When is “the public interest” not the public interest – a confusing conundrum when applied to our missing 6,000 voters

An exchange between the Chairman of the Parliamentary Constitutional Reform Committee, Graham Allen MP and the Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators on 1 May 2014 regarding Electoral Returning Officers (EROs) failing to complete house-to-house canvassing [recall it has been confirmed by Chris Ruane MP of the same committee that
EDDC’s ERO, Chief Executive Mark Williams failed to carry out house-to-house surveys in 2011, 2012 and 2013]:

Q282 Mr Turner: Are we speaking of a criminal offence or a civil offence?

John Turner: Which?

Mr Turner: The failure to do what Chris Ruane has asked should be done.

John Turner: There is a section in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that makes it a breach of official duty for a registration officer not to do that and follow the law.

Q283 Mr Turner: Does that mean a police officer would be handling that or a civil matter?
John Turner: No, it is a criminal matter, a criminal offence. It carries a penalty. I can’t recollect what it is offhand, but it is definitely a criminal offence. What I should also tell you is that I have been doing this for some long time now and I have never known anybody to be prosecuted for it.

Q284 Mr Turner: I am just wondering whether it would help if it were drawn to the attention of the local police officer.

John Turner: We go down an interesting route here. Things have happened where there have been investigations by the police—the police are only the investigating body in this sense—and it always ends up at the door of the Crown Prosecution Service and we get into matters where we start talking about public interest and decisions to prosecute. That would take us another five hours I fear, Chair, so—

Q285 Chris Ruane: Is it in the public interest to have 6 million people and the poorest people in the country off the electoral register? Is it in the public interest or not?

John Turner: That is a different question from the public interest to prosecute, but what I am saying is, in answer to your question, there is already on the statute book an offence of breach of official duty. It is certainly not within my bailiwick to decide how that should be enforced but it is there. It sits there.

See also
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/electoral-registration-officers-must-all-conduct-house-to-house-canvassing-during-transition-to-new-electoral-registration-system

Further comment from Paul Arnott on post below re EDDC, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

Paul Arnott here. I requested this FoI disclosure, and thank the police for their response, made on the twentieth day of the 20 allowed them in law.

I would also like to make clear that this matter ought to be cleared up quickly and if anyone is hanging under an unjust cloud their good name ought to be restored.

That said, what was most noteworthy in the police reply was the confirmation that although the Monitoring Officer made a minuted pledge to provide a joint statement on the status of any investigation absolutely none was ever made, or, it seems, attempted. (I put in an identical FoI to EDDC on this “joint statement” issue. They have two and a half hours to meet their own legal obligation to respond within 20 days)

Did anyone think this could all drift for eighteen months in silence? Did the Monitoring Officer’s boss, or the Leader, or the Cabinet, not wonder about this?

Last night, Cllr Susie Bond asked a number of clear questions about the status of this investigation. The line from the top desk was, the police haven’t told us anything … and, er ….

The other interesting detail in the police reply is about the inital, risible call to the Action Fraud hotline, which it is now confirmed by police was followed up by an EDDC call to local police, and the eventual passing of the file to a former policeman, now the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary’s Senior Fraud Investigator.

What we don’t know is if any actual complaint was ever made, or by whom, or whether there is a vital “crime number”, or whether this investigation has even been entered as an investigation in the Devon and Cornwall Police Public Sector Corruption Register – as should be the course.

Ultimately, a year and a half on, this guarded Freedom of Information response is all we have from our regional police force, of a piece with last night’s three wise monkeys routine from East Devon Council.

What we do know is that this is NOT sub judice., but to deduce that you have to read between the lines. A simple “No it isn’t” would have covererd it.

Don’t know really. Is that the cheese in my fridge going off in the hot weather, or is this growing whiff coming from somewhere else?

EDDC Monitoring Officer has never asked for police interview re disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

And the enquiry is ongoing – here is correspondence between Paul Arnott and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on the subject, whiich was elicited by a Freedom of Information request via the whatdotheyknow website, this correspondence therefore being in the public domain:

Freedom of Information Act Request No: 3614/14

At a meeting of the East Devon District Standards Committee 14 months ago on 29th April 2013 the Monitoring Officer gave a statement in relation to Councillor Graham Brown and his comments published the previous month in the Daily Telegraph.

