Issues
High speed rail
Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government would go ahead with HS2, a new high-speed rail line initially between London and Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds. The Labour Party said that the project had their support.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have been engaged with the detail of HS2 for two years now and the representations I have made on behalf of those affected are a matter of record, so I understand entirely the disappointment many of my constituents at this decision.
I pay tribute to the campaign groups in my constituency who also could have done no more to make their case. It may be that they and others will pursue a legal challenge to this decision, but in the absence of such a challenge being successful, or of a significant change in circumstances, the Parliamentary arithmetic makes it very likely that HS2 will be built.
That does not mean however that there is no more to be argued for or to be achieved for those directly and seriously affected by the line. The route to be followed is a better route overall than that announced by the last Government in March 2010, with distinct improvements for those who live in Burton Green, Stoneleigh or Ladbroke for example. The latest revisions improve the position for Bascote Heath and mean that Kenilworth Golf Club can be avoided, but I believe that more can be done to mitigate the visual and audible effects of HS2. There will be further opportunities this year to argue for these further measures and we must take full advantage of them.
Also of huge importance are the decisions the Government has yet to take on how to compensate those who will suffer financially as a result of HS2. This is crucial for those who are trapped in homes of declining value through no fault of their own. On this subject too, the next few months are vital in arguing for a fair settlement and we cannot afford to waste the time available to make those arguments.
For these reasons, much as I understand and respect the views of those who continue to disagree with the Government’s decision in principle on HS2, I consider my responsibility now to be to do whatever I can to pursue the interests of my constituents in the debate on the important decisions which must be reached this year on further mitigation and on compensation. Those decisions will make a substantial difference to the lives of those who are affected by HS2 and I intend to spend my time now engaging with the detail of these issues in order to obtain the best outcomes I can for those I represent.
High-Speed Rail - meeting with new Transport Secretary
I met with the new Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, on November 21 to highlight my concerns about HS2.
I did not want to go over matters I had already raised in my submission to the HS2 consultation, because the minister has already seen that. However the meeting was a good opportunity to raise further concerns and emphasise the need for the government to deliver high-speed rail in the best way possible, which, in my view HS2, as currently conceived, is not.
Below is a full transcript of what I said at that meeting and a follow-up letter I sent Justine Greening afterwards.
High Speed rail Meeting with Justine Greening, 21st November 2011
Jeremy Wright, Kenilworth and Southam: The line cuts from the south-eastern corner to the north-western corner of my seat. The first thing I want to say is to make a distinction, which I think, sadly, has not been made often enough in the course of the debate on this subject, and that is between high-speed rail and HS2. HS2 is a variety of high-speed rail and they are not synonymous but they are often used in that way, which is unfortunate. The reason I want to make that point first is there are three things I want to highlight. You have asked, Secretary of State, for what our constituents are telling us, and there are three things in addition to what I have already said in my consultation response and I think it is worth highlighting them today.
The first is my constituents will require clear proof that ifwe are proceeding with high-speed rail but that we have also picked the very best way of delivering high-speed rail. There are a number of alternative ways of delivering high-speed rail, which, if the Government is going to dismiss, it needs to explain clearly why it has done so. There are two obvious ways in which there could be alternative methods of delivering high-speed rail. One is to use the existing transport network; in other words, to use an upgrading of the existing line – the West Coast Main Line, for example.
I have to say, from a personal perspective, I entirely understand the arguments on resilience, on the opportunities to be using more freight on the West Coast Main Line that a wholly separate line gives us, but there are some very sensible and cogent arguments being made by the campaign groups as to how, if all you are interested in is capacity, you can get extra capacity by upgrading existing lines. If that is not to be a route that the Government follows, we need to have some very clear explanation as to why that is the case.
The second way in which you can pursue alternatives is to, of course, as Michael has just said, pursue alternative routes. As you know, I have always been of the view that we should pursue an alternative that uses existing transport corridors more than this particular route does. If that is not going to happen, we need to understand why. So far, it would seem that the determining factor for choice of route has been the capacity of a new route for the 250 mph speeds of the trains that travel on it. If that is the only determining factor, we need, again, I am afraid, a rather better argument than we have had so far as to why 250 mph is required as opposed to slightly slower speeds, which would still, I think, by anyone’s standards, be considered to be high speed.
The second point is about the effect on the rest of the network. Quite a lot of my constituents will not use HS2, if it is built. The line will go near them but the stations will not be very near them and they will not use it. What they will continue to do, in order to get to London, is travel on the West Coast Main Line or even the Chiltern Line. If they travel on the West Coast Main Line, the majority of them will travel from Coventry, so they are interested to know what will happen to the service from Coventry if and when HS2 comes into being. In terms of what has been given to them so far, there are very mixed messages, which are hard to understand. What is said in the technical appendix to HS2 Ltd’s report of 2009 is that they expect – and this is only anticipation, which I understand – the service from Coventry to London direct to drop from three trains an hour, which is what it is now, to one train an hour. That is, obviously, not an improvement in service.
On the other hand, your predecessor, Secretary of State, said on, I think, 20 December last year, in an oral statement to the House, that, ‘Releasing capacity on the West Coast Main Line would offer the possibility of commuter-frequency fast services to London from places like Coventry’. Those two statements are not compatible, and we need to understand rather more clearly, if the Government decides to proceed with HS2, what the effect is going to be on places like Coventry, because the messages at the moment are very mixed indeed.
The last thing I want to say is about compensation. I understand there will be a further consultation process on compensation, but it seems to me crucial that, if we are to proceed with this project on the current proposed route, those who suffer as a result need to be properly and fully compensated. It cannot be acceptable to ask them to bear any share of the economic burden of this line, if it is considered to be in the nation’s best interests.
Can I simply urge you, when you come to consider compensation arrangements, not to consider implementing any form of Big Brother of theExceptional Hardship Scheme? The Exceptional Hardship Scheme, where it may be sensible for a short-term fill-in, is not an acceptable way of going about, I would suggest, compensation for the long term. If you are going to compensate people for the effects of HS2, you cannot do so by saying, ‘You will only get compensation if you need to move for a series of reasons that we approve of’. It has to be a much broader system of compensation, and it seems to me a guarantee-based scheme is the more sensible of the available options. I hope that, though you will consider compensation in the future again separately, you will think about that at this stage also.
Justine Greening MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DR
21st November 2011
Following our conversations, and my contribution to this afternoon’s meeting, I am writing to set out some further arguments and concerns about HS2. I know you have seen my submission to the public consultation and that you will consider carefully the points made in it. I enclose a copy for ease of reference.
As you know, I do not oppose the Government’s wish to provide a high-speed rail network for the UK, indeed you and I campaigned for election last year with a manifesto which included that objective and it was restated in the Coalition agreement. However, high-speed rail and HS2 are not of course the same thing and it seems to me highly regrettable that the distinction between them has rarely been made during the debate which has taken place on this issue over the last 18 months or so. HS2 Ltd’s proposal for HS2 is only one way of delivering a high-speed rail network (or part thereof) and having heard the case made for it as currently conceived, in my view it is far from the best way of doing so.
My reasons for this view are set out in my submission to the consultation, but in essence concern the business case for HS2 and the preferred route. You will be aware that the business case has been subjected to considerable scrutiny and has not withstood it well. It has of course been revised once and I believe it may be revised again. The estimated BCR for the project has dropped from 2.4 to 1.6 in less than a year and is likely to drop further if the methodology recommended in the Natural Environment White Paper to calculate the value of ‘natural capital’ is included in any assessment. These figures are not as robust as one might hope for in an infrastructure project of this significance.
As for the current preferred route, it is a direct product of the requirement made of the line to sustain speeds of up to 250mph. As I said, I accept the argument for high-speed rail but have been wholly unconvinced by the argument for ultra-high-speed rail, which is what speeds of 250mph would constitute. It cannot be adequate simply to say that the faster the train, the better the business case, without evidence that a proper balancing exercise has been done to measure business case advantages against environmental disadvantages, for the preferred route and for alternatives.
I have not seen such evidence and I remain strongly of the view that a route following an existing transport corridor is infinitely preferable to one assessed for speed alone. I note that there is support for this view in the recent Transport Select Committee Report.
I urge you to allow such an alternative to have the proper assessment I think it deserves. I recognise that this will incur delay, but it is surely worthwhile to use the fresh look you are entitled to take at this project to ensure we are delivering on our commitment to high-speed rail in the best possible way. It can be sensibly argued too that given the important argument for high-speed rail that it can provide competition for short-haul flights, your consideration over the next few months of aviation strategy more broadly should be undertaken before decisions are taken on high-speed rail.
Furthermore, although I accept there are good arguments for a new separate line, proper assessment of alternatives should include serious consideration of the potential for improvement of the existing network to meet future demand. The TSC suggests that such alternatives meet DfT demand projections, including for the peaks, while one scenario in the Atkins report of Feb 2011 based on 14-carriage trains on the WCML from Birmingham to London gives a further 27% increase in capacity. There is a need for detailed and evidence based examination of the merits and demerits of this approach, which claims to offer a quicker and much cheaper solution to capacity issues, rather than dismissing it out of hand. HS2 also carries a serious risk of overprovision of capacity between London and Birmingham. Current WCML passenger figures indicate that HS2 trains operating in 2026 will be substantially underutilised, with all day load factors probably below 20%.
Any disruption caused by upgrading the existing network must be measured against disruption caused by, for example, works at Euston which HS2 would require in order for a balanced assessment to be made. As I said this afternoon, arguments made by those who say capacity problems can be resolved by improving the existing network deserve a full answer.
Yours ever,
JEREMY WRIGHT MP
HS2 Consultation response
Jeremy Wright MP for Kenilworth and Southam
INTRODUCTION
The preferred route for a high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham put forward by
HS2 Ltd bisects my constituency, entering at its south-eastern corner and leaving at its north-western. I represent many of those who will be most directly affected by what is proposed.
I do not seek to convey in this response the range of points made by my constituents on the merits of HS2 Ltd’s proposals, known as HS2, or of high speed rail more generally but I anticipate that many of them will respond to this consultation directly and I hope and expect that their submissions will be considered carefully. What follows is a summary of my own views and concerns along with some of the arguments put to me by constituents and others which I have found particularly persuasive.
HIGH SPEED RAIL IN GENERAL
The central contention that demand for rail travel will continue to increase does not seem to me to be seriously challenged. I do not believe that improvements in teleconferencing or other developments in communication technology can be relied upon to obviate the need for future business travel. Recent advances in such technologies have coincided with substantial expansion in rail travel. More travel by road or air is in my view rightly identified as undesirable. The question therefore is how the necessary extra rail capacity can best be provided and the choice must be between enhancement of existing lines or the construction of a new one.
I accept the argument that having a separate additional line has considerable advantages, including reduced delays consequent on segregating fast services from slower ones, increased resilience brought by another route to London and the freeing up of capacity for freight on the classic rail network which would otherwise travel by road.
A new line could simply provide additional classic rail capacity at conventional speeds but this would not offer the opportunity to compete effectively with short-haul flights as high-speed trains could. With a direct connection to HS1 (the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) and services to Heathrow, such competition is feasible for destinations in the UK and in Europe and is highly desirable for environmental reasons. I note HS2 Ltd’s calculation that a new conventional line would cost only 9% less than a high-speed line to construct and therefore it seems to me that the case for a new line being high-speed is persuasive.
However, the fundamental nature of this choice between improving existing lines or building a new one means that the alternatives must be fairly and comprehensively compared. A suite of improvements and upgrades to the West Coast Main Line, previously submitted to the Department for Transport and known as Rail Package 2 (RP2), is often put to me as a better alternative to HS2. Since any previous comparison, the business case for HS2 has changed and I would like to see a thorough independent review of the relative merits of RP2 and HS2 completed and made publicly available before a decision is taken to proceed with a new high-speed line.
HS2 IN PARTICULAR
It is important to recognise that there are many ways in which a high-speed rail network in the UK could be delivered. HS2 Ltd’s proposal, HS2, is only one of them. This consultation recognises that by asking for views both on high-speed rail as part of a strategic response to national transport problems and on the merits of HS2 as the best high-speed rail project for our national requirements. While I remain supportive of high-speed rail in principle, I believe HS2 is defective in two areas – the business case and the preferred route. I am also concerned about the effect HS2 could have on the remainder of the rail network.
The Business Case
The headline costs of HS2 are intimidating but it is surely value for money which is crucial. If the return on taxpayers’ investment is substantial then that investment will be justified. I am therefore more interested in the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) than just the cost, assuming that cost is affordable. On affordability I recognise that current pressures on the public finances are not necessarily relevant to spending on a project which will begin in earnest after 2015. The BCR for HS2 is however a serious cause for concern, not least because it has fluctuated considerably since HS2 was first publicised in 2009. In HS2 Ltd’s report to the previous Government of December that year, the BCR for HS2, without wider economic impacts, was said to be 2.4 (in other words £2.40 of benefits for every £1 spent). This was restated in the Government Command Paper of March 2010. By the time the Consultation documents were published in February 2011, less than 12 months later, the BCR had dropped to 1.6. This was a significant reduction in economic viability.
The BCR figures were not the only ones to undergo significant change between the publication of HS2 Ltd’s original proposals in 2009/10 and the start of the consultation in early 2011. HS2 Ltd predicted in their December 2009 report where HS2’s passengers would come from. They said that 57% of its passengers would otherwise have travelled on the conventional or classic rail network, 27% would be making trips they would not otherwise have made, 8% would have travelled by air and 8% by car. By February 2011 these numbers had changed to 65% from classic rail, 22% from new trips, 6% from air and 7% from cars. It is of course understandable that circumstances change and that forecasts will be adjusted accordingly to improve their accuracy, but the problem is that we are asked to judge this project on the basis of figures projected over very long periods. HS2 would not be operational for at least 15 years. These figures have not even made it through one year intact, which does not inspire confidence.
