Kennet Valley Park development proposals

Many of my constituents have written to me expressing their opposition to the inclusion of Kennet Valley Park as a Strategic Development Area in the Government’s South East Plan. I have today written to the Government Office of the South East setting out my opposition to any proposals to build an estimated 7,500 homes in this area, and have highlighted my unease over the potential flood risk from building on a functional floodplain based on the Environment Agency’s interpretation of Planning Policy 25. I have also outlined my concerns about the serious problems such development would create for the road and rail network, along with other types of infrastructure. I have told them that this Wildlife Heritage Site, which contains designated wildlife areas of locally and internationally recognised importance, should be protected and an investigation carried out to determine whether there has been any contamination of the land, as was recently reported in the Newbury Weekly News.

I would urge all constituents concerned about the inclusion of Kennet Valley in the South East Plan to lobby the Government Office of the South East by writing to: The R. S. S. Team, GOSE, 1 Wilnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4GA. The reference numbers H1B Greater Reading and H1B West Berkshire should be included in any correspondence.

Half empty stadia at the Olympics

It seems a tragedy that after all the hard work and effort many athletes have put in around the world we receive reports today that a country of 1200 million people cannot fill the seats for the opening rounds of competition between elite performers who are established as the best in the world. The authorities are bussing in staff from the games to make it look better, but it does lead one to ask what has gone wrong if there are insufficient people to attend on a normal basis. You would have thought that if it were your country hosting the event, and you had the chance to see the greatest and fastest in person at a stadium near you, you would clamouring for tickets.

I must confess in the last few days I have wanted to watch a bit of the Test Match with England’s new Captain, had to get another couple of blog pieces written, needed to pursue a difficult planning matter in the constituency including site visits, decided to catch up on some doorstep conversations, and felt a pressing need to start cleaning my garage out. I ask myself why haven’t I been glued to the TV screen to watch for the latest from Beijing? As I have talked to friends and constituents I have been surprised to find that some of them too have found other pressing engagements, even in this bleak cold and wet summer. I think our reservations at such a distance from Beijing are subliminal and more understandable. I do not think we are getting a fair picture of China from the huge team of BBCcheer leaders for the country, and many of us remain wary of the political use of the games to promote the host nation.

The other day when I was driving to an appointment I heard a BBC journalist offer us a radio essay on what restrictions the media are encountering in modern China. He told us he had been there – at our expense – for 23 days prior to the games. His radio portrait was littered with happy children in the streets, tree lined avenues adffording shade from the sun, the safety of their local communities, and the freer atmosphere toward criticism and alternative views. There was a not a line of criticism, no penetrating comment on the ostensible subject matter of the talk, no detail of what he could and could not say and do as a journalist from the West, and no comment on the censorship and human rights issues that are still so important. It makes me feel uneasy.

The UK government and the BBC have made the games an entertainment for the army of the elite that we are paying to send there. They are in danger of driving a wedge between China, the games and the rest of us. Let us hope some British stars emerge that we all support and want to watch. Well done to our competitors so far. I admire what they are doing, and wish them every success. I would like to see them succeed, but found the opening ceremony with its symbolism of powerful China too much to take. It is just such a pity that so much politics intrudes into the modern Olympics.

Recovering the EU economies – a modest proposal

All the main EU economies are slowing down, and some are already well into property collapses and Credit crunch. Whilst the UK is the worst placed of the majors thanks to heavy government indebtedness as well as private sector borrowing levels, they all need some relief from rising costs and falling demand.

The EU could help. I offer this challenge to it. It should, for the next two years, agree to no more legislation of any kind which imposes more costs and burdens on us. It should give the committees and officials drafting it all a couple of years off, and not replace them as and when they retire or leave for other reasons.

The businesses of Europe would be mightily relieved if they no longer had to keep up with the torrent of legislation coming from Brussels, and could concentrate on more important things to combat the Credit Crunch.

Water prices – a way to get them down

Listening to the water industry proposals for 3% price increases each year above inflation (that would mean a 7% water price increase this year) made me think we were living in the Soviet Union circa 1960 under a system of state planning.

The rate of price increase is unacceptable and not necessary. Water is a very abundant resource, especially in a summer like the present cold wet one.If we introduced full competition, including the right to use the existing pipes as a common carriage system, the alleged shortage of supply and the ever rising prices would vanish.

