Latest Newsletters >>

Next Newsletters >>

Out of This World/Abortion/Agency workers/Dalai Lama

21 May 2008

Hi all -

A bit pressed for time so just a few quick updates this time:

1. Out Of This World application
------------ --------- --------- --------- -

A constituent asks me to pass on details of the planning application
reference number in case you would like to add your name to the
objections to the proposal to convert the shop into an extension of
the neighbouring restaurant: it's 08/00314/Ful. Objections in theory
need to be in by tomorrow Thursday, although my understanding is that
in practice letters are passed to the Development Control Committee
after the deadline if received before they next meet.

Possible arguments that have been suggested are 'protection of local
shopping' and the Broxtowe objective to become a Fair Trade town,
which the existence of the shop obviously helps. The shop is
classified as being outside the town centre, so a possible third
argument relating to shopping in town centres wouldn't work. The best
chance remains to try to get Blockbuster to change their minds - I've
not yet heard back on this.

2. Abortion debate
------------ --------- -

I had one of the amendments that was voted on last night, though it
came late and hasn't been widely-reported. I was proposing that women
who had been advised of a serious problem detected in the foetus
should be guaranteed by the NHS an offer of an overview of the
potential impact on life expectancy and quality of life, as well as
details of support groups and helplines. The speech with
interventions by various other MPs is here in case you're interested:

http://tinyurl.com/5rp4ah

An MP with a similar proposal (Claire Curtis-Thomas) withdrew her
amendment in my favour. However, the proposal was defeated (opponents
arguing that it was too prescriptive) , though some of those who voted
against said they'd consider putting forward an amended version in
the following committee stage.

On the term limits question, where I'd been undecided and wanted to
wait for the debate, I was finally swayed for 22 weeks by John Pugh,
the LibDem MP for Southport, whose moderately-phrased speech on
survival and foetal pain persuaded me that we ought to make a
cautious move. I voted against more drastic changes. But as you'll
have seen in the press, all the possible changes were heavily
defeated. Thanks to everyone who gave me input on the issue, whether
we agreed in the end or not, especially the many doctors, nurses and
constituents with experience of being told that their expected child
would have a disability.

3. Temporary Agency Workers Directive
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Having previously supported the backbench Bill to help temporary
workers, against the advice of the whips, I was very pleased to see
the agreement reached yesterday with the TUC and CBI. Essentially
this gives equal rights in most respects to workers employed on a
temporary basis or through an agency if they've worked somewhere for
three months. The reason the law is needed is that some employers
have been evading responsibilities by consistently using temporary
outside staff wherever possible, undercutting better employers. The
reason the Government was initially reluctant is that if full rights
kicked in immediately, people with limited qualifications (many of
whom traditionally find their way into the market through agencies)
could find it difficult to get a chance at all and employers could
find that offering even a very short-term job involved needless
bureaucracy. The three-month outcome is seen by all three sides as a
reasonable compromise.

4. Dalai Lama's visit
------------ --------- ----

A completely non-political note: I've been helping with some of the
arrangements for the Dalai Lama's visit to Westminster and
Nottingham, and among other things sponsored the creation of a
ceremonial mandala (a mosaic-like model of a temple - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala) in a traditional hall of the
House of Commons, where seven monks are working all week to build it.
The Dalai Lama visited it today after talking to MPs. Tomorrow the
monks will destroy it and pour the stones into the Thames, where they
will be carried away downstream, to symbolise of the transcience of
earthly beauty.

Best regards,

Nick

Phone call from the Energy Minister/dodgy leaflets/abortion reform/local news

10 May 2008

Hi all

Apologies for the lengthy delay since the last update – we've been
busy organising the distribution of 25,000 letters to constituents in
areas affected by proposed development. Many thanks to the over 300
volunteers who are currently delivering them! I should be able to
report further on this after meeting NRL again on the 28th.

First, an invitation.

1. Would you like to discuss energy and global warming with the
Energy Minister?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Are you interested in issues surrounding global warming, renewables,
nuclear power, oil and gas prices, etc.? If so, would you like the
Minister for Energy to ring you up for a personal discussion?
I'm the PPS (assistant) to the Minister, Malcolm Wicks, and I've
asked him to set aside an hour and a half on this Tuesday evening
(May 13), starting at 6.15, to talk to interested constituents about
their hopes and fears. If you'd like to have a call from him, please
let me know your number, and if there is part of the 615-745 period
that wouldn't be convenient for you. We plan to ration each call to
about 4 minutes so that 20 or so people can get a chance to put their
views and hear his reply.
This is an experiment that no Minister to my knowledge has tried
before so we're curious to see if it attracts interest. Hope to hear
from you!