More disturbing are changes in demand figures. The business case for HS2 depends upon the numbers of passengers who are likely to use it and on the wider figures about future demand for rail services. HS2 Ltd’s December 2009 report and the Command Paper of March 2010 concluded that demand for rail travel generally would cease to grow in 2033. This is important because growth in the rail market more broadly helps to provide extra passengers for HS2. However, by February 2011, because of lower predicted growth in GDP and higher predicted rail fares, the point at which growth in the rail market would be saturated was said to be 2043, 10 years later. Furthermore, the ‘Economic Case for HS2’ document published also in February 2011, said that ‘we estimate that at current projected rates of growth – demand would need to continue to grow until 2034 for the benefits of HS2 to offset the costs’
[i] . In other words, for a BCR of more than 1, rail market growth would have to continue for a year beyond when HS2 Ltd said it would cease less than 12 months earlier.
It is true that the 2011 business case for HS2 includes provision for a link to HS1 and work on a link to Heathrow airport, which their 2009/10 calculations did not, but without better explanations for big changes in their figures, no version of HS2 Ltd’s business case will be persuasive.
HS2 Ltd themselves recognise that further changes in circumstances may necessitate further alterations in their figures. Their 2009 report noted that 25% less annual growth in background demand for rail travel would reduce the BCR for HS2 in 2026 (its anticipated first year of operation) to below 1.5 (from its then projected level of 2.4)
[ii]. Its February 2011 economic case document suggested that if rail fares increased by RPI + 2% instead of RPI + 1% through to 2043, HS2’s BCR would be 0.9 (i.e. more costs than benefits)
[iii]. These are indications of how the business case for HS2 may be weakened, perhaps fatally, by changes in the economic environment. What is missing from HS2 Ltd’s proposals however is any systematic reflection of HS2’s viability in scenarios where HS2 Ltd’s other projections turn out to be over-optimistic. This is unsatisfactory. What also appears to be missing is proper recognition of the competition HS2 is likely to face and the consequences to the business case for it. HS2 Ltd assume that 136,000 passengers a day will use the Birmingham Interchange to Old Oak Common section of HS2 and only 22,255 will use the West Coast Main Line (WCML) as a slower alternative. Many travellers, including me, use the slower but cheaper alternative to WCML for journeys between London and the West Midlands offered by the Chiltern Line now. HS2 will face similar completion from both WCML and the Chiltern Line and yet I cannot see this prospect reflected realistically in HS2 Ltd’s calculations.
It is also far from clear how the sections of conventional railway onto which HS2 trains will run for the rest of their journey, between the opening of HS2 between London and Birmingham and the opening of the rest of HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, will cope with increased demand pressures. Those sections of the track will be catering for classic rail services and HS2 services on a line we are told is congested now with only classic trains.
Sir Roy McNulty’s recent report on the rail industry suggests that changes to pricing structures can relieve crowding at peak times on WCML. If his conclusions are to be accepted, what bearing do they have on the business case for HS2?
Perhaps the most glaring example of unconvincing assumptions is the presumption, apparently used by the Department for Transport (DfT) to calculate the economic value of time savings in all transport projects, that all time spent travelling is unproductive, wasted time. This may be a reasonable assumption for a road project but a cursory glance around any railway carriage will demonstrate that for rail it is patently absurd. Not even the DfT really believes it – their Command Paper of March 2010 rejected motorway-based options for dealing with the future capacity challenge because ‘travelling by road provides little or no opportunity to work whilst on route, and is therefore more costly than the alternatives in terms of productivity’
[iv]. Given the reliance on benefits to business travellers of journey time savings for £25 billion of the £37 billion projected economic benefits of HS2, the credibility of those benefits is vital. By February 2011, HS2 Ltd had clearly recognised that arguing all time on trains was wasted time was unsustainable, so they sought to counterbalance that assumption with an assessment of the benefits of reduced crowding which they argue will be a significant advantage of HS2. There are two problems with this approach. First, if HS2’s ability to alleviate crowding is so significant that it outweighs a halving of the value of journey time savings, as HS2 Ltd claims, why did a quantification of this benefit not form part of the original case for HS2? Second, does HS2 Ltd’s argument assume that business travellers will only respond to crowding by choosing to use HS2? If so, why have choices to travel off-peak (bearing in mind the group in question are business travellers as distinct from commuters) or on competing railways been ignored? If those choices have been considered, how have HS2 Ltd’s conclusions been reached?
Once again HS2 Ltd’s business case is based on questionable assumptions and is insufficiently persuasive.
HS2 Ltd’s business case can only be persuasive if we are convinced that when comparing HS2 with possible alternatives they are comparing like with like. It is hard to be so convinced. Future journey times on HS2 are compared with current journey times on WCML, not with realistic projections of improvements which can be anticipated to speeds on classic rail by 2026 when HS2 will come into service. In HS2 Ltd’s ‘Reference Case’, against which it compares HS2, no account is taken of upgrades to the WCML, or to the Chiltern Line in that period, or the prospect of in-cab signalling making greater line speeds possible on the classic rail network. There is also no discussion of the possible future ability of air travellers to use electronic devices like laptops in flight, which will lessen rail’s competitive advantage in this respect. None of these developments are speculative or unrealistic and their apparent omission from HS2 Ltd’s considerations weakens the case they make.
The Preferred Route
Just as there are several ways of delivering a high-speed rail network for the UK, there are many speeds which would qualify as ‘high-speed’. The premise of HS2 Ltd’s original report to Government in December 2009 was that the high-speed line they were designing must be capable of sustaining speeds of up to 250 mph (400 kph), with an actual maximum train speed of 225 mph (360 kph) from the line’s opening. Nowhere in that document, or since, has that premise been justified, save that it is said to be in line with designs for future routes in Europe. Despite extensive efforts to find one, I have been unable to identify a better reason than that. It follows of course that the faster trains on a high-speed line can go and the shorter its journey times, the better its business case, but that cannot be the only consideration. Determining the best route for a high-speed rail line must involve a balance between achieving the highest practical speeds and seeking to inflict the least environmental damage in the process. I am profoundly unconvinced that such a balancing exercise has been carried out thoroughly in relation to HS2.
Designing a 250 mph railway requires a route which is straight and level, with limited gradients and restricted radii in its curves. In the current preferred route, that is what we have. Slower operating speeds would permit more curves and steeper gradients and thereby offer more opportunities to follow different routes, including those which could minimise environmental impact. The best way of doing so in my judgment would be to ensure a high-speed rail line follows, as far as practicable, the line of an existing transport corridor, whether that is the route of an existing railway or motorway. Between London and the Midlands there are several to choose from. It is clear that the relative impact on landscape and of increased noise and vibration is proportionately less near existing transport links than in open countryside, through which the current preferred route for HS2 predominately passes.
I have seen little evidence that alternative routes have been considered in any depth by HS2 Ltd which do not meet the initial requirement of 250 mph running speeds and HS2 Ltd have confirmed to me that no detailed work has been done to investigate the potential benefits of lower-speed lines. Slower trains, for example, use less energy. A preoccupation with 250 mph is illogical – even if this were the aspiration of our European neighbours, the same speed is not necessarily appropriate for our often very different geography. It is important to recognise that I am not suggesting, in promoting reductions in line speed sufficient to enable broad transport corridors to be followed, that all advantages of high-speed rail over conventional rail must be abandoned. Speeds of
200 mph or even 180 mph are still high-speed by any standards but would permit what I believe to be better routes.
The impact of such speed reductions on all-important journey times can be tested by what HS2 Ltd themselves have said. As on other topics, there has been some movement. In the consultation document of February 2011, it was claimed that a route following the M1 and M6 would mean a journey time between London and Birmingham of around 12 minutes longer than that possible on the preferred route. On 8 April 2011 however, HS2 Ltd’s Chairman wrote to me to confirm that a route following the M1 had been modelled and would be 5 minutes slower than the preferred route. Also in April, correspondence between HS2 Ltd and my constituent Dr Dan Mitchell revealed that HS2 Ltd had calculated that a maximum line speed of 180 mph would add just 2 minutes to the journey time between London and Birmingham compared to the preferred route’s planned speeds. I believe therefore that there is considerable potential to strike a better balance between speed and environmental impact than has been achieved so far.
Notwithstanding the comments I have made on the current preferred route, if it is to be adopted I believe it can be further improved. There are three locations within my constituency in particular where specific enhancements should be made.
The first is Stoneleigh Park. The preferred route has been altered here to move it further from the village of Stoneleigh, which is welcome, but as a result it now passes across Stoneleigh Park/the National Agricultural Centre. This site has huge potential for investment and development as a centre of rural excellence, creating jobs and concentrating organisations concerned with the countryside, farming and connected scientific research at a central national location. With the recent involvement of a new development partner for the owners of the site, the Royal Agricultural Society of England, plans are developing faster than they have been for some time. The severance of the site by HS2 would have a profound effect on its viability and this must be avoided, perhaps by use of a green tunnel, or mitigated.
The second is Bascote Heath, where the tunnel under the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Long Itchington Wood has been inexplicably shortened in the September 2010 revisions of the preferred route. This will have a significant impact on the residents of Bascote Heath and without any apparent good reason. The tunnel should be restored to its original length.
The third is Burton Green, where a similarly good argument can be made to extend the green tunnel currently planned. An extension would reduce the noise and other impacts of HS2 on the residential properties very near to the proposed line. I suspect that there are few Communities along the proposed route where dwellings are closer to the line than at Burton Green and consequently I believe it deserves special consideration.
I support also submissions made in relation to measures to mitigate noise and visual impacts at the following specific locations which I believe merit particular attention:
- Kenilworth Golf Club (by the Board of Directors, Kenilworth Golf Club Ltd)
- Ladbroke (by letter of 8th April 2011 from Graham Long to Professor Andrew McNaughton)
- Offchurch (by letter of June 2011 from Professor Mike Geddes to Professor Andrew McNaughton)
- Priors Hardwick (by letter of 18th June 2011 from Michael Hawkins to Professor Andrew McNaughton)
I would also draw attention to the particular sensitivity of the narrow green belt between Kenilworth and Coventry, through which the preferred route runs.
Effect on Other Rail Services
As the Parliamentary representative for an area through which the proposed HS2 line would pass but in which no HS2 stations are planned, I have to be concerned with the effect of HS2 on remaining conventional rail services, which those of my constituents unwilling to travel to the Birmingham Interchange station will continue to use to reach London. Both in general terms and in specifically local terms there are very mixed messages on this.
HS2 Ltd’s 2009 report predicts that freed-up capacity would benefit users of the classic rail network after HS2 is operational to the tune of £2-4 billion
[v], identified more precisely as £2.6 billion in the February 2011 economic case
[vi]. On the other hand, later in the same document, HS2 Ltd anticipate savings of £2.3 billion in operating costs for classic lines to offset against HS2’s operating costs
[vii]. Do those savings reflect reductions in services and if not what do they reflect? How do they interact with the predicted economic benefits of freed-up capacity?
At local level, the impact of HS2 on services from Coventry to London is the primary concern. Currently Coventry enjoys 3 direct services to London an hour. The technical appendix to HS2 Ltd’s 2009 report sets out projected service levels including one direct service an hour. This is based on their projections of demand for HS2, leaving inadequate demand for more than one service an hour from Coventry. However, the February 2011 consultation document identifies Coventry as a city which can benefit from capacity released by HS2 on the London-West Midlands corridor
[viii]. In the Secretary of State for Transport’s statement to the House of Commons of 20 December 2010 on the Government’s plans for high-speed rail, he says that ‘released capacity on the WCML would offer the possibility of commuter-frequency fast services to London from places like Coventry and Milton Keynes’
[ix]. It is hard to see how these aspirations can mean less than, at the very least, a maintenance of current service levels. Extra capacity on the WCML does not automatically mean that extra services will be run to take advantage of it, but determining the effect of HS2 on Coventry is crucial to many of my constituents in determining their view of HS2, based on its impact on the services they will wish to continue to use. Greater clarity is required.
To complicate the situation further, a recent report produced by the organisation Greengauge 21
[x] argues for the double-tracking of the Leamington Spa to Coventry line and raises the possibility of adding a Coventry to London Marylebone service on the Chiltern Line to complement a twice-hourly Coventry to London service on WCML. Of particular interest to many of my constituents will be the related prospect of a Chiltern Line station at Kenilworth and, taking advantage of HS2’s planned spur to Heathrow Airport, future Chiltern Line services direct to Heathrow. All these improvements, Greengauge 21 suggests, are made possible by HS2. The Association of Train Operating Companies’ written evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee Inquiry into High Speed Rail makes the same point
[xi]. My constituents and others in Warwickshire will need a better understanding of how likely these changes are in connection with the development of HS2 so as to appreciate whether the undoubted adverse impacts of a high-speed line passing through but not stopping in Warwickshire are to be compensated for in any way by improvements to other services we will use. We also need to appreciate what effect enhanced access to London from this area by other routes would have on the business case for HS2.
APPRAISAL OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The absence of a full Environmental Impact Assessment at this stage is extremely regrettable. The Appraisal of Sustainability (AOS) does not provide all the information needed to give a comprehensive response to the possible environmental impacts of HS2. The AOS does recognise that there will be an impact on sites of ecological interest or important habitats. Some of these, for example Cubbington Wood, do not quite qualify for protection as SSSIs. The AOS says that further work will be done and proposals made to help minimise adverse effects but without any detail it is impossible to assess for the purposes of this consultation how effective they might be.
