Category: Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues

              In 2007-8 I started to draw attention to the need for the public sector to do more for less. I pointed out that spending was rising too quickly and not always being well spent.

              The costs of running my Parliamentary office and my expenses cost the taxpayer £105,917 in 2007-8. There were 23 MPs who did the job for less taxpayer cost, so I said I would cut my costs by 10% in 2008-9 and by another 10% in 2009-10. The two year cost reduction programme would take the total annual costs down to £85,792. I wished to show that you can cut costs in the public sector without damaging service levels.

              I have recently been sent the figures for 2009-10 by the Commons Authorities. They will publish the details in February 2011. The total costs I incurred in running the office and my own expenses came to £75,015 in 2009-10. That was £10,000 more off  than the target reductions and represents a decline of 29% compared to 2007-8. It would be more in inflation adjusted real terms, used in many public sector budgets.  £60,420 within the total was staff cost.

Last week at a meeting of business people in the Thames Valley I was told that some businesses lack electrical power and broadband capacity. They need both to do their jobs.

The UK wishes to be at the cutting edge of the digital revolution. We need to earn our high incomes by world standards by staying competitive and developing the new services and technologies of the age of the internet. It is bad news that in the Thames Valley, the UK’s answer to California’s Silicon Valley, we are being let down by a simple lack of cable and fibre optics.

I will take up the issues of insufficient power cable and insufficient high quality fibre optics and switching, as I understand their importance. I just hope our utilities are listening to their customers, and will do somnthing to sort it out. I am already in dialogue with Ed Vaizey, the broadband Minister, who is keen to see more and faster broadband thoughout the UK.

I am taking up the matter of so many roadworks all at the same time which constituents are understandably raising with me.

At last count Davis Street (Winnersh), Finchampstead Road, and Loddon Bridge Road are all closed. This means the B3030, the A 321 and the main Woodley spine road are all blocked, making north-south travel very difficult. In addition Waterloo Road, Lower Wokingham Road and Barkham Road have had or still have roadworks impeding flows one way.

I understand that the Council does not control the utilities if they need to do urgent work. However, surely it is possible to reach agreement about staggering works so more routes in a given direction stay open at any given time. It would also be good to see some new thinking, to get new utility pipes and wires put in concrete boxes under pavements, allowing easier access without digging trenches each time we need repairs. It does seem crazy that we are still laying things down the middle of busy roads and tarmacing over them.

Last week I was invited to visit the Centre. I was most impressed. It is the Big Society in operation, long before it became a slogan for a party and a government. The Centre caters for people of all views and requirements.

Charitable money has been well used to build a Centre which offers meeting and event rooms, offices, a coffee bar and lunch venue. Many charities use the facilities. There is a notice board system to keep the community in touch with itself. There are training sessions to help those needing jobs or wanting to switch jobs, facilities used by local public services, and regular lunches for those who want to drop in and enjoy some company when they eat.

It’s become so popular they are planning to build an extension to cater for the demand. Much of the work is done by volunteers.

I say “Well done” to Bob Ames and his team at the Centre. I wish them every success in carrying on providing that back up and support to people, charities and clubs in the Earley area.

Many of us think that carbon monoxide poisoning only happens overseas. Perhaps recent high profile cases of British youngsters dying abroad have helped to reinforce this idea.

Sadly, this is not the case. People die of carbon monoxide poisoning in the UK, including Wokingham. Tragically, a young woman, resident locally, lost her life earlier this year from this deadly gas.

Carbon monoxide has no taste or smell, making it impossible to detect in the home without an alarm. There are a number of charities working in this area and all recommend the use of an audible carbon monoxide alarm which can be bought for around £15 from DIY stores.

Earlier this week I joined other MPs to press the Minister to honour his election pledge to compensate Equitable Life victims. He told us he would make a proper statement before the summer recess.

Today he kept his word, published the Chadwick Report and the draft Bill to allow the payments.

The Report concludes that Equitable Life policy holders lost between £2.9 billion and £3.7 billion. Chadwick recommends that compensation is paid, as the regulatory failure aggravated the losses. He proposes offering 20-25% of the loss in recognition of the regulatory mistakes.

The government has not accepted this recommendation. Instead, the Minister has said he will consult widely on it before reaching a conclusion as part of the autumn spending review.

He has appointed a three man commission to work out the details of a fair and independent scheme to decide and make the payments, once the total is agreed.

