This morning I joined volunteers in Swallowfield to help pick up litter. I had soon filled a large rubbish bag with old drink cans, food wrappings, crisp packets and other debris.
Thanks to all those who turned out to help. The place looked a lot tidier as we piled up the bags of rubbish.
The Lib Dem Councillors got the Borough to send out a “News release” to tell us what we already know, that the Crossroads are badly disrupted by roadworks they have imposed. The “news” they say is that the work is “on track”. Does that mean it will finish on time? What is the promised date to get the roads back? When will the nearby estates be spared the rat runs through to avoid the junction? How much are they spending on all the signs, traffic cones and temporary traffic lights that have sprung up? Is it on budget, large though that is, or will it overrun? This is a junction to the south of my current constituency used by my constituents that comes into the new constituency of Wokingham at the next election.
We are told these improvements come “at no cost to local taxpayers”. Is the Council unaware that Borough taxpayers pay a lot of Income Tax and VAT and this money is being used to pay for these works? The Council designed and approved the scheme despite local oppositi0n. The government provides grant from taxation for schemes Councils choose and undertake and does not seek to impose its own alternative view of what is wanted. This is part of the local road network, not part of national highways run by the government. They reveal a wanton approach to tax revenues in this throw away line.
It says the work will create “an appealing and safe centre “. We already had an appealing and safe centre before they dug it all up. The long works are doing grave damage to local businesses which many people have used in the past but now cannot get to owing to closed roads. The Council has failed to help or reimburse these important local businesses. Locals want to keep them and many need cars to get to them.
If instead of ignoring the consultation replies against the scheme the Council had been interested in how existing users would like improvements the number one ask would probably have been a larger car park. The present car park before road closures could just about handle the shops traffic, but could not handle all the cars needing access to the school at drop off or pick up times of day as well. The Council clearly ignores the needs of parents or believes they should all walk with their children whatever the weather and the distance.
I have often used these shops and garage as a driver and as a pedestrian after parking. Cars went through the old junction at a slow speed so if anyone stepped onto the road to cross the car would stop. The junction allowed the flow of a large number of vehicles safely and successfully. The Councillor says this was “an unloved road junction, which has been dominated by traffic”. It was far from being unloved as the high volumes of car and pedestrian use and use of the shops and school showed. The Councillor implies that the new junction will take less traffic. If so it will make the local facilities less loved with fewer visitors and mean fewer people to keep them going.
I have watched with concern as Council highways departments have spent much money and time making our roads worse. Motorists and business drivers have to pay huge sums in taxation. There is the taxation on a new vehicle, road fund duty to take a vehicle on the roads, there is the 55% of the fuel price that goes in taxes to the state as fuel duty and VAT, and the taxes on insuring and maintaining the vehicle. The original idea that motoring taxes pay for the roads has long since been supplanted by spending much of the traveller and transporter taxes on anything but roads.
Local authorities do not seem to see the roads as a necessary service to taxpayers where they should constantly consider the ease of safe use of the highways by the taxpayers. Most people need to use roads for good purposes. Van drivers need to get to their next client. Delivery drivers need to get food to the shops and medicines to the surgeries and hospitals. Parents need to drive young children to school in safety. Emergency vehicles need to get to accidents and disasters. Many workers need a car or van to get to their place of employment because of their hours and or the location of their work and home. Few people live in walking distance of a station with an employer in walking range of another station down the line. Few people can do the weekly shop from a bicycle or bus. Buses and cycles too need roadspace.
Years ago when I was a member of a County Council I found then there was a wish to restrict use of the roads by some officers rather than a wish to provide additional capacity and safer freer flowing junctions. Traffic lights were often preferred to roundabouts. More recently Council after Council has set about narrowing roads, removing lanes, creating artificial barriers and bollards to restrict flow, cutting traffic light green phases on busy roads, changing kerbs and painted lines, creating more special zones. They often take out parking spaces and raise the charges, leading to more vehicles circulating looking in vain for a parking place. Many streetscapes now are a slalom course festooned with many menacing signs. Large sums are spent on aggressive kerbs,with b fancy blockwork for carriageways.
