Do you want a region at all?
Jan 22 2005
By Paul Linford, The Journal
Ever since the November 4 referendum decision against establishing an elected North-East Assembly, a big unanswered question about the future of the region has hung in the air.
It concerns the fate of the regional institutions which an elected assembly was meant to democratize but which, in the wake of the No vote, now exist in an uneasy limbo.
The question is a valid one, not least because some of the bodies in question were set up by Labour as precursors of the move towards regional government now stopped dead in its tracks.
This week, the Tories confirmed that they would dismantle large parts of this regional apparatus as part of their drive to cut some £35bn of what they term "wasteful" public expenditure.
Their plans would see unelected assemblies axed altogether, while development agencies like One NorthEast and the regional Government Offices would be radically slimmed down.
In view of the referendum result, the Tories probably imagine this to be a vote-winner, although in truth it's not so very different from the policy on which they fought and lost the last election in 2001.
Detailed policy proposals from the other two main parties are still anticipated, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats still seemingly unsure of how to respond to the referendum debacle. But whoever wins in May - when the next General Election is expected to take place - it is already clear that the self-styled, unelected "North-East Assembly" in particular faces a desperate fight for survival.
So can there really be any valid argument for keeping an unelected assembly when the democratic version of it has already been rejected by the region's voters in such large numbers?
Well, let me begin by saying that the NEA would probably not be in this position now if it had not made the daft decision to call itself an "assembly" in the first place.
Initially set up by the Government as a regional "chamber," its subsequent re-branding exercise was not just a blatant piece of self-aggrandisement but also mightily confusing for the public.
The campaign to establish a "North-East Assembly" cannot possibly have been helped by the fact that something calling itself by that name already existed.
Secondly, it has to be said that the crossover between the NEA and the Association of North-East Councils, which is now to be severed, did not serve the wider interests of the region well.
The dominance exerted by local government over the NEA has at times caused it to adopt a lowest-common-denominator approach to tackling the region's problems.
Furthermore, in attempting to manage the political process leading up to the possible introduction of elected regional government, the NEA did further harm to the pro-assembly cause. The prominent role played in that process by local government figures such as Tony Flynn merely heightened the public's impression that home rule would mean the same tired old faces running things.
Thirdly, the NEA's close links with the Labour Party political establishment in the region has seriously limited its effectiveness as a lobbying organization.
A few years back, while preparing a report to take to the Government on regional funding, it was told by senior officials that any mention of the Barnett Formula would be "counter productive."
Sure enough, when the document appeared in made no reference to the infamous Treasury formula which awards Scotland and Wales much higher spending-per-head than the English regions.
But how anyone was supposed to make a coherent case for the North without mentioning the £300m funding disparity it generates was, and is, quite beyond me.
That said, however, it is hard not to sympathise with the plight of the man at the centre of the current debate, NEA director Stephen Barber.
As was first revealed in The Journal, ANEC has drawn up a secret blueprint to restructure the organization which involves making Mr Barber redundant.
Mr Barber was party to some of the decisions I have referred to above and to that extent must bear some degree of responsibility for the failings of the NEA as an organization.
But he is a good and decent man who has fought hard to bring a regional dimension to local and national policy debates and, as such, will be a loss to the region as a whole.
And it is here - in the search for a regional dimension to policy-making - that the nub of the argument about the future of the unelected assembly really lies.
On the basis of its overall track record, it scarcely deserves to survive - but as with the monarchy, the real question is what you would put in its place.
The Tories talk of "returning" the assembly's functions to local government, but this is a dangerous, and arguably disingenuous fallacy.
The kinds of governmental functions carried out at regional level - for example strategic planning, skills training and co-ordinating European funding - cannot realistically be exercised by town halls, and in truth, they never were.
What we are left with, then, is either an unsatisfactory status quo, or the atomization of the North-East into a host of competing interests - urban against rural, Tyne against Wear against Tees.
If the North-East is to be regarded as a region in any meaningful sense, it needs region-wide institutions like the assembly to bring a regional perspective to bear.
The people of the North-East decided in November that they didn't want the irregional assembly to be elected, and those of us who argued for a different outcome have to respect that.
Now, in deciding whether or not it should continue, the region has a much more fundamental question to answer - whether it wants to be a region at all.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
The net is closing Mr. Barber
We have now have the response from Stephen Barber and this is the last desperate attempt to hold off the screaming hordes. The days of Mr. Barber and the Assembly are numbered and there will be desperate attempts from all others at self-preservation.
Mr. Barber's responses (or lack of responses) are highlighted in red.
E-mail received 24th December 2004
Neil,
Thanks for this. My comments are as follows;
14th December, 2004
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
26th November 2004
Stephen,
There are a number of issues which are still causing concern:
the relationship between ANEC and NEA, and also the funding and liabilities of these organisations.
I am sure the public will take a very close interest at any attempt to attach any potential cost liability of an unelected assembly to the North East taxpayer, especially after rejecting the proposals for an elected assembly so emphatically.
You will be aware that across the country, and also in the North East, that many local authorities are now preparing to withdraw (and also withdraw funding) from these unelected bodies (assemblies / chambers) as they are now perceived to be nothing more than 'talking shops.'
The emphatic no vote in the North East has highlighted the existence of these organisations.
Plus, major decisions that are being made with regard to planning and housing are being done without democratic accountability.
We are receiving many calls and letters from members of the public who feel that they have been the victims of a political con trick.
However, there are some obvious and very serious implications financially and legally should the NEA/ANEC start to lose its funding, or even attempt to continue in its present form.
Therefore, I would appreciate clarification on the points below and I am sure that in the interests of transparency, especially because of the potential compromise legally of members and local authorities, there will be nothing short of full disclosure. We are quite prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the continuance of these organisations legally, but I am sure that this will not be necessary.
1.Can you confirm that the contracts with the 32 permanent members of staff (is this figure correct?) are all in the name of ANEC as the employer?
Details of staff are included on the Association and Assembly websites. With the exception of one individual on attachment and one on secondment, all staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils.
2. Is ANEC the accountable body and registered as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ? If not, who is?
Northumberland County Council acts as the accountable body in respect of the receipt of Government funding.
3. Can you clarify what legal advice was taken by ANEC or its members prior to creating such a large number of permanent staff especially as both ANEC and NEA are 'unincorporated associations.' Has the question of personal liability of the members been highlighted and legal advice sought?
Legal advice is taken, where necessary, in respect of activities relating to the Association and the Assembly.
4. Can you please forward copies, or make available, this legal advice? ( To clarify the legal position I have provided a link to the necessary section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 here )
In my view, it would not be appropriate to make available legal advice.
5.Can you confirm whether there are any lease agreements and contracts in the name of NEA or are they all in the name of ANEC?
If so, could you please provide copies or arrange an appointment for us or our legal representative to inspect them?
If not, whose name are they held?
Contracts have been signed on behalf of both the Association and the Assembly. I regard them as being of a commercial in confidence nature.
6.Can you please supply me with current copies of both the Constitution and Rules of Procedure for both the Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly?
Copies are in the post to you.
7. Can you please advise me whether the members of the said organisations will be covered in any future action by legal representatives of ANEC and NEA, their local authorities (or social partner member) or their own legal representatives?
I am not clear what you mean by this question.
8. In previous correspondence you referred to an insurance policy and you made an offer to 'indemnify' local authorities from any potential liability arising from any action taken against the NEA or ANEC. Please can you please now provide a copy of this insurance policy and clarify whether the policy is held in the name of one or both of the unincorporated associations? If it was a personal indemnity from you as the Director can you tell me where the funds will be accessed to underwrite any potential financial liability?
I regard our insurance policy as a commercial in confidence document.
I am copying this to the Chief Executive of Sunderland City Council, Ged Fitzgerald, David Jennings, District Auditor and also Sunderland Council's members of both bodies.
There are also a number of other interested and associated parties who have been copied in to this communication.
I am sure that you will personally make it available to the members and employees of both ANEC and NEA in order to make them aware of a potential compromise to their personal situations.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mr. Barber's responses (or lack of responses) are highlighted in red.
E-mail received 24th December 2004
Neil,
Thanks for this. My comments are as follows;
14th December, 2004
Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
26th November 2004
Stephen,
There are a number of issues which are still causing concern:
the relationship between ANEC and NEA, and also the funding and liabilities of these organisations.
I am sure the public will take a very close interest at any attempt to attach any potential cost liability of an unelected assembly to the North East taxpayer, especially after rejecting the proposals for an elected assembly so emphatically.
You will be aware that across the country, and also in the North East, that many local authorities are now preparing to withdraw (and also withdraw funding) from these unelected bodies (assemblies / chambers) as they are now perceived to be nothing more than 'talking shops.'
The emphatic no vote in the North East has highlighted the existence of these organisations.
Plus, major decisions that are being made with regard to planning and housing are being done without democratic accountability.
We are receiving many calls and letters from members of the public who feel that they have been the victims of a political con trick.
However, there are some obvious and very serious implications financially and legally should the NEA/ANEC start to lose its funding, or even attempt to continue in its present form.
Therefore, I would appreciate clarification on the points below and I am sure that in the interests of transparency, especially because of the potential compromise legally of members and local authorities, there will be nothing short of full disclosure. We are quite prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the continuance of these organisations legally, but I am sure that this will not be necessary.
1.Can you confirm that the contracts with the 32 permanent members of staff (is this figure correct?) are all in the name of ANEC as the employer?
Details of staff are included on the Association and Assembly websites. With the exception of one individual on attachment and one on secondment, all staff are employed by the Association of North East Councils.
2. Is ANEC the accountable body and registered as an employers association under S122 of the TU and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ? If not, who is?
Northumberland County Council acts as the accountable body in respect of the receipt of Government funding.
3. Can you clarify what legal advice was taken by ANEC or its members prior to creating such a large number of permanent staff especially as both ANEC and NEA are 'unincorporated associations.' Has the question of personal liability of the members been highlighted and legal advice sought?
Legal advice is taken, where necessary, in respect of activities relating to the Association and the Assembly.
4. Can you please forward copies, or make available, this legal advice? ( To clarify the legal position I have provided a link to the necessary section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 here )
In my view, it would not be appropriate to make available legal advice.
5.Can you confirm whether there are any lease agreements and contracts in the name of NEA or are they all in the name of ANEC?
If so, could you please provide copies or arrange an appointment for us or our legal representative to inspect them?
If not, whose name are they held?
Contracts have been signed on behalf of both the Association and the Assembly. I regard them as being of a commercial in confidence nature.
6.Can you please supply me with current copies of both the Constitution and Rules of Procedure for both the Association of North East Councils and the North East Assembly?
Copies are in the post to you.
7. Can you please advise me whether the members of the said organisations will be covered in any future action by legal representatives of ANEC and NEA, their local authorities (or social partner member) or their own legal representatives?
I am not clear what you mean by this question.
8. In previous correspondence you referred to an insurance policy and you made an offer to 'indemnify' local authorities from any potential liability arising from any action taken against the NEA or ANEC. Please can you please now provide a copy of this insurance policy and clarify whether the policy is held in the name of one or both of the unincorporated associations? If it was a personal indemnity from you as the Director can you tell me where the funds will be accessed to underwrite any potential financial liability?
I regard our insurance policy as a commercial in confidence document.
I am copying this to the Chief Executive of Sunderland City Council, Ged Fitzgerald, David Jennings, District Auditor and also Sunderland Council's members of both bodies.
There are also a number of other interested and associated parties who have been copied in to this communication.
I am sure that you will personally make it available to the members and employees of both ANEC and NEA in order to make them aware of a potential compromise to their personal situations.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
'No Vote shake-up could cost key jobs
Jan 7th 2005
Ross Smith, The Journal
Two top posts could be axed in a shake-up of regional government in the North-East planned in the wake of the massive `no' vote in the elected assembly referendum.
Proposals are being put to the Association of North-East Councils, which represents the region's 25 local authorities, to separate it from the existing unelected regional assembly.
A confidential report seen by The Journal claims ANEC was sidelined by the assembly in the run-up to the regional referendum and the organisation should have a stronger role, lobbying for the region's interests.
The report calls for a re-structuring of the two organisations, which will involve making two of their most senior staff redundant.
It recommends deleting the posts of the bodies' director, Stephen Barber, 55, and the head of the North-East of England Office in Brussels, Stephen Howell, 57.
An evaluation by Regional Employers Organisation boss Mick Brodie says the two redundancies will cost up to £350,662. Mr Barber currently earns £81,248, while Mr Howell is paid £48,282.
A new director would be appointed for each organisation, and their joint policy staff would be separated.
The new-look ANEC could make formal links with the Local Government Association, the national lobbying organisation for councils, to beef up its lobbying weight.
Members - many of whom are leaders of councils in the North-East - could also be given cabinet roles on ANEC to focus on specific policy areas for the region.
But one senior local government figure said: "We're being presented with this as a fait accompli, but I'm not sure how happy people will be. There's a role for us to work together, but I don't know if we have a mandate to beef up the organisation."
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron said the abolition of the regional assembly would be the logical next step, saying: "We can't complain about the Association of North-East Councils working together, but this proves the people have created the pressure to remove this regional body." And North Tyneside Mayor Linda Arkley insisted the assembly should be scrapped completely.
She said: "ANEC has always been the vehicle by which councils have dealt with cross-cutting issues.
"But the public gave a resounding `no' to an assembly, so why are we still going on about it?"
The plans have been put forward after a review by a consultant, Paul Wilding, into how the structures should change after the referendum. They are due to be implemented in June, if agreed by the organisations.
The report says: "There is general recognition that the director has played a significant part in moving both organisations forward and that the establishment of the assembly has been a major achievement.
"There is also, however, a recognition that the creation of two new organisations heralds a new era, and this signals the need for new leadership."
A spokesman for both bodies said: "The recommendations flowing from this review will be pertinent to how both organisations move forward to ensure that there is greater distinction between the assembly and association in terms of their role, remit and functions."
ANEC and the assembly would continue to share administrative staff, but the changes would increase annual costs by £18,000.
The groups, which currently share 32 staff, are funded by a combination of government grants and local authority subscriptions.
Ross Smith, The Journal
Two top posts could be axed in a shake-up of regional government in the North-East planned in the wake of the massive `no' vote in the elected assembly referendum.
Proposals are being put to the Association of North-East Councils, which represents the region's 25 local authorities, to separate it from the existing unelected regional assembly.
A confidential report seen by The Journal claims ANEC was sidelined by the assembly in the run-up to the regional referendum and the organisation should have a stronger role, lobbying for the region's interests.
The report calls for a re-structuring of the two organisations, which will involve making two of their most senior staff redundant.
It recommends deleting the posts of the bodies' director, Stephen Barber, 55, and the head of the North-East of England Office in Brussels, Stephen Howell, 57.
An evaluation by Regional Employers Organisation boss Mick Brodie says the two redundancies will cost up to £350,662. Mr Barber currently earns £81,248, while Mr Howell is paid £48,282.
A new director would be appointed for each organisation, and their joint policy staff would be separated.
The new-look ANEC could make formal links with the Local Government Association, the national lobbying organisation for councils, to beef up its lobbying weight.
Members - many of whom are leaders of councils in the North-East - could also be given cabinet roles on ANEC to focus on specific policy areas for the region.
But one senior local government figure said: "We're being presented with this as a fait accompli, but I'm not sure how happy people will be. There's a role for us to work together, but I don't know if we have a mandate to beef up the organisation."
Anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron said the abolition of the regional assembly would be the logical next step, saying: "We can't complain about the Association of North-East Councils working together, but this proves the people have created the pressure to remove this regional body." And North Tyneside Mayor Linda Arkley insisted the assembly should be scrapped completely.
She said: "ANEC has always been the vehicle by which councils have dealt with cross-cutting issues.
"But the public gave a resounding `no' to an assembly, so why are we still going on about it?"
The plans have been put forward after a review by a consultant, Paul Wilding, into how the structures should change after the referendum. They are due to be implemented in June, if agreed by the organisations.
The report says: "There is general recognition that the director has played a significant part in moving both organisations forward and that the establishment of the assembly has been a major achievement.
"There is also, however, a recognition that the creation of two new organisations heralds a new era, and this signals the need for new leadership."
