Category Archives: Political Reform

The Experts Agree: Bolsover’s Councillors Have Been Too Greedy

PRESS RELEASE FROM CLLR DUNCAN KERR, BOLSOVER DC

Councillor Duncan Kerr

16th July 2011 not embargoed

In a late report just released by Bolsover Council the expert members on the Council’s remuneration panel have unanimously backed Cllr Kerr’s claim that the Bolsover’s members have granted themselves excessive allowances and have called for these payments to be slashed by 46% saying “their work cannot be substantially different from members of other authorities”, precisely the point that Cllr Kerr has been campaigning about. Commenting on the development Cllr Kerr said:

“I am grateful that the experts on this panel have been brave enough to stand up and speak the truth that Bolsover Councillors, led by its Labour administration, have been helping themselves to far too much of the tax-payers money. By my reckoning during the four year term of the last council members took in total over £1M more in allowances when compared to some other authorities. This is money that could, and should, have been spent on delivering services. We will wait and see whether the Council accepts this report and apologises to the people of Bolsover.”

Whilst Cllr Kerr is supportive of the Panel’s view on basic remuneration he is concerned to see that they propose substantial increases in the “Special Allowances” paid to some Councillors such as the Leader, Cabinet and Committee Chairs by 31% in some cases and 94% in others. Commenting on this Duncan said:

“Whilst the panel have collected data from six other similar authorities near-by to make their recommendations they do not appear to have taken any account of the fact that all these authorities have significantly higher populations (on average over a third higher) than Bolsover. If this had been taken into account several of these special allowances would not go down not up, so I will be asking them to reconsider their recommendations”.

Ends.
———————————————————————————-
Cllr Duncan Kerr is a Green Party Councillor representing the Whitwell ward on Bolsover District Council. He was elected in May 2011

Email: DuncanKerr@Bolsover.gov.uk  or Kerr.duncan@hotmail.co.uk
Tel: 07522116609 or 01909 726349

The Bolsover Council meeting is at 10am on Wednesday 20th July, in Sherwood Lodge, Bolsover. Agenda item 14 refers and it was issued on the 14th July, three days after Cllr Kerr’s question was submitted.

Further information on other activities and a copy of the question Cllr Kerr has placed on the Council agenda for the 20th July is on his blog www.greeninbolsover.blogspot.com

Bolsover: The Rotten Borough

PRESS RELEASE FROM CLLR DUNCAN KERR, BOLSOVER DC

Councillor Duncan Kerr

13th July 2011 not embargoed

Duncan was elected for the Green Party to represent Whitwell on Bolsover Council two months ago but has been appalled by the selfish practices of the controlling Labour group. He will be calling Cllr Eion Watts the Leader of the Council to account by posing a question at the Council meeting in Sherwood Lodge, Bolsover on Wednesday the 20th July.

Duncan said “I am determined to expose the scandalous practices that have turned Bolsover into a rotten borough to the embarrassment of  residents, the MP Dennis Skinner and the leadership of the national Labour party who will be as shocked as I was to learn that:

  • The basic allowance that Bolsover Councillors have voted themselves is over £10,000 pa, higher than all the other 300+ District Councils. Similar Councillors in Derbyshire take less than half this although their house prices and cost of living are higher.
  • Not satisfied with double pay, up to half the Labour members get even more money for chairing Scrutiny Committees because they have ignored recommendations from their own government to hand these roles to opposition Councillors.
  • Although Bolsover is one of the smallest, and poorest Councils in Derbyshire the greed of its Labour Councillors makes the total cost of Democratic representation and management over £1.1M that’s nearly £1 in every £5 collected in Council tax for the District.
  • Public confidence in the Council is so weak that in the last 10 years no-one has ever attended a Council meeting to ask a question. Unlike local Parish Councils the over-paid Labour Councillors refuse to help hard working people by meeting in the evenings.
  • Cllr Watts talks endlessly about the need for cuts and redundancies but his own financial plans show that in the next two years the Council will increase its balances by at least £4M to over £10M as it pockets the £4.2M transition grant from the government. This should be invested not in another Icelandic bank but in insulating homes, generating renewable energy and creating new green jobs.
  • Whilst Council staff have been told to budge-up so their offices can be rented out, the Labour group have abused their position by turning the members areas into a private, under-used social club for their members only leaving new non-Labour councillors without a dedicated desk or PC let alone an office.

