts would immediately give effect to it.
In another part of his remarkable ruling, Lord Justice Laws warned that theEnglish courts would stand prepared to strike down substantive EU law if it infringes on what they consider the fundamental rights of British citizens, as defined by traditional common law and the Human Rights Act. It is at this point that the European Constitution becomes directly relevant Article I-6 states that "the Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States". Read in isolation, this section does not make it clear whether the constitution is referring to substantive EU law being supreme over national substantive law - in other words, the usual day-to-day EU directives and rules must be followed whenever they clash with UK laws (roughly but not quite the current position of the UK courts); or whether it means that EU law is supreme over national constitutional law, which would officially signify the end of member states as independent countries.To make sure that everyone understands what is being talked about, an explanatory note was added to the final version of the constitution duringthe closing stages of the negotiations.
It states: "The conference notes that the provisions of Article I-6 reflect existing Court of Justice case law."
So there you have it: the European Courts think that EU law is superior to national constitutional law, a position explicitly rejected by the High Court in London; the reference to "existing Court of Justice case law" therefore means that the British Government is asserting its support for the ECJ's position and repudiating that of the British courts.
This is an astonishing, perhaps unprecedented, situation.
Either the Government is incompetent in claiming that the constitution is no big deal (and, since incompetence is becoming the hallmark of the Blair government, this explanation cannot be ruled out of hand); or it is deliberately hiding the revolutionary significance of the EU declaration in a desperate attempt to downplay the dramatic implications of theconstitution. Apart from anything else, the British government has set itself on a collision course with the courts, of a kind which will make the battles over the enforcement of criminal justice in recent years look like a Sunday tea-party at a rural vicarage.
To repeat: the British Government, by signing the constitution, wishes to endorse "ECJ case law", which asserts that EU law is supreme even over British constitutional law and can determine the nature of the relationship between the UK and EU, explicitly going against the position of the British courts as stated by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case.
The ECJ would regard the ratification of the constitution by Parliament as a deliberate renunciation of Lord Justice Laws' judgment - and hence a British desire to renounce his ruling; this would create an enormous constitutional crisis over the central question of who has ultimate legal authority in theUK - and signal a massive power struggle.Given Lord Justice Laws' view that the British Parliament does not have theright to abandon its own sovereignty, would the British courts refuse togive effect to the Constitution?
Or would they regard a "Yes" vote in the referendum as explicit public support for terminating the common law principle of parliamentary sovereignty - the foundation of the British constitution for centuries - and hence accept what would in effect be a revolution, in the strictest meaning of that word?
Given the number of lawyers in the Blair government (including the PrimeMinister and First Lady), someone must be aware of what is happening. The conspiracy of silence and deliberate dissembling (MacShane-style) that surrounds this whole affair is intolerable. It is a new nadir in British public life that such critical issues are neither discussed nor widely understood; for that, we suspect the Foreign Office cabal that has set Britain's European policy for decades is to blame. The outcome of the forthcoming British referendum on the constitution is therefore of the utmost importance - far more so than the result of the imminent British general election.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Law Reports:Summary of Judgments
Summary of Judgements
Queens Bench Division, Divisional Court
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151
Monday, 18th February 2002
Before Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane
The European Communities Act 1972 was, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute, and could not be subject to implied repeal. Accordingly s 1 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 did not by implication partially repeal s 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and so the power to amend primary legislation contained in s 2(2) of the 1972 Act when read with s 2(4) of that Act enabled the executive lawfully and validly to make the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrification)
(Amendment) Order 1994, the Unit of Measurement Regulations 1994, the Weights and Measures (Metrification Amendments) Regulations 1994, and the Price Marking Order 1999 and thereby to amend the terms of the 1985 Act.
The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division so held in a reserved judgment, dismissing appeals by way of case stated by Steven Thoburn against the decision of District Judge Morgan in Sunderland Magistrates' Court on 9 April 2001 to convict him of two offences under s 11(2)(3) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985; by Colin Hunt against the decision of District Judge Baldwin in Thames Magistrates' Court on 20 June 2001 to convict him of ten offences under art 5 of the Price Marking Order 1999 and s 4 of the Prices Act 1974; by Julian Harman and John Dove against the decision of the Bodmin justices on 17 August 2001 to convict them of two offences each contrary to the 1999 Order and the Prices Act 1974, and two offences each contrary to s 8(1)(a)(4) of the 1985 Act; and by Peter Collins against the decision of the Sutton justices on 13 July 2001 to dismiss his appeal under s 30(1)(a) of the London Government Act 1990 against conditions imposed upon the renewal of his street trading licence.
LAWS LJ said that the defendants had submitted that s 1 of the 1985 Act, as enacted, impliedly repealed s 2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter had empowered the making of any provision by way of subordinate legislation, whether so as to amend primary legislation or otherwise, which would be inconsistent with that section; that it was consequently forbidden to amend the 1985 Act by means of the power contained in s 2(2) of the 1972 Act; and that a prohibition, introduced by subordinate legislation pursuant to that power, on the continued use of imperial and metric measures for purposes of trade without preference of one over the other was unlawful. In his Lordship's judgment there was no inconsistency between s 1 of the 1985 Act and s 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and so the argument that s2(2) had been by implication partially repealed by the 1985 Act failed on that short ground. Generally there was no inconsistency between a provision conferring a power to amend future legislation and the terms of any such future legislation.
In case he was wrong on that question his Lordship dealt with other points on the issue of implied repeal which raised issues of great importance. The councils had submitted that the EC Treaty had created a new and so far unique legal order, supreme above the legal systems of the member states, so that upon accession to the community by force of the 1972 Act, the United Kingdom had bowed its head to that supremacy, with the consequence that while Parliament retained the power to repeal the 1972 Act by express legislation, it could not do so impliedly. His Lordship said that the correct analysis of the relationship between EU and domestic law involved and required the following propositions: all the specific rights and obligations which EU law created were by the 1972 Act incorporated into our domestic law and ranked supreme; the 1972 Act was a constitutional statute and could not be impliedly repealed; the fact that the 1972 Act was a constitutional statue was derived from the common law of England which recognised a category of constitutional statutes; and the fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU rested with the domestic, not the European, legal powers. The balance struck by those four propositions gave full weight both to the proper supremacy of Community law and to the proper supremacy of the United Kingdom.
CRANE J agreed.
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Queens Bench Division, Divisional Court
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151
Monday, 18th February 2002
Before Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane
The European Communities Act 1972 was, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute, and could not be subject to implied repeal. Accordingly s 1 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 did not by implication partially repeal s 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and so the power to amend primary legislation contained in s 2(2) of the 1972 Act when read with s 2(4) of that Act enabled the executive lawfully and validly to make the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrification)
(Amendment) Order 1994, the Unit of Measurement Regulations 1994, the Weights and Measures (Metrification Amendments) Regulations 1994, and the Price Marking Order 1999 and thereby to amend the terms of the 1985 Act.
The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division so held in a reserved judgment, dismissing appeals by way of case stated by Steven Thoburn against the decision of District Judge Morgan in Sunderland Magistrates' Court on 9 April 2001 to convict him of two offences under s 11(2)(3) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985; by Colin Hunt against the decision of District Judge Baldwin in Thames Magistrates' Court on 20 June 2001 to convict him of ten offences under art 5 of the Price Marking Order 1999 and s 4 of the Prices Act 1974; by Julian Harman and John Dove against the decision of the Bodmin justices on 17 August 2001 to convict them of two offences each contrary to the 1999 Order and the Prices Act 1974, and two offences each contrary to s 8(1)(a)(4) of the 1985 Act; and by Peter Collins against the decision of the Sutton justices on 13 July 2001 to dismiss his appeal under s 30(1)(a) of the London Government Act 1990 against conditions imposed upon the renewal of his street trading licence.
LAWS LJ said that the defendants had submitted that s 1 of the 1985 Act, as enacted, impliedly repealed s 2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter had empowered the making of any provision by way of subordinate legislation, whether so as to amend primary legislation or otherwise, which would be inconsistent with that section; that it was consequently forbidden to amend the 1985 Act by means of the power contained in s 2(2) of the 1972 Act; and that a prohibition, introduced by subordinate legislation pursuant to that power, on the continued use of imperial and metric measures for purposes of trade without preference of one over the other was unlawful. In his Lordship's judgment there was no inconsistency between s 1 of the 1985 Act and s 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and so the argument that s2(2) had been by implication partially repealed by the 1985 Act failed on that short ground. Generally there was no inconsistency between a provision conferring a power to amend future legislation and the terms of any such future legislation.
In case he was wrong on that question his Lordship dealt with other points on the issue of implied repeal which raised issues of great importance. The councils had submitted that the EC Treaty had created a new and so far unique legal order, supreme above the legal systems of the member states, so that upon accession to the community by force of the 1972 Act, the United Kingdom had bowed its head to that supremacy, with the consequence that while Parliament retained the power to repeal the 1972 Act by express legislation, it could not do so impliedly. His Lordship said that the correct analysis of the relationship between EU and domestic law involved and required the following propositions: all the specific rights and obligations which EU law created were by the 1972 Act incorporated into our domestic law and ranked supreme; the 1972 Act was a constitutional statute and could not be impliedly repealed; the fact that the 1972 Act was a constitutional statue was derived from the common law of England which recognised a category of constitutional statutes; and the fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU rested with the domestic, not the European, legal powers. The balance struck by those four propositions gave full weight both to the proper supremacy of Community law and to the proper supremacy of the United Kingdom.
CRANE J agreed.
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
More turning against 'regions' plans
01/03/2005, Growing Business
The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce (BCC) and Industry have urged the government to re-think the components of its devolution policy following the recent massive vote against regional assemblies in the North East.
Debbie Walsh, head of policy for BCC, said: “The concept of devolution throughout the UK regions is one which we have supported, but not by introducing another tier of government.
“The present plans for regional assemblies are confusing to say the least and if accepted would have piled more red tape on to business and even more tax.”
Launched in 2000 by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme aimed to explore the series of devolution reforms that have established new political institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and the other English regions since 1997. More than 30 research projects have explored the implications of devolution for the UK state, society and economy.
However, Walsh added: “The 3-1 vote against means the government’s plans lie in tatters, and we would urge them to carefully examine the regional structures and bodies that already exist.
“There is plenty of good practice around that could be harnessed and used to mould current regional governance into a much more efficient and effective system.”
The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce (BCC) and Industry have urged the government to re-think the components of its devolution policy following the recent massive vote against regional assemblies in the North East.
Debbie Walsh, head of policy for BCC, said: “The concept of devolution throughout the UK regions is one which we have supported, but not by introducing another tier of government.
“The present plans for regional assemblies are confusing to say the least and if accepted would have piled more red tape on to business and even more tax.”
Launched in 2000 by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme aimed to explore the series of devolution reforms that have established new political institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and the other English regions since 1997. More than 30 research projects have explored the implications of devolution for the UK state, society and economy.
However, Walsh added: “The 3-1 vote against means the government’s plans lie in tatters, and we would urge them to carefully examine the regional structures and bodies that already exist.
“There is plenty of good practice around that could be harnessed and used to mould current regional governance into a much more efficient and effective system.”
"Another One Bites the Dust!"
Council opts out of regional body, BBC News
Medway Council has withdrawn its membership of the regional assembly and is calling for others to do the same.
Council leader Rodney Chambers said the decision to pull out of the South East England Regional Assembly (Seera) will save the council £22,000 per year.
Mr Chambers said he felt the money would be better spent elsewhere and that Medway would still have a voice.
Seera's chief executive said it was a matter of regret when a council decided to withdraw from membership.
This area is becoming a dumping ground for taking all the development in order to protect leafy areas
Rodney Chambers, council leader
Medway Council is a statutory authority which means it must be consulted before any development can take place.
But Mr Chambers said Medway cannot always be sure that the consultation will act in Medway's best interest.
This is because the Office of Deputy Prime Minister and Seera can overrule the public's views.
"This area is becoming a dumping ground for taking all the development in order to protect leafy areas such as Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Surrey," Mr Chambers said.
He added: "Local authorities in the south east contribute over £700,000 for the luxury of sitting in this assembly and I could not justify our proportion of cost of this cost if it meant a reduction in services that we provide.
"It's a body that nobody really wants."
Seera chief executive Paul Bevan said: "It is a matter of regret when councils decide to withdraw from the Assembly membership, whether it is for financial or political reasons.
"The assembly is tasked with advising the government on important and difficult decisions about growth and investment in the South East.
"Medway risks denying itself the opportunity for its voice to be heard in these vital debates."
Medway Council has withdrawn its membership of the regional assembly and is calling for others to do the same.
Council leader Rodney Chambers said the decision to pull out of the South East England Regional Assembly (Seera) will save the council £22,000 per year.
Mr Chambers said he felt the money would be better spent elsewhere and that Medway would still have a voice.
Seera's chief executive said it was a matter of regret when a council decided to withdraw from membership.
This area is becoming a dumping ground for taking all the development in order to protect leafy areas
Rodney Chambers, council leader
Medway Council is a statutory authority which means it must be consulted before any development can take place.
But Mr Chambers said Medway cannot always be sure that the consultation will act in Medway's best interest.
This is because the Office of Deputy Prime Minister and Seera can overrule the public's views.
"This area is becoming a dumping ground for taking all the development in order to protect leafy areas such as Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Surrey," Mr Chambers said.
He added: "Local authorities in the south east contribute over £700,000 for the luxury of sitting in this assembly and I could not justify our proportion of cost of this cost if it meant a reduction in services that we provide.
"It's a body that nobody really wants."
Seera chief executive Paul Bevan said: "It is a matter of regret when councils decide to withdraw from the Assembly membership, whether it is for financial or political reasons.
"The assembly is tasked with advising the government on important and difficult decisions about growth and investment in the South East.
"Medway risks denying itself the opportunity for its voice to be heard in these vital debates."
Postal Ballots Safe?
Mar 3 2005
By Paul Dale, Birmingham Post
Labour candidates and agents were discovered operating a "vote-forging factory" at midnight in a deserted warehouse on the eve of the 2004 Birmingham City Council elections, a court heard yesterday.
Two police officers arrived at the Riley Industrial Estate at Witton to discover six Asian men sorting through 275 unsealed postal ballot papers.
The men, alleged to include Labour's three election candidates in the Aston ward, said they were checking the documents to make sure they had been filled in correctly before submitting them to the council elections office.
But an election court sitting at the Birmingham and Midland Institute heard claims that the six were part of a determined effort to cheat the system by forging postal votes in favour of the Labour candidates.
An election petition brought by Liberal Democrat supporters alleges the candidates owed their election victories to a campaign of malpractice and fraudulently obtaining postal ballots.
