Category: Blog

Let’s face it. Parliament has become to some another of those monopoly nationalised industries that Labour always think work in the public interest, but which the public love to hate. People pay through the nose for the subsidised nationalised industries whether they use the service or not. The service is often not up to the standard they want. Now there are similar criticisms of the cost and performance of Parliament.

Tackling it is not easy. As perhaps the keenest advocate of competition as a force for better quality and lower cost, even I do not want competing legislatures. Indeed, I would dearly love it if we could stop the EU legislating, as the last few years of “cooperating” legislatures on both sides of the Channel has left us chronically over-governed and over regulated.

Fortunately at Westminster we still have first past the post elections at least once every five years. This means the consumers have the chance to sack the producers. Single member constituencies are the best means of keeping MPs honest and of restraining the wish of some MPs to laud their power over the rest. If we were to adopt the European system of PR, with MPs not answerable to a particular group of electors and beholden to their parties for their place on the list to get elected, we would find the electorate’s last grip over MPs had vanished.

Any sensible MP must see that the public no longer thinks they are getting good value for the money they have to spend on keeping Parliament going. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the problem of public sector waste. There are thousands in senior positions across the rambling public sector spending generous expense allowances with little public scrutiny. There will be thousands in management of the public sector watching the clock and demanding more help to carry out their work.

MPs’ performance, however, matters even though it is a small part of a general problem, because it is so public, and because MPs, especially ones who are Ministers, need to set a standard and a tone for the rest of the public sector to follow.

Parliament, like the rest of the public sector, in the last ten years has set about reducing its productivity and increasing its costs. This is the very opposite of what has happened in the increasingly competitive world of the private sector.

I would like to see Parliament set about proving it has taken on the board the message, and wishes to lead a crusade to raise the game of public service. I have a series of proposals which I think would help:

1. The time taken on doing the main job of holding the government to account and scrutinising new laws.
We need to increase the number of days when Parliament is allowed to meet – this government chopped it back too much with the half term breaks on top of the other summer and Bank holiday leave. Why not have a session in September? Why not restore a couple of days during the half terms, maybe without votes, so those of us who do not have to look after schoolchildren can still do the job?

2. Sitting hours.
It was argued we needed to cut the hours we sit in order to be family friendly. Packing up at 7.15 pm on a Wednesday does not allow someone with young children to see them awake or put them to bed, so why not run on to 10 pm as on Mondays and Tuesdays?

3. Topical debates.
The government’s idea that every Thursday should see a topical debate is a good one, but it is useless if they persist in choosing subjects the government thinks are harmless or are part of their propaganda for the week. Why not ballot to choose the motions, or allow the Opposition to choose alternate ones?

4. The number of MPs.
I used to represent almost 20,000 more electors than I do today, without complaints that I had skimped the job. Why does the Boundary Commission make MPs in seats with rising populations become less productive by taking voters away? Shouldn’t they be asked at subsequent reviews to come up with seats that are on average larger, so we can steadily reduce the numbers of MPs over time, to raise productivity?

5. The support for doing the job.
I understand many colleagues wish to have three or more staffers to help them. Some support is desirable to handle the wide range of issues and constituents’ queries. However, the last few years have seen a big increase in the permitted total cost. Why not have three years with no increases in the totals, to start to bring costs under control?

6. Let MPs take over work from other bodies where savings can be made.
Many electors think MPs are a kind of super Councillor, with powers to override Councils on issues like planning or schools places. Instead, we have no such power. One area where MPs could make a difference and substantial savings could be made is in the area of regional government. Why not remove the regional quangos, and where there is a need for a voice for a wider area to Ministers, ask MPs to provide that voice instead of the quango state? This does not require regional committees in the House as Labour has proposed, as these would seek to reinforce the artificial European regions so many of us dislike.

7. Stop turning Parliament into a fortress, and making it an expensive building site every recess.
I do not think visitors known to an MP and invited in and accompanied by the MP should have to wear sticky labels which often fall off their lapels and litter the place. We do not need more concrete bollards and ever more physical barriers to entry. Parliament is meant to offer access to all voters who want to visit or to meet their MP. The best way to protect it is to protect the country at large by controlling borders and monitoring terrorist groups closely.

