Author: johnredwood

Heathrow noise

November 17, 2014 2 Comments

I have had a number of complaints about noise levels from aircraft this weekend. The noise levels have been high despite the early end of the Heathrow flight path trials which many complained about previously. The airport did respond to our lobbying and decided to curtail the experiments.

The airport was on easterly operations over the week-end which is always noisier for the Wokingham area. Wind direction has always affected how the airport works. I will make further representations, as part of the campaign to support the introduction of quieter aircraft and better flight paths to reduce overhead noise in residential areas like ours.

Individuals should also tell the airport when they think it is too noisy. The website to do so is www.heathrowairport.com/noise.

Can I have two national identities?

November 17, 2014 135 Comments

Scottish nationalists argue that they and many of their fellow Scots are primarily Scottish. They see this as an exclusive identity, precluding them from happily also being British or UK citizens. Unionists in Scotland claim they are content to be Scottish and British. They wish to enjoy both identities, accepting the sovereignty of the Westminster UK Parliament with proportionate local decision making in Scotland.

Some Scottish nationalists define their Scottish nationalism in a positive and future looking way, anticipating a better tomorrow if Scotland could be more independent. Others define their nationalism in a more negative mood, rejecting the influence of England on their politics and often attacking angrily the more conservative or free enterprise politics of the south of the UK.

Until recently many people in England have thought little about our English identity. The move for more devolution to Scotland started to change that. The Scottish referendum has given it another push. Today a large majority of English voters want English votes for English laws, and some wish to go further to a separate English Parliament.

More English people today contact me to complain that the financial settlement is not fair. They want the UK national broadcaster, the BBC, to have a BBC England to promote England and our causes as BBC Scotland promotes Scottish interests. They want the suppressed identity of England to emerge more fully.

Most English people still think of themselves as British and English. The English part of our identity is becoming more important, the more the Labour and Lib Dem parties seek to deny it and the more the BBC seeks to airbrush it from our debate by trying to create artificial English regions which few want and love.

This week I will renew my demands for English votes for English issues at Westminster. Mr Clegg has still not bothered to write to me in reply to my letter, showing just how little concern he has for England and fairness.

If we have another Parliament where the majority government of the union is not the same as the majority of MPs elected for English constituencies, there will have to be new arrangements. The English will not accept Scotland deciding her own Income Tax rate in Edinburgh, but also Scottish MPs at Westminster helping the English minority there to enforce an Income tax rate on England which the majority do not accept.

Do you feel you have two national identities? Is being British or English (or Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish) more important?

The politics of identity

November 16, 2014 67 Comments

When I first entered UK politics we discussed mainstream subjects like living standards, taxes, the level of public spending, the balance of payments, criminal justice, planning and transport. We thought little about identity. We had inherited a United Kingdom which was self governing, proud of its history, and on the side of freedom and democracy.

We English did not usually distinguish between our Englishness and our Britishness. We thought of the Union flag as our flag and the national anthem as our anthem, even when we were supporting English rather than Union teams. The Irish debates about Home Rule and separation of the Republic were too distant
to be even memories for most.

Welsh and Scottish nationalism attracted little support, and debates about them were largely confined to Wales and Scotland. Too few MPs were elected for these nationalist parties to make it much of a UK debate. In the 1970s Labour in a state of panic, with more representation in Scotland and Wales, embarked on its first devolution proposals to “head off” incipient nationalism. They failed to secure the requisite majority in either country for devolved assemblies, against a voter backdrop of limited interest. They had misread the “threat” and the politics.

The long period of Conservative government from 1979 to 1997 saw modest progress by nationalist parties, but still it was a minority issue which did not engage Westminster very much and England not at all. It was Labour’s arrival in power in 1997, determined to drive devolution through which transformed the level of interest in the politics of identity in the UK and led to the current strength of the SNP.

Labour’s enthusiasm for a devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly contained base motives. Some of them wanted these bodies so they could always govern a wide range of issues in these parts of the UK, even when the Conservatives had won a majority in the country as a whole. Labour just assumed they would always have a majority in these regional Parliaments. Instead, the SNP used the platform and the opportunity of the Scottish Parliament to grow in support. Eventually the impossible happened and Labour lost control to the SNP of its creature Parliament.

Once you have a nationalist party within a Union which can command a majority in its part of the wider Union, politics has to change. The parties of the Union cannot retreat to the comfort of their majority at Union level and pretend that the nationalist majority does not exist. I will be returning to this set of issues in future posts, to develop what might happen next.

