Category: Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues

 

I was surprised to be asked by the media recently about an Observer article suggesting local Council money had been cut by 40% under the Coalition government. I want to reassure all my local readers that nothing like this has happened to Wokingham, and I would be surprised to see any Council in England now receiving 40% less cash than in 2010.

Wokingham receives substantial funds for its schools, where this government has increased the amounts each year. It receives various help with its capital programme. The Housing account is self financing.

Councillors tend to concentrate on General Fund expenditure, where they have authority over the mixture of local revenues and national grant that pay for their discretionary services.  The General Fund budgets have shown the following pattern in recent years:

2009-10  (last Labour year)        £116m

2010-11                                            £116m

2011-12                                            £118m

2012-13                                            £118m

2013-14                                            £129m

That is a rise of 11.2% over the 4 years. So the position is the Council has had to be careful and has had to find money for new priorities and for growth from within tight settlements.

The overall annual budgets are over £300 million when you  add in schools and housing. Education and Childrens services in 2013-14 was £168m and housing £34 million of spending.

 

 

 

 

The Second Church Estates Commissioner Sir Tony Baldry has written to me to tell me of a fund that can provide grants to Churches in need of repair, especially where they need roof and gutter work.
If any local Church needs financial help with building repair they can apply by 30 January 2015 to the National Heritage Memorial Fund (www.nhmf.org.uk). This arises from the Chancellor’s announcement of a £15m fund for roofs and gutters on vulnerable listed Church buildings.

I was pleased to receive a letter from the Environment Agency today telling me that Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE), acting on advice from the Agency and West Berkshire Council, have carried out work to make Pingewood substation more resilient. This includes raising all the equipment above the 1 in 100 flood level, installing flood gates at the entrances and repairing the external walls. In addition, SSE have purchased pumps and cleared the land drains around the site to ensure water drains from the area as quickly as possible.

I attended yesterday’s Roads Statement by the Transport Secretary. The major improvements closest to Wokingham are:

M4 Junction 3 to Junction 12   upgrading to a smart motorway

M3  Junctions 2  to 4A upgrading to smart motorway including hard shoulder running

M25 Junctions 10-16 (A3 to M40) upgrading smart motorway and substantial widening of junction 11, providing for four lane running through these junctions

M4 Heathrow slip providing improved access to airport

 

I enjoyed yesterday’s Carnival. The streets were crowded as people came to see the procession of attractive floats, performers and special vehicles. After the walks or drive around the Carnival route, we assembled in the Marketplace for carols as the Mayor switched on the lights.

I would like to say a big “thank you” to the organisers and to all who participated in it. The Berkshire Maestros played well to accompany the singing. It got our Christmas season off to a great start.

I have received representations from constituents about this matter. I have therefore written today to Graham Dalton, Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to highlight the concerns raised:

Mr Graham Dalton
Chief Executive
Highways Agency
Federated House
London Road
Dorking RH4 1SZ

26 November 2014

Dear Mr Dalton

I am writing with regard to the ongoing public consultation on the proposed M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway scheme.

I enclose copies of correspondence I have received from two of my constituents.

They are unhappy that officials at the Highways Agency have confirmed at consultation events that there are no plans for sound barriers to be erected along the corridor in order to reduce excessive noise from the motorway. Many of my constituents are significantly affected by this.

As the Highway Agency already proposes to erect a rigid safety barrier throughout the length of the proposed scheme, it is difficult to see why the outer barriers could not be enlarged to include sound proofing materials.

I would therefore be grateful if you could look again at this matter.

Yours sincerely

The Rt Hon John Redwood MP
Member of Parliament for Wokingham

I have had the following reply to the complaint I placed on the Heathrow site. I still recommend constituents register their own complaints on the Heathrow noise site as well:

 

” I am sorry you have been disturbed by aircraft using Heathrow. Your complaint has been registered.

The airspace trials ended on the 12 November and flights have now returned to pre-trial patterns.

During the trial your area was affected when the airport is on what is known as ‘westerly operations’ (i.e when there are westerly winds). During periods of westerly operations, planes will land over London and depart towards the west. However since the trial ended, we have mainly been on easterly operations. During these periods your area will see overflight either from planes making their way to the final approach into Heathrow or as they depart on route 6 and head west. This happened prior to the trial. I have attached some slides to show how your area is affected during easterly operations. It also shows the situation prior to the trial starting.

In light of concerns that flights have not returned to pre-trial patterns, we have also carried out some analysis that looks at the numbers and heights of aircraft before and after the trial. This analysis can be found on our website Heathrow.com/noise. “

A  local doctor sent me the following important observations and said I could make it more widely known. This complements my general blog today about the national NHS:

 

“The emotive “save our NHS”  petition below is doing the rounds.  I don’t agree with it.

 

I don’t think the problems of the NHS are related to private  providers.  After all,  as GPs that is exactly what  we are and often are portrayed as the jewel of the nhs!

