I look forward to the day when I can buy a car which allows me to programme my destination and let the car drive me there.

The big travel difference between the rich and the rest of us is the rich can afford chauffeurs to drive their cars where and when they wish, freeing them to work, talk or picnic as they travel around from appointment to appointment. If they want to have wine with a meal or beer in the pub, they can do so and be driven home safely. If  they want to crowd another appointment into the day, they can do so and take a  nap in the back of the car on the way. They have greater freedom from their extra cash.

We are close to the point where technology can create automatic chauffeurs for the many. If you go from the Business car park at Terminal 5 to the airport, you go in your own automatically controlled pod vehicle. That requires tracks. Soon the technology with sat navs and satellite controls will allow similar treatment for a vehicle using the normal highway.

It is difficult to see how last century train technology can compete with this likely development. The controlled vehicle can go door to door at times convenient to the user. Satellite technology can also find the least congested route, and keep the vehicle away from traffic hotspots. We could get better use out of our roads, as the vehicle could advise on likely times for the journey to minimise travel time.

Bring it on. This would be the kind of development the UK could back and get up and running first, just as we pioneered the railways, the jet engine and the hovercraft.

 

 

Many people think that theatre, the  visual arts and music are more than mere entertainment which people should pay for as they wish. Art and music are enveloped in a sense of the good, based on the view that they can stretch, uplift, challenge the mind and enrich the human condition. Such cultural activities are supported in whole or part by public money for the greater good.

Some think this limits the styles of art worthy of support to those deemed generally to be great art. Thus there could be public money to support Shakespeare’s plays or   Mozart’s music, but no public money for modern dance music. The establishment’s view of great art has in the past rested heavily on the view of established critics, but today is also to some extent  influenced by popular opinion when it comes to assessing modern works of the visual arts for display in public galleries.

The presence of public subsidy raises management and moral issues. Is it right, for example, that public subsidy supports the ballet and opera in London which tends to be the preserve of the better off, at least when it comes to most of the dearer seats? Does too much subsidy around the world artificially inflate the returns to a few successful painters, dancers and playwrites?

Is great art bound to be disliked in it own time and in need of state support? Or is great art popular enough to support itself?  Can’t patrons, including the state, provide the money for works of art that are needed and appreciated by those who commission them?

In the UK the premise of public subsidy for the arts is less questioned than the targets for state support. Some think more of the money should be spread widely around the country, helping more facilities outside the big centres and assisting the up and coming. Others think public subsidy does need  to reinforce excellence in the big cities, as part of the tourist attraction and part of the national heritage. Over to you!

 

            British people are generous by nature. Whenever there is a natural disaster or an o0verseas tragedy, volunteers pour in to help, and money is pledged rapidly for immediate relief of the crisis.

              Large companies usually have a charity of the year to support, and often work with local charities in communities where they have a presence.  MPs, sports and media celebrities and others are encouraged to assist charities raise money and do good works.

                       Government does its bit by granting tax relief on all money routed through a recognised charity. People who avoid taxes in order to make larger charitable contributions are usually exempted from the general criticism of tax avoidance.

                   The big issue which bedevils public policy is what qualifies as a charity?  Time was when all educational institutions qualified, as education is said to be a charitable purpose. More recently the Charity Commissioners want proof of wider access to the wealth of successful public schools to justify the tax relief.

                Religion was also a general category which gave charitable status. Should charity cover all religious groupings, and all their activities?

                One of the big issues which requires judgement is where a charity overlaps with a political campaign to insist on a particular view of a problem being dominant in the formation of public policy. Political parties have never qualified as charities, yet single issue campaign groups can have charitable arms. What controls or limits should be placed on this? Generally, how much of a charities revenue should be available to spend on the charity itself, on self promotion, fund raising and the like?

 

 

 

            If you are under 16 and going to an English or Welsh school, games are compulsory. State educational theory says that physical exercise and sport, over and above the physical exercise we all take by walking and performing our daily chores, is an important part of a healthy life and young development.

                Once over 16 some people give up sports and PE for the rest of their life. Others enthusiastically carry on with their football club or their pilates class. In the euphoric post Olympic mood the state thinks more people should carry on with games as adults. We have a Minister of Sport, whose task is to spread the word, provide some money and encourage more to join in.

          Does having state involvement like this help? Does it make much difference to how many people join in and enjoy sports? Doesn’t seeing a great sport on the tv, with a winning UK competitor, have a much bigger impact than a Ministerial statement or even a Lottery Grant to a local project?