Maiden Place Consultation by Post Office

November 15, 2014 1 Comment

I reproduce below for constituents’ benefit the consultation letter I have received from the Post Office about the future Maiden Place Post Office. The Post Office letter below explains the proposal and how to send in your views on it through the Post Office website:

“Maiden Place Post Office®
Unit 11, Maiden Place, Lower Earley, Reading, RG6 3HA
Proposed move to new premises & branch modernisation
I’m writing to let you know that we are proposing to move the above Post Office branch to a new location – Petfayre, 1 Maiden Place, Lower Earley, Reading, RG6 3HD. I am also pleased to tell you that, if the move goes ahead, it will change to one of our new local style branches.
Maiden Place branch closed temporarily in April 2013. We are now able to restore the service and I am therefore, pleased to inform you that a new operator has been appointed, providing us with the opportunity to incorporate Post Office services into their existing Pet Accessories store, located approximately 60 metres from the previous branch. The establishment of a Post Office local service presents the best possible solution to allow us to restore Post Office services to our customers in the area.
This change is part of a major programme of modernisation and investment taking place across the Post Office network, the largest in the history of Post Office Ltd, which will see up to 8,000 branches modernised and additional investment in over 3,000 community and outreach branches. The programme is underpinned by Government investment, with the Government committing £1.34bn in 2010 to maintain and modernise the Post Office network and in November 2013 announcing a further £640m investment in the Post Office network until 2018.
What will this mean for customers?
 Post Office services will be offered from a till on the retail counter in a modern open plan branch
 Longer opening hours
 A wide range of Post Office products and services will still be available
Consulting on the proposed new location
We’re now starting a 6 week local public consultation and would like you to tell us what you think about the suitability of the proposed new location. Before we finalise our plans, we would really like to hear your views on the proposed location, particularly on the following areas:
 How suitable do you think the new location and premises are and how easy it is to get there?
 Are the new premises easy for you to get into and is the inside easily accessible?
 Do you have any concerns about the new location?
 If so, do you have any suggestions that could help us make it better for you?
 Are there any local community issues which you think could be affected by the proposed move?
 Is there anything you particularly like about the proposed change?
I’ve enclosed an information sheet that provides more details about the new location and the range of products that will be available. If you have any comments or questions, please email or write to me via our Communication and Consultation team, whose contact details are below. Please note that your comments will not be kept confidential unless you expressly ask us to do so by clearly marking them “In Confidence”. Any information we receive will be considered as we finalise our plans for the new branch. Other people in your organisation may be interested in this proposal, so please let them know about it.
You can share your views on the proposed move through our easy and convenient new online questionnaire via the link below. When entering the site you will be asked to enter the code for this branch: 23893999
postofficeviews.co.uk
Dates for local public consultation:
Local Public Consultation starts
11 November 2014
Local Public Consultation ends
23 December 2014
Proposed month of change
February 2015
I’ve included information about the Code of Practice over the page and copies of the Code will also be available in branch.
Thank you for considering our proposal. At the end of the consultation I’ll be in touch again to let you know our final plans.
Yours sincerely
Julia Marwood
Regional Network Manager
How to contact us:
Please note this is the full address to use and no further address details are required
Items sent by Freepost take 2 working days to arrive. Therefore, responses by Freepost should be sent in sufficient time to arrive before the end of the consultation period. Working days do not include Saturdays or Sundays. Responses received after the deadline will not be considered.
 postofficeviews.co.uk  comments@postoffice.co.uk  Customer Helpline: 08457 22 33 44 Textphone: 08457 22 33 55  FREEPOST Your CommentsWant to tell us what you think right here and now – scan here If you don’t have a QR code scanner on your phone, you can find one in your app store.
Post Office Ltd can provide information and receive comments (where appropriate) in alternative formats, for example, to assist the visually impaired. To obtain further specific information, please contact the Customer Helpline on 08457 22 33 44.
.
.
Maiden Place Post Office information sheet
Address
Petfayre
1 Maiden Place
Lower Earley
Reading
RG6 3HD
Post Office opening hours
Mon
08:30 – 17:30
Tue
08:30 – 17:30
Wed
08:30 – 17:30
Thu
08:30 – 17:30
Fri
08:30 – 17:30
Sat
08:30 – 17:30
Sun
Closed
Distance
60 metres, away from the previous branch, along level terrain.
Accessibility &
accessibility works
Access and facilities
Access will be level with a wide door entrance. Internally, there would be a hearing loop and space for a wheelchair.
Parking
Large free car park within 90 metres from the branch, with four dedicated disabled spaces.
Retail
Pet Accessories store

Sir John Major bangs on about Europe

November 15, 2014 97 Comments

It is good news that Sir John Major now recognises the need to change our immigration policy and for the UK to gain control over who we invite in to our country. When he rightly negotiated our opt out from the main point of the Maastricht Treaty, the Euro, he was also insistent that the UK kept control of its own borders. It is a pity Labour did not follow his wise course on these matters.