The noise caused by trains on HS2 is a particular concern. HS2 Ltd has commissioned from Arup representations of the noise an HS2 train would make at various specific points along the proposed route, including at Cubbington and Ladbroke in my constituency. I have heard these representations and others in Arup’s Sound Laboratory in central London as well as in the sound booths available as part of the HS2 roadshows. Unfortunately no such representation has been completed for Burton Green. As I said in a previous part of this response, Burton Green’s proximity to the line distinguishes it from other affected communities and means that noise is a particular concern. It was readily accepted by HS2 Ltd staff present at the Burton Green roadshow that the sound booth representation available on that day was not comparable to the likely experience of Burton Green residents. An accurate representation for Burton Green should be produced.
While I appreciate the effort that has been made to reassure those who may live near the line about its actual noise impact, it is important to note the assumptions which are being made in developing the representations. Some of those assumptions are technical and concern the design and development of trains. I do not have the technical expertise to comment on these but another assumption is that noise barriers or other mitigation will be provided at the locations used for the representations. Indeed it is not possible to hear the sound of an HS2 train without mitigation. This means that for the noise representations to provide any reassurance, there must be certainty that noise mitigation will be provided if HS2 is to be built, to the level and effectiveness demonstrated in them at these and other locations similarly affected. So far, I am not sure that this certainty has been offered.
Accessible information on noise contours for those living near the proposed line is not available. What there is instead is a set of maps identifying properties affected by some noise from HS2, marked in grey, and properties affected to such a degree that extra sound insulation would need to be provided for them, marked in yellow. The difficulty is that the properties marked in grey may be affected by anything between an additional 3db to 17db of HS2-related noise, above an assumed baseline level of 50db for every location along the line. Inevitably, the assumed baseline level will be inaccurate for many locations and no information is available for those whose properties are marked as affected about where in the range of 3-17db of extra noise their specific property may fall. This is unreasonable as that information must exist in order for the maps to have been marked in the first place. It is also worth noting that the assessments of extra noise are based on averages over the operating period of the railway (including of course the substantial time during which the railway creates no extra noise with no passing trains) rather than reflecting the peaks and troughs which could give a clearer idea of the impact of a passing HS2 train. I am told that this more detailed information may be available when the Environmental Impact Assessment is published but this will be after the consultation period has ended.
There are other gaps. The revised figures for modal shift to HS2 from cars and aircraft show reductions in those transferring from both modes of transport (8% to 7% and 8% to 6% respectively) compared to initial figures, but those reductions do not appear to be reflected in any revised assessment of HS2’s carbon benefits. Secondly, there is no detailed assessment made of the carbon impacts of increased road traffic to interchange stations for those travelling on HS2 which should be included for a complete picture. Thirdly, bringing Birmingham International Airport within 45 minutes of central London is bound to have an effect on the passenger traffic and flights to and from that airport. There is no discussion in the AOS of the potential effects of this development. Again, further information is needed. Some thought needs to be given not just to the disruption which HS2-related construction traffic will cause but also to the impact, including wear and tear, which substantial volumes of such traffic will have on the integrity of the rural road network. It cannot be acceptable that the local taxpayer bears the burden of these costs.
Finally, the proposed operating hours for HS2 are extensive. Those who will be living near the line are entitled to clarity about the possible level of activity on the line during the night. I am concerned that HS2 Ltd’s original proposals to Government of December 2009 are ambivalent about the potential for freight trains to use the line. They recommend that infrastructure design should not preclude this but recognise that such traffic could only be accommodated at night. It is also noted that no additional mitigation has been included to account for this possibility
[xii]. Conclusions need to be reached as to whether freight is to be transported on HS2 or not.
COMPENSATION
I have made it clear that I do not believe the current preferred route for HS2 is the right one, but I believe it would be profoundly wrong for those living along this or any other chosen route to bear the financial burden imposed by a high-speed rail line deemed to be in the national interest. Those whose properties will be directly and significantly affected by a new line must be properly compensated for their consequent loss. For those whose property is not compulsorily purchased as a result of the construction of the line or rendered entirely uninhabitable by it, the current statutory compensation arrangements under the Land Compensation Act 1973 are wholly inadequate. This is because compensation available under the 1973 Act can only be claimed for the impact of ‘physical factors’ once the railway line has been operational for a year. In other words a claim could not be made before 2027 and would not deal with blight caused by HS2 in the interim. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised this. More help must be provided if HS2 or any new high speed line is to be built.
I have to say that it would have been better for the Government’s proposed additional compensation scheme to have been published as part of the consultation documentation, rather than a number of options. It is frankly not realistic to expect those likely to be financially disadvantaged by a new high-speed line to comment comprehensively on it without knowing what compensation may be available for its adverse impact on them.
The absence of a definitive scheme also has a bearing on the costings for HS2. I note that the revised business case allows for the £930 million in land costs and compensation
[xiii], but this cannot be a meaningful estimate until decisions are taken as to which of the possible types of compensation scheme, all of which have different costs, is to be chosen.
I have no doubt that my constituents and I will wish to comment further in any additional consultation process on a detailed compensation scheme, if the project is taken forward, but at this stage I believe a guarantee or bond based scheme is likely to be the most attractive option. A comprehensive version of such a scheme has been advocated by the HS2 Action Alliance
[xiv] and has, I believe, considerable merit. The pre-eminent objective of a long term compensation scheme must be to offer reassurance to property owners and prospective purchasers that the scheme will restore property prices in blighted areas to HS2-unaffected market values.
I would argue that any potential scheme which limits compensation to those house moves deemed necessary by reference to an approved list of circumstances should be rejected. The logic underlying the Exceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS) as a temporary mechanism to assist those who could not wait for a fuller scheme should not apply to the EHS’s permanent replacement. A scheme designed to compensate affected property owners effectively must allow them to sell that property at a time and for reasons of their own choosing or it will not succeed in addressing the hardship HS2 will have caused them. HS2 would also have an adverse impact on a number of businesses in particular, including a handful of golf clubs. One of these is Kenilworth Golf Club which, on current plans, would become unviable if HS2 were to be built. Provision needs to be made for compensating them and thought needs to be given also to the losses the Club is incurring already in lost memberships as the impression grows that the Club may have no future.
Finally, I am conscious that my arguments elsewhere in this consultation response that substantial further work should be done in exploring other ways to deliver high-speed rail would, if accepted, result in further considerable delay before final decisions are taken. I am conscious also that the current preferred route would likely remain the preferred route until replaced with an alternative and consequently that properties along it would remain blighted. This could be resolved if a guarantee-based compensation scheme is made available to owners of properties affected by the current preferred route as soon as possible and remains available during any period of further investigation on development of a high-speed rail project.
I believe that better ways to deliver a high-speed rail network can be found but I do not believe that the financial hardship of those who own properties affected by the current preferred route should remain unremedied while they are.
[i] Economic Case for HS2 - (February 2011) p49 paragraph 7.2.5 [ii] High-Speed Rail – London to West Midlands and Beyond,– A Report to Government by High-Speed 2 Limited (December 2009) p188 [iii] Economic Case for HS2, p50, paragraph 7.2.18 [iv] High-Speed Rail (DfT) (March 2010) p46 paragraph 2.23 [v] As 2, p175, paragraph 4.2.10 [vi] Economic Case for HS2, p31, paragraph 4.3.18 [viii] High-Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation Document - February 2011 – p47, paragraph 2.35 [ix] Hansard )Philip Hammond’s Statement 20.12.10, Column 1201 [x] High-Speed Rail – Capturing the Benefits of HS2 on Existing Lines – Greengauge 21 – February 2011 [xi] Association of Train Operating Companies’ written evidence – HSR160, paragraph 3.5.2 [xii] As 2 – page 142, paragraph 3.9.10 [xiii] Economic Case for HS2, p37, Table 7 [xiv] Alternative Compensation Solution – HS2 Action Alliance
Wind Farms
South Warwickshire has suddenly become an area of great interest to the developers of wind farms. Planning applications for the measuring masts which precede wind turbines or requests for scoping opinions on wind farms have been made in Knightcote, Wormleighton, Shuckburgh and Shotteswell over the last few months, causing significant concern to local residents.
The arguments for such wind farms is that they provide clean, green energy. I am all in favour of clean green energy but I have 3 problems with the recent proliferation of prospective turbines in our part of Warwickshire. The first is that our part of Warwickshire is spectacularly beautiful. The landscape around all four places I have mentioned is unusual and highly attractive. In order to have a sense of what the impact of 125-130 metre high wind turbnes might be on that environment, I went to visit a development of similar scale just outside Huntingdon. The sheer scale of the turbines is breathtaking and their impact on the landscape equally huge. The views we value so highly would be changed forever.
Secondly, and because we do not live in the only rural landscape worth protecting, I would prefer to see wind turbines off shore, not onshore. It seems to me that wind resources are greater, and objections lesser if wind turbines are located off the coast.
Thirdly, although I recognise that wind energy has a part to play, I cannot accept that we should put all our eggs in one basket in renewable energy technologies. Solar power, wind power, geo thermal, biomass and others all deserve research investment to see if they can be successful in meeting some of our long term energy needs. I fear that current structures and incentives favour disproportionately existing technologies, of which on-shore wind is the pre-eminent example, rather than emergent but potentially more successful sources of energy. We are seeing the local effect of this bias.
(Home page photograph courtesy of Scottish Power)
Beausale travellers
A year ago, taking advantage of the bank holiday weekend, a group of travellers moved on to land at Beausale and began to develop it with services and amenities for a number of caravans.
They had no planning permission to do so and, when they made a retrospective planning application, Warwick District Council refused it on the grounds that this was inappropriate development in the green belt.
The travellers appealed and a public inquiry is now ongoing to consider the case.
In the end, the independent planning inspector must resolve this matter, but I have always supported Warwick District Council’s initial decision and continue to believe that this development should not be allowed.
I congratulate the local Friends of the Greenbelt (FROG) who have been consistent and energetic in making the case against it.
This is simply about fairness- travellers should not be able to do things under planning laws that the rest of us cannot. Abuses of the planning system should be prevented and I will support changes to the law which will make this sort of thing harder to do.
Royal Mail
Phase two of the new delivery system has now been introduced in Kenilworth.
As promised at the public meeting in January, I said I would update constituents when this happened.
Would constituents please let me know of any substantial concerns they have with the service they are now receiving.
On January 27th I chaired a public meeting where Royal Mail managers answered to Kenilworth residents for the level of postal service the town has received in the last few months. As those managers accepted, the town’s postal service has been far from satisfactory over that period. Some households went days without any post in the run-up to Christmas, some received post very late and some did not receive what they were expecting at all. This is completely unacceptable.
The reason appears to be the introduction of new delivery systems, trialled in Kenilworth before anywhere else, which did not work. It is of course true that the weather made deliveries more difficult and sometimes impossible in December and the Royal Mail are not responsible for snow and ice. However, the weather only exacerbated problems which had existed since October. The real failure was one of planning and of management. We are all agreed – including Royal Mail managers and Kenilworth residents present at last week’s meeting – that local Royal mail delivery staff do a good job and the recent problems are not their fault.
Given where the blame lies, it was refreshing to see managers accept it last week. We were told that extra staff are being recruited, better planning is being done, and the roll-out of the new delivery system later this year will give a good service again to the town. That is what we are entitled to expect and I have made it clear to Royal mail managers that nothing else will do.
When you make a mistake, you should own up, apologise and then put it right. I congratulate Royal Mail for doing the first two, and I look forward to them doing the third.
Dementia
Dementia is a condition which affects hundreds of thousands of people in the UK today, as well as those who care for them. The number of people with dementia will increase dramatically along with the cost of dealing with the condition over the coming decades. This is an issue in which I take a particular interest, founding the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia in 2007, and chairing it until 2010. During my time as Chairman, the Group produced three important and well-received reports on the overuse of antipsychotic medication; the need for caring staff to be trained in dementia; and on what has been done with Government money allocated under the National Dementia Strategy. You can read these reports by clicking on this link. On antipsychotic medication, positive action is now being taken.
Kenilworth Station
Kenilworth is one of the largest towns in the country not to have a railway station and I believe it should have one. A station would benefit not just Kenilworth residents who wish to travel to other destinations by train but would also provide an efficient and environmentally sustainable way to bring visitors to the town, to the advantage of the local economy. Building a station will require some central Government money and we all understand that this is currently in short supply, but I am confident that Kenilworth’s bid for that money is a strong one. Indeed, I delivered the necessary documentation to the Department of Transport myself. I will continue to argue the case to Ministers and I am optimistic that, before too long, Kenilworth will have the station it deserves.
Equitable Life
The previous Government behaved disgracefully in delaying any justice for Equitable Life policyholders, some of whom have lost very substantial sums, at least in part as a result of Government maladministration. This Government has acted swiftly in bringing forward legislation providing compensation to be paid within the first six months of its taking office, establishing an independently-designed scheme for the making of payments. Compensation cannot be considered in isolation from the current state of the public finances and those Equitable Life policyholders I have spoken to recognise that they will not recover 100 per cent of their losses. I do believe, however, that we must do better than the roughly 10 per cent which Sir John Chadwick’s recent report proposes and we must recognise that some policyholders are in urgent need.
Westminster Briefings
Community Week is a fantastic effort
This week is Scout Community Week. It represents a fantastic effort on the part of the Scout Association to mobilise Scout Groups from across the country to work on projects that will improve and benefit their local communities. The spirit of active voluntary involvement in the community has always been at the core of the Scout Movement, and since the demise of ‘Bob a Job’ week, the Scouts have continued to find modern and proactive ways in which they might help their local area. Scout Community Week is a nationwide event to harness this spirit and make a real difference through a series of community projects.
