Archive for Governmental stupidity

Where I become subject to a Tree Preservation Order

Sunday 30th August, 2009 at 18:16:11 · Filed under Governmental stupidity, Plants, Politics, Trees

Returning from a hard day at work surfing the net and moving some Greek letters around on various bits of paper according to a highly esoteric scheme called “mathematics”, I was torn between excitement and forboding to find in my mailbox a healthily-filled A4-sized envelope which was sent “Recorded Signed For“, meaning that the sender paid for the knowledge that their message was delivered. Flicking the package around to look for the sender’s address — because one really can’t open mysterious post before one has comprehensively examined the packaging for clues as to its content — I learnt that the responsible party was the “Document Management Centre” at Warwick District Council.

Gulp.

Living in a benign but nonetheless strict authoritarian country such as the UK, one lives in constant fear that said authorities will find that one has broken some rule, not followed some bureaucratic procedure according to the bureaucracy’s whims, with the effect that one’s life becomes a little more uncomfortable as the full force of the Rule Of Law intrudes into it and demands satisfaction. So being sent a letter from a cryptically-named office of the local council could only be a bad thing. They don’t sound like the sort of place that gives out medals or tea with biscuits.

Excitement now properly squashed by foreboding, I peeled the envelope flap away, and slowly pulled out the sheaf within. It was a very official letter.

It was addressed to the “Owner/Occupier”. Phew! So it wasn’t something they could blame on me — or at least, not yet.

It was a… (and here I use Title Case where the council, in its transfinite wisdom, uses only capitals, probably with the successful intent to project authority)

Tree Preservation Order Notification
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

It was Tree Preservation Order 406, in fact, the other 405 having passed my blissfully by.

The next few paragraphs were extremely formal councilese concerning the council, the law, and trees. I was now utterly confused as to what this had to do with me. I had nothing against trees! I had not had an intimate encounter with a tree for many moons! Why bother me with Tree Orders of any kind, let alone Preservation ones?! Could it have been sent by mistake? This was a very far from implausible outcome.

Halfway down the page came the statement, which was the only non pro forma part of the letter judging by its distinct font:

The wellingtonia is located in a prominent road side location making a significant contribution to the character and amenity of the surrounding area

Well, that was very interesting information, but I still had no idea what it had to do with me. A careful re-reading of the letter revealed in the second paragraphs that it was because

The council is required by law to serve notice on landowners and occupiers of land on which the tree(s) is/are situated [[nice way to adjust the template to specific circumstances, my dear civil servants!]] and also owners and occupiers of adjoining land.

Now I understood that I live close to this tree… But I couldn’t think of what tree nearby was so important and so under threat that all this effort and expense was needed to save it from me and for me. Perhaps there was a picture of the tree that would simultaneously identify it to me and exemplify its unique vulnerable specialness?

So I turned to the other contents of the envelope. They were:

  • A [back to Normal Case for this:] “Copy of Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1990″, which was sent because it relates to “objections and representations” concerning new Tree Protection Orders. Unfortunately, the Copy didn’t state what a reasonable objection could be and what response could be expected beyond “Thanks, we’re going to recycle this now”.
  • An FAQ sheet full of questions that I imagine are not particularly frequently asked, such as “How can I find out if a tree has a TPO?”.
  • The actual TREE PRESERVATION ORDER! How exciting.

Except that the first few pages of the Order contained only lots of legalese and nothing about what the order was referring to, except Clause 4 which made sure nothing naughty would happen by proudly stating,

Without prejudice to subsections (6) and (7) of Section 198 (power to make tree
preservation orders) or Sub-Section (3) of Section 200 (tree preservation orders:
Forestry Commissioners), and subject to Article 5, no person shall:

(a) cut down, top, lop, uproot, wilfully damage or wilfully destroy; or

(b) cause or permit the cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damageor wilful
destruction of,

any tree specified in Schedule 1 to this Order or comprised in a group of trees or in a
woodland so specified, except with the consent of the Authority and where such consent
is given subject to conditions in accordance with those conditions.

