The Prime Minister and Chancellor were right to say the UK will not pay the £1.7 bn the EU demands. The UK does not accept retrospective taxation. We are already paying too much for our membership of the EU, and support for the EU is not strong. The UK and the US that sprung from the UK have long traditions of imposing democratic control over taxation and expecting remedy of grievances before approving more money for the government.

Ministers will now be under enormous pressure to give in, to reach an accommodation. They will be told they have to give in for the sake of UK relations with the EU. They will be told they must not operate illegally. They will be told the UK has to pay the money as it is the inevitable result of our signature on the treaties.

Ministers have more cards than the officials and the EU tell them they have. It does need the UK’s signature on the cheque, which only Ministers backed by Parliament can give. All the time  Ministers refuse to sign the EU has a problem.

Conservative Ministers all voted against the last 3 treaties for good reasons. We all thought they went too far and endangered the UK’s relationship with the EU. The UK is not part of the Euro by common consent. We should not  be expected to pay ever rising bills for the political structure needed to keep the Euro going. At some point the UK’s unsatisfactory relationship has to be sorted out.

To make sure Ministers do operate legally they should ask Parliament to approve a simple amendment to the 1972 European Communities Act, which would confirm that they are acting legally in not paying retrospective levies. The large majority of the British people have no wish to have to pay a tax rise to send more money to Brussels. Their Parliament should speak for them and back Ministers in saying No.

 

New housebuilding has risen from the lows  of the Great recession but is still running well below the levels the housebuilding industry thinks is necessary, and below the levels of new household formation. Part of this is related to the immigration issues which we have often debated on this site. Today I wish to look at other matters.

If the country chooses a Conservative government next May and if that government succeeds in getting a new deal to control migration from the EU, there will still be a need to build new homes for people already settled here and for the newcomers we still invite in from all round the world. No-one in the policy and political world is proposing an end to all migration. The UK is an attractive place and there will be  some further expansion of numbers.

This government has promoted more homeownership and more housebuilding through a variety of means. Mending the banks, setting out the Right to buy scheme, and creating a background of more jobs and growth have all contributed to the increase in new homes. More land has been made available for development.

There are still predictable tensions between housebuilders and settled communities accepting new development. In an area like Wokingham we have accepted substantial new building over the years. Some of this has been properly planned by the local Council with supporting roads, schools and other facilities. Some was pressed upon us by Planning Inspectors under the previous government’s top down regime.  The danger of this could be seen in aggravated flooding problems, road congestion and the need to expand school and medical provision without the local community always generating the capital receipts from the development to cover these associated costs.

Future development needs to be at a  sustainable level with care taken to ensure that substantial new development sites are properly prepared with good road access, public service provision and above all with proper methods of dealing with faster run off of  the surface water and with the waste water that buildings generate. Councils and the Highways Agency also need to use the opportunity afforded by new development to update and upgrade the road network which is becoming  increasingly congested.

 

 

During the last government many road schemes were cancelled and little new road building took place. At the same time both local and  national government sought to manage the existing road system more intensively, often reducing traffic flows and traffic speeds. Sometimes this was necessary for good safety reasons. On other occasions it was done to try to force people out of the car and van onto public transport.

At the same time the government invited in large numbers of new people who owned cars and vans or aspired to do so, greatly adding to the vehicle stock and the congestion problems. Around 85% of all our journeys are made  by road transport. The success of privatisation of the railways in its first decade in boosting passenger numbers has  been followed by substantial rail investment which has also helped boost capacity and travellers. Because the initial base of 6% of journeys was so modest, even with good railway growth it was not possible to take the pressure off the roads by this means.

The Coalition government  recognised the problem of lack of roadspace,  but faced two difficulties in responding quickly. The list  of possible new road schemes ready to build was very short. It takes time to crank up good projects and get them through the design and planning phases. The government inherited a massive public deficit, and the one area the outgoing government had cut to make a start on deficit reduction was capital schemes.