The court heard that police officers seized the 275 ballot papers and sought further clarification about the voting process from Birmingham City Council's elections office.
The police subsequently handed the forms to elections officials where they were included with thousands of other postal votes and allowed to stand.
Deputy High Court judge Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as the election commissioner, said the decision meant forged votes might have been placed "into the system" and then counted in the normal way.
Two of the Labour candidates - Mohammed Islam and Mohammed Kazi - admit to being present at the warehouse but deny any wrongdoing. The third candidate, former council cabinet member Muhammad Afzal, denies being present.
Ravi Sukul, for the petitioners, said evidence transcribing Coun Afzal's mobile phone calls on the night would prove he made a number of calls from the scene.
The court heard from Pc Lynsey Grundy, who attended the warehouse. She identified Coun Afzal in court as being present on the night.
Pc Grundy said she recognised Coun Afzal as a "chubby and bald man" who had been wearing glasses and was obstructive.
" He was speaking in another language. I told him to speak in English but he refused," WPc Grundy added.
Mr Sukul described what happened when the two officers arrived. "In a large room the police saw a 10ft long table and six Asian men present. Hundreds of documents and unsealed envelopes were scattered all over the table.
"The two officers became quite suspicious about this. Well, who wouldn't be?
"A deserted, grimy warehouse in the middle of the night, six Asian men sitting in a room, with 275 ballot papers in their midst."
Jerry Hayes, representing Coun Islam and Coun Kazi, pointed out that police witness statements were only taken by the petitioners' lawyers on Tuesday of this week. It was unlikely the officers could accurately remember an incident that happened almost nine months ago, he said.
The hearing continues.
By Paul Dale, Birmingham Post
Labour candidates and agents were discovered operating a "vote-forging factory" at midnight in a deserted warehouse on the eve of the 2004 Birmingham City Council elections, a court heard yesterday.
Two police officers arrived at the Riley Industrial Estate at Witton to discover six Asian men sorting through 275 unsealed postal ballot papers.
The men, alleged to include Labour's three election candidates in the Aston ward, said they were checking the documents to make sure they had been filled in correctly before submitting them to the council elections office.
But an election court sitting at the Birmingham and Midland Institute heard claims that the six were part of a determined effort to cheat the system by forging postal votes in favour of the Labour candidates.
An election petition brought by Liberal Democrat supporters alleges the candidates owed their election victories to a campaign of malpractice and fraudulently obtaining postal ballots.
The court heard that police officers seized the 275 ballot papers and sought further clarification about the voting process from Birmingham City Council's elections office.
The police subsequently handed the forms to elections officials where they were included with thousands of other postal votes and allowed to stand.
Deputy High Court judge Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as the election commissioner, said the decision meant forged votes might have been placed "into the system" and then counted in the normal way.
Two of the Labour candidates - Mohammed Islam and Mohammed Kazi - admit to being present at the warehouse but deny any wrongdoing. The third candidate, former council cabinet member Muhammad Afzal, denies being present.
Ravi Sukul, for the petitioners, said evidence transcribing Coun Afzal's mobile phone calls on the night would prove he made a number of calls from the scene.
The court heard from Pc Lynsey Grundy, who attended the warehouse. She identified Coun Afzal in court as being present on the night.
Pc Grundy said she recognised Coun Afzal as a "chubby and bald man" who had been wearing glasses and was obstructive.
" He was speaking in another language. I told him to speak in English but he refused," WPc Grundy added.
Mr Sukul described what happened when the two officers arrived. "In a large room the police saw a 10ft long table and six Asian men present. Hundreds of documents and unsealed envelopes were scattered all over the table.
"The two officers became quite suspicious about this. Well, who wouldn't be?
"A deserted, grimy warehouse in the middle of the night, six Asian men sitting in a room, with 275 ballot papers in their midst."
Jerry Hayes, representing Coun Islam and Coun Kazi, pointed out that police witness statements were only taken by the petitioners' lawyers on Tuesday of this week. It was unlikely the officers could accurately remember an incident that happened almost nine months ago, he said.
The hearing continues.
Hidden cost of Prescott's regional folly
The Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker
06th March 2005
Since last November's referendum in the North-East, which delivered a resounding four-to-one vote against a regional assembly, John Prescott's scheme to divide England under eight regional governments has crumbled further into chaos. The survival of the eight unelected assemblies that he hoped would be retrospectively legitimised by referendums, and which are part-funded by local authorities, is now looking increasingly shaky.
Last week, 70 per cent of the elected councillors on the South-East Regional Assembly voted for its abolition. In Cornwall, the county council is considering withdrawing its support from the South-West assembly. Lancashire county council has already withdrawn from the North-West assembly, with Cheshire set to follow.
One reason for this disintegration is the growing panic among council nominees on these assemblies that, because of the dubious status of most of these bodies as "unincorporated associations", councillors may be personally liable in law for their assembly's financial obligations, including the contractual and pension rights of hundreds of employees.
In Yorkshire and Humberside, it has emerged that all the assembly's financial obligations are being underwritten by Wakefield council. This startling fact may well alarm local ratepayers, who were never informed of this peculiar arrangement.
Meanwhile the sharp-eyed Neil Herron, who led the "No" campaign in the North-East, has just formally brought it to the attention of his local council, Sunderland, that the councillors who sit on the North-East Assembly seem to be in serious breach of various statutory provisions. For a start, since the councillors are personally liable for the Assembly's financial obligations, this gives them a personal and pecuniary interest in its decisions, which in law disqualifies them from participating in those decisions.
Furthermore, under the Local Government Acts, it is illegal for councils to give money to bodies which may be acting against their interests. Since the North-East assembly recently voted for a regional planning strategy which some participating councils strongly oppose, for them to fund a body against their ratepayers' interests appears to be breaking the law.
Prior to lodging a complaint with the district auditor, Mr Herron has fired off a set of searching questions to Sunderland's chief legal officer, to which he has been promised "a substantive reply". But at least Bob Gibson, the leader of the North-East assembly is no stranger to the problems of failing to declare a "pecuniary interest". In 1997, he was fined £800 and found guilty on four charges of failing to declare his interest when, as Mayor of Stockton, he had chaired meetings which voted on proposals affecting the future of the company he worked for.
06th March 2005
Since last November's referendum in the North-East, which delivered a resounding four-to-one vote against a regional assembly, John Prescott's scheme to divide England under eight regional governments has crumbled further into chaos. The survival of the eight unelected assemblies that he hoped would be retrospectively legitimised by referendums, and which are part-funded by local authorities, is now looking increasingly shaky.
Last week, 70 per cent of the elected councillors on the South-East Regional Assembly voted for its abolition. In Cornwall, the county council is considering withdrawing its support from the South-West assembly. Lancashire county council has already withdrawn from the North-West assembly, with Cheshire set to follow.
One reason for this disintegration is the growing panic among council nominees on these assemblies that, because of the dubious status of most of these bodies as "unincorporated associations", councillors may be personally liable in law for their assembly's financial obligations, including the contractual and pension rights of hundreds of employees.
In Yorkshire and Humberside, it has emerged that all the assembly's financial obligations are being underwritten by Wakefield council. This startling fact may well alarm local ratepayers, who were never informed of this peculiar arrangement.
Meanwhile the sharp-eyed Neil Herron, who led the "No" campaign in the North-East, has just formally brought it to the attention of his local council, Sunderland, that the councillors who sit on the North-East Assembly seem to be in serious breach of various statutory provisions. For a start, since the councillors are personally liable for the Assembly's financial obligations, this gives them a personal and pecuniary interest in its decisions, which in law disqualifies them from participating in those decisions.
Furthermore, under the Local Government Acts, it is illegal for councils to give money to bodies which may be acting against their interests. Since the North-East assembly recently voted for a regional planning strategy which some participating councils strongly oppose, for them to fund a body against their ratepayers' interests appears to be breaking the law.
Prior to lodging a complaint with the district auditor, Mr Herron has fired off a set of searching questions to Sunderland's chief legal officer, to which he has been promised "a substantive reply". But at least Bob Gibson, the leader of the North-East assembly is no stranger to the problems of failing to declare a "pecuniary interest". In 1997, he was fined £800 and found guilty on four charges of failing to declare his interest when, as Mayor of Stockton, he had chaired meetings which voted on proposals affecting the future of the company he worked for.
Prevention of Terrorism Bill
The letter below, re Prevention of Terrorism Bill, was sent to as many MP’s, Lords and Ladies as I could afford to send it to. Immediately below is part of a reply from Lord Stathclyde. Dated 2.3.2005.
Let me make clear at the outset that the Conservative Party is strongly opposed to what the Government is proposing. Terrorism should not be a party political issue. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition Michael Howard QC MP’ sought, with the other party leaders, to find a way to counter the threat of terrorism without resorting to the dangerous measures the Government has put forward. The Labour Party, however, appears determined to use its majority to force these controversial measures through the House of Commons in the face of principled opposition from all sides of the House.
You rightly raise concerns about individuals being placed under house arrest before their cases are heard. In itself, that is worrying, but what the Government is proposing goes further. Under its Prevention of Terrorism Bill, individuals can be placed under house arrest without the intention of ever bringing them to trial. (My emphasis)
There is much more in the detail to which the Conservative Party is opposed (for example, the Government says its Bill must be considered rapidly, despite an admission from the Home Secretary that neither he nor the security services believes there is an immediate need for the strongest and most controversial measures), but there is also the more general issue of where these powers could lead in the long-term.
My colleague David Davis MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, has already highlighted two worrying outcomes that could arise in the long-term.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister apologised to the ‘Guildford four’ for a miscarriage of justice following the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. It is perceived wisdom that a feeling that someone must be convicted existed at the time, and clouded the normally objective judgement of the police and judicial system. How much more susceptible to this sort of emotional, reactionary pressure would a politician, the Home Secretary, be?
Mr Davis has also told the Home Secretary that measures which are perceived to be unjust will only act in the long term as recruiting sergeants for the very organisations and individuals that he believes pose a threat to the State.
If the government refuses to allow proper debate of these controversial measures in Parliament and if fundamental amendments are not passed, the Conservative Party will continue to oppose the Bill. END.
Let me make clear at the outset that the Conservative Party is strongly opposed to what the Government is proposing. Terrorism should not be a party political issue. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition Michael Howard QC MP’ sought, with the other party leaders, to find a way to counter the threat of terrorism without resorting to the dangerous measures the Government has put forward. The Labour Party, however, appears determined to use its majority to force these controversial measures through the House of Commons in the face of principled opposition from all sides of the House.
You rightly raise concerns about individuals being placed under house arrest before their cases are heard. In itself, that is worrying, but what the Government is proposing goes further. Under its Prevention of Terrorism Bill, individuals can be placed under house arrest without the intention of ever bringing them to trial. (My emphasis)
There is much more in the detail to which the Conservative Party is opposed (for example, the Government says its Bill must be considered rapidly, despite an admission from the Home Secretary that neither he nor the security services believes there is an immediate need for the strongest and most controversial measures), but there is also the more general issue of where these powers could lead in the long-term.
My colleague David Davis MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, has already highlighted two worrying outcomes that could arise in the long-term.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister apologised to the ‘Guildford four’ for a miscarriage of justice following the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. It is perceived wisdom that a feeling that someone must be convicted existed at the time, and clouded the normally objective judgement of the police and judicial system. How much more susceptible to this sort of emotional, reactionary pressure would a politician, the Home Secretary, be?
Mr Davis has also told the Home Secretary that measures which are perceived to be unjust will only act in the long term as recruiting sergeants for the very organisations and individuals that he believes pose a threat to the State.
If the government refuses to allow proper debate of these controversial measures in Parliament and if fundamental amendments are not passed, the Conservative Party will continue to oppose the Bill. END.
Prevention of Terrorism Bill - Letter
26.2.2005.
Dear
RE the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
After the events of 9/11 Parliament legislated in haste and that haste has resulted partly to the problem that faces both Houses of Parliament today. However, as it is now clear that the War on Terrorism is a “continuing forever event” (and I do not doubt for one minute that we will escape a terrible terrorist action one day) the Government’s proposals in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being indecently rushed through Parliament at the moment, contains actions that would remove forever our hard fought for RIGHTS that are held in our Common Law Constitution and which is totally unacceptable and absolutely unforgivable should the present government be allowed to go down this route. They would be creating an action that would completely destroy our United Kingdom Constitution, which, according to R.v.Thistlewood 1820, is an act of Treason.
Even if, as has been suggested, we had a written constitution, even if it was a written constitution carved out in stone, this present government would probably ignore it in the way that it has already ignored our present Common Law Constitution that has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, until recently. Who knows what sort of Government we may have in the future? Will this Country be governed from the Brussels headquarters? This is possible, for the Prime Minister has placed his signature on the treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe, all it requires allegedly, is ratification by a yes vote in a referendum. Whether it will be lawful/legal for the Government or the people to give away this country, which should of course be held for future generations, remains to be seen.
The European Union constitution would become one Constitution for all 25 Member states and as such, no matter what sort of terrorist act came about, or intelligence was given, our government-while it still existed as a government-could not disapply, set aside, or remove any part of. So why are they trying to do just that now to OUR Constitution? Is this the same ‘intelligence’ we relied on that sent us into Iraq?
As we can no longer rely on our Government to protect and obey our Constitution, as they should be doing, I, as a Commoner, state officially that it is my duty to protect and obey our Constitution to the best of my ability. This I am doing by writing this letter now. I therefore place my formal objection to the above Bill.
Who are the terrorists? What sort of terrible disasters are the Government in fear of that ordinary innocent people have not suffered or seen already? The bombing of innocent babes and children in Iraq? Afghanistan? Was it the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima? The napalm bombing? The trials and experiments at Portland Down? Did we not see enough in Belsen and all the other concentration camps?
Just suppose that the present food scare had been instigated by al-Qaeda and that it had been a quick action poison added to our food by them. Did the Government act quickly enough to remove the food from our shelves? To warn us? The answer is NO. Could they have acted quicker by removing our Constitution as is proposed in the Bill? The answer is NO. So why does the Home Secretary want these powers?
In spite of the Law Lords ruling or perhaps because of it I also state here that foreign nationals are different to British Nationals, for the latter owe allegiance to the Crown and this Country, foreign nationals do not. This is why I, as a Commoner will lawfully, legally and peacefully fight (to prove this difference) to protect our Queen and country and in particular, our Common Law Constitution. We are not European Union Nationals (yet!) and I pray that we never will be. We cannot all be put in the melting pot of harmonisation for we are indeed all different. There are ways of dealing with British nationals that take up arms and or give succour to enemies of the Queen in times of war
Part of the Government’s problem is of their own making by incorporating the Convention on Human Rights into our Law. It was incompatible with our Constitution right from the start. It is all very well to try to comply with it and state so on all legislation, but the Human Rights is only one part of our Constitution, the whole should be taken into consideration. Parliament may not lawfully alter or repeal Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, etc.
