Author: johnredwood

There is still plenty of work to do to raise efficiency and quality in various public services. Some in the public sector seem to think efficiency means cuts, and cuts means lower quality. That is not the way to do it. Doing things efficiently should mean doing them better.

If you get something right first time you avoid the costs of changing and remedying, or the even bigger costs of having to apologise and compensate if the good or service has gone out in bad shape. If you harness more machine and computing power to a good programme design you can improve accuracy and quality whilst speeding up the process and cutting its cost. Modern digital technology offers huge scope to both raise quality and cut costs if done well. It also offers new ways to mess things up and to make life more difficult for the consumer.

Let’s take the case of NHS supplies. A good system would cut down stockholding of drugs and specialised food products in the system, reducing waste from poor holding and handling, and from items going out of date. More just in time deliveries to hospitals, surgeries and users would reduce the amount of medicine or specialist food that is tipped away as unwanted when a patient recovers. Some hospitals still do not have computer controlled drug dispensing, with suitable controls over what is administered, when and in what quantities. Doing it through a drugs trolley with staff members reading the notes and then finding the medicine leaves more scope for error than a system based on a patients computer record and computerised handling of the required drugs. I have talked before about the return and reuse of hardware like wheelchairs, crutches and other aids.

There is the direction and use of manpower. Public service personnel are crucial to successful public services. Their dedication and professional skill are the essence of much of it. Not only do they need proper computer and machine back up to do their jobs, but they also need intelligent direction of effort by management who see where they are needed and can make their best input. Some managers do this well, but there needs to be a constant effort to ensure personnel are well deployed. I have seen cases where two health visitors have turned up to an elderly person facing a problem, only to discover neither of them could resolve the query. Home visits are important but are expensive, so it is crucial the preparation for them directs the right manpower to the right home to sort the issue.

The Prime Minister tells us the government is committed to Brexit and wishes to deliver the benefits it can bring. That is good news.

I look forward to early news from the government on the following.

First, I want to know how all the money saved is going to be spent, and a sense of urgency in getting us out of financial commitments as soon as possible. I have set out my own suggestions for increased spending on health, social care and other priorities. Spending that money at home gives a 0.6% GDP boost and saves us a lot of money on our balance of payments deficit.

Second, I want to see our new fishing policy as we become an independent coastal state. We need a policy that is kinder to our fish and our fishermen, and which lands more the fish caught in the UK for UK consumption.

Third, I want to see a new migration and borders policy which is fair between EU and non EU migrants, and assists the government in hitting its targets for levels of migration.

Fourth, I want to see the Trade Department roll over the current EU trade agreements with other countries into UK agreements and make good progress on negotiating good agreements with more of the 90% of the non EU world that does not have a trade agreement with the EU. I want the UK to offer reduced tariffs and barriers to developing countries in return for more market access for ourselves.

Fifth I want to see tax cuts in areas where we cannot cut taxes at the moment, including the abolition of VAT on green products and domestic fuel.

Sixth I want to hear what our global agenda will be as we regain our vote and voice on a number of important international bodies.

I have been extremely busy for the last two days with a lot of activity in the Commons and many votes to attend to.

I am currently unable to handle the volume of postings from some people, and the length of many postings. Where people have posted many and long postings I am deleting some to reduce the backlog. Some people do get away with a lot of short postings, because I moderate the short ones first. I do not delete based on whether they are pro or anti. I do delete posts that make unfair or unproven allegations against anyone, whatever their politics.

The House of Commons keeps returning to the issue of customs. Yesterday the Opposition decided to spend virtually the whole day once again rehearsing the same old arguments.