It is a sign of how seriously he takes it that he should make this the main topic of one of his rare interventions in UK public debate. He used to believe that we should not bang on about Europe. Instead today he acknowledges the central place migration and the EU has come to take in our national conversation.

The problem for those who wish us to stay in the EU is it is not just a question of migration and borders. Our current membership of the EU is incompatible with self government and full Parliamentary democracy, as so many decisions are made for us by the Brussels government. That is why the Conservative party opposed the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties on principle and voted against all three.

Our current membership is damaging to our living standards, with the high fuel bills, the weak Eurozone economy and the downward pressure on wages. Our current membership is very bad for business. The EU’s energy policy is leading to the loss of plants in major heavy energy using industries, the fishing policy has led to the run down of our fishing ports, the tax and regulatory attack on financial services is beginning to push business outside the EU.

So our current EU membership does not just pose a problem over the pace of migration. It is bad for business, bad for living standards and bad for democracy. All these things need to be debated and addressed in a new relationship with the rest of the EU.

Good job creation figures, more people moving from welfare to work

November 14, 2014 1 Comment

October’s record breaking employment figures show 30.8 million people in work – the highest level on record. Wokingham’s unemployment remains at very low levels, which is welcome news.

This means an average of over 13,000 more people in jobs every single week over the last year.

As well as a record number of women in work and a continued fall in youth unemployment it is encouraging to see that pay cheques are beginning to rise faster than inflation.
Through our welfare reforms, we are helping people to move off benefits and into work – giving hard working people the peace of mind and security that comes with a steady income.

These remain difficult times for families and there is more to do, but the best way to help people break free of welfare dependency is to go on delivering a plan that rewards hard work and creates growth and jobs.

Key achievements of the last four years

• Employment rate at pre-recession level: 73%.
• Unemployment rate: 6%.
• Nearly 1.33 million more people working full time since the election.
• Over 2 million more people working in the private sector since 2010
• Female employment up 774,000 since 2010
• The largest annual fall in female unemployment on record, with the UK seeing the fastest growth in the number of women in work out of all G7 economies.
• JSA 18-24 claimant count down 210,000 since 2010 – below pre-recession level.
• Excluding full-time students, youth unemployment down 163,000 since 2010
• JSA claimant count down 563,000 since the 2010.
• Long-term unemployment down 99,000 since 2010.
• Number of people on the main out-of-work benefits down 855,000 since 2010 – the lowest since 1990.
• A lower proportion of workless households than at any time on record – down more than 400,000 since 2010.
• Two thirds of the rise in employment has been in higher skilled occupations since 2010 – commanding a higher wage.
• Job vacancies nearly at pre-recession levels – over 680,000 at any one time – an increase of 25% on the year.
• Wages are now beginning to increase in real terms – average regular pay (excluding bonuses, in the three months to September) rose 1.3% on the year, with private sector pay up 1.6%. This compares to an increase in the Consumer Prices Index of 1.2% in September.

M4 Junctions 3 – 12 Smart Motorway Scheme

November 14, 2014 1 Comment

The Highways Agency have told me that there will be further public exhibitions on the above scheme. Two will be held in my constituent, and they will be open to the public from 14.00 to 20.00 hours. The details are:

21 November at Theale Village Hall, Theale

28 November at Winnersh Community Centre, Winnersh

I am planning to go along to the Winnersh event.

Planning application at Beech Hill

November 14, 2014 0 Comments

A number of constituents have contacted me about the planning application at Beech Hill, which has now been referred to the Planning Inspectorate. I have conveyed the concerns expressed to the relevant case officer:

Ms Melanie Dunn
Case Officer
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House, 2 The Square
Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN

11 November 2014

Appeal Reference No: 2209286

Dear Ms Dunn

I am writing in support of Wokingham Borough Council’s refusal of planning permission at Beech Hill.

The Council investigated this application to build 120 homes very extensively, and found it violated a number of important policies in the Core strategy and accompanying local plans, and South East Plan Policy NRM6 related to the Thames Basin Healthlands Special Protection Area.

The Council’s decision notice was comprehensive, well based and showed just how out of line with planning policy this proposal was.

The local community wishes to support the Council’s decision. The proposed development would cause road and transport problems. The development is not sustainable and would require supplementing public services outside the planned areas of growth in the Core Strategy without the money to do so.

It entails a loss of open countryside. It would damage the rural nature of Beech Hill Road, and adversely affect the environment and local amenity.