 

The main problems of the NHS is the fact that it is overwhelmed with demand that is not directly related clinical need but by the fact that it is completely free and therefore open to over [mis] use .

 

1                        A significant portion of NHS resources are consumed inappropriately by a tiny minority of patients who do not have discernibly greater clinical need  than others but  for whom we can no longer act as effective gate keepers.  [They are so armed with “rights” and numerous channels of complaint that  waste our time and energy we have to give in]

2                        The general population are now also more quick to consult at a lower threshold  and we have no incentive or public narrative to “save NHS resources”.    So in addition to the tiny minority,  there is a more widespread low level  trend to increased use.

 

The BMA are too craven to be seen to blaming the ills of the NHS on patients so simply clamour for more resources.  But looking around the world this clearly will not solve the problem.  We have to address the issue of demand in a free service or there will not be an NHS as we know it in  5 years.

 

On the debate in question I think there is an issue about over-regulation.    To be required to put all services out to tender is bureaucratic and time consuming and often drives up costs and usage.    It can be useful where the NHS provider has fossilised but I would let the CCG GPs +  managers decide and not regulate it so much ”

 

 

 

 

I have taken up the issue of NHS privatisation and today’s private members bill with Ministers, as some constituents have sent me copies of an  email expressing worries on the topic. The Minister tells me:

 

“This Bill seeks to prevent ‘privatisation’ that simply isn’t happening.

 

• There are no new competition provisions in the Health and Social Care Act – it simply codified practices the old PCTs were obliged to follow under European law.
• Private sector provision grew at twice the rate under Labour than under this Government. Only 6 pence in every pound spent by the NHS is spent with private sector providers.
• Labour signed contracts with the private sector that guaranteed levels of income to Independent Sector Treatment Centres regardless of the amount of work they actually carried out – which we have stopped.
• We have made it a matter of law that commissioners cannot pursue competition in the NHS if it is not in the interests of patients.

 

The NHS Confederation, the independent membership body that represents the service, has already expressed serious concerns about the Bill, citing the ‘potential for disruption caused by further changes’.

 

The Bill stops local doctors making decisions about the best services for their patients. Clinical leadership is highly valued in the NHS – but this Bill seriously undermines it.

 

What the reforms actually did was remove layers of bureaucracy in the old SHA and PCT organisations so we have been able to recruit additional frontline staff:

 

• They removed 19,000 managers;
• They save the NHS £5.5 billion in this Parliament alone and then £1.5 billion every year after that;
• They mean we can afford to employ 8,000 more doctors and 5,600 more nurses on our wards compared to 2010;
• They help us to carry out nearly a million more operations a year, perform millions more diagnostic tests, and refer 51% more patients for cancer treatment, ensuring people get the care they need.

 

The Bill also claims that it will stop the NHS being affected by TTIP. Labour ignore the facts here too – because if there was any risk to the NHS, I would be the first to oppose the deal. The EU’s chief negotiator on the deal has said that ‘provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS’.

 

• The EU have acknowledged that the deal ‘excludes any commitment on public services, and the governments remain at any time free to decide that certain services should be provided by the public sector’.
• Labour MP John Healey, a former Minister, has said the deal protects the NHS and ‘progressives should keep campaigning’ for a TTIP deal ‘that will be good for British consumers and workers’  “

 

 

 

I

 

A number of constituents wrote to me seeking  changes to the law to make life easier for pub tenants.  The government Bill this week did take some steps to help, and I supported the government.  The Commons decided it did not go far enough and put through a further amendment based on some of the points many of us  had put to the government on behalf of constituents. Following that the government has sent me the following changes it now intends to put through to reflect the views expressed  inside and out side Parliament:

 

“Colleagues with an interest in pubs may be interested to know that, following discussions, the Government will be amending its approach to Part 4 of the Small Business Bill on the Pubs Code.

 

Concerns had been raised that the measures in the Bill inadvertently bring small family brewers into statutory regulation, when they are not the cause of difficulties tenants face. Other concerns had also been raised that we were not giving tenants of large pub companies the ability to get a fair deal by running their pub without the tie.

 

We are therefore proposing the following.

 

First, all pub companies with fewer than 350 tied pubs will now be excluded from the Statutory Code altogether. This means almost all the family Brewers, except for the biggest, will not be subject to the Statutory Code and only three further Brewers would be brought in.

 

Secondly, for the eight large pub companies with over 350 tied pubs, we will take a power to introduce a Market Rent only option. A Market Rent only option would allow tenants to choose to go free of tie. This power would only be permitted after 2 years if, after a review, the measures already in the Bill are found to be ineffective. Any exercise of this power would be by affirmative resolution of the House.

 

The result of the second change is that large pub companies would need to act on all the other measures in the Bill. If they don’t act to tackle the widely reported problems in two years, then the Government can bring in a full Market Rent only option.

 

Etc