I have been stressing to government Ministers that more needs to be done to ease the pressure on family bills, and more needs to be done to move the economy forwards more rapidly. I welcome the measures the government has taken to keep Council Tax down for the last two years, and welcome the increase in Income Tax Thresholds. Every little helps. Our local Council has to work hard to keep its bills down when it receives much less grant than many other Councils for services other than schools.

This week the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury has come out with an important paper striving to get more value for every pound spent by national government. He rightly thinks a lot more can and should be done to ensure public money is spent wisely, and confined to those things which only the public sector can do and where there is general public enthusiasm for the public service. I aim to keep the costs of my Parliamentary office well below the level of the average MP, to show that you can run parts of the public sector for less and still deliver a good service. I am hoping it was around half the average last year.

I do not think this year is a good time to be discussing setting up a new House of Lords, with salaried Senators backed by expensive offices putting a new charge on the taxpayer. I have been urging Ministers to delay any such idea. I have also had numerous emails against any change to the marriage laws. I recommend that all who feel strongly about it should respond to the government’s consultation. Again, I am not keen to see such contentious legislation coming forward as a priority when we need to concentrate government energy on securing a good economic recovery.

I am getting used to my blue bag for the refuse. It turned out to be bigger and tougher than some feared, and seems to do the job just fine. It is good to have weekly recycling collections, so you can keep more materials for reuse without space and bin problems.

Different people also have different ideas over how much income or wealth makes you rich. On most definitions there is not enough money that can be taken from the rich to pay all the bills. That’s why all sections are being charged more, with the richest taking the biggest hit in cash terms and as a proportion of their incomes. I have to explain to some MPs that an income of £40,000 in Wokingham is far from making someone rich, when you look at the high house prices people have to manage.

I have received a number of emails about a possible further assault on our civil liberties. That is the last thing I want. I am keen that this government should restore and improve our freedoms, as they started to do by cancelling the ID card scheme and reconsidering detention without trial. Mr Clarke’s latest proposal to allow certain evidence from the Intelligence services to be heard in private by a judge to protect the individuals and sources involved has alarmed some. This, believe it or not, is intended to be a small improvement in our freedoms. At the moment some of this secret evidence cannot be heard at all, as it is banned from court use. The idea is to replace some of the present bans on intelligence material and allow a Judge to hear it in private so it can be used in a case. I think I welcome that as a small advance in the right direction.

The government also claims that its wish to make internet service providers keep more records about who we email and which sites we visit for a period of a year does not amount to a win for Big Brother. They say that the authorities will not be able to read our emails without a warrant. The Coalition has scrapped the outgoing government’s idea of a big government database recording all our communications. I will need to study the small print of this proposal. Most of us have no problem with the investigating authorities seeking to track down terrorism or drug crime being able to eavesdrop and monitor the communications of those under suspicion. This should require a independent Judge to issue a warrant to authorise such surveillance. We do have problems with the authorities wanting to keep tabs on millions of law abiding people, and spending public money on large registers and data stores to do just that.

There is a growing suspicion of the state, thanks to the intrusions it makes and the large demands it has on our incomes. All in public sector management have to work hard to ensure the state serves the public well for a realistic cost. There is more to do to bring this about.

Instead, I did hear a welcome cut in Income Tax for most working people through the substantial increase in the personal allowance. Only the higher incomes miss out on that. The representations I and others have made about the cut in Child Benefit for anyone on higher rate tax did yield some improvement. Now anyone earning under £50,000 will still get full Child Benefit, instead of losing at just over £40,0000. Someone earning between £50,000 and £60,000 will experience a tapered withdrawal, not a complete loss. That is progress which some of you will welcome.

Some constituents have written to me to complain about tax for the elderly. The first thing to understand is there is no tax rise on the elderly to pay for a cut in the higher rate tax. The government has imposed extra taxes on the highest paid to more than offset their view of the cost of the change to higher rate. The second crucial point is no pensioner loses their current age allowance or has to pay more tax next year than this on the same income. The government proposes to freeze the age allowance, whilst continuing to raise the general personal allowance, until the two are the same. Of course pensioners would like a further increase in their personal allowance, but all the time the government spends as much as it does the means to offer more tax cuts are limited.