A spokesman for both bodies said: "The recommendations flowing from this review will be pertinent to how both organisations move forward to ensure that there is greater distinction between the assembly and association in terms of their role, remit and functions."
ANEC and the assembly would continue to share administrative staff, but the changes would increase annual costs by £18,000.
The groups, which currently share 32 staff, are funded by a combination of government grants and local authority subscriptions.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
"Ball's in your Court"
6th January 2005
Article for the Conservative Way Forward
"The People Have Spoken...Politicians beware!"
by Neil Herron
In the early hours of the morning of the 5th November 2004 the enormity of the verdict delivered by the people of the North East had visibly shaken the Deputy Prime Minister. An emphatic and overwhelming 78% had voted 'No' in the referendum on whether the North East should have an elected regional assembly. We at the No Campaign had predicted the landslide from the outset. How could Prescott and the stunned Yes Campaign have got it so wrong? The answer is quite simple. They were not listening to the people, but simply listening to what they wanted to hear. A lot of this came from vested interest 'stakeholder' groups, the BBC and the press and media who, in an attempt to appear impartial and create a balance failed to accurately report the true mood on the streets.
The North East electorate bought and understood the No Campaign's message, and they emphatically rejected this ill-conceived, ill-thought out political con trick.
A con trick that in the end saw the Government, and Prescott in particular resort to desperate measures.
A con trick in which the BBC and also the Electoral Commission were complicit.
A con trick because the North East Assembly still exists in an unelected form on the Quayside in Newcastle. These unelected Assemblies remain in place across the country representing the artificial 'Euro-Regions.' Many Conservative councillors continue to sit on these unaccountable bodies which are partly funded by 'voluntary' contributions from local authorities totalling many tens of thousands of pounds. Money which could be better spent in the local authority areas where there is true democratic accountability. These conservative councillors must be challenged to stand down on principle from these expensive, unwanted, toothless illegitimate bodies which are no more than expensive talking shops. It stinks of crass hypocrisy from some who have responded and said that they must continue to sit on these bodies to ensure are not as bad as what they could be. Resigning on block across the country as a party and it will bring these bodies crashing down and gain respect from the public who admire principle and can see through hypocritical weasel words.
No doubt political analysts will scrutinise the result and the reasons in the NE for many years to come, but there is no doubt that this was the biggest political upset in recent history and will be a major turning point… a new dawn politically where people woke up to the power that they hold.
The turnout was 47.7%. The result cannot be ignored.
The actual result was: YES 197,310 (22%) NO 696,519 (78%)The overwhelming landslide does not come as a surprise to us (as Ladbrokes will confirm) and both Colin Moran (Strategy Director) and myself predicted this result a long time ago. It is somewhat satisfying that we appeared to know more than the political commentators and even the Deputy Prime Minister. Our winnings from the bookmakers were shared with a couple of local charities. How did we know and the politicos didn't?Well, after over 50 public debates with the Yes Campaigners over the last two years, including those with Government Ministers, massive press and media coverage throughout the campaign of all the People's No Campaign's activities, we saw behind, and also exposed the spin and deceit.
The BBC Poll in 2002 which said that 72% of the people in the North East were in favour of an elected assembly was contemptible and a mass distortion, and produced before the White Paper and before anyone knew the powers an assembly would have.
But it was the White Paper, which gave the game away and gave the Yes Campaign the hardest task of all. All they could sell was a dream and a promise of jam tomorrow, and up here we don't buy bottled fog from snake oil salesmen. The public in the end not only rejected an assembly they stuck two fingers up to an arrogant and patronising political elite and this was, as the referendum on the European Constitution will also be, a chance for the electorate to indulge themselves.
The White Paper brought 38 responses from the North East...hardly the will of the people. Yet Prescott’s agenda continued regardless.
He then conducted 'Soundings Exercises' to determine the level of interest in the regions not for an elected assembly, but to see whether we wanted a referendum! Less than a thousand people out of 2,600,000 in the North East responded, despite massive efforts and consultations by the local authorities and other bodies, but Prescott still drove the agenda on regardless.
The deceit continued and the public money continued to be spent on the propaganda campaign, billed as 'information.' So outrageous were the claims in the 'Have Your Say' Information leaflet that we attempted to challenge it in court only to be threatened with a massive cost order. The Government admitted the errors and they were later corrected but not in the 1,900,000 leaflets that had already gone out.
The decision by the Electoral Commission to give 'official' status, and £100,000 to another 'No' campaign (NESNO), which was only formed in July of 2004, was bizarre to say the least. It went against all logic, not to mention the track record of the two campaigns, aroused deep suspicions not just amongst the public but the press and media as well. In our view and many others around the country, an unforgivable act to marginalise a campaign run by the people, for the people. But, when it was clear that this other campaign was a Conservative construct then the Electoral Commission’s decision was crystal clear. Prescott and the Yes Campaign immediately polarised the debate into a party political one. Why another campaign group saw fit to challenge the effective People's Campaign will become clearer in time but the Electoral Commission's handling of the whole affair and the monitoring of the referendum has been incompetent and possibly corrupt, to say the least. There is no transparency with regard to their decision and a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the decision. It is likely that only legal action will uncover the truth.
The Government threw everything towards the North East towards the end when they knew they faced a potential upset, and we have never seen so many Ministers in the region. All this did however, was to reinforce the public's cynicism. The purdah period (where 28 days prior to the referendum Government is prevented from campaigning) was blatantly abused and totally ignored by the Ministers and the Electoral Commission were spineless, useless and nowhere to be seen.
In the end it made no difference and actually helped the result. It made no difference that the Yes Campaign had more celebrities or money than you could shake a stick at. People were being asked to buy into a dream...but it was Prescott's Dream and the dream ticket was for the politician's and their apparatchik on an expensive gravy train and not the people. They were the ones who would simply have to pay for it.
So at 1am on Friday the 5th November Prescott's Dream had turned into a Nightmare of Elm Street proportions. For a man who used over £10m of public money to fund his personal ambition, and one, which, was so emphatically rejected, he has been humiliated and severely embarrassed. Elected assemblies are dead in the water. Our attention must now focus on the unelected bodies, funded indirectly and unknowingly by the ratepayers, and force them to disband.
November 5th will perhaps now be remembered for the day that there was a successful attempt by the people to bring the political elite to their knees.The people of the North East have sent the loudest message to the politicians. We have found our voice and this is just the beginning. Next stop…the European Constitution and here's the prediction...the landslide will be even bigger. Off to find a bookies to take the bet.
ENDS
Article for the Conservative Way Forward
"The People Have Spoken...Politicians beware!"
by Neil Herron
In the early hours of the morning of the 5th November 2004 the enormity of the verdict delivered by the people of the North East had visibly shaken the Deputy Prime Minister. An emphatic and overwhelming 78% had voted 'No' in the referendum on whether the North East should have an elected regional assembly. We at the No Campaign had predicted the landslide from the outset. How could Prescott and the stunned Yes Campaign have got it so wrong? The answer is quite simple. They were not listening to the people, but simply listening to what they wanted to hear. A lot of this came from vested interest 'stakeholder' groups, the BBC and the press and media who, in an attempt to appear impartial and create a balance failed to accurately report the true mood on the streets.
The North East electorate bought and understood the No Campaign's message, and they emphatically rejected this ill-conceived, ill-thought out political con trick.
A con trick that in the end saw the Government, and Prescott in particular resort to desperate measures.
A con trick in which the BBC and also the Electoral Commission were complicit.
A con trick because the North East Assembly still exists in an unelected form on the Quayside in Newcastle. These unelected Assemblies remain in place across the country representing the artificial 'Euro-Regions.' Many Conservative councillors continue to sit on these unaccountable bodies which are partly funded by 'voluntary' contributions from local authorities totalling many tens of thousands of pounds. Money which could be better spent in the local authority areas where there is true democratic accountability. These conservative councillors must be challenged to stand down on principle from these expensive, unwanted, toothless illegitimate bodies which are no more than expensive talking shops. It stinks of crass hypocrisy from some who have responded and said that they must continue to sit on these bodies to ensure are not as bad as what they could be. Resigning on block across the country as a party and it will bring these bodies crashing down and gain respect from the public who admire principle and can see through hypocritical weasel words.
No doubt political analysts will scrutinise the result and the reasons in the NE for many years to come, but there is no doubt that this was the biggest political upset in recent history and will be a major turning point… a new dawn politically where people woke up to the power that they hold.
The turnout was 47.7%. The result cannot be ignored.
The actual result was: YES 197,310 (22%) NO 696,519 (78%)The overwhelming landslide does not come as a surprise to us (as Ladbrokes will confirm) and both Colin Moran (Strategy Director) and myself predicted this result a long time ago. It is somewhat satisfying that we appeared to know more than the political commentators and even the Deputy Prime Minister. Our winnings from the bookmakers were shared with a couple of local charities. How did we know and the politicos didn't?Well, after over 50 public debates with the Yes Campaigners over the last two years, including those with Government Ministers, massive press and media coverage throughout the campaign of all the People's No Campaign's activities, we saw behind, and also exposed the spin and deceit.
The BBC Poll in 2002 which said that 72% of the people in the North East were in favour of an elected assembly was contemptible and a mass distortion, and produced before the White Paper and before anyone knew the powers an assembly would have.
But it was the White Paper, which gave the game away and gave the Yes Campaign the hardest task of all. All they could sell was a dream and a promise of jam tomorrow, and up here we don't buy bottled fog from snake oil salesmen. The public in the end not only rejected an assembly they stuck two fingers up to an arrogant and patronising political elite and this was, as the referendum on the European Constitution will also be, a chance for the electorate to indulge themselves.
The White Paper brought 38 responses from the North East...hardly the will of the people. Yet Prescott’s agenda continued regardless.
He then conducted 'Soundings Exercises' to determine the level of interest in the regions not for an elected assembly, but to see whether we wanted a referendum! Less than a thousand people out of 2,600,000 in the North East responded, despite massive efforts and consultations by the local authorities and other bodies, but Prescott still drove the agenda on regardless.
The deceit continued and the public money continued to be spent on the propaganda campaign, billed as 'information.' So outrageous were the claims in the 'Have Your Say' Information leaflet that we attempted to challenge it in court only to be threatened with a massive cost order. The Government admitted the errors and they were later corrected but not in the 1,900,000 leaflets that had already gone out.
The decision by the Electoral Commission to give 'official' status, and £100,000 to another 'No' campaign (NESNO), which was only formed in July of 2004, was bizarre to say the least. It went against all logic, not to mention the track record of the two campaigns, aroused deep suspicions not just amongst the public but the press and media as well. In our view and many others around the country, an unforgivable act to marginalise a campaign run by the people, for the people. But, when it was clear that this other campaign was a Conservative construct then the Electoral Commission’s decision was crystal clear. Prescott and the Yes Campaign immediately polarised the debate into a party political one. Why another campaign group saw fit to challenge the effective People's Campaign will become clearer in time but the Electoral Commission's handling of the whole affair and the monitoring of the referendum has been incompetent and possibly corrupt, to say the least. There is no transparency with regard to their decision and a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the decision. It is likely that only legal action will uncover the truth.
The Government threw everything towards the North East towards the end when they knew they faced a potential upset, and we have never seen so many Ministers in the region. All this did however, was to reinforce the public's cynicism. The purdah period (where 28 days prior to the referendum Government is prevented from campaigning) was blatantly abused and totally ignored by the Ministers and the Electoral Commission were spineless, useless and nowhere to be seen.
In the end it made no difference and actually helped the result. It made no difference that the Yes Campaign had more celebrities or money than you could shake a stick at. People were being asked to buy into a dream...but it was Prescott's Dream and the dream ticket was for the politician's and their apparatchik on an expensive gravy train and not the people. They were the ones who would simply have to pay for it.
So at 1am on Friday the 5th November Prescott's Dream had turned into a Nightmare of Elm Street proportions. For a man who used over £10m of public money to fund his personal ambition, and one, which, was so emphatically rejected, he has been humiliated and severely embarrassed. Elected assemblies are dead in the water. Our attention must now focus on the unelected bodies, funded indirectly and unknowingly by the ratepayers, and force them to disband.
November 5th will perhaps now be remembered for the day that there was a successful attempt by the people to bring the political elite to their knees.The people of the North East have sent the loudest message to the politicians. We have found our voice and this is just the beginning. Next stop…the European Constitution and here's the prediction...the landslide will be even bigger. Off to find a bookies to take the bet.
ENDS
Prescott's assemblies 'disappointing'
Thursday January 6th 2005, Edward Davie, Epolitix
John Prescott's regional assembly plan has been attacked by MPs as "disappointing, lacking ambition and failing to devolve enough power".
The deputy prime minister's vision of devolved regional government in England already seems to have been sunk by the overwhelming No vote in the North East referendum last November.
Now an ODPM select committee report originally designed to improve the legislation has criticised the proposals for not planning bodies that could "make a real difference".
Accepting the bill will almost certainly not proceed, the committee recommends that any future legislation needs to be "more ambitious than the draft bill proposed last summer so that regional bodies would be created that can make a real difference".
The backbenchers say their report "puts down some markers for the government to consider should it consider it appropriate to return to the question of introducing elected regional assemblies".
Embarrassment
Despite the embarrassment of seeing his flagship policy so forcefully rejected by voters in what was thought to be the most likely region to vote Yes, Prescott has promised not to give up on his dream.
Committee chairman Andrew Bennett said: "The scope of the powers and responsibilities which the government was prepared to give to assemblies was disappointing and would limit their effectiveness.
"Any initiative to promote effective elected regional assemblies has to have the commitment of all government departments which was clearly not the case."
The report suggests that for elected regional assemblies to be effective, the government needs to devolve decisions about how funds are spent on promoting economic development and skills.
It urges that they should be able to develop and implement their own regional training and skills development policies and programmes. As in London, the assemblies should act as transport authorities, deciding on the distribution of funding currently allocated by Whitehall for local transport plans, say the MPs.
Overlap
The MPs found that only the ODPM and to a lesser extent the DTI were prepared to devolve powers and that responsibility with local government overlapped.
They also argued a clearer case is needed for elected regional assemblies in terms of value for money for the electorate.
The report concludes voters in the North East were not convinced elected assemblies were worth the money.
"They were unable to see in the modest powers of assemblies sufficient prospects of concrete improvements in their daily lives to vote for their introduction."
Despite the embarrassment of seeing his flagship policy so forcefully rejected by voters in what was thought to be the most likely region to vote Yes Prescott has promised not to give up on his dream.
John Prescott's regional assembly plan has been attacked by MPs as "disappointing, lacking ambition and failing to devolve enough power".
The deputy prime minister's vision of devolved regional government in England already seems to have been sunk by the overwhelming No vote in the North East referendum last November.
Now an ODPM select committee report originally designed to improve the legislation has criticised the proposals for not planning bodies that could "make a real difference".
Accepting the bill will almost certainly not proceed, the committee recommends that any future legislation needs to be "more ambitious than the draft bill proposed last summer so that regional bodies would be created that can make a real difference".
The backbenchers say their report "puts down some markers for the government to consider should it consider it appropriate to return to the question of introducing elected regional assemblies".
Embarrassment
Despite the embarrassment of seeing his flagship policy so forcefully rejected by voters in what was thought to be the most likely region to vote Yes, Prescott has promised not to give up on his dream.
Committee chairman Andrew Bennett said: "The scope of the powers and responsibilities which the government was prepared to give to assemblies was disappointing and would limit their effectiveness.
"Any initiative to promote effective elected regional assemblies has to have the commitment of all government departments which was clearly not the case."
The report suggests that for elected regional assemblies to be effective, the government needs to devolve decisions about how funds are spent on promoting economic development and skills.
It urges that they should be able to develop and implement their own regional training and skills development policies and programmes. As in London, the assemblies should act as transport authorities, deciding on the distribution of funding currently allocated by Whitehall for local transport plans, say the MPs.
Overlap
The MPs found that only the ODPM and to a lesser extent the DTI were prepared to devolve powers and that responsibility with local government overlapped.
They also argued a clearer case is needed for elected regional assemblies in terms of value for money for the electorate.