                The other day I was phoned by a research company on behalf of Sport England. They wanted to know all sorts of things about my walking, gardening and sporting habits. The drift of the questions seemed to be towards the provision of more public finance for sports facilities. I explained that in Wokingham the local community had just organised a great new Cricket Club with two pitches and changing rooms out of private sector transactions and voluntary effort. The survey did not seem to be good at picking up private sector, charitable and voluntary activity in sports.

                 How much do we want the government involved in whether we play team games, and where they should be played? Is PE or the adult equivalent necessary, or can you get the exercise you need by walking to the shops, digging the garden  or running for bus?

 

Eating too much or too much of the wrong things is bad for your health. Is that your business, or is it also the government’s business? Does the NHS have a right to lecture, advise and influence our diets, on the grounds that medics can help us stay healthier if we eat sensibly? Does the state have to pick up all the costs for people who ignore good dietary advice and end up unable to work, needing benefits and medical help?

In particular, does the government have a role in the nutrition of children? After all, argue the interveners, the state should help take care of children in low income families. Children from low income families qualify for free school lunches. Children eat lunch at school under the supervision of teachers. Badly fed children from  whatever backgrounds may not have enough energy for classes, or may be too fat to perform well in PE and sports.

Freedom lovers argue it is no business of the state to tell us what to eat. Children should be allowed to take packed lunches to school if they do not like the school dinner. Families are still free to buy what they wish at the supermarket, and should not be impeded from doing just that. Nutritional theories from the experts change over time. Could there be a danger in too many people backing a particular theory at a particular time?

The benefit system is blind to the causes of people’s inability to work and disability, with no main party  suggesting any change to that. The NHS treats anyone, however they have come by their problem. Treating someone for obesity is no different morally from treating someone with a sports injury incurred by foolish disregard for safety.

How far should the state go in telling us what to eat  and regulating what we eat?

 

           The government’s attitude to alcohol is different to tobacco. Excessive alcohol consumption is reckoned bad for your health, but moderate alcohol consumption may not be. Excessive alcohol consumption can also be bad for civil order, with many some social crimes being  related to alcohol abuse.

           For this reason government does not seek to ban alcohol advertising or promotion. It does now, however, ask the question should there be a minimum price for alcohol to try to deter excess drinking.

         An enforced minimum price seems unfair. Rich people would be little affected by it, and could carry on drinking to excess. Poorer people would be hit. People with an alcohol problem might be more likely to resort to illegal means to sustain their addiction.

           The case for is based on the simple market proposition that if you raise the price less will be consumed. What is your view? If there is a minimum price, should the producer and retailer pocket extra profit? Should a higher tax be imposed?

           Is current alcohol taxation correct?

 

              This week I wish to examine just how much we want the government to interfere in our lives in the pursuit of good.

Let us begin with the vexed question of tobacco.

             I am a non smoker. I accept the medical advice that smoking can be damaging to your health. I decided not to smoke as a teenager, when I discovered that my lungs rejected smoke when I tried a cigarette. I always disliked the smell of tobacco smoke, and the taste smoking left in my mouth.

           I am also a freedom lover. If tobacco remains a legal substance I have no wish to stop others smoking in ways which do not annoy others.

            The law has moved on, and now favours the majority who do not smoke and controls the places where smokers can smoke. Today the issue is should the law be moved further?

          Australia says the law should dictate the packets used for the cigarettes. After all, tv advertising has been banned, sponsored smoking in films and at sports events has been terminated and other actions taken to make it difficult to promote the sales of cigarettes.

                 As always, government has a conflicted of  interest in this topic. As health custodian it wants to cut cigarette consumption. As tax collector, it finds the duties on tobacco very useful.

                 Should government leave things as they are? Should it ban more advertising/promotion like the packet designs? Should it make smoking illegal?

 

The Uk debate has a rather narrow implied  definition of a public service. MPs and media commentators see the NHS, state schools, the police and the BBC as public services.

To me the provision of bread, as well as water is a public service. Sky Tv is as much a public service as the BBC. Private sector health providers and public schools are public services like their state cousins. Private sector firms may often be working for the state as contractors helping provide public services.

The narrow UK debate seems to centre around a particular idea of how a public service can best be provided. If a service is free at the point of use, deliverd by state employees, and not subject to competition, that is a pure public service in UK eyes. In practice, this idea of a public service scarcely exists in the modern UK. It may be largely true of our defence and police forces, but it is not true of the other commonly identified public services.