I will place this thought before you. If our Common Law Constitution is set aside (Or already has been) the people will have nothing to lose and no laws to obey for without their Constitution to guide Government or people, later legislation will have no value or meaning to them. A Constitution is the basic foundation on which to build the rest, a beginning, a guide, a certain standard, an example to live up to, to improve, etc. Remove our Constitution and the later laws and legislation will mean nothing. They will have no foundation, no anchor to cling to. There may well be civil disobedience, or anarchy; the people will be free to take up arms etc for later legislation will mean nothing. Either way, the people will really be the losers; for they will already have lost it. They, like government will find that they cannot keep what they have already lost.
The European Constitution is the foundation for the European Union, the beginning to build on until they reach their final goal of controlling and ruling absolutely everything and everybody in what used to be separate independent sovereign states.
I urge each and every one of you to think again as regards the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for if it goes ahead, the Government will have done part of the job that al-Qaeda could only have dreamt about and done more for the promotion of terrorism than anyone held in Belmarsh.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Palmer
As this concerns our Constitution, this is an open letter.
Further points on this matter from my letter above. “In spite of the Law Lords ruling or perhaps because of it I also state here that foreign nationals are different to British Nationals, for the latter owe allegiance to the Crown and this Country, foreign nationals do not”.
No British national should be treated differently from other British nationals, and no foreign nationals should be treated differently from other foreign nationals. The Human Rights Act is completely incompatible with our Constitution and should be repealed.
Dear
RE the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
After the events of 9/11 Parliament legislated in haste and that haste has resulted partly to the problem that faces both Houses of Parliament today. However, as it is now clear that the War on Terrorism is a “continuing forever event” (and I do not doubt for one minute that we will escape a terrible terrorist action one day) the Government’s proposals in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being indecently rushed through Parliament at the moment, contains actions that would remove forever our hard fought for RIGHTS that are held in our Common Law Constitution and which is totally unacceptable and absolutely unforgivable should the present government be allowed to go down this route. They would be creating an action that would completely destroy our United Kingdom Constitution, which, according to R.v.Thistlewood 1820, is an act of Treason.
Even if, as has been suggested, we had a written constitution, even if it was a written constitution carved out in stone, this present government would probably ignore it in the way that it has already ignored our present Common Law Constitution that has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, until recently. Who knows what sort of Government we may have in the future? Will this Country be governed from the Brussels headquarters? This is possible, for the Prime Minister has placed his signature on the treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe, all it requires allegedly, is ratification by a yes vote in a referendum. Whether it will be lawful/legal for the Government or the people to give away this country, which should of course be held for future generations, remains to be seen.
The European Union constitution would become one Constitution for all 25 Member states and as such, no matter what sort of terrorist act came about, or intelligence was given, our government-while it still existed as a government-could not disapply, set aside, or remove any part of. So why are they trying to do just that now to OUR Constitution? Is this the same ‘intelligence’ we relied on that sent us into Iraq?
As we can no longer rely on our Government to protect and obey our Constitution, as they should be doing, I, as a Commoner, state officially that it is my duty to protect and obey our Constitution to the best of my ability. This I am doing by writing this letter now. I therefore place my formal objection to the above Bill.
Who are the terrorists? What sort of terrible disasters are the Government in fear of that ordinary innocent people have not suffered or seen already? The bombing of innocent babes and children in Iraq? Afghanistan? Was it the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima? The napalm bombing? The trials and experiments at Portland Down? Did we not see enough in Belsen and all the other concentration camps?
Just suppose that the present food scare had been instigated by al-Qaeda and that it had been a quick action poison added to our food by them. Did the Government act quickly enough to remove the food from our shelves? To warn us? The answer is NO. Could they have acted quicker by removing our Constitution as is proposed in the Bill? The answer is NO. So why does the Home Secretary want these powers?
In spite of the Law Lords ruling or perhaps because of it I also state here that foreign nationals are different to British Nationals, for the latter owe allegiance to the Crown and this Country, foreign nationals do not. This is why I, as a Commoner will lawfully, legally and peacefully fight (to prove this difference) to protect our Queen and country and in particular, our Common Law Constitution. We are not European Union Nationals (yet!) and I pray that we never will be. We cannot all be put in the melting pot of harmonisation for we are indeed all different. There are ways of dealing with British nationals that take up arms and or give succour to enemies of the Queen in times of war
Part of the Government’s problem is of their own making by incorporating the Convention on Human Rights into our Law. It was incompatible with our Constitution right from the start. It is all very well to try to comply with it and state so on all legislation, but the Human Rights is only one part of our Constitution, the whole should be taken into consideration. Parliament may not lawfully alter or repeal Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, etc.
I will place this thought before you. If our Common Law Constitution is set aside (Or already has been) the people will have nothing to lose and no laws to obey for without their Constitution to guide Government or people, later legislation will have no value or meaning to them. A Constitution is the basic foundation on which to build the rest, a beginning, a guide, a certain standard, an example to live up to, to improve, etc. Remove our Constitution and the later laws and legislation will mean nothing. They will have no foundation, no anchor to cling to. There may well be civil disobedience, or anarchy; the people will be free to take up arms etc for later legislation will mean nothing. Either way, the people will really be the losers; for they will already have lost it. They, like government will find that they cannot keep what they have already lost.
The European Constitution is the foundation for the European Union, the beginning to build on until they reach their final goal of controlling and ruling absolutely everything and everybody in what used to be separate independent sovereign states.
I urge each and every one of you to think again as regards the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for if it goes ahead, the Government will have done part of the job that al-Qaeda could only have dreamt about and done more for the promotion of terrorism than anyone held in Belmarsh.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Palmer
As this concerns our Constitution, this is an open letter.
Further points on this matter from my letter above. “In spite of the Law Lords ruling or perhaps because of it I also state here that foreign nationals are different to British Nationals, for the latter owe allegiance to the Crown and this Country, foreign nationals do not”.
No British national should be treated differently from other British nationals, and no foreign nationals should be treated differently from other foreign nationals. The Human Rights Act is completely incompatible with our Constitution and should be repealed.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Now they are desperate...One Gravy Train Derailed. Gravy Bus on order.
Devolution plans go back to the drawing board
Hélène Mulholland Thursday March 3, 2005
Local government leaders are to draw up fresh plans for English devolution, it has emerged.
A new commission of key figures in the sector is to debate the possibility of establishing a "city region" structure following voters' rejection of plans for regional assemblies.
Thinktank the New Local Government Network (NLGN) set up the commission yesterday to find alternative ways of administering services beyond traditional council borders.
The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, saw his plans for regional assemblies crushed after 78% of voters in the north-east rejected the idea in a referendum last November.
The NLGN says that "no" vote has left a void that needs to be filled and is proposing England's major cities add a tier of local government with responsibilities similar to those of the Greater London authority.
Members of the NLGN panel include John Biggs, London assembly member and vice-chairman of the London Development Agency; Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, Kent county council leader and chairman of the Local Government Association; and Tony Travers, director of the London School of Economics Greater London Group.
The NLGN city regions commission will bring together experts from within and beyond UK local government to oversee seminars, evidence sessions and research, before publishing a final report this summer. Announcing the launch of the commission, Warren Hatter, head of NLGN's research unit, said: "This is a chance to get behind the rhetoric of city regions to see whether they are a realistic option and, if they are, in what form they can be made to work.
"The 'no' vote in the north-east does not mean that there are not major issues that need to be addressed in the governance of England".
Hélène Mulholland Thursday March 3, 2005
Local government leaders are to draw up fresh plans for English devolution, it has emerged.
A new commission of key figures in the sector is to debate the possibility of establishing a "city region" structure following voters' rejection of plans for regional assemblies.
Thinktank the New Local Government Network (NLGN) set up the commission yesterday to find alternative ways of administering services beyond traditional council borders.
The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, saw his plans for regional assemblies crushed after 78% of voters in the north-east rejected the idea in a referendum last November.
The NLGN says that "no" vote has left a void that needs to be filled and is proposing England's major cities add a tier of local government with responsibilities similar to those of the Greater London authority.
Members of the NLGN panel include John Biggs, London assembly member and vice-chairman of the London Development Agency; Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, Kent county council leader and chairman of the Local Government Association; and Tony Travers, director of the London School of Economics Greater London Group.
The NLGN city regions commission will bring together experts from within and beyond UK local government to oversee seminars, evidence sessions and research, before publishing a final report this summer. Announcing the launch of the commission, Warren Hatter, head of NLGN's research unit, said: "This is a chance to get behind the rhetoric of city regions to see whether they are a realistic option and, if they are, in what form they can be made to work.
"The 'no' vote in the north-east does not mean that there are not major issues that need to be addressed in the governance of England".
Yes vote cost seven times more than a No
Ross Smith, The Journal
Each yes vote in the North-East assembly referendum cost campaigners more than seven times as much as a no vote, spending figures revealed yesterday.
The Electoral Commission published the amount spent by registered campaign groups in the run-up to the autumn poll.
It showed groups calling for a no vote spent £201,422. That included £142,900 spent by the official North East Says No campaign, £100,000 of which was a grant from public money.
Its most notable purchase was a £1,000 giant white elephant, which campaigners were only able to hang on to after the campaign once they proved they had paid for it from their own funds, rather than the £100,000 grant.
The North East No Campaign, led by Neil Herron, spent £28,270, the Conservative Party paid £30,243.
Meanwhile, the yes side spent at least £414,510, including £124,126 from the Labour Party.
Trade unions contributed £36,790.
The official yes lobby, Yes4theNorthEast, has not yet filed its campaign expenses, indicating it spent more than £250,000, meaning it has a later deadline.
It means that each of the 696,519 no votes cost 29p, the 197,310 yes votes at least £2.10.
Each yes vote in the North-East assembly referendum cost campaigners more than seven times as much as a no vote, spending figures revealed yesterday.
The Electoral Commission published the amount spent by registered campaign groups in the run-up to the autumn poll.
It showed groups calling for a no vote spent £201,422. That included £142,900 spent by the official North East Says No campaign, £100,000 of which was a grant from public money.
Its most notable purchase was a £1,000 giant white elephant, which campaigners were only able to hang on to after the campaign once they proved they had paid for it from their own funds, rather than the £100,000 grant.
The North East No Campaign, led by Neil Herron, spent £28,270, the Conservative Party paid £30,243.
Meanwhile, the yes side spent at least £414,510, including £124,126 from the Labour Party.
Trade unions contributed £36,790.
The official yes lobby, Yes4theNorthEast, has not yet filed its campaign expenses, indicating it spent more than £250,000, meaning it has a later deadline.
It means that each of the 696,519 no votes cost 29p, the 197,310 yes votes at least £2.10.
Regional chiefs bid tackle 'transport bias'
Ross Smith, The Journal
Council chiefs in the North-East will pile pressure on Government to change a transport funding system that is "skewed away from the region".
Major road and rail projects, including dualling the A1, are being held up because the Department for Transport bases its decisions on population and congestion.
Regional politicians and business leaders say the North-East will continue to lag behind the South if greater weight is not placed on economic development.
And senior councillors are likely to agree next week to lobby ministers to change the formula.
The call comes as the Government consults on whether to introduce single regional funding pots for transport, economic development and housing.
The Association of North East Councils believes this will allow more decisions over small-scale transport projects to be taken in the region, but says the system for allocating funding must change.
A report being presented to members on Tuesday says: "Currently the Department for Transport use a formula that is skewed away from the region due to its determinants (population, vehicle load per day, congestion and safety).
"The current criteria are too narrowly based - other factors that must be considered include the need to reduce regional disparities, promote social inclusion and support economic development."
This week, the Department for Transport confirmed its view is that the cost of dualling the A1 would not be justified on grounds of safety or congestion at present.
And the deadline for upgrading the road south of Newcastle has slipped from 2011 to 2016.
Council chiefs in the North-East will pile pressure on Government to change a transport funding system that is "skewed away from the region".
Major road and rail projects, including dualling the A1, are being held up because the Department for Transport bases its decisions on population and congestion.
Regional politicians and business leaders say the North-East will continue to lag behind the South if greater weight is not placed on economic development.
And senior councillors are likely to agree next week to lobby ministers to change the formula.
The call comes as the Government consults on whether to introduce single regional funding pots for transport, economic development and housing.
The Association of North East Councils believes this will allow more decisions over small-scale transport projects to be taken in the region, but says the system for allocating funding must change.
A report being presented to members on Tuesday says: "Currently the Department for Transport use a formula that is skewed away from the region due to its determinants (population, vehicle load per day, congestion and safety).
"The current criteria are too narrowly based - other factors that must be considered include the need to reduce regional disparities, promote social inclusion and support economic development."
This week, the Department for Transport confirmed its view is that the cost of dualling the A1 would not be justified on grounds of safety or congestion at present.
And the deadline for upgrading the road south of Newcastle has slipped from 2011 to 2016.
Figures reveal true cost of assembly vote
Northern Echo, by Tony Kearney
GROUPS campaigning for a directly-elected assembly for the North-East spent more than twice as much their opponents in the run-up to November's historic referendum.
Figures released by the Electoral Commission yesterday showed that groups supporting a Yes vote spent nearly £500,000 in a failed attempt to persuade the region of the need for a North-East assembly, compared with a total of just over £200,000 by those backing a No vote.
Despite the financial imbalance, the region overwhelming rejected the proposed assembly by a decisive margin of 78 per cent to 22 per cent.
North-East No campaigner Neil Herron said: "What this shows is that no matter how much money they were able to throw at it, if the present wasn't very nice then no amount of shiny wrapping paper was going to make people want it - you can't buy the North-East public."
The commission yesterday released spending figures for 13 of the organisations registered as permitted participants in the referendum.
The biggest spender, Yes4TheNorth-East, has been given until May to declare its figures because of the size and complexity of its finances - although it is understood that the final sum is likely to top £300,000.
The Labour Party spent more than £120,000 campaigning for a Yes vote, while the public sector trade union Unison spent £30,000, with smaller donations by the TUC, the GMB trade union and the Liberal Democrats.
Among their opponents, North-East Says No - the official opposition to the assembly - spent just over £140,000, the Conservative Party spent £30,000 and the North East No campaign spent just over £28,000.
It also emerged that more than £17,000 was spent promoting the various options for reorganisation of local councils, which would have come into effect had the referendum produced a Yes vote.
The commission's figures also gave details of several donations made to the Durham-based North East Says No campaign, led by Bishop Auckland businessman John Elliott.