It is a good time to look back and see how all the measures introduced since the crash have affected differing groups and income levels. The government has published the figures. These show that by 2013-14 the top 10% of earners will be £1800 a year on average worse off, mainly from higher taxes, whilst the lowest 10% will be on average £300 worse off despite having an income tax cut. The remaining income groups will on average be between £400 and £600 a year worse off, despite income tax cuts, through a combination of higher VAT and lower tax credits. This is the collective price we all pay for the very high inherited debt, the continuing large running deficit, and the high levels of public spending which the government has decided to maintain.

Parliament will look carefully at the proposals on Child Benefit, on tax relief for charitable giving and the age allowance for pensioners when we come to tackle the Finance Bill. I will ensure Treasury Ministers know people’s feelings. I would also like to reassure pensioners who have heard that the government’s planned change to a combined SERPs and basic pension of around £140 a week for all in 2015 implies that pensioners with higher Second State pensions already will lose out. The Minister assures me there will be no losers, so if you are over the eventual new amount you will keep your full pensions.

I attended an interesting meeting on water supply. I have been warning for some years that we have expanded the population of London and the south east rapidly but have not made sufficient provision for water and some other facilities. As soon as we have a period of relatively light rainfall we get into trouble. I am pressing for a more energetic response to the possible shortfalls, and for more recognition in national planning policies of the need to ensure water – and transport, energy and telecommunication capacity – are expanded to keep pace with any required growth in population. The government is now bringing forward new legislation, which will include some increases in water competition. I will be pursuing this interest further.

We were told of more disappointing results from the state owned RBS. The bank recorded more losses, paid taxpayers no dividends. The share price remains a long below the previous government’s purchase price. I am proposing to Ministers a change of tack towards this unhappy conglomerate. The government should split the bank up, to further its sensible aim of promoting more banks on the High Street. If we had more competition small and medium sized business might get better deals. I remain uneasy about the state owning a large investment bank within the RBS Group. Last year they put up the salaries of some of the highly paid people, at a time of general wage restraint. Taxpayers are still running large risks by owning such a bank. The government should remember taxpayers have to pay the losses if they get it wrong.

I have raised with Ministers the issues of cycling safety and the planned changes to Child Benefit which have worried some constituents. I am expecting Ministerial statements on these in the weeks ahead.

I received a most welcome letter last week. Mark Ashwell wrote to me, pledging his support to me as MP and Prospective Conservative Parliamentary candidate come the next election. He has asked to rejoin the Conservatives and wants to help us locally. I know Mark has lots of ideas about local issues. As an active leader of the Chamber of Commerce he is particularly keen to get the Town Centre redevelopment under way, and supports our proposals for a new station and road improvements. I think it will be good for him and the Conservative team on the Borough and Town Councils if they can work together for a better Wokingham.

It does feel as if we have some momentum over the station. There are difficulties with some of the Council’s plans for extra housing. Having chosen places where Councillors think the area could take more homes, they are naturally keen to ensure we do not end up with many more developments elsewhere as a result of appeals to the national planners. I have agreed a meeting for our Council leaders with Bob Neil, local government Minister, to try to sort out the remaining issues and concerns Wokingham understandably has. I support more localism. That means the Council should call all the shots on development, not just some of them. I will keep you posted of what progress we make. I do not wish to see our better greenfields, gaps between settlements and lovely countryside concreted over. Where new development is allowed it should come with the extra road capacity, better drainage, and other public service facilities new developments need to help them become successful communities.

I am busy putting together my submissions for the Budget. I am especially keen to get the government to change its approach to the state owned banks, so they can contribute more to business development and economic recovery. If you have ideas you want the Chancellor to know about, drop me a line at the House of Commons or put it on my website.

I have no objections to successful Directors and executives in the private sector being well rewarded. That is a matter for their shareholders and for them. Government cannot get into the business of setting levels of pay throughout UK companies , especially as they have to compete in a global market where talented people and successful companies can take themselves elsewhere if government interferes too much. Government has enough to do, without trying to decide what is fair or reasonable for a Director to be paid.