In the case of health there are now charges for dental work, for prescriptions and for some items of service. The work may be done by a private sector contractor rather than a state employee. Our state schools face competition from public schools, offering  free places and scholarships to children whose parents cannot afford the fees. The BBC imposes a user charge or tax on all people with tvs, but faces competition from free to air and paying services. It also uses its market presence to advertise its own services extensively.

I find we need a different way of analysing public service from the simple public or private of the rather stultified UK debate. There are fewer and fewer pure public services on the narrow definition. The questions to ask when trying to analyse a public service are:

1. Do users pay at the point of use or not?

2 Is there choice for users?

3.Are the employees and organisations producing the service under state control or  not?

These questions give eight different types of public service or enterprise, ranging from the state monopoly free at the point of use with state employees, to the private sector business delivering a competitive service and charging the customer.  There are more and more hybrids as a result of public service reform by Blair and the Coalition.

The debate would be better informed if instead  of two teams backing either “pure” public service or pure free enterprise, we got down to discussing how each service with a state component can best be organised.

 

One of the most absurd fictions shared by government and opposition in the UK is that Network Rail is a private sector company. As such Ministers fear to interfere with it, and the PAC under Mrs Hodge refuses to examine its spending habits. We have to rely on the Office of Rail Regulation to avoid capture and provide some small voice for the taxpayer.

Network Rail is as much a part of the public sector as the current Royal Mail or the NHS. It has no private shareholders. The members of the company limited by guarantee are selected by the management, who also select each other in most cases. It is the result of the state under Labour acquiring the privatised Railtrack.

You can see just how much part of the public sector it is if you look at the financing. The massive £30bn debt is effectively government guaranteed. 62% of the revenues of the company comes in the form of a government grant. The 27% that comes as payments from train companies using the network also comes from sources heavily influenced by the state, in some cases run by the state, and subsidised by the state. I have set out before some of the financial losses made by the company on its financial transactions.

The Office of Rail regulator thinks there is substantial scope for improvement in financial and operational management. In their report on the 2011-12 performance they said

“It is critically important that the rail industry delivers significant improvements in value for money. …compared to 2008-9…UK rail industry costs could be reduced by between £2.5bn and £3.5bn per annum by 2018-19” (70% of that applies to Network Rail)

They went on to express “serious concerns about aspects of Network Rail’s asset management” and concerns about the percentage of trains not running on time owing to faults of the network operator.

In the last year they reported on Network Rail did cut its costs. They need to do much more, both to reduce costs and to improve the quality of work and the responsiveness of the business to change.

I set out the text of my speech in the Commons on Monday over the UK, democracy and criminal justice:

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Today’s debate should be about the very future of the United Kingdom’s democracy. I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that one of the great duties of a state is to settle on a fair and strong criminal law and to ensure that the crime-fighting resources are put in to maintain that law. We also believe that, in an increasingly global world of criminal activity, those functions can be properly discharged by the Home Secretary in Cabinet and by the police forces of our country only if we have proper co-operation and collaboration arrangements with other countries abroad. We need those co-operation arrangements, not just with other European countries in the European Union or the few countries in Europe not in the European Union, but with every country around the world. I am pleased to say that thanks to successive Governments and Home Secretaries we do have in place a set of pretty good arrangements with the major countries, and we have demonstrated our ability to negotiate successful arrangements for extradition and mutual crime fighting with those countries that are not in the European Union and to find ways of doing that with countries in the European Union.

Let me make it clear at the outset that those of us who do not wish to opt back in to European criminal justice measures are no more soft on crime than anyone else in the House. We believe that there can be an alternative way of ensuring proper co-operation and collaboration with France, Germany and the other leading European Union countries, just as we have those successful co-operation arrangements with countries that are outside the European Union.

Our objection to any of these measures, including the European arrest warrant, is not necessarily about the measure itself, and certainly not its purpose, but about the way in which the institutional structure is developed to back up the measure. We are trying to protect our democracy, this Parliament and future Home Secretaries from the event that the European Court of Justice, once we have opted into any of these measures, can use that opt-in as a device for making good criminal law in Brussels and in the Court that this House and the British people might fundamentally disagree with.

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): The right hon. Gentleman talks about alternatives to some of these measures. Is he aware of the formal evidence given by the police, who said that alternatives to the European arrest warrant “would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety”?

Does he accept that that is the police’s advice?