All this undermines business productivity, limiting the number of calls someone can fit in. It adds greatly to business costs and therefore to prices of services as the self employed and businesses need to recoup the increased cost of transport and parking. It adds to the stress on drivers and can make roads and junctions less safe, as with the country roads where now one way is occasionally blanked out by bollards forcing vehicles to use the wrong wide of the road to progress. It gives many Councils a bad name and leads the public to be more hostile to all the taxes they have to pay. A council only provides two services to every household, the roads and the refuse collection. If both are damaged and made worse people form a bad impression of the Council as a whole.
Today we see too many roads full of unrepaired potholes, and too many streets narrowed or under road works designed by the Council, against the driver. Too much money is spent on making roads less available and too little on better roads away from pedestrians and homes to allow people and businesses to get about in a sensible way. Coming into work yesterday my optimistic sat nav once again underestimated the time it would take by 17 minutes, not allowing for the all the delays created by Councils through roadworks that many of the public do not want performed.
I have been saddened to read of the financial difficulties of Reading FC and to see the understandable impatience of fans with the owner and management. I have not made any public statements as government has no powers to intervene in these matters and it would be wrong to suggest government can find a solution to the difficulties of paying the wages and tax bills and creating more harmony between owner and fans. Reading FC is regulated by the FA.
The Club owner needs to understand that the financial value of the club depends on a strong and loyal fan base willing to buy plenty of tickets for matches and club merchandise. A team is more likely to play well and boost fan numbers if there is no financial problem hanging over them. If an owner cannot get the fans on board and motivate players it is usually best for a new owner to take over. The goodwill and support of the fans is crucial.
A few have written to me hoping regulation could put things right. The government has consulted on introducing a new independent regulator with powers to intervene over issues like financing a club and its ownership. It has promised legislation in due course following more detailed discussions with clubs and the authorities. It will need to balance club independence allowing them to make often expensive decisions that offer the prospect of better results, with Regulator worries about overspending on players, management and facilities and over the stability of income. The legislation is not imminent and is unlikely to be retrospective, so it cannot deal with the urgent issues currently facing Reading FC.
Householders have been sent a glossy leaflet telling us from this summer Wokingham Borough Council are going to cancel weekly household rubbish collections and go over to fortnightly.
They are scrapping the blue bags and spending money on black bins for everyone. Recycling from the green bags will also be downgraded from weekly to fortnightly. However, they still need to go to every house every week and offer a weekly collection of the food waste.
Why go to all this trouble and cost? It is unlikely there will be any savings as they still have to get round every house every week. It will be frustrating for householders to see the waste service arrive and leave but not be able to get either recycling or household waste removed that week. This looks like another case of paying them more for a worse service, something this Council specialises in. They should try listening to what residents want, and should drop unpopular ideas.
I reproduce the latest from the Post Office Minister to speed up compensation. I have urged the government to get on with this.
Dear Colleague,
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill: House of Commons Introduction
Since the 2019 Group Litigation High Court case, the Government has been working hard to right the wrongs of the Post Office Horizon scandal, which began in the 1990s. The Government has been processing full, fair and final claims for financial redress as quickly as possible. The Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which was set up in 2020, has paid out £107 million, and initial offers have been made to all of the main group of claimants. The Group Litigation Order scheme, launched last year, has paid out £34 million, which includes interim payments. For those postmasters whose convictions were overturned by the courts, £38 million has been paid, and since October last year, claimants have been able to access £600,000 in a fixed sum award. This is part of our plan to tackle the Horizon scandal, one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.
On 10 January, the Prime Minister announced a major step forward in response to the Horizon scandal. He confirmed that the Government would introduce new primary legislation to make sure that those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal, are swiftly exonerated and compensated. I am pleased to announce that the Bill, to deliver on this commitment,
will be introduced to the House of Commons today.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill sets out a clear set of objective criteria which identifies the convictions which are in scope. Individuals whose convictions meet the criteria will have these convictions automatically quashed at Royal Assent, without any action on their part. Records such as the Police National Computer will be amended and individuals will be notified and invited to apply for financial redress. Only if we do not already have information about their convictions will individuals need to act to have their records updated.