2. Notes on fiction
------------ --------- ----

I'd like to comment on the wider political scene, but I'll let it
wait for a week or two as there are a lot of local issues to catch up
on – see below. However, without wanting to introduce a particularly
partisan note, I think it's a pity that a whole series of
Conservative leaflets and emails have attacked me recently in quite
distorted terms. To take three examples:

a) Both a leaflet and an email have claimed that I've "refused" to
talk to Ministers about the projected need for housing in Greater
Nottingham. This bizarre idea was something they simply made up, as I
pointed out some weeks ago (I've discussed the estimates with the
Housing Minister, and the Minister for the East Midlands, and their
technical advisers). The Conservatives are cheerfully continuing to
distribute the leaflet, even though they know it to be false.

b) An email from Ms Soubry headed "Labours U-turn no thanks to your
Labour MP" [original punctuation preserved] claims that I wasn't one
of the MPs who criticised the effect of the 10p abolition. Ms Soubry
was writing more than two weeks after my very public criticism here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/444

I made the same comments directly to the Chancellor, and told him
that I wasn't willing to support the current Budget unless he
publicly promised compensation for those affected. As a PPS I don't
sign amendments to the Budget – I'd simply have quietly resigned if
necessary. I was glad to get the commitment to compensation, and am
collecting a range of local cases to ensure that all those affected
are helped.

A quick correction while I think of it: in my last email I said
that the higher personal allowances for pensioners means that people
with large pensions will be much better off. Not so – it tapers away
for large pensions.

c) Another leaflet claims that I voted in favour of post office
closures. This is about the frankly two-faced Conservative motion
calling for an unfunded freeze, that I discussed back in March:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/440

I've not had any reply to my challenge there to guarantee the current
subsidy, which I assume means that it would indeed be cut under a
Conservative government. I can't believe they'd get rid of it
altogether, but a rough rule of thumb is that every 10% that they
reduce would result in four more branch closures in Broxtowe. There
is a genuine issue here – how far taxpayers should subsidise the
network – and the honest position is that both parties accept that
there are limits to the subsidy. However, it appears that the
Conservatives aren't willing to match the current level, so it's
cynical to criticise me for not voting for their zero-funded motion.

The Conservatives are doing well in national polls, and
spending huge sums on glossy leaflets in Broxtowe. They've got every
right to put forward their ideas, and if they choose to be
relentlessly negative instead, that's up to them. They obviously feel
I have some personal support that they'd like to erode, but it would
be nice if they didn't think it necessary to go in for systematic
distortion. If their message is any good, it should speak for itself
without the need for this sort of thing.

OK, enough on that. Getting on to:

3. Abortion law: proposed amendment
------------ --------- --------- -----

I consulted you on this some while back here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/439

I'm now planning to put forward two amendments. One is a technical
one allows frozen embryos to be kept for longer – this is to help a
particular constituent who has been recovering from cancer and is
only now ready to have IVF. The other is more controversial. I'm
proposing that if an `abnormality' is detected in the foetus, the
mother should be offered up-to-date scientific information concerning
the life
expectancy, the expected intellectual and functional development and
the
treatment options and supportive service providers, including
telephone help
lines as far as available for that condition, as well as neutral
counselling. The idea isn't to urge a decision either way – the
choice should rest with the woman – but to ensure that she is not
panicked into an abortion by feeling that the condition diagnosed
would mean a terrible and unsupported life for the child and the
family.

I should declare a sort of personal interest here. I was born with a
cleft lip and palate – one of the conditions which has prompted
abortion – and my parents were advised that I'd be able to live a
decent enough life `so long as he doesn't take a job that involves
talking a lot'. (Yeah, right - my late mother, who detested politics
in all its forms and disliked my taking it up, nevertheless thought
that aspect was pretty funny.)

It seems to me that as a society we have become too fixated on
physical perfection, to the point of having even late-term abortions
(up to 40 weeks) to prevent the smallest defect. The truth is that
none of us are perfect, even if we look it (I know you're all
incredibly good-looking) – one of us may have a cleft lip, another
may be short-tempered or forgetful. I think it's important that women
worried about whether to have an abortion should be offered serious,
neutral, pressure-free information about the implications of whatever
the condition is and what help is available. Choice, yes – but
*informed* choice.

3. Local updates
------------ ---------

A host of things I've been asked to pass on:

- The local police and council report that crime has fallen in
Broxtowe by 30% in the last three years (over 2000 fewer victims),
and ask me to thank everyone who has contributed to this by reporting
criminal activity. Burglary in particular has nearly halved, from
1499 cases to 780 – this is generally seen as a good measure of
overall crime since it's normally reported for insurance purposes
(whereas something like graffiti might not be reported at all). I've
agreed with the Inspectors responsible for Broxtowe to organise a
joint briefing meeting in the summer for constituents interested in
the local policing strategy and questions such as the relative value
of beat patrols vs car reaction teams. I'll give details of this
(free and non-political) meeting when we've got a date for it.