What has the government to lose? Why doesn’t it do this? To those who say it is a natural monopoly I say then remvoing the legal and regulatory parts of the monopoly will make no difference and could not possibly do any damage. I also say they are wrong. Water is no more a monopoly than the supply of oil, and has the advantage that you find it everywhere, unlike hydrocarbons.

If we allowed others to help collect it and clean it we would have lower prices and more of it. Let’s just do it.

Open Europe understates the true numbers involved in EU legislation.

Today we learn from Open Europe of the 175,000 people involved in forming and enforcing EU legislation – far more than the EU normally puts out in its propoganda. The BBC did its best to discredit this low figure on the Today programme by refusing to understand how it was arrived at and trying to sugest wrongly it includes all the private sector lobbyists and business people who have to waste their time responding. BBC Journalists should try reading the document and not have to spend the whole interview establishing simple facts. They should have debated the wisdom and suitability of so many people involved in all this rule making.

The facts are that 175,000 people are wholly or partially empoyed on EU bodies involved in developing and enforcing EU rules. We pay as taxpayers for their salaries and expenses. To give the full picture of the costs of this huge bureaucracy we should add to that

a) The costs of all the officials in Member States governments working in their own countries on forming positons, negotiaiting and enforcing – that would be a mutliple of the 175,000 and is yet another direct cost to the taxpayer

b) the costs on all the businesses who then have to respond to and conform with the rules – a further multiple of the 175,000 which we pay for in the prices of goods and services

c) the private sectors costs of lobbyists, lawyers, consultants to try to see off inappropriate rules and to respond to the ones that are passed.

New Bill of Rights or Statute of Repeals?

Today the BBC kite flies a new “Bill of Rights” to reassure us that we are still a free country. The government’s spin masters must be desperate if this idea comes from them. Maybe at last they have realised that people are fed up with the myriad petty ways our liberty has been eroded by this government in the name of fighting terrorism or reinforcing the forces of law and order.

There is a much easier way to reassert our liberties than drafting a new “Bill of Rights”. Enforcing the old one would be a good start. Getting powers back from Brussels would help, as so many of the unhelpful interventions in our life from Home Information Packs to rubbish bin surveillance have a strong European component which this government has allowed to creep up on us. Abolishing unelected and unloved English regional government would get a lot of meddlers off our backs. Giving us back habeas corpus and more jury trials would be good. Reversing some of the idiocy perpetrated in the name of health and safety would make life easier and no less safe.

I flew into Southampton airport on Friday from a distant part of our lovely country. There were 14 of us on the small plane. We had to sit and wait on the tarmac whilst one young man came out to place a couple of desultory cones near the wing of the aircraft, and for a young woman to bring a chain on a cart and solemnly extend some of this chain underneath the trailing edge of the wing before we could leave the plane. The pilot told me this safety precaution was not needed at any of the other airports where he landed. None of us were likely to want to walk into the propeller which was clearly visible above us, and the pilot could have mentioned it if the authorities thought planes these days are full of people absent minded or perverse enough to walk into hard metal parts of an aircraft they have just flown on.

This is one tiny example of how over the top some of the things have become. People in many jobs are scared of the system. It makes them behave collectively in a way they would not dream of behaving at home. I doubt the person who demanded the chain near the aircraft insists in extending a chain around his car when parking at home to make sure people do not walk into the wing mirrors, which would be a more likely occurrence than someone hitting the propellers.

I am all for high standards of health and safety at work. I do think a safety culture, especially in companies handling dangerous equipment, chemicals and materials, is crucial. Going over the top and inventing too many petty rules and requirements can annoy people, and it can also distract people from more serious safety threats that may not have been captured by the Safety boffins.

I think we need a Statute of repeals more than a new Bill of Rights. We need to repeal many of the silly rules and regulations that do not make us safe but make us cross. I would welcome your suggestions for the silliest rules we need to abolish in the first Statute of Repeals. We need to make them an annual event to get to grips with the stultifying bureaucracy we now experience daily.

The Bank of England is still fighting the wrong dragon

The latest figures for the UK and other Western economies confirms that the main threat is falling activity rather than inflation. The ECB and the Bank of England still think they have a problem balancing their prime aim of cutting inflation with their wish to avoid a major downturn. They have kept their rates on hold. They seem to ignore the delays between tightening credit and the impact it has on prices.

Over the last three weeks there have been heavy falls in the oil price. Where last month some pundits and market participants were telling us it could only go up, and were headily forecasting even $200 a barrel oil, today there are bears on the prowl seeking to extrapolate from the most recent trends. They ask if it can fall $30 in a month, by how much more could it fall in two?