They include two private donations of £10,000 each - one from newly-appointed Tory peer Lord Steinberg, the former deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party and the chairman of bookmakers' chain Stanley Racing, and another from Flowidea Ltd, the City-based investment company, which is currently the second largest donor to the Conservative Party. North East Says No also declared £6,400 of support in kind from the United Kingdom Independence Party for use of its call centre.
Taxpayers are facing a bill in excess of £10m for the referendum, including £2.9m for the logistics of staging the postal ballot, £3.2m for the publication and distribution of Government information, £3.9m for the Local Government review and nearly £200,000 for campaigning by ministers John Prescott and Nick Raynsford.
GROUPS campaigning for a directly-elected assembly for the North-East spent more than twice as much their opponents in the run-up to November's historic referendum.
Figures released by the Electoral Commission yesterday showed that groups supporting a Yes vote spent nearly £500,000 in a failed attempt to persuade the region of the need for a North-East assembly, compared with a total of just over £200,000 by those backing a No vote.
Despite the financial imbalance, the region overwhelming rejected the proposed assembly by a decisive margin of 78 per cent to 22 per cent.
North-East No campaigner Neil Herron said: "What this shows is that no matter how much money they were able to throw at it, if the present wasn't very nice then no amount of shiny wrapping paper was going to make people want it - you can't buy the North-East public."
The commission yesterday released spending figures for 13 of the organisations registered as permitted participants in the referendum.
The biggest spender, Yes4TheNorth-East, has been given until May to declare its figures because of the size and complexity of its finances - although it is understood that the final sum is likely to top £300,000.
The Labour Party spent more than £120,000 campaigning for a Yes vote, while the public sector trade union Unison spent £30,000, with smaller donations by the TUC, the GMB trade union and the Liberal Democrats.
Among their opponents, North-East Says No - the official opposition to the assembly - spent just over £140,000, the Conservative Party spent £30,000 and the North East No campaign spent just over £28,000.
It also emerged that more than £17,000 was spent promoting the various options for reorganisation of local councils, which would have come into effect had the referendum produced a Yes vote.
The commission's figures also gave details of several donations made to the Durham-based North East Says No campaign, led by Bishop Auckland businessman John Elliott.
They include two private donations of £10,000 each - one from newly-appointed Tory peer Lord Steinberg, the former deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party and the chairman of bookmakers' chain Stanley Racing, and another from Flowidea Ltd, the City-based investment company, which is currently the second largest donor to the Conservative Party. North East Says No also declared £6,400 of support in kind from the United Kingdom Independence Party for use of its call centre.
Taxpayers are facing a bill in excess of £10m for the referendum, including £2.9m for the logistics of staging the postal ballot, £3.2m for the publication and distribution of Government information, £3.9m for the Local Government review and nearly £200,000 for campaigning by ministers John Prescott and Nick Raynsford.
Call to watchdog on assembly cash
Mar 4 2005
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Government watchdogs are being called on to investigate the funding of the North-East Assembly.
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron yesterday lodged a complaint against his own local council for paying public money to the unelected body.
His complaint coincided with proposals to divert almost all £880,000 paid by local authorities away from the assembly.
In future, lobbying body the Association of North East Councils will receive £800,000 of the cash when it splits from the assembly later this year. The bulk of the assembly's funding will be made up by Government grants.
However, Mr Herron yesterday delivered his complaint about the present system to Sunderland Council, the district auditor and the Standards Board for England and Wales.
The complaint is in two parts. The first rests on a section of the Local Government Act which gives local authorities power to use money to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of an entire region. Mr Herron says disputes over the assembly's regional masterplan demonstrate that it does not always do this: counties say housing allocations in the plan would benefit urban areas at their expense.
His second claim is that members of the assembly should declare a financial interest in it when making decisions about whether to continue funding.
He also says the assembly is an "unincorporated association" and has no legal personality of its own, so the individual members are liable for contracts with its 32 staff.
Mr Herron said: "We are talking about considerable sums of hard-earned ratepayers' money being paid to an unelected version of a regional assembly which was overwhelmingly and emphatically rejected by the North-East public in the referendum."
The assembly - 70pc of which is made up of councillors - has continued to function although voters in November rejected an elected chamber by a massive majority.
A spokesman for the assembly said of the complain last night: "It would not be appropriate to comment at this stage."
A Sunderland Council spokesman said: "It is confirmed that a letter of complaint has been received from Mr Herron, in which he has requested a considerable amount of information.
"He will receive a substantive reply in due course."
The proposed change to the funding system was put forward last week by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the assembly, Chris Foote Wood.
He said: "This should clarify the situation. I now hope we end the nonsense of the two organisations having the same chair and vice-chairs."
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Government watchdogs are being called on to investigate the funding of the North-East Assembly.
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron yesterday lodged a complaint against his own local council for paying public money to the unelected body.
His complaint coincided with proposals to divert almost all £880,000 paid by local authorities away from the assembly.
In future, lobbying body the Association of North East Councils will receive £800,000 of the cash when it splits from the assembly later this year. The bulk of the assembly's funding will be made up by Government grants.
However, Mr Herron yesterday delivered his complaint about the present system to Sunderland Council, the district auditor and the Standards Board for England and Wales.
The complaint is in two parts. The first rests on a section of the Local Government Act which gives local authorities power to use money to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of an entire region. Mr Herron says disputes over the assembly's regional masterplan demonstrate that it does not always do this: counties say housing allocations in the plan would benefit urban areas at their expense.
His second claim is that members of the assembly should declare a financial interest in it when making decisions about whether to continue funding.
He also says the assembly is an "unincorporated association" and has no legal personality of its own, so the individual members are liable for contracts with its 32 staff.
Mr Herron said: "We are talking about considerable sums of hard-earned ratepayers' money being paid to an unelected version of a regional assembly which was overwhelmingly and emphatically rejected by the North-East public in the referendum."
The assembly - 70pc of which is made up of councillors - has continued to function although voters in November rejected an elected chamber by a massive majority.
A spokesman for the assembly said of the complain last night: "It would not be appropriate to comment at this stage."
A Sunderland Council spokesman said: "It is confirmed that a letter of complaint has been received from Mr Herron, in which he has requested a considerable amount of information.
"He will receive a substantive reply in due course."
The proposed change to the funding system was put forward last week by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the assembly, Chris Foote Wood.
He said: "This should clarify the situation. I now hope we end the nonsense of the two organisations having the same chair and vice-chairs."
All the money in China couldn't have bought a Yes vote in the North East
Defeated Assembly Backers Spent Thousands By Rod Minchin, PA Scotsman
Groups backing the flawed North East Regional Assembly spent at least £400,000 on their campaigns only to get humiliated at the polls, it was revealed today.
Figures from The Electoral Commission show that Yes4theNorthEast spent more than £250,000, the Labour Party £125,000 and trade unions £35,000.
The final bill, which is likely to be released later this year, may not fall much short of £1 million mark.
Despite spending a vast sum of money and enlisting support from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, former police chief Ray Mallon and a host of other senior politicians and celebrities, Yes campaigners received a resounding thumbs down from the North East electorate.
The North East was the first English region to hold a referendum on establishing an assembly and voted overwhelmingly by 696,519 to 197,310 against. All 23 council areas in the region produced a No vote in the November referendum.
The result was a personal humiliation for Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott who has championed the cause of regional government for over 30 years.
Supporters of the assembly argued that it would help bring economic regeneration to one of the most deprived parts of the country.
But opponents dismissed it as an expensive “talking shop” with no real powers and portrayed it as a giant white elephant – an image that stuck in voters’ minds.
According to the report published today by the Electoral Commission there were 16 registered campaigners.
Expenditure was capped at £100,000 for most participants. However, registered political parties and organisations designated by the Commission to represent each side of the referendum issue could spend up to £665,000.
The exact amount Yes4theNorthEast spent will not be revealed until later in the year because they spent over £250,000 but it could reach the £665,000 mark.
North East Says No, who were the official No campaign, spent £142,900, while its Sunderland-based No rival Neil Herron spent £28,270.
The Conservative Party, who also opposed the referendum, spent £30,243.
The Labour Party, who was in favour, spent £124,126 and trade unions £35,038.
Peter Wardle, chief Executive of The Electoral Commission, said: “The Commission is responsible for the smooth delivery of UK national and regional referendums and an important part of this is ensuring that there is transparency about what campaigners spent and whether they spent within the prescribed limits.
“The information we are publishing today shows in some detail how referendum participants used the money they received to conduct their campaigns.”
Groups backing the flawed North East Regional Assembly spent at least £400,000 on their campaigns only to get humiliated at the polls, it was revealed today.
Figures from The Electoral Commission show that Yes4theNorthEast spent more than £250,000, the Labour Party £125,000 and trade unions £35,000.
The final bill, which is likely to be released later this year, may not fall much short of £1 million mark.
Despite spending a vast sum of money and enlisting support from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, former police chief Ray Mallon and a host of other senior politicians and celebrities, Yes campaigners received a resounding thumbs down from the North East electorate.
The North East was the first English region to hold a referendum on establishing an assembly and voted overwhelmingly by 696,519 to 197,310 against. All 23 council areas in the region produced a No vote in the November referendum.
The result was a personal humiliation for Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott who has championed the cause of regional government for over 30 years.
Supporters of the assembly argued that it would help bring economic regeneration to one of the most deprived parts of the country.
But opponents dismissed it as an expensive “talking shop” with no real powers and portrayed it as a giant white elephant – an image that stuck in voters’ minds.
According to the report published today by the Electoral Commission there were 16 registered campaigners.
Expenditure was capped at £100,000 for most participants. However, registered political parties and organisations designated by the Commission to represent each side of the referendum issue could spend up to £665,000.
The exact amount Yes4theNorthEast spent will not be revealed until later in the year because they spent over £250,000 but it could reach the £665,000 mark.
North East Says No, who were the official No campaign, spent £142,900, while its Sunderland-based No rival Neil Herron spent £28,270.
The Conservative Party, who also opposed the referendum, spent £30,243.
The Labour Party, who was in favour, spent £124,126 and trade unions £35,038.
Peter Wardle, chief Executive of The Electoral Commission, said: “The Commission is responsible for the smooth delivery of UK national and regional referendums and an important part of this is ensuring that there is transparency about what campaigners spent and whether they spent within the prescribed limits.
“The information we are publishing today shows in some detail how referendum participants used the money they received to conduct their campaigns.”
Vincent Grant fights back - and wins - over out of time NIP
On 23rd October last I received an unpleasant missive from Dorset Policeregarding an allegation that my car had been recorded doing 61mph in a50mph limit on 9th August, some 75 days AFTER the offence.
I replied as follows:
"Your own advice is clear that a ' A Notice of Intended Prosecution must besent to the last known address of the Registered Keeper within 14 days ofthe detection of the alleged offence.
Having received such notice (copy attached) 75 days after the allegedoffence (and 11 weeks is a long time to remember who may have beendriving), I intend to take no further action.
Please confirm the cancellation of this Intended Prosecution in writing tome as soon as possible.
"I received the following reply on 12th November from Miss J Rogers,Supervisor, Central Ticket Office:
"I write with reference to your letter dated 24 October 2004.
We are legally obliged to send the Notice to the Registered Keeperaccording to DVLA's records.
I can confirm that DVLA's records show a Mr. Conroy James as the RegisteredKeeper of Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472.
A Notice was sent but returned stating he had no knowledge of the vehicle.
We then contacted DVLA who provided us with the correct name and address.
I can therefore confirm that the Notice is valid and I would suggest you contact the DVLA regarding the error on their system so that your detailsare present.
Please complete the enclosed notice within seven days.
"This had taken up most of the 28 days during which a straight £60 fine and3 points can be applied. I telephoned Miss Rogers who confirmed again their position.
I therefore sent off my licence and £60, writing a disclaimer on the backof their form regarding my intention to contact the DVLA and confirm this mess.
I wrote thus:"Re: VG3472 I am informed by Dorset Police that the details for this vehicle of mine,which I have owned for more than four years and this registration, which Ihave owned for more than fifteen years, does not contain my name andaddress * on your database, although somehow, even though it doesn't, ordidn't, they still eventually got my details from you.
Do you have two names and addresses for each vehicle or can't they use yourdatabase properly, or what precisely?
They suggested I write to you to find out the facts of this matter. Thestory as given so far seems rather fabulous and I need the exact facts asthey could become part of legal arguments.
* Rather the details of a Conroy James in Surrey somewhere.
Please inform me as soon as possible what has been going on from your pointof view, if anything.
"The DVLA efficiently replied by return of post:
"Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472
Thank you for your recent letter enquiry regarding the above vehicleregistration mark.
I have checked this record and can confirm the present details recorded on our data:
You are the first and only registered keeper You acquired the vehicle on18.04.2000 A V5 Registration Document was issued 02.05.2000 The car istaxed until 01.04.2005
If you require any further information regarding this vehicle please do nothesitate to contact us.
"I did phone Miss Howells who wrote the above and further confirmed thefacts as laid out.
I then wrote back to Dorset Police:
"Following my recent correspondence with yourselves and the DVLA, it is nowconfirmed (I knew it all along) that I have been the registered owner ofthe vehicle since April 2000 and that your previous response was notaccurate. Appropriate correspondence is attached.
Due to the delay in your original reply, happily not repeated by theefficient DVLA, I was obliged to pay the speeding fine even though I couldnot be sure who was driving so long ago. I reserved my position, however onthe reverse of your form.
My original letter remains correct. The procedure has been invalid from thestart. Please arrange to cancel the fine and the points on my otherwise clean licence.
I look forward to your early response. I simply cannot be held responsiblefor errors in your own administration.
"I received the following response, this time from The Manager of the DorsetCentral Ticket Office: (this time only 14 days elapsed before the reply)
"With reference to the above Fixed Penalty Notice and your recent letter, Ican advise that I have investigated this matter and have decided that noclerical errors were made in the administration of this offence andconsequently the penalty should stand.
Registered Keeper details are provided by a DVLA database to which we haveaccess, and are retrieved by an automatic process.
I accept that when your vehicle registration mark was entered, your detailswere not initially provided, however we must act on information given whichin this case stated Mr. Conroy James as the Registered Keeper.
It is not the intention of the Central Ticket Office to cause unnecessaryinconvenience, however, please accept my apologies if this was the case.
"By now it was near the end of the year and I waited for the new Freedom ofInformation Act' to try a new tack.
I wrote back in early January:
"What may be 'unnecessary inconvenience' from your perspective isincompetence and injustice' from my perspective.
I still lack a credible explanation from you regarding the differentresults obtained by yourselves and the DVLA when accessing, as you admit,the same database.