All convictions within scope will be quashed on Royal Assent whether or not we have identified the individual at that point.
The legislation will apply on an England and Wales only basis. We have been working closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to progress their own approaches to quashing convictions and wish to see equitable outcomes for postmasters delivered across the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Government recognises the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of this legislation. The Government is clear that given the factually exceptional nature of the scandal, this legislation does not set a precedent for the future relationship between the
executive, Parliament and the judiciary. The judiciary and the courts have dealt swiftly with the cases before them, but the scale and circumstances of this prosecutorial misconduct demand an exceptional response. We are keen to ensure that the legislation achieves its goal of bringing prompt justice to all of those who were wrongfully convicted as a result of the scandal, followed by rapid financial redress.
With the will of both Houses of Parliament, it is the Government’s intention that the Bill will secure Royal Assent as soon as possible before Summer Recess.
Financial redress for those with quashed convictions
Financial redress is not in scope of this legislation, however once this legislation has been passed, we will provide a route to full, fair and rapid financial redress for quashed convictions. This will be paid on the same basis across the UK, regardless of where or how
the conviction was quashed. I am also pleased to confirm that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be introducing secondary legislation to ensure the monies received are exempt from tax.
I am pleased to also confirm that this new scheme will be delivered by the Department for Business and Trade, rather than the Post Office. My officials and I are engaging with the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board and claimant representatives on the design of the scheme. Those whose convictions are overturned will be able to choose between accepting a fixed sum award of £600,000, which will be paid quickly, or having their losses individually assessed.
I can confirm that Post Office have started work on preparing for disclosure of documents they hold on claimants. Whilst I recognise concerns around Post Office involvement and I am keen to keep it to a minimum, given the data Post Office hold there is a need for them to be involved in disclosure.
Progress on existing financial redress schemes
For the Group Litigation Order scheme, we are mindful that claims are not being submitted as swiftly as we would like, so it is taking us too long to get help to claimants. To remedy that, at least in part, I can announce that we will top up compensation to £50,000 on receipt of a full claim if the claimant has not opted for the fixed sum award of £75,000. If an initial offer is not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we have committed to paying postmasters 80% of the initial offer, to help ensure that claimants do not face hardship while those discussions are completed.
In January, the Government announced that it would introduce an offer of an optional £75,000 fixed sum award for participants in the Group Litigation Order scheme. The fixed offer means that claims are dealt with promptly, and some people will get more than they asked for. The fixed offer also has had a helpful effect on other claims – it substantially reduces the effort to be invested in small claims by claimants’ lawyers, making more resource available to progress larger claims quickly. I am therefore pleased to announce
today that this policy will be extended to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme to ensure equal treatment across the schemes. Those who have already settled their claim below £75,000 will be offered a top-up to bring their total redress to this amount. Over 2,000 postmasters
will benefit from these top-ups.
We will work closely with the Post Office to ensure these payments can be made as early as possible. The Financial Secretary will be introducing legislation to ensure these further payments are made exempt from tax.
For postmasters whose convictions were overturned by the courts, they can now top up their interim payment to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for the £600,000 fixed sum award, they will get that instead. This Government is continuing to work hard to right the wrongs of the past and ensure swift exoneration and financial redress for victims of this scandal.
Yours ever,
KEVIN HOLLINRAKE MP
Minister for Enterprise, Markets, and Small Business
Department for Business and Trade
Please find enclosed below the Dear Colleague that I have received from the Minister concerning the Storm Overflow Action Plan:
Wokingham Borough has found another great way to annoy us and waste our money. The Borough is littered with yellow Diversion signs and red road closure signs everywhere you try to drive. Have they bought in bulk or are they hiring all those in at huge fees? What action do they take when they blow over or fall down?
The Lib Dem yellow Diversion signs are particularly vexatious. Because there are so many whole and partial road closures there are lots of different diversions. The signs do not tell you where that particular diversion began or where if you follow it it might take you to. I am glad I know my way around and do not have to rely on them. For anyone new to the Borough, or a visitor or driving in a part they do not regularly use it is a nightmare. It is so thoughtless not to put on signs what it is a diversion from and to so people can be reassured they will get back to where they want to be.
