LARA ... Write a letter to your MP.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Have a look at GLEAMS latest newsletter, it openly admits to having the DEFRA minister in charge of RoW as a member. All the letters sent ended up with him.

http://www.gleam-uk.org/newsletters/Gleam Autumn 2010.pdf

I have written to my MP, ...

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Hi Ester, I don’t know if you remember me, I wrote to you in July this year asking you to pass on a letter to Mr Nick Clegg with reference to getting section 67 of the NERC act 2006 repealed. Using the old school tie network, section 67 was pushed through parliament by a wealthy landowner’s pressure group that goes under the name GLEAM. Rights of way across private land greatly devalues the land and it is the intention of GLEAM to remove all MPV (Motor Powered Vehicles) from all rights of way in the UK regardless of either the intention of Parliament, need or sustainability of such use.

The DEFRA Minister in charge of rights of way issues is Mr Richard Benyon MP. Can you imagine my outrage today when I read in the latest GLEAM newsletter that Mr Benyon is a member and staunch supporter of GLEAM. I don’t have an issue with Mr Benyon being a member of GLEAM as such, but I am very concerned when it might affect his ability to take representation from myself and other members of the public and to make an unbiased and fair decision based upon the facts that have been properly researched and confirmed by an independent and neutral body.

In the GLEAM newsletter it states the following:

”Friends at Court – or in the Government

GLEAM is extremely fortunate in two of the ministerial appointments in the new Government. Both appointments are as Ministers of State within Defra, and both are long-standing Honorary Members and staunch supporters of GLEAM, to whom they are very well known.

Jim Paice (MP for South-East Cambridgeshire) has been appointed Minister of State for Agriculture and Food. During the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Bill in 2005-06 he was GLEAM’s and GLPG’s main contact in the Commons. His presentation of our case and his demolition of LARA and the Trail Riders Fellowship were masterly.

Richard Benyon (MP for Newbury, GLEAM’s ‘home territory’) has been appointed Minister of State for the Natural Environment and Fisheries. Access and Rights of Way are part of his portfolio. He is a most valuable source of parliamentary advice, and he regularly attends GLEAM’s Annual General Meeting in Newbury. At present we are in active contact with him in opposing LARA and TRF’s campaign to get s67 NERC Act repealed. “

The newsletter then goes on to say

“LARA’s campaign followed the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s suggestion that members of the public should write to their MP suggesting unnecessary legislation that should be repealed. LARA urged their members to do this, addressing what they called “unintended consequences” of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the NERC Act. As soon as we learned of this campaign, GLEAM countered it at ministerial level. We wrote to Richard Benyon MP, a long-standing Honorary Member and staunch supporter of GLEAM, who is now Minister of State for the Natural Environment and Fisheries, and who includes Rights of Way in his portfolio. We countered each one of LARA’s campaign points in detail, on grounds that it was either environmentally undesirable, or unworkable, or irrelevant, or would be retrospectively ineffective. In this way, when Mr Benyon had letters passed to him by MPs or by the Deputy Prime Minister, he would have the answers readily available to him.

We received an e-mail of thanks back from Mr Benyon in which he said “I have sent your thoughts on to Officials. Don’t worry, s67 is safe with me.”

I put it to you in the strongest possible terms that, from the GLEAM statement, it appears I can have no trust or confidence that Mr Benyon will take my concerns either seriously or with an open and unbiased view.

I also find it questionable that Mr Benyon appears to have not declared his personal interest in this matter or that he has taken advice on the matter from a self interested pressure group with a declared agenda to remove currently legal public access from the rights of way regardless of any consideration of those who wish to exercise those rights.

The Deputy Prime Minister asked that members of the public submit requests to him to repeal recent legislation where it is ineffectual or otherwise flawed. If the Minister who then deals with letters from the public and requests for advice from MP's has already made up his mind and has pre prepared to counter any such requests, then how can the public have any belief that this Government is either willing or able to deal with their concerns?

The involvement of a self interested pressure group who has openly stated they have a Minister working for them and even quotes from an e-mail where the Minister tells them : "Don't worry, s67 is safe with me.." does clearly show that the said Minister is biased and pre determined a course of action without any consideration of the facts or alternative views.