I wouldn’t know how to lop even if I wanted to. Anyway, off to Schedule 1 to see which trees are being protected from such savagery as being topped and lopped:

[a few pages later, after far more detail about any possible circumstances involving trees and their protection than you'd even want to be involved with has been gone through....]

Schedule 1

Specification of Trees

Trees specified individually
(encircled in black on the map)
Reference on Map : Description : Situation
T1 : Wellingtonia : T1 is situated in the north east part of blah blah blah

Then followed other potential categories (“Trees specified by reference to an area”; “Groups of trees”; “Woodlands”) that today would not be necessary in order to save local treekind.

OK, so there must be a map! Turn over the page…

Schedule 2

Part I

Provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applied with adaptations or modifications

Provision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 : Adaptation of Modification

Section 69 (registers) : (a) In subsection (1) -
: (i) omit -
: “, [sic!!!] in such manner as may be described by a development order,”,
: “such” in the second place where it appears, and
: “as may be so prescribed”; and

and… so on for 3.5 pages more, going through modifications to Section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations), Section 75 (effect of planning permission) and so on to Section 79 (determination of appeals). All utter gobbledegook. Not to worry though! Part II of Schedule 2 applies all the omissions, adaptations, cut-and-pastes, censorings, doodlings and other nefarious symbol manipulations that Part I barked at us to get on with. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t make much sense in and of itself, let alone why it’s even there. I’m guessing it’s to do with some special provisions that they’re entitled to claim, but who knows?

At last we get to a shockingly detailed outline map of the surrounding area. It could have been drawn up by God’s architect. There is a very exact outline of every property with the number or name of each property superimposed, including of course mine. And there, right in the middle of the frame, is a small thick-lined circle labelled “T1″. [The title of the map is "Tree Preservation Order No 390", but who's counting? After all the pedantry of the law-quoting, I was relieved to see the human touch return].

But still no picture of the tree. And there wasn’t going to be one… The map was all the description we going to be given.

Who asked the tree to be protected? Why now? Why did all this bumf have to be sent for one tree and not just a letter? Why couldn’t it be sent as regular post instead of the pricier recorded post? How many other bored and confused residents had this treatise sent to them, at their own expense of course?

And above all: didn’t it strike anyone involved in this process as a touch ironic than in order to save this one tree — a tree that I still couldn’t identify from memory, despite sleeping every night only 60 metres away (according to the map, which was drawn at scale 1:1250) — several other trees had to be sacrificed first to be made into the bumf? I will definitely relish the stupidity and wastefulness (and soul-destroying technocraticism) that allowed this to happen as I finally put the Tree Preservation Order into the bin.

Addendum: There’s been some recent changes to the regulations, viz. The Town and Country Planning (Trees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008, which there was no mention of in my hefty epistle. Perhaps I should inform the council of this?

Addendumdum: It seems the council is well aware, because there’s a link to these latest regulations on the council dedicated TPO page, http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/TPO. Of particular delight there is their linked article on the (supposed) benefits of trees, which has about 12 academic articles supporting its many claims. If only all public policy was so well-researched! But trees have to take priority over crime and the education of children, of course.

Leave a Comment

Responding to the Government’s “consultation” on “earned citizenship”; simultaneously, banging head against rock

Saturday 22nd August, 2009 at 15:10:55 · Filed under Governmental stupidity, Politics

After the recent passing of the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill — already the eighth or so immigration law passed since 1997, and during its passage a lovely example of Bismarck’s attributed quotation concerning laws and sausages — the Government is now, in its usual kind concern for the well-being of everyone, canvassing opinions on what to do next. You see, even eight or so immigration laws isn’t enough, because they promised earlier on to have a Super-Duper Immigration Simplification Bill! And the BICB certainly didn’t simplify much, including as it does provisions such as:

(8) In paragraph (d) of that sub-paragraph—

(a) for “1(2)(d)” substitute “1(2)(f)”, and

(b) for “period there mentioned” substitute “qualifying period”.