The report concludes voters in the North East were not convinced elected assemblies were worth the money.
"They were unable to see in the modest powers of assemblies sufficient prospects of concrete improvements in their daily lives to vote for their introduction."
Despite the embarrassment of seeing his flagship policy so forcefully rejected by voters in what was thought to be the most likely region to vote Yes Prescott has promised not to give up on his dream.
Further assembly blow for Prescott
William Green, Political Correspondent,
Thursday, January 06, Yorkshire Today
JOHN Prescott's stillborn plans for regional mini-parliaments in Yorkshire and across England were yesterday savaged by an influential group of MPs.
The Deputy Prime Minister had already been humiliated when voters in the North East derailed his proposals by overwhelmingly rejecting an elected regional assembly last November.
But the Hull East MP yesterday faced further embarrassment when the Commons Select Committee scrutinising his Government department published a highly critical report.
The committee, which includes Labour MPs, said powers the Government was prepared to give to assemblies were "disappointing and would limit their effectiveness".
The MPs also issued an implicit criticism of Whitehall in terms of handing over real power to the mini-parliaments and expressed concern that responsibilities would instead be taken from local government.
"Any initiative to promote effective elected regional assemblies has to have the commitment of all Government departments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and to a lesser extent the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) were the only Government departments prepared to devolve powers to the assemblies," said their report.
The committee warned the general power proposed for assemblies could "overlap" with local councils, while their role in helping steer the operation of elected mini-parliaments needed clarifying.
It added the Government needed to devolve decisions about how funds are spent on promoting economic development and skills, with assemblies able to develop their own programmes and targets.
The MPs also said: "A clearer case is needed for elected regional assemblies in terms of value for money for the electorate. Voters in the North East were not convinced about the "cost-benefit" calculation in regard to elected assemblies."They were unable to see in the modest powers of assemblies sufficient prospects of concrete improvements in their daily lives..."The MPs added assemblies should act as transport authorities, as in London, in deciding distribution of funding now allocated by Whitehall for local projects.
And they warned the Government's proposal to establish regional fire and rescue services as functional bodies of elected regional assemblies could result in them losing their community focus.
The committee also called for a simple system to elect assembly members and said the proposed membership of between 25 and 35 was too restrictive.
But the MPs, who were looking at the draft Regional Assemblies Bill, warned English devolution needed addressing, with a "democratic deficit" due to unaccountable regional bodies.
"Further legislation needs to be more ambitious than the draft Bill to create regional bodies that are fit for purpose," said their report.
The ODPM said it accepted the North East vote and that the Government was not proceeding with the Regional Assemblies Bill but promised to study the Select Committee's report.A spokesman added that unelected regional assemblies, regional development agencies and the Government's offices in the English regions would continue to carry out "necessary strategic leadership at regional level".
Thursday, January 06, Yorkshire Today
JOHN Prescott's stillborn plans for regional mini-parliaments in Yorkshire and across England were yesterday savaged by an influential group of MPs.
The Deputy Prime Minister had already been humiliated when voters in the North East derailed his proposals by overwhelmingly rejecting an elected regional assembly last November.
But the Hull East MP yesterday faced further embarrassment when the Commons Select Committee scrutinising his Government department published a highly critical report.
The committee, which includes Labour MPs, said powers the Government was prepared to give to assemblies were "disappointing and would limit their effectiveness".
The MPs also issued an implicit criticism of Whitehall in terms of handing over real power to the mini-parliaments and expressed concern that responsibilities would instead be taken from local government.
"Any initiative to promote effective elected regional assemblies has to have the commitment of all Government departments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and to a lesser extent the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) were the only Government departments prepared to devolve powers to the assemblies," said their report.
The committee warned the general power proposed for assemblies could "overlap" with local councils, while their role in helping steer the operation of elected mini-parliaments needed clarifying.
It added the Government needed to devolve decisions about how funds are spent on promoting economic development and skills, with assemblies able to develop their own programmes and targets.
The MPs also said: "A clearer case is needed for elected regional assemblies in terms of value for money for the electorate. Voters in the North East were not convinced about the "cost-benefit" calculation in regard to elected assemblies."They were unable to see in the modest powers of assemblies sufficient prospects of concrete improvements in their daily lives..."The MPs added assemblies should act as transport authorities, as in London, in deciding distribution of funding now allocated by Whitehall for local projects.
And they warned the Government's proposal to establish regional fire and rescue services as functional bodies of elected regional assemblies could result in them losing their community focus.
The committee also called for a simple system to elect assembly members and said the proposed membership of between 25 and 35 was too restrictive.
But the MPs, who were looking at the draft Regional Assemblies Bill, warned English devolution needed addressing, with a "democratic deficit" due to unaccountable regional bodies.
"Further legislation needs to be more ambitious than the draft Bill to create regional bodies that are fit for purpose," said their report.
The ODPM said it accepted the North East vote and that the Government was not proceeding with the Regional Assemblies Bill but promised to study the Select Committee's report.A spokesman added that unelected regional assemblies, regional development agencies and the Government's offices in the English regions would continue to carry out "necessary strategic leadership at regional level".
Regional Assembly Plans 'Need Powers Boost'
By Andrew Woodcock, PA Political Correspondent
Thursday, January 06, Scotsman
Government plans for regional assemblies have failed to fire the imagination of the general public because the powers of the proposed bodies were too limited, a report by a committee of MPs said today.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s regional government project has been on the backburner since the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly by voters in the North-East in a referendum last November.
Today’s report, by the House of Commons committee which scrutinises Mr Prescott’s department, insisted that any attempt to revive it should involve assemblies with more powers over issues like transport, skills training and economic development and a greater ability to raise their own funds and decide how they spend them.
But a controversial proposal for the assemblies to be allowed to issue their own separate council tax bill split the committee. Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs backed the report, but the sole Conservative member Sir Paul Beresford voted against it.
The Labour and Lib Dem members argued that having a separate bill would make regional assemblies more accountable, by making it clear to voters how much they cost. County, district and unitary councils had previously complained that having a single bill would mean they would be blamed for any tax hikes to cover the cost of a regional assembly.
But Tories said the other parties were trying to impose a new regional tax.
“Higher council tax just to pay for more politicians and bureaucrats is exactly what people in the North East rejected so decisively last year,” said regional affairs spokesman Bernard Jenkin.
“Isn’t it time Labour and the Liberal Democrats started listening to people instead of dictating to them?
“Under Tony Blair, council tax has shot up by 70%, and looks set to soar even further in any third Labour term through the introduction of new, higher council tax bands and revaluation next year used to increase the tax take. Now we find out that Labour and the Lib Dems are in favour of even more tax burdens being heaped on hard-working people.
”Today’s report said that any future legislation to create regional assemblies would have to be “more ambitious” than the draft Bill put forward by Mr Prescott.
“The scope of the powers and responsibilities which the Government was prepared to give to assemblies was disappointing and would limit their effectiveness,” said the report.
It proposed an increase in the maximum size of an assembly from 35 to 50 members, and suggested that members should receive full-time salaries, in order to ensure that people of working age were attracted to stand for election.
Under Mr Prescott’s proposals, too many of the assemblies’ powers would be taken from local council and too few devolved down from Whitehall.
The 78%-22% vote against a North-East assembly showed that voters had not been convinced it would offer value for money, said the report.
Thursday, January 06, Scotsman
Government plans for regional assemblies have failed to fire the imagination of the general public because the powers of the proposed bodies were too limited, a report by a committee of MPs said today.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s regional government project has been on the backburner since the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly by voters in the North-East in a referendum last November.
Today’s report, by the House of Commons committee which scrutinises Mr Prescott’s department, insisted that any attempt to revive it should involve assemblies with more powers over issues like transport, skills training and economic development and a greater ability to raise their own funds and decide how they spend them.
But a controversial proposal for the assemblies to be allowed to issue their own separate council tax bill split the committee. Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs backed the report, but the sole Conservative member Sir Paul Beresford voted against it.
The Labour and Lib Dem members argued that having a separate bill would make regional assemblies more accountable, by making it clear to voters how much they cost. County, district and unitary councils had previously complained that having a single bill would mean they would be blamed for any tax hikes to cover the cost of a regional assembly.
But Tories said the other parties were trying to impose a new regional tax.
“Higher council tax just to pay for more politicians and bureaucrats is exactly what people in the North East rejected so decisively last year,” said regional affairs spokesman Bernard Jenkin.
“Isn’t it time Labour and the Liberal Democrats started listening to people instead of dictating to them?
“Under Tony Blair, council tax has shot up by 70%, and looks set to soar even further in any third Labour term through the introduction of new, higher council tax bands and revaluation next year used to increase the tax take. Now we find out that Labour and the Lib Dems are in favour of even more tax burdens being heaped on hard-working people.
”Today’s report said that any future legislation to create regional assemblies would have to be “more ambitious” than the draft Bill put forward by Mr Prescott.
“The scope of the powers and responsibilities which the Government was prepared to give to assemblies was disappointing and would limit their effectiveness,” said the report.
It proposed an increase in the maximum size of an assembly from 35 to 50 members, and suggested that members should receive full-time salaries, in order to ensure that people of working age were attracted to stand for election.
Under Mr Prescott’s proposals, too many of the assemblies’ powers would be taken from local council and too few devolved down from Whitehall.
The 78%-22% vote against a North-East assembly showed that voters had not been convinced it would offer value for money, said the report.
Prescott's regional plans in ruins
By Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent, Telegraph
MPs delivered a damning verdict yesterday on John Prescott's failed attempt to create regional assemblies across England.
The Deputy Prime Minister's dream of creating directly elected assemblies in the English regions ended in ruins when North-East voters rejected the idea by more than three to one last November.
The failure in the North-East. together with abandoned plans for referendums in Yorkshire and the North-West, is estimated to have cost more than £10 million.
Yesterday, the Labour-dominated Commons regions committee blamed the North-East result on the proposed assemblies' lack of real powers, "talking-shop" reputation and uncertainty over how much they would cost to set up.
In a report, the MPs accused Mr Prescott's Cabinet colleagues of failing to get behind the devolution drive, which left the assembly blueprint without enough real powers to interest voters. Mr Prescott, who drew up a Draft Bill setting out the assemblies' powers, is known to have been frustrated at a lack of co-operation from other ministers.
MPs complained yesterday that the overall cost, including potential savings from cutting the number of local councils where assemblies were created, was too vague.
"We find it odd that the Government had done so little detailed planning of the costs and benefits of setting up [an assembly]," said the report.
MPs delivered a damning verdict yesterday on John Prescott's failed attempt to create regional assemblies across England.
The Deputy Prime Minister's dream of creating directly elected assemblies in the English regions ended in ruins when North-East voters rejected the idea by more than three to one last November.
The failure in the North-East. together with abandoned plans for referendums in Yorkshire and the North-West, is estimated to have cost more than £10 million.
Yesterday, the Labour-dominated Commons regions committee blamed the North-East result on the proposed assemblies' lack of real powers, "talking-shop" reputation and uncertainty over how much they would cost to set up.
In a report, the MPs accused Mr Prescott's Cabinet colleagues of failing to get behind the devolution drive, which left the assembly blueprint without enough real powers to interest voters. Mr Prescott, who drew up a Draft Bill setting out the assemblies' powers, is known to have been frustrated at a lack of co-operation from other ministers.
MPs complained yesterday that the overall cost, including potential savings from cutting the number of local councils where assemblies were created, was too vague.
"We find it odd that the Government had done so little detailed planning of the costs and benefits of setting up [an assembly]," said the report.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Weasel words and phrases.
Thanks to Gill Swanson for this. Next time you listen to a lecture by regional assembly factotums or supporters or europhiles and the apparatchik just play weasel word bingo and the rubbish they spout will seem even more ridiculous.
If you start to expose these weasel words in the press then the more foolish those using them will look.
Please feel free to circulate.
Let’s Cut the jargon and get back to direct representation
Weasel, words and phrases.
“Centres of excellence” (establishment-approved set-ups).
“Best practice” (establishment-approved ways of doing things)
“Stakeholders” (carefully chosen special-interest groups courted and flattered into the belief that they are helping the powerful to shape policy).
“Civil society” (members of any special interest groups considered important/amenable enough to be “stakeholders”)
“Governance" (the replacement of representative government with techniques that steer tame “stakeholders” along pre-determined paths towards a desired outcome).
“Consultation” (the process by which “stakeholders” are fooled into believing that they actually wanted to go down those paths anyway).
“Facilitator” (the stooge trained in-group dynamics who makes sure the “consultation process” doesn’t go astray).
“Consensus” (the apparent unanimity resulting from the elimination of opposition by a skilled “facilitator”)
"Participatory democracy” (the sidelining and ostracism of dissenting majorities and minorities by systematically excluding them from participation in “civil society” and “the consultation process”)
"Networking" (collusion among “stakeholders” in pursuit of their own interests, without regards for those barred from participation in “participatory democracy”)
“Opinion-formers” (the supra-national political and academic establishment, plus influential “stakeholders” who have achieved “consensus” via corruption or the “consultation process”)
“Law-makers” (an up-and-coming term, increasingly used as a synonym for representatives, heaven help us).
Let’s cut the jargon and the “governance” and gets back to the direct representatives, heaven help us).
Let’s cut the jargon and the “governance” and get back to the direct representation of individuals and their families and communities at grass-roots level.
Gillian Swanson
Whitley Bay
If you start to expose these weasel words in the press then the more foolish those using them will look.
Please feel free to circulate.
Let’s Cut the jargon and get back to direct representation
Weasel, words and phrases.
“Centres of excellence” (establishment-approved set-ups).
“Best practice” (establishment-approved ways of doing things)
“Stakeholders” (carefully chosen special-interest groups courted and flattered into the belief that they are helping the powerful to shape policy).
“Civil society” (members of any special interest groups considered important/amenable enough to be “stakeholders”)
“Governance" (the replacement of representative government with techniques that steer tame “stakeholders” along pre-determined paths towards a desired outcome).
“Consultation” (the process by which “stakeholders” are fooled into believing that they actually wanted to go down those paths anyway).
“Facilitator” (the stooge trained in-group dynamics who makes sure the “consultation process” doesn’t go astray).
“Consensus” (the apparent unanimity resulting from the elimination of opposition by a skilled “facilitator”)
"Participatory democracy” (the sidelining and ostracism of dissenting majorities and minorities by systematically excluding them from participation in “civil society” and “the consultation process”)
"Networking" (collusion among “stakeholders” in pursuit of their own interests, without regards for those barred from participation in “participatory democracy”)
“Opinion-formers” (the supra-national political and academic establishment, plus influential “stakeholders” who have achieved “consensus” via corruption or the “consultation process”)
“Law-makers” (an up-and-coming term, increasingly used as a synonym for representatives, heaven help us).
Let’s cut the jargon and the “governance” and gets back to the direct representatives, heaven help us).
Let’s cut the jargon and the “governance” and get back to the direct representation of individuals and their families and communities at grass-roots level.
Gillian Swanson
Whitley Bay
The Majority isn’t always right –Something for reflection
Wednesday 5th January 2005
The Journal - Voice of the North
Neil Herron is a committed and effective campaigner.
But his criticism of what he calls "the political class" (Voice of the North, December 31) would carry more weight had he not so recently tried to join it.
As readers may recall he stood to become a member of the European Parliament last June.
He is on safer ground in claiming to be in the majority on the issue of Europe – but the majority isn’t always right, something Neil might reflect on, having received just 6pc of the vote when he stood.
Coun Ron Beadle
Lib Dem Prospective Candidate,
Newcastle North
The Journal - Voice of the North
Neil Herron is a committed and effective campaigner.
But his criticism of what he calls "the political class" (Voice of the North, December 31) would carry more weight had he not so recently tried to join it.
As readers may recall he stood to become a member of the European Parliament last June.
He is on safer ground in claiming to be in the majority on the issue of Europe – but the majority isn’t always right, something Neil might reflect on, having received just 6pc of the vote when he stood.
Coun Ron Beadle
Lib Dem Prospective Candidate,
Newcastle North
Regions plan finds few to support it
Dec 22 2004
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
A grand committee of MPs should be created to represent the North-East if the government is to stay true to its word of devolving power to local people, MPs say.