I would like you, as my MP, to look further into this matter for me and would ask you to remind Mr Benyon that MP’s take an oath and agree to adhere to certain standards of practice which include:

SELFLESSNESS
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

I would also ask that you pass on a copy of this letter to the Deputy Prime Minister so that he becomes fully aware of the underhanded way Mr Benyon has handled this matter.


Yours sincerely
Click to expand...
 
The issue here is that while we, as a group, have no political weight to bring on the powers that make the decisions... several other groups, including GLEAM and the RA, have access to many officials... MPs and otherwise, who are only too willing to jump on to what they see as a politically inviting bandwagon.

Since there are no organisations, to my knowledge, with equal advantages to those who have organised themselves to oppose our legitimate enjoyment of the countryside; we are facing a difficult challenge.

Our letters to our member of parliament are a start. They may seem little, and perhaps late; but they do illustrate that the argument is not one sided.

We desperately need a spokesperson who will, with vigour and dedication, argue for limited (as we currently have), access to the countryside for less abled people and those who wish to enjoy the countryside from the comfort of their vehicle.

It is all too simple to point to examples of damage to lanes, caused by vehicles that would not be deterred by legal restrictions; and announce from a large soapbox that this would not happen if vehicles were banned. We need someone who will stand up and shout "This is untrue bollocks! If they are causing damage now they will do so in SPITE of legal restrictions!"

It is a sad, but accurate, state of our freedom to explore the countryside that the people who now proclaim their excllusive right to protect it; hail from a society whose sole agenda is to restrict access to it for anyone who is less able than themselves.

This include my two and four year old girls who benefit from green lanes in ways that their contempories do not.

Rant Over...
 
Ryder said:
Maybe, I now that Ratty is keeping an eye on here and it is already a sticky on the green laning bit...

Am still al ittle disappointed with the response though. If half the people who say they are pro green laning on this forum stick the mouths where there typing fingers live... we should be able to get a decent response going!
Click to expand...

I have just read this and sent an email to Ben Gummer.... my MP

Perhaps the reason that there is not much responce to the stickey is by its nature stuck in one place, unless the headline is interesting one and something your looking for, people dont look at it, I know I dont I was bored so stared to go through all the sticky's that I had not read.
 
Floyd_Fan

I have just re-read the content of your letter... I think that you should forward a copy of it, along with the bits highlighted where you questrion the impartiality of the mp... to both the local and the national papers.

This is a flagrant admission of being in the corrupt employ of a pressure group.

Cheers

C
 
Fellow Greenlaners,

I have just had this responce from my MP's Personel, Kate Hulme.

"Mr Carpenter,

Thank you very much for your recent email to Ben about the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. You refer to the statute causing very unfair and unreasonable effects. It would be interesting for Ben to hear more about this. Would you be interested in going along to one of his Ben in the Pub sessions to meet him in person and discuss further? Please let us know if you are and I will ask my colleagues in the constituency office to pass on the details. Kate Lacey (who looks after the diary) is copied here.

Kate."

Now I understand that this act has/will impact on many aspects of access to the countryside, and that with out more consultaion with groups like ours, for example a lane can be closed with very little effort, is this correct.

I would like to understand the effects in more depth so I can attend the offered fourm, perhaps take someone who is in the same constuitancy as Ben Gummer so we can fully persent a full and consise case for our augument.

I look forward to your responces.

Stu
 
Last edited:
Got a reply from my MP today....
Dear Jon

Thank you for your email.

I fully appreciate the concerns you raise and will write to the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs on your behalf.

Whilst I understand your concerns I think it’s only right we deduce the full facts and ensure all information is in context.

As soon as I have a response I will be back in touch

Kind regards

Esther



Esther McVey

Member of Parliament for Wirral West.

House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA.
Click to expand...
 
Surprise surprise the Gleam link has been taken down from My Mp has requested that I resend the link so that they can loom into it. Typical I did not save the file did anyone else?
 
Got another letter from my MP today. Basically its a copy of a letter sent to her from the deputy PMs office saying they had received the letter she passed on from me, and its being looked into. I shall wait with bated breath.

Cheers ... FF ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Semi-strange question - why L322 is a 'truck'?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
JimS
JimS
The Mad Hat Man
Guilt by association and section 59 tickets
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
marjon
marjon
S
L322 A Couple of Things.........
Replies
2
Views
271
Datatek
Datatek
S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
SootScout
I recorded over 200 trips on my 2017 Discovery Sport to find out if its DPF is fit for purpose
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Plasser
P
Back
Top