I do have objections to a few employees in the public sector being paid much larger salaries and bonuses than most others in public service out of taxpayers’ money. I do not think it a good idea to pay large sums at RBS to senior people before they have delivered the profits and the dividends to shareholders that we would like. I am pushing for the government to require the RBS Board to split the RBS Group up , creating a range of new banks and financial service businesses out of the empire they preside over, and sell these on as quickly as possible to the private sector. So far the government and Board has come round to the view that they should sell off the Investment banking businesses, which is a welcome start.

I would reward the Directors at private sector levels for doing this, once they have succeeded. Their bonuses should be based on what they return to the private sector and how much money to get for it. I do not believe for one moment that even Mr Hester can get back all the taxpayers money poured into RBS. We are into damage limitation, into getting the most we can for it, into cutting taxpayers’ risks as quickly as possible. Ministers are not cut out to be bank shareholders. Taxpayers will not take kindly to more losses from the state owned banks. We need a stronger policy to get them off our payroll.

Part of the reason for my proposal is the knowledge that we need more banks, more banking competition, and more willingness by High Street banks to lend to small and medium sized enterprises and to solvent individuals. The current state of our nationalised banks is holding back recovery. That’s why the government needs to do more than breathe a sigh of relief about a £1 million bonus waived.

For many years I have been urging the case for a new station for Wokingham. I have wanted this new development as we need a better station. The present building lets the town down, and provides a poor entrance for visitors.

I have also wanted changes to the station roundabout junction, and to substitute a bridge or underpass for the present level crossing. For many years I found plenty of support from constituents and the Council, but no positive responses from the railway.

In the heady days of the middle of the last decade I set out proposals for a new station and better roads which could have been paid for from development gain by allowing the construction of some commercial premises on railway land. They could improve the car park with a second level on a smaller part of the plot. Pre 2007 with so much credit and property enthusiasm around it would have been possible. Network Rail did not want to do it.

Now different and more positive management at Network Rail have some proposals for a new station which I welcome. They will be paid for out of the company’s budget for new stations and station improvements. I was told they intend to let the contract for the building works this month, and to complete the station by March 2013. That is great news.

Better still, they wish to follow that with the construction of an underpass under the line near the Station roundabout. Much of Wokingham’s traffic congestion stems from the Station level crossing, assisted by the other two level crossings in the area. If we can have a new way of crossing the railway for large and small vehicles that does not shut down every time a train arrives or departs, the congestion will greatly eased . Safety will also be much improved.

The bridge under the railway on the Finchampstead Road is our only current route which is continuously open, but that cannot take very high vehicles. Other commercial vehicles need to use of the middle of the road, restricting the flows for other traffic.

At last there seems to be some momentum in the plans to improve our town. A new station and new road layout should give a welcome boost. Roll on the Town Centre improvement plans to take the modernisation further.

It is true that the government’s plans to borrow £451 billion over five years were increased to £485 billion in March and are likely to go above the £500 billion level in this revision. I find it difficult to understand the arguments of those who say we are not borrowing enough as a nation. The extra borrowing by this government in just five years will be more than the total national debt built up over 1000 years as recently as 2004. It’s another £8000 on the national credit card for every man, woman and child in the country. All that debt means paying more tax to pay the interest. One day it has to be repaid.

What we need is a strong private sector recovery. The government can organise projects for new power stations, extra reservoirs for water, better broadband, more transport capacity which the private sector can finance. That will help. In Wokingham a sensibly phased and affordable town centre redevelopment can assist. It will first provide construction jobs, and later more retail and service jobs to cater for local demands. I hope this Christmas many residents will find time to stop and shop at local stores. There is already a good range.

The Euro zone crisis is going to hit our export markets on the continent. There have been many warning signs. It means exporters have to spend more of their efforts looking for sales in the faster growing parts of the world, like Asia and Latin America, where the opportunities are much greater. People say around 3 million UK jobs are dependent on exports to the EU. The good news is that means 25 million jobs are not. I wish firms well in finding alternative outlets for products where they find the Euro crisis is hitting demand.

I have been part of the pressure group of MPs urging the Prime Minister to seek a better deal for the UK now that France and Germany seem keen to press on with greater integration and more Brussels government. We cannot possibly join in. Our relationship has to change, as they build their continental superstate. Now is the time to demand change, as the Euro area states need our agreement to the centralisation they think they need. Some doubt whether they can save their currency, but we should assume they are going to and make clear our need for a different deal if they try to.