Any constituent who wishes to contribute to the Minister’s consultation should send their views to the Financial Secretary at HM Treasury, Whitehall London SW1.

As someone who welcomes the end of much regional government in general, and the termination of regional plans and top down housing targets in particular, it is time to ask how should Councils use their freedom?

Councillors under the new regime can set their own policy. Of course it needs to be well based on objective considerations. I suggest a way of deriving a sensible housing target figure below for an area which has faced a lot of recent development and feels under too much pressure:

Introduce or strengthen the Green Belt and green gaps between settlements policy. Councillors can define the areas of our landscape that need to be kept free of new development to preserve the structure of settlements.
Have a policy of not building on floodplain. Some of the worst government Inspector decisions of recent years entailed building on areas subject to flooding, with bad results as we have seen. The Environment Agency would welcome a tougher approach to protecting floodplain.
Revise the density targets to reflect the suburban and rural style of most areas. Authorities outside main towns and cities should not be building at central urban densities.
Ensure sufficient land is demarked for leisure and recreation use.
Protect higher grade agricultural land for farming
Put in an infrastructure link – you could say that substantial new settlement construction needs investment in new highway and schools capacity to make it successful. Planning permission would not be granted for such development until contracts have been exchanged and the money found to build the infrastructure needed.

When your planners have included all these priorities into your plan or map, you can then see how much land remains which might be considered for housing. Then you can consider “housing need”. The past practise of expensive surveys asking each of us if we have people in our households who might want to form a new household in the years ahead is not a good way to identify local housing need. Housing need should be related to employment growth and decisions on commercial and industrial space locally. You can then calculate both how much housing you might “need” and how much space remains after the other policy requirements for land use.

For Councils that welcome more development and wish to encourage growth they can design a strategy which identifies more land for development and offers full collaboration by directing their capital spend to support the chosen areas for growth. Even Councils that wish to be mroe restrictive will probably have preferred areas for growth and brownfield sites for redevelopment.

On Friday 25 June I was invited to open the new sensory garden at White House. The young children sang a couple of songs. They joined in a count down to the cutting of the ribbon. It was glorious summer day. I hope the children enjoy their garden, and learn how things grow if they tend them.

Yesterday at a meeting with business people in the constituency I was asked who will speak for business if the government presses ahead with scrapping SEEDA and other regional quangos?

My answer was simple. Local MPs. Taxpayers are already paying for MPs to give voice to local and national concerns that need a government answer. Why pay twice or three times over, by also paying for quango heads and advisers to do the same thing?

In the 1990s in the Thames Valley one of the business organisations like the CBI or the IOD or the Chambers of Commerce arranged regular meetings when representatives of the business community could meet local MPs. At those meetings the business community told us what they wanted. We explained what the governemnt was seeking to do. We debated disagreements, and took up issues where they needed representation. If they want to meet us at Westminster we can provide a free room. If they would prefer to meet nearer to home, I am sure one of the larger companies can offer us a room.

In the last decade there has been a profusion of networks, talking shops and consultations, but no-one I have met thinks it meant the Thames Valley got better answers or indeed on many issues answers of any kind. Big decisions about how to strengthen the supply of power, broadband, and transport capacity have usually been deferred. Huge sums have been spent on consultants and consultations, but there is little to show for it.

So why don’t we go back to the idea that where business – or any other group of constituents – wants an answer from government or seeks a change of policy, they put their case through their MPs? Why pay twice?

Dear John

Abolition of Regional Strategies

Thank you for your letter of the 17 May 2010 and for your congratulations on my appointment as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; it is a post I am pleased to hold so that I can implement the Coalition Government’s radical policies on devolving power from Whitehall to citizens, communities and local councils.

I can assure your constituents that the Government is absolutely committed to abolishing Regional Strategies. This intention is in the Coalition agreement and was announced in the Queen’s speech that we will progress legislation to do it.

I am very keen to move in advance of legislation and I am currently considering the implications of revoking Regional Strategies ahead of taking legislation through Parliament. I have also written to all local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate clearly setting out our intention to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Consequently, decisions on housing supply will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans. I will make a formal announcement on this matter soon. However, I expect Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as a material planning consideration in any decision they are currently taking. I believe this will be a big step in devolving power over housing and development back to local people, communities and local councils.

Yours ever