After the overwhelming rejection of an elected regional assembly last month, two MPs have urged ministers to back the idea of a Commons grand committee for the region - and the chance for politicians to have their own question time in the chamber.
The idea, from Lancashire MPs, tabled in a motion last night, demands new committees for each of the English regions, together with a Commons question time so "ministers become more accountable to the region".
It is just one suggestion on how the North-East can move on following the November 4 vote, however it has already been attacked by one regional MP who said it would be little more than another talking shop.
Tory Peter Atkinson, chairman of the Scottish and Northern Ireland grand committees before devolution, said MPs would not be able to question ministers thoroughly and would not have the power to haul local business and political leaders before them to explain their actions.
He recommended instead regional select committees, whereby MPs could invite council, business and community leaders to answer questions about specific issues and where MPs could report on problems in the North-East.
The Hexham MP said: "If we had a select committee we would, for example, deal with the Northumberland schools reorganisation issue and have a facility where we call the director of education in for questioning." Gateshead MP Joyce Quin, an advocate of regional assemblies, said of the grand committees plan: "Overall the idea is good because you do need to have structures in the Commons which better reflect the needs of the English regions.
"It would give you an opportunity to raise issues specific to the region."
In reality, though, it would be left to the existing unelected regional assembly, businesses, councils and voluntary organisations to work together to deal with issues in the North-East, she said.
"I do feel the referendum result was nothing short of a tragedy for the region, given the fact that I believe we did have a unique opportunity to create something which would make the region stand out, but it was not accepted and we have to look at every other possible angle to deal with issues that arise."
By Zoe Hughes, The Journal
A grand committee of MPs should be created to represent the North-East if the government is to stay true to its word of devolving power to local people, MPs say.
After the overwhelming rejection of an elected regional assembly last month, two MPs have urged ministers to back the idea of a Commons grand committee for the region - and the chance for politicians to have their own question time in the chamber.
The idea, from Lancashire MPs, tabled in a motion last night, demands new committees for each of the English regions, together with a Commons question time so "ministers become more accountable to the region".
It is just one suggestion on how the North-East can move on following the November 4 vote, however it has already been attacked by one regional MP who said it would be little more than another talking shop.
Tory Peter Atkinson, chairman of the Scottish and Northern Ireland grand committees before devolution, said MPs would not be able to question ministers thoroughly and would not have the power to haul local business and political leaders before them to explain their actions.
He recommended instead regional select committees, whereby MPs could invite council, business and community leaders to answer questions about specific issues and where MPs could report on problems in the North-East.
The Hexham MP said: "If we had a select committee we would, for example, deal with the Northumberland schools reorganisation issue and have a facility where we call the director of education in for questioning." Gateshead MP Joyce Quin, an advocate of regional assemblies, said of the grand committees plan: "Overall the idea is good because you do need to have structures in the Commons which better reflect the needs of the English regions.
"It would give you an opportunity to raise issues specific to the region."
In reality, though, it would be left to the existing unelected regional assembly, businesses, councils and voluntary organisations to work together to deal with issues in the North-East, she said.
"I do feel the referendum result was nothing short of a tragedy for the region, given the fact that I believe we did have a unique opportunity to create something which would make the region stand out, but it was not accepted and we have to look at every other possible angle to deal with issues that arise."
HOW TAXPAYERS' MONEY WAS SPENT
Hull and East Riding
09:30 - 01 January 2005
The University of Salford evaluation of the "operation and effectiveness of elected regional assemblies" - £979,274
Review of studies promoting regional growth - £255,320
Evaluation of the Role and Impact of Regional Chambers - £216,129
Identifying the flow of expenditure into regions - £176,520
British Social Attitudes Survey Module on Regional Governance - £16,800
Can Competitive Regions Promote Sustainability research - £17,300
Reflecting Diversity in Governing the Regions - £16,200
Research on cost of government reorganisation £127,590
09:30 - 01 January 2005
The University of Salford evaluation of the "operation and effectiveness of elected regional assemblies" - £979,274
Review of studies promoting regional growth - £255,320
Evaluation of the Role and Impact of Regional Chambers - £216,129
Identifying the flow of expenditure into regions - £176,520
British Social Attitudes Survey Module on Regional Governance - £16,800
Can Competitive Regions Promote Sustainability research - £17,300
Reflecting Diversity in Governing the Regions - £16,200
Research on cost of government reorganisation £127,590
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Even on Prescott's Home Turf...Money Wasted
Hull Daily Mail
STILL PAYING FOR FAILED ASSEMBLY
09:30 - 01 January 2005
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has been accused of wasting almost £2m of taxpayer's money on research related to his failed dream of a regional assembly. It means the total spend on the east Hull MP's bid to introduce regional assemblies in the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber could have cost the public a total of £12m.
New details revealed Mr Prescott's department spent cash on a variety of regional assembly research projects.The most expensive was carried out by the University of Salford to evaluate the "operation and effectiveness of elected regional assemblies".The research cost £979,274 and came out in July 2003, 16 months before the regional referendum in the north-east took place.
Now Tories claim that despite the "no" vote in the north-east last month, and the winding down of the campaign for elected regional assemblies, some of the projects will continue to cost money as one is not due to report back until 2011.
Shadow regions secretary Bernard Jenkin said: "Labour has created countless unaccountable and unelected regional quangos but has no idea what they're actually doing."It is amazing that John Prescott needs to waste millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to tell him what he should already know."His department is out of control and heading in the wrong direction."News of the additional funds being spent will come as a fresh blow to Mr Prescott, who has already come under a barrage of criticism for the phenomenal amount the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has spent on his regional assembly dream.
According to official figures, the cost of staging the north-east referendum is expected to be about £3.1m.Mr Prescott's office has also reportedly spent another £3.2m on an information campaign.Embarrassingly, a £25,000 advertising campaign promoting a voting date in Yorkshire was already under way in July when ministers decided to postpone the referendum across the region.
In addition, Mr Prescott's own regional campaigning cost £184,143.
John Watson, chairman of the Yorkshire Says No campaign, said: "An awful lot of money has been wasted going through this whole process. I am just glad the referendum in Yorkshire is now dead and buried, otherwise there would have been more costs to bear."
Last night, a spokesman for ODPM said: "The Government remains committed to improving economic performance and equality of life across all regions."To achieve this we will continue local government reform and an active policy to decentralise power and strengthen the regions."Research plays a key role in forming that policy."The Mail opposed plans for a Yorkshire and Humber assembly on the grounds it would be an extra level of bureaucracy that would result in decisions being taken elsewhere.news@hdmp.co.uk
STILL PAYING FOR FAILED ASSEMBLY
09:30 - 01 January 2005
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has been accused of wasting almost £2m of taxpayer's money on research related to his failed dream of a regional assembly. It means the total spend on the east Hull MP's bid to introduce regional assemblies in the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber could have cost the public a total of £12m.
New details revealed Mr Prescott's department spent cash on a variety of regional assembly research projects.The most expensive was carried out by the University of Salford to evaluate the "operation and effectiveness of elected regional assemblies".The research cost £979,274 and came out in July 2003, 16 months before the regional referendum in the north-east took place.
Now Tories claim that despite the "no" vote in the north-east last month, and the winding down of the campaign for elected regional assemblies, some of the projects will continue to cost money as one is not due to report back until 2011.
Shadow regions secretary Bernard Jenkin said: "Labour has created countless unaccountable and unelected regional quangos but has no idea what they're actually doing."It is amazing that John Prescott needs to waste millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to tell him what he should already know."His department is out of control and heading in the wrong direction."News of the additional funds being spent will come as a fresh blow to Mr Prescott, who has already come under a barrage of criticism for the phenomenal amount the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has spent on his regional assembly dream.
According to official figures, the cost of staging the north-east referendum is expected to be about £3.1m.Mr Prescott's office has also reportedly spent another £3.2m on an information campaign.Embarrassingly, a £25,000 advertising campaign promoting a voting date in Yorkshire was already under way in July when ministers decided to postpone the referendum across the region.
In addition, Mr Prescott's own regional campaigning cost £184,143.
John Watson, chairman of the Yorkshire Says No campaign, said: "An awful lot of money has been wasted going through this whole process. I am just glad the referendum in Yorkshire is now dead and buried, otherwise there would have been more costs to bear."
Last night, a spokesman for ODPM said: "The Government remains committed to improving economic performance and equality of life across all regions."To achieve this we will continue local government reform and an active policy to decentralise power and strengthen the regions."Research plays a key role in forming that policy."The Mail opposed plans for a Yorkshire and Humber assembly on the grounds it would be an extra level of bureaucracy that would result in decisions being taken elsewhere.news@hdmp.co.uk
Sunday, December 26, 2004
The Ship is Sinking...Is there a Steward on Board?
Sunday Telegraph
December 26th 2004
Christopher Booker's Notebook
The year that Prescott saw his dream become a nightmare
With the possible exception of David Blunkett, no minister suffered a greater personal humiliation in 2004 than John Prescott, with the overwhelming rejection of his plan for an elected regional assembly in the North-East.
It was intended to be the forerunner of similar assemblies in seven other English regions, thus completing the greatest project of Mr Prescott's career: his personal crusade to complete the "Balkanisation" of the United Kingdom by dividing it into 12 "Euro-regions", each with its own elected parliament.
Generally missed in the wake of Mr Prescott's defeat, however, is the extraordinary shambles that has been left behind, which now threatens to blow up into a political scandal. When he set up his eight unelected regional assemblies in 1999, the legal standing of these bodies was remarkably inconsistent and unclear. Their members were nominated by local authorities or local organisations, such as trade unions. The money to pay for their offices and hundreds of employees was given on an ad hoc basis by local councils and central government, with the idea that this would in due course be regularised by elected assemblies.
The collapse of Mr Prescott's dream has raised a hefty question mark over this chaotic system. Who is legally responsible for employing all those officials, paying their salaries and providing for their pensions? Many of the local authorities that have helped to foot the bill of £30 million a year are becoming restive.
Yorkshire East Riding council has already pulled out of the Yorkshire and Humberside Assembly, saying that it is no more than a "money-wasting talking shop". The leader of Medway council in Kent wants his council to withdraw support from the South-East assembly. Other councils in the South-West and the North-West may follow suit. This will leave several hundred employees – many of them in Brussels, where each assembly has its own office – dependent for their salaries and pensions on bodies that are either limited companies or have no legal status.
Neil Herron, the tireless director of Neara (the North-East Against a Regional Assembly), has established that several of these bodies are "unincorporated associations", which are strongly advised under statute not to incur financial obligations because their members are "likely to be personally liable" for the association's debts. In some instances, the councillors or "stakeholders" nominated to these bodies may find they are personally liable for contracts and pension rights worth tens of millions of pounds.
In November, Mr Herron raised these potentially embarrassing points with Stephen Barber, the director of the North-East Assembly – itself an unincorporated association. Mr Barber's response was that the assembly had deferred considering its legal status until next summer.
For the sake of the assembly's employees, it might be desirable to move these issues to the top of the agenda – before Mr Prescott finds himself at the centre of another nasty political mess.
December 26th 2004
Christopher Booker's Notebook
The year that Prescott saw his dream become a nightmare
With the possible exception of David Blunkett, no minister suffered a greater personal humiliation in 2004 than John Prescott, with the overwhelming rejection of his plan for an elected regional assembly in the North-East.
It was intended to be the forerunner of similar assemblies in seven other English regions, thus completing the greatest project of Mr Prescott's career: his personal crusade to complete the "Balkanisation" of the United Kingdom by dividing it into 12 "Euro-regions", each with its own elected parliament.
Generally missed in the wake of Mr Prescott's defeat, however, is the extraordinary shambles that has been left behind, which now threatens to blow up into a political scandal. When he set up his eight unelected regional assemblies in 1999, the legal standing of these bodies was remarkably inconsistent and unclear. Their members were nominated by local authorities or local organisations, such as trade unions. The money to pay for their offices and hundreds of employees was given on an ad hoc basis by local councils and central government, with the idea that this would in due course be regularised by elected assemblies.
The collapse of Mr Prescott's dream has raised a hefty question mark over this chaotic system. Who is legally responsible for employing all those officials, paying their salaries and providing for their pensions? Many of the local authorities that have helped to foot the bill of £30 million a year are becoming restive.
Yorkshire East Riding council has already pulled out of the Yorkshire and Humberside Assembly, saying that it is no more than a "money-wasting talking shop". The leader of Medway council in Kent wants his council to withdraw support from the South-East assembly. Other councils in the South-West and the North-West may follow suit. This will leave several hundred employees – many of them in Brussels, where each assembly has its own office – dependent for their salaries and pensions on bodies that are either limited companies or have no legal status.
Neil Herron, the tireless director of Neara (the North-East Against a Regional Assembly), has established that several of these bodies are "unincorporated associations", which are strongly advised under statute not to incur financial obligations because their members are "likely to be personally liable" for the association's debts. In some instances, the councillors or "stakeholders" nominated to these bodies may find they are personally liable for contracts and pension rights worth tens of millions of pounds.
In November, Mr Herron raised these potentially embarrassing points with Stephen Barber, the director of the North-East Assembly – itself an unincorporated association. Mr Barber's response was that the assembly had deferred considering its legal status until next summer.
For the sake of the assembly's employees, it might be desirable to move these issues to the top of the agenda – before Mr Prescott finds himself at the centre of another nasty political mess.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
South East Assembly under siege
"Carol Hodson" CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk
"Edward Huxley" edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:43 AMSubject:
RE: Further information
I apologise for the delay in getting this information to you.
I can confirm that five people are in receipt of a car allowance.
The car allowance awarded range from £ 3317 to £5949
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 11 December 2004 15:34To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
In this, dated November 19 you say that you will get back to me on the question of car allowances when you have spoken to your chief executive.Have you had a chance to speak to him on this and what was his response?
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: "Edward Huxley" <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: Further information
The initials PDG- stand for Planning Development Grant- a grant from ODPM To explain further our income from ODPM comes in two parts from ODPM and specific grants cover specific costs incurred by the Assembly. There is a requirement on the Assembly to report quarterly to ODPM on expenditure,giving details of expenditure by cost line. This quarterly requirement also requires us to forecast the next quarters activities and associated costs.The initials SEERAWP stand for South East England Regional AggregatesWorking Party. This is a separate piece of work that we do for ODPM forwhich there a re specific outputs and reporting requirements.
Re Car allowances. I would like to get my Chief Executive's agreement to issuing this information to you. I will get back to you on this as soon as I have a chance to discuss it with him.Also a point you make earlier in your email. No council is forced to make a subscription to the Assembly it is for each local authority to decide. If they do not pay the subscription however they are not entitle to participate in Assembly meetings or vote at meetings.
Regards
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 20 November 2004 09:23
To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
I assure you that I have no intention of carrying on this correspondence indefinitely but there are some points arising out of your reply.It seems my information about your next budget was correct; it is very nearly £4million.Can you please tell me what the abbreviations PDG and SEERAWP stand for?
I assume ODPM funding refers to the office of the Deputy Prime minister;this of course should be called taxpayers` contribution - same applies toother subscriptions no doubt, such as the amounts my own local council Runnymede and county council Surrey are forced to make.
Regarding car allowances: I appreciate that individual salaries are confidential. However there is no reason why you should not disclose the total number of staff concerned and the amount of money paid out.Finally I want you to understand that there is nothing personal in theremarks I have made: I am sure the people employed by the SEERA are decentand intelligent. The sad thing is that you are all involved in a complete and utter waste of your time and our money. I hope all Regional assemblies will soon be closed down.
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: "Edward Huxley" <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: Further information
Re Budget
The final budget for 2005-06 will be presented to Exec Committee on 21 Jan but I attach a copy of this year's agreed budget which includes an indicative budget for 2005-06 as agreed by the plenary in March of this year.
Re Car Allowances
These are part of individuals salaries and thus remain confidential.
Re travel expenses paid to members travelling outside the region.The total amount claimed to date in this financial year is £1100.
RE Costs of running the Brussels office
The Brussels office costs are not met by the Assembly so I cannot tell you the costs of running the office. The office is shared by many organisations. The Assembly budgeted contribution to those costs and half share in Policy Officer represents the total costs under the Europe heading in the attached budget.