The inflation of recent months has been fuelled by the twin pressures of higher energy prices and higher food prices. In the UK this has been assisted by a government which has failed to reform the Common Agricultural Policy which has kept food prices higher anyway, and has imposed taxes on petrol and diesel which in part increase as the price of the underlying product rises. It is true that companies worldwide have so far had some success in passing the commodity price rises on, thanks to the reduction in aggressive pricing by India and China on world markets. It is also true that there is some modest upward drift in wages and salaries, reflecting links to higher Inflation statistics. Both these tendencies will be abated by the slowdown in demand. The more wages go up the more businesses will in due course shed staff as they will not be able to afford them all.

For months now I have found it bizarre that well trained and well paid people at the ECB and the Bank of England can seriously think there is an inflation problem two years hence (the typical timescale for the full effects of monetary action to be felt). In the UK have they not seen the 20% fall in commercial property prices, with more to come? Have they not noticed the sharp decline in new housebuilding, and the rapid fall in house prices in recent months? Have they seen the contraction of new mortgage credit, the main form of lending money to individuals in Britain? Just as they ignored the obvious signs of overheating and too much credit in 2005-6, so today they ignore the obvious distress of too little. They made the first mistake of failing to curb credit excess a couple of years ago because price rises then were small, thanks to Chinese and Indian pricing. They were spurred on by a UK government that was leading wonky finance with its huge commitments to PFI and PPP schemes, buying things on the never never for taxpayers who will end up paying dearly for the privilege. Now we are having to live through the second painful mistake, ignoring the collapse of credit at a time when some world prices have been rising too quickly for comfort as a result of past credit excess.

I remain of the view that inflation will subside next year as measured by the RPI, as lower commodity prices work through. I also expect more companies to reduce their workforces to combat lower demand in their sectors, and for there to be several more months of a squeeze on people’s incomes as the full effects of energy price and food price rises work through against a background of restraint on wage increases, and as more people lose their jobs.

The FSA’s prognosis that the banking sector will be in for as tough a time as 1991-2 may be right and shows the regulator understands the seriousness of what we are living through. They have been right to urge the banks in London to raise more capital. What we need is better co-ordinated action between the FSA and the Bank of England, organised by the Chancellor, if we are to continue with the three headed system Gordon Brown so foolishly designed. Identifying the problem and telling the banks to raise more capital is prudent, and all that the FSA can do. Too much prudence after the crisis will simply delay recovery – we needed more prudence before the crunch. The Bank of England needs to offset some of the contracting effects of banks raising more equity and being more cautious in their lending, through its operations in the money markets. It also needs to cut interest rates.

Without further action credit will remain too tight for comfort. Northern Rock is turning into the expensive nightmare readers of this site will be expecting. Losses of £585 million in just six months may well be followed by further losses, as the bank is writing practically no new business but still has staff numbers as if it were. I always thought they would lose us more than a billion and see nothing in these first figures to change my mind. Indeed, converting £3 billion of the outstanding taxpayer loan into new equity implies we should prepare ourselves to say good bye to a substantial sum, at least for the foreseeable future and maybe for ever. The best action the government could take is to sell what remains of Northern Rock at whatever price they could get for it as quickly as possible, with an agreed repayment programme for all the outstanding taxpayer debt and the new equity. That way we would have more chance of getting all our money back, and the newly privatised bank could start writing more mortgages again to make some money and ease the shortage of mortgage finance in the market. If the government could get £1 for it (or maybe more in an auction) and the promise of full repayment, it would be a better deal than we have now with it nationalised and destined to cut and cut again as it cannot write new business.

Conservatives want to hear more from Caroline Flint

It’sd good news for the Oppositon every time Caroline Flint comes on to the radio and television. Her insouciance to the parlous state of the housing market and her bland reminder than many of us are not about to lose our homes to repossession is allied to a strange silence about housing finance that saps confidence in the government more. It’s bad news for the country that such a crucial part of our economy and markets should be dealt with like this at this critical stage.

I blogged earlier in the year forecasting further heavy declines in housing prices. These are now all too obvious in the monthly and annual figures, as the rises of last year drop out of the yearly stats. I have also pointed out that Ms Flint argues a contradictory case, telling us on the one hand that house prices are the result of supply and demand for new homes, and on the other that in the middle of a crash in new homes prices we need to up the build rate! Her urging more new homes has all the force of Canute telling the waves to go back during a rising tide, as builders cut back in response to the drop in demand.