These modest proposals would all help restore some confidence, and show that MPs want to lead a move to a better and more productive public sector. People could criticise them for not demanding enough of an improvement, but they would be a good start. Everyone of them requires the government to wish to use its majority to move us in that direction, as the majority rightly rules in Parliament. Over the last 10 years the majority has wanted shorter hours, fewer sitting days, less government accountability, and more schemes to cut Parliament off from the public.

I was delighted to read in the Sunday Telegraph that George Osborne wishes to adopt the tax and deregulatory proposals from my Economic Competitiveness Report. They concentrated on offering the most attractive climate to entrepreneurs and businesses, old and new, domestic and foreign. If we do that, there will be more jobs, and higher tax revenues.

The problem for the government is that its own bad management of the public accounts in recent years has left us heavily overborrowed and short of cash at exactly the time when we need tax cuts to stimulate growth. The USA can afford tax cuts because its budget deficit has been coming down in recent years. The UK fears it cannot afford them, because the deficit is large and rising. As George has pointed out, we did not use the good times to get the public sector into shape, so now we need lower taxes the budget apparently does not allow it.

UK consumers are experiencing an unpleasant squeeze. UK companies are facing taxes higher than in leading competitors like China, Hong Kong, the USA and even now parts of the EU like Holland. We are facing much more intrusive and expensive regulation than many of the leading competitor nations. The Brown Chancellorship began relatively well, controlling public spending, leaving room for growth in business and consumer prosperity. Slashing capital gains tax to 10% for many business investments was great, giving us a competitive edge.

Unfortunately he then decided to go on a mad spending spree in the public sector, without asking how he would achieve value for the money spent. So much of it was blown on higher public sector pay, shorter hours of working, more quangoes, more civil servants, more problematic computerisation schemes and more management consultants. Productivity in the public services in many cases fell. As a result borrowing surged, consumers were squeezed, and the Chancellor sought many ways to increase taxes by stealth. We had an increase in the tax on employment, bigger taxes on pension funds, and a big increase in oil taxation.

So this week when the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee meets they will not have the US luxury of being able to slash interest rates by 75 or even by 50 basis points, and they will not be able to work with a tax cutting government to stimulate growth in the way the Fed can. If they are truly independent they should make their 25 point cut – or keep rates on hold – and tell the government that more needs to be done, but can only be done if public spending is brought under better control.

The government should intensify its attempts to cut the growth rate in public spending by:

1. Introducing an immediate freeze on all civil service and quango recruitment, seeking to replace leavers from within the swollen ranks of employees. Only if a Minister agreed a special case should external recruitment be permitted. This would not apply to front line personnel in the armed forces or police, nor to teachers and social service staff recruited by local government.

2. Review all central and quango computerisation projects with a view to coming up with total savings of at least 20%.

3. Cancel large projects like the ID computer scheme.

4. Place a ban on all new consultancy contracts throughout central government, unless Treasury special permission is granted for a new one.

5. Reduce the advertising and communications budget by 20%.

6. Put in place proper banking controls over the Northern Rock lending and begin to obtain repayment of money advanced.

7. Implementing the new tougher approach to benefits to those who are out of work, withdrawing them where a person has turned down the offer of a job.

8. Announcing a freeze on the total annual allowances that MPs can claim for the rest of this Parliament.

9. Implementing green measures throughout the government estate to cut energy bills – better heating controls, better insulation, systems to turn lights and heating off when buildings not in use etc.

10. Producing a plan to cut the size of the property estate in line with falling staff numbers as the staff freeze starts to bite.

If the government could achieve savings of around £10 billion a year from these measures over the next couple of years or so – as it could do – it would have more scope to live within its own borrowing controls. It could also, on the back of such better management, make the cuts in business tax needed to stimulate growth and enterprise. Some of these cuts would quite soon bring in more revenue form the increased volume of investment and business activity.