Regards
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 18 November 2004 08:44
To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
Thank you for your prompt reply. I shall have to take the copies of the accounts myself; it will not cost £12.50. Of course I applaud your wish to economise, but it does not seem to me that you are applying this to other areas.In 12 months SEERA`S expenditure leaped from £2million to £3million and I have heard that it may go to £4million this year. Is this correct? All this money (our money) on a useless talking shop.
With regard to cars: please let me have details of the lump sums that are paid.I had read that MPs receive a special mileage allowance, but did not know that this was available to civil servants and councillors as well. Are you aware that for "ordinary" people the allowance is 40p a mile up to 10,000miles and 25p. a mile after that? Looks like another case of one law for us and another for them.
I get confused about SEERA and SEEDA. As far as I am concerned it makes no difference. What I object to is the over generous allowances paid to the chairman and others for what is only part time work.
In Cllr. Skellet`s case you may be aware that, as leader of Surrey C.C. he gets another, and larger, payout.Can you tell me the amounts paid to members travelling outside the region atSEERA`s request?
Also please tell me the cost of running the office in Brussels.
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Further information
Regarding your request for further copies of the accounts . There will be a charge for this in line with our access to information policy of £2.50 perset of accounts, the copy of the accounts that I sent to you was on the basis of goodwill, we normally charge for all photocopies of our documents.I will require the money in advance and will then send out the copies to you.No staff are provided with cars. Some staff receive a lump sum taxable car allowance. The rate varies per individual. Those who are not in receipt of a car allowance may claim mileage, the current rate is 50.5p per mile forcars over 1200cc, 40.4 for cars with less than 1200cc. The arrangements are in line with local government rates.The Chair, Deputy Chair and Vice Chairs, and Mr Bevan are all Directors ofSEERA not SEEDA Ltd. Their full names are listed in the accounts. The remuneration that the Chair, Deputy Chair & V Chairs of the Assembly are allable to receive is an allowance as part of their duties on the Assembly. No further salary, fees or expenses are received by them in respect of beingDirectors of SEERA Ltd. Mr Bevan receives a salary from his employment with the Assembly and again receives no fees, expenses or salary for being aDirector of SEERA Ltd.The following allowances are paid, please note however that the Chair andVice Chair of the RPC are not Directors of SEERA Ltd. Also no expenses arepaid to members unless they travel outside of the region at the Assembly's request.
The current allowances for the offices of the Assembly are as follows:
Executive Committee Chair £11,460p.a payable in monthly instalments
Deputy Chair £5,730 p.a. payable in monthly instalments
Vice Chair £4,010 p.a payable in monthly instalments
Members £575 p.a payable in two equal half yearly instalments, August andFebruary
Regional Planning Committee Chair £8,015 p.a payable in monthly instalments Vice Chair £2,805 p.a. payable in monthly instalments
Members £575 p.a payable in two equal half yearly instalments, August andFebruary
Members who sit on both committees are able to claim both allowances.
However only one Chair's, Deputy Chair's or Vice Chair's allowance can beclaimed.
Individual salary payments are confidential. The total expenditure on staffand members allowance are included in the accounts.I hope that this information answers all of your requests for information.Carol HodsonDirector of ResourcesSouth East England Regional AssemblyBerkeley House,Cross LanesGuildford GU1 1UNT: + 44 (0) 1483 555210 (direct)F: +44 (0) 01483 555250E: carolhodson@southeast-ra.gov.ukW: www.southeast-ra.gov.uk
"Edward Huxley" edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:43 AMSubject:
RE: Further information
I apologise for the delay in getting this information to you.
I can confirm that five people are in receipt of a car allowance.
The car allowance awarded range from £ 3317 to £5949
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 11 December 2004 15:34To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
In this, dated November 19 you say that you will get back to me on the question of car allowances when you have spoken to your chief executive.Have you had a chance to speak to him on this and what was his response?
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: "Edward Huxley" <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: Further information
The initials PDG- stand for Planning Development Grant- a grant from ODPM To explain further our income from ODPM comes in two parts from ODPM and specific grants cover specific costs incurred by the Assembly. There is a requirement on the Assembly to report quarterly to ODPM on expenditure,giving details of expenditure by cost line. This quarterly requirement also requires us to forecast the next quarters activities and associated costs.The initials SEERAWP stand for South East England Regional AggregatesWorking Party. This is a separate piece of work that we do for ODPM forwhich there a re specific outputs and reporting requirements.
Re Car allowances. I would like to get my Chief Executive's agreement to issuing this information to you. I will get back to you on this as soon as I have a chance to discuss it with him.Also a point you make earlier in your email. No council is forced to make a subscription to the Assembly it is for each local authority to decide. If they do not pay the subscription however they are not entitle to participate in Assembly meetings or vote at meetings.
Regards
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 20 November 2004 09:23
To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
I assure you that I have no intention of carrying on this correspondence indefinitely but there are some points arising out of your reply.It seems my information about your next budget was correct; it is very nearly £4million.Can you please tell me what the abbreviations PDG and SEERAWP stand for?
I assume ODPM funding refers to the office of the Deputy Prime minister;this of course should be called taxpayers` contribution - same applies toother subscriptions no doubt, such as the amounts my own local council Runnymede and county council Surrey are forced to make.
Regarding car allowances: I appreciate that individual salaries are confidential. However there is no reason why you should not disclose the total number of staff concerned and the amount of money paid out.Finally I want you to understand that there is nothing personal in theremarks I have made: I am sure the people employed by the SEERA are decentand intelligent. The sad thing is that you are all involved in a complete and utter waste of your time and our money. I hope all Regional assemblies will soon be closed down.
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: "Edward Huxley" <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: Further information
Re Budget
The final budget for 2005-06 will be presented to Exec Committee on 21 Jan but I attach a copy of this year's agreed budget which includes an indicative budget for 2005-06 as agreed by the plenary in March of this year.
Re Car Allowances
These are part of individuals salaries and thus remain confidential.
Re travel expenses paid to members travelling outside the region.The total amount claimed to date in this financial year is £1100.
RE Costs of running the Brussels office
The Brussels office costs are not met by the Assembly so I cannot tell you the costs of running the office. The office is shared by many organisations. The Assembly budgeted contribution to those costs and half share in Policy Officer represents the total costs under the Europe heading in the attached budget.
Regards
From: Edward Huxley [mailto:edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 18 November 2004 08:44
To: Carol HodsonSubject:
Re: Further information
Thank you for your prompt reply. I shall have to take the copies of the accounts myself; it will not cost £12.50. Of course I applaud your wish to economise, but it does not seem to me that you are applying this to other areas.In 12 months SEERA`S expenditure leaped from £2million to £3million and I have heard that it may go to £4million this year. Is this correct? All this money (our money) on a useless talking shop.
With regard to cars: please let me have details of the lump sums that are paid.I had read that MPs receive a special mileage allowance, but did not know that this was available to civil servants and councillors as well. Are you aware that for "ordinary" people the allowance is 40p a mile up to 10,000miles and 25p. a mile after that? Looks like another case of one law for us and another for them.
I get confused about SEERA and SEEDA. As far as I am concerned it makes no difference. What I object to is the over generous allowances paid to the chairman and others for what is only part time work.
In Cllr. Skellet`s case you may be aware that, as leader of Surrey C.C. he gets another, and larger, payout.Can you tell me the amounts paid to members travelling outside the region atSEERA`s request?
Also please tell me the cost of running the office in Brussels.
Edward Huxley
From: "Carol Hodson" <CarolHodson@southeast-ra.gov.uk>
To: <edward@ejhuxley.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Further information
Regarding your request for further copies of the accounts . There will be a charge for this in line with our access to information policy of £2.50 perset of accounts, the copy of the accounts that I sent to you was on the basis of goodwill, we normally charge for all photocopies of our documents.I will require the money in advance and will then send out the copies to you.No staff are provided with cars. Some staff receive a lump sum taxable car allowance. The rate varies per individual. Those who are not in receipt of a car allowance may claim mileage, the current rate is 50.5p per mile forcars over 1200cc, 40.4 for cars with less than 1200cc. The arrangements are in line with local government rates.The Chair, Deputy Chair and Vice Chairs, and Mr Bevan are all Directors ofSEERA not SEEDA Ltd. Their full names are listed in the accounts. The remuneration that the Chair, Deputy Chair & V Chairs of the Assembly are allable to receive is an allowance as part of their duties on the Assembly. No further salary, fees or expenses are received by them in respect of beingDirectors of SEERA Ltd. Mr Bevan receives a salary from his employment with the Assembly and again receives no fees, expenses or salary for being aDirector of SEERA Ltd.The following allowances are paid, please note however that the Chair andVice Chair of the RPC are not Directors of SEERA Ltd. Also no expenses arepaid to members unless they travel outside of the region at the Assembly's request.
The current allowances for the offices of the Assembly are as follows:
Executive Committee Chair £11,460p.a payable in monthly instalments
Deputy Chair £5,730 p.a. payable in monthly instalments
Vice Chair £4,010 p.a payable in monthly instalments
Members £575 p.a payable in two equal half yearly instalments, August andFebruary
Regional Planning Committee Chair £8,015 p.a payable in monthly instalments Vice Chair £2,805 p.a. payable in monthly instalments
Members £575 p.a payable in two equal half yearly instalments, August andFebruary
Members who sit on both committees are able to claim both allowances.
However only one Chair's, Deputy Chair's or Vice Chair's allowance can beclaimed.
Individual salary payments are confidential. The total expenditure on staffand members allowance are included in the accounts.I hope that this information answers all of your requests for information.Carol HodsonDirector of ResourcesSouth East England Regional AssemblyBerkeley House,Cross LanesGuildford GU1 1UNT: + 44 (0) 1483 555210 (direct)F: +44 (0) 01483 555250E: carolhodson@southeast-ra.gov.ukW: www.southeast-ra.gov.uk
That Parking Problem Again!
High Barnes
Sunderland
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,
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 Rights
4 .Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgment
Sunderland
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,
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 Rights
4 .Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgment
Assembly role is questioned
IC Coventry
Dec 13 2004
The role of the West Midlands Regional Assembly is to be questioned at the full Coventry City Council meeting tomorrow.
Conservatives have moved a motion urging the council to discuss its future after the "no" vote to regional elected assemblies in the North East of England.
The West Midlands assembly is not an elected body and does not have the full powers an elected assembly would have.
Its role is to act as a "sounding board" for the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands.
Dec 13 2004
The role of the West Midlands Regional Assembly is to be questioned at the full Coventry City Council meeting tomorrow.
Conservatives have moved a motion urging the council to discuss its future after the "no" vote to regional elected assemblies in the North East of England.
The West Midlands assembly is not an elected body and does not have the full powers an elected assembly would have.
Its role is to act as a "sounding board" for the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Attention to be turned on the Councils
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Ged Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
14th December 2004
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,
Following the overwhelming and emphatic rejection of an elected regional assembly by the North East public in the recent referendum, I wish to raise a number of concerns that I have as a Sunderland ratepayer over the continued existence of the unelected North East Assembly.
On 14th November 2004 I copied you in to an e-mail sent to NEA Director, Stephen Barber, which raised a number of serious questions. I have enclosed a copy of this e-mail for reference.
These questions relate to Sunderland City Council’s use of ratepayers monies to continue funding this organisation.
Can you confirm that in the event of the North East Assembly having a funding problem that there will be no question of Sunderland ratepayers meeting any of the liabilities of this organisation, or that of the Association of North East Councils?
As these organisations are funded by year on year ‘voluntary’ and not ‘contractual’ subscriptions are you happy with the legal position of these organisations creating (now 32) permanent paid positions and has the Council taken independent legal advice?
The Director of the North East Assembly, Stephen Barber has already stated that there is liability insurance in place to cover this eventuality. As the organisations (NEA and ANEC) are both unincorporated associations it appears that this claim may not have legal standing. Have you had sight of this insurance and has Sunderland Council taken legal advice with regard to that policy and potential liability that could arise?
Has Sunderland paid the 2004-2005 subscription yet, and if so, to whom? NEA or ANEC?
Can you confirm that the Assembly’s ‘Strengthening Regional Accountability’ budget of £1.8m over three years is finished in 2004?
Is it the intention of Sunderland Council to continue to support the existence of the unelected North East Assembly?
Can you please advise as to how Sunderland’s members of both NEA and ANEC are chosen?
I trust you will make available this communication to the current members from Sunderland City Council so that they are aware of their own personal positions.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Ged Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
14th December 2004
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,
Following the overwhelming and emphatic rejection of an elected regional assembly by the North East public in the recent referendum, I wish to raise a number of concerns that I have as a Sunderland ratepayer over the continued existence of the unelected North East Assembly.
On 14th November 2004 I copied you in to an e-mail sent to NEA Director, Stephen Barber, which raised a number of serious questions. I have enclosed a copy of this e-mail for reference.
These questions relate to Sunderland City Council’s use of ratepayers monies to continue funding this organisation.
Can you confirm that in the event of the North East Assembly having a funding problem that there will be no question of Sunderland ratepayers meeting any of the liabilities of this organisation, or that of the Association of North East Councils?
As these organisations are funded by year on year ‘voluntary’ and not ‘contractual’ subscriptions are you happy with the legal position of these organisations creating (now 32) permanent paid positions and has the Council taken independent legal advice?
The Director of the North East Assembly, Stephen Barber has already stated that there is liability insurance in place to cover this eventuality. As the organisations (NEA and ANEC) are both unincorporated associations it appears that this claim may not have legal standing. Have you had sight of this insurance and has Sunderland Council taken legal advice with regard to that policy and potential liability that could arise?
Has Sunderland paid the 2004-2005 subscription yet, and if so, to whom? NEA or ANEC?
Can you confirm that the Assembly’s ‘Strengthening Regional Accountability’ budget of £1.8m over three years is finished in 2004?
Is it the intention of Sunderland Council to continue to support the existence of the unelected North East Assembly?
Can you please advise as to how Sunderland’s members of both NEA and ANEC are chosen?
I trust you will make available this communication to the current members from Sunderland City Council so that they are aware of their own personal positions.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
House of Cards will fall if all the Tories resign their positions
Financial Times
Tory councillors derail plan for homes in east
By Roger Blitz,
UK Affairs Editor
Published: December 14 2004 02:00
John Prescott's house-building strategy was dealt a further blow by Tory councillors after they succeeded in putting plans on hold to build 478,000 homes in the east of England.
The deputy prime minister has put responsibility for long-term housing strategies in the hands of unelected regional assemblies, made up of councillors and representatives from business and voluntary groups.
Assembly officials have been working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how regional strategies can reflect the government's aim of tackling chronic housing shortage in and around London.
But the Tory-led assembly in the south-east last month scaled back a target of 720,000 homes for the region and now the east of England regional assembly has also had second thoughts.
The assembly had agreed in October to endorse the 2001-21 target of 478,000 homes. But on Friday it backed a motion from the Conservative group on the assembly to suspend that endorsement after failing to win government guarantees on funding for infrastructure to support housing growth.
The public will be consulted on regional housing plans, which will also be examined by independent assessors. But the deputy prime minister has the final say on the actual targets to be maintained.
Brian Stewart, chief executive of the assembly, said the housing target was always conditional on infrastructure support. "The assembly has kept its side of the bargain, but the government hasn't kept its side," he said.
The assembly wanted £1.5bn from the government in affordable housing subsidies, transport improvements and other facilities to support local communities. But it said funding for new transport, including roads, was "grossly inadequate".
Similarly, the south-east assembly cited lack of government guarantees on infrastructure when it voted to agree to only around two-thirds of the 720,000 target set by its officers.
In a letter to the east of England assembly, Lord Rooker, the regeneration minister, said he recognised some new transport schemes had been put back, but that "given finite resources, difficult decisions have to be taken on priorities between investment proposals". He admitted: "Unless infrastructure keeps in step with growth, we will not achieve sustainable communities."
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which is alarmed at the amount of housebuilding planned outside urban areas, welcomed the east of England assembly's "belated" stand against government growth targets. But questioned its desire for new roads. "More roads aren't the answer - they would simply make it worse," said Henry Oliver of the campaign.