Labour presented it latest version of its policy. Apparently they want to be in a customs union with the EU but not in The Customs Union the EU already has. They want a “strong single market deal based on shared regulations and shared institutions” which sounds much like staying in The single market, but assume “freedom of movement will end”. Gone are all the fine words of the Labour Manifesto setting out how the UK will have a distinctive independent trade policy after Brexit. It is difficult to see how this latest view would ever be negotiable with an Institution which has always said belonging to the customs union and single market comes with the four freedoms attached, including freedom of movement. It also requires payment of budget contributions and acceptance of the European Court’s supremacy. It also led to a massive Labour rebellion on one of the votes.

Why has Labour changed its stance from the General Election, which was to back Brexit and set out on an independent path? We were told yesterday again that they are worried that manufacturers running just in time systems in the UK will not be able to import parts from the continent if we leave. How bizarre! UK manufacturers runs complex supply chains with just in time deliveries at the moment using parts from outside the EU, and that works fine! The continental suppliers would have every incentive to carry on supplying in time, as their jobs and income depend on it. Why do Remain MPs now pretend we did not know we were voting to leave the single market and customs union, when both official campaigns in the referendum told us just that and actually agreed on this point!

Meanwhile the government seeks to negotiate smooth border arrangements and sensible customs arrangements. It would be a good idea for the Uk to offer tariff free trade and see if the EU does want that or not. Some wrongly say they have not yet invented the computer systems to handle customs charges without stopping trucks at borders and working it out on a calculator there and then. They need to go and visit a large trucking firm and see that there are already smooth ways of paying customs dues on line with electronic filings which we and the rest of the EU use for the non EU trade which does attract customs dues.

The SNP walk out today over an EU debate reminded some MPs of the previous walk out by Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats in February 2008. Then Speaker Martin refused to allow debate on one of their amendments which wanted an In/Out referendum on the EU. As Nick Clegg said “It is time to give the British people a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union” . That idea did not go too well for him or his party. I still treasure the yellow leaflet they sent out telling me it was vital the “British people have a say in a real referendum”.

I believe in Parliamentary sovereignty, subject to the ultimate sovereignty of the British people. In recent debates some have sought to suggest that those who favour Brexit, who made the case for restoring the sovereignty of the British people and their Parliament, now no longer reflect this view because we wish to limit Parliament’s role in the Brexit process.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Parliament reasserted its sovereignty vis a vis the EU by offering Uk voters a vote on whether to stay or to leave the EU. The government on behalf of Parliament made it clear in a leaflet to all voting households that we the people would make the decision. When we leave the EU Parliament will once again be able to exercise the people’s sovereignty over all government issues, freed of the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court and the EU Council.

When the voters made a decision which a majority of MPs did not agree with Parliament had to make a choice. Should it honour its promise to the British people, or should it seek to overturn the decision of the people? Wisely Parliament decided to implement the wishes of the people by voting strongly in favour of sending the Article 50 letter notifying the EU of our intention to leave on 29 March 2019 in accordance with treaty law. In a General election voters reaffirmed their view on the EU by voting overwhelmingly for the two main parties who both promised Brexit and rejecting the main party that offered a second referendum or a stay in option. The Commons followed up by approving the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Some in Parliament seem to think Parliament can keep on changing its mind on this matter. They seek a further Parliamentary vote with the intent of overturning the decision of the British people and contradicting all the previous votes in Parliament on this topic. I urge Parliament not to do this. It would be difficult for the world to take the UK seriously if its Parliament kept changing its mind about whether to leave or remain in the EU.It is difficult to see why Parliament rightly thought it should honour its promise to voters in 2017, only to alter course in 2018. If after filing to leave and undertaking negotiations over the process of leaving the UK announced it wished to reverse this process, the EU would be entitled to be difficult insisting we stick to our Article 50 letter or they could demand a high price for agreement to rejoin. It would also drive a mighty new wedge between people and Parliament with people angry that their wishes had been ignored.

There are today 79,900 Venezuelan bolivars to one dollar, compared with 10 last year according to the official rate. No-one can be sure how big the drop has been in national income and output because the government no longer produces figures. There are shortages of many basic items in the shops. An authoritarian government distributes items to those it favours and damages the right to vote for change. What we do know is that thanks to nationalisation, the Venezuelan oil industry has fallen on very hard times.

Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves of any country in the world. Before Chavez took power, Venezuela produced and sold 3.5 m barrels a day. This was modest output compared to the USA or Saudi at around 12 m barrels a day, and eminently sustainable. Under sensible management with private sector expertise, technology and investment it would have been possible to expand output substantially and add to state revenues. Instead today Venezuela struggles to produce just 1.5m barrels.

This came about by forcing oil companies that were producing good quantities for Venezuela into accepting very poor joint ventures with the state, or appropriating their assets. The people who knew how to run the enterprises were replaced. The state overtaxed the exports, leaving the nationalised industry short of cash to maintain and modernise its production assets and to keep its fleet of tankers for export up to international standards. The nationalisation was meant to give the government full control to allow it to perform better and more in the interests of the state. Instead it has led to a sharp drop in output, in state revenues and exports. This is particularly worrying for the country as it is chronically dependent on oil exports for its failing balance of payments, and on oil revenues to meet the costs of government.

We read that the EU wishes to follow its veto over the UK’s positive and generous proposals so far with a further push to demand we continue with freedom of movement. This could well be the item that persuades more UK voters that No Deal is the best option.

The EU has broadly stuck to its mantra that you cannot belong to the trade part of the EU without paying contributions, accepting their laws and agreeing freedom of movement. Accepting this many of us said we must leave the Custons Union and single market when we leave the EU. We said offer them a free trade deal. The EU has not even been prepared to talk about this.

This is where they are overplaying their hand. A Free Trade deal is more in their interest than ours. Expecting the kind of concessions from us that they could seek if we wanted to stay in their single market just puts many sensible British voters off any kind of deal.

So now the EU tries to make the Irish border into an issue which can delay Brexit, with no good reason, and works with Remain forces in the UK to tell us we will suffer if we just leave.

The government has nine more months to make sure everything works if we leave without a deal. It needs to show how easy it is to apply the methods we use for non EU trade to EU trade as well. By showing its resolve to do so it will give itself the only chance of actually securing a deal which might be worth considering.

Southern Rail has delivered a very poor service for months thanks to a Union dispute on the line. Northern Rail is now delivering a bad service thanks to mismanagement of a new timetable designed to provide a better service. The one criticism that is unfair is the criticism that says of the problems the North is now experiencing happened in the south they would get fixed. They were not. There is an equality of misery around the country with cancelled and delayed trains not concentrated in one part.

The government and the Transport Secretary are well aware of the problems, and wants things to get better. There has been no shortage of financial resource into Network Rail in recent years. There have been endless government responses to poor performance by elements of the rail industry when they let the customers down. Ministers can only intervene when Network Rail and a train operating company have failed to meet targets and promises. Day to day the operating companies and Network Rail run the trains, make the decisions and are answerable to the public. In each case it is important to see what has caused the problems and to ask what could solve them.

In the case of Southern it is reminder of the poor labour relations we often experienced in nationalised days. Then Union action threatened the whole network, where today it is more likely to be concentrated on one or two lines or companies. The nationalised tube has shown that nationalisation does not eliminate labour disputes.

In the case of Northern the main problem was the inability of Network Rail, the large nationalised part of the current railway, to provide the train slots and track capacity they promised for the train operating company to deliver the revised and improved service. They delayed responding to the new timetable proposals, then replied late with a different and more limited pattern.

The senior personnel at Network Rail are paid very high salaries, miles above the pay of the PM and Transport Secretary, for doing public sector jobs with access to huge sums of public money. We need more investigation of how and why Network Rail has let us down again with the advent of this new timetable. Why didn’t they say earlier in discussions that the new timetable was too demanding? Can we at least have the satisfaction of knowing that some of those (7 Executive Committee members) paid more than £300,000 a year for making Network Rail work will face a financial penalty for the failures?