Duncan says “I may be a single green voice in a sea of red but I believe that the best disinfectant is the glare of public opinion and I intend to carry on exposing hypocrisy until every Councillor in Bolsover understands that the public will not tolerate excesses here anymore than they have in Westminster. The Labour Councillors need to start putting the needs of communities first before their own pockets. Their actions are crippling residents with high tax bills, creating unnecessary redundancies and dragging down the good name of Bolsover.

If any member of the public or press shares my indignation at this scandalous situation I would urge them to come and show their support at the Council meeting at 10.00 on Wednesday the 20th July in Sherwood Lodge, Bolsover. I’m sure we will all be fascinated to hear what Cllr Eion Watts Leader of the Council has to say”.

Ends.

———————————————————————————-
Email: DuncanKerr@Bolsover.gov.uk  or Kerr.duncan@hotmail.co.uk
Tel: 07522116609 or 01909 726349

There will be a photo-call at 9.15am on Wednesday the 20th July at Sherwood Lodge, Bolsover when Duncan will attempt to present a bill for £1 million to the Bolsover Labour party representing the cost to residents of the over-payment of member expenses from 2006 to 2011.

A copy of the full question that is being put to Cllr Watts is available from www.greeninbolsover.blogspot.com

Warning, when Choosing a Government, Read the Small Print.

A little noticed Bill has been introduced to the House of Lords, it’s called the Public Bodies [Reform] Bill. The Government claims that its purpose is to achieve greater efficiency and transparency in the operation of Statutory Bodies, achieving a saving of £1 billion. Achieving efficiency and value for public money is a laudable aim, and a periodic review of Public Bodies no bad thing to counter little empire building. However, it is difficult to see why abolishing an agency and privatising its functions will lead to greater transparency. The true purpose of the Bill is to merge, abolish them, or outsource their functions.

Forty-four bodies are scheduled for abolition. They include the Advisory Committees on Hazardous Substances and on Pesticides, the Commission for Rural Communities, all the Regional Development Agencies, and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. A further seventeen are to have their statutory duties altered, including the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the National Parks Authorities. It is to be presumed that they will have to become more business friendly. [For the full list see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/025/11025.15-18.html#j102s]

It is Ministers, their advisors, and lobbyists who will have the power to decide the fate of the Statutory Bodies named in the Bill. There will be no Parliamentary debate on their value or how best to discharge their functions. Ministers will be able to transfer functions and assets to the private sector. This may be an existing business, a mutual company, a charity, or voluntary organisation.

If the popular media notice this measure at all, it will be to cheer over the axing of ‘wasteful’ public bodies. But others with more political insight are raising serious concern, not simply on the substance of the Bill, but also its wider implications. Among those voicing concern is the House of Lords own Constitutional Committee, who recognise it as a calculated attack on our constitutional process.

Parliament, through primary legislation, established the Public Bodies due for ‘reform’. The ‘Reform’ Bill will remove from Parliament its right to amend its own legislation. Instead, Ministers will amend Parliamentary legislation, putting them on an equal footing with the democratically elected Parliament, and not subordinate to it. However, Ministers are appointed, not elected, they do not even have to be members of the elected chamber. For our democracy, this sets a dangerous president. If allowed, it will be done again, because that is how our unwritten constitution works, by precedent. An emboldened Government will see that it has a way of changing or abolishing primary legislation – in other words, the Law – without Parliamentary debate or approval. That is the path to dictatorship.

We are now getting the true flavour of the Conservative Party’s purpose. It’s not Big Society at all – remember, they once declared that society does not exist. It is Big Business. This Bill is part of the privatisation project, to pass the greater proportion of government functions and assets to the private sector, for them to discharge in any profitable way they see fit, which will be at our expense.

Where business sees no profit, or attractive assets, functions will be offered to the voluntary and charity sector. While this sector will do all it can with limited resources, it will have a limited reach and may choose to be selective, will, for example, a faith-based organisation accept obligations towards non-believers? How is the voluntary sector going to bridge the resource gap between rich and poor areas?

There is also the question of the regulation and enforcement duties that often makes Statutory Bodies a thorn in the side of Business. We can expect more self-regulation, for all the good that does. If an enforcement agency is being effective, business simply bleats to a sympathetic Minister, who can introduce and amendment naming the agency, to the Public Bodies [Reform] Act, for reasons of efficiency and transparency. After all something that isn’t there is fully transparent.

[Mike Shipley 23/11/10]

Caroline Lucas’ Maiden Speech To Parliament

Mr Speaker,

I am most grateful to you for calling me during today’s debate.

The environment is a subject dear to my heart, as I’m sure you know, and I’ll return to it in a moment.