The Chancellor has gradually reversed some of the capital cuts, and the Transport department is working away on more road schemes for the future. The country remains a long way behind where it needs to be. Every day there is a danger that a single incident will bring a major route network to a halt. One crash, or one section of roadworks can result in  long delays.

I will look at what could be done to improve both safety and vehicle flow on the roads we already have in a later post.

 

The large increase in EU migration has come about for a variety of reasons. The addition of several lower income countries to the EU in recent years makes it more tempting for people to wish to come to a richer country like the UK to take advantage of the better pay, higher welfare benefits and better public services. The success of the UK economy in generating many more jobs at a time when several major continental countries are back in recession or stuck with very slow growth also encourages more people to migrate to the UK.

The original idea of free movement was the free movement of workers, not the free movement of benefit seekers. The UK has fallen foul of anti discrimination provisions in EU law when having a universal system of benefits. It means it is difficult or impossible for the state to restrict EU migrants from  having access to income top ups, housing and child benefits which are universally available to low income or no income people in the UK. Some other continental countries have contributory based systems where new migrants do  not qualify automatically because they have not yet worked and contributed in their new host country.

I have urged this government to switch us over to a contributory based system where all can be treated fairly but where UK citizens who have contributed – or who have earned entitlement by undertaking full time education here for a specified period – qualify for benefits that would not be given to new arrivals.

The government has tightened the criteria for eligibility within the current legal framework, and is now limiting the time someone can be out of work and looking for work on benefits to just three months. Going further and reducing  the benefits “pull” of our system further  should be relatively easy within  the confines of current EU law, if the UK is prepared to change the basis of its welfare system. That still leaves open the bigger issue of the UK being able to control the numbers of job seekers who come and take jobs, which the Prime Minister has said he wishes to sort out in his renegotiation.

 

After years of irritating lectures from Germany on how the UK has to put up with  unacceptable EU controls of our borders, with the deeply damaging dear energy policy, and  with constant raids on our tax revenue to pay the EU’s bills in return for being able to buy Mercedes and BMWs on EU terms, I read today Germany now thinks the UK should leave the EU.  I guess that’s progress.

If Germany cannot see the need for the UK to have a new relationship because we are not part of the Euro and do not wish to join the political union, then the UK people may well vote to leave.  Then Germany can have the pleasure of paying the bills for the rest of the EU without our help.

The UK has rightly opted out of all the criminal justice measures of the EU. Conservative opposition to centralising treaties in the last decade did at least persuade Labour to give the UK the option to keep out of the EU’s growing role in criminal justice. I suspect Labour had no intention of using the opt out, and thought by now the public would have forgotten or not mind if we transferred more and more of our power over the criminal  law to Brussels. Instead the coalition has sensibly opted out of all the measures, to restore the position to that prevailing under previous Conservative governments who always kept criminal justice out of  EU control and outside the Treaties.

Now there is a debate about whether the UK should opt back in to some of these measures. The biggest opt in proposed is to the European Arrest Warrant. Many Conservative MPs are against this idea. Labour and the Lib Dems are enthusiastic to opt in, along with some Conservative Ministers.

Those of us who oppose the measure have put forward three important worries about the operation of the Arrest Warrant. The first  is its use for less important offences, when we were assured by Labour that this was primarily for tackling terrorism, murder and other very serious crimes. The second is the absence of good standards over detention and trial in some other EU countries who can use the European Arrest Warrant against UK citizens. The third is the ability of another  country to use a Warrant to extradite a UK citizen for an alleged crime, where their conduct is not a crime under UK law.

The government has agreed with our three detailed complaints, and has said it has now taken action in UK law to prevent these abuses of the Warrant. UK courts are now directed by UK law not to allow a Warrant for minor offences, and not to permit one if the matter is not a crime in the UK. They think the position on rights elsewhere has been improved.  So, say some Ministers, we should now be willing to vote for this measure. They claim it helps the UK deal with violent and serious criminals who exit the UK for an EU country.