Since last October, Scout Groups and Districts have been coming up with ideas for projects that will go some way to improving their local area. More than half a million scouts are now set to spend this week working on projects as diverse as renovating open spaces and community centres, building habitats for local wildlife and organising special events to help local groups. It is not only a means of gathering together volunteers to work on community projects, but also an opportunity to fundraise for other community organisations, with many Groups giving a proportion of any money they raise to local charities and good causes. Scout Groups will be working together with councils and local businesses, and using Facebook and Twitter to gain as wide a level of support as possible for the projects that they are working on.
This action to revive the spirit of volunteering and to provide a focus for individuals who wish to improve their communities is hugely commendable and is closely supported by the Government. Last week two new initiatives were launched by the Cabinet Office – one to specifically assist small community fundraising ventures by matching funds that are raised by local good causes, and a second in the form of the Challenge Prizes, which will recognise creative and insightful projects seeking to improve support to the elderly and projects seeking to reduce waste in the local area.
Organisations like the Scout Association, and other individuals working together, mobilise the huge reserves of goodwill and giving that are characteristic of the British people who make a lasting difference to our communities. I congratulate them on the good work that they do and the dedication that they show to their area.
Defending local pubs is a worthy objective
Sometimes the right thing for a politician to do is to go to the pub. Our local public houses are facing a more challenging environment than ever before and yet they can be crucial elements in thriving towns and villages. To understand better the problems confronting the rural pubs, I visited last week the couple who run the Case is Altered pub, near Hatton. There is more that is unusual about this establishment than its name. Cosy and personal in its welcome and family owned for forty years, it is about as far from the national chains as licensed premises can get, and yet it is also a small business like thousands of others. It has had to deal with a rising tide of tax and regulation and fearsome competition, not just from other pubs but from sales of alcohol by supermarkets too.
However, the challenges they face are not just economic, but also rooted in social changes. As the landlady told me, her business has to survive a generational shift away from the use of the village pub as a social venue, the erosion of the local pub as a space for social interaction with other members of the local community as a newer generation with a more frenetic lifestyle prefers Facebook to the bar stool.
These are big challenges indeed, but we should not ignore those challenges which are rather easier to resolve. Take competition from the supermarkets. Large supermarket businesses can afford to sell alcohol in large quantities at low prices, which customers can drink at home. They are helping the private house to win out over the public house and thereby removing the opportunity for the responsible landlord or landlady to stop serving the customer who has had enough. As summer approaches the problem is compounded as the supermarket bought alcohol may be consumed in parks and public open spaces causing a potential nuisance to many. We should consider a minimum unit price for alcohol. Set at the right level, it will not affect the prices pubs charge for the drinks they serve, but will affect the 2 litre bottles of strong cider you can buy for 2-3 pounds.
We cannot defeat irresponsible drinking by price alone and should not try, but defending our local pubs is a worthy objective.
We should exercise our right to vote
Today is polling day. Local elections taking place up and down the country, and in my constituency there is a battle on for council seats in Southam, Harbury, Kineton, Burton Dassett, Wellesbourne and Dunsmore. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to go and vote.
It is somewhat of a shame that in the post-war era voter turnout has steadily fallen election-year on election-year, up until the turn of this century when we have seen a modest increase. In the last General Election voter turnout was 65%, leaving much room for improvement. Given the history of our nation, and the struggles that individuals and groups have endured to secure and preserve our universal suffrage, I believe it is important that when given the opportunity we should each exercise our right to vote. As we have been reminded by recent world events, from news pictures beamed back to us of civil unrest, there are many people around the world who are fighting to attain the same level of political freedom of expression so often taken for granted by us in the UK.
Voter turnout tends to be lower in local elections than in General Elections, perhaps being viewed as less important without Parliamentary seats at stake. However, this Government has devolved more powers to Local Authorities and is giving power back to local communities. As such, these local council elections are more important than ever in determining the political future of our area.
Local Government spending accounts for one quarter of all Government spending, so the importance of the decisions taken at this level are enormous.
I recognise the sacrifices that our Councillors make and thank them for giving up their free-time to improve our local area. I wish them and all candidates for local office well in the election today.
Edgehill Games reflect the best of Britishness and the Olympic ideals
It is just three months now before the starting pistol fires and the London 2012 Olympics are out of the blocks.
As with any event on this scale, and particularly when the country is tightening its belt, there has been a fair bit of rumbling about whether the Games represent value for money and what their legacy will be.
This is hard to quantify, and there is no doubt that the most direct benefits will be in London. However, I do not think we can underestimate the value to this country of being seen across the world to have organised the Games efficiently, effectively and imaginatively.
What we have in spades in this country is creativity and originality. It is reflected not just in our arts and entertainment, but in science and industry too. We are a multi-ethnic and an immensely tolerant and inclusive society, all of which I think the Games will portray. These Games also give us an opportunity to show the world what a great country this is - to live in, visit and do business with.
I am delighted that in my own constituency, people are taking the initiative to display all of these qualities in their tribute to the Games.
The villagers of Kineton, Combroke, Warmington, Shotteswell, Ratley and Radway are taking part in their own version of the Games, with more than 26 events which will include something to suit every age and sporting ability. All proceeds will go to Sport Relief. The Edgehill Games has really taken off, bringing together churches, schools, businesses, sports clubs, pubs and even the munitions base at Kineton. In its own way, it is reflecting both the Olympic ideals and the best of Britishness - co-operation and competition on the one hand but also imagination, initiative, application, enthusiasm and community spirit.
One of our great athletes, former 5,000 metres record holder David Moorcroft, will be opening the Edgehill Games on Sunday (April 29), and the closing ceremony on July 15 will be in the hands of someone of much lesser sporting prowess – me!
I would like to wish the event, its organisers, participants and supporters, every success and encourage people to take part or go along to watch the fun. You can find out more about the games by visiting www.edgehillbenefice.co.uk
Book charity starts new chapter in its campaigning
It is likely that most people reading this column will have been introduced to books at an early age.
We will have been lucky enough to have been read to by our parents and been introduced to a seemingly limitless world of ideas, adventures, emotions and information.
Despite all that modern technology can deliver, having a book read to them is still a delight to young children, as I know from reading to my own. That’s because it not only entertains, but is a shared experience and, even when we grow out of being read to, is an activity from which we derive comfort, as well as enjoyment of the book itself.
Opening up the world of books to young children is something that the charity Booktrust has been doing for 20 years with its Bookstart reading programme. Since 1992 Bookstart has given 30 million free books to babies and toddlers who might otherwise not have experienced being read to. And, for many families, the books which Bookstart have given them have been the first that their children have owned.
Sharing our experiences through books helps us to feel part of the world around us and everyone should have the chance to explore that world through this unique and wonderful medium.
This year Bookstart is aiming to raise its profile to ensure that it can go on introducing very young children to books for many years to come.
I will be supporting their campaign by attending one of their events at Kenilworth Library later in the year. But, in the meantime, I wish the charity every success.
If you would like to find out more about Bookstart you can visit www.booktrust.org.uk/bookstart20.
Clarification on Assisted Suicide is welcome
Last week the House of Commons debated the guidelines concerning Assisted Suicide drafted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
I do not support the legalisation of Assisted Suicide because of the adverse message I believe such a move would send and the impact it may have on extremely vulnerable members of our society. I recognise of course that many of those who advocate a loosening of the law do so for the best of motives. However, legalisation indicates that our society condones something which it previously did not and the evident danger here is that some, elderly or ill, already concerned that they have become a burden to loved ones or even to the country at large, will take such a change as a signal that this is a course of action they really should consider. I consider this too big a risk to take and that is why I do not support a change in the law. I do however support the exercise of suitable discretion by prosecutors in what will always be difficult and very varied cases.
The motion for debate in the House of Commons welcomed the DPP’s policy for prosecutors in cases such as these, which has been published as a result of a court ruling. Paragraph 6 of the guidelines reads as follows:
‘This policy does not in any way ‘decriminalise’ the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide. Nothing in this policy can be taken to amount to an assurance that a person will be immune from prosecution if he or she does an act that encourages or assists the suicide or the attempted suicide of another person’.
That, in my view, is as it should be. The DPP had no choice but to clarify the factors to be taken into account by prosecutors in deciding whether to bring a case to court and in those circumstances I welcome the fact that this clarification is made in the context of no decriminalisation of the assisting or encouragement of suicide and the retention of a Prosecutor’s discretion in each case. Consequently, I would not have opposed this motion when it was before Parliament, had there been a vote, but I would oppose a proposal to legalise assisting or encouraging suicide.
Dementia funding announcement is good news
The news that the Government is to double its funding for research into dementia is very heartening.
I have long been greatly concerned about the impact of dementia on our society and I have done much to try to raise awareness and response to the problems we face. In 2007 I founded the All-Party Group on Dementia, which I also chaired until 2010. The aim of the group has been to raise awareness of dementia amongst Parliamentarians and to influence policy making and legislation to improve the lives of people with dementia and their carers.
To this end, the announcement that annual research funding into dementia will rise to £66 million by 2015 is a clear indication that the work of this group, and many others who campaign on the subject, has had considerable impact.
Dementia is indeed a ticking time bomb which we ignore at our peril. The number of people suffering from dementia is likely to reach a million within a decade and we need to prepare the country to be able to treat and care for sufferers in the best way possible. We also need to focus more resources on finding out more about how dementia begins and how it develops, knowledge we need to combat it effectively.
All these elements will be taken into account with the increased funding, which will improve research on living with dementia and fund an academic centre for scientists to investigate the cause of the condition.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has singled out tackling dementia as a personal priority and that the Government is going to take funding to a level which will see a radical shift in the way we approach dementia. So many people in the country are affected, will be affected, or care for someone who is affected, that there can be few issues more deserving of more attention and energy from Government.
There is still a long way to go, but this is a huge step in the right direction.
Fast internet connection is vital
The changing ways we communicate and conduct our business means the internet has become an integral part of our everyday lives. Whether you are chatting to a loved one on the other side of the world on Skype, catching up with your favourite programme on iPlayer or conducting business video conferences, there is nothing more irritating than being held up by a poor internet connection. Representing a rural constituency I understand just how important access to a reliable and fast internet connection is.
The problem for government is that a third of the country is not commercially attractive for companies rolling out superfast broadband. To combat this, the Government has pledged to ensure widespread availability of high speed broadband as a key part of its strategy for building economic growth. As well as working with existing providers to complete delivery quicker, the Government has committed £530m over the life of this parliament to support broadband implementation which, it believes will be sufficient to extend superfast coverage to 90% of premises and ensure universal standard broadband.
I recently met with Warwickshire County Council’s e-business adviser to discuss what can be done in our county. The Rural Development Plan for England (RDPE) has provided funding for broadband speeds greater than 2Mbps in many areas of my constituency which currently suffer from slow connection speeds.
The Government has set challenging targets for the rollout of improved broadband speeds across the country, which local authorities are largely confident of meeting. The length of the timetable proposed will ensure the process of implementation is as transparent as possible. Local authorities will work in close contact with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to maintain the forward momentum towards our goals.
Making this investment will change the economic, social and environmental benefits for Warwickshire and the rest of the country, and has the potential to transform the quality of our lives.
The Queen's accomplishments should not be taken for granted
Last week saw the 60th Anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne of the United Kingdom and seven other former-commonwealth countries. We will see many more events throughout the year to mark her Diamond Jubilee which, along with the Olympics this summer, promises to make 2012 a special and important year. Readers may also be aware of an extra bank-holiday at the start of June to commemorate the Queen’s coronation day 60 years ago and I am sure, like me, you will take that opportunity to celebrate not just the reign of a remarkable head of state, but all the values of Britishness that are admired across the world.
What struck me most during the marking of this milestone is the universal sense of goodwill that surrounds the Queen wherever she travels. The Queen remains a much loved head of state and, remarkably, although she began her reign as the constitutional monarch of seven countries, she is currently the head of state of 16, as a number of former commonwealth nations gained their independence and chose her to represent them internationally. This exemplifies the high regard in which she is held. The Diamond Jubilee will be celebrated across the world from Australia to Zambia, including places such as the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
The accomplishments of the Queen over six decades must not be taken for granted as the work she does has a significant positive impact on British business, diplomacy and tourism. The Royal family currently enjoys an unprecedented level of popularity, at home and abroad, and that is testament to the skill with which the monarchy has adapted to changing political and social attitudes over the years. The quiet dignity with which the Queen goes about her duties as the head of state, twinned with her role as the head of her family, is something to be consistently admired and, on landmark occasions such as this year, celebrated.
We need to face the challenges of an ageing population
Last week I had the pleasure of chairing a seminar about ageing, which was attended by policy makers and clinicians who had gathered to discuss the challenges associated with Britain’s ageing population.
It is a staggering fact that the proportion of over 70s in the population will rise by over 50% between 2010 and 2030 while the ratio of those of working age to those aged over 70 will fall from 5.3:1 to 3.7:1 over the same period.
Due to advances in health care over recent years and because many of us are more conscious than ever of keeping fit and healthy, most of us can expect to live longer than previous generations. Older people who are still in work, keep healthy and are able to contribute by providing care for others are an asset - a fact that is often overlooked.
However we cannot ignore the concerns about health which are becoming more acute with our ageing population.
We face many challenges including the growing prevalence of dementia, an issue I have raised consistently since my election to Parliament in 2005.
We should no longer tolerate stories of frail patients in hospitals and care homes being left without food and water because they are unable to feed themselves or reports of patients sitting in soiled clothing because staff are too busy to attend to their needs.
The Government will shortly publish a White Paper on how care in the longer term is going to be funded, which I believe may have to be a combination of funding from both the taxpayer and the individual. We must also look at the status of carers. At any one time 10% of the population is providing care to a relative or loved one. The role of a carer is crucial but extremely hard. A third of carers care for over 50 hours a week and a third are over 65 years old and all save the Treasury a huge amount every year.