I think anyone would find their first speech in this chamber daunting, given its history and traditions, and the many momentous events it has witnessed.

But I have an additional responsibility, which is to speak not only as the new Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, but also as the first representative of the Green Party to be elected to Westminster.

You have to go back several decades, to the election of the first Nationalist MPs in Scotland and Wales, to find the last maiden speech from a new national political party.

And perhaps a better comparison would be those first Socialist and Independent Labour MPs, over a century ago, whose arrival was seen as a sign of coming revolution.

When Keir Hardie made his maiden speech to this House, after winning the seat of West Ham South in 1892, there was an outcry.

Because instead of frock coat and top hat, he wore a tweed suit and deerstalker.  It’s hard to decide which of these choices would seem more inappropriate today.

But what Keir Hardie stood for now seems much more mainstream.

Progressive taxation, votes for women, free schooling, pensions and abolition of the House of Lords.

Though the last of these is an urgent task still before us, the rest are now seen as essential to our society.

What was once radical, even revolutionary, becomes understood, accepted and even cherished.

In speaking today, I am helped by an admirable tradition – that in your first speech to this House, you should refer to your constituency and to your predecessor.

David Lepper, who stood down at this election after thirteen years service as Member for Brighton Pavilion, was an enormously hard-working and highly-respected Member whose qualities transcend any differences of Party.  I am delighted to have this chance to thank him for his work on behalf of the people of Brighton.

It is also a great pleasure to speak about Brighton itself. It is, I am sure, well-known to many Members, if only from Party conferences.

My own Party has not yet grown to a size to justify the use of the Brighton Centre, although I hope that will change before long.

But I can say to honourable members who are not familiar with it,  that it is one of the UK’s premier conference venues; and there are proposals to invest in it further to help ensure that Brighton retains its status as the UK’s leading conference and tourism resort.

There are also the attractions of the shops and cafes of the Lanes and North Laine, the Pier and of course the Royal Pavilion itself, which gives its name to the constituency.

And beyond the immediate boundaries of the constituency and the city, there is the quietly beautiful countryside of the South Downs and the Sussex Weald.

Brighton has always had a tradition of independence – of doing things differently.   It has an entrepreneurial spirit, making the best of things whatever the circumstances, and enjoying being ahead of the curve.

We see this in the numbers of small businesses and freelancers within the constituency, and in the way in which diversity is not just tolerated, or respected, but positively welcomed and valued.

You have to work quite hard to be a “local character” in Brighton.

We do not have a single dominant employer in Brighton. As well as tourism and hospitality, we have two universities, whose students make an important cultural, as well as financial, contribution to the city.

There are also a large number of charities, campaigning groups and institutes based there, some local, others with a national or international reach, such as the Institute of Development Studies, all of which I will work to support in my time in this place.

I would like also to pay tribute to those wonderful Brighton organisations that work with women. In particular I’d like to mention Rise, who do amazing work with women who have been victims of domestic abuse.

Many of my constituents are employed in the public and voluntary sectors. They include doctors and teachers, nurses and police officers, and others from professions that do not always have the same level of attention or support from the media, or indeed from politicians.

But whatever the role – social workers, planning officers, highway engineers or border agency staff – we depend upon them.

I’m sure that members on all sides would agree that all those who work for the State should be respected and their contribution valued. In a time of cuts, with offhand comments about bureaucrats and pencil-pushers, that becomes yet more important.

There is also a Brighton that is perhaps less familiar to honourable members. The very popularity of the City puts pressure on transport and housing and on the quality of life.

Though there is prosperity, it is not shared equally. People are proud of Brighton, but they believe that it can be a better and fairer place to live and work.

I pledge to everything I can in this place to help achieve that, with a particular focus on creating more affordable, more sustainable housing.

Brighton was once the seat of the economist Henry Fawcett who, despite his blindness, was elected there in 1865. Shortly afterwards he married Millicent Garrett, later the leader of the suffragists, a movement he himself had supported and encouraged.

So he lent his name to the Fawcett Society, which is still campaigning for greater women’s representation in politics.

The task of ensuring that Parliament better reflects the people that it represents remains work in progress – and as the first woman elected in Brighton Pavilion, this is work that I will do all that I can do advance.

I said when I began that I found this occasion daunting.

Perhaps the most difficult task is to say a few words about the latest radical move that the people of Brighton have made – that is, to elect the first Green MP to Parliament.

It has been a long journey.