According to EDDC’s minutes she “advised that the matter had been referred to the Police soon after the article had been published. The issue was then, on advice from Police, directed to Action Fraud under the Bribery Act 2010 and the Council’s own Fraud, Theft and Corruption policy. Devon and Cornwall Police were continuing to look into the matter and the Monitoring Officer was currently in discussions with them about releasing a joint statement.”

According to the Devon and Cornwall Police published policy D22 Corruption in the Public Sector at point 3.1.4 “A person alleging public sector corruption will, if he/she so requests, be interviewed by an officer not below the rank of Detective Superintendent”

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

The Crime Department and Press Office have provided the following information:

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

N/A – No request was made by the Monitoring Officer to be interviewed by a Detective Superintendent

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

No joint press statements were made by East Devon District Council and Devon & Cornwall Police

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

A report was initially made to Action Fraud in March 2013 who declared it was not a matter with which they dealt. The allegations were subsequently reported to the local Police by the East Devon District Council who appointed a Senior Fraud Investigator to manage enquiries with regards to third party allegations. These enquiries are ongoing.

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_protocol_d22_and_east_dev#incoming-542682

So, what DO EDDC know these days? Not much …

Here is a list of the latest Freedom of Information request subjects put to East Devon District Council – and excellent reading they make too, though most of them have yet to be answered as no doubt the poor FOI Officer is snowed under:

Hot desking
Job Descriptions for Senior Officers
Key Decisions
Monitoring Officer Report on [Ottery St Mary] meeting with Persimmon
Exmouth Masterplan
Council Tax arrears
EDDC activities in support of
Budleigh Salterton car park
Redrow Homes
East Devon Business Development Office at Heathpark

Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/east_devon_district_council

Out with the old, in with the new …. well, sort of

Last night apparently marked the last full Council meeting to be attended by Deputy Director and Monitoring Officer, Ms Denise Lyon (who was seen to smile, chat and yawn a lot according to members of the public).

CEO Mark Williams seemed to suggest that the role of Monitoring Officer might pass to her opposite number in South Somerset, Ian Clarke, apparently as part of the sharing agreement the two councils have (where currently the only sharing is of the Chief Executive, 50/50).

Surely this is an important role that should be advertised?

More on EDDC v the Information Commissioner (Exeter Magistrates Court, 10 am 28 August 2014)

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Tribunal-rule-Devon-council-blocking-Sidmouth/story-21746589-detail/story.html

News from COVOP (Community Voice on Planning)

COVOP is a national grouping of local initiatives where people are unhappy about how the National Planning Policy framework is working (or rather not working). Their latest news update is below:

1. Many people have been invited to participate in a discussion forum on 1st September as part of the Parliamentary enquiry into the NPPF. There must be at least 50 people going and most are members of groups associated with CoVoP. We all have local issues to discuss but the following list of topics from our discussion with Greg Mulholland and his colleagues does suggest a common thread which we could all use.

2. As a result of our discussions with MP’s and other interested groups, we

believe that the following are the main areas where change to the planning system would be helpful now or early in the life of the new government:

1. The calculation methods used for determination of housing needs are

based on long term economic forecasts of dubious accuracy but Local Plans must be based on them; they should be based on historic trends and include a range of figures (minimum based on pure historic trends and maximum based on projected economic growth).

2. The calculation of the five-year housing land supply should be based

on the minimum figure of housing need and should include all permissions not just those which developers chose not to land-bank. The five year land supply target does encourage house building but the current calculation methodology has the appearance of allowing inappropriate land-grabbing by developers. The inclusion of permissions in the calculation would ensure that sufficient land was allocated but would then encourage building on

those sites. Allocation of land for housing is essentially a one-way

process; once included in a development plan, there is no going back – only under-provision can be corrected later, by making further allocations if the projection turned out to be too low. If there was over-provision, either because the projection was too high, or because land came forward more quickly than expected, no corrective action is possible.