When the same database is accessed by two different sets of people, one inDorset and the other in Wales, it is only because of an error by one ofthose that inappropriate results are returned. As I have been the owner ofthat registration for some 15 years, I know where my money goes.
If what you say is true, then were you to look into the database againtoday, you will still get Mr. Conroy as the Registered Keeper. I guess ifsome dreadful accident were to occur, the 'Widow' Conroy would be in earlyreceipt of Police commiserations.
If this is the case, then I require an IT expert of yours (I am one,myself) to explain to me how such a discrepancy can continue to occur.
If, on the other hand, the database does now show me as the RegisteredKeeper, then, either: There has been some amendment to it by the DVLA,which we will be able to trace, or The original look up by your staffcontained a procedural error.
need to know which of these is the case and under the new freedoms toreceive this information, I expect to be informed. Without adequateexplanation I cannot accept the status quo and the matter will go all theway to court if necessary, where facts can be gleaned under oath.
I received a reply from the Freedom of Information Manager which promisedme a formal reply by February 4.
I received the following today, January 24:
"Further to my letter of 19 January 2005, I would like to inform you that Ihave completed investigation into the circumstances regarding the issue ofTicket C1675842.
Investigations indicate that a clerical error had occurred which resultedin the failure to notify you, the Registered Keeper of VG3472, within therequired 14 day period from the date of the offence occurring. Procedureshave been amended accordingly and staff training implemented to ensure thatpotential offences concerning Cherished Registration Plates are processedcorrectly. I also took this opportunity to initiate a systems check toensure data transfer from DVLA was being received correctly and I am happyto report that all was in order.
In this instance, due to the findings of my investigation, I am instructedto remove the relative 3 points from your licence and refund the 60.00fixed penalty you have already paid. I have enclosed a pre-paid envelope toenable you to send your licence to this office and offer our sincereapologies on behalf of the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for this error occurring."
I replied as follows:
"Your own advice is clear that a ' A Notice of Intended Prosecution must besent to the last known address of the Registered Keeper within 14 days ofthe detection of the alleged offence.
Having received such notice (copy attached) 75 days after the allegedoffence (and 11 weeks is a long time to remember who may have beendriving), I intend to take no further action.
Please confirm the cancellation of this Intended Prosecution in writing tome as soon as possible.
"I received the following reply on 12th November from Miss J Rogers,Supervisor, Central Ticket Office:
"I write with reference to your letter dated 24 October 2004.
We are legally obliged to send the Notice to the Registered Keeperaccording to DVLA's records.
I can confirm that DVLA's records show a Mr. Conroy James as the RegisteredKeeper of Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472.
A Notice was sent but returned stating he had no knowledge of the vehicle.
We then contacted DVLA who provided us with the correct name and address.
I can therefore confirm that the Notice is valid and I would suggest you contact the DVLA regarding the error on their system so that your detailsare present.
Please complete the enclosed notice within seven days.
"This had taken up most of the 28 days during which a straight £60 fine and3 points can be applied. I telephoned Miss Rogers who confirmed again their position.
I therefore sent off my licence and £60, writing a disclaimer on the backof their form regarding my intention to contact the DVLA and confirm this mess.
I wrote thus:"Re: VG3472 I am informed by Dorset Police that the details for this vehicle of mine,which I have owned for more than four years and this registration, which Ihave owned for more than fifteen years, does not contain my name andaddress * on your database, although somehow, even though it doesn't, ordidn't, they still eventually got my details from you.
Do you have two names and addresses for each vehicle or can't they use yourdatabase properly, or what precisely?
They suggested I write to you to find out the facts of this matter. Thestory as given so far seems rather fabulous and I need the exact facts asthey could become part of legal arguments.
* Rather the details of a Conroy James in Surrey somewhere.
Please inform me as soon as possible what has been going on from your pointof view, if anything.
"The DVLA efficiently replied by return of post:
"Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472
Thank you for your recent letter enquiry regarding the above vehicleregistration mark.
I have checked this record and can confirm the present details recorded on our data:
You are the first and only registered keeper You acquired the vehicle on18.04.2000 A V5 Registration Document was issued 02.05.2000 The car istaxed until 01.04.2005
If you require any further information regarding this vehicle please do nothesitate to contact us.
"I did phone Miss Howells who wrote the above and further confirmed thefacts as laid out.
I then wrote back to Dorset Police:
"Following my recent correspondence with yourselves and the DVLA, it is nowconfirmed (I knew it all along) that I have been the registered owner ofthe vehicle since April 2000 and that your previous response was notaccurate. Appropriate correspondence is attached.
Due to the delay in your original reply, happily not repeated by theefficient DVLA, I was obliged to pay the speeding fine even though I couldnot be sure who was driving so long ago. I reserved my position, however onthe reverse of your form.
My original letter remains correct. The procedure has been invalid from thestart. Please arrange to cancel the fine and the points on my otherwise clean licence.
I look forward to your early response. I simply cannot be held responsiblefor errors in your own administration.
"I received the following response, this time from The Manager of the DorsetCentral Ticket Office: (this time only 14 days elapsed before the reply)
"With reference to the above Fixed Penalty Notice and your recent letter, Ican advise that I have investigated this matter and have decided that noclerical errors were made in the administration of this offence andconsequently the penalty should stand.
Registered Keeper details are provided by a DVLA database to which we haveaccess, and are retrieved by an automatic process.
I accept that when your vehicle registration mark was entered, your detailswere not initially provided, however we must act on information given whichin this case stated Mr. Conroy James as the Registered Keeper.
It is not the intention of the Central Ticket Office to cause unnecessaryinconvenience, however, please accept my apologies if this was the case.
"By now it was near the end of the year and I waited for the new Freedom ofInformation Act' to try a new tack.
I wrote back in early January:
"What may be 'unnecessary inconvenience' from your perspective isincompetence and injustice' from my perspective.
I still lack a credible explanation from you regarding the differentresults obtained by yourselves and the DVLA when accessing, as you admit,the same database.
When the same database is accessed by two different sets of people, one inDorset and the other in Wales, it is only because of an error by one ofthose that inappropriate results are returned. As I have been the owner ofthat registration for some 15 years, I know where my money goes.
If what you say is true, then were you to look into the database againtoday, you will still get Mr. Conroy as the Registered Keeper. I guess ifsome dreadful accident were to occur, the 'Widow' Conroy would be in earlyreceipt of Police commiserations.
If this is the case, then I require an IT expert of yours (I am one,myself) to explain to me how such a discrepancy can continue to occur.
If, on the other hand, the database does now show me as the RegisteredKeeper, then, either: There has been some amendment to it by the DVLA,which we will be able to trace, or The original look up by your staffcontained a procedural error.
need to know which of these is the case and under the new freedoms toreceive this information, I expect to be informed. Without adequateexplanation I cannot accept the status quo and the matter will go all theway to court if necessary, where facts can be gleaned under oath.
I received a reply from the Freedom of Information Manager which promisedme a formal reply by February 4.
I received the following today, January 24:
"Further to my letter of 19 January 2005, I would like to inform you that Ihave completed investigation into the circumstances regarding the issue ofTicket C1675842.
Investigations indicate that a clerical error had occurred which resultedin the failure to notify you, the Registered Keeper of VG3472, within therequired 14 day period from the date of the offence occurring. Procedureshave been amended accordingly and staff training implemented to ensure thatpotential offences concerning Cherished Registration Plates are processedcorrectly. I also took this opportunity to initiate a systems check toensure data transfer from DVLA was being received correctly and I am happyto report that all was in order.
In this instance, due to the findings of my investigation, I am instructedto remove the relative 3 points from your licence and refund the 60.00fixed penalty you have already paid. I have enclosed a pre-paid envelope toenable you to send your licence to this office and offer our sincereapologies on behalf of the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for this error occurring."
Electoral Commission in Backbone contest with Jellyfish. Jellyfish Wins!
Whatever the question, the answer is that these watchdogs are wrong-The Times , Michael Gove
YOU CAN achieve anything in life, I was once told, if you always let someone else take the credit. True or not, it’s rarely been a principle close to Tony Blair’s heart. The man who asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which “I can personally be associated” is never going to win the award for Mr Diffident in the All-England Humility Championships.
But the Prime Minister has been happy to shuffle out of the limelight on one crucial question. The new European constitution. Just over a week ago the official question to be asked in the event of a UK referendum on the constitution was published without fanfare by the Government and approved by the Electoral Commission, the body designed to ensure fair play in all referendums and elections. The Government seemed only too happy to have the commission take responsibility for signing off on the question.
The reason why became clear just a few days later, when opinion polls showed that the approved question secured a response that was far more favourable to the EU constitution than any other test of public support. Half of a sample of more than 1,000 people was asked the government question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty for establishing a Constitution for the European Union?” They split 39 per cent-39 per cent for and against. The other half of the sample was asked: “If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU Constitution or not?” Opinion in this case was 26 per cent in favour and 54 per cent against.
The Government thus seems to have achieved precisely what it wanted — a question on the ballot paper inviting the answer “yes” — by letting the Electoral Commission take the credit for approving that proposition.
It’s hardly surprising that ministers should be pleased with such a result. What is curious is the Electoral Commission’s role. Because the question produced breaks the rules on fairness on referendums. Which it drew up itself.
The Electoral Commission has noted that in the proposed question the constitution is not given its proper, suitably grandiose, title, “A Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The word “approve” is used which breaches the commission’s guidelines by granting the “yes” proposal a positive spin. And the question itself doesn’t make clear that the treaty which the UK is invited to approve doesn’t just apply to the distant EU but will affect Britain, indeed fundamentally change our own laws and constitution.
Yet even though the Electoral Commission’s own guidance has been breached by the Government, the commission itself has done nothing to uphold the rules. It has lent its authority, and therefore the mantle of objectivity, to a question that skews the debate overwhelmingly in one direction.
What makes the Electoral Commission’s role all the more worrying is that this isn’t the first occasion it has declined to police its own rules when the Government has been manipulating referendums. The commission’s first big test was the referendum on a North East assembly last November. From the beginning, voters should have been concerned. The Electoral Commission allowed Labour to press ahead with an all-postal ballot, even though its own work had revealed the potential for abuse in such a system.
And as the campaign went on, the commission signally failed to ensure that ministers stuck to the rules. On the eve of the vote, John Prescott tried to secure support for the “yes” side by announcing a “deal” with the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, which would give the new assembly additional powers. Not only did the “deal” apparently change the nature of what was being voted on after weeks of campaigning, it also involved Mr Prescott using his authority as a minister to influence a vote in which tight rules were supposed to limit the ability of Labour ministers to use the machinery of government.
It was a clear occasion where the Electoral Commission might have been expected to enforce its own rules, but no sanction was visited on Mr Prescott, the Government or the “yes” campaign. In the end, of course, the voters of the North East said “no”. But while that question was settled, others have been left hanging.
Who can we look to ensure fairness in future referendum campaigns? If the Electoral Commission won’t police government abuses in a limited referendum, and flunks the first test of its authority, can we really be confident that it will be robust on the much more contentious occasion of a nationwide EU referendum?
In any case, what guarantees do we have that government spending on a “yes” vote will be controlled? What monitoring of the EU’s own propaganda effort is going on? Given that the EU’s own accounts haven’t been properly audited for many years, how can we know that the sums it spends on persuasion are effectively policed?
And if the Electoral Commission approves a question which external testing demonstrates is skewed, how can we be certain it will be vigilant in ensuring that future material produced by the Government is balanced? The Electoral Commission is supposed to provide us with a guarantee of fair play in the most important arena of all — the battleground over who governs us. As a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate, I’m sure that the general election will proceed fairly. But in referendum contests where the Government has all the financial, and other, advantages of incumbency, the watchdog has never barked.
If the Electoral Commission would allow me, I have a question I’d like to ask well before any referendum. Do you think, after everything we’ve seen in the past seven years, and after the campaign tactics of the past seven days, that Mr Blair can be trusted to play fair in all future votes? Or do you think that it’s about time that our constitution was given stronger safeguards against the abuse of government power before we sign up to any other constitutions this Government likes the look of? I shan’t hold my breath for an answer.
YOU CAN achieve anything in life, I was once told, if you always let someone else take the credit. True or not, it’s rarely been a principle close to Tony Blair’s heart. The man who asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which “I can personally be associated” is never going to win the award for Mr Diffident in the All-England Humility Championships.
But the Prime Minister has been happy to shuffle out of the limelight on one crucial question. The new European constitution. Just over a week ago the official question to be asked in the event of a UK referendum on the constitution was published without fanfare by the Government and approved by the Electoral Commission, the body designed to ensure fair play in all referendums and elections. The Government seemed only too happy to have the commission take responsibility for signing off on the question.
The reason why became clear just a few days later, when opinion polls showed that the approved question secured a response that was far more favourable to the EU constitution than any other test of public support. Half of a sample of more than 1,000 people was asked the government question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty for establishing a Constitution for the European Union?” They split 39 per cent-39 per cent for and against. The other half of the sample was asked: “If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU Constitution or not?” Opinion in this case was 26 per cent in favour and 54 per cent against.
The Government thus seems to have achieved precisely what it wanted — a question on the ballot paper inviting the answer “yes” — by letting the Electoral Commission take the credit for approving that proposition.
It’s hardly surprising that ministers should be pleased with such a result. What is curious is the Electoral Commission’s role. Because the question produced breaks the rules on fairness on referendums. Which it drew up itself.
The Electoral Commission has noted that in the proposed question the constitution is not given its proper, suitably grandiose, title, “A Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The word “approve” is used which breaches the commission’s guidelines by granting the “yes” proposal a positive spin. And the question itself doesn’t make clear that the treaty which the UK is invited to approve doesn’t just apply to the distant EU but will affect Britain, indeed fundamentally change our own laws and constitution.
Yet even though the Electoral Commission’s own guidance has been breached by the Government, the commission itself has done nothing to uphold the rules. It has lent its authority, and therefore the mantle of objectivity, to a question that skews the debate overwhelmingly in one direction.
What makes the Electoral Commission’s role all the more worrying is that this isn’t the first occasion it has declined to police its own rules when the Government has been manipulating referendums. The commission’s first big test was the referendum on a North East assembly last November. From the beginning, voters should have been concerned. The Electoral Commission allowed Labour to press ahead with an all-postal ballot, even though its own work had revealed the potential for abuse in such a system.
And as the campaign went on, the commission signally failed to ensure that ministers stuck to the rules. On the eve of the vote, John Prescott tried to secure support for the “yes” side by announcing a “deal” with the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, which would give the new assembly additional powers. Not only did the “deal” apparently change the nature of what was being voted on after weeks of campaigning, it also involved Mr Prescott using his authority as a minister to influence a vote in which tight rules were supposed to limit the ability of Labour ministers to use the machinery of government.