Wokingham Borough has drawn up a local plan which identifies and releases large areas for substantial development. It did so to concentrate that development and permit the proper provision of transport links, public services and other support to the new developments. I trust you will uphold their decision in this case.

Yours sincerely

John Redwood

Wokingham Times

November 14, 2014 0 Comments

Remembrance day was a very moving event. In Church in Wokingham people read out the names of around 220 local men who lost their lives in the Great War. They were mainly very young men, with their whole adult lives ahead of them, mown down by shells or bullets in the dreadful mud and terror of the trenches. They were our Great Uncles and Great Great uncles – and a few of our grandfathers and great grandfathers, though many were too young to have married and had children.

In their memory, we can ask what would they have wanted for the generations that followed? I am sure they would have wanted us to have learned from the bitter experiences of total war in the machine age. They would want us to redouble our efforts to try to avoid it in future. Those soldiers who survived that conflict hoped they had fought in the war to end all wars. Twenty one years later our country was at war again against the same aggressor.

Today we also mourn our more recent military dead – in Afghanistan and other modern conflicts. They too were brave. They fought for us and for our country and we take pride in their conduct and military skills. We need to ask how we can best remember them.

One of the most onerous tasks an MP can have is to debate and vote on whether our country should go to war again. When doing so it is wise to remember the loss and suffering that voting for war can bring. It is vital that MPs ask if there is some other way to improve the lot of those we wish to help, to seek some political or diplomatic solution to the problems. The First World War showed that even after an orgy of death and destruction and a crushing military victory, it was still all too possible for the politicians and the peoples to mess up the peace and place it all at risk a few years later. The Middle Eastern conflicts of today show that after military victory it is even more important to know how to create and support a stable democratic government in the country concerned. If we fail to do so the sacrifice of soldiers does not lead to the better life we want them to help create.

My study of history and my close engagement with the debates about recent wars has made me more reluctant to commit our forces, and keener to seek political and diplomatic solutions to problems. Of course if our country is directly threatened and force is the only means of defence we must be strong and resolved in it use. Where the problems are complex, in different cultures, and where our knowledge of the religions, languages and customs is imperfect, we should be careful about committing forces and resorting to arms. Many of these situations will need political solutions in the end, so the sooner we help others locally to try to bring peace about, the better.

Oppositions are meant to oppose

November 14, 2014 106 Comments

People have written in asking for my thoughts on the events of Monday in the Commons.

I have long made clear on this site, in the Commons, in public and in private that I had urged them to opt out and supported the opt out of all the criminal justice measures undertaken by the current government, and did not wish them to opt back in to any measure. I argued this on the simple ground of Parliamentary sovereignty.

I also made clear that I share the government’s wish to be able to bring unpleasant criminals to court if they leave the UK for a refuge elsewhere. I asked the Home Secretary to make arrangements for extradition from the rest of the EU as we do for the rest of the world, by an Extradition Treaty. This to me is preferable to placing our criminal jurisdiction under the ECJ and Brussels, and can be effective, as it is for non EU cases today.

On Monday we once again saw how Parliament cannot work well if the Opposition refuses to oppose. Labour told us endlessly that they fully supported opting back in to all the measures the government had identified, and they fully supported the regulations to bring UK law into line with this sacrifice of powers. They had no single criticism of any of it to make, no wish to see any change of words, no doubt about any of the powers being transferred. Indeed, they have been egging the government on to do so.

As a result it was always going to be the case that this opt in was carried by a very large majority of votes, as the Lib Dems were even more enthusiastic about opts in and would have liked more. The debate and vote was therefore going to lack edge, as the result was never in doubt.

The government took a legalistic approach to the debate by just tabling the regulations needed to complete the transfer of powers. Those of us who wanted a more fundamental debate on the principle of opt in and on the Arrest Warrant which does not need a new UK regulation to be effective were told that we could and should debate these matters at the same time as the regulations before the House. The government pointed out it was offering an all day debate until 10pm instead of just the usual 90 minutes for a regulation.

It stated unequivocally that if it lost the vote on the regulations it would regard that as meaning the Commons did not want the opt ins or Warrant either. The Speaker confirmed that the motion was only about the regulations, but said he would allow people to debate the opt ins and EAW more generally as that was the government’s wish.

Labour then decided to override the longer debate on the opt ins and regulations by moving a procedural motion which meant whichever way we voted on it debate would cease forthwith – at 8pm – losing us the last two hours, and taking up time to debate procedure that we could otherwise have used to discuss the major issues before us.

The Opposition thought it could do harm to the government by playing games with procedure. All it achieved by this was to deny those of us who wanted to make a fundamental case against the opt ins and the Warrant several hours of time to do so. Labour hastened the passage of measures they wanted all along by their clumsy intervention.