Some of us still have doubts about this device. Whilst UK law and courts may currently be able to limit the use of the Arrest Warrant, they will not be able to limit its use affecting UK citizens outside the UK. Once you go back under the EU controls, the ECJ could always settle a case against the UK which could then limit or prevent the UK law applying in the way Ministers intend. We supported the Conservative policy of not allowing criminal justice authority to pass from Westminster to Brussels for good reasons. Controlling your own criminal justice system and being able to change the criminal law is an important part of an independent democratic country.

Labour and Lib Dems respond by saying we need this warrant to keep us safe, as it is the way to bring back nasty criminals who have escaped our country so they can stand trial and be imprisoned if guilty. We have arrangements with most other countries in the world to let this happen through Extradition treaties. These treaties do not place our criminal justice system under foreign control but allow co-operation to bring suspects back for trial. We have long had good co-operative policing arrangements with EU and non EU countries when seeking to track down criminals.  That is what we would prefer for our dealings with the EU as we do for Switzerland or the USA.

 

 

When I published the Conservative Economic Policy Review in 2007 it drew attention to the much faster growth rate recorded in recent years in London compared to the rest of the UK. Labour’s devolution and regional policies did not succeed in even arresting the economic underperformance of the UK outside London, let alone narrowing the gap between  London and the rest.

The ONS figures for gr0wth since then show more of the same. The period 2007-11 saw London grow by 12%  (nominal Gross value added) compared to just half that, at 6%, for the rest of the UK.  The CEBR and other forecasts are for London to continue outperforming in the period 2014-19, with their estimate showing London accounting for one third of the total likely growth for the UK as a whole.

No-one can deny Labour did direct much larger sums of public money to places away from London. They moved public sector activities including much of the BBC outside London.  They gave substantial devolved powers to Scotland, and some to Wales and Northern Ireland. They imposed additional taxes on financial and property activities concentrated in London. None of this balanced the growth or achieved the aim  of faster growth outside the capital.

I am all in favour of trying new policies, and extending old ones, that might help stimulate more growth outside London. I am happy for more of the public sector to move away from the busy city hub of our nation. What I am not happy about is the idea that London’s growth is wrong, needs to be stopped, or is unhelpful to the rest of the country. We should be pleased that we have one of the world’s great cities, that it attracts money and talent from abroad, and that it pays substantial taxes to contribute to the national public  spend.

The other evening I returned from speaking in Lincolnshire to Kings Cross at 11.15pm. The Victoria  line  train I took back to Westminster was standing room only for part of the journey. Last week I spoke to a business dinner about our EU relationship. When I left the restaurant in the West End at 10.30 pm it was difficult walking on the pavement for all the people out and about, and the buses went by  completely full. London is bursting with energy and activity, and is generating large numbers of business opportunities.

Brought up as a teenager in Kent, I looked to London for my future. I went there as often as I could afford the train fare. As a schoolboy and as a  student I wanted to enjoy museums, exhibitions, galleries, external lectures, music and theatre and the rest whenever possible. I always assumed I would get a job in London. London is still a beacon to many in our country, a place of opportunity and interest.

The problem we face is not that London grows too much, but that some other parts  of the country grow too little. The problem is not that wages  are higher in London, but that they are lower in some other places. Many people with businesses outside London do come to London from time to time to add to their orders and customers. London is not a threat to the prosperity of the rest of the country, but an opportunity to enhance it.

The government’s  economic policy has  allowed the economy to generate many new jobs. Many more families now have at least one income earner. The best way to cut the welfare bill is to help people get a job. The best way to cut  public spending is to help the creation of many more better paid jobs.

One of the best ways to get a better paid job is to accept a less well paid job and work your way up the organisation. Some get promotion with their current employer. Some change employer to obtain a better job. Some take advantage of  training programmes to lift their skills and earning  capacity.

The UK needs to lift its productivity so we can pay ourselves more.  We need to work smarter and more effectively. Current policies have led to more people working for themselves and to setting up new businesses. This augurs well for the future, as some of these will grow into larger concerns.