We need to look at training people working in elderly care so that they have expertise in dealing with conditions such as dementia but also investing in staff so that they might see caring as a career and stay within the sector. The high incidence of Staff turnover must be tackled.
I accept that none of this is going to be very easy especially as Local Authorities face funding pressures. However, one of the things that I think is positive is that increasingly people are being given more choice about the care they receive. Most people would prefer to stay at home for as long as possible relieving pressure on hospitals and care homes but we must ensure that this does not mean that the elderly have no choice but to be left alone 23 hours a day, neglected behind their front door.
Trust deserves our thanks for what it does
Friday is Holocaust Memorial Day. Every year, the Holocaust Educational Trust does a huge amount to remind us of the terrible scar on the history of 20th Century Europe that was the systematic extermination by the Nazis of millions of Jews. Every year, for example, Members of Parliament have the opportunity to sign a book of remembrance and pupils at local schools are given the opportunity to visit Auschwitz - Birkenau, where murder was carried out on an industrial scale. If you have visited the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem in Israel as I have, you will have found it a profoundly distressing experience and that of course is the point. Remembering the Holocaust is not supposed to be comfortable. This is not just because of the sheer horror of what occurred but also because we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of believing it was a historical aberration, confined to the particular circumstances of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The true purpose of Holocaust Memorial Day is to remind us not just that the Holocaust happened but that, perhaps on different scales and in different locations, it can and does happen again.
Around the world, racial, ethnic or tribal conflicts continue. Within the last 20 years, in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, people have been killed or persecuted not for what they believe or for actions they have taken, but simply because of what they are. It still happens today.
So Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us what can happen when we turn a blind eye to this kind of evil. It shows us how bad it can get and that is why it is important to remember, however uncomfortable it may be. Remembering becomes harder of course with the passing of time, as fewer and fewer first-hand witnesses survive to look us in the eye and tell us it was true. I do not believe the greater danger comes from an organised conspiracy of Holocaust denial, but rather from the collective erosion of our certainty that it really was that terrible. The Holocaust Educational Trust plays a vital role in resisting that erosion and they deserve our thanks for what they do.
New Year, new office
For me, the New Year’s work begins in a new office. You may have read of the redevelopment of the town’s police station to accommodate not just police officers but also the offices and Council Chamber for Kenilworth Town Council, as well as space for me and my staff.
Wilton House on Southbank Road, the building previously shared with the Town Council, will make way for a new development of retirement apartments and a new senior citizens club, which is housed until then in the re-named Jubilee House. These are positive changes.
As Kenilworth’s MP, it makes sense for my office to be located at the heart of the town. More broadly, I am keen to support the ongoing operation to create a new Civic Centre for Kenilworth. We would all have wished to see a shiny new building developed in one go, but economic pressures, of which we are all aware, mean that the only way this can be done now is in stages.
The revamp of the library and a shared front desk service for a number of civic organisations is stage one and Jubilee House is in many ways stage two. I remain hopeful that later stages will deliver the meeting hall Kenilworth needs and deserves as part of a central location for the delivery of public services which helps to knit together the Castle and Old Town with the main shopping area.
In the meantime, you can reach me at the same phone number and email address, namely 01926 853650 and
Jeremy.wright.mp@parliament.uk, but at a different postal address:
Jubilee House, Smalley Place, Kenilworth, CV8 1QG
Christmas post assurances from Royal Mail
Last week I took the opportunity, during this busy period in the run up to Christmas, to meet with senior management at Royal Mail to seek their assurance that this year’s Christmas post will not be hit by the same delivery problems that many of my constituents experienced last year. The purpose of the meeting was to register my concern about the number of complaints I received last year concerning late or undelivered mail.
As I am sure many readers will recall, the postal service in Kenilworth caused something of a storm of protest with many householders complaining of Christmas cards and letters failing to be delivered in time, despite being sent before the last posting dates.
Royal Mail listened to my concerns, and those of my constituents, and insisted that they had learnt from last year’s mistakes which were, in large part, a result of the terrible weather and the introduction of a new system for sorting the mail.
I was assured such teething problems have been resolved, and that over the last five months the standard of service in the Kenilworth area has been good and Royal Mail is confident it will continue.
Five years ago Royal Mail dealt with 40% more mail than at the current time. This might suggest that delays in delivery times could be reduced. However, thanks to internet shopping, the items that are delivered to our doors, although less in number, are often considerably larger and frequently need a signature on delivery. Understandably, this makes it harder to carry numerous deliveries at one time, and contributes to delays in delivery times. Acknowledging this, Royal Mail has hired a full quota of temporary staff to deal with the inevitable seasonal rush, and unless snowstorms prevent delivery just before Christmas, I am assured that the service will be up to scratch.
With goodwill and imagination pubs could be saved
As we enter the festive season, many of us will be enjoying time in our local pub. Of course, if you live in a village, that is assuming you still have a local pub. Take the village of Northend, for example, where the Red Lion pub, the only one in the village, is currently closed.
A planning application has been made to convert the pub into offices. Of course I am happy to see thriving businesses in the area and even happier if new jobs are to be created in the process, but I also think that businesses can be accommodated elsewhere. Local pubs are important – as places to socialise and as places where communities can come together. In villages, very often they are the only remaining amenity, with the village shop and post office closed and the village school long gone. They are therefore worth preserving, but this is becoming increasingly difficult.
Licensees are finding it hard to keep their pub running as a viable business and the pub companies they deal with do not always make things easier. Northend is far from the only place where someone wants to turn the pub into offices or a residence, removing any possibility that a new licensee might make it work as a pub.
We cannot keep every pub open by artificially supporting a dying business, but we could offer it new opportunities. As well as being a pub, could the same building host the village post office? Could a shop run from the premises too? In some places, this is already happening. With a little imagination, the pubs we value, but which are often under threat, may be given a new lease of life and become even more central to the communities, particularly rural communities, they serve.
Some local good news to temper the national bad news
This week’s Autumn Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer contained, predictably, sobering news about the economy. Given the events we have all witnessed unfolding in the Eurozone and beyond, it would be remarkable if our economy was unaffected.
It is not the case though that all our woes can be blamed on external factors. This country has simply borrowed far too much for far too long. Not only is this an unsound way to maintain the economy in the longer-term, but in the current global economic context doing nothing about our debts would risk higher interest rates for all of us. For many people, already struggling financially, this would be the last straw as they struggle to afford their own borrowing. A responsible government cannot therefore ignore any longer our over-borrowing and over-spending. Much less should such a responsible government make the situation worse by borrowing more in the longer-term. VAT cuts and the like have to be paid for – with more taxes or more borrowing. If Britain is drowning in debt, more debt cannot be the answer. You do not help someone who is drowning by adding more water.
That is not to say of course that nothing can be done to help the British economy at this difficult time and we did get some positive news this week. One such announcement was of extra investment in my constituency which we should all welcome. The Tollbar End Roundabout, near Coventry Airport, is a key point in the local strategic network as the A45 and A46 intersect, with consequential queues and delays many of us have experienced.
Doing something to improve traffic flow there has been a local priority and a regional concern for some time. Keeping the traffic moving will not only help us all get where we wish to go but will also help our local economy, with the nearby Ansty and Ryton development sites being particular beneficiaries. Tollbar End is a sensible place to target what help the Government can afford to offer to businesses and industry in their efforts to provide the growth our economy needs. It represents a piece of local good news in amongst the national and international bad news.
Backing charity's drive to promote research
Earlier this month I took the opportunity to attend a training day in aid of the charity Epilepsy Bereaved in Dunchurch. The charity offers invaluable services to those who suffer from epilepsy and to those recently, and suddenly, bereaved as a result of the condition, under the tireless leadership of Jane Hanna.
While attending the training day I learnt that there are over 3 seizure-related deaths in the UK every day, mostly in young and otherwise healthy people. Worryingly I also learnt that reported deaths have risen at a time when mortality has fallen for other conditions. Up to 42% of these deaths are potentially avoidable by ensuring that those who suffer from the condition are trained to manage risk and discuss risk reduction strategies with professionals. It is reprehensible how little the risks of sudden and unexpected death from epilepsy are acknowledged, but through the tireless work of Epilepsy Bereaved the tide may be turning.
Through increasing research and awareness, Epilepsy Bereaved aim to prevent sudden unexpected death from epilepsy, and other epilepsy related fatalities. Research is critical in unlocking the cultural and service barriers to implementing risk reduction and supporting technological developments to alert carers to potentially fatal seizures.
This charity serves as an inspirational leader in the field of epilepsy research. It is world-renowned for the work it has done in defining the parameters of sudden and unexpected death from epilepsy and has called for national inquiries into the level of epilepsy deaths. Although the understanding of such fatalities is measurably better than when Epilepsy Bereaved began in 1993, the number of such deaths can still be reduced.
That is why I am supporting the charity’s drive to promote invaluable research and awareness into this neglected medical syndrome. Epilepsy Bereaved can be contacted at http://www.sudep.org/
Good to see so many families at Remembrance Service
Last weekend’s Remembrance Sunday commemorations were as moving as ever, but along with the traditional ceremony there was also a sense of change. As veterans paid their respects at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, this was the first year that someone who had served in the First World War was not among them. The origins of our two minutes silence on the 11th day of the 11th month, this year of the 11th year, are now a matter of history and not of experience.
As I stood at the War Memorial in Kenilworth on Sunday, two things struck me in particular. The first was that the wars we remembered were rarely fought without allies. This year a delegation of French veterans from Kenilworth’s twin town, Bourg-la-Reine, joined us as a tangible and welcome reminder of that fact. Secondly, I was pleased to see a large number of young families among the hundreds gathered around the memorial. Wars should not just be remembered by those who fought in them or lived through them, but also by those, then unborn, for whom they were fought. The Kohima Epitaph is recited at war memorials across the country on Remembrance Sunday
‘When you go home, tell them of us and say
for your tomorrow, we gave our today.’
That message has been repeated down the generations, as it should be. Our children should understand too that their lifestyles and freedoms were bought with the lives of those, some long dead, who fought for them. The least their sacrifice deserves is our silent respect at this time of year and our honouring of their memory always.
Threat to Helen Ley centre can be turned into an opportunity
Last week I met with Mr Simon Gillespie, the Chief Executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, to discuss the proposed closure of the Helen Ley care centre in Blackdown. As many readers will be aware, the MS Society announced last month that due to a lack of funding the centre would be closing in January 2012, unless they receive a viable offer to take over the running of the centre. We had a very constructive meeting, and I think it would be wrong to give up hope that a solution can be found to keep the centre open.
As the only multiple sclerosis-specific care home in the country, the Helen Ley Care Centre provides a vital service to members of my constituency and to MS sufferers nation-wide.
The centre provides essential respite care to those suffering from multiple sclerosis, offering an environment that suits all lifestyles, and attends every need. The benefit of a period of relief it provides to the patient’s family cannot be underestimated. I have witnessed firsthand the extremely high levels of professionalism amongst the staff and the exceptional quality of care which is on offer at Helen Ley. Their commitment is even more commendable during a period of such prolonged uncertainty as is facing the centre at this time. It is imperative that every possible avenue is explored when trying to find a solution to how the centre may be saved, and how the MS Society can also benefit from the facility staying open.
The fight to keep the Helen Ley Centre open creates an opportunity to turn an already excellent resource into a truly outstanding one. We should look at the prospect for not only offering high quality care to those with multiple sclerosis but also encouraging the centre to expand to offer help to people suffering from other conditions. I have expressed my clear view to them that I and those I represent expect every effort to be made to achieve a positive outcome. To achieve this, the MS Society may have to look beyond a purely financial case and balance its responsibilities to the charity commission against its reputation and the needs of the residents at the Helen Ley Centre.
Vital work in fight against cancer
Tomorrow I will be opening the Helen Clark Suite Breast Unit at Warwick Hospital and joining in with the launch of the Breakthrough Service Pledge for Breast Cancer.
The Helen Clark Suite has been in use by patients since March 2010 and ensures that all services and support patients require are in one place. I look forward to visiting the unit and looking around its facilities which include; digital mammography and ultrasound rooms, a dedicated fitting room and treatment rooms.
This opening comes at the end of breast cancer awareness month. As readers may recall from my last column, breast cancer continues to provide all too shocking statistics and around 1000 women die of breast cancer every month.
The Breakthrough Service Pledge was developed by Breakthrough Breast Cancer to help healthcare professionals and patients work together towards better breast cancer services. Breast cancer patients at Warwick Hospital were asked about the services they received and were encouraged to suggest improvements. Staff and patients then worked with Breakthrough Breast Cancer to develop a local Breakthrough Service Pledge, setting out the standards of care for patients and planned improvements.
November also sees the start of a yearly drive to raise awareness of men’s health issues through The Prostate Cancer Charity’s ‘Movember’ campaign. ‘Movember’ is one of a number of initiatives by the Prostate Cancer Charity which aims to raise awareness and funds in the fight against men’s cancers and depression. Some of the statistics surrounding men’s cancers are equally sobering. In the UK:
· Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men
· 37,000 men are diagnosed each year
· 10,000 men die of prostate cancer every year
· 250,000 men are living with the disease
Such numbers indicate why it is so important that people continue to support the valuable work that charities such as these do, and why the Government has committed over £450 million over the next four years to address the issues surrounding cancer. Due to the numerous challenges presented by the varied nature of the disease, The Department of Health has been working with health professionals, patient groups and charities to develop key standardised messages on different cancers for the general public. This important work, along with such charity campaigns, are vital to the fight against cancer, and I congratulate the work that charities do in supporting people with and raising awareness of this terrible disease.
Referendum would be predictable, pointless and expensive
This week the House of Commons debated the prospect of a referendum on our membership of the European Union.