Unfortunately in the UK debate there are two myths which constrain sensible action. Myth number one is you can only cut public spending by having fewer teachers, nurses and police. We do not need to sack any of them – we have far too many regulators and administrators that we do need to reduce by natural wastage.
Myth number two is that cutting tax rates always loses you revenue, when evidence abounds that after a gap revenue surges if you cut the right taxes by enough.

It is time to disprove both myths, by cutting spending and taxes at the same time, as soon as possible. I look forward to joining George Osborne in the lobby to vote against the damaging increase in Capital Gains Tax this government is still proposing.

Ten years ago the eastern villages in West Berkshire were added to my Wokingham constituency, whilst Wokingham Without, Crowthorne and other settlements near to Wokingham were given to the Bracknell constituency. At the time people were up in arms. They told me that residents in Mortimer, Burghfield and the other West Berkshire villages looked to Newbury. Their local government comes from Newbury. They buy Newbury rather than Wokingham papers. They go shopping in Reading or Newbury, but not Wokingham.

I had to explain that none of this was of my making. The Boundary Commission is as near to an independent body as you get in a cnetralised state like the UK. They have to create constituencies of around a similar size once every ten years, and are not allowed to cross County boundaries. As a result,with so much new housing development forced on Berkshire, each time there has to be change. They start in the west, and have to cut the geographical size of the Newbury seat to reduce numbers, and so on across the County. It means the Parliamentary seats do not represent natural communities, and are not contained within a single Unitary District Council area.

I mention this now, because last night I was at a dinner on the very western edge of my constituency. The immediate anger over the boundary review may have gone away, but there is still confusion in people’s minds, and a sense that it is not right. Most people do not understand that local government at District level and national government at Westminster have different boundaries in many cases. Many electors are confused about what powers are held by central government and Parliament, and what is done locally by officers and Councillors.

I take up issues for people in West Berkshire as well as in Wokingham District. I write a seperate newsletter for the West Berkshire side. Anyone living in those villages who reads this blog should know that this is for them, as well as for people of Wokingham and the wider nation. MPs deal with issues that have wider significance. The shape of the Wokingham constituency should not get in your way when dealing with local West Berkshire Councillors on the local issues that often concern people the most.

It does all go to show how deep and local senses of identity are in the UK.

I recall Margaret Thatcher once remarking when she saw just how many people were using the Health Service on a daily basis “ They can’t all be ill”. It was an important observation, but not one that led us to any easy conclusion about what you could do when offering a free service to discourage people from frivolous use, especially when there is always the risk minor symptoms concealed a darker problem which did need medical intervention. We erred on the side of caution, true to the principles of free provision, and allowed people the service even when it turned out they were not ill.

Today a well paid and doubtless able bodied government adviser has asserted that as many as two thirds of those on invalidity benefit should not be. He has said in public about the most vulnerable in our society that they cannot all be ill, when they have been through medical examinations which have confirmed that they are disabled and deserve financial support. In support of his argument he suggests that GPs assess them as incapacitated as the easy way out. He calls this inevitable given the GPs’ conflict of interest.

MPs, like GPs, hold surgeries. Sometimes we see the same people. The long term incapacitated may well come to see the MP for help with the benefits side, having seen the GP to confirm they are sufficiently disabled to qualify. Some people who are depressed, lonely, unhappy, will see both the GP, who may tell them politely they have no physical illness, and the MP, who may explain patiently they have no problem with government. We both have the advantage that we are free at the point of use, and should be sympathetic.

I therefore understand something of the dynamics of the GP-patient relationship. The government requires GPs to move their patients through the consultations quickly – usually offering less time than an MP does. If you wish to encourage quick through-put it would be best to agree with what the person tells you. Querying their view of their symptoms (GP) or government problem (MP) will obviously slow things down. Suggesting they are not ill would take longer, as it would probably lead to sharp exchanges and some redefinition of the symptoms to seek the support and understanding the patient expected.