At least the citizenship part of the Act version of the Bill (Part 2, if you’re counting) is so complicated that it prompted the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association to say of it,

This Part is also testimony to how, without consolidation, clauses are so unintelligible on their face that any scrutiny requires an advanced degree in immigration and nationality law.

So good going all round there on the simplification front. And so now more time has to be spent on writing and passing another law. Hence the need for “consultation”. Maybe I’m getting cynical at my young age, but I’m pretty sure the Government would skip this consultation step if there wasn’t a law somewhere that they had to have it. I’ll explain why I think this in a moment / a few paragraphs (please delete as appropriate, but don’t damage your computer screen).

The consultation documents are available at the Home Office website. It’s as full of guff as you might expect. One prime idea they’re “consulting” on is (from the Executive Summary):

28. A further means to promote integration might be for local authorities to run orientation days for migrants, to provide information about local services and resources to help them integrate more quickly. This would also deliver benefits for the local authority by providing data about newcomers to the area. Orientation days could be either voluntary or compulsory, and could be linked to a points test for citizenship. We would expect local authorities to recover their costs by charging for attending orientation events.

We would welcome views on whether orientation days should be introduced and how they should be organised – including whether they should be compulsory and whether they should attract points.

My view is that it’s an idiotic idea and a waste of everyone’s time, and that a compulsory orientation day that must be paid for by the immigrant is ripe for abuse, as well as being immoral. But why should my view matter? What are the criteria by which submissions are judged worthy or otherwise? Except to the extent they agree with the Government’s position already, of course.

But you are all fired up either way and want to tell them exactly what you think about their proposals, and being tech-savvy, you opt to “Respond to the consultation online”, only to be confronted with this. “This” is an online questionnaire run by… surveymonkey.com! They are the refuge of every social sciences graduate student who needs some data, and fast. They are free up to 100 responses, beyond which they can cost up to $200 a year. This is the kind of efficient government I like to see, except… surveymonkey is based in the US. No, I’m not protectionist at all, but I am worried about data privacy. Data protection are utterly different in America than in the UK (or indeed the EU in general), and yet here our political opinions are being sent across the Atlantic without so much as warning as to the consequences.

And now for the justification of my earlier cynicism regarding why this “consultation” is only so much a waste of everyone’s time and that the Government will only draw conclusions that it would have anyway. Consider the very first question of the survey — I mean, “consultation” — and the possible responses:

1. Do you agree that we should operate a flexible system that allows us to control the number of migrants progressing to probationary citizenship?
* Yes
* No
* Don’t know
If no, why not?

First, the question is put in terms of an agreement with the Government’s position, rather than just asking straight about the consultee’s opinion. Secondly, the biased language: who would be against a “flexible system”? Only crazy ideologues.

But lastly and most crazily: They only ask “why” you answered a particular way if you answered that you don’t agree with them. Just, wow.

Suffice to say I didn’t send my pointless response to HMG and the CIA. Instead I just pointlessly wrote about it here. But ceteris parabus, Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!

Leave a Comment

Update on realhelpnow.gov.uk

Friday 17th July, 2009 at 21:38:17 · Filed under Correspondence, FOI, Governmental stupidity, Politics ·Tagged , , ,

The Freedom of Information request I sent concerning http://www.realhelpnow.gov.uk — the stupendously pointless Government website I first noticed back in February — was responded to back in April. I was quite bamboozled by it, but seeing and chatting to the inesteemable Heather Brooke — the FoI-exploiting journalist who did much to bring about the delightful MPs’ expenses scandal — at OpenTech has encouraged me to look at it again full on.