With the Tory-led regional assemblies hardening their stance against the government, the debate on housing growth is dividing on party lines. Michael Howard, Tory leader, has called on Tony Blair to abolish the regional assemblies, while the prime minister has challenged Tory councillors to resign their assembly positions.
Tory councillors derail plan for homes in east
By Roger Blitz,
UK Affairs Editor
Published: December 14 2004 02:00
John Prescott's house-building strategy was dealt a further blow by Tory councillors after they succeeded in putting plans on hold to build 478,000 homes in the east of England.
The deputy prime minister has put responsibility for long-term housing strategies in the hands of unelected regional assemblies, made up of councillors and representatives from business and voluntary groups.
Assembly officials have been working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how regional strategies can reflect the government's aim of tackling chronic housing shortage in and around London.
But the Tory-led assembly in the south-east last month scaled back a target of 720,000 homes for the region and now the east of England regional assembly has also had second thoughts.
The assembly had agreed in October to endorse the 2001-21 target of 478,000 homes. But on Friday it backed a motion from the Conservative group on the assembly to suspend that endorsement after failing to win government guarantees on funding for infrastructure to support housing growth.
The public will be consulted on regional housing plans, which will also be examined by independent assessors. But the deputy prime minister has the final say on the actual targets to be maintained.
Brian Stewart, chief executive of the assembly, said the housing target was always conditional on infrastructure support. "The assembly has kept its side of the bargain, but the government hasn't kept its side," he said.
The assembly wanted £1.5bn from the government in affordable housing subsidies, transport improvements and other facilities to support local communities. But it said funding for new transport, including roads, was "grossly inadequate".
Similarly, the south-east assembly cited lack of government guarantees on infrastructure when it voted to agree to only around two-thirds of the 720,000 target set by its officers.
In a letter to the east of England assembly, Lord Rooker, the regeneration minister, said he recognised some new transport schemes had been put back, but that "given finite resources, difficult decisions have to be taken on priorities between investment proposals". He admitted: "Unless infrastructure keeps in step with growth, we will not achieve sustainable communities."
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which is alarmed at the amount of housebuilding planned outside urban areas, welcomed the east of England assembly's "belated" stand against government growth targets. But questioned its desire for new roads. "More roads aren't the answer - they would simply make it worse," said Henry Oliver of the campaign.
With the Tory-led regional assemblies hardening their stance against the government, the debate on housing growth is dividing on party lines. Michael Howard, Tory leader, has called on Tony Blair to abolish the regional assemblies, while the prime minister has challenged Tory councillors to resign their assembly positions.
Monday, December 13, 2004
The People have spoken...but just ignore them
One NorthEast
Regional assembly debate has put region in the spotlight
Margaret Fay, chairman of One NorthEast, today said there was "a good deal to be positive about and build upon" in the North East. She was commenting following the 'no' vote in the referendum on plans to establish an elected regional assembly. She said: "The people of the region have had their say and One NorthEast will continue to work with national government to ensure its economic policies reflect the needs of this region. The region's economy is on an upturn and there is a good deal to be positive about and build upon ... We will continue to work in close collaboration with the existing, non-elected, North East Assembly to take forward regional issues such as future plans for transport. Without doubt, the assembly debate has put the region in the spotlight and we will be working to capitalise on this to continue to promote the North East, nationally and internationally."
Regional assembly debate has put region in the spotlight
Margaret Fay, chairman of One NorthEast, today said there was "a good deal to be positive about and build upon" in the North East. She was commenting following the 'no' vote in the referendum on plans to establish an elected regional assembly. She said: "The people of the region have had their say and One NorthEast will continue to work with national government to ensure its economic policies reflect the needs of this region. The region's economy is on an upturn and there is a good deal to be positive about and build upon ... We will continue to work in close collaboration with the existing, non-elected, North East Assembly to take forward regional issues such as future plans for transport. Without doubt, the assembly debate has put the region in the spotlight and we will be working to capitalise on this to continue to promote the North East, nationally and internationally."
Electoral Commission ignored...AGAIN!
THE TIMES
Britain
December 10, 2004
Fraud fears as post replaces the ballot box
By Jill Sherman,
Whitehall Editor and Dominic Kennedy
THE Government defied its own independent advisers yesterday by declaring that all-postal ballots could go ahead despite fears of widespread fraud and intimidation.The Electoral Commission, which has recommended that all-postal ballots be abandoned, accused it of setting the wrong priorities in putting turnout above public confidence. The Conservatives said that the Government’s “reckless fiddling” was undermining the electoral system by throwing away the ballot box.All-postal voting could begin in next May’s local elections. Officials said that the Government would consider applications by the 166 councils which hold elections next May to carry out all-postal ballots.The recommendation comes in a report published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Constitutional Affairs in response to the Electoral Commission’s review of four all-postal ballot pilot schemes held in the European and local elections in June. A second report recommends tightening electoral law to guard against fraud.The Government was persuaded to go ahead when the pilot schemes boosted voter numbers significantly in the four areas, the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands. A referendum on a North East regional assembly attracted a 48 per cent turnout, double that expected. In 1999 turnout for the European elections was 24 per cent. This year, for combined European and local elections it was 42 per cent, compared to 37 per cent in non-pilot areas.The Government said that the figures had underlined ministers’ view that all-postal ballots maximised participation.“Notwithstanding the conventional basis for the next general election, we are not persuaded by the commission’s recommendation that all-postal voting should not be pursued in future UK elections,” John Prescott’s office said.Oliver Heald, the Shadow Constitutional Affairs Minister, said: “There is a risk that the kind of intimidation and fraud that was common in the 18th and 19th centuries becomes widespread in future.”In August, the Governnment accepted the Electoral Commission’s recommendation that no more all-postal ballots be held after The Times discovered widespread allegations of fraud and intimidation in the pilot schemes. Four police forces in North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber are investigating alleged electoral fraud. Two petitions have been sent for trial challenging election results in Birmingham which was not part of the pilot scheme but saw applications for postal votes treble.Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, said that all-postal voting in her constituency had disenfranchised Asian women voters. “There were people going around with carrier bags collecting up ballot papers and taking them to a safe house where they were filled in,” she said. “In a number of Asian households, the father filled all of them in for the whole family.”She said that intimidation failed to result in prosecution because people would not report families or neighbours.The Electoral Commission said that the public did not like all-postal ballots. “The Government is using different criteria on postal voting and prioritising increased turnout,” a spokeswoman said. “There is clear public support for choice in voting methods.”The Electoral Reform Society said that the pilot areas saw turnouts rise by five percentage points. “Clearly there is an advantage. There are also costs. Those include the increased risk of fraud,” it said.Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics, said: “I’m surprised that the Government’s determination to have somewhat higher turnouts has overridden the issue of confidence. Turnout isn’t everything. Some of the higher turnouts in Ukraine were among the most worrying features of the election.”
Britain
December 10, 2004
Fraud fears as post replaces the ballot box
By Jill Sherman,
Whitehall Editor and Dominic Kennedy
THE Government defied its own independent advisers yesterday by declaring that all-postal ballots could go ahead despite fears of widespread fraud and intimidation.The Electoral Commission, which has recommended that all-postal ballots be abandoned, accused it of setting the wrong priorities in putting turnout above public confidence. The Conservatives said that the Government’s “reckless fiddling” was undermining the electoral system by throwing away the ballot box.All-postal voting could begin in next May’s local elections. Officials said that the Government would consider applications by the 166 councils which hold elections next May to carry out all-postal ballots.The recommendation comes in a report published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Constitutional Affairs in response to the Electoral Commission’s review of four all-postal ballot pilot schemes held in the European and local elections in June. A second report recommends tightening electoral law to guard against fraud.The Government was persuaded to go ahead when the pilot schemes boosted voter numbers significantly in the four areas, the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands. A referendum on a North East regional assembly attracted a 48 per cent turnout, double that expected. In 1999 turnout for the European elections was 24 per cent. This year, for combined European and local elections it was 42 per cent, compared to 37 per cent in non-pilot areas.The Government said that the figures had underlined ministers’ view that all-postal ballots maximised participation.“Notwithstanding the conventional basis for the next general election, we are not persuaded by the commission’s recommendation that all-postal voting should not be pursued in future UK elections,” John Prescott’s office said.Oliver Heald, the Shadow Constitutional Affairs Minister, said: “There is a risk that the kind of intimidation and fraud that was common in the 18th and 19th centuries becomes widespread in future.”In August, the Governnment accepted the Electoral Commission’s recommendation that no more all-postal ballots be held after The Times discovered widespread allegations of fraud and intimidation in the pilot schemes. Four police forces in North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber are investigating alleged electoral fraud. Two petitions have been sent for trial challenging election results in Birmingham which was not part of the pilot scheme but saw applications for postal votes treble.Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, said that all-postal voting in her constituency had disenfranchised Asian women voters. “There were people going around with carrier bags collecting up ballot papers and taking them to a safe house where they were filled in,” she said. “In a number of Asian households, the father filled all of them in for the whole family.”She said that intimidation failed to result in prosecution because people would not report families or neighbours.The Electoral Commission said that the public did not like all-postal ballots. “The Government is using different criteria on postal voting and prioritising increased turnout,” a spokeswoman said. “There is clear public support for choice in voting methods.”The Electoral Reform Society said that the pilot areas saw turnouts rise by five percentage points. “Clearly there is an advantage. There are also costs. Those include the increased risk of fraud,” it said.Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics, said: “I’m surprised that the Government’s determination to have somewhat higher turnouts has overridden the issue of confidence. Turnout isn’t everything. Some of the higher turnouts in Ukraine were among the most worrying features of the election.”
New Local Government Network
Regional government needs sorting out says NLGN think tank
This was published: 2004-12-09
06:35:00
Independent think-tank, the New Local Government Network (NLGN) has called on local and central government to move urgently to ensure multi-level governance works better in the UK’s regions, "otherwise they will continue to be sold short".
Speaking on the eve of the launch of a new report Living with Regions: making multi-level governance work, author Emily Robinson of NLGN, said: “The way that local and central government work with the regional bodies over the forthcoming months is likely to set a pattern of relationships that will endure for many years to come. It is vital that they get this right. Whether the legitimacy of regional working comes to focus on central government agencies such as Regional Development Agencies and Government Offices or on the aggregation of local interests in the Regional Assemblies, it will have huge implications for both the regions themselves and the nature of governance in the UK.
The report has been welcomed by Local Government and Regions Minister, Nick Raynsford MP, who writes in a foreword of the need to face up to the unfolding nature of the devolution agenda: “Developments [in devolution] have created new challenges for those involved in the public sector’s delivery of services and policy, and have posed a new set of questions. For example, how can local government best influence regional decision-making? When does a ‘hierarchial’ approach to policy and delivery work, and when do more collaborative ways of working have to be found? […] This report provides a useful contribution to the how we can meet the challenges posed by the changing pattern of governance”.
Based on extensive interview research conducted across the UK, Living with Regions: making multi-level governance work reveals the need for a deeper examination of major issues of accountability, finance and inter-dependency between different tiers of government, with Ms Robinson remarking: “Multi-level governance is by its very nature complex and we should not shy away from that. The appropriate spatial level at which to take decisions will vary from policy area to policy area. But there are wider issues of accountability, finance and inter-dependency that need to be examined across the board. In a multi-level system, the connections between organisations are as important as the organisations themselves”.
The NLGN report carries a number of key recommendations for the future of multi-level governance in the UK, including:
> Make the Regional Assembly member position in local government into a high-profile Cabinet portfolio.
> Strengthen the scrutiny capacity of Regional Assemblies and extend it to take in the work of more regional and sub-regional agencies.
> Establish a ‘recall’ mechanism, whereby elected bodies could collectively call non-elected agencies to account.
> Instituting ‘Regional Observatories’ as statutory bodies with a duty to share knowledge and best practice across as well as within regions.
> Sharing buildings and workspaces.
> Making better us of technology to aid remote working and information sharing.
As Ms Robinson concludes: “In the end, what we are looking for is a combination of formal mechanisms and a commitment at all levels of governance to working in a more integrated fashion”.
Meanwhile, Geraint Williams of BT – which has supported the report’s publication – commented: "Multi-level governance is about bringing different institutions and organisations together and this isn't easy. Through our partnership work with Suffolk County Council and Mid-Suffolk District Council, where we are helping build a two-tier local authority joint venture, we are seeing that the private sector can act as an important third-party, facilitating the process, assisting communication, removing barriers and ultimately driving the collaboration through to delivery. A public-private approach gives local authorities the benefits of leading edge private sector expertise while still retaining direct control of service provision.”
The New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think-tank, seeking to transform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities. NLGN was recently awarded ‘Think Tank of the Year’ by the political and cultural monthly, Prospect magazine.
The report is being launched on Thursday 9 December in central London at an early evening debate featuring Cllr Peter Chalke, Leader of the LGA Conservative Group; John Biggs, London Assembly member (Labour) and Deputy Chair of the London Development Agency; Simon Hodgson, Director of the Assembly Secretariat, West Midlands Regional Assembly; Geraint Williams, Business Strategy Manager for BT Education & Local Government; and the report’s author, Emily Robinson of NLGN.
Related links to this article: New Local Government Network
This was published: 2004-12-09
06:35:00
Independent think-tank, the New Local Government Network (NLGN) has called on local and central government to move urgently to ensure multi-level governance works better in the UK’s regions, "otherwise they will continue to be sold short".
Speaking on the eve of the launch of a new report Living with Regions: making multi-level governance work, author Emily Robinson of NLGN, said: “The way that local and central government work with the regional bodies over the forthcoming months is likely to set a pattern of relationships that will endure for many years to come. It is vital that they get this right. Whether the legitimacy of regional working comes to focus on central government agencies such as Regional Development Agencies and Government Offices or on the aggregation of local interests in the Regional Assemblies, it will have huge implications for both the regions themselves and the nature of governance in the UK.
The report has been welcomed by Local Government and Regions Minister, Nick Raynsford MP, who writes in a foreword of the need to face up to the unfolding nature of the devolution agenda: “Developments [in devolution] have created new challenges for those involved in the public sector’s delivery of services and policy, and have posed a new set of questions. For example, how can local government best influence regional decision-making? When does a ‘hierarchial’ approach to policy and delivery work, and when do more collaborative ways of working have to be found? […] This report provides a useful contribution to the how we can meet the challenges posed by the changing pattern of governance”.
Based on extensive interview research conducted across the UK, Living with Regions: making multi-level governance work reveals the need for a deeper examination of major issues of accountability, finance and inter-dependency between different tiers of government, with Ms Robinson remarking: “Multi-level governance is by its very nature complex and we should not shy away from that. The appropriate spatial level at which to take decisions will vary from policy area to policy area. But there are wider issues of accountability, finance and inter-dependency that need to be examined across the board. In a multi-level system, the connections between organisations are as important as the organisations themselves”.
The NLGN report carries a number of key recommendations for the future of multi-level governance in the UK, including:
> Make the Regional Assembly member position in local government into a high-profile Cabinet portfolio.
> Strengthen the scrutiny capacity of Regional Assemblies and extend it to take in the work of more regional and sub-regional agencies.
> Establish a ‘recall’ mechanism, whereby elected bodies could collectively call non-elected agencies to account.
> Instituting ‘Regional Observatories’ as statutory bodies with a duty to share knowledge and best practice across as well as within regions.
> Sharing buildings and workspaces.
> Making better us of technology to aid remote working and information sharing.
As Ms Robinson concludes: “In the end, what we are looking for is a combination of formal mechanisms and a commitment at all levels of governance to working in a more integrated fashion”.
Meanwhile, Geraint Williams of BT – which has supported the report’s publication – commented: "Multi-level governance is about bringing different institutions and organisations together and this isn't easy. Through our partnership work with Suffolk County Council and Mid-Suffolk District Council, where we are helping build a two-tier local authority joint venture, we are seeing that the private sector can act as an important third-party, facilitating the process, assisting communication, removing barriers and ultimately driving the collaboration through to delivery. A public-private approach gives local authorities the benefits of leading edge private sector expertise while still retaining direct control of service provision.”