Furthermore, GPs tell me that people now are much more aware of their rights and of the complaints procedure. Make the mistake of upsetting a patient in the five minutes or so allotted, and the GP could have to devote hours to defending his or her conduct in the subsequent complaint if one is made. This too might encourage the GP to be more trusting of the patients’ claims.

The truth is the GP only has the word of the patient to go on concerning pain and other symptoms. If the patient says they have a very painful back there may be no visual evidence, and the GP may not be at liberty to watch how the patient moves when they are no longer acting the part of someone with a bad back if it has been fabricated. Much has to be taken on trust.

So can we believe the government adviser that two thirds of all these claims are wrong? I find that difficult to believe. Nor are there any easy answers. Within the large number of people who do claim disability benefit are many who are genuinely struggling because they have lost the use of limbs, have lost hearing or sight, or have problems with vital organs. They rely on their money from the taxpayers, and rightly so. We should not wish to worry them with the possibility that they might lose their benefits, or threaten them with yet more case conferences and medical investigations.

On the other hand, let us assume that there are some bogus claimants who have played the system. Let us suppose claiming a bad back is one of the ways this happens. It would be possible to review cases where there is a lack of additional proof of the disability. If someone has lost their legs it is easy to see that and no need for a further medical test, but if someone has a bad back it would be possible to ask for more tests to see if it has improved or if it was ever that bad.

This would, however, still pose the doctor a problem. Whilst the review could be carried out by a doctor who does not otherwise have to deal with the patient, making it easier to come to a negative conclusion, the doctor will still be subject to the same possibility of complaint by an aggressive claimant.

I find in life things work better if you persuade people to behave differently, rather than attempting to force them to. It may take more effort at the outset, but it may be easier in the long run.

Most of us have had a taste of incapacity at times in our lives. I have struggled with a broken right arm, and in my 30s had a phase of a sometimes very painful back that could leave me bent after stooping. The first condition made it impossible to drive and slowed me down doing many things, but it did not make me give up the job. I spent more money carrying it out, as I needed taxis or more public transport. The second condition did not stop me working at all – indeed I found interesting work was a good therapy as it helped take the mind off the pain. It was easier for me than many who are disabled, both because I expected my disabilities would pass, and because they were not severe.

There are lessons to be learned, however, from this very imperfect glimpse into the world of disability. It should make us all very sympathetic to those who struggle with more severe conditions, knowing they will never get better. It should make us aware that more money helps, as they could then have more assistance of the kind they need. But it should also make us think that where possible we do want to help people into work, as work can be part of the therapy and part of a more rewarding life.

There are no easy answers. I feel sorry today for those who have great disabilities, who will feel threatened by incautious remarks. I do see that retesting some to see if they still have a disability is part of the answer. More importantly it needs staff with time and skill to go through each case with the person concerned and see what help we could pay for to get them into work, instead of spending all the money on keeping them at home out of work.

A big journey starts with a single step. More rigorous and more independent medical testing should be introduced for all new cases, and a compulsory discussion about how someone could be helped to stay in work or to gain work rather than automatically granting benefit for them being out of work would help. Why not start with a better system for new cases? If we find it works and many more do stay in work or take some kind of work, it should be used as well for many of the cases where disability is less obvious or where the people themselves volunteer for help in getting back to work. The Conservatives have pledged to stop paying benefit to people capable of work who refuse jobs. The government is gradually following.

Yesterday I gave a lecture at Middlesex University on Leadership. They asked me to compare my experiences and understanding of leadership in the public, private and charitable sectors.

<a href=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/picture1.jpg’ title=’Elizabeth I’><img src=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/picture1.jpg’ alt=’Elizabeth I’ /></a>

I did not approach the question from an ideological standpoint. I have visited enough bad private sector companies with poor employee relations to know that it is not always private sector good. No-one watching the bravery and professionalism of many in our armed forces could also say it is always public sector bad. I do, however, think there are serious problems with management in important parts of our public sector, which need careful analysis leading to reform and improved performance.