In response to my request, the Cabinet Office, the unfunny jokers behind the site [and I'm not sure what else the point of the Cabinet Office is; a naive person might conclude, going purely by their name, that they're supposed to support the Cabinet, but I can't see how realhelpnow fits into that], told me the following:

1. Emails discussing the reasons for setting the site up and what content to include;
minutes of meetings discussing the same issues

The Cabinet Office does hold information within the scope of this part of your
request. This information is however exempt under Section 35 (Formulation of
Government Policy) of the Act. Consideration has been given to whether it would
be in the public interest to release the information we hold relating to this part of
your request. We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the
exclusion outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Now when I first saw this, I was utterly confused. They can tell me this information exists, and it does… but they’re not going to give it to me. None of it. First off, I can’t see how deciding this site should exist and what to put there when it does is “formulating Government policy”. Secondly, I also can’t see how what is in the “public interest” can be decided by them. It is the public that funded this stupid site! Aren’t members of the civil service also members of the public? Were they blinded and corrupted by the process of discussing this site to the extent that they now wish more than anything else to protect us from it? Lastly, even if they could decide on our behalf whether it’d be good for us to know just what they said to each other behind the scenes… how did they do it?! They just say they thought about it a bit and then, nah, they really don’t think it’s in our interests. Is that it? An internal review is on its way just for that, because apparently that’s what the next step is.

2. Stakeholders’ comments regarding the setting up of the site and/or its content

No such information is held by the Cabinet Office.

So no-one outside the Government was consulted. Great idea! It’s not like anyone else would have ideas for how you can provide “real help now”.

3. The budget relating to the setting up and maintenance of the site, and how this
was agreed upon

The Cabinet Office holds some information within the scope of this part of your
request. However under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act we are not
required to provide information in response to a request if that information is
freely available to the applicant. The information was requested in a
Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from Grant Shapps MP on 26 February 2009 and is available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm under question number
259523.

The Cabinet Office also holds information within the scope of this part of your
request which is exempt under Section 35 (Formulation of Government Policy) of
the Act. Consideration has been given to whether it would be in the public interest
to release the information we hold relating to this part of your request. We have
decided that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information.

So an MP decided to ask about the site’s budget in Parliament, got a response — which apparently was not detrimental enough to the Government, the Queen, the country, and God to publish it — and the rest, well, is harmful to all that is good and great around here. Argh.

The MP, Grant Shapps, for what it’s worth, asked more than just one question about this site. I wonder why. Here are better links to his all of his questions, and the slightly evasive answers:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090420/text/90420w0083.htm#qn_729

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090316/text/90316w0030.htm#qn_306

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090320/text/90320w0004.htm#qn_37

The first question:

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what budget has been assigned to his Department’s Real Help Now website for each of the next three years; and whether other Government Departments have provided funding. [259523]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

The development budget for the site in this financial year (2008-09) was less than £10,000 and falls within the existing Cabinet Office communications budget. Ongoing maintenance costs for the site will form part within the Cabinet Office communications budget which is yet to be agreed for the next three years. No other Departments have provided funding.

Less than £10,000. Does that mean they got a bargain for £9,999.99 at half the price?

The second question:

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what private sector support has been provided to his Department’s Real Help Now website. [259457]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

No private-sector support has been provided to the website. A private-sector contractor was engaged under standard Cabinet Office procurement arrangements to assist in the technical development of the website.

Thanks for repeating the information in the first paragraph about the site, Mr. Byrne. That’s really useful.

The second paragraph confirms that they decided not to ask anyone outside Whitehall whether they actually want this site to exist and, if so, what they’d like to see there. The “private-sector contractor”, I found out by exercising some hard-core googleskillz, is some funky cool company called Puffbox, who admit their involvement for all to see here. The information they give about the project is revealing: It was set up by creating an account at delicious.com, the online bookmarking service owned by Yahoo!, and pulling sites added there onto the site, with positioning depending on tags. Videos are are pulled from youtube. And, er, that’s it. This took two weeks and £10,000? No wonder Government IT programmes are such a disaster zone. As the boxpuffer-in-chief admits:

We aren’t making any great claims for this site: it is what it is, a pretty front end, courtesy of regular collaborator Jonathan Harris, pointing to other people’s material, plus a (first person) message from the Prime Minister. But if it can establish itself, there’s naturally plenty of scope to extend and expand into something more communicative and interactive.