I did not vote for the Parliamentary motion proposing a 3 option referendum (stay in on current terms, renegotiate those terms or leave altogether) for several reasons.
I do not support further integration in the European Union and indeed I believe that Britain should seek to recover powers from the EU. I do not however support withdrawal from the EU at this stage either. There is much that is wrong with the EU, but our membership gives UK businesses full access to the world’s most important trading zone of 500 million consumers, without the barriers of customs or tariffs. Much of the inward investment which comes to the UK and therefore thousands of jobs would be in jeopardy if we left. I did not stand for election promising a referendum on membership of the European Union and neither did the Conservative Party. What was promised was a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it had not been ratified by the time we came to office. By the time of the General Election, it had been ratified.
The Coalition Government has already passed legislation to guarantee that any transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the EU will now be subject to a referendum.
As I have said, I am in favour of the repatriation of powers to the UK. I suspect that an opportunity to achieve this may arise if continued problems among the Eurozone Countries necessitate further Treaty provisions, which may not affect the UK but will require its consent. I fear that a more general referendum at this stage (and the motion before us specified a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for such a referendum) would be an unwelcome distraction from that negotiation.
There were other problems with the motion. It proposed a referendum in which the electorate will be asked to choose between staying in the EU on current terms, leaving altogether or negotiating a more balanced relationship. It seems to me highly likely that the electorate, unhappy with the status quo but unwilling to risk full separation, will support the third option. If so, the referendum takes us no further forward as this is already the Government’s stated objective. It would therefore be predictable and pointless as well as hugely expensive. I am sure we can all think of better uses for tens of millions of pounds at the moment.
Therefore, despite my strong support for the repatriation of powers to the UK from the EU, this motion was not one I could support.
An issue that needs to be kept on the agenda
October is breast cancer awareness month and this week Breakthrough Breast Cancer hosted their annual ‘Westminster Fly-In’, their flagship lobbying event for MPs. I had the pleasure of meeting one of my constituents who had travelled to Westminster to tell me her experiences and remind me of the facts on breast cancer, which aresobering.
· Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK - nearly 48,000 women and 300 men are diagnosed with the disease every year
· Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women in the UK
· Around 1000 women die of breast cancer every month in the UK
· Breast cancer accounts for nearly 1 in 3 of all female cancers and 1 in 8 women in the UK will develop the disease at some point in their lifetime
However, there is more positive news. More women than ever are surviving breast cancer thanks to better awareness, screening and treatments. Experts estimate that the NHS breast screening programme saves the lives of 1,400 women each year. That said however, survival rates in the UK still lag behind some other European countries and if England was to achieve survival rates at the European best for breast cancer, an estimated 1000 more lives could be saved each year. There is much progress that needs to be made and more must be done to drive early diagnosis so that there is a better chance of beating the disease.
That is why it is so important that the Government is committed to improving the performance of all aspects of breast screening in order to ensure that women have access to a high quality service wherever they live. This includes taking steps to improve the amount of breast cancer screening and extending the programme to include women aged 47 to 49. At the moment, the breast screening programme offers screening every three years for all women in England aged 50 and over. Women aged between 50 and 70 are invited for screening routinely, while women over the age of 70 can request free three-year screening.
Earlier this year the Government published its cancer strategy, which set out a plan to save an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15 through earlier diagnosis and improved access to services such as screening and radiotherapy. The Government aIso committed over £450 million over the next four years to address these issues. Through raising awareness, I hope that potential sufferers are able to get diagnosed as early as possible, giving them the best chance of effective treatment.
Breakthrough Breast Cancer and those who support them are to be congratulated for the important part they play in keeping this issue on the agenda.
Welfare reform should not be put off any longer
As the political pantomime season comes to an end with the close of the last party conference, it is striking how similar the language used at each has been on the subject of welfare reform. All parties express themselves to be on the side of ‘hard working families’ who ‘play by the rules’ and intolerant of those who abuse the benefits system.
At the Labour Party Conference last week, the suggestion was even made that good or bad behaviour may help to determine your place on the social housing waiting list. A moral orthodoxy on this issue is, of course, entirely appropriate. No government should either deny its responsibility to look after those who cannot look after themselves or allow those who can work but refuse to do so to drain resources which could go to the genuinely needy. The current financial situation gives this added urgency. The welfare budget is one of the government’s biggest expenditures and we can no longer afford to waste it on the undeserving.
However, it would be wrong to assume that because the principle is simply stated and widely supported, implementing it will be easy. There are it seems to me two fundamental challenges in doing so. Separating the deserving recipient of benefits from the undeserving one is sometimes harder than it looks. Take the support offered to those unable to work due to illness or disability. A medical judgement must be made to determine if the medical condition in question really prevents work, is being exaggerated or is simply being used as an excuse. The trouble is that the effect of a chronic illness or depression is not as easy to assess as that of some physical disabilities. In other cases someone may be desperate to work but needs help overcoming practical obstacles to do so.
Secondly the benefit system is incredibly complex, so complex that the deserving find it difficult to navigate through and claim all that they are entitled to and those intent on fraud find it easy to cover their tracks. A simpler benefit system will help us direct our limited resources where they are most needed.
If welfare reform were simple and uncontroversial it would have been done long ago and party conferences would not need to discuss it. It is neither, but it is now both urgent and necessary and should be put off no longer.
Inspired and humbled by the truly brave
Last week I was able to visit the military base outside Kineton, which is the largest munitions depot in Europe. The scale of the site, at 2500 acres, is remarkable in itself, with a variety of ammunition and weaponry stored securely for use and reconditioning. Britain’s military could not function without the work done here and at similar sites. There is also an extensive collection of shells and projectiles covering some 600 years of military history.
As ever with the armed forces though, it is not the equipment which is the most impressive, it is the people.
I have grown accustomed to meeting men and women defending our country who are highly professional, resilient and utterly dedicated to the duty they bear cheerfully for the rest of us. Those I met at DM Kineton were no exception. I always leave military establishments feeling safer and more secure. I often wish I left some other Government departments with the same feeling.
Just occasionally though, I meet armed forces personnel who are genuinely exceptional. I addition to its logistics functions, DM Kineton serves as a training centre for the disarming of bombs of all kinds, but particularly for the disposal of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which present such huge operational challenges for our forces in Afghanistan. The dangers of this work are obvious and often exacerbated by being shot at while it is undertaken, but it also requires swift adaptations to new developments in the fast-moving world of bomb making. Difficult and dangerous though this work is, DM Kineton trains volunteers, for operations at home and abroad. Those operations may be carried out with the most complex technical equipment and back-up or with no more than what can be carried.
In a standard tour of duty in Afghanistan, a graduate of DM Kineton’s courses can expect to confront hundreds of explosive devices. Each one will require skill, concentration and great courage to make safe. I must say that witnessing the straightforward way in which instructors who had carried out these tasks in theatre and trainees who would soon do so treated the risks inherent in them made the memorial on site to those who have died attempting to deactivate explosive devices moremoving and meeting those injured in the course of that duty more inspiring.
Brave is an over-used description, but the people I met at DM Kineton last week truly deserve it.
Jaguar Land Rover announcement is good news for West Midlands
The West Midlands was given some more good news by Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) this week with the announcement of a new engine plant to be built near Wolverhampton. The positive effects of this investment will not just be felt in and around the plant’s immediate location of course, but throughout the region in the extensive supply network on which JLR relies. The 750 jobs which may be created at the plant will likely be mirrored by many more new jobs in companies which supply parts or expertise to the manufacture of JLR’s vehicles.
The other benefits are less immediate and less direct. First, the plant will manufacture advanced, low-emission engines for Jaguars and Land Rovers, making their cars cleaner and greener. Second, this announcement follows that of new jobs and investment at JLR’s Research and Development in Gaydon and the avoidance of loss of manufacturing capacity at one of JLR’s existing factories. The more JLR invests in our region, the more critical mass it accumulates here, in proximity to its developing supply chain, and the more likely further investment will be located here too.
Third, we all benefit from the confirmation that the West Midlands can still make things. This announcement is also good news for manufacturing and for high-skilled manufacturing in particular. JLR is just what we want more of and it is particularly pleasing that a brand with an enviable British heritage is providing not just new employment but new confidence too.
Looking on the positive side
As businesses and communities continue to clear-up, repair and restore following the disturbances of last month, legislators are still considering their long-term causes and what may be done to make similar events less likely in the future. As I have said before, I think a robust response from the Criminal Justice system is wholly appropriate and those who have engaged in wanton criminality have no credible excuse. However it is also worth bearing in mind the positive things we can do. No commentary on young people behaving badly should go without recognition that the vast majority of young people are well-behaved. Almost in parallel with the looting in some city centres, young people in Ryton-on-Dunsmore were engaged, with other members of the local community in repairing the subway under the A45. I was privileged to attend the official re-opening of the tunnel last week and see the results of their work, done mostly by volunteers for the benefit of the community as a whole which are impressive. I suggest that they are more representative of our young people than the television pictures of a masked minority.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that minority. Though I repeat that there can be no excuses for criminal acts of violence and damage, there may be partial explanations for the social dysfunction which so often precedes them. Too many young people in urban areas turn to gangs for the support they do not receive from their families. Too many young men lack a positive male role model. There are those who are addressing this locally, the Friendship Project for Children, for example, offers (thoroughly vetted) adult friends for children who need them. It is similar to the Big Brother/Big Sister Programme in the United States and seeks to address the deficits of affection that some young people face and which may lead them into less positive relationships. What those who work with and for the Friendship Project for Children offer the children they befriend is hugely valuable to those children individually but also valuable to us all. The more they do, the less likely the riots of the future.
Encouraged by reaction of the majority
Like most readers over the last few weeks my attentions and thoughts have been dominated by the aftermath of the riots seen in London and across the country. Yet I have been encouraged by the reaction of the majority of people to the events that took place, as I was disgusted and outraged by the actions of the minority
The scenes of people coming together to help clean up affected areas shows the best qualities of British society, in stark contrast to the recent events’ showcasing of the worst.
The Government is already speeding-up the implementation of plans to address anti-social behaviour and improve parenting and education.
I believe that it is important to recognise that people must take greater responsibility for their actions, and the actions of their children - ideas that are enshrined in the concept of the Big Society. I hope that in future there can be more prominent roles for social enterprises, charities and voluntary organisations in rebuilding and maintaining the important role that communities have in ensuring social cohesion.
Many have criticised the resultant tough sentences of those people involved in the riots. A strength of the justice system in our country is that magistrates and judges are independent of Government. In such cases of widespread civil unrest, sentencing decisions are based on the individual circumstances of each case and offender. That is why different offenders may be given different sentences for what might appear to be similar crimes, but we should accept that the Courts are best placed to make such judgements.
It is my view that the criminal justice system should send a very clear message that such actions are wrong and will not be tolerated. Judges have decided to issue strong messages by delivering tough sentences, and I believe that courts are right to do so.
Delivering broadband to rural areas is vital
The recent OFCOM ruling on charging for Broadband connections reminds us of the substantial and growing importance of good internet service. The UK has one of the highest levels of broadband penetration in the world and one of the highest take-up rates for mobile broadband, but the whole of the UK is not benefitting equally. If you live in a town or city, your broadband service may be excellent but if you live in the countryside your broadband may be much slower or even non-existent. The so-called ‘digital divide’ is increasingly coming to mean the difference in online access between urban and rural populations. There may be some reading this (in the paper form of the newspaper rather than the online version I suspect) who will say that wider access to broadband is hardly an appropriate government priority, that internet access is a luxury not a necessity. I would suggest this matters a great deal for three reasons.
First, rural businesses need broadband. The most obvious form of rural business is farming and completing the significant administration needed to run a farm is even harder if you can’t do it online.
Second, government services are increasingly being delivered online. Everything from registering for tax credits to paying for your car’s tax disc can be done on your computer and is done much faster and more easily if you have broadband. This is a trend that will continue because it is cheaper and more effective for government and, assuming you have the service and the skills, more convenient for the individual.
Third, entertainment is likely to be delivered increasingly online. To get the most out of television, you will need a decent broadband connection.
There is a long way to go before my constituents, in what is a substantially rural constituency, all have access to decent quality broadband. Some are lucky – those who live in and around Marton for example will be enjoying a faster connection thanks to a BT competition but for most villages the business case for broadband companies supplying them is weak. That is why it is hugely positive that the government has committed £530 million to help deliver broadband to those rural parts the market won’t reach. The objective is to provide 90% of households with superfast broadband and to provide connections of at least 2 Mbps (megabits per second) to everyone. I want to work with Local Authorities and the Local Enterprise Partnership to ensure my constituents benefit.
Our democracy would miss a challenging free press
The transgressions of the News of the World have dominated the headlines and the week in Parliament. Laws have almost certainly been broken and there is no doubt that moral and ethical codes have been. Breaches of the privacy of those most entitled to it is of course wholly unacceptable and inquiries, then perhaps criminal prosecutions, will surely follow. The relationship between politicians and the press will change and so, in all likelihood, will the way journalism is regulated. The News of the World has paid with its life, though one suspects the gap in the market it has left will be quickly filled.
I share the widespread distaste with the behaviour now exposed and my head spins too at the pace of this unfolding drama, but I think there is value in trying to take a step back. Among all the aspects of the chain of events which worry us, there are two aspects which perhaps do not worry us enough.
The first is the very real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wasn't a reader of the News of the World and I won't much miss it now it has gone. As a politician, I might be expected not to mourn the passing of an invasive and viciously personal style of tabloid journalism, if that is what happens, but I know our democracy would miss a vibrant and challenging free press. In circumventing the worst excesses of some journalists, we must be careful not to stifle the best instincts of most - to ask awkward questions and to seek out the truth, however unpalatable.