I do not for one moment believe Labour Ministers want our hospitals to be prey to such serious infection and hygiene problems as they currently experience. I do not think they wanted productivity to fall by as much as 10% when they decided to inject so much extra spending into the NHS. I have heard Ministers go hoarse explaining they are sorry and have learned the lessons from countless losses of laptops, CDs and other data from public offices.

Their response is always the same. They issue new instructions. They make changes to procedures. They issue a press release, and appear on the media. Their spin doctors let it be known how cross, upset or concerned they are. We are told the lessons have been learnt, that it is unlikely there will be another outbreak of MRSA or that data will be better protected in the future. We sit and wait for the next incident to occur.

There has to be some set of reasons why the best of the private sector does not infect its customers or lose its customers private data whilst the worst of the public sector does. At its best the public sector has a public service ethos which would be horrified at the idea that it had a part in the death of a patient or was responsible for putting someone’s bank account or personal security at risk. Yet all too often today things go wrong.

Let us take one recent example of how wrong things can go if leadership is lacking. Network Rail undertook major rail improvement works over the Christmas and New Year holiday. Its senior management chose to carry these works out through private contractors. They supervised the work of their staff, who designed the specifications, decided how much work could be achieved, let and supervised the contracts. It is a company wholly owned by the state, with access to substantial state subsidies to do its job. We now know they miscalculated how much work could be done, did not realise how few engineers would be available to turn up, and failed to motivate or supervise their contractors to do the job to time. We were then told that in future things would be different because they would do more in house! The problems were in house.

At the very least the Directors of Network Rail failed to assess the risks and to motivate the people involved. If you want engineers to give up their holiday period to go and work outside on railway lines, you too have to make an effort, to persuade them it is something worth doing, and to make it worth their while doing it. I don’t recall the Directors giving up part of their holiday to appear at the sites and to give encouragement to those working for them. There was no leadership by example.

Great leadership is about expressing a vision, telling people why they matter, getting them to believe the thing is worth doing and they can do it. Great leadership produces success and satisfaction. The satisfaction is not just or always a good financial reward – although that can help – but a feeling of a job well done, an important challenge surmounted.

In this government’s public sector they have aped some of the techniques of the private sector – targets, mission statements, bonuses, performance pay, use of consultants and external contractors – but in too many case they have not used them in a disciplined and convincing way. You use consultants for something you cannot do in house, precisely defining the task and ensuring the consultant or contractor can perform it for you. You set a limited number of targets that are stretching but possible to hit – not 200, many of which are contradictory or marginal. If you offer bonus you tailor it to the main issue that needs resolving. It should be easy to measure and the value of hitting it to the organisation made clear. Instead the public sector all too often uses consultants too often for vague assignments, fails to get the best out of external contractors, sprays targets around in a bizarre way, offers performance pay for poor performance and writes endless mission statements and documents on what is required that are too general and imprecise.

Above all great leadership requires great commitment. It requires leadership by example. Do not expect your staff to do things you would not do yourself. It often seems Ministers lecture the rest of us to behave in ways they do not themselves match. At its finest, in the case of the best of our military, the public sector in the UK is still good. At its average it is mediocre, offering too little for too high a cost, exploiting its monopoly position and its considerable powers.

<strong>Click on the link below to download John Redwood’s Middlesex University lecture on leadership.</strong>

<a href=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/middlesex-university-leadership-180108.ppt’ title=’Click here to download John Redwood’s Middlesex University lecture on leadership’>middlesex-university-leadership-180108.ppt</a>

On Tuesday, following a big row in the Commons the previous day, we were granted two and half hours to discuss amendments to the EU Treaty Bill on police, borders, criminal justice and immigration, instead of the derisory one and half the government originally offered. It was not enough, but clearly better than the first proposal.

Yesterday. on energy, the governemnt reverted to type and allowed only one and a half hours for all the amendments. Needless to say, discussion did not even finish the first group before the guillotine came down and a vote was taken.

With the Lib Dems in full support the government has large majorities. It is determined to prevent proper debate on the detail of the Treaty, preferring hours of general discussion of things like climate change which are peripheral to the impact of the Treaty.