The New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think-tank, seeking to transform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities. NLGN was recently awarded ‘Think Tank of the Year’ by the political and cultural monthly, Prospect magazine.
The report is being launched on Thursday 9 December in central London at an early evening debate featuring Cllr Peter Chalke, Leader of the LGA Conservative Group; John Biggs, London Assembly member (Labour) and Deputy Chair of the London Development Agency; Simon Hodgson, Director of the Assembly Secretariat, West Midlands Regional Assembly; Geraint Williams, Business Strategy Manager for BT Education & Local Government; and the report’s author, Emily Robinson of NLGN.
Related links to this article: New Local Government Network
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Early Day Motion...now you're talking
EDM 228
http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=228
ABOLITION OF REGIONAL CHAMBERS
30.11.04
Spelman/Caroline
That this House notes the overwhelming and decisive rejection of elected regional assemblies in the North East referendum by 78 per cent. to 22 per cent. and widespread public opposition to regional government in England, to higher taxes and to more politicians; notes that the transfer of powers to regional chambers was predicated on the ultimate establishment of elected regional assemblies; asserts that there is now a clear democratic deficit, as the regional chambers have no accountability, no mandate and no legitimacy; and calls on the Government to end its stealth regionalisation and for the regional chambers to be abolished, and for the powers that have been seized by the chambers to be returned to England's boroughs, counties and cities.
http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=228
ABOLITION OF REGIONAL CHAMBERS
30.11.04
Spelman/Caroline
That this House notes the overwhelming and decisive rejection of elected regional assemblies in the North East referendum by 78 per cent. to 22 per cent. and widespread public opposition to regional government in England, to higher taxes and to more politicians; notes that the transfer of powers to regional chambers was predicated on the ultimate establishment of elected regional assemblies; asserts that there is now a clear democratic deficit, as the regional chambers have no accountability, no mandate and no legitimacy; and calls on the Government to end its stealth regionalisation and for the regional chambers to be abolished, and for the powers that have been seized by the chambers to be returned to England's boroughs, counties and cities.
More rumblings across the country...just a matter of time
This is Plymouth
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk
CALLS TO SCRAP THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLEY
12:00 - 06 December 2004
A row over the upgrading of one of Devon's vital road corridors has opened a new can of worms over the South West's Regional Assembly.The assembly pressed for an upgrading of the A303/A30 but its pleas went unheard by the Department of Transport, which this week opted instead to improve the A358 from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton.Today the assembly has demanded to know why its views were ignored - amid calls from Plymouth business leaders to scrap the organisation because it has no teeth at national level.
Even one of its members, South Hams District Council leader Richard Yonge, has admitted he finds it difficult to see what purpose the assembly serves - and would scrap it.Mr Yonge said he believed the assembly would be ditched if the Tories were in power. "I don't want it," he said. "It's never done anything for us. If the Government changes it will probably go, but we'll all end up with regional assemblies if it doesn't."
Councillor David Morrish, Devon County Council's executive member for the environment, said: "What's the point of having a Regional Assembly, which is designed to give a local voice to decisions which are being taken nationally, when it's totally ignored?"
The Transport Secretary's decision effectively leaves the area with only one strategic road route into the far South West."An upgrade to the A303/A30 would have provided additional capacity to accommodate peak weekend and bank holiday traffic to and from Devon and Cornwall, with the M5 west of Taunton already close to capacity at these times."The Secretary of State has ignored the views of everyone - local authorities, the business community and the people and parishes of the Blackdown Hills."
The assembly urged the Government earlier this year to back the A303/A30 project, which many regard as a vital alternative route between Plymouth and London.But its bid was turned down and a top Plymouth businessman is leading calls for the unelected assembly now to be dissolved.
Neill Mitchell, chief executive of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said the assembly should put itself up for election.The body, which meets in Exeter but is based in Taunton, costs around £4.5 million a year to run, paid from the public purse.He said: "While the assembly doesn't actually cost us much directly, there are lots of hidden expenses in terms of the time committed by people who attend its committees and sub-committees."Mr Mitchell said the assembly had put its efforts into developing a regional planning strategy, transport and the environment. He said: "It's wasting everybody's time - but we feel there is the need for an economic strategy."Mr Mitchell added: "The Government has presumed to progressively put powers into the hands of regional assemblies, but the one thing that hasn't happened is that these assemblies have become democratic."The South West does not have an assembly which is elected directly. I don't think as a business body that we would wish to deprive people of the opportunity of having an assembly, but we feel that it should be tested by the public."
Plymouth City Council sends four members to the assembly - leader Tudor Evans, Kevin Wigens, George Wheeler and Karen Gillard - at a 'membership' cost of just over £22,000 per year.The 117-member assembly is part of a secretariat which also runs the South West Provincial Employers' Organisation and the South West Local Government Association.Mr Wheeler defended the body's existence, but admitted its future might be in doubt after a referendum in the North-East firmly rejected an elected assembly.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has made it clear the South West's regional assembly is here to stay and says he has no intention of scrapping it or its secretariat, despite the mothballing of plans for referendums on making it a directly-elected assembly.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk
CALLS TO SCRAP THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLEY
12:00 - 06 December 2004
A row over the upgrading of one of Devon's vital road corridors has opened a new can of worms over the South West's Regional Assembly.The assembly pressed for an upgrading of the A303/A30 but its pleas went unheard by the Department of Transport, which this week opted instead to improve the A358 from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton.Today the assembly has demanded to know why its views were ignored - amid calls from Plymouth business leaders to scrap the organisation because it has no teeth at national level.
Even one of its members, South Hams District Council leader Richard Yonge, has admitted he finds it difficult to see what purpose the assembly serves - and would scrap it.Mr Yonge said he believed the assembly would be ditched if the Tories were in power. "I don't want it," he said. "It's never done anything for us. If the Government changes it will probably go, but we'll all end up with regional assemblies if it doesn't."
Councillor David Morrish, Devon County Council's executive member for the environment, said: "What's the point of having a Regional Assembly, which is designed to give a local voice to decisions which are being taken nationally, when it's totally ignored?"
The Transport Secretary's decision effectively leaves the area with only one strategic road route into the far South West."An upgrade to the A303/A30 would have provided additional capacity to accommodate peak weekend and bank holiday traffic to and from Devon and Cornwall, with the M5 west of Taunton already close to capacity at these times."The Secretary of State has ignored the views of everyone - local authorities, the business community and the people and parishes of the Blackdown Hills."
The assembly urged the Government earlier this year to back the A303/A30 project, which many regard as a vital alternative route between Plymouth and London.But its bid was turned down and a top Plymouth businessman is leading calls for the unelected assembly now to be dissolved.
Neill Mitchell, chief executive of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said the assembly should put itself up for election.The body, which meets in Exeter but is based in Taunton, costs around £4.5 million a year to run, paid from the public purse.He said: "While the assembly doesn't actually cost us much directly, there are lots of hidden expenses in terms of the time committed by people who attend its committees and sub-committees."Mr Mitchell said the assembly had put its efforts into developing a regional planning strategy, transport and the environment. He said: "It's wasting everybody's time - but we feel there is the need for an economic strategy."Mr Mitchell added: "The Government has presumed to progressively put powers into the hands of regional assemblies, but the one thing that hasn't happened is that these assemblies have become democratic."The South West does not have an assembly which is elected directly. I don't think as a business body that we would wish to deprive people of the opportunity of having an assembly, but we feel that it should be tested by the public."
Plymouth City Council sends four members to the assembly - leader Tudor Evans, Kevin Wigens, George Wheeler and Karen Gillard - at a 'membership' cost of just over £22,000 per year.The 117-member assembly is part of a secretariat which also runs the South West Provincial Employers' Organisation and the South West Local Government Association.Mr Wheeler defended the body's existence, but admitted its future might be in doubt after a referendum in the North-East firmly rejected an elected assembly.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has made it clear the South West's regional assembly is here to stay and says he has no intention of scrapping it or its secretariat, despite the mothballing of plans for referendums on making it a directly-elected assembly.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Sharp U-turn on all-postal voting
Dec 10 2004
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
All-postal voting could be reinstated following the success of the North-East assembly referendum, ministers declared in an apparent U-turn last night.
Local government minister Nick Raynsford refused to accept calls to scrap plans for more all-postal ballots despite watchdogs warning the system had been "marred by problems" during the summer's local and European polls in the North.
After those votes, the Electoral Commission urged ministers to drop elections where voters were only allowed postal ballot forms - a recommendation hastily agreed to by John Prescott as a way of preventing regional assembly referendums in the North-West and Yorkshire and the Humber.
But in an apparent policy reversal yesterday, Mr Raynsford said the turnout of almost 48pc in the North-East assembly vote on November 4 had helped "underline" the value of all-postal voting. Now the Government says it will keep the door open to all-postal elections saying it was not persuaded by the arguments against.
"We value the important work of the Electoral Commission in moving towards the modernisation of the electoral process," Mr Raynsford explained before saying the watchdog had "generated a useful debate" on how to improve elections.
It was only in August that the Commission recommended that all-postal voting schemes be scrapped, following problems in the massive trial across the entire North of England during the June 10 local and European elections.
There were delays in sending out ballot papers, the system was criticised as too confusing and in the North-East European poll, 18,744 votes were discounted because forms were filled incorrectly.
Last night Sunderland metric martyr and anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron said serious questions now had to be asked about the future of the Electoral Commission. "The Government should make it quite clear it has ignored every single piece of advice and information from the Commission," he said.
"If they are going to carry on like this regardless, then they may as well scrap the Electoral Commission and give taxpayers back their money. The chairman (Sam Younger) should now be offering his resignation in protest."
Mr Younger, however, backed the Government's response, saying ministers were adopting 70pc of their proposals.
Gateshead East MP Joyce Quin said the North-East had proved all-postal voting could be conducted successfully.
She said: "The Commission really should have taken much greater account in its deliberations on the experiences of Gateshead and Sunderland, which have had all-postal ballots longer than anyone else."
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
All-postal voting could be reinstated following the success of the North-East assembly referendum, ministers declared in an apparent U-turn last night.
Local government minister Nick Raynsford refused to accept calls to scrap plans for more all-postal ballots despite watchdogs warning the system had been "marred by problems" during the summer's local and European polls in the North.
After those votes, the Electoral Commission urged ministers to drop elections where voters were only allowed postal ballot forms - a recommendation hastily agreed to by John Prescott as a way of preventing regional assembly referendums in the North-West and Yorkshire and the Humber.
But in an apparent policy reversal yesterday, Mr Raynsford said the turnout of almost 48pc in the North-East assembly vote on November 4 had helped "underline" the value of all-postal voting. Now the Government says it will keep the door open to all-postal elections saying it was not persuaded by the arguments against.
"We value the important work of the Electoral Commission in moving towards the modernisation of the electoral process," Mr Raynsford explained before saying the watchdog had "generated a useful debate" on how to improve elections.
It was only in August that the Commission recommended that all-postal voting schemes be scrapped, following problems in the massive trial across the entire North of England during the June 10 local and European elections.
There were delays in sending out ballot papers, the system was criticised as too confusing and in the North-East European poll, 18,744 votes were discounted because forms were filled incorrectly.
Last night Sunderland metric martyr and anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron said serious questions now had to be asked about the future of the Electoral Commission. "The Government should make it quite clear it has ignored every single piece of advice and information from the Commission," he said.
"If they are going to carry on like this regardless, then they may as well scrap the Electoral Commission and give taxpayers back their money. The chairman (Sam Younger) should now be offering his resignation in protest."
Mr Younger, however, backed the Government's response, saying ministers were adopting 70pc of their proposals.
Gateshead East MP Joyce Quin said the North-East had proved all-postal voting could be conducted successfully.
She said: "The Commission really should have taken much greater account in its deliberations on the experiences of Gateshead and Sunderland, which have had all-postal ballots longer than anyone else."
Thursday, December 09, 2004
The Gauntlet is thrown down...
Northern Echo Letters
echo@nne.co.uk
9th December 2004
EUROPE
IN 2006, a referendum is due on the European Constitution. It is essential that people can make an informed choice on this hugely important decision for Britain.
There were widespread complaints during the recent North-East Regional Assembly referendum of too little information too late. We mustn't make the same mistake again.
The European Parliament has approved funding of £6.25m for an information campaign ahead of the referendum, and I welcome this investment.
The referendum is an opportunity for Britain to take stock of where it stands in the world, how it relates to other countries, and how peace and democracy can best prevail here in Europe and globally.
The sooner we get on with that debate the better.
Fiona Hall MEP,
Liberal Democrat,
North-East England.
Fiona Hall MEP
55a Old Elvet,
Durham City
DH1 3HN
Tel: 0191 383 0119
Dear Fiona,
It's nice to see that you are prepared to stand up and be counted with regard to the upcoming debate on the European Constitution.
I wish to throw down a challenge to you to debate the issue on a public platform at a time of your choosing in order to assist with the challenging of any 'information' put forward.
I am sure that you will relish the opportunity to be able to convince the public that the Constitution will be of great benefit to their lives.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
echo@nne.co.uk
9th December 2004
EUROPE
IN 2006, a referendum is due on the European Constitution. It is essential that people can make an informed choice on this hugely important decision for Britain.
There were widespread complaints during the recent North-East Regional Assembly referendum of too little information too late. We mustn't make the same mistake again.
The European Parliament has approved funding of £6.25m for an information campaign ahead of the referendum, and I welcome this investment.
The referendum is an opportunity for Britain to take stock of where it stands in the world, how it relates to other countries, and how peace and democracy can best prevail here in Europe and globally.
The sooner we get on with that debate the better.
Fiona Hall MEP,
Liberal Democrat,
North-East England.
Fiona Hall MEP
55a Old Elvet,
Durham City
DH1 3HN
Tel: 0191 383 0119
Dear Fiona,
It's nice to see that you are prepared to stand up and be counted with regard to the upcoming debate on the European Constitution.
I wish to throw down a challenge to you to debate the issue on a public platform at a time of your choosing in order to assist with the challenging of any 'information' put forward.
I am sure that you will relish the opportunity to be able to convince the public that the Constitution will be of great benefit to their lives.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
The Noise is beginning
Scunthorpe Telegraph
BID TO FORM NEW GROUP
12:30 - 06 December 2004
An Attempt is to be made to set up in North Lincolnshire a new pressure group called UK Deceived.An inaugural meeting of would-be supporters has been called for Tuesday at 7.30pm. The meeting will be hosted at the Scunthorpe Central Community Centre in Lindum Street.One of the supporters is Paul Potter, who has been a Scunthorpe market trader for 22 years.Mr Potter said: "The idea behind the group is to inform people about the consequences of Britain's membership of the European Union (EU) and future closer integration."UK Deceived will be a new embryonic non- political pressure group. We will lobby all the main political parties on all matters appertaining to the EU."Mr Potter said the new organisation would be loosely connected with the Grimsby-based UK Betrayed group, which had campaigned successfully against the recently proposed North-Eastern regional assembly.A guest speaker, whose name has yet to be announced, will be in attendance on Tuesday night.
BID TO FORM NEW GROUP
12:30 - 06 December 2004
An Attempt is to be made to set up in North Lincolnshire a new pressure group called UK Deceived.An inaugural meeting of would-be supporters has been called for Tuesday at 7.30pm. The meeting will be hosted at the Scunthorpe Central Community Centre in Lindum Street.One of the supporters is Paul Potter, who has been a Scunthorpe market trader for 22 years.Mr Potter said: "The idea behind the group is to inform people about the consequences of Britain's membership of the European Union (EU) and future closer integration."UK Deceived will be a new embryonic non- political pressure group. We will lobby all the main political parties on all matters appertaining to the EU."Mr Potter said the new organisation would be loosely connected with the Grimsby-based UK Betrayed group, which had campaigned successfully against the recently proposed North-Eastern regional assembly.A guest speaker, whose name has yet to be announced, will be in attendance on Tuesday night.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Herron's nomination by No Director, Colin Moran
Who are the Great Britons of 2004?
Daily Telegraph
We are looking for your nominations
Great Britons 2004 is a series of awards to be presented to the people who have done the most to personify British success in the past year.
And we need you to tell us who they are...