They are doing considerable damage to local traders with premises affected by the closures. Will they immediately offer them rate relief? What other action could they take as many are losing large amounts of turnover? Do they not care ? Do they not understand the community values its local traders and wants a Council which helps them, not one which tries to prevent us getting to the shops to use them.?
Wokingham Borough under the Lib Dems pleads poverty, cuts crucial services like refuse collection and street maintenance, yet now says it can afford £25 m to buy itself a solar farm.
When the Borough first looked at such a plan the capital cost was £20m. So it has gone up by 25% since then. Interest rates then were a lot lower. That meant the scheme then could be worth the risks. Next the Council was told they could not connect to the grid until well into the next decade, undermining the scheme completely.
Today the Lib Dems want to revive it even though the risks have increased considerably. The future interest charges on the borrowing have leapt up to £16.44m and the repayments are increased with the higher capital costs. The only things taxpayers can be sure about is they will be paying back the money spent and the interest on it for many years. It is quite possible costs would escalate further during build, adding to the taxpayers burden.
The Council have made up for the big escalation in costs by claiming they will get more money for the electricity they will be selling if all goes well with the scheme. That may or may not be true. Power prices have been very volatile in recent years and can go down as well as up. They have been falling over the last year. They now think there will be a grid connection in 2026. Is that watertight and guaranteed? There is now an Electricity Generator Levy on solar for larger players. That tax might be extended to others.
Councillors should be careful before spending £25 million they need to borrow. We can be sure we will be lumbered with the debt, but a lot has to go right to make profits from 2026 assuming they can sell the power from that date.
The Council should concentrate on mending the potholes, re opening the roads and restoring a good refuse system instead of finding more ways to plunge Council taxpayers more into collective debt.
The Lib Dem Council refuses to accept responsibility for the chronic waste of money and the bad scheme for California Crossroads. Conservatives opposed this scheme, seeing its unpopularity when listening to public opinion. This Council approved it and decided to spend £5.5 million on it.
Lib Dems complain that as MP I did not regularly criticise the Council when it was Conservative controlled. That was for two reasons. The first is it was better run. The second is the Council invited me in or to zoom meetings with the Chief Executive to go through matters of common concern for the public. I had regular email and phone exchanges with the Leader so I knew what was going on and could influence it. I could work closely with the Council where they needed help from the government. When the new Lib Dem Council was elected I accepted an invitation to a preliminary meeting. I offered them the same behind the scenes support I had offered the previous administration. I said I would take up any sensibly argued proposal that needed government support or money. They have subsequently failed to take these offers up. I do not receive briefings about their financial condition, for example.
Despite this lack of normal co-operation I have taken up things I assume they want without their help or information to back my case. I have successfully persuaded the government with other MPs with similar problems to drop the top down housing targets that require too much building. I have explained this and urge the Council again to put out a local plan, as this is crucial under the new approach to offering protection to areas we do not want developed. They have failed to do so.
I have helped get more money for potholes. I want to see action using the enlarged road maintenance budget as there is a big rash of potholes.
I have helped get more money for social care, as this was an area in need of more funding.
I have helped get two new SEN schools where we need more provision.
I have offered public advice to the Council to not cut back spending on grounds maintenance and decent proper street cleaning and drain clearing. I have supported continuation of weekly bin collections.
I have helped get a substantial uplift in the main grant to the Council and in the totals including a range of other sources of public money.
It is a new low in Lib Dem propaganda to argue I want sewage dumped in our rivers. The government has set out proposals with the water industry to increase pipe and processing capacity which has to happen to handle increased volumes. In the meantime before the bigger pipes have gone in the choice is between letting the sewage into rivers or it backing up and polluting our roads and homes.
Instead of scaring people about the financial position when they inherited a strong one with £120 million in balances the Council should get on with the task of providing value for money and spending on the peoples priorities. It would be a good idea if next time they hold a consultation they drop or amend their unpopular plan instead of ploughing on with it regardless as they have been doing all too often so far.