Many MPs on the Conservative side say we want a renegotiation now. What better time could there be, than when the constitutional arrangements of the EU are up in the air as members try to find a way out of the Euro crisis? We want the people to have a right to a referendum following any such negotiation, so the public can decide if the new terms make it worthwhile staying in, or if it would better to leave. We do not wish to see a single penny of UK taxpayers money wasted on trying to prop up the failing Euro scheme. That’s why I voted against more money for the IMF for fear it would be used to try to prop up the unsupportable on the continent. We are warning the government that soon Euroland will meet regularly, and has the voting power to decide what the whole EU should so. If Euro area countries vote as a bloc the UK will have no influence, no ability to stop undesirable legislation.

The government has made two welcome improvements to our democratic processes which made the referendum debate possible. They have allowed people to petition the No 10 website for a debate in Parliament on a topic that matters to them. That was how the debate on the referendum was first mooted. They have allowed us to establish a backbench business committee with days for debate where we can choose the topics. It was one such day that accommodated the referendum.
Soon the Backbench Committee will also be involved in choosing the business for the government time as well, which could help highlight the matters that need most discussion, and facilitate the passage of those that are uncontentious.

I have long thought we need a more powerful Parliament. Government spends around half of all we earn in this country. It has huge powers of patronage. It has also given away many of its rights to legislate and govern to Brussels. Such power needs challenge from elected people who are in touch with the public mood and understand where things are working badly. The Treasury Committee has just produced proposals to limit the unelected power of the Governor of the Bank of England, and for Parliament to play a role in his appointment. It is such creative thinking we need to try to harness the commonsense of the British people in how we are governed. The mess that the experts and Ministers made in recent years of financial regulation and banking excess, the boom bust cycle they presided over and the growing incursions into our freedoms should all make us want more scrutiny and more transparency. Speaking truth to power is what MPs are meant to do. There are some signs that we are beginning to do just that.

In an attempt to make politics closer to people this government launched two excellent innovations. It allowed backbench MPs to choose the business on certain Parliamentary days. This allows us to discuss the things that government and Opposition may have missed or do not wish to talk about. It allowed members of the public to petition to have a topic debated. If more than 100,000 want a given subject the government hoped the Backbench Business Committee would oblige by allowing it to be debated on one of our days.

It was not long before well over 100,000 people had signed up for a debate on an EU referendum on one petition or another. David Nuttall MP duly put the idea to the Backbench business committee that a debate should be held to propose a people’s referendum. Many Conservative MPs were enthusiastic. The debate was granted. Then the leaderships of the three big parties decided they could not tolerate so much democracy after all. Out came the heavy handed three line whips.

Labour’s use of it was at least consistent with their refusal to hold a referendum when in office. It was nonetheless surprising to see the main Opposition party come to the aid of the Prime Minister and Coalition government, who could have been defeated if Labour had all voted with Conservative proponents of a referendum. On this occasion Labour declined to do the popular thing.

The Lib Dems did yet another of their legendary U turns. They offered an In/Out referendum on the EU as their proposal when the Treaty of Lisbon was going through. This week, when they had the opportunity to vote for such a referendum – with a third option added in- they did not take their chance to do as they promised. Nor did they seek to amend the motion, as they could have done, to bring it exactly into line with their pledge. Instead, they tore up their pledge. They opposed all referenda.

The Conservative Leadership had offered a referendum on the Lisbon treaty before it was brought in. Conservative MPs voted for such a referendum on a three line whip to vote for it in the last Parliament. We were defeated by Lib Dem and Labour MPs outvoting us. The Conservatives fought the last election on a Manifesto which did not offer a referendum, but did offer renegotiation to get powers back from the EU. The backbench motion covered just this option by inviting people to vote on renegotiation as well as on In/Out. Despite this, the leadership decided that did not want to trust the people on this occasion on this issue.

I have received many emails and messages asking me to vote for the motion, which I duly did. I do want Parliament to listen more to the public view. There is great unease about the extent to which our laws are made in Brussels, often without our consent, and the way we are being dragged into the Euro crisis. If you want to know more about how that is all panning out, take a look at www.johnredwood.com where I try to keep you informed. Some day the public do have to be asked for their view. The EU today is a very different body from the EEC which older voters approved in 1975.