"As a Director of the North East No Campaign I have nominated the Campaign Director, Neil Herron in the category of Campaigner. His tireless efforts over the past two years were instrumental in delivering the massive landslide of a 78% 'No' vote in the recent North East Referendum. Although based in the North East he has become recognised as the most formidable people's representative in the campaign business nationally. The emphatic result was testament to his ability to challenge and expose the political classes and take the people along with him.
Also as Campaign Director of Referendum04 last year he created the campaign which forced Blair to concede to a referendum on the European Constitution.
The massively supported Metric Martyrs Campaign which first brought him into the arena some four years ago is still ongoing and his intervention has ensured that there have been no further prosecutions under the 'Metrication Regulations' since 2000.
This is your chance to endorse this man's efforts on our behalf to challenge the political class. A process which is gathering momentum and will continue to do so.
Please spare two minutes of your time and make your vote count.
Vote for Neil Herron.
Remember, democracy is not a spectator sport."
Yours faithfully,
Colin Moran
Director
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Daily Telegraph
We are looking for your nominations
Great Britons 2004 is a series of awards to be presented to the people who have done the most to personify British success in the past year.
And we need you to tell us who they are...
"As a Director of the North East No Campaign I have nominated the Campaign Director, Neil Herron in the category of Campaigner. His tireless efforts over the past two years were instrumental in delivering the massive landslide of a 78% 'No' vote in the recent North East Referendum. Although based in the North East he has become recognised as the most formidable people's representative in the campaign business nationally. The emphatic result was testament to his ability to challenge and expose the political classes and take the people along with him.
Also as Campaign Director of Referendum04 last year he created the campaign which forced Blair to concede to a referendum on the European Constitution.
The massively supported Metric Martyrs Campaign which first brought him into the arena some four years ago is still ongoing and his intervention has ensured that there have been no further prosecutions under the 'Metrication Regulations' since 2000.
This is your chance to endorse this man's efforts on our behalf to challenge the political class. A process which is gathering momentum and will continue to do so.
Please spare two minutes of your time and make your vote count.
Vote for Neil Herron.
Remember, democracy is not a spectator sport."
Yours faithfully,
Colin Moran
Director
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Great Britons 2004
Daily Telegraph
Poignant search for the Best of British
By Philip Johnston (Filed: 02/12/2004)
John Peel and Fred Dibnah, two quintessential Englishmen who died this year, and Jane Tomlinson, the terminally-ill triathlete, are among more than 1,600 nominations so far received for the first "Great Britons" awards celebrating outstanding achievement in the past 12 months.
Peel, the DJ and radio presenter, and Dibnah, the Lancastrian steeplejack who spent his latter years defending the nation's industrial heritage, have been posthumously recommended for the prize, which is sponsored by Morgan Stanley in partnership with the RSA and the Telegraph.
Jane Tomlinson: terminally ill but still a tireless fund-raising athlete
The award is aimed at those successful in their field who have also shown particularly British attributes, exhibiting a doggedness of spirit leavened with humour and self-deprecation.
Nominations close a week today and can be made at www.greatbritons04.co.uk. There are seven categories: the arts, sport, public service, business, science and innovation, creative industries and campaigning.
A testimonial to Peel reads: "This man summed up all that is British with his sympathetic approach, his support of the underdog and his love of family and country."
For campaigning, the most nominations have been received on behalf of Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland who was a key figure in defeating John Prescott's plans for a North-East regional assembly. One supporter said: "He stood up for the idea that governments govern only with the consent of the people." Another said: "He epitomises the bulldog spirit."
Also named is Gary Frankum, a former speedway star with ME who campaigns to raise awareness of the illness.
The sports category is led by Kelly Holmes, the double gold medal winner in Athens – "who struggled, failed, battled and eventually won through", and Matthew Pinsent, the four-time Olympic rowing champion, who retired from the sport this week.
There is also support for Jane Tomlinson, a mother of three, who is terminally ill with breast cancer but completed the Florida "Ironman" challenge and cycled from Italy to Britain to raise money for charity.
She was described by one voter as "an inspiration to all… who meets and exceeds the criteria of British success".
Among the businessmen nominated are the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and Philip Green. The sciences are represented by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide web, and the physicist Roger Penrose.
Arts nominations include Benjamin Zephaniah, the poet, David Hare, the playwright, and Dido, the singer. Gurinder Chadha, the film-maker behind Bend It Like Beckham and Bride and Prejudice, and Vivienne Westwood, the fashion designer, are nominated in the creative industries category.
The nominations will be whittled down to a shortlist by a panel of judges before the winners in each category are decided and a final winner chosen.
The announcement of who is Great Briton of 2004 will be made at a ceremony at the Royal Courts of Justice next month.
Poignant search for the Best of British
By Philip Johnston (Filed: 02/12/2004)
John Peel and Fred Dibnah, two quintessential Englishmen who died this year, and Jane Tomlinson, the terminally-ill triathlete, are among more than 1,600 nominations so far received for the first "Great Britons" awards celebrating outstanding achievement in the past 12 months.
Peel, the DJ and radio presenter, and Dibnah, the Lancastrian steeplejack who spent his latter years defending the nation's industrial heritage, have been posthumously recommended for the prize, which is sponsored by Morgan Stanley in partnership with the RSA and the Telegraph.
Jane Tomlinson: terminally ill but still a tireless fund-raising athlete
The award is aimed at those successful in their field who have also shown particularly British attributes, exhibiting a doggedness of spirit leavened with humour and self-deprecation.
Nominations close a week today and can be made at www.greatbritons04.co.uk. There are seven categories: the arts, sport, public service, business, science and innovation, creative industries and campaigning.
A testimonial to Peel reads: "This man summed up all that is British with his sympathetic approach, his support of the underdog and his love of family and country."
For campaigning, the most nominations have been received on behalf of Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland who was a key figure in defeating John Prescott's plans for a North-East regional assembly. One supporter said: "He stood up for the idea that governments govern only with the consent of the people." Another said: "He epitomises the bulldog spirit."
Also named is Gary Frankum, a former speedway star with ME who campaigns to raise awareness of the illness.
The sports category is led by Kelly Holmes, the double gold medal winner in Athens – "who struggled, failed, battled and eventually won through", and Matthew Pinsent, the four-time Olympic rowing champion, who retired from the sport this week.
There is also support for Jane Tomlinson, a mother of three, who is terminally ill with breast cancer but completed the Florida "Ironman" challenge and cycled from Italy to Britain to raise money for charity.
She was described by one voter as "an inspiration to all… who meets and exceeds the criteria of British success".
Among the businessmen nominated are the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and Philip Green. The sciences are represented by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide web, and the physicist Roger Penrose.
Arts nominations include Benjamin Zephaniah, the poet, David Hare, the playwright, and Dido, the singer. Gurinder Chadha, the film-maker behind Bend It Like Beckham and Bride and Prejudice, and Vivienne Westwood, the fashion designer, are nominated in the creative industries category.
The nominations will be whittled down to a shortlist by a panel of judges before the winners in each category are decided and a final winner chosen.
The announcement of who is Great Briton of 2004 will be made at a ceremony at the Royal Courts of Justice next month.
So that's what it was all about!
Assembly protesters to fight for devolution
Dec 8 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
The campaign which opposed an elected North-East assembly is to re-form next month - to fight for more devolution to the region.
Former members of North-East Says No, the official anti-assembly campaign, will launch a think-tank in the New Year exploring issues including the system of elected mayors.
They will also begin an opposition movement to the European Constitution, over which Prime Minister Tony Blair has pledged to hold a referendum.
But the move was slammed as "highly contradictory" by ex-leaders of the Yes lobby, which was trounced by 78pc to 22pc in last month's regional vote.
The new group, which is yet to be named, will once more be headed by businessmen John Elliott and Phillip Cummings, who acted as NESNO's chairman and treasurer, respectively.
And James Frayne, the research director at the London-based New Frontiers Foundation, whose role as NESNO's campaign director prompted a series of "southerner" jibes, will once more be involved.
Mr Elliott said: "The people of the North-East made the right decision rejecting the regional assembly.
"However, I think we all agree that we can't just carry on as we are and we have a great opportunity to generate a real debate on how we take the North-East forward.
"We need to develop alternatives which take powers away from politicians and civil servants in London, and which give local people and professionals real power over services that matter.
"The same principle means we should not be handing more powers over the economy and crime to Brussels in the EU Constitution."
Mr Frayne said the group will start to publish discussion papers and hold meetings in the spring.
But Ross Forbes, former campaign director for Yes4theNorthEast, scoffed: "I think what they're proposing is highly contradictory.
"They didn't have any alternatives during the referendum campaign and we certainly don't know what they have to offer now.
"With the region having decided the way it did, the one big idea has been knocked off the agenda. We don't think there's any easy answers. Knee-jerking into setting up think tanks is a little bit rash."
Neil Herron, former leader of the rival North-East No Campaign, said: "I would be in favour of anything which will help promote and benefit the North-East.
"But I think now we're seeing that the European Constitution was obviously part of their agenda when they set up."
Mr Herron said he will launch a "people's campaign" against the constitution in the New Year.
Northern Echo
Dec 8th 2004
'No' campaigners to launch devolution pressure group
by Tony Kearney
KEY figures from the campaign that delivered the No vote in the referendum on a directly-elected assembly for the North-East are to establish a pressure group demanding greater devolution for the region.
Buoyed by their overwhelming success in November's poll, in which almost 80 per cent of the electorate voted against the proposed assembly, leaders of the now-disbanded North East Says No are to set up their new organisation in the New Year.
Recruitment of members is expected to begin in January, starting with former supporters of the No campaign, then widening out to the business community and the professions.
Members of the as-yet-unnamed organisation say it will look at ways of transferring power from politicians and civil servants in London to people in the North-East.
The body would play a key campaigning role in the North-East in any future referendum on the European Union constitution.
Leaders of the organisation say they have no plans to field candidates in forthcoming elections or to staff a full-time office in the short term.
However, achieving such resounding success in a referendum in which almost half the electorate voted is likely to give it an influential voice in regional affairs.
Throughout the referendum, No supporters argued that the status quo had left the region's economy lagging behind the rest of the country
But they said the proposed assembly would be costly and have no real powers.
The new body is being established by John Elliott, a businessman from Bishop Auckland, County Durham, and campaign colleague Philip Cummings, with the backing of public relations expert Graham Robb and former campaign director James Frayne, all senior North East Says No figures.
They say it will publish discussion papers highlighting ways of bringing powers over policing, education and the economy back to the region.
One of the areas will be possibly increasing the role of directly-elected mayors.
Mr Elliott, who was the chairman of the no group, said: "I think we all agree that we can't just carry on as we are and we have a great opportunity to generate a real debate on how we take the North-East forward.
"We need to develop alternatives which take powers away from politicians and civil servants in London, and which give local people and professionals real power over services that matter."
Dec 8 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
The campaign which opposed an elected North-East assembly is to re-form next month - to fight for more devolution to the region.
Former members of North-East Says No, the official anti-assembly campaign, will launch a think-tank in the New Year exploring issues including the system of elected mayors.
They will also begin an opposition movement to the European Constitution, over which Prime Minister Tony Blair has pledged to hold a referendum.
But the move was slammed as "highly contradictory" by ex-leaders of the Yes lobby, which was trounced by 78pc to 22pc in last month's regional vote.
The new group, which is yet to be named, will once more be headed by businessmen John Elliott and Phillip Cummings, who acted as NESNO's chairman and treasurer, respectively.
And James Frayne, the research director at the London-based New Frontiers Foundation, whose role as NESNO's campaign director prompted a series of "southerner" jibes, will once more be involved.
Mr Elliott said: "The people of the North-East made the right decision rejecting the regional assembly.
"However, I think we all agree that we can't just carry on as we are and we have a great opportunity to generate a real debate on how we take the North-East forward.
"We need to develop alternatives which take powers away from politicians and civil servants in London, and which give local people and professionals real power over services that matter.
"The same principle means we should not be handing more powers over the economy and crime to Brussels in the EU Constitution."
Mr Frayne said the group will start to publish discussion papers and hold meetings in the spring.
But Ross Forbes, former campaign director for Yes4theNorthEast, scoffed: "I think what they're proposing is highly contradictory.
"They didn't have any alternatives during the referendum campaign and we certainly don't know what they have to offer now.
"With the region having decided the way it did, the one big idea has been knocked off the agenda. We don't think there's any easy answers. Knee-jerking into setting up think tanks is a little bit rash."
Neil Herron, former leader of the rival North-East No Campaign, said: "I would be in favour of anything which will help promote and benefit the North-East.
"But I think now we're seeing that the European Constitution was obviously part of their agenda when they set up."
Mr Herron said he will launch a "people's campaign" against the constitution in the New Year.
Northern Echo
Dec 8th 2004
'No' campaigners to launch devolution pressure group
by Tony Kearney
KEY figures from the campaign that delivered the No vote in the referendum on a directly-elected assembly for the North-East are to establish a pressure group demanding greater devolution for the region.
Buoyed by their overwhelming success in November's poll, in which almost 80 per cent of the electorate voted against the proposed assembly, leaders of the now-disbanded North East Says No are to set up their new organisation in the New Year.
Recruitment of members is expected to begin in January, starting with former supporters of the No campaign, then widening out to the business community and the professions.
Members of the as-yet-unnamed organisation say it will look at ways of transferring power from politicians and civil servants in London to people in the North-East.
The body would play a key campaigning role in the North-East in any future referendum on the European Union constitution.
Leaders of the organisation say they have no plans to field candidates in forthcoming elections or to staff a full-time office in the short term.
However, achieving such resounding success in a referendum in which almost half the electorate voted is likely to give it an influential voice in regional affairs.
Throughout the referendum, No supporters argued that the status quo had left the region's economy lagging behind the rest of the country
But they said the proposed assembly would be costly and have no real powers.
The new body is being established by John Elliott, a businessman from Bishop Auckland, County Durham, and campaign colleague Philip Cummings, with the backing of public relations expert Graham Robb and former campaign director James Frayne, all senior North East Says No figures.
They say it will publish discussion papers highlighting ways of bringing powers over policing, education and the economy back to the region.
One of the areas will be possibly increasing the role of directly-elected mayors.
Mr Elliott, who was the chairman of the no group, said: "I think we all agree that we can't just carry on as we are and we have a great opportunity to generate a real debate on how we take the North-East forward.
"We need to develop alternatives which take powers away from politicians and civil servants in London, and which give local people and professionals real power over services that matter."
Monday, December 06, 2004
Let your papers know the same
This is Exeter
ASSEMBLY 'TAX' IS ILLEGAL
11:00 - 30 November 2004
I understand that Plymouth City Council is still paying an annual "subscription" of some £35,000 to the South West Regional Assembly. I question whether this payment is legal. The assembly is a voluntary, unelected, unaccountable body with no legal identity whatsoever, and the electorate has never assented to the use of taxpayer's money for this purpose. Nor have they assented to the assembly appointing permanent staff on its own account. It now has a staff of some 60 people, and a salary bill of £1.8 million according to its latest accounts, a 15 per cent increase on the previous year. It is outrageous that, following the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly in the North East referendum, these bodies continue to exist as unelected self-appointed quangos which appear to be out of control. Here in the South West there is even less appetite for this widely-disliked assembly, let alone a "popular demand". We need another layer of local government like a hole in our collective head.
Denis McCallum
Plymouth
ASSEMBLY 'TAX' IS ILLEGAL
11:00 - 30 November 2004
I understand that Plymouth City Council is still paying an annual "subscription" of some £35,000 to the South West Regional Assembly. I question whether this payment is legal. The assembly is a voluntary, unelected, unaccountable body with no legal identity whatsoever, and the electorate has never assented to the use of taxpayer's money for this purpose. Nor have they assented to the assembly appointing permanent staff on its own account. It now has a staff of some 60 people, and a salary bill of £1.8 million according to its latest accounts, a 15 per cent increase on the previous year. It is outrageous that, following the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly in the North East referendum, these bodies continue to exist as unelected self-appointed quangos which appear to be out of control. Here in the South West there is even less appetite for this widely-disliked assembly, let alone a "popular demand". We need another layer of local government like a hole in our collective head.
Denis McCallum
Plymouth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