The investigations must be conducted legally, but investigative journalism has a vital part to play in public life. At Westminster, where the air is thick with schadenfreude as politicians watch the screw turned on those who usually torment them, a calmer and wider perspective will be needed in the coming weeks.
The second is a wider concern yet. Elected politicians as a breed have yet to recover from the huge damage done by the MPs’ expenses scandal. This week the police and the press have had their integrity seriously dented. In which institutions do we now have faith? As we continue our journey as a society from the age of deference to the age of distrust the consequences, as yet unclear, could well outlast memories of the News of the World.
Pensions Bill principle is sound
This week the House of Commons voted on the Pensions Bill, which seeks to amend the timetable for increasing the State Pension Age to reach 66 in 2020. It also amends the automatic enrolment provisions for workplace pension schemes, amends existing legislation that provides for revaluation or indexation of occupational pensions and payments by the Pension Protection Fund and introduces provisions in the judicial pension schemes to allow contributions to be taken towards the cost of providing personal pension benefits to members of those schemes.
I voted to allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament because I believe that, although there are several arguments to be had over the detailed implementation of the Bill’s provisions and over its impact on particular groups of individuals, the principle behind the Bill is sound.
We all know that, with more of us living longer, the proportion of Britons who are retired is increasing compared to the proportion in work. The methods we have used to provide pensions are becoming unsustainable in the longer term, so action is necessary. We could reduce pension payments or we could ask the already hard pressed taxpayer to pay more to support those who are retired. I find both of these options less attractive than what the Bill proposes which is to ask us to work longer before retiring. Not only is this in my view the least worst option, but it also recognises that people in their sixties are generally much healthier and more capable of continuing to work than when the retirement age was set at 65 for men and 60 for women, and many of us would prefer not to be stopped from working at that age. The much more lengthy retirements which increased longevity brings cannot simply be ignored.
The Bill should not be viewed in isolation. The Government has already decided, for example, to re-link the basic state pension to earnings, guaranteeing a rise each year by the greater of increased earnings, inflation or 2.5%. This Bill forms another part of a sensible response to one of the greatest challenges our society faces.
NHS Reform
This week, Andrew Lansley, Secretary of State for Health delivered a further statement on the modernisation of the National Health Service, following a 10 week consultation period. Few issues generate interest quite like the NHS, such is the interest in the planned reforms, which have proved so controversial.
Readers will be aware that last year the Government set out the changes it wants to see in the NHS and why the NHS needs to change: to protect and improve the NHS so that it can be even better in the future; and because - with the pressures of an ageing and increasing population, new technologies and rising costs - the NHS simply has to adapt and improve. The reforms provoked heated debates across the political spectrum.
The Government recognised the concerns and decided to take a natural break in the legislative process to pause, listen, reflect and improve the modernisation plans. There followed a 10 week 'Listening Exercise' to reflect on the main areas of contention and bring forward improvements to the legislation where necessary. The four core themes were choice and competition; clinical advice and leadership; patient involvement and public accountability; and education and training.
NHS Future, an independent advisory panel established to drive engagement around the listening excercise and listen to people's concerns published its report on how the plans could be improved. Their recommendations will mean less bureaucracy and waste, a greater focus on quality and results for patients, and more freedom for doctors, nurses and the wider frontline.
Some of the key changes announced include:
· Wider involvement in clinical commissioning groups - where a wide range of experts, including nurses and specialists on the boards of clinical commissioning groups will be given power and freedom to make decisions about health services for the local community.
· Stronger safeguards against a market free-for-all - where the health care regulator's core duty will be to protect and promote patients' interests, it won't be required to promote competition.
· Clinical commissioning groups will be allowed to take charge of commissioning when they are ready.
· Decision makers will have a duty to promote patient choice and the Government will make it a priority to extend personal health budgets including across health and social care.
· There will be a new duty for clinical commissioning groups to promote joined up services both within the NHS and between health, social care and other local services.
· All providers will make a fair contribution to the costs of education and training of NHS staff.
· Finally, and perhaps most significantly for readers, there will be additional safeguards against privatisation so that the NHS will never be privatised and a genuine level playing field will be created to stop private companies 'cherry-picking' profitable NHS business.
HS2 exhibitions are a vital opportunity
Over the next few days HS2 Ltd will hold exhibitions in the Kenilworth area to provide further information about the proposed high speed rail link between London and Birmingham, known as HS2, which will pass near to the north-eastern corner of Kenilworth and through Burton Green. The exhibitions will be held at the following times and locations: Burton Green Village Hall Car Park, June 10th; Abbey Fields, Kenilworth, June 13th and 14th.
I urge you to go if you can. We are now in a general period of public consultation about the principle of high speed rail as part of the UK’s future transport strategy, about the merits or otherwise of HS2 as the best way to deliver high speed rail, about the current preferred route and about any consequent mitigation and compensation it if were to go ahead. It is vital that anyone with a view on any of these aspects of what is proposed expresses that view as part of the consultation process. We have until 29th July to submit our views, which can be done online att http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk or by post to
High Speed Rail Consultation
PO Box 59528
London
SE21 9AX
I will publish my own response to this consultation in draft on this website as soon as I can so that everyone can see what I have said.
I have visited similar exhibitions to those in Kenilworth and Burton Green, in Ladbroke and in Southam, and they are certainly worth attending. Of particular interest are the representations of the sound an HS2 train might make and further information on noise. This information is far from perfect and just as important is the opportunity the exhibitions give to ask questions of HS2 Ltd’s employers about the details of the scheme. The organisations campaigning against HS2 will no doubt have a presence nearby and they are also well worth talking to. It is also worthwhile considering the critique of HS2 Ltd’s proposals provided for example on the HS2 Action Alliance’s website at
http://www.hs2actionalliance.org/index.php
What is beyond doubt is that our consultation responses will be more effective the more information on HS2 we have and the opportunity to learn more and question which the exhibitions provide is well worth taking.
The Special Relationship
This week I had the privilege of attending President Barack Obama’s address to both the Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. The President is of course an inspiring speaker and this was an impressive state occasion, but this event was also a visible representation of the special relationship between Britain and the USA. Being married to an American, I might be expected to be an evangelist for the special relationship, but I have always believed that close relations with the USA are very much in our national interest. Military and intelligence cooperation between us is evident, but there are also substantial historical and cultural ties. Sharing what is in reality the world’s pre-eminent international language is also very significant. Most of all perhaps is that we share a long standing view of the world, a commitment to freedom and democracy and a willingness to act on that commitment.
We have all heard the death of the special relationship reported or predicted and yet it is striking how, especially in times of need, it is very much in evidence. It is striking too how close working relationships between national leaders of different political parties have so often been formed and sustained through occasional disagreements. In recent history Blair and Bush and Cameron with Obama are good examples.
I am sure that the special relationship is not only good for my family, but for my country too. Long may it continue.
Rugby4Heroes
On Saturday I had the privilege of opening a 'Rugby for Heroes' festival at Old Leamingtonians Rugby Club. The event raised money to help the charities 'Help for Heroes' and the Royal British Legion, both of which support injured servicemen and the families of those who have been killed.
There are few more deserving causes and few more successful charities. The Royal British Legion has a long and proud history of supporting ex-servicemen in need and Help for Heroes, launched only in 2007 has raised £97 million nationwide. They are able to do so because of well-organised and well-supported events like Saturday's festival of Rugby and I congratulate all those who organised it.
The money raised will be spent in meeting the diverse needs of those who return from active military service with injuries and on providing for the families of those who do not return at all.
Injuries sustained by our servicemen and women may be obvious - the loss of a limb or an eye -or they may be less obvious. The mental health needs of those who have been in combat are increasingly being recognised and it is now accepted that the scars of battle may be mental as well as physical. The charities that I have mentioned understand that well, as do others in the field who are more specialist such as Combat Stress and I share their view that those who are injured, whatever the nature of the injury deserve the best of care. Just as importantly, that care must be ongoing. Injuries mental and physical can take a long time to heal and resulting disability can be lifelong.
Charities like the Legion and Help for Heroes provide help on a long term and very practical basis, help with learning to adapt a lifestyle, to fund new employment and to help friends and loved ones cope with unexpected change too.
We can be as proud of our service charities as we are of our armed forces and it is a great pleasure to support the vital work they do.
In support of the monarchy
Whether we intend to watch every moment of the television coverage or just enjoy an extra day off work, I am sure we all wish Prince William and Catherine Middleton well for their wedding day this week. Some have taken the opportunity of the Royal Wedding to question again the need for a monarchy in this country.
I think it is sensible to review our constitutional arrangements periodically and the fact that a Royal Wedding lifts our spirits occasionally is not a sufficient reason to keep an unelected Head of State. However, I remain a firm supporter of the monarchy.
Will Friday’s wedding cost the taxpayer more than other weddings do? Certainly but the Royal Family’s costs must be balanced against the benefits they bring. Many say that the tourism revenues the UK enjoys would flood in anyway were we a republic. They say it is the history and the buildings the tourists come to see, but I am not so sure that the thousands of visitors in the UK this week, spending their money in our economy, would all be here without the human dimension which the Royal Family and in particular a Royal Wedding provide.
Even that is not enough of course to justify a monarchy. For me the key argument is the opportunity a non-political Head of State gives us as a figurehead around which we can all unite. Few would deny that the Queen has conducted her duties with exemplary dignity but most importantly she has not allowed herself to be dragged into contentious political debate. Elected Heads of State rarely manage that and can leave citizens in their countries in the often uncomfortable position of profoundly opposing their Head of State.
The world will be envious of our monarchy this week but it should be so not just because of pageantry but also because of politics.
Bid success is good news
It’s a rare pleasure to be able to tell some good economic news these days. This week, the Government confirmed that two bids made by Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) for a share of the £1.4billion available under the Regional Growth Fund, designed to offer government support for projects that offer significant potential for long-term economic growth, have been successful. Jaguar Land Rover will use the money, as part of a very significant investment by the company itself, to engage in the largest expansion of research and development capacity in its history, directed at producing a new generation of lighter vehicles and highly efficient engines. Thousands of new jobs will be created in the UK, including many at Gaydon. This is good news for Gaydon, good news for manufacturing in the West Midlands including local companies involved in the supply chain, and good news for the environment as Jaguar Land Rover develop further considerable expertise in producing greener, more efficient cars.
464 bids were made for a share of the fund. 50 were successful, which is a testament to the strength of JLR’s bid. I was also delighted to play my part in the bid’s success. With 3 Labour and Liberal Democrat Parliamentary colleagues, I lobbied Ministers to accept the bid and thereby secure the future of JLR in the UK. I always believed we made a good case and that the bid was a strong one. It is great to see that the Minister agrees with our arguments. Sometimes, working together with political opponents is the best way to help our constituents.
Amidst all the current economic uncertainty, we can at least take pleasure in the securing of jobs and the prospect of many new ones in the crucial fields of technology and engineering. A bit of good news which is most welcome.
Voting in support of Libya action
Last week, I voted in the House of Commons to support the Government’s decision to provide military support, along with other countries, for United Nations Security Council 1973, which seeks to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The vast majority of Members of Parliament, from all parties, did the same. I did not do this without reservations and I want to explain those reservations, as well as to say why I believe this was the right decision.
No MP should take a decision to put British servicemen and women in harm’s way lightly. No military operation is risk free and we ask our armed forces to risk their lives to carry out this mission.
As a general rule, I believe Britain’s armed forces should only be engaged to defend the British national interest. I am distinctly nervous about a doctrine which justifies British military intervention whenever a foreign dictator treats his people in ways of which we disapprove.
Apart from anything else, with or without the latest pressures on the defence budget, we do not have the resources to take such action in all the places run by the unpleasant and the ruthless.
Our armed forces remain substantially utilised in Afghanistan and nothing should be permitted to put the success of that operation at risk. Finally, it is true of course that the shadow of Iraq hangs over any further western action in the Arab world.
However, this operation in Libya is not like the invasion of Iraq for two important reasons. First, UN authority for this operation is not in dispute. Second, UN Resolution 1973, under which we act, specifically excludes the use of an occupying army. We act to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians. Of course we should be concerned about what the Arab world will say about our actions, but we must also consider what would have been said about our inaction. Had we decided not to intervene militarily, I have no doubt that Colonel Gadaffi would have slaughtered many Libyans in the city of Benghazi. We were one of the only nations on earth with the resources and equipment to prevent it in time. We could have stood by and watched, while potentially thousands of innocent Arabs died. What would the Arab world have thought of us then? What would we have thought of ourselves?
Foreign Policy rarely offers single choices or moral absolutes. It is true that around the world other atrocities will go unprevented, but we were right to prevent this one. As has been said, just because we cannot do everything does not mean we should not do anything. We had the power to stop this atrocity and, with UN authority, we did so. That is why I voted as I did. We were right to have reservations about our action in Libya, but we were right to act.
Bringing more visitors to Warwickshire
Last week was British tourism week and provided a useful opportunity to reflect on our local contribution to a significant part of the British economy. Tourism employs many people in the UK and brings much income not just to visitor attractions but also to shops, cafes and restaurants in which visiting tourists spend their money.
I have long believed that the part of Warwickshire I represent has great, under exploited potential for tourism, from the soon-to-be renovated Chedham’s Yard in Wellesbourne to the varied history of Kenilworth Castle, there is much to interest the visitor. As we approach the London Olympic Games next year, we should be thinking about how to persuade the millions who will travel from abroad to see them to venture out of the city to other parts of Britain.
Warwickshire will not gain new sporting facilities or upgraded transport links as a result of the 2012 Olympics but we may, if we plan effectively, gain some share of the spending money the world’s sports fans will bring with them when they come to our country.
So what needs to be done? It seems to me that there are 2 areas to concentrate on.