It was a clear occasion where the Electoral Commission might have been expected to enforce its own rules, but no sanction was visited on Mr Prescott, the Government or the “yes” campaign. In the end, of course, the voters of the North East said “no”. But while that question was settled, others have been left hanging.
Who can we look to ensure fairness in future referendum campaigns? If the Electoral Commission won’t police government abuses in a limited referendum, and flunks the first test of its authority, can we really be confident that it will be robust on the much more contentious occasion of a nationwide EU referendum?
In any case, what guarantees do we have that government spending on a “yes” vote will be controlled? What monitoring of the EU’s own propaganda effort is going on? Given that the EU’s own accounts haven’t been properly audited for many years, how can we know that the sums it spends on persuasion are effectively policed?
And if the Electoral Commission approves a question which external testing demonstrates is skewed, how can we be certain it will be vigilant in ensuring that future material produced by the Government is balanced? The Electoral Commission is supposed to provide us with a guarantee of fair play in the most important arena of all — the battleground over who governs us. As a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate, I’m sure that the general election will proceed fairly. But in referendum contests where the Government has all the financial, and other, advantages of incumbency, the watchdog has never barked.
If the Electoral Commission would allow me, I have a question I’d like to ask well before any referendum. Do you think, after everything we’ve seen in the past seven years, and after the campaign tactics of the past seven days, that Mr Blair can be trusted to play fair in all future votes? Or do you think that it’s about time that our constitution was given stronger safeguards against the abuse of government power before we sign up to any other constitutions this Government likes the look of? I shan’t hold my breath for an answer.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Response from NCP - PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE
March 02, 2005-03-03
Mr N Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Dear Mr N Herron
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE SX14067024
Thank you for your letter received today in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.
The circumstances set out have been considered by this office in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and I am pleased to advise you that on this particular occasion the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.
However, I must inform you that I will not take a similar approach with any future recurrence.
Yours sincerely
Appeals officer
Mr N Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Dear Mr N Herron
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE SX14067024
Thank you for your letter received today in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.
The circumstances set out have been considered by this office in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and I am pleased to advise you that on this particular occasion the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.
However, I must inform you that I will not take a similar approach with any future recurrence.
Yours sincerely
Appeals officer
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
NORTH-EAST ASSEMBLY
Northern Echo (Hear all Sides) 02/03/2005
IT SEEMS odd that The Northern Echo reports on the North-East Assembly in great detail for two days running without asking one probing question (Feb 23 and 24).
Such as: Are the employment contracts for the employees of the assembly held by the local authorities?
Are these contracts of assembly employees underwritten by the local authority members of the assembly?
Are any redundancy payments due to any employee of the assembly, underwritten by the local authorities?
Are any of the pension fund obligations of the employees of the assembly underwritten by local authorities?
Where in the Local Government Acts 1972 or 2000 does it state that the contractual employment/pension arrangements of a voluntary outside body are the responsibility of the council taxpayers of the local authority membership of that voluntary outside body?
In effect, are councillors using our money to underwrite an assembly we voted against?
Stop the foolish building of more houses, along with investment in the South-East, and send some investment our way - we don't need an assembly to work that out.
Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives
NICK Morrison's article about regional assemblies is rather superficial (Echo, Feb 24).
Public opinion polling before the referendum indicated popular support for the idea of an elected assembly. It was when the actual proposals appeared that opinion started to change because people realised that what was on offer was inadequate.
Referendums are not a good way to decide policy. They polarise opinion and encourage negative campaigning. Thus the referendum last November rejected a specific proposal which even supporters of the "Yes" campaign - like me - thought wasn't good enough, but left the whole issue of dealing with the problems of the North-East.
Until we think of something better we shall have to make do with the unelected regional assembly. In the circumstances, I think it does a good job.
David Taylor-Gooby, Peterlee.
THE Liberal Democrats have accused Tony Blair and his Government of being very authoritarian. The chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, a former trade union boss and a native of Newcastle, came to a similar conclusion. He said: "Tony Blair and the Government are open to the charge that they want to control everything."
The North-East experienced this with the regional assembly referendum. A range of political sharp practices were used both before and during the referendum, which was further compounded by the PM's refusal to take note of the massive vote against an assembly and disband the unelected assembly.
What must be done to overcome the Government's shortfalls in democracy? A move back to Parliamentary democracy from the current presidential style would be good. Let's have more free votes for our MPs to allow them to reflect their constituents' needs. Introduce a Civil Service Act to re-establish their integrity and impartiality; and an act to give Parliament the power to appoint heads of inquiries and audit cronyism in public appointments. Will it happen if New Labour gets a third term?
Les Graham Balmoral, Hexham.
IT SEEMS odd that The Northern Echo reports on the North-East Assembly in great detail for two days running without asking one probing question (Feb 23 and 24).
Such as: Are the employment contracts for the employees of the assembly held by the local authorities?
Are these contracts of assembly employees underwritten by the local authority members of the assembly?
Are any redundancy payments due to any employee of the assembly, underwritten by the local authorities?
Are any of the pension fund obligations of the employees of the assembly underwritten by local authorities?
Where in the Local Government Acts 1972 or 2000 does it state that the contractual employment/pension arrangements of a voluntary outside body are the responsibility of the council taxpayers of the local authority membership of that voluntary outside body?
In effect, are councillors using our money to underwrite an assembly we voted against?
Stop the foolish building of more houses, along with investment in the South-East, and send some investment our way - we don't need an assembly to work that out.
Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives
NICK Morrison's article about regional assemblies is rather superficial (Echo, Feb 24).
Public opinion polling before the referendum indicated popular support for the idea of an elected assembly. It was when the actual proposals appeared that opinion started to change because people realised that what was on offer was inadequate.
Referendums are not a good way to decide policy. They polarise opinion and encourage negative campaigning. Thus the referendum last November rejected a specific proposal which even supporters of the "Yes" campaign - like me - thought wasn't good enough, but left the whole issue of dealing with the problems of the North-East.
Until we think of something better we shall have to make do with the unelected regional assembly. In the circumstances, I think it does a good job.
David Taylor-Gooby, Peterlee.
THE Liberal Democrats have accused Tony Blair and his Government of being very authoritarian. The chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, a former trade union boss and a native of Newcastle, came to a similar conclusion. He said: "Tony Blair and the Government are open to the charge that they want to control everything."
The North-East experienced this with the regional assembly referendum. A range of political sharp practices were used both before and during the referendum, which was further compounded by the PM's refusal to take note of the massive vote against an assembly and disband the unelected assembly.
What must be done to overcome the Government's shortfalls in democracy? A move back to Parliamentary democracy from the current presidential style would be good. Let's have more free votes for our MPs to allow them to reflect their constituents' needs. Introduce a Civil Service Act to re-establish their integrity and impartiality; and an act to give Parliament the power to appoint heads of inquiries and audit cronyism in public appointments. Will it happen if New Labour gets a third term?
Les Graham Balmoral, Hexham.
National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of Law
National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of Law, therefore it is a contravention of Article 6 HRA1998
Arbitration panel not a court for Art. 234
The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC. Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisidiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel. The recent judgment is in C-125/04 Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient-Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA. The Court reminds everyone that to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, it takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, the leading older case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult and Case C-516/99 Schmid). An arbitration panel is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (see Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss .
The position of the ECJ would have been different had national law made recourse to arbitration mandatory.
Arbitration panel not a court for Art. 234
The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC. Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisidiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel. The recent judgment is in C-125/04 Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient-Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA. The Court reminds everyone that to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, it takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, the leading older case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult and Case C-516/99 Schmid). An arbitration panel is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (see Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss .
The position of the ECJ would have been different had national law made recourse to arbitration mandatory.
National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of Law
Wednesday 02nd March 2005
National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of Law, therefore it is a contravention of Article 6 HRA1998
Arbitration panel not a court for Art. 234
The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisidiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel. The recent judgment is in C-125/04 Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient-Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA. The Court reminds everyone that to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, it takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, the leading older case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult and Case C-516/99 Schmid). An arbitration panel is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (see Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss .
The position of the ECJ would have been different had national law made recourse to arbitration mandatory.
National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of Law, therefore it is a contravention of Article 6 HRA1998
Arbitration panel not a court for Art. 234
The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisidiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel. The recent judgment is in C-125/04 Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient-Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA. The Court reminds everyone that to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, it takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, the leading older case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult and Case C-516/99 Schmid). An arbitration panel is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (see Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss .
The position of the ECJ would have been different had national law made recourse to arbitration mandatory.
Is your Local Authority Part of the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Regime?
Wednesday 02nd March 2005
To check whether your local authority now denies you access to a court of law to contest a parking ticket click here for the full list.
To check whether your local authority now denies you access to a court of law to contest a parking ticket click here for the full list.
2½ million drivers pay penalty in the parking tickets lottery
By Jill Sherman, The Times, Whitehall Editor
THE number of parking tickets handed out by local councils in England and Wales has shot up to nearly 2.5 million in a year, according to figures released yesterday.
A report from the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS), which monitors appeals forwarded by local councils, says that 300,000 more penalty notices were issued last year than in 2002. But the adjudicator received slightly fewer appeals during the same period. The 2003 figures show that councils issued 2.45 million tickets as against 2.13 million in 2002. There were 9,205 appeals against the notices, 0.2 per cent less than the previous year.
The document, which covers the 83 councils in England and Wales which are in the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme, shows big variations between different authorities. London is excluded from the report because it is covered by a different scheme. Some 66 per cent of appeals were upheld, including the two in five appeals not contested by councils.
But Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator for England and Wales, said that councils should be far more open with their parking ticket policy. “There is an urgent need for more transparency and accountability in the councils’ activities and it would be more informative for the public to have the whole picture,” she said.
“We believe the Government should require this information to be published each year, along with the councils’ parking accounts,” Ms Sheppard added. The data should include the number of penalty charges issued each year, the number paid at reduced penalty, the number of notices to owner issued, the number of representations received and accepted, the number of appeals lodged and the outcome of appeals and referrals to county courts.
Ms Sheppard suggested that this information should also be audited annually by the Audit Commission. “The Traffic Management Act proposes that high-performing councils should be able to widen the ring fence of their parking accounts to enable surpluses to be used for other council projects,” she said. “We believe that before this happens there should be standards set for civil traffic enforcement and that councils should achieve beacon status in these departments before the ring fence is widened to other projects.”
The report suggests that councils vary widely in their approach to mitigating circumstances. “Over the past ten years there has been consistent concern about councils’ approach to dealing with issues of discretion,” it says. In many ways councils could not be criticised in cases of compelling mitigation because they often did not possess the full facts. But the NPAS suggests that the new Traffic Management Act should include a clause allowing adjudicators the power to refer appropriate cases back to councils for reconsideration.
WHO ISSUED THE MOST
1. Birmingham 175,925
2. Brighton and Hove 160,546
3. Manchester 131,374
4. Liverpool 114,268
5. Nottingham 95,116
6. Reading 69,014
7. Northampton 65,580
8. Oxfordshire (Oxford) 56,970
9. Milton Keynes 56,150
10. Stoke-on-Trent 53,307
11. Medway 53,205
12. Sefton 51,378
13. Bristol 50,630
14. Plymouth 49,803
15. Southend-on-Sea 49,281
16. Portsmouth 49,169
17. Southampton 46,298
18. Luton 44,698
19. Bolton 42,592
20. Sandwell 42,043
THE number of parking tickets handed out by local councils in England and Wales has shot up to nearly 2.5 million in a year, according to figures released yesterday.
A report from the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS), which monitors appeals forwarded by local councils, says that 300,000 more penalty notices were issued last year than in 2002. But the adjudicator received slightly fewer appeals during the same period. The 2003 figures show that councils issued 2.45 million tickets as against 2.13 million in 2002. There were 9,205 appeals against the notices, 0.2 per cent less than the previous year.
The document, which covers the 83 councils in England and Wales which are in the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme, shows big variations between different authorities. London is excluded from the report because it is covered by a different scheme. Some 66 per cent of appeals were upheld, including the two in five appeals not contested by councils.
But Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator for England and Wales, said that councils should be far more open with their parking ticket policy. “There is an urgent need for more transparency and accountability in the councils’ activities and it would be more informative for the public to have the whole picture,” she said.
“We believe the Government should require this information to be published each year, along with the councils’ parking accounts,” Ms Sheppard added. The data should include the number of penalty charges issued each year, the number paid at reduced penalty, the number of notices to owner issued, the number of representations received and accepted, the number of appeals lodged and the outcome of appeals and referrals to county courts.
Ms Sheppard suggested that this information should also be audited annually by the Audit Commission. “The Traffic Management Act proposes that high-performing councils should be able to widen the ring fence of their parking accounts to enable surpluses to be used for other council projects,” she said. “We believe that before this happens there should be standards set for civil traffic enforcement and that councils should achieve beacon status in these departments before the ring fence is widened to other projects.”
The report suggests that councils vary widely in their approach to mitigating circumstances. “Over the past ten years there has been consistent concern about councils’ approach to dealing with issues of discretion,” it says. In many ways councils could not be criticised in cases of compelling mitigation because they often did not possess the full facts. But the NPAS suggests that the new Traffic Management Act should include a clause allowing adjudicators the power to refer appropriate cases back to councils for reconsideration.
WHO ISSUED THE MOST
1. Birmingham 175,925
2. Brighton and Hove 160,546
3. Manchester 131,374
4. Liverpool 114,268
5. Nottingham 95,116
6. Reading 69,014
7. Northampton 65,580
8. Oxfordshire (Oxford) 56,970
9. Milton Keynes 56,150
10. Stoke-on-Trent 53,307
11. Medway 53,205
12. Sefton 51,378
13. Bristol 50,630
14. Plymouth 49,803
15. Southend-on-Sea 49,281
16. Portsmouth 49,169
17. Southampton 46,298
18. Luton 44,698
19. Bolton 42,592
20. Sandwell 42,043
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Letter from Neil Herron to Ged Fitzgerald
Ged Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
City of Sunderland
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald
Please find enclosed a copy of Parking Ticket (Notice SX06021491), which I received on 21sr April 2004.
It was issued by National Car Parks Ltd, on behalf of the City of Sunderland and is attempting to impose a ‘Penalty Charge’ of £60 (reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days).
Upon checking the legislation, the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended), it appears that Sunderland Council, or its agents, are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner.
I enclose a copy of the Bill of Rights 1689, enacted and formally entered into statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. Therefore, Sunderland Council and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged offence until or unless it has been dealt with by a Court of Law. The actions of Sunderland Council and its agents would appear to be unlawful.
For avoidance of doubt, I also enclose a copy of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (Schedule 6 Section 66 (7) which, as you can see, makes no reference whatsoever to repealing the Bill of Rights 1689 with any express wording.