So the government has not only broken its promise to the people to hold a referendum, but also broken its promise to Parliament to allow line by line scrutiny of all the complex new powers the EU is winning from us.

The Fed duly cut interest rates by another 50 basis points, taking them down to just 3%. We see recession fighting in full cry in the USA, where the Central Bank and the administration are uniting to pull the US economy out of its sharp slowdown.

Lower interest rates will ease some of the tensions in the housing market, allowing some people to carry on servicing mortgages which might have been too dear for them at higher rates. It makes it easier for all those businesses operating on borrowed money. It will also encourage a lower dollar, pricing US exporters back into world markets, and curbing the US appetite for imported products.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, the authorities remain hesitant and divided over whether to carry on fighting inflation, or to see the Credit Crunch as the new enemy. UK rates are too high for comfort. Inflation will remain unpleasant this winter but will start to correct later in the year.

Yesterday the government published its review of the regulatory arrangements for banks in the wake of the Northern Rock crisis. They made suggestions and proposals in five areas:

1.” Strengthening the financial system” by introducing better risk management of banks and better supervision and rating of securitisation of loans.
2. “Reducing the likelihood of banks failing” by asking for more information and changing the arrangements for providing liquidity to banks.
3. “Reducing the impact of failing banks” by introducing a “Special resolution regime” by allowing the authorities to take action with a failing bank to achieve a rescue or orderly run off
4.”Effective compensation arrangements” including faster and bigger payments.
5. “Strengthening the Bank of England and improving coordination between authorities”.

The proposals combine the sensible with the foolish, mixing some important lessons learned with the sound of stable doors banging shut after the horse has gone.

I would suggest the government listens carefully to informed opinion before implementing these changes.

1. It is important to take action to improve the deposit protection regime, without requiring a large up front cash payment from existing banks at a time when they are struggling to re-establish strong balance sheets after the losses made on securitised loans.
2. The government should make the Bank more independent and stronger to deal with failing banks in the future. This requires transferring day by day banking supervision to the Bank of England, and transferring the necessary staff or recruiting the necessary staff with banking expertise to be able to do the job.
3. The “Special resolution regime” could give near nationalisation powers to the authorities without the need to compensate existing shareholders. These powers were not needed in previous rescues, as the Bank of England has a powerful position as only lender to a bank in trouble. It is difficult to see why they need all these extra powers. The one thing that does need clearing up is the legal power of the UK authorities to arrange rescues quickly and in private under current EU market regulation.
4. It is a moot point whether the Bank of England needs new legislation to clarify its powers and role, when it always used to be able to undertake these matters before many of its powers were taken away in the 1997-8 reorganisation. The availability of skilled and experienced staff in a banking and bank rescue is a more relevant consideration, given the removal of banking supervision from the Bank ten years ago.

As always, there is a danger of the authorities fighting the last war. There is no immediate prospect of another run on a bank. The current difficulties are those of a range of banks strapped for enough capital and cash, and a new aversion to risk as banks reveal losses on some of the paper they hold in the securitised and syndicated loans area. A sensible supervisor would be asking how can the regulatory burden be eased prudently at a time when banks have to recapitalise themselves. There is a danger that further capital adequacy and regulatory tightening, coupled with demands for up front levies for a compensation fund, will make it even more difficult to get the banks and the markets bank to balanced conditions, allowing a reasonable amount of credit to be advanced at sensible prices.

I will respond in more detail to the many individual consultation questions in the government document when I have had more time to consider all the detailed queries.

Last night I attended a dinner to discuss the railways. It turned out to be a lively and interesting event, moving on from the usual train spotter’s enthusiasm for the past and the anorak’s belief that the only way you can run a railway is the way Network Rail do it.

I began my attempts to provoke new thinking amidst the assembled galaxy of railway directors, regulators and former regulators expecting to end up as isolated as the UK arguing for an EU which repeals legislation, but was pleasantly surprised by the turn of the conversation.