First, we need to decide how we might best market this area. We should recognise that Shakespeare’s Stratford and Warwick Castle are probably the main magnets for tourists, but why not market our area as a great weekend destination? You can visit Stratford and Warwick Castle and still have time and money left over for other attractions, as well as for excellent local restaurants, shops and hotels.
Secondly, we all have to learn to share. No tourist will visit something they do not know about and we need to persuade those attractions our visitors have heard of – Stratford-upon-Avon and Warwick Castle foremost among them – to tell their visitors what else the area has to offer. In return, sensible hoteliers in South Warwickshire are already quick to point out their proximity to the biggest local attractions. It is foolish to squabble over our share of the market when by working together the size of the market can be increased. Collaboration can have benefits for all.
Many reading this will have assumed that what I describe has been happening already but I have no doubt we can do better. As the Olympic clock counts down, it is time to reconsider what we can do to bring our share of international visitors to Warwickshire next year.
Overseas Aid
Given the difficult economic circumstances faced by many people in the UK at the moment, it is perhaps not surprising that I have been asked several times recently why our country continues to provide aid abroad when we face funding shortages at home.
There are I think two parts to the answer. First, it is simply the right thing to do. Recent events in Japan and Libya remind us that, whether by the power of nature or by human intervention, lives can be ruined overnight all around the world. Japan is a rich country and will struggle to recover from the damage done by the earthquake and tsunami. For poorer countries, such events can be overwhelming. We don’t need to watch television footage of the human cost of disasters both natural and man-made for long to know instinctively that starvation and disease demand a response from those able to help. Whatever our current difficulties we remain one of the wealthiest countries in the world and I believe we retain a moral obligation to aid others in need. We should also put our aid funding in context. This Government is committed, as the last one was, to meeting the UN goal of spending 0.7%of GDP on international aid by 2013. We are not there yet, but that is not a large percentage of our national wealth.
Secondly, spending money on international aid is not just the right thing to do, it is also in our national interest. We live in an interconnected world and can no longer assume that events in other countries have no effect on us. Japan’s pain is felt in Britain, from our stock market to the Honda plant in Swindon. International aid can be part of a wider strategy to deal with our problems. Money for education can reduce the risks of radicalisation and terror exported to us and supporting someone to survive in their own country lessens the chance they will seek to immigrate to ours, legally or illegally.
Certainly, now more than ever it is vital to ensure that Britain’s overseas aid is well targeted and that it reaches those who need it. The Government is right to cease bilateral aid to countries like China and Russia and to cease support for aid programmes which we cannot be confident deliver on the front line. But a well managed international aid budget is in all our interests.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
This week at Westminster detailed scrutiny began of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The Bill will make what I believe to be very positive improvements to the law regarding the urgent control of dangerous new narcotic compounds which, while they are still legal, can do so much harm to young people who experiment with them. It will also make the rules on who can object to increasing applications more sensible and tougher penalties for selling alcohol to those who are underage.
A large part of the Bill however deals with the creation of elected Police and Crime Commissioners to replace Police Authorities. The point of doing this is simple. Crime remains a huge concern for my constituents and many of them raise with me on a frequent basis their concerns about how the police address it. Although Chief Constables have operational control, Police Authorities set the strategic direction for local policing and oversee the activity of our police officers. The problem is this – what can we do if we don’t like the way they do it? Police Authorities are not directly elected and are, I’m afraid, largely anonymous. I would be surprised if many people reading this can name a single member of the Warwickshire Police Authority, or even know what they do. While I do not fault the dedication of members of the Police Authority, such an important area of our lives should not be supervised by a body which is basically unaccountable and mostly invisible. Instead, the Bill proposes that a single individual should be elected to oversee policing in Warwickshire, accountable to us, identifiable by us and removeable by us if we do not like the job they are doing. Chief Constables will retain responsibility for day to day operational decisions – no politician should decide who is arrested or investigated – but responsibility for the way policing is carried out in our country will be with someone who is elected directly by us to do that job. I hope and expect that will lead to even better policing.
Tuition Fees
The Browne Report on university funding, and the student protests across the country, have once again put tuition fees on the political agenda. While I deplore the violence which marred some of the protests, I would say that the majority of protesters made their point peacefully and with good humour. Their concerns are entirely legitimate and they deserve an answer.
My response is simple; what Lord Browne proposed, and the Government has adopted, is the only fair and practical option. The abolition of tuition fees would be wonderful in theory but so ruinously expensive that the country simply could not afford it. Other parts of Britain are also finding this to be the case. In Northern Ireland, an attempt to abolish tuition fees foundered because it would benefit richer families so disproportionally that it would breach equality legislation. Even in Scotland, where tuition fees were abolished a decade ago, and where free university education is a shibboleth of politicians of all political parties, quiet plans are being drawn up to abandon the experiment.
So if we accept the need for tuition fees in principle, which I think we must, Lord Browne’s proposals seem fairer to me than those they replace. There has been a considerable amount of highly inaccurate and ill-informed comment floating around on this subject, and given some of the wilder claims, it is not surprising that a great deal of anger and worry has been generated among students, would-be students and their parents.
The basic fact of the matter is that under the Government’s plans, no student, whatever their background, will have to pay a penny up front for their university education. These fees will be met by the state and graduates will repay them over a period of time when they can afford to do so. Therefore, regardless of their background or family income, anybody who wants a university education will be able to have one because their fees will be paid for them. What's more, no graduate will have to pay anything back until they are in work, and repayment rates are set at a level so as not to be burdensome.
Graduates on lower incomes will also pay considerably less than they currently do. At the moment, repayments begin when a graduate earns more than £15,000 a year; this is too low, so the Government has raised the bar to £21,000. This is just above the average initial graduate salary. The interest on the loan will be the low rate that the Government itself pays on borrowing money (inflation plus 2.2 per cent) but this will vary with the salary of the graduate, with those on higher incomes paying back a higher rate per month.
Government is about reconciling the ideal with the practical and recognising that no matter how much you wish it were otherwise, two and two cannot equal five. I believe that the Government’s proposals to reform the tuition fees system are fair as well as practical, and I am confident that the better they are understood, the more support they will receive.
Welfare Reform
Winston Churchill, a great Conservative who first became Prime Minister seventy years ago this year, once said that a welfare state should comprise a net beneath which none shall fall and a ladder up which all shall be able to climb. Of course it is the mark of a civilised society that it looks after those incapable of looking after themselves, but it strikes me that while the state has met its obligation in providing a safety net, it has failed to provide a ladder.
Instead, thousands of people find themselves tangled in the net of welfare dependency, without a ladder to escape from it. Britain now has one of the highest numbers of workless households in Europe. Of course the labour market is tough at the moment, and the state should step in for a temporary period to help those who lose their job, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are 1.4 million people in this country who have been on out-of-work benefits for nine or more years; that is, during a period of unprecedented economic growth. This is the problem which the Work & Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, is seeking to remedy with his welfare reforms—honouring the wise words of Churchill and, more importantly, honouring the responsibility we have in Government to help people better themselves and to provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Under the reforms, unemployed people who turn down offers of work, refuse to apply for appropriate jobs or fail to turn up for mandatory community work will lose their £65-a-week Job Seekers’ Allowance. It is indefensible that the majority work and pay their taxes to maintain an able-bodied minority on benefits; the costs to society and the public purse are simply too great. As David Cameron has said, a lifetime on benefits simply should not be an option for anybody who is able to work.
The reforms also provide for a Universal Credit which will be introduced to replace a benefits system which has become complex and counter-productive. Crucially, this will remove barriers to work by ensuring that work always pays; at the moment, many people find that they are better off out of work than in work. This is illogical, and if we are to insist that people move off benefits into employment, it is only fair that they are not penalised for doing so.
At a time when Britain is making all the sacrifices necessary to pay off the biggest budget deficit in the G20, we cannot afford to go on supporting so large a number of people on out-of-work benefits. But welfare reform is about far more than affordability. Many of the social problems we have in this country can be attributed to the absence from so many lives of confidence, dignity, responsibility and self-esteem, all of which come from gainful employment. The Government was elected on a promise to mend Britain’s “broken society”; these welfare reforms are one way in which we hope to do just that.
Remembrance Day
This week, Britain marks Remembrance Day and, collectively, honours those who have fallen in the service of their country. This is always an important occasion on which we mourn the loss of so many young lives, and give our thanks for the freedom and democracy which we, and others throughout the world, enjoy because of their sacrifice. As the saying has it, “it is not the politician that brings the right to vote, it is the soldier; it is not the poet that brings free speech, it is the soldier; it is not the journalist that brings free expression, it is the soldier.” Last year’s Remembrance Day was especially poignant as readers may remember that 2009 was the year in which Harry Patch, the last British survivor of the First World War trenches, died. This year marks the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain in the Second World War, a conflict whose combatants are sadly with us in ever diminishing numbers.
But as important as it is to mark the sacrifices made by past generations, in the World Wars as well as in the numerous other conflicts in which Britain has been engaged since 1945, we must think of those who, as I write, are fighting for democracy, freedom and stability in Afghanistan. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the outstanding way they conduct themselves in the most challenging of circumstances, and we in Parliament should do everything we can to ensure that they are properly equipped to carry out their tasks as safely as possible with the maximum chance of success.
As the recognised custodians of Remembrance, I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion in safeguarding the welfare, interests and memory of those who are serving or who have served in our armed forces. The emphasis on this year’s Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal is the need to help the Afghan generation and their families—today and for the rest of their lives. After all, the victims of war are not simply those who pay the ultimate sacrifice, but the families who love them, support them, and are left behind when they are gone. This is something I am glad that is now acknowledged through the Elizabeth Cross, which is awarded to the families of armed forces personnel killed in action.
Like millions across the country, I shall be present at my local war memorial on Remembrance Sunday, wearing my poppy with pride, and remembering those who, as the epitaph says, for our tomorrow, gave their today.
Local Enterprise Partnership
Readers may be forgiven for forgetting that the Government's economic policy is made up of two parts. The first is deficit reduction; the "cuts" and "efficiency savings" which dominate the news headlines. Britain currently has a deficit of approximately £962 billion. It is critical that we pay this off as soon as possible because it is holding back external investment—and the jobs and tax revenue that creates—into our country. We must also shed our debt as soon as possible because the interest we pay on it is huge (approximately £120 million per day); this is money which is wasted and which would be better spent on our public services. For these reasons, therefore, debt reduction is something we cannot put off.
The second part of the Government's economic policy is more long-term: to build a more balanced economy, driven by private sector growth. For too long, an economic divide has existed between London & the Southeast and the rest of England. The previous Government sought to close this divide through centrally-commanded, unaccountable development agencies whose boundaries often bore no relation to the real economic geography. Warwickshire, for example, came under the West Midlands, which included Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, as well as the West Midlands conurbation. This was much too large and diverse an area for the devolution of economic powers to have any meaningful effect, which is why, ten years, and £19 billion later, the economy is still as regionally unbalanced as before, if not more so.
The new Government has adopted a different approach to sub-national economies, focused on partnerships between local communities and businesses, who are best placed to understand the opportunities and needs of their own economies. Earlier in the year, Ministers asked business and civic leaders to come together to form Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) which reflect natural economic areas. I am pleased to report that last week, Coventry & Warwickshire was one of 24 LEPs out of 62 applications given the green light by the Government. This will be a much more effective economic unit than the West Midlands. Over the last few years, and throughout the LEP application process, both areas have shown an ability to work well together and I am hopeful that this will continue within the new framework of the Coventry & Warwickshire LEP. The next couple of years will be difficult, but it is good to see Ministers thinking ahead and acknowledging the importance of local government and local business co-operation in sustainable economic success. The new LEP will return local control and accountability over the future development and growth of our area's economy, and that is something we should all support.
Beausale Travellers
Just before the May Day bank holiday earlier this year, a group of travellers moved on to a field they own in Beausale. They then developed the site, with the assistance of diggers and road rollers, without planning permission, which was refused because of the site’s location in the open countryside and on the Green Belt. The site is now subject to a High Court injunction, which prevents any further building works and the stationing of any further caravans at the site, and a District Council enforcement notice, which requires the reinstatement of the site to its former condition as a grassed field. The travellers are appealing these decisions on the basis of human rights. A final decision as to the future of the site will be made next year by the Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles.
I have always felt that the situation whereby travellers can buy cheap greenbelt farmland and construct sites without planning permission, then contest any efforts to evict them as a breach of their human rights, is not acceptable. It simply aggravates tension between the settled and travelling communities. People want the planning system to apply equally to everybody. Far too often, travellers take advantage of weak retrospective planning rules. The travellers in Beausale, for example, used the May Day bank holiday to put in a last-minute planning application on the Friday and spent the weekend illegally developing the land, knowing that their development would be at quite an advanced stage by the time planning officers returned after the holiday and could call a halt on activity. To tackle this situation, which is seen time and again across the country, the Government is encouraging local authorities to have planning officers on call over the weekend, ready to deal with last minute applications and take rapid enforcement action against any unauthorised development. The Government is also working on proposals to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning applications in relation to any form of unauthorised development. I strongly support these moves as they will reduce the volume of retrospective planning applications, which are expensive for the taxpayer, put an unnecessary strain on the planning system and are not fair to the majority of people who play by the rules.
I welcome Eric Pickles’ decision to take responsibility for the final decision on the Beausale travellers’ development. Normally, the final decision would rest with the Planning Inspectorate but in this case, its judgement will be a ‘recommendation-only’ to the Local Government Secretary. Mr Pickles has in the past spoken of his commitment to ensuring “fair play” in the planning system and of his determination not to allow “a small minority of people to deliberately exploit the extended weekend and planning procedure to carry out unauthorised developments”. I am hopeful that these principles will underpin the decision he comes to in this case.