As stated in ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgement in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and r. Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a full copy of the judgement with the relevant sections 62 and 63 highlighted):
62.”We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional statutes. ‘The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Acts of Union, the Reform Acts etc…”
63. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not …”
As you are aware, Sunderland Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgement, and invested well over £100,000 of public money in the pursuit of Mr. Thoburn (the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund having paid all costs ordered by the Court). The precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is quite clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the Members of Sunderland Council and its agents can claim no excuse whatsoever for ignorance in this matter.
I appreciate that this was not of your, nor the current Leader’s making, but a legal precedent has been set. I am sure that, should the situation have arisen, then perhaps a different line would have been taken to the one taken by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sinclair.
I would be grateful if you could confirm therefore, that the ultimate legal responsibility not only lies with yourself as Chief Executive, but also the newly elected Members of the Sunderland City Council, and not with NCP Ltd. I would also be grateful if you could confirm that you would bring the implications of Sunderland Council’s actions to the attention of the Council and also to that of NCP Ltd.
I would also be grateful if you could also confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are breaking the law by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them.
Therefore, please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
Neil Herron
1.Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice… Parking Ticket (Notice SX06021491)
2.Copy of Road Traffic Act 1991 Schedule 6 Section 66(7)
3. Copy of the Bill of Rights 1689
4. Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgement
Chief Executive
City of Sunderland
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald
Please find enclosed a copy of Parking Ticket (Notice SX06021491), which I received on 21sr April 2004.
It was issued by National Car Parks Ltd, on behalf of the City of Sunderland and is attempting to impose a ‘Penalty Charge’ of £60 (reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days).
Upon checking the legislation, the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended), it appears that Sunderland Council, or its agents, are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner.
I enclose a copy of the Bill of Rights 1689, enacted and formally entered into statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. Therefore, Sunderland Council and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged offence until or unless it has been dealt with by a Court of Law. The actions of Sunderland Council and its agents would appear to be unlawful.
For avoidance of doubt, I also enclose a copy of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (Schedule 6 Section 66 (7) which, as you can see, makes no reference whatsoever to repealing the Bill of Rights 1689 with any express wording.
As stated in ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgement in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and r. Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a full copy of the judgement with the relevant sections 62 and 63 highlighted):
62.”We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional statutes. ‘The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Acts of Union, the Reform Acts etc…”
63. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not …”
As you are aware, Sunderland Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgement, and invested well over £100,000 of public money in the pursuit of Mr. Thoburn (the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund having paid all costs ordered by the Court). The precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is quite clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the Members of Sunderland Council and its agents can claim no excuse whatsoever for ignorance in this matter.
I appreciate that this was not of your, nor the current Leader’s making, but a legal precedent has been set. I am sure that, should the situation have arisen, then perhaps a different line would have been taken to the one taken by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sinclair.
I would be grateful if you could confirm therefore, that the ultimate legal responsibility not only lies with yourself as Chief Executive, but also the newly elected Members of the Sunderland City Council, and not with NCP Ltd. I would also be grateful if you could confirm that you would bring the implications of Sunderland Council’s actions to the attention of the Council and also to that of NCP Ltd.
I would also be grateful if you could also confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are breaking the law by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them.
Therefore, please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
Neil Herron
1.Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice… Parking Ticket (Notice SX06021491)
2.Copy of Road Traffic Act 1991 Schedule 6 Section 66(7)
3. Copy of the Bill of Rights 1689
4. Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgement
Acknowledgement from Ged Fitzgerald, 8th July 2004
Mr N Herron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Mr Herron
Parking Ticket
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 1July, regarding the above matter.
I have forwarded your letter to the City Solicitor for consideration and you will receive a response in due course.
Yours sincerely
G Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Mr Herron
Parking Ticket
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 1July, regarding the above matter.
I have forwarded your letter to the City Solicitor for consideration and you will receive a response in due course.
Yours sincerely
G Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
Response from Elaine Waugh, City Solicitor, 13th August
Mr N Herron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Mr Herron
Penalty Charge Notice SX06021491 issued 21.4.04
I am replying to your letter of 1 July 2004 addressed to the Chief Executive.
I confirm that responsibility for enforcing the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No.3266) (“the 2002 order”), which renders the provisions of S.66 of, and Schedule 6 to, the Road Traffic Act 1991 applicable to parking in Sunderland, lies with the Council of the City of Sunderland.
The Council has taken advice from Leading Counsel on the contents of your letter. It is satisfied that it may properly exercise its powers under s.66 and schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, as rendered applicable by the 2002 order, without contravening the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights 1689; and that its actions in issuing and enforcing PCNs are not inconsistent with the dicta of Lord Justice Laws in Thoburn v City of Sunderland [2002] 3 WLR 247 in respect of the doctrine of implied repeal as applied to “constitutional” statutes.
The clause in the Bill of Rights 1689 to which you refer protects a citizen from fines and forfeiture of his property imposed as a matter of criminal (penal) law unless these penalties have duly been imposed by a criminal court following conviction.
The issues of a PCN is not a criminal/penal matter. It is an administrative procedure under which, at that preliminary point, a person suspected of having contravened parking regulations may discharge his potential liability.
With regard to the judgment of Laws LJ in the Thoburn case, in view of the fact that the PCN is not a fine imposed under criminal law, there is no conflict with the Bill of Rights 1689 and therefore no issue as to implied repeal arises. However, even id the Council’s view is wrong, the actual test for (partial) repeal of a constitutional law statute propounded by Laws LJ in Thoburn is satisfied. The words used in the Road Traffic Act 1991 are so specific that the inference of an actual determination by the legislature to effect the result contended for (i.e. that it is permissible to issue PCNs without there being a prior conviction by a criminal court) is irresistible.
Your letter indicates, by its enclosures, that you are aware of the normal administrative procedure under Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Please be advised that this procedure will be applied in respect of PCN SX06021491 as with any other PCN.
Yours Sincerely
Assistant City Solicitor
c.c Chief Executive
Head of Transport and Engineering, FAO Mr E Belshaw
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Mr Herron
Penalty Charge Notice SX06021491 issued 21.4.04
I am replying to your letter of 1 July 2004 addressed to the Chief Executive.
I confirm that responsibility for enforcing the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No.3266) (“the 2002 order”), which renders the provisions of S.66 of, and Schedule 6 to, the Road Traffic Act 1991 applicable to parking in Sunderland, lies with the Council of the City of Sunderland.
The Council has taken advice from Leading Counsel on the contents of your letter. It is satisfied that it may properly exercise its powers under s.66 and schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, as rendered applicable by the 2002 order, without contravening the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights 1689; and that its actions in issuing and enforcing PCNs are not inconsistent with the dicta of Lord Justice Laws in Thoburn v City of Sunderland [2002] 3 WLR 247 in respect of the doctrine of implied repeal as applied to “constitutional” statutes.
The clause in the Bill of Rights 1689 to which you refer protects a citizen from fines and forfeiture of his property imposed as a matter of criminal (penal) law unless these penalties have duly been imposed by a criminal court following conviction.
The issues of a PCN is not a criminal/penal matter. It is an administrative procedure under which, at that preliminary point, a person suspected of having contravened parking regulations may discharge his potential liability.
With regard to the judgment of Laws LJ in the Thoburn case, in view of the fact that the PCN is not a fine imposed under criminal law, there is no conflict with the Bill of Rights 1689 and therefore no issue as to implied repeal arises. However, even id the Council’s view is wrong, the actual test for (partial) repeal of a constitutional law statute propounded by Laws LJ in Thoburn is satisfied. The words used in the Road Traffic Act 1991 are so specific that the inference of an actual determination by the legislature to effect the result contended for (i.e. that it is permissible to issue PCNs without there being a prior conviction by a criminal court) is irresistible.
Your letter indicates, by its enclosures, that you are aware of the normal administrative procedure under Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Please be advised that this procedure will be applied in respect of PCN SX06021491 as with any other PCN.
Yours Sincerely
Assistant City Solicitor
c.c Chief Executive
Head of Transport and Engineering, FAO Mr E Belshaw
Response from Neil Herron to Elaine Waugh 24th January 2005
Ms Elaine Waugh
Assistant Solicitor
Sunderland City Council
PO Box 100 Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Your ref. EW AGH/64568
Dear Ms Waugh,
Penalty Charge Notice SX06021491 issued 21.04.04
In response to your communication of 13th August 2004.
There are a number of points I wish to have clarified before pursuing the matter further.
Am I to assume due to the lack of communication that the outstanding Penalty Charge Notice is not to be pursued?
If it is to be pursued can you advise as to why a period of now some five months has elapsed without any communication whatsoever from yourselves?
The points in your communication, which I would like to address, are as follows: -
1.You refer to having taken legal advice from Leading Counsel. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would be grateful if you could provide a copy of this advice along with the name of “Leading Counsel.’
2.You make a statement inferring that the clause in the Bill of Rights refers only to criminal matters. The Bill of Rights make no reference to criminal (penal) law. It states, “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void.”
I would therefore be grateful if you could qualify the statement and detail any precedent or authority to clarify the statement.
3. Following from this therefore, you state that the issue of a PCN is not a criminal/penal matter, simply an administrative procedure where a person ‘suspected’ of contravening the parking regulations, may discharge his personal liability. If that is the case then someone who wishes to dispute any ‘suspected contravention’ must be allowed access to a court of law to refute or challenge any potential liability. Can you please detail the procedure whereby I could access a court of law (the adjudication process is not a recognised court of law) in order to challenge the attempted imposition of a ’fine or charge?’
4. In the most bizarre statement of all you state, “ However, even if the Council’s view is wrong, the actual test for (partial) repeal of a constitutional law statute propounded by Laws LJ in Thoburn is satisfied. The words used by the Road Traffic Act 1991 are so specific that the inference of an actual determination by the legislature to the effect the result contended for (i.e. that it is permissible to issue PCN’s without there being a prior conviction by a criminal court) is irresistible.
This statement is not irresistible and conflicts with laws LJ who states that constitutional statutes must be expressly repealed. There is no express repeal of the Bill of Rights in the 1991 Road Traffic Act no matter how specific the wording of the draftsmen. The specific wording in section 1 of the 1985 Weights and Measures Act is also clear and specific…
“(1) The yard of the metre shall be the unit of measurement of length and the pound or the kilogram shall be unit of measurement of mass by reference to which any measurement involving a measurement of length or mass shall be made in the United Kingdom; and —
Following the logic of your argument the defence used in the Metric Martyrs case is therefore sound and irresistible and Laws Judgement wrong.
Therefore, I welcome taking the matter further and wish for the case to be referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner.
Would you also confirm that the matter would not be able to be dealt with by a magistrate’s court, as it is dependent on a precedent set by a higher court?
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
City of Sunderland Council Reply
Mr N Heron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Sir
Penalty Charge Notice SX06021491
I refer to your letter of 24 January regarding the above matter. My colleague Ms Waugh who has conduct of this matter is currently on leave and I have therefore personally looked into the situation.
In relation to PCN SX06021491. The Head of Transport and Engineering has advised me that the facts are as follows:
You failed to appeal against the issue of the PCN and as a consequence a Notice to Owner was automatically issued on 25 May 2004 that allows the registered keeper to either pay the charge or challenge the reason why the PCN was issued. No communication was received from you. As a consequence, a charge Certificate was issued on 16 July 2004 informing you that the charge had now automatically increased to £90 and if the charge remained outstanding for a further period of 14 days it could be registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court as a debt and ultimately could be recovered by Bailiffs.
The Charge Certificate was sent out on 16th July 2004 by recorded delivery, reference DT025472425GB. It would appear that the Charge Certificate was not served. Upon checking the history of the recorded delivery via the Royal Mail is confirmed that the Charge Certificate is to be returned to the Council. The Head of Transport and Engineering has requested an explanation from Royal Mail as to why it was unable to be served and why they have delayed in returning this unserved correspondence to the Council. Generally, unless Royal Mail informs the Council to the contrary, all correspondence posted is considered duly served. (I am also informed that Royal Mail labelled “not called for” has returned other notices sent to you).
So far as the legality of the notice is concerned, I would reiterate that the Council is satisfied that it may properly exercise its powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991, without contravening the guarantees in the Bill of Rights 1689, for the reasons set out in my letter of 13 August 2004. I have nothing to add to my previous letter. If you do not accept the Council’s view, it is a matter for you to decide what further action, if any, you wish to take. It is not for me to advise you upon the legal processes available for challenging the Council’s action.
Finally, with regard to your request for information under the Freedom of information Act 2000 the advice was obtained by the Council from Eleanor Sharpston QC of Hailsham Chambers. Your request for a copy of this advice is declined on the ground of legal professional privilege. In this connection due regard has been given to the public interest and it has been concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption contained in section 42 of the Act outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the advice. In particular it is considered that: -
The Council has already provided you with a summary of the legal arguments sufficient for you to understand its reasoning.
There is a need in the public interest to ensure that the council is not reluctant to seek legal advice on the proper performance of its functions and to take fully informed decisions on sensitive and difficult issues. If such advice was released into the public domain, this may make the Council reluctant to seek advice and have a full and frank exchange of information with its legal adviser.
The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of lawyer/client communications is judicially recognised. The House of Lords has said that legal professional privilege is a “fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole operates”.
If you are dissatisfied with the Council’s response to your request for information, you can ask for a review under the Council’s Customer Services Procedure in reply to this letter, or alternatively you may wish to refer to the Council’s Customer Services Manager direct, at PO Box 100, Civic Centre, Sunderland, SR2 7DN, if this fails to resolve your concerns then you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.
Yours faithfully
City Solicitor
c.c Director of Development and Regeneration
Head of Transport and Engineering
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Dear Sir
Penalty Charge Notice SX06021491
I refer to your letter of 24 January regarding the above matter. My colleague Ms Waugh who has conduct of this matter is currently on leave and I have therefore personally looked into the situation.
In relation to PCN SX06021491. The Head of Transport and Engineering has advised me that the facts are as follows:
You failed to appeal against the issue of the PCN and as a consequence a Notice to Owner was automatically issued on 25 May 2004 that allows the registered keeper to either pay the charge or challenge the reason why the PCN was issued. No communication was received from you. As a consequence, a charge Certificate was issued on 16 July 2004 informing you that the charge had now automatically increased to £90 and if the charge remained outstanding for a further period of 14 days it could be registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court as a debt and ultimately could be recovered by Bailiffs.