We also now have her telling us that cutting or suspending Stamp Duty is an option, when in the marketplace uncertainty about the government’s intentions on Stamp Duty is understandably persuading even some of those who can still afford to buy a house to hold off to see if the tax is going to be abated.

If Ms Flint really wants to help the housing market she needs to take actions that would help stabilise prices. It is difficult getting the building industry to increase its build rate all the time prices are falling, and all the time prices are falling it will depress sentiment and drive more people into negative equity. She could, for example, cancel the hated Home Information Packs, agree and announce lower Stamp Duty, and talk to the Chancellor about easing liquidity in money markets more to help with the supply of mortgages.

If she is unable or unwilling to do any of those she would be better not interfering and expressing an opinion – unless her aim is to help the Opposition!

Crumbling Britain: new technology and future projects

Over the last week I have set out some thoughts on how we could build ourselves capacity in the main networks across the downturn, largely using private money. The public sector needs to be a speedier and more helpful regulator, and to spend from within existing budgets intelligently to maximise private sector response.

One of the big issues the government needs to speed is what will be the role of new technology and new projects in the future of the UK? Again this is not a case of the government needing to spend more money. Much fo the development and all of the production can be paid for by the private sector. It is a case of the government being a well informed purchaser of technology for its own purposes, and a good regulator capable of allowing and even initiating the right kind of projects which the public sector can bid for and accomplish.

There are a number of large schemes around on drawing boards and in dreamers and designers minds. The government has set out ten different possible projects as options for harnessing the tidal power of the Severn estuary – but wants to take two years consulting and thinking about it. Two years is a common time period for thought these days, taking decisions beyond the next Election. Some people want to build new islands in the Thames estuary, and some even want to put a new London airport on one, others favour a new bridge between Kent and Essex as part of the package. There are schemes of drawing boards for new reservoirs, new desalination plants, new power stations, schemes for clean coal technology and carbon storage, schemes for more renewable power and greater energy efficiency, schemes for local and micro generation and for more water capture from each household roof. The private sector is alive with proposals to make the world cleaner, greener, more fuel efficient..

Some of these will be developed and hammered out in the market place with no government involvement. Others are large, need a government view and government permits of various kinds. Some need the government to organise competitions around the permits it is prepared to grant, as it will have to create artificial scarcity as part of its planning view. No Minister has managed to bring these issues to sensible conclusions or to provide an overarching vision of the role of technology in solving these network and supply issues, backed up by administrative speed and competence to make something happen on the ground. |Let’s hope sometime soon the penny drops. Technology is in an exciting phase. It can solve some of these problems if government wishes it to.

Crumbling Britain: telecoms

Telecoms is a British success story. In the early 1980s we were way behind the USA, with an old fashioned system with too little capacity, run by a nationalised monopoly. It charged too much and delivered too little, like most monopolies. Working in the City of London I could not get a phone line that would take data from the Stock exchange to my office, a journey of less than a quarter of a mile, without data degradation when it rained, for water got into the cables according to the engineers. At home in Oxfordshire, living a couple of miles from the centre of Oxford, it took months to be supplied a phone as the monopolist couldn’t be bothered to put the cable in to my house.

It was this kind of nonsense that persuaded me to argue the case for a deregulated competitive telephone system capable of offering a competitive challenge to the Americans. The first round saw the sale of BT and the licensing of a single business competitor, cable and Wireless. The second round saw massive new investment in mobile networks, and the third more competition across the board. Over a ten year period we narrowed and removed the gap between UK and US telephony, and created a telephone infrastructure that could support the flowering of financial and business services in the City of London. If we had stuck with the monopoly and all those tedious debates about capital and investment rationing in the public sector London would not have sustained so much successful business.

Today we can still take some pleasure from the huge expansion of mobile telephony, the relatively rapid take up of the internet and the expansion of transmission capacity for data and pictures. We should not, however, be complacent. BT still has a strong market position in the last mile of cable into people’s homes, and at the local exchange. These still restrict line speeds and capacity in some cases. Meanwhile BT is excluded from mobile telephony and feels hard done by on some of the regulation it still faces.

The government and regulator need to consult further on how they could allow or encourage more rapid investment in more capacity into homes and businesses, as the demands for more data, film and picture transmission at higher speeds are growing daily. The internet is the new highway of world trade, the new digital railway network for commerce and communication. Britain has done well, but could do better. The public sector could improve its use of internet technology, websites and web communication. The providers need to work harder to ensure the UK is wired for success.