Mr Redwood: Of course we can find police and others who take the hon. Gentleman’s view, but I think that it is putting very different weights in the balance. He is giving us an immediate topical problem of view, and I am giving him something fundamental about a national democratic state and the future good government of our country. When I weigh those in the balance, there is no issue for me; of course we must protect our national democracy and then work away at any imperfections there might be in the cross-border arrangements because we have put democracy first.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): If the right hon. Gentleman is challenging the fundamental idea of an international arrest warrant operating among the 28 member states, is my maths correct that he would have to replace it with 784 bilateral extradition treaties, and that is just on one of these justice and home affairs measures?

Mr Redwood: My maths tells me that there are far fewer countries in the European Union than in the rest of the world, and we manage to have pretty good arrangements with the rest of the world. I have every confidence in the ability of the current and future Home Secretaries to restore our bilateral arrangements with the other 27 members of the European Union just as surely as we have bilateral arrangements with most of the other 200 countries in the world. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a time before this country was in the European Union, and certainly before we were in this current set of criminal justice arrangements, when we had perfectly good working relationships. I am sure that he and I would have liked them to be improved—one can always improve and make progress—but he should not be so defeatist about the ability of our Ministers and civil servants to defend Britain’s interests and come up with a good answer.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be perfectly fine to abandon the European arrest warrant and rely on bilateral arrangements because we have such wonderful arrangements with so many other countries in the world. The Russian Federation, for instance, is covered by the previous version of the EAW, the European convention on extradition, but we have not managed to get Mr Lugovoy back, have we?

Mr Redwood: To find a country where there is a problem does not disprove my case. My case is that if there is good will—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems about to allege that all members of the European Union cannot be trusted and that we can do a deal only with the Commission. I have more faith in France and Germany than he does. I think that it would be in France’s and Germany’s interests, should Britain opt out of the European arrest warrant, to put in place really good arrangements, because they will want them to operate for them in Britain just as surely as Britain needs the arrangements to operate in France and Germany. As someone who does not like centralised European government arrangements, I find that I am often warm-hearted towards, and supportive of, the French and Germans and believe that we can make very good arrangements with them because it is in our mutual interests to do so. It is the rapid pro-Europeans who so dislike our French and German partners that they say that it all has to be bound up in central European government because we cannot trust France and Germany to come to a sensible arrangement with us over these important matters.

What is it about our country that these people do not like? What is it about our national democracy that they wish to tear down? A previous Government negotiated in good faith the third pillar arrangements for criminal justice. The idea of the third pillar was that, yes, we wanted enhanced co-operation and collaboration with our nearest neighbours, and of course I accept that there are more likely to be issues with France, Belgium and Holland, because they are very close, than with countries in Asia, so there is a reason for enhanced collaboration. We worked out a system in which we could have better procedures, enhanced collaboration and more co-operation, based on the mutual agreement of the states involved, not based on an independent united states of Europe Government, which is emerging as a result of this and other exercises but not from an independent court where there is no democratic accountability to the British people.

In recent months, we have had case after case from the European Court of Human Rights that this country and the British people have deeply disliked. There is very little we can do about that. If we give further enhanced powers to the European Court of Justice, we will have another series of such decisions from the European Court of Justice that we do not like. All major political parties will have to go to the electorate, shrug their shoulders and say, “We can do nothing about it. We still expect our salaries and to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but don’t expect us to revise this. We no longer run the criminal law and can no longer change the law in the way you want or expect. That is now settled in Brussels. Even your MEPs probably won’t be able to sort it out because the European Court of Justice is supreme above all elected officials and can provide the motor for making decisions on these crucial matters.”

The case before us today is very simple. Those who vote for opt-ins vote for European centralised justice and for the uncertainty of the European Court of Justice, which will in due course make decisions that the British people and their elected representatives cannot tolerate. Those who vote for opt-ins vote because they do not like this country’s democracy and they vote themselves out of a job.

Those of us who vote for the opt-out, and nothing but the opt-out, vote for the reverse. We vote for the House to take the responsibility. We vote to trust successive Home Secretaries. We vote to trust the judgment of the British people to judge their Governments and Home Secretaries, elect those who do a good job and throw out of office those who do a bad job. That is a true democratic system.

I do not want to live in a country where criminal justice has been transferred to independent experts abroad whom we cannot sack or influence. I do not want to go to my electors and say, “As a result of the vote we have had tonight and what happened subsequently, another major power of this country’s democracy has been seceded to the European Union in perpetuity in such a way that we can never get it back.”

It is a simple issue. I urge the House to vote for the opt-outs and against the opt-ins.