3. An increased emphasis to be put on affordable housing. Evidence shows that many developers prefer to build executive homes and that they actively attempt to reduce the number of affordable homes included in developments. The main need is for affordable homes for individuals and young families and for older people to downsize to. The policy should encourage councils to prioritise affordable homes and bungalows for elderly people who want to downsize but still want a garden for themselves and their grandchildren.

4. The role of planning inspectors should be reviewed to ensure

independence and to reduce their quasi-judicial status.

5. The constitution of planning committees and role of LPA planning

officers should be clarified (should be supporting the planning authority and the electorate not promoting developers).

6. The elimination of “costs” in planning appeals – if developers chose

to field numerous barristers, they should pay for them win or lose.

7. Prioritisation of brownfield developments over green spaces.

8. Importance of infrastructure planning and funding early in the life of developments.

9. The need to allow time for local plans to be agreed (perhaps a

moratorium on new applications for anything other than brownfield sites until plans are in place).

3. Please take the opportunity to look at our website and see the

advertisement on the front page from Cheshire East (click on the title for a pdf). Also see our link to the oral evidence session to the NPPF

Review committee on July 9th. David Gladman (planning-broker and Partner,

Gladman Developments) was giving evidence. By his own evidence, he has interests in 200 planning applications in 70 LPAs. He thinks that all decisions should be taken by planning officers as planning committees are old people who are set in their ways and who refuse to accept his assessments of housing needs.   His evidence has its funny side. At the start of the session, the MPs had declared connections to local councillors (wives, fathers, party workers, etc). Mr Gladman did not appear to be aware that he was attacking people they value or indeed the values of democracy. He is very cross that Cheshire East refused his offers to let his team of planners work on the Local Plan and draw it up for them!

It has to be said that, judging from the reaction of the MPs to Mr G.’s sparkling personality, he has probably done more for our cause then anybody else who gave evidence to the Committee. At least they might now understand why there are at least 70 LAs where a lot of people are not very happy with the NPPF!

4. Finally we congratulate Mr Boles on his new appointment and welcome the

new Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis. I’m sure that you know that he was already under-secretary of state within the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and held a wide range of responsibilities including local government, fire services, high streets, town centres, markets, travellers and pubs. We hope that he will take the opportunity of his new appointment to make the changes to the planning system outlined above.

 

A PERSONAL REFLECTION FROM THE EDA CHAIRMAN ON THE EDDC FULL COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY 23RD JUNE

A vigorous evening at East Devon District Council’s Full Monthly Meeting, but I left with real sadness at a tragic lost opportunity.

Oddly, that opportunity had actually come a few weeks earlier – on the 2nd July – when the Cabinet was meant to “consider” Ray Bloxham’s proposed changes to the running of the Development Management Committee (Planning).

But sadly, three weeks ago the Cabinet members had simply nodded them through – without refinement or question or any discussion – in under ten seconds.

Things could be very different now if any one of Paul Diviani, Andrew Moulding, Ray Bloxham, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Stephanie Jones or Tom Wright had piped up and started a discussion.

As it was, they did not, and so things were ready for the rubber stamp tonight, until Independent councillors managed to force a debate. Then, it slowly dawned on the room that while a number of Conservatives were in favour of some of Ray Bloxham’s ideas, they were wholly against the element which restricted public speaking.

Ironically, one of the best speakers on this was Cabinet member, Ian Thomas – Mike Allen, too – but their problem was that it was now too late. If they’d thought on their feet and proposed an amendment to Cllr Claire Wright’s motion to delay implementation, it is likely that we could have had the best of both worlds. Some changes to Planning meetings to help hard-pressed councillors could have been made, but with the continuing protection of council tax payers’ opportunity to speak if they wish. But there was no obvious way to make such an amendment. Despite a long debate, it turned out all along that the die was cast. Undue Haste 1, Democracy 0.

Yet there had been some splendid ideas. Go back to an East and West division of planning discussions on separate committees to cut the load, for example. Or maybe some councillors could limit their own contributions to the tight three minutes under which the public have to speak at the DMC. There was a lot that could have been discussed, and seemingly a cross-party will to do so.