The Charge Certificate was sent out on 16th July 2004 by recorded delivery, reference DT025472425GB. It would appear that the Charge Certificate was not served. Upon checking the history of the recorded delivery via the Royal Mail is confirmed that the Charge Certificate is to be returned to the Council. The Head of Transport and Engineering has requested an explanation from Royal Mail as to why it was unable to be served and why they have delayed in returning this unserved correspondence to the Council. Generally, unless Royal Mail informs the Council to the contrary, all correspondence posted is considered duly served. (I am also informed that Royal Mail labelled “not called for” has returned other notices sent to you).
So far as the legality of the notice is concerned, I would reiterate that the Council is satisfied that it may properly exercise its powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991, without contravening the guarantees in the Bill of Rights 1689, for the reasons set out in my letter of 13 August 2004. I have nothing to add to my previous letter. If you do not accept the Council’s view, it is a matter for you to decide what further action, if any, you wish to take. It is not for me to advise you upon the legal processes available for challenging the Council’s action.
Finally, with regard to your request for information under the Freedom of information Act 2000 the advice was obtained by the Council from Eleanor Sharpston QC of Hailsham Chambers. Your request for a copy of this advice is declined on the ground of legal professional privilege. In this connection due regard has been given to the public interest and it has been concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption contained in section 42 of the Act outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the advice. In particular it is considered that: -
The Council has already provided you with a summary of the legal arguments sufficient for you to understand its reasoning.
There is a need in the public interest to ensure that the council is not reluctant to seek legal advice on the proper performance of its functions and to take fully informed decisions on sensitive and difficult issues. If such advice was released into the public domain, this may make the Council reluctant to seek advice and have a full and frank exchange of information with its legal adviser.
The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of lawyer/client communications is judicially recognised. The House of Lords has said that legal professional privilege is a “fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole operates”.
If you are dissatisfied with the Council’s response to your request for information, you can ask for a review under the Council’s Customer Services Procedure in reply to this letter, or alternatively you may wish to refer to the Council’s Customer Services Manager direct, at PO Box 100, Civic Centre, Sunderland, SR2 7DN, if this fails to resolve your concerns then you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.
Yours faithfully
City Solicitor
c.c Director of Development and Regeneration
Head of Transport and Engineering
Press Release Sandwell Council
“Kim Neville” kim.Neville@sandwell.gov.uk on 17/02/2005
To: Tom Wells
Cc:
Subject: sandwell MBC response to enquiry: Parking Ticket
Tom, I understand you wanted our statement regarding Mr de Crittenden.
Here it is
Regards, Kim Neville.
Sandwell Council’s Cabinet member for community, neighbourhood & safety Cllr Keith Davies said;
“Inappropriate parking in Sandwell is no longer a criminal offence, having been decriminalised under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
“ I am satisfied that Sandwell Council has properly exercised its powers in issuing a penalty charge notice for this parking contravention and has followed the correct procedures laid down in the Road Traffic Act 1991, when the charge was not paid.
Mr de Crittenden made representations against the penalty charge and was given the opportunity to appeal against the decision to reject these representations – which would have been heard by the independent National Parking Adjudication Service- but he turned this down.
“We also agreed to put proceedings on hold until the outcome of legal advise on a case in Sunderland, where Mr de Crittenden had similarly challenged the legality of the process, on the basis of the Bill of Rights.
“That advice held that the issue of a penalty charge notice did not conflict with the Bill of Rights 1689 which is concerned with criminal law.
“Penalty charges are not a criminal matter but an administrative procedure. Accordingly, it established the rights of local authorities to issue penalty charge notices and resolve disputes through the procedure, wee have issued a warrant to bailiffs to recover the outstanding amount.
“I understand Mr de Crittenden is demanding his day in court but the simple matter is, this is not possible, as this is not a criminal matter. A hearing, decided by the National Parking Adjudication Service, is the legal means of appealing.
It would require a judicial review and a change in the law to give us power to hand this case over to the courts.”
For further information please contact:
Chris Horst, Press Officer
Tel: 0121 569 3037
Fax: 0121 569 3038
Mob/out of hours: 07659 102 777
Email: chris_horst@sandwell.gov.uk
Kim Neville
To: Tom Wells
Cc:
Subject: sandwell MBC response to enquiry: Parking Ticket
Tom, I understand you wanted our statement regarding Mr de Crittenden.
Here it is
Regards, Kim Neville.
Sandwell Council’s Cabinet member for community, neighbourhood & safety Cllr Keith Davies said;
“Inappropriate parking in Sandwell is no longer a criminal offence, having been decriminalised under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
“ I am satisfied that Sandwell Council has properly exercised its powers in issuing a penalty charge notice for this parking contravention and has followed the correct procedures laid down in the Road Traffic Act 1991, when the charge was not paid.
Mr de Crittenden made representations against the penalty charge and was given the opportunity to appeal against the decision to reject these representations – which would have been heard by the independent National Parking Adjudication Service- but he turned this down.
“We also agreed to put proceedings on hold until the outcome of legal advise on a case in Sunderland, where Mr de Crittenden had similarly challenged the legality of the process, on the basis of the Bill of Rights.
“That advice held that the issue of a penalty charge notice did not conflict with the Bill of Rights 1689 which is concerned with criminal law.
“Penalty charges are not a criminal matter but an administrative procedure. Accordingly, it established the rights of local authorities to issue penalty charge notices and resolve disputes through the procedure, wee have issued a warrant to bailiffs to recover the outstanding amount.
“I understand Mr de Crittenden is demanding his day in court but the simple matter is, this is not possible, as this is not a criminal matter. A hearing, decided by the National Parking Adjudication Service, is the legal means of appealing.
It would require a judicial review and a change in the law to give us power to hand this case over to the courts.”
For further information please contact:
Chris Horst, Press Officer
Tel: 0121 569 3037
Fax: 0121 569 3038
Mob/out of hours: 07659 102 777
Email: chris_horst@sandwell.gov.uk
Kim Neville
Prescott warned about 'No' vote
Feb 28 2005
By The Journal
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was warned that North voters would turn against plans for a regional assembly more than a year before last autumn's comprehensive referendum defeat.
Mr Prescott was told in a private polling commissioned in October 2003 that voters had fears over "potential financial wastage and increased bureaucracy" - even after in-depth briefings about his plans for elected regional government.
The research, by consultants NOP World, showed there was little understanding of regional politics in the region in 2003 - with many people interviewed seeing an assembly as "an extra level of hierarchy".
And despite claims of a strong sense of regional identity from supporters, people felt Newcastle would dominate the agenda, with smaller areas expected to report back to the city.
Last night there was criticism of the Government for pressing ahead with the multi-million pound assembly referendum campaign in the face of the polling results, ultimately leading to last November's 78pc `No' vote .
No campaigner Neil Herron said: "This was political will being imposed on us and not at all about what the people wanted.
"It was the Government's agenda, a manifesto pledge and it had to be fulfilled irrespective."
More than £3m was spent on the Government's information campaign about regional assemblies - leaflets for which NOP used in their polling.
In total, the moves towards assemblies cost taxpayers about £11m.
The effectiveness of the publicity, however, has been called into doubt, with the "Your Say" information leaflets themselves coming under fire. Voters say they were biased and jargon-heavy.
"Some of these words - I don't have a clue what they're about?" one young woman said.
A young male voter said: "It's a bit biased. All yeses. Just telling you what you want to hear - there is a downside because there are naturally going to be things we don't agree with."
The `No' campaign played heavily on fears the assembly would be a "white elephant" - fears which had already been uncovered for the Government by the 2003 research.
It found focus group members remained concerned about the potential for financial wastage and increased bureaucracy.
They argued there would be a "lack of visible change" together with high costs and political infighting, although most accepted it would be democratically accountable with the potential for increasing its powers, Whitehall departments willing. The 2003 research was intended to help Mr Prescott's department identify awareness of the issue, but urged the Deputy Prime Minister to "counteract negative pre-conceptions of elected regional assemblies (ERAs)".
Polling was also conducted in September 2004, just two months before the referendum, showing that despite 54pc of people in the North-East being aware of the issue the "majority did not feel informed about ERAs" or about their responsibilities.
A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office said: "Following the publication of the regions white paper in 2002, we undertook a wide ranging soundings exercise to consider whether there was demand for a regional assembly.
"After consideration of the findings, we decided there was enough evidence in the North-East to warrant a vote."
Former Yes4theNorthEast campaigner Suzannah Clarke said: "I think it's pointless going over old ground about who said what when.
"But I think having the referendum has brought up a number of issues that weren't being talked about before.
"What we now have to do is see what we can take out of that which will help the region in the future
By The Journal
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was warned that North voters would turn against plans for a regional assembly more than a year before last autumn's comprehensive referendum defeat.
Mr Prescott was told in a private polling commissioned in October 2003 that voters had fears over "potential financial wastage and increased bureaucracy" - even after in-depth briefings about his plans for elected regional government.
The research, by consultants NOP World, showed there was little understanding of regional politics in the region in 2003 - with many people interviewed seeing an assembly as "an extra level of hierarchy".
And despite claims of a strong sense of regional identity from supporters, people felt Newcastle would dominate the agenda, with smaller areas expected to report back to the city.
Last night there was criticism of the Government for pressing ahead with the multi-million pound assembly referendum campaign in the face of the polling results, ultimately leading to last November's 78pc `No' vote .
No campaigner Neil Herron said: "This was political will being imposed on us and not at all about what the people wanted.
"It was the Government's agenda, a manifesto pledge and it had to be fulfilled irrespective."
More than £3m was spent on the Government's information campaign about regional assemblies - leaflets for which NOP used in their polling.
In total, the moves towards assemblies cost taxpayers about £11m.
The effectiveness of the publicity, however, has been called into doubt, with the "Your Say" information leaflets themselves coming under fire. Voters say they were biased and jargon-heavy.
"Some of these words - I don't have a clue what they're about?" one young woman said.
A young male voter said: "It's a bit biased. All yeses. Just telling you what you want to hear - there is a downside because there are naturally going to be things we don't agree with."
The `No' campaign played heavily on fears the assembly would be a "white elephant" - fears which had already been uncovered for the Government by the 2003 research.
It found focus group members remained concerned about the potential for financial wastage and increased bureaucracy.
They argued there would be a "lack of visible change" together with high costs and political infighting, although most accepted it would be democratically accountable with the potential for increasing its powers, Whitehall departments willing. The 2003 research was intended to help Mr Prescott's department identify awareness of the issue, but urged the Deputy Prime Minister to "counteract negative pre-conceptions of elected regional assemblies (ERAs)".
Polling was also conducted in September 2004, just two months before the referendum, showing that despite 54pc of people in the North-East being aware of the issue the "majority did not feel informed about ERAs" or about their responsibilities.
A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office said: "Following the publication of the regions white paper in 2002, we undertook a wide ranging soundings exercise to consider whether there was demand for a regional assembly.
"After consideration of the findings, we decided there was enough evidence in the North-East to warrant a vote."
Former Yes4theNorthEast campaigner Suzannah Clarke said: "I think it's pointless going over old ground about who said what when.
"But I think having the referendum has brought up a number of issues that weren't being talked about before.
"What we now have to do is see what we can take out of that which will help the region in the future
Millions wasted on vote doomed to fail
Yorkshire Today
Simon McGee, Political Editor, 01/03/2005
MILLIONS of pounds of public money spent on the regional assembly campaign could have been saved if Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had listened to his own private polling.
More than a year before his dream for the North was shot down in flames, Ministers were warned in focus group research that scepticism in the three Northern regions was rife.
Fears over the financial costs of a new tier of regional government were uppermost in voters' minds , the study commissioned between October 2003 and July 2004 found.It also revealed that despite the millions spent on the Your Say publicity campaign, only 48 per cent of Yorkshire voters registered any awareness of the concept of elected regional assemblies four months before the planned referendum last year.
The North-East region – the only one to go ahead with a referendum after the polls in Yorkshire and Humber and the North-West were "postponed" because they were considered unwinnable – killed and buried Mr Prescott's scheme for good last November with a massive 78 per cent vote against.
Results of the hitherto-private NOP World polling, now seen by the Yorkshire Post, revealed fears over the "potential financial wastage and increased bureaucracy".
Tory regions spokesman Bernard Jenkin said the "covert polling" showed Ministers underestimated the strength of people's feeling and attacked the Government for spending taxpayers' money in the pursuit of political aims.
Simon McGee, Political Editor, 01/03/2005
MILLIONS of pounds of public money spent on the regional assembly campaign could have been saved if Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had listened to his own private polling.
More than a year before his dream for the North was shot down in flames, Ministers were warned in focus group research that scepticism in the three Northern regions was rife.
Fears over the financial costs of a new tier of regional government were uppermost in voters' minds , the study commissioned between October 2003 and July 2004 found.It also revealed that despite the millions spent on the Your Say publicity campaign, only 48 per cent of Yorkshire voters registered any awareness of the concept of elected regional assemblies four months before the planned referendum last year.
The North-East region – the only one to go ahead with a referendum after the polls in Yorkshire and Humber and the North-West were "postponed" because they were considered unwinnable – killed and buried Mr Prescott's scheme for good last November with a massive 78 per cent vote against.
Results of the hitherto-private NOP World polling, now seen by the Yorkshire Post, revealed fears over the "potential financial wastage and increased bureaucracy".
Tory regions spokesman Bernard Jenkin said the "covert polling" showed Ministers underestimated the strength of people's feeling and attacked the Government for spending taxpayers' money in the pursuit of political aims.
Parking Ticket Challenge Against Sunderland Council
This is the latest letter to Sunderland City Council against the unlawful issuing of Parking Tickets.
A telephone conversation with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court reveals that the debt has not yet been registered.
If and when it is, you then have the right to complete a Statutory Declaration that you did not receive the Notice to Owner. The Council then have to re-issue another NTO and go through the whole process again. If, and when the 'debt' is finally registered it then goes back to the Local Authority to issue an Execution Warrant, which is handed over to Bailiffs. You can deny the Bailiffs access. They cannot remove your vehicle. The debt is not registered as a County Court Judgment as there has been no court case.
It appears as though the decriminalised regime has created a fierce dog with a very loud bark...but not a tooth in sight!
Latest reply to Sunderland Council's Solicitor...
Neil Herron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderlan
A telephone conversation with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court reveals that the debt has not yet been registered.
If and when it is, you then have the right to complete a Statutory Declaration that you did not receive the Notice to Owner. The Council then have to re-issue another NTO and go through the whole process again. If, and when the 'debt' is finally registered it then goes back to the Local Authority to issue an Execution Warrant, which is handed over to Bailiffs. You can deny the Bailiffs access. They cannot remove your vehicle. The debt is not registered as a County Court Judgment as there has been no court case.
It appears as though the decriminalised regime has created a fierce dog with a very loud bark...but not a tooth in sight!
Latest reply to Sunderland Council's Solicitor...
Neil Herron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderlan