Latest newsletters >>

Next newsletters >>

Personal data loss in the HMRC/Northern Rock/wider issues

21 November 2007

Hi all -

I tend to comment less about the issues in the headlines, since
you're getting plenty of information from elsewhere. But a number of
you have asked for comments on this week's problems, and as I used to
work in IT I have a fair amount of specialist knowledge.

1. Personal data loss in the HMRC
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

The facts as I understand them are these:

a) The National Audit Office, which reviews whether taxes and
benefits are being administered properly, asked for all 25 million
records of child benefit.

b) A junior official in the HMRC was able and willing to download
them all onto two disks.

c) He sent them by internal courier, who apparently lost them.

d) Some weeks passed before senior management were informed.

e) They told Alastair Darling three days later (November 10), and
said they still hoped to find the disks and asked for more time.
Darling refused (because he was sceptical that the extra time would
really turn up the disks) and called in the police, while alerting
the banks to the risks.

f) The banks asked for a week to prepare extra protection, and
Darling agreed.

If the above is correct, the main issues here seem to me to be a), b)
and (as a matter of discipline) d). I don't understand why an audit
should require all 25 million records - obviously they are not going
to read them all. It should not be *possible* for a junior official
to download the entire database: with luck there was no criminal
involvement this time (since if the official was a criminal he
wouldn't have lost the disks, just quietly copied them), but there
could easily have been. And failing to report a huge blunder is a
sackable offence in most organisations.

Is the Government to blame? Not for the response to the loss of
data, it seems to me. But it's shown a yawning gap between the rules
that the Government lays down on data protection and what happens in
practice, at least in this organisation. Quite apart from the inquiry
that will now take place into the specific case, I think this shows
we need a thorough review of data protection practices throughout
government agencies. This isn't particularly about the planned ID
register, since that won't have more data than will already be on
government data bases (mostly on the existing, equally centralised,
passport data base) - though I think this shows the need for more
separation of data access so that permission to read part of a data
base doesn't mean you can read it all. People are entitled to think
that their data is properly protected by government, and this episode
is, frankly, a massive wake-up call for the whole governing class.

2. Northern Rock
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

I'm less critical of what's happened here, and think the media
suggestions of a huge taxpayer bailout are misleading. The position
here as I understand it is:

a) Northern Rock operated partly by borrowing cheaply on the US sub-
prime market and partly by small savers' deposits; they used the
money to lend at higher rates to mortgage-holders. Their loans are
secured by the mortgage-holders' houses, which are generally worth
much more than the outstanding mortgages.

b) The sub-prime problems in the USA led to the source of funding
drying up. As soon as rumours started to spread, this was followed by small savers withdrawing their money, giving cashflow problems and a risk of a contagious run on banks generally.

c) The Government guaranteed the savers' deposits, stopping the run,
and are lending the money for ongoing operations at a high interest
rate, while NR seeks a buyer. The loans are secured by the mortgage
assets.

d) When a buyer appears (and there have been a range of bids), the
government loans will need to be repaid, and the taxpayer should in
principle end up with zero loss. I suspect that the prospect of
getting the interest on the money as well so that taxpayers actually
make a profit may not materialise - the need to get the matter
settled may encourage a deal involving waiving the interest.

e) The main losers will be NR shareholders and possibly some NR staff
(since a buyer may well want to merge in the operations to their own).

So far as I can make out, nobody at all had predicted the problems in
the US market that triggered NR's difficulties, but once they
happened I think that it would not have been in the public interest
to take a purist free-market view and let the bank collapse. It would
have been possible to nationalise it and that may still happen, but
as it's unlikely that the Government will want to run a mortgage
company indefinitely, the end result of a merger is likely to be the
same.

c) Wider issues

The media likes to have a 'narrative' linking issues together, and
the current one is that the Government is accident-prone. Relatively
minor issues (such as some security guards being employed by
nightclubs etc. without proper visas) become inflated and the
genuinely major issues like this loss of personal data are
combined with them to produce a 'one damn thing after another' effect.

That isn't a very accurate picture even though it makes a good narrative. The issue is not whether problems happen - because they always will, whrther they're headlined or not - but whether they're dealt with competently when they do. I think the handling of the Northern Rock saga so far has been competent, though we're not out of the woods yet. It's much too early to say whether the response to the data loss saga is adequate, though, and I'll be pressing the issues above on your behalf.

As always, feedback welcome, including any particular concerns that you have.

Best wishes

Nick

Tram inquiry/ New bus plan for Kimberley /Aboro protection

18 November 2007

Hi all -

I took yesterday pretty much off after a 12-hour stint without a break
(well, I did eat a banana) on Friday, but would now like to report back
on the three local issues that dominated that day. First, though, a
practical note - AOL has been losing emails recently for no apparent
reason. If you're expecting a reply from me but haven't had one for
several days, please ask me again.

(a) Tram inquiry
------------ ----

I gave evidence on Friday and talked to a number of people who have
been attending every day. The general feeling on both sides was that
the inspector is doing a thorough job and listening carefully to the
issues people raised - there was particular praise for his willingness
to hear evidence near some of the controversial parts of the route, so
that people who can't easily get to the main inquiry location could
attend a session. My experience is that everyone likes independent
inquiries until they come up with an answer we don't like, but for what
it's worth my impression too is that he's taking it seriously and
avoiding prejudgment.

I put the evidence on the lines of the draft that I sent you in the
summer. I said that I supported a better public transport network in
Nottingham and also supported its extenison to our area; in my opinion
it would have serious implications for job opportunities and house
prices if in the long term we were excluded from the main network.
However, the proposed route asked more of some of my constituents than
they could reasonably be asked to accept in the general interest, and
if the project was in the community interest then it followed that the
community should be willing to help those people, either with route
adjustments - I reminded him of my alternative route - or compensation
or mitigation or a combination of the three.

The hearing continue until Christmas and a report is expected by the
early spring.

(b) New bus plan for Kimberley, Awsworth and Cossall
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

A longstanding project that I've been working on with colleagues is
coming to the boil. It occurred to me (literally in the bath) a couple
of years ago that it'd make sense to have a link bus from Kimberley to
the tram endpoint at Phoenix Park. There may eventually be a tram
extension to Kimberley, but the engineering is difficult and I suspect
it's 15-20 years off. In the meantime, people in that part of the
borough are having to drive to the park and ride, which is heavily
oversubscribed in peak times, adding to the congestion on the Nuthall
roundabout. Why not have a shuttle bus?

So first I asked Trent/Barton. They gave it some thought, and said
no - they couldn't make it pay and wondered how much support there'd
really be.

Foiled? Well, as patronage was the question, I consulted my
colleagues in Kimberley and Awsworth Labour branches, and with Richard
Robinson and Graham Spencer I did a joint leaflet to all the homes in
the towns, asking whether they'd actually use such a service. The
response was huge - one of the largest response rates we've ever had.
We pressed Trent/Barton, who still weren't interested. So then we went
to a different bus company (I'll keep the name off the record for now)
and suggested that they might like to bring in a bit of healthy
competition in the area. Next we approached two major retailers along
the route and asked if they wouldn't fancy a bus coming from the tram
to their door. They thought that a pretty cool idea, both for customers
and for staff.

We're now at a very advanced stage of discussions, and it looks as
though it'll work. The plan is to start next August, with all-day 7-day
service, with start-up funding from the retailers and a guarantee of
service for at least two years. The route would run from Phoenix Park
through Kimberley, Awsworth and Cossall, past M&S and the retail park
over the bridge and ending up at Tesco in Ilkeston. We hope to get a
joint ticketing option enabling people to travel on both buses and tram
into and around town if they want to, or just pay a quid for the local
short hop. The buses will be the most modern and environmentally-
friendly on the market and fully wheelchair-compatib le.

There's many a slip in these projects so I won't claim victory until
we've got there, but it's looking good. I chaired along meeting on
Friday hammering out detials, and Richard Robinson will chair another
one in January which should tie it up.

(c) Attenborough update
------------ --------- --

I asked the Environment Agency to meet me with local councillors Pat
Lally and Steve Barber, and two experts from Broxtowe Council, and we
had a detailed discussion on Friday afternoon. The position is this:

* The change in estimated risk reported in my last email reflects a new
technique specifically designed to measure flood plain impact. They
were dismayed at the result, and asked an independent consultant to
advise whether this was really the best model for the Attenborough
situation - he said yes, and I think we have to work on the assumption
that it's correct.

* They remain confident that funding is available if agreement can be
reached, though the new uncertainty means that works are now unlikely
to start before 2009.

* They accept that simply raising the wall by another half meter would
mean that nobody could see over it and that it wasn't acceptable. They
have looked at alternatives such as deepening the river and have clip-
on extensions to the wall, but think them impractical - there was a
recent bad experience with extensions when the staff needed to fit them
couldn't reach the site in time.

* Their current leaning is either to raise both the wall and The Strand
itself, so that people standing on the Strand would have the same
height as in the previous plan, or to run the protection behind The
Strand, which would protect the rest of the village, but leave The
Strand exposed - they would offer help in floodproofing to homes on the
Strand, but obviously this is not remotely as safe for them as being
protected by a barrier.

* We said that the first priority was to get the defences, full stop -
it is not only Attenborough but also Rylands that will potentially be
affected if there's a severe flood before it's in place. But I advised
that they simply had to address the alternative route behind the
village green seriously, for two reasons. First, if they didn't, the
project was likely to have real trouble getting through planning
committee. Second, they needed to be able to show they'd fully
considered it to resist any potential challenge from Natural England to
get it 'called in' and subject to public inquiry. They need to look at
whether any route there will in fact cause significant damage to the
SSSI. If they can show that it would, then I think the council will
accept that legally it can't be done (the law doersn't allow the EA to
destroy an SSSI if there's an alternative) . If they find that it
wouldn't, then I think that Natural England can be persuaded not to
launch a challenge to that route (and that the challenge will fail if
they do).

The EA representative agreed to present this view to management, and
they plan in any case to make a fresh application in March.

I'll keep you posted. The EA agreed that the priority was to avoid
delay, and I think the message got through that this is best achieved
by doing a proper job of assessing the alternatives.

I'll keep you posted on all these things. As always, feedback welcome,
and if you tell me when you don't need a personal reply that helps too!

Oh, by the way, I gather there's a report in the pipeline recommending
an increase in MPs' pay. Before anyone gets excited, I'd like to say
that I will vote against anything more than the 2% that most of the
public sector are getting: there's a case for higher pay, but not a
better case than for nurses and others. But, cough, I hope you'll
disagree with people who tell you that MPs are idle so-and-sos who only
do a four-day week! It ain't so.

Best wishes

Nick

Attenborough flood defences: major development/tram enquiry/police funding

13 November 2007

Hi all -

1. Attenborough flood defences

A major turn of events on this. The Environment Agency have
reassessed the risk to Attenborough using new modelling technology
and now consider that the potential flood level is higher than they
thought. Consequently they have withdrawn their proposal for
protection and will resubmit in the spring after further assessment.
I'll write in detail to all residents in the area shortly so won't
go into detial here. Briefly, this is clearly bad news in several
ways. First and most important, it means Attenborough is even more at
risk than was previously realised. Second, it delays a solution to
that risk. Third, since they are currently still looking at the same
route, it means potentially a higher wall than the one that was
already causing considerable opposition. It's tempting to add that it
also reduces confidence in the EA having accurate assessment methods,
but I hesitate to criticise them on that point since they've at least
informed us promptly that their new calculations show a different
outcome - it's not an exact science and we aren't in any doubt that
there is a flood risk to be addressed.
Obviously we need to ask the EA to consider the alternative route
again rather than simply add another 0.5m or so to the wall. I'm
seeking a meeting with them to discuss the options. It remains more
vital than ever that the scheme is built - not only for Attenborough
but for the large parts of Greater Nottingham, including the Rylands,
that the wider scheme will defend.
As always I'll keep you posted as further developments arise.

2. Tram enquiry

This is proceeding steadily and I expect to give my evidence on
Friday. If you've any last minute thoughts that we;'ve not previously
discussed, do let me know - otherwise I'll be proceeding on the basis
of the submission that I consulted this email list and Beeston
Express readers on earlier this year - essentially it supports the
project, opposes aspects of the route, and asks for mitigation and
compensation for those adversely affected if it goes ahead.

3. Police funding

I've organised an all-party delegation of East Midlands MPs to lobby
the police minister on a further increase in funding for local
policing. Although the increases up to now have made it possible to
get neighbourhood policing teams, the region is still getting less
than the Home Office formulae suggest would be appropriate, because
they're reluctant to cut budgets to other areas who are for
historical reasons getting more than their formulae would imply. The
meeting will be on the 21st and eight other MPs have agreed to come
with me to press the issue.

Thanks to all of you who came to the discussion on "How does British
politics work?" last week - we had a great meal and a very
interesting debate. The next dinner'n'debate/ fundaraiser is on
immigration and integration, on December 2 at 1230 in the Yod Siam
restaurant by Sainsbury in Beeston. More details nearer the time.

Best wishes

Nick

A million words... / East Midlands Trains update and petition

1 November 2007

Hi all -

It struck me when I was updating the list recently that I've probably
just written the millionth word on these emails: there have been 411
updates since I started in 2001, and they probably average 2500 or so
words. An alarming thought, isn't it? As many of you have joined the
list more recently, it occurred to me that you might like to explore
some of the past commentaries on a very wide range of issues. You can
find them all here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/messages

with a search function to home in on whatever topics would interest
you. The snag, of course, is that you'll discover times I was wrong,
or changed my mind, or said something that's embarrassing now we look
back on it. But on the whole I'm not ashamed of it and think it's
been a decent shot at honest communication over the years.

More immediately, I've been reminded that I forgot to update you -
sorry! - on my discussions with Stagecoach (alias East Midlands
trains) on their proposed changes to the timetable from the end of
2008. The package is not all bad news - they propose security
improvements at Beeston station, and there are some potential added
services from Beeston and Attenborough (more detials when it's firmed
up), but there are highly unwelcome proposals withdrawing seven
services on the Beeston-St Pancras route. (Note by the way that there
is a weekly strike on Thursdays on the Nottingham-St Pancras route at
present.)

I objected strongly to this in a session with them last week, and
with Beeston Labour Party have launched a petition to ram home tthe
pointr. We're collecting signatures on the platform on the early
commuter trains, but also have an online version which you can find
here:

http://www.broxtowelabour.org/Pettrain.htm

I should add that signing this (you don't need to print it out, just
submit) does not imply that you support Labour. As an active local
group we're concerned about local services; to be frank we *hope*
that you'll think well of us for campaigning for the community, but
supporting the train petititon is just what it says on the tin.

You can also find the post office petitions (deadline November 12) at

http://www.broxtowelabour.org/pertfront.htm

Best wishes

Nick

How does British politics work?/what does being British mean?/Bizarre media

27 October 2007

Hi all -

1. How does British politics work?
------------ --------- --------- ---

I'd like to invite you to a dinner and talk in Beeston on Thursday,
November 8, about the way politics works in Britain. Does it work at
all in the way it's supposed to? Is politics becoming Americanised? How
can you realistically get something changed? What do MPs do, and how
can you influence them? How do countries with other systems differ?

It's from 8pm to 10pm at the Durham Ox on Beeston High Road (just up
from where McDonalds used to be). From the outside this looks like just
another pub, but most of it has been converted into a fabulous
specialist restaurant serving some of the best Chinese food in the
area. There will be a multi-course buffet, and I'll give a talk of
about 20 minutes and then invite discussion and questions while we
munch away.

I'm doing this partly because I think it'll be interesting, but also
to raise funds, so there's a £20/head charge for the evening, half of
which will go to the restaurant and the rest to my campaign fund. You
can pay on the night but space is limited, so please let me know if you
want to reserve places. As I've mentioned earlier, the Conservatives
locally are benefiting from a £100,000 local donation and the Lord
Ashcroft fund of up to £25,000/year, and there will shortly be two full-
time organisers whose only purpose in life is to get me (and Vernon
Coaker in Gedling) out.

I've always disliked asking people for money, so I thought I'd do it
this way - you get an (I hope!) interesting evening and a delicious
supper as well as levelling the playing field. There will be two more
events like it on other themes - lunchtime Sunday December 2 at Yod
Siam in Beeston, and Sunday evening December 16 in the Ilkeston
Radhuni. You don't have to be a supporter to come, though obviously
you'd be silly to come if you don't want me to have a fair chance of
having my views heard on a remotely equal basis.

While I'm at it, let me give a plug to the Ilkeston Radhuni's two
upcoming charitable fund-raisers. On Sunday November 18 there is one
for drilling water-pumps in Bangladesh, from 6pm to 9pm, and on
December 9 there's another for a children's hospital. The Radhuni is
possibly the best Indian restaurant in Greater Nottingham: I've
mentioned it before when the owner was beaten up by a gang of racist
youths. If you'd be interested in any of ther events, phone 9445515 to
book.

2. What does it mean to be British?
------------ --------- --------- ----

I've been asked to join in Lord Goldsmith's review of citizenship. I've
been interested in this for some time - it's about integration and what
we should expect of people as part of the 'package' of being British.
Historically, if you've acquired the right to settle here, becoming a
citizen has been a pretty routine matter: stay a number of years, fill
in a form, send a cheque, get your passport in the post. Traditionally
we look on countries like America which have flashy ceremonies with a
certain disdain. But with lots of different cultures mingling, don't we
need, both in fairness and our collective interest, to set out what we
expect of people who settle here for life?

Should they learn English (yes, I think)? Should they study our
concepts of democratic tolerance and rights (yes, surely)? Must they
adopt British codes of dress, e.g. throw away veils (no, in my
opinion)? Is it important that they know about British history? Should
they have sessions of dialogues with existing citizens? Do we expect
more of new citizens than people who were born here (how much history
does the average British teenager really know?). Unless we believe that
we should never have any foreign person settle here, these things are
important for our future society, and raise tricky questions balancing
individual freedom with social harmony. I'm looking forward to being
involved, and would welcome your input.

I've also been appointed to the all-party Commons Select Committee
scrutinising the Justice Ministry, who are responsible for courts,
sentencing, probation, witness protection and a host of other things -
see http://www.justice. gov.uk/ for details. Note in particular that
they're consulting on strengthening the role of Parliament - I'd be
interested in copies of any comments you have on this.

3. Do we get the media we deserve?
------------ --------- --------- ---

Is there a 'tasteless media piece of the year' contest? Can I nominate
the Mail for its illustrated online poll "Do you think Kate McCann's
tears were genuine?" Whatever we think about the McCann case (and how
can any of us possibly know the truth?), this is surely as exploitative
as it's possible to get.

I noticed it because I was interested in the piece on the same page
about MPs' expenses - as I predicted would happen when I reported my
own expenses to you in detail, it claims that 'MPs pocket almost
£200,000 a year' (they're including in the 'pocket' all staff salaries,
paid directly to staff, all office rent, paid directly to the landlord,
and all Commons postage, paid directly to the Post Office). In the same
issue, Richard Littlejohn says that MPs "haven't done a proper day's
work in their lives". Noting a recent report that many MPs
suffer "nervous breakdown, divorce, heart disease, alcoholism,
depression, serious debt and even suicide", Mr Littlejohn says "Good."

The Mail is a very successful paper, so I expect lots of you read
it. Do you actually *like* this stuff? I'm genuinely curious.

4. News updates
------------ ---

- The Attenborough flood defence planning application has been delayed
again. I'll report back when there's any concrete news.

- There's a meeting on road safety around Maws lane on TUESDAY 30
OCTOBER 2007 - 7PM Kimberley Miners Welfare.

- The petitions that I launched against the closures of Beeston Rylands
and Bramcote Hills post offices are gathering pace, with over a
thousand signatures so far. The Conservatives have now launched a rival
petition in Bramcote Hills (they've not bothered with Beeston), asking
for exactly the same thing: they say their petition is better than mine
(it's full-colour, see, and has the November 12 deadline printed on
it). "Yeah, whatever", as my godson would say - I don't mind which
version you sign: I just want to save the branches from closure. If you
have time and would be inconvenienced by the closure, it would be
better still if you *also* write a personal letter to the Post Office
explaining why the closure will affect you - ultimately it's as much
arguments as numbers that count in these things.

Best wishes

Nick

EU treaty - DIY guides/the Red Arrows internet myth/Conservative news/BNP in Kim

19 October 2007

Hi all -

1. The Red Arrows internet myth
------------ --------- --------- -

Several of you have heard another of those pesky rumours that whizz
round the internet. This one claims that the Government has told
Olympic organisers that the Red Arrows should not perform at the
opening of the Olympics because they are 'too British'. It's complete
nonsense - the Government has already deployed the Red Arrows at the
celebration and would be pleased to see them at the Olympics if the
organisers want them. As it's five years away, the organisers haven't
any idea what they want for the celebrations at this point.

One can speculate on the motivations of the people who think up these
things, but, well, I won't.

2. Conservative news
------------ --------

Just a friendly note across the barricades. I understand that the
most prominent Conservative Broxtowe activist, Simon Tonks, who was
their candidate in all the recent elections and by-elections, has
resigned from Broxtowe's Conservative management committee and
campaign team in order to spend more time with his family. Simon's
always been a scrupulous and pleasant opponent, and he'll be a loss
to local politics: I wish him well.

The basic problem for all parties is that we tend to work our
volunteers to death because we don't have enough of them. When in
addition there are internal disputes, as the local Conservatives have
had in recent years, it just stops being fun. I try to make sure that
none of my helpers get asked too much; it's not just kindly concern,
but that I don't want them to burn out.

3. EU treaty - DIY guides
------------ --------- ----

I consulted the list a few months ago on this, but as it's come to a
head and rhetoric is reaching new heights and depths (the Sun thinks
that the Summit was like The Last Supper and ends our life as a
sovereigh state), I thought I'd return to it.

Rather than simply give you my opinion again, I thought it might be
helpful to give you two overviews of what is actually proposed, one
by supporters and one by opponents. If you're interested you can
decide for yourself whether the treaty is mildly helpful or the end
of national independence, and also whether it differs by a little or
a lot from the previous Constitutional proposal.

First, there's an analysis and comparison of treaty and Constitution
at the pro-EU site

www.federalunion.org.uk/news/2007/070623reformtreatyanalysis.shtml

Then, the same from the hostile Open Europe site

www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf

My opinion remains that the package itself is relatively minor and
not in itself worth a referendum, but that the EU has indeed changed
significantly since 1975, so I'm quite tempted by the LibDem proposal
to have a referendum on the EU as a whole, including this package.
But if the subject interests you, I hope you'll have a look for
yourself at the rival views.

4. BNP in Kimberley
------------ -------

Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, came to speak in Kimberley on
Tuesday. The BNP booked the parish hall under an assumed name ("the
British Heritage Association" ) and declined to leave any contact
details, which stirred suspicions, and local trade unions organised
an anti-BNP picket at which 100 or so people turned up. The police
were forewarned and prevented any serious trouble between the groups
though I gather there were some scuffles and the meeting was
curtailed.

Kimberley Labour councillor Jan Pearce and a LibDem colleague had
proposed at a town council meeting that the hall should be closed for
the night in view of the obviously fake booking and possibility of
trouble. This was voted down on the grounds that the Association
might be genuine and anyway the BNP is a legal organisation. There
will be a further discussion of this at the next Parish meeting on
October 25, and Kimberley residents who would like to express a view
on such situations can do so there. This sort of event puts town
councils in an difficult position, since they aren't really geared up
to handle major controversy and had never had a dodgy booking for the
hall before.

I was down in Westmnister so the above is all second-hand. My
personal view is that legal parties are entitled to hold meetings,
but should do so under their actual name; opponents, thus forewarned,
are then entitled to express peaceful disagreement. I was tempted to
get a friend to go to the meeting and insist on addressing them at
length about Morris-dancing and the design of Napoleonic-era
warships - well, if you've announced that you're having a meeting on
British heritage, you can't reasonably complain if people want to
talk about it, can you?

Best wishes

Nick

How should we set NHS priorities?/Can your vote be bought?/expenses statement

16 October 2007

Hi all -

Three issues this time:

* A constituent was asking me how NICE arrives at decisions on which
treatments to recommend to local NHS trusts, so I investigated and
thought the results might be of wider interest to you. As you know, it
comes up regularly as a controversy, most recently on Alzheimer drugs.

* The question of how political activity is funded is gradually coming
to a head. Lord Ashcroft is subsidising local Conservative campaigns in
marginal seats by up to £25,000/year; MPs of all parties receive
£10,000/year for non-partisan communications; and there is a clear move
towards American-style politics in which fund-raising acquires great
importance. A colleague tells me that his opponent spent an estimated
£25,000 on leaflets and postage in a single week before the expected
election last month! There are two questions; whether voters
are 'buyable' by frequent glossy communications, and how to get some
sort of level playing field.

* In the interest of transparency, I wanted to report to you my total
financial spending for 2006-7 - the Fees Office have just totted it up
and briefed Members privately.

In reverse order:

1. Transparency: what were my expenses?
------------ --------- --------- --------

My expenses last year were:

* £22,110 for the rent of a 1-bedroom flat in Westminster and
associated costs

* £20,932 in office running costs (rent, utilities, phone, etc etc) -
this was 240th among all MPs

* £85,145 to pay salary and NI for the equivalent of three full-time
staff for casework (actually 7 part-timers) - this was 292nd among all
MPs - plus £347 on staff travel costs

* £1,953 for use of my car - this was 430th among MPs

* £4,303 on rail fares - 213th among MPs

* £966 on stationery - 294th

* £4,297 on postage (replying to your letters etc.) - 174th

* £1,065 on IT costs

* £3,672 on other costs

Total: £144,789. The totals will be published in due course, and I dare
say the press will give the impression that MPs get this money
themselves. I'll leave to you to decide whether it's reasonable or not.

2. Can your vote be bought?
------------ --------- -----
During elections, there are reasonably effective spending limits - each
party can spend up to about £11,000-£12,000 in each constituency. Most
major parties can manage to accumulate this over a four-year period so
we fight on a fairly even basis.

However, in recent years the idea of the 'continuous campaign',
familiar in America, has taken hold. Increasingly, parties are seeking
to send campaign literature to homes in marginal seats (like this one)
on a regular basis. The trend has been markedly accelerated by
the "Ashcroft spending machine". Lord Ashcroft, a multi-millionaire who
recently returned from living in Belize, offers local Conservative
parties performance agreements: he inspects them to see if they are
doing enough canvassing, leafleting, and so on, and if he's satisfied
he gives them up to £25,000/year.

Labour's attempt to match this at the last election led to
dependence on a small number of rich donors and unions, and to
allegations of 'cash for peerages'. Although these were not in the end
substantiated, I don't know anyone in either Labour or Conservative
parties who feels the current system is really satisfactory. And the
smaller parties are grossly discriminated against by the whole thing.

The obvious answer is to have a spending limit each year, rather
than just at elections, and this may or may be proposed in the coming
Parliamentary session. This seems a lot better than upping the ante by
giving all parties lots of taxpayers' money - you don't really want to
be taxed so that we can send you propaganda, do you? (At present
Opposition parties do get a central subsidy to help them compete, but
nothing at local level.) It would also make sense, in my view, to have
free postage for candidates at council elections, as we do at general
elections.

While we're debating this, I need personally to try to keep up in
the current situation, so I'll do the odd fund-raising event, but more
generally I'd like to ask you to judge all of us by what we say rather
than how glossily we say it!

3. How should we set NHS priorities?
------------ --------- --------- -----
The position as I understand it is that:

• It's generally accepted that there are diminishing returns in
life-saving treatment and there does come a point where it is no longer
justifiable - to take a silly extreme, would you approve of spending
£10 million to keep me alive for an additional 60 seconds? The question
is where to draw the line, and to compare improving life with
prolonging life - is a drug that makes MS sufferers more mobile more or
less important than a drug that extends life by a month? Is an extra
nurse more important than a shorter waiting time? Is £10 on
preventative medicine better than £10 on curing serious illness?

* The temptation is to always to say "yes, spend the money" and maybe
point to wastage on something else, but however efficient we are and
however high taxes are, there will always be a trade-off somewhere
between cost and benefit, and we should be honest about it. That's also
true with private healthcare, of course - the issue simply shifts to
what health insurance companies are willing to cover.

• In order to do it on a more or less scientific basis, the usual
measure is the QUALY, a quality-adjusted life-year. These are
calculated by surveying people on their preferences - questions
like "if you suffered from a painful terminal illness, would you rather
live N more weeks or have M% less pain?" are used to try to tease out
where people feel the most urgent priorities should be. Obviously it's
very difficult to devise good questions, but a lot of work has gone
into it.

• NICE generally reckons that on current budgets, the NHS can afford to
pay something of the order of £20,000-£30,000 per QUALY. In other
words, if a treatment would give me an extra year of good-quality life,
it's worth up to £30,000, but if it cost £80,000, then they would not
recommend it even if it meant I would die earlier as a result, because
they could probably improve QUALYs more in other ways. If it gave me
two years' extra life but at halved quality, that would count about the
same. I'm not sure that this is often spelled out quite so bluntly, but
that's my understanding of what it means.

• The NHS actually claims to produce QUALYs at less, but a bit
inconsistently: current practice for circulatory illness is able to
improve one QUALY for every £12,000 spent, while for cancer it costs
£19,000 (in other words, cancer gets higher priority for the same
amount of life-saving) . Some well-established treatments produce
excellent improvements at almost no cost. So NICE is looking at the top
end of the scale, and some argue that we should be putting less money
into brilliant new life-saving drugs (i.e. make NICE *more* unwilling
to fund desirable but expensive new drugs) and more into proven cost-
effective things like more home nursing care. The question is whether
having *extra* nursing care really has quite the same QUALY payoff.

See http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7616/358 and the following
comments for a full discussion of all this! But in a nutshell, it comes
down to whether we think it's reasonable that taxpayers should spend up
to £30,000 to extend one patient's life by 1 year, or double the
quality of life of another patient, or whether we'd be prepared to
spend more or less than that. As we become richer as a country, the
figure can obviously be increased, if the government of the day puts
the extra money into the NHS, but do you think the order of magnitude
in today's society sounds about right?

As always, feedback welcome, but if you don't need a reply, please note
NNTR (no need to reply) so I can stay on top of the job!

Best wishes

Nick

Post office closure proposals/inheritance tax debate

2 October 2007

Hi all -

Quick updates as life is quite busy!

1. Post office closure proposals
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~

The PO is repeating its exercise that it does every five years or so
to see where post offices are no longer viable. This reflects the
problem that 98% of new pensioners now choose to have their pensions
paid directly into bank accounts, so the traditional mainstay of the
business is dwindling. In extreme cases branches are down to a few
customers a day, and in such cases the postmaster generally welcomes
a compensation package to clal it a day. On the other hand, in many
communities the post office remains a crucial local focus, and a
closure in those circumstances is a tragedy for the community.
The proposal being announced today - for consultation with MPs and
councillors and the wider public - suggest closing three branches in
Broxtowe: Rylands, Nuthall West (by the Three Ponds) and Bramcote
Hills (Sevenoaks Crescent). Customers would be encouraged to use the
following alternative branches:

Rylands: High Road and Beeston Square
Nuthall: Kimberley, Watnall and East Nuthall
Bramcote Hills: Bramcote Lane and Derby Road branches

All other branches are unaffected. The Rylands proposal seems to me
at first sight the worst - it would leave the entire community
without a post office at all. The local Federation of Subpostmasters
has urged me not to reject closures without consulting them (since
sensible closures strengthen the other branches instead of having them all struggling) but I can't support that one, and will be campaigning against the proposal with the local councillors. For the other two I'd like to consult both the postmasters and local residents before deciding whether to opppose them, and your feedback would be very welcome.

2. Inheritance tax debate
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
As this is a hot political issue you'll need to watch out for bias,
but I'll try to summarise the facts and the pros and cons accurately
so you can decide what you think, and then I'll make a partisan
comment.

At present, if you leave more than £300,000 to your descendants,
40% of the excess is taxed (but your partner is exempt for the family
home so it only normally arises when both parents have died). For
example, if you leave £310,000, the extra £10K is taxed so your heirs
only get £306K. At the low end of the range this is fairly minor, but
if you leave £1 million, then a substantial £280K is taken in tax.
The Conservatives propose to abolish this up to £1 million.

The number of estates each year that do pass the £300K threshold
is 40,000, or 6% of all estates. They are very heavily concentrated
in London and the southeast, where quite modest properties can easily
exceeed this sum. In our area the number affected at all is much
smaller, perhaps 3%, and few estates are near the million-pound end
of the scale.

The Conservatives say they can pay for this by charging a flat
£25,000 to anyone who currently lives part of the year in Britain and
part abroad, and pays tax only on his or her British income. This
group includes very rich people like Abramovitch, and also people on
limited incomes like research students and nurses on short contracts.
There is an argument over how many people would be affected and how
far they would cough up rather than go elsewhere: the Treasury civil
service advice is that there would be a £3 billion gap. There is also
an argument about how far this will deter foreign investors from
bringing business to Britain and looking after it for part of the
year.

Without being too partisan, I think it's fair to say that the
Conservatives' difficult political position is likely to have led
them to make optimistic assumptions on this. Insofar as there is a
gap, other taxes will have to rise to balance it, since Mr Osborne
insists that he is not proposing any reduction in taxes overall.

Those are the facts as I understand them. Here's the more partisan
comment. I'm in favour of exempting one-person businesses from the
current level of IHT because they can get broken up instead of being
passed down the family. But as someone who paid IHT myself on my
mother's estate a few years ago, I don't mind sharing a bit of a
windfall and would rather pay tax when I've suddenly inherited a pot
of money than regularly pay more income or council tax.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that at least 94% of people in
areas outside the southeast will probably have to pay a bit more
income or council tax while they're alive, in order to reduce tax on
the wealthiest Londoners when they're dead. Sorry to be blunt but I
think that's a bad idea.

Best wishes

Nick

Eddie Askew dies/local events/possible election

30 September 2007

Hi all -

1. Ediie Askew
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

First, I'm very sorry to have to pass on the news that Eddie Askew,
whom many of you will have heard of, has died. A longstanding
Attenborough resident, he was famous for his work in developing
countries for a number of Church missions: I've never achieved
religious belief myself but he was among the very best advertisements
for it. His daughters write:

"We found a poem he had written after Mum died about a dove that had
flown into their french windows and died. It ended

'Perhaps the dove has gone ahead
and now he flies in some celestial kingdom,
on stronger wings, flying with God,
flying and rejoicing with God.
I await my eagle's wings.'

So Dad is flying at last with God and with his beloved Barbara. If
you would like to come to the funeral, it will be at Bramcote
Crematorium Coventry Lane, Bramcote, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 3GJ on
Tuesday 9th October at 10.15 a.m. A service of celebration will be
held afterwards at Thomas Helwys Baptist Church, Lenten, Nottingham
at 11.30 a.m. There will be a lunch afterwards. If you feel able,
please wear colour and not black because Dad so loved colour.
Donations for work to be done in his memory may be sent c/o Ginever
Funeral Directors, 63 Middle St, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2AR
[cheques only made payable to Mrs S. Bell]."

2. Local events
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

Beeston Labour Party has decided that we ought, in the spirit of the
open-mindedness that we keep talking about, to discuss some
uncomfortable issues, so they're organising a series of events under
the title 'Do you know and do you care?' The idea is to have a
speaker challenging current policies and common assumptions, and then
an open debate. The first ones are:

"AVOIDING THE EVERLASTING WAR: IRAQ, IRAN and THE MIDDLE EAST"
Speaker: Alan Simpson MP
Friday 19th October 2007 at 7 p.m.