All it needed was the Leadership to show a lead. Alas, there was nobody up to the task.

So where does that leave us? If you are going to have up to 9 houses put up in your road, only 2 council tax payers will be allowed to speak to object. To be one of those two you will have had to write in first, then pre-register your wish to speak. For 10 to Infinity houses, or a supermarket, or even a nuclear power plant, just 5 people have the right to speak, again self-selected. And much else besides. Not good enough, and also wide open to abuse of process. Who chooses the 2, or the 5? And how?

But this report is very much my personal take on the evening and not an agreed view from the East Devon Alliance (which I currently chair). So, speaking personally, I am very unclear how the Leader of the Council judges that repeatedly insulting someone as obviously thoughtful as Cllr Claire Wright from his little podium lends dignity to his office. Cllr Douglas Hull had some wise comments to make about these insults, and on the boisterous barracking from some of the ampler councillors who did not enjoy her contribution. Tonight’s debate was essential – and without Claire Wright it would not have happened.

And speaking personally again, it is hard to fathom why the permanent officers we pay for – Messrs Williams and Cohen, and Ms Lyon – feel it is appropriate for them to chuckle, chatter and smirk when councillors are speaking. I feel some sympathy for the chairman, Graham Godbeer, a well-mannered man who is worth more than sharing a platform with such unattractive and arrogant conduct.

What can finally be said? Some hard-bitten people say you get the council you deserve. I feel it’s more nuanced than that. What is clear is that between now and May 2015 there is an opportunity to see if a fresh batch of councillors may come forward.

EDA Chairman leaves Councillor Ray Bloxham floundering to defend the indefensible on Radio Devon this morning

EDA’s Chairman Paul Arnott went head-to-head with EDDC Councillor Ray Bloxham – the originator of the idea to curtail public speaking (and who took 27 minutes to explain it at the meeting where it was first discussed) and, let’s just say that this was not Councillor Bloxham’s finest day … here is the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p022jt50

Use the slider bar to go to the section 1:08:34 minutes from the beginning of the show.

Oh dear, Councillor Bloxham – wasn’t your finest day was it!

Curtailment of public speaking: EDA Chairman head-to-head with Councillor Ray Bloxham tomorrow morning on Radio Devon

Ray Bloxham and Paul Arnott on BBC Radio Devon at 7.35 am tomorrow (Wednesday).

Tune into Matt Woodley’s BBC Radio Devon Breakfast Show between 6.30am and 9pm on Wednesday 23rd to hear a discussion on the proposals to limit speaking at East Devon Planning meetings – due to be rubber stamped that evening.

For the council, the originator of the restrictions idea, Cllr Ray Bloxham from Cranbrook, and for the East Devon Alliance, Chairman Paul Arnott from Colyton.

For late risers, the programme will be available to download later in the day.

EDDC’s full council meeting (tomorrow) to “discuss” curtailing public speaking

Remember, our developers have acess to our councillors and officers whenever they wish.  The meetings are our only opportunity to put our side of our stories:

23 July 2014

EDDC full Council to vote on curtailment of public right to speak at EDDC meetings

Agenda here

EDDC’s Executive Board has already voted for the curtailment of the rights of the public to speak at its meeting but it needs the rubber stamp of the full Council which will meet on 23 July 2014.  Details HERE

EDA – public speaking: further response in local press

We are writing on behalf of the East Devon Alliance, a non-party-political campaigning group concerned with matters of planning and related transparency of government in our district. Our membership is drawn from across East Devon and our Charter and purpose are stated clearly on our website, which may be found at http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.

The key issues of Planning and Transparent Government intersect most significantly at the monthly meetings of EDDC’s Development Management Committee (DMC). Planning applications may come before this body of councillors, rather than being determined on the delegated decision of a Planning Officer, and that is right and proper. Particularly in cases where applications may be for development in a sensitive location and/or involving large scale destruction of open countryside.

Applications which come before the DMC will have an appropriate recommendation from the experts in EDDC’s planning office, i.e. to approve (with or without conditions) or to refuse. On a number of occasions, however, public contributions on the day have contributed to open debate to the extent that officer recommendations have been overturned. That is not to say that the recommendations were flawed in the first instance. Rather it is the sign of a healthy democracy that the public voice may be heard, and may inform intelligently the outcomes of what are, in many cases, both contentious and large-scale proposed development. The cost of such democracy in action is small: hitherto members of the public have been allowed but three minutes in which to present their views on the day.

The East Devon Alliance has watched with increasing concern as even that small price to pay, an allocation of 180 seconds (always carefully timed!) in which a member of public may express an opinion, is now threatened. The desire to strip the public of the right to speak on specific planning proposals or planning policy has worked its way through various EDDC sub-committees, and will finally reach a full meeting of Council for a decision on July 23rd.

We respectfully request that all councillors, of whatever political persuasion, consider deeply the principle and issues at stake. We propose accordingly not the introduction of new or complicated practices as far as public speaking is concerned, but the entirely reasonable practice of simply leaving public speaking arrangements as they are. This seems to us a not unreasonable request that would do much to restore public trust and confidence in a Council which, for many, has much to prove; not least in respect of its inability to deliver on time a Local Plan.

Yours faithfully
P Arnott and J Withrington
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, East Devon Alliance

Curtailment of public speaking at EDDC meetings: EDA response and suggestions

No apologies for publishing this again:

Wednesday 23rd July 2014

EDDC full Council to vote on curtailment of public right to speak at EDDC meetings –

EDDC’s Executive Board has already voted for the curtailment of the rights of the public to speak at its meeting but it needs the rubber stamp of the full Council which will meet on 23 July 2014.

It is not too late to get this decision reversed. Write to your local councillor asking how he or she is planning to vote and why, and turn up on the day to show your support in preventing the erosion of democracy in East Devon.

(Contact details for your local Councillor can be found here, Wards and Councillors. Simply scroll down the list to find the Councillor for your ward and click on the orange highlighted name to bring up the details.)

A motion challenging what the Independent Councillors see as a clampdown on free speech, is proposed by Cllr Claire Wright and seconded by Cllr Ben Ingham. Cllrs Roger Giles, Trevor Cope and Susie Bond have also signed up to it. Below is an extract from Cllr Wright’s blog on the issue: “The motion will be debated at the full council meeting of Wednesday 23 July, which starts at 6.30 pm. It reads: “This council believes wholeheartedly in democracy and the fundamental right of its citizens to be fully represented by their elected members. This council also believes in the democratic process and commits to do everything within its power to enhance the role of the elected member.””

EDDC has recently sought to place a number of restrictions on the freedom of speech including: – 1) Recommendations to dramatically reduce public speaking at planning committee meetings. (Also to be decided on the 23rd). 2) Restrictions on public speaking at all committees. 3) An agreement that, “any motion not immediately relevant to the business of the council will be referred to a council committee first.”

Whilst everyone agrees the meetings can be long, especially when issues of public local concern are being discussed, if these restrictions are passed they will betray the key principles of Localism, designed to improve and encourage local authority engagement with the community. If EDDC wants to make meetings more time efficient, they should instead refrain from self-congratulation, nor raise issues of national policy over which they have no control; e.g. the recent half hour presentation and subsequent debate on the evils of illegal highs.

We very much hope you will take the time to contact your EDDC Councillor and urge them to vote against this reduction in the level of transparency, accountability and democracy at East Devon District Council. We also hope you will be able to show your support for those objecting by attending the meeting at the Knowle in Sidmouth on Wednesday, 23rd July from 6.30 pm.

Please feel free to pass this invitation onto your family, friends and neighbours, since this vote directly affects the right to be heard of everyone living in the East Devon area.

I look forward to seeing you there!

Nicky King
(Hon) Secretary
East Devon Alliance

Website – http://eastdevonalliance.org/
FaceBook – https://www.facebook.com/eastdevonalliance
Twitter – https://twitter.com/EDevonAlliance

Our new Planning and Housing Minister had strong views on the Daily Telegraph front page story former EDDC Councillor Graham Brown’s fall from grace

Commenting on the front page story in the Daily Telegraph last year, new Planning and Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, MP said:

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:

“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.

“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.