The Green Party traces its origins back to 1973, and the issues highlighted in its first Manifesto for a Sustainable Society – including security of energy supply, tackling pollution, raising standards of welfare and striving for steady state economics – are even more urgent today.

If our message had been heeded nearly 40 years ago, I like to think we would be much closer to the genuinely sustainable economy that we so urgently need,  than we currently are today.

We fielded fifty candidates in the 1979 general election as the Ecology Party, and began to win seats on local councils. Representation in the European Parliament and the London Assembly followed.

Now, after nearly four decades of the kind of work on doorsteps and in council chambers which I am sure honourable members are all too familiar, we have more candidates and more members, and now our first MP.

A long journey.

Too long, I would say.

Politics needs to renew itself, and allow new ideas and visions to emerge.

Otherwise debate is the poorer, and more and more people will feel that they are not represented.

So I hope that if, and when, other new political movements arise, they will not be excluded by the system of voting. Reform here, as in other areas, is long-overdue.

The chance must not be squandered.   Most crucially, the people themselves must be given a choice about the way their representatives are elected.

And in my view, that means more than a referendum on the Alternative Vote – it means the choice of a genuinely proportional electoral system.

Both before the election and afterwards, I have been asked the question: what can a single MP hope to achieve? I may not be alone in facing that question.

And since arriving in this place, and thinking about the contribution other members have made over the years, I am sure that the answer is clear, that a single MP can achieve a great deal.

A single MP can contribute to debates, to legislation, to scrutiny. Work that is valuable, if not always appreciated on the outside.

A single MP can speak up for their constituents.

A single MP can challenge the executive.  I am pleased that the government is to bring forward legislation to revoke a number of restrictions on people’s freedoms and liberties, such as identity cards.

But many restrictions remain. For example, control orders are to stay in force. Who is to speak for those affected and for the principle that people should not be held without charge, even if it is their own homes?

House arrest is something we deplore in other countries. I hope through debate we can conclude that it has no place here either.

A single MP can raise issues that cannot be aired elsewhere.

Last year Honourable Members from all sides of the House helped to shine a light on the actions of the international commodities trading group Trafigura, and the shipping of hazardous waste to the Ivory Coast.

There was particular concern that the media in this country were being prevented from reporting the issues fully and fairly.

This remains the case, for new legal actions concerning Trafigura have been launched in the Dutch courts, and are being reported widely in other countries, but not here.

Finally, I would like to touch on the subject of today’s debate.

I have worked on the causes and consequences of climate change for most of my working life, first with Oxfam – for the effects of climate change are already affecting millions of people in poorer countries around the world – and then for ten years in the European Parliament.

But if we are to overcome this threat, then it is we in this chamber who must take the lead.

We must act so that the United Kingdom can meet its own responsibilities to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing our climate, and encourage and support other countries to do the same.

This House has signed up to the 10:10 Campaign – 10% emissions reductions in 2010.  That’s very good news.  But the truth is that we need 10% emission cuts every year, year on year, until we reach a zero carbon economy.

And time is running short.  If we are to avoid irreversible climate change, then it is this Parliament that must meet this historic task.

That gives us an extraordinary responsibility – and an extraordinary opportunity.

Because the good news is that the action that we need to tackle the climate crisis is action which can improve the quality of life for all of us – better, more affordable public transport, better insulated homes, the end of fuel poverty, stronger local communities and economies, and many more jobs.

I look forward to working with Members from all sides of the House on advancing these issues.

The Need To Reform The House Of Lords

In their 1997 manifesto, Labour pledged to reform the House of Lords. Although they abolished hereditary peers, continuing reform has been botched in typical Blairite fashion, basically because both Labour and the Tories want an all-appointed chamber to stuff with their cronies. The House of Lords as it currently stands does some good work in terms of revising the badly-drafted and hurried legislation presented to it by the Commons, but we don’t believe that it is beyond corruption or independent. It is secretive: we know little of who the Lords work for and what interests they represent. We cannot question them, they are not accountable to us in any meaningful sense, and they are unlikely to be friendly towards any genuinely Green political programme. In short, the House of Lords as currently constituted is a highly conservative influence on the politics of this country, hard-wired into the established sources of power instead of the populus (you and me). In  the interests of democracy and transparency, we need to know who really makes decisions on our behalf, we need to be able to question them and, if need be, remove them. The corrupt behaviour of Parliament needs to be addressed, and an important step is to reform the Lords,  establishing it anew with all the checks and balances that befit a modern democracy in the 21st century.

For the full Green Party policy on the House of Lords visit http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspa.html