"ASYLUM ISSUES: IN OUR NAME?"
Speaker: John McDonnell MP
Friday 30th November 2007 at 7 p.m.

VENUE: New Venture Social Club, Technology Drive, Beeston Rylands
(just behind Beeston railway station)

I think entrance is free though I expect there will be a whipround. I
have previously committed to do an award ceremony in Nottingham on
the 19th but I'll make sure to come to listen and contribute at the
second event.

3. Possible election
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

As you'll have seen, it's pretty likely that we will have a General
Election in about a month's time, with all three parties having
changed leadership since the last one and some pretty far-reaching
changes in the domestic and world scene. If so, prepare to sink under
a tidal wave of Conservative and Labour election material - Broxtowe
is one of the key Labour/Tory marginals in the whole of Britain, and
if Mr Cameron is to move into Number 10 they really need to take it:
they believe they can win marginals like this even if they're not
doing that well nationally.

A local businessman has committed £100,000 to enable the
Conservatives to employ a full-time organiser in the area and many of
you will already have had their first glossy leaflet. We don't have
that sort of money but will be keeping our end up too!

No other parties have so far as I know yet selected candidates
(though there will certainly be a LibDem and probably a BNP
candidate), and realistically it's a two-horse race. My majority over
the Conservatives last time was 2,296 (the closest result the seat
has ever had on current boundaries), out of an electorate of 70,000.
(Full 2005 result: Labour 41.9%, Conservative 37.2%, LibDem 16.1%,
Green 1.8%, UKIP 1.4%, Veritas 1.2%)

A few practical notes assuming that there is indeed an election and
I'm the Labour candidate:

- During an election I am technically not an MP. This means that I
won't be not allowed to take up new cases (this avoids sitting MPs
helping constituents with one hand while asking for votes with the
other). If a reply comes in for a current case, I'll of course pass
it on.

- For the same reason, during the campaign my personal email will be
NickBroxtowe@aol.com rather than the usual NickMP1@aol.com.

- After the election, if I win, everything returns to normal
immediately. If I lose, I'll ask people with ongoing cases whether
they would like me to transfer the file to the new MP.

- Duiring election campaigns I tend to be less non-partisan in my
tone than usual, though I try not to overdo it!

- A few of you (around Coach Drive, Eastwood) will find you are now
in Ashfield constituency, following a minor boundary change. That
isn't a marginal seat and you may find the election less hotly
contested.

- At a personal level, I will be very dependent as always on helpers
to deliver my election material. If you can spare a few hours over
the coming month for this, please let me know.

Best wishes

Nick

P.S. Online energy policy calculator!

21 September 2007

A constituent draws my attention to this excellent tool for considering
your view to the energy issue - sorr yto write twice but I thought
you'd find it interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/electricity_calc/html/1.stm

Best regards

Nick

Two current consultations

21 September 2007

Hi all -

Just wanted to mention that we're in the final weeks for two current
consultations.

The first is on nuclear power, and the details are here:

http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/

The deadline for responses is October 10. The background to this one is
that:

* The Government has said it's inclined to allow the current nuclear
power stations to be replaced by new ones when they reach the end of
their useful life, because we would otherwise be increasingly dependent
on imports from Norway, Russia, Algeria and Iran, only the first of
which seems entirely reliable as a source who will sell us energy
without political conditions.

* Critics argue that the immense duration of radioactive waste and the
risk of accidents make nuclear power a dangerous distraction from the
task of reducing energy use and promoting wind, wave and other renewable
energy, as well as Combined Heat and Power plants.

* There is a consensus between government and critics that reducing
energy use and promoting renewable and CHP are needed, and also that
there is a remaining gap that will open up in 2020-2040, when our
domestic gas and oil run down: that gap probably needs to be filled
*either* by nuclear production or imports. Greenpeace, the most
prominent opponent, argues that exporters like Russia would not be
likely to cut off supplies, since the income will be very important to
them; the Government thinks at present that the risk is too great.

A judge ruled that the initial consultation on this was
insufficiently rigorous, so the current one is an attempt to do better.

The second is on the drugs strategy, launched by our neighbouring MP
and Home Office minister Vernon Coaker. The paper is here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ documents/drugs-our-community-consultation

The deadline for that one is October 19. My own view on this is that
neither we nor any other country can display a record of real success
on drugs - there are tactical gains and setbacks, but the underlying
demand is still there and still causing major problems. The
consultation is an attempt to review the whole field from parents to
doctors to prisons to rehab establishments and try to get a consensus
on best practice.

While I'm as always interested in whatever you tell me, in this case
it's best to send feedback through the two sites, as they'll then be
seen by Ministers directly. Don't expect a direct reply from the
Minister, though - there will probably be several thousands responses
and they need to distil the main themes and then publish policy
proposals in response.

Incidentally, I'm pleased to see that I've come 4th out of 633 MPs
measured by the website www.theyworkforyou. com when they surveyed
people on whether they get a prompt answer to questions (rather than
just a meaningless acknowledgement) - see

http://www.writetothem.com/stats/2006/mps

I'll be on East Midlands Today (BBC TV) at about 6.15 this evening -
they're quizzing me about the Attenborough flood protection issue.

Off to Bournemouth for the Labour conference on Sunday.

Best wishes

Nick

previous newsletters