“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councillors-interests-and-planning

Perhaps we should now all write to him updating him on the progress our council has made on investigating disgraced ex-Councillor Brown’s chairmanship of the EDDC Local Plan working group at the same time as chairing the group of local developers, the East Devon Business Forum. Progress:none as EDDC CEO Mark Williams has refused to allow the EDDC Task and Finish group on this subject to meet.

New Minister for Planning and Housing: Brandon Lewis, MP

“Brandon is a qualified barrister and a company director. Before joining the government, Brandon was an active member of a number of All Party Parliamentary Groups, including those for enterprise zones and local growth as well as local government. He was co-chair of a group on coastal erosion and continues to work with colleagues who represent other coastal towns to highlight common issues in their constituencies.

Brandon served on Brentwood Borough Council for more than 10 years, with 5 as Leader.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/brandon-lewis

From the theyworkforyouwebsite:

How Brandon Lewis has:

Voted very strongly for greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections

Voted moderately for more EU integration

Voted very strongly for encouraging occupational pensions

Voted very strongly for an equal number of electors per parliamentary constituency

Voted strongly for increasing the rate of VAT

Voted very strongly for university tuition fees

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24879/brandon_lewis/great_yarmouth/

AND

he was voted the worst MP in Twitter:
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/07/18/the-worst-mps-on-twitter-one-brandon-lewis

The missing 6,000 voters: advice issued to MPs

This included the information that MPs should have asked for below. You may wish to ask your MP to show you what they did BEFORE we brought this matter to public attention on 30 June 2014:

The advice:

….. “If you haven’t done so already, getting in touch with your local Electoral Registration Officer could be a useful step towards supporting registration activity and finding out more about any targeted work happening within your constituency. You may want to ask your Electoral Registration Officer(s) about their engagement strategy and implementation plan.

What the picture is for your area

 The results of the confirmation exercise, once available, will show how many entries were green (i.e. they matched with the details on the DWP database), how many were amber (i.e. they were a partial match) and how many were red (i.e. there was no match). What were the match rates for:

 all electors?
 attainers?
 postal voters?
 Which groups of people/which wards have lower match rates and therefore pose the greatest challenge? How has that picture changed since the dry run of the confirmation data matching process?
 How many existing postal voters have failed to match and are therefore at risk of losing their absent vote?
 How are you using local records, including to boost match rates and confirm people onto the new register, and to identify and target new electors?

How activity is being targeted

 Can you talk me through your public engagement strategy and implementation plan?
 What are the key stages of the work you are doing between now and 1 December 2015 (in England and Wales)/2 March 2015 (in Scotland) to engage with existing and new electors, and when are they taking place (including, for example, when the write-out will begin; when you will be sending reminders and visiting individuals/households?)
 How do you plan to target attainers to maximise the number of eligible 16 and 17 year olds included on the electoral register?
 Do you have sufficient resources to deliver your plans effectively?
 How can I support your work using my local intelligence and links into the community?
 How can I stay updated on registration activity in my area?”

Click to access IER-Parliamentary-Brief-July-2014-PDF.pdf

“Clean, green and seen” or “pale, male and stale”: you decide

Just before the debate on the curtailment of public speaking next week and EDDC’s secrecy over its planned move to Skypark, it is timely to remind readers (again) of EDDC Leader Paul Diviani’s pledge when he took office in May 2011:

Turning to his own vision for the future and his style of leadership, Councillor Diviani said: “Some call it safe, clean and green – to which I would add seen.

“Safe comes through good design at the planning stage, through working with the police, fire and rescue and all the other services that deal with our society’s well-being, with particular emphasis on the vulnerable of whatever age.

“Clean is the public realm – paths and pavements on which we travel, the quality of our parks and pleasure grounds, efficient and convenient services, such as waste recycling and collection.

“Green will come as no surprise! Two-thirds of our district is nationally designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which makes East Devon such a fabulous place to live, work and play.