1.7m new jobs is a good start. Now we need more better paid jobs. I wish to see in the next Conservative manifesto tax, training and business policies which assist growth, higher productivity and better education and training for UK citizens. We need to place  strivers at the heart of our approach,helping remove tax, regulatory and educational obstacles to success.

It appears that Mr Clegg and the Lib Dems are as determined as Labour to deny England any justice on our lop sided devolution settlement. Rumour has it that they turned down Mr Hague’s request to join Conservatives in voting through English votes for English issues. If they would add their votes to ours we could pass a simple government motion to amend Standing Orders and from that date we would have English votes for English issues.

I am still awaiting a reply to my letter to Mr Clegg, which I reproduce below

 

The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP

Leader of the Liberal Democrats

Liberal Democrat Headquarters

8-10 Great George Street

London SW1P 3AE

 

13 October 2014

 

Dear Mr Clegg

You have doubtless seen recent polls which show more than 70% of the public think that we need to offer justice to England as we complete further transfers of power to Scotland. As Scotland moves to having control over her own Income Tax rates, so we will need a way of setting Income Tax for England without the advice and votes of Scottish MPs.

The important first step to achieve more balanced devolution is the policy of English votes for English issues. We could do this by passing a simple motion amending the Standing Orders of the House. I would like to know if you and your party is in agreement, as it would be easiest to table it as a government motion and it would then have a comfortable majority. It would also mean you could share in the credit for doing something that is both just and popular. Our Amendment will give similar voting facilities to Wales and Northern Ireland depending on the degree of devolution to them.

If you do not agree with this proposal, then I and a number of my Conservative colleagues will aim to table it anyway, as we believe there will be a narrow majority for it in the Commons even without Liberal Democrat official support.

Yours ever

 

The Rt Hon John Redwood MP

Member of Parliament for Wokingham

Meanwhile the latest poll from Scotland points to a massive surge in SNP votes. If this is sustained at the General Election Westminster cannot ignore the force of the wish for more Home Rule.The UK government and Parliament will have to sit down and discuss  a new settlement for Scotland. That must also mean a new settlement for England too. If the SNP win most of the Scottish seats in 2015 it will mean the need to discuss a proper federal solution for the UK.

 

At the peak in 2007 130,000 mortgages a month were being issued. House prices were rising, new buyers came into the market. The rise in interest rates and the credit crunch which the authorities organised in 2008-9 changed all that. Banks had to throttle back on new loans. Some individuals struggled to meet their mortgage payments. The number of new mortgages slumped to 30,000 at the worst in 2008.

There has been a reasonable recovery this decade. By January of this year the monthly rate of new mortgage approvals was running at 76,500.  £18.5 bn was lent. By this September the figures have fallen back a bit. 61,000 new mortgages were arranged, with a value of £15 bn. This is still well above the low point, and well down on the high point of the  bubble in 2007.

Home ownership is a good aim of public policy. It is far better to look forward to your old age knowing by then you will own your home and not face a rent bill. Owning a property will be cheaper than renting the same kind of property over a typical adult lifetime. Ownership also gives you greater flexibility about use,adaptation and decoration of your home, subject to planning rules for the bigger changes. It is also 0ften easier to switch homes and move locations if you own, than if you are a tenant in social rented accommodation.

Homes are less affordable today when comparing prices with incomes than forty years ago. Part of this reflects social change. Two earner couples are more common now, and  greater account is taken of both incomes in mortgage calculations. Part of it means young people have to wait longer, save more, and achieve higher earnings levels before they can buy their first home. Some get round this by buying property jointly and sharing.

The Mortgage Market Review has required those advancing money to be properly trained, to take full account of the affordability of the mortgage for the individual, and to stress test the mortgage asking what would happen if interest rates rose. Some say this has held back mortgage lending in recent months as people adjust to the new system. Others say this is a welcome, as it should make it more difficult for people to take out unaffordable levels of new debt.

To have a healthy first time buyer market there also needs to be a sensible balance between new home construction and additional people seeking accommodation.