I complained that Network Rail has a monopoly hold over the best routes into all our city and town centres, yet can only account for 6% of the goods and passengers travelling. I urged the railway to change its mode of operation and its technology so it could carry far more people. I asked for lighter trains, more frequent services, more trains per hour on any given stretch of track following changes of weight, braking, traction and signalling. I asked why fares were so high yet subsidy still paid more of the bills than passenger receipts, condemned the over regulatory approach and the way the UK railway was outpaced in efficiency and service by many overseas railways.

The early defence that the technology and trains have to be as they are, and that you can never run more than 24 trains an hour safely on any piece of track soon transposed. I was told that the Engineering Director of Network Rail does agree that lighter trains are a must, and they will produce better performance, speeding up more quickly, braking more quickly and saving energy. I learnt that powerful figures from the industry and regulatory background also agree that Network Rail should be decentralised or split up, and some agree that track and train should be reunited in regional companies. Many agree that contestability is important, and as much competition as possible would be a welcome replacement for too much regulation.

I pointed out to Network Rail that they have all too many tatty or inadequate stations, like Wokingham’s. Property deals could release capital from commercial development on railway land to pay for new stations. Stations could invite in other businesses to supply services train users need – car servicing and cleaning, safe parking, food shopping, business services – as another source of franchise revenue.

All agreed by the end of the dinner that the current performance is not good enough, and that it requires substantial change to create a good working railway growing at a fast enough pace for travel demand. There was a lot of agreement that monopoly is at the root of much of the poor performance. One informed observer said that when Labour nationalised Network Rail, it took away all the private sector banker/shareholder pressures. As a result the cost base of the existing railway doubled rapidly! Network Rail is not the answer. It is a largely unaccountable monopoly, gobbling taxpayers cash but not yielding much by way of improved results.

The government has failed to give us the promised referendum on the EU Treaty.
Now it is failing to give us the promised full Parliamentary scrutiny.

Yesterday we had a bad tempered debate on how much time would be made available to go through all the powers transferred and the complexities of the EU proposals.

The 20 days floated in the newspapers has come down to 14 days including 2nd Reading and the debate on the timetable. The ability to probe and examine amendments on every part of the Treaty and Bill, has transposed into just one and half hours tacked on to the end of themed debates to consider amendments. Today that is just one and half hours for any amendment covering cross-border crime, justice, policing, human trafficking and asylum and migration policy.

This is not Parliamentary scrutiny, this is a government riding roughshod over Parliamentary accountability. Normally MPs can table and debate a wide range of amendments on each Bill, with time in committee to consider each amendment and each clause on a line by line basis. That will be quite impossible on this most complex of documents, with so little time for proper committee discussion.

Why can’t the government cancel one of the weeks of holiday pencilled into the Parliamentary diary? Why can’t it remove some of the Topical debates on Thursdays, which are always on subjects the government wishes to highlight, and give the time to this issue? Why do we have to pack up at 7pm on a Wednesday, when we go on to 10 pm as on Mondays and Tuesdays?

The truth is there are plenty of ways of finding the time, if they wanted to. There are plenty of us wishing to debate a wide range of amendments and new clauses.

Yesterday the government showed they do not want Parliament to do a proper job on this Bill, any more than they want the people to have a vote on it. Clearly the government is worried about this Treaty, and knows it is unpopular. That may be why Mr Brown did not wish to be in family photo at the signing ceremony, why he did not have the 2 nd Reading on a day he could be represent and voting, and why now his business managers are artificially restricting the time for amendments.

In one sense the government is right. Because Parliament is debating it after the government has signed it, it is take it or leave it. The Opposition has voted against the whole thing, but lost thanks to the support of both Lib Dem and Labour MPs. The battle now over the substance of the Bill is to expose just how much power the government is giving away, in the knowledge that from here the Lib Dems are going to support the government when it matters, making the government casual about needing to explain itself to Parliament and people.

I do hope all those who voted UKIP in the General Election, helping federalist candidates to become MPs, now wish they had not. We need votes now in the House of Commons. Splitting the anti Constitution vote in 2005 has damaged our cause.

PS: Today. Tuesday the government made a small concession – we now have two and half hours for an amendment and three and a half hours for the general motion each day.