“Seen is about perception and reality and is all about effective communication. All too often we read that EDDC doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, sits in an ivory tower – the list goes on. The cynical view of the last government – decide, consult, do it all anyway – is not my approach.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/yarty_councillor_is_new_leader_at_east_devon_1_904941

Proof that our MPs knew about EDDC’s electoral roll fiasco

Here is the proof that the Electoral Commission wrote to those MPs whose constituencies did not carry out the required house to house canvassing for the electoral register in 2013. We know from this document that only 6% of councils failed to do this and not only was EDDC one of these councils but it had also not performed these enquiries in 2011 and 2012.

Extract:

“The reasons given by each ERO for not carrying out house-to-house enquiries with all non-responding households are provided within the Commission’s report. The Commission has written specifically to those hon. Members whose ERO(s) have failed to meet the standard and it will soon write to all hon. Members to update them regarding the progress of the transition to IER. This update will include suggested questions which hon. Members may wish to put to their local EROs regarding what practices they follow, and propose to follow in future, in order to keep their electoral registers as complete and accurate as possible.”

Source:

Click to access 6.SPEAKERS-Committee-Electroal-Commission.pdf

Click to access ERO-report-2011-07-20.pdf

Westminster MP adds disquieting information on the missing 6,000 voters

A correspondent has sent an extract from a letter from an MP (Chris Ruane, a member of Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, see post below of 7 July 2014) after he contacted him on the subject of EDDC’s missing 6,000 voters. It makes interesting reading:

“Thank you very much for your e-mail, and your very thorough research.

The example of East Devon is one that I highlight in my work, and also includes West Devon and Mid Devon. On the ERO’s attachment, I have listed all the ERO’s who have failed the compulsory Performance Standard Three to conduct door to door visits, as you mentioned, and you will see that East Devon has failed it three times. …

… On the issue of registration, with the changes to Individual Electoral Registration now in force, keeping tabs on the ERO is more crucial. Last year, every local authority did a test run (confirmation dry run) of comparing their electoral register with the Department for Work and Pensions database. Because to register to vote under IER, you need a National Insurance number, those on the register now have to be checked that they are exactly who they are. So the DWP matching was a way to do this. Local authorities were also advised to do a similar match with databases they have (such as council tax records). Only a quarter did this in the dry run. I have attached the list of those who did to this local data matching, and East Devon is not on there. This was their opportunity to test the system before it went live, as it has done now.

On the issue of an FOI request, this may seem odd, but the ERO does not fall under FOI legislation. I found this out whilst doing my own research, and those ERO’s I knew who weren’t complying, responded to say that they didn’t have to answer. I have raised this with the committee. If you get the same response, please do let me know [the correspondent has confirmed that he did get the same response from EDDC].

Recently I asked a question at Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions, and Greg Clark is now looking into those councils who fail in their duties.

Please let me know how you get on with East Devon.”

An attachment provided by Mr Ruane shows that East Devon has not undertaken the required doorstep canvassing since 2011, and that East Devon did not take part in the very important IT systems dry run for the Individual Electoral Registration process.

What is a First Tier Tribunal?

As can be seen in other postings, EDDC’s representative is due to appear at Exeter Magistrate’s Court at 10 am on Thursday 28 August as the council has refused to make public information about its relocation even though the Information Commissioner has said that they should do so.  It has been decided that this will be decided by a “First Tier Tribunal”.  Here is the official explanation of what that means:

Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies which decide disputes in particular areas of law.

“Appeals to tribunals are generally against a decision made by a Government department or agency. The exception to this is the Employment Tribunal where cases are on a party v party basis (i.e. employee versus employer).

There are tribunals in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland covering a wide range of areas affecting day-to-day life. HM Courts & Tribunals administers many of them although some are the responsibility of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Appeals to the First-tier Tribunal are against the decisions from government departments and other public bodies. The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal on points of law i.e. an appeal made over the interpretation of a legal principle or statute. Further appeals may be made, with permission, to the Court of Appeal.

Tribunal judges are legally-qualified. Tribunal members are specialist non-legal members of the panel and include doctors, chartered surveyors, ex-service personnel or accountants. Tribunals often sit as a panel comprising a judge and non-legal members however in some jurisdictions cases may be heard by a judge or member sitting alone.

Tribunals adopt procedures that are less complicated and more informal than those typically associated with the courts.”

Source: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/tribunals