From what I can see, that doesn’t seem to have happened. Since the last time I checked three months ago there are now testimonials from Real People about how the Government has helped them with soft loans; PDF scans of leaflets for women, over 60s and, erm, communities (what’s the opposite of one of those, and am I one?); and oodles of links to DirectGov and BusinessLink, two of the larger Government portals. And that’s it. Hmm. Depressing.

The third question from the MP was

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of staff (a) employed by the Cabinet Office and (b) seconded from other departments have responsibility for the Real Help Now website. [259747]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

The development work on the website took less than two weeks and was overseen by the existing Cabinet Office website team, supported by one member of staff on part-time secondment from another government department. One member of the Cabinet Office web team has ongoing responsibility for updates to the website as part of their existing duties.

So more of the same. Literally so in the case of the first paragraph.

The last part of the response from the Cabinet Office to me was the most revealing of all:

4. The content and conclusions of any discussions concerning whether the site is a
cost-effective use of civil servants’ time and/or taxpayers’ money, and whether or
not it breaches rules concerning political neutrality

No such information is held by the Cabinet Office.

You couldn’t make it up.

A request for an internal review is on its way right now…

Comments (3)

The case that led to the historic Gurkha vote yesterday in Parliament, along with other neglected details of the affair

Thursday 30th April, 2009 at 15:36:14 · Filed under Governmental stupidity, Gurkhas, Justice, Media, Politics

I am extremely pleased that Parliament has found some of its long-missing dignity and voted — with still too small a margin — in favour of the motion to get rid of the idiotic rules that prevent Gurkhas who were discharged before the arbitrary date of the first of July 1997 from applying to settle here, and more generally to re-acclaim the obvious principle that those who fight for this country should be allowed to live in this country if they so wish. (A video and transcript of the debate can be found at theyworkforyou.com [watch out for the poignant comment left on the site by an ex-Gurkha]; the roll call of votes is available at publicwhip.org.uk. I note that my MP, James Plaskitt of the Warwick and Leamington Constituency, voted with the Government. Does he not wonder why every single member of the opposition parties, and many Labour MPs, voted differently?).

The news coverage of the event was welcome but flawed in two important ways. Firstly, it did not clearly explain the context of the vote and why it was happening; secondly, the reporters quickly became engrossed in what the defeat of the Government means for Gordon Brown’s political career and if the vote is “embarrassing” for him. This is a real shame, as otherwise the layperson who only just tuned in to the story (like me) would not understand what exactly was being achieved, or indeed just how disgraceful the Government’s actions were.

I am still reading about the background to the case using whatever primary materials are available online. I know now, for example, that the reason for the debate was that the Government had promulgated new rules for dealing with Gurkhas’ settlement claims that were somehow abysmal. But why had the Government gone to the trouble in the first place? I’m not sure of the reason for the timing, but the trigger seems to be a High Court ruling [given, if you want to be precise, in the Administrative Court of the England and Wales High Court] in September 2008. It took me a long time to find the actual judgment, because news articles of the court case neglected to link to it and because those news articles are what dominate search engine listings related to the case, but now, for the record, here it is:

Limbu & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2008] EWHC 2261 (Admin) (30 September 2008), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2261.html

It is well worth a read to understand just why the Gurkhas are so deserving of our support in this case and in general, and to seriously bring into question how anyone can support this current Government, which is shown in a court of law to be entirely without scruples or honour.

If I have time I would like to write more about the Gurkhas. But I can’t promise anything, sadly…

Leave a Comment

Real Help Now — for you or for them?

Thursday 26th February, 2009 at 20:37:11 · Filed under FOI, Governmental stupidity, Politics

Compare:

www.realhelpnow.gov.uk
www.realhelpnow.org.uk

Discuss.

NB. I’m trying to find out how the hell the Government thought it could come up with such a monstrosity and get away with it: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/consultation_and_budget_relating

Comments (1)