- Blockbuster, the owner of the site leased by Out of This
World, the popular Beeston shop, has reportedly approached a
restaurant to take over the premises. OOTW is seeking to persuade
Blockbuster to reconsider, and I'm giving them a reference confirming
their status as a widely-admired local shop.

- At a public meeting of people interested in Kimberley issues,
Conservative Cllr Jill Owen (Jill.Owen@broxtowe. gov.uk) agreed to
take up a suggestion from me with Kimberley Leisure Centre to have a
young people's gym at Kimberley Leisure Centre, similar to the one at
Bramcote, with computers linked up to physical activities e.g.
cycling and dancing. She investigated very promptly and writes that
this is likely to happen: "Broxtowe Borough Council already has the
funds in place for the equipment but additional funding is required
to convert the former Youth Club into a suitable area for the
equipment to be installed. Currently discussions are being held with
Kimberley School, the County Council and the Primary Care Trust to
try and secure the additional funds required." If you are involved
with a firm that might like to sponsor this, Ashley Marriott at the
council would be delighted to hear from you.

- The traffic issues around Eastwood Road/Maws Lane, where I've
been supporting Labour Cllr Robinson and a local action group, seem
on the way to being properly addressed. Details available from
Richard.Robinson@ broxtowe. gov.uk .

- Broxtowe Council say the dog rescue facilities are
particularly strained at the moment and are putting a particular
appeal for adoptive families. If you might be able to adopt one,
contact www.babbington- rescue.org. uk

- A constituent, Cheryl Smith, is setting up an informal cafe
for the residents of Rylands - to give them basically somewhere to
sit and chat, now the Post Office has closed. It will be in the rear
room at Rylands Methodist Church on Victory Road each Monday 9.30am
till 11am. She has been in touch with C.A.B in Beeston who have
offered literature. She is on the lookout for old display stands if
anyone is having a re-fit. Contact cheryl@flamestopper s.co.uk

- A constituent warns of an organisation called "Helpmate
Limited", which purports to collect clothes to give to poor people in
third world countries. What they don't mention clearly is that they
are a profit-making company who SELL clothes to poor people. If you
have clothes to spare, it's better to give them to a charity shop.

Back to national issues next time!

Best wishes

Nick

The tax changes - and some new proposals

13 April 2008

Hi all –

In the first point this week, I wanted to discuss the recent tax
changes (the 2p standard rate cut, the abolition of the 10p rate, and
other things) and some changes that I'm proposing. As usual I'll
explain the case for what the Government is doing, explain what I
disagree with, and invite comment. Health warning: in the second
point, I've got some partisan notes (including a rebuttal of an
entertaining claim in a current Conservative leaflet).

Before I start, a quick update on the "Does British science have a
future – and should you recommend a science career to your children?"
eat'n'debate event is at the Cottage Balti, 116 Chilwell Road,
Beeston NG9 1ES (near the Hop Pole) 12:30 to 2:30 Sunday 20 April.
Professor Poliakoff will be introducing the discussion and I'll be
there too. £20 gets you all the food you can eat and all the debate
you could want (£10 if you're not currently earning). Places are
going fast for this one – please let me know if you would like to
come.

1. The tax changes and what I'm arguing for
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -------

Several of you have recently criticised the abolition of the 10p tax
rate, and there's a lot in what you say - it's an issue that I've
been pursuing for over a year since it was first announced. I raised
it with Alastair Darling before the Budget to argue for compensation -
at that stage I was I think almost the only MP who did, though there
are lots of people raising it now.

It was, of course, a Labour innovation in the first place (even
though it had few friends when introduced – it was said to be
insignificant and adding complexity to the system), so I'm
particularly sad to lose it. Most people affected are being
compensated - everyone over 65 had their personal allowances lifted,
parents had substantial rises in child benefit and tax credits. There
is only a specific range of people who are affected: those who (a)
earn enough to pay tax (b) don't earn enough to gain from the
standard rate reduction and (c) are neither over 65 nor parents. But
this includes two important groups who are in no way well off: single
people on lowish wages, and early retirees. The only honest answer I
can give is that overall people in the 10K-20K range have done well
under Labour (mainly because of working tax credit, and from the 10p
rate while it lasted), and I'm just sorry that we took a step
backwards for them this time.

I would add, though, that I think it was reasonable to try to help
people in the low to middle-income range through the 2p tax cut in
standard rate (a further change to the NI threshold has meant that
high-income people didn't benefit, but if you're on high income and
vote Labour, it won't be in order to get tax cuts for yourself). A
fairly standard accusation against the government has been that we've
been helpful to people on low salaries but haven't done much for
people who are not rich but not really poor either. The reduction
also counters the widespread perception that it doesn't pay to get
promoted or to save, because you just lose benefits and pay more in
tax. Relatively few people are on low pay forever, and it's a
dispiriting experience if you find that your promotion hasn't
actually done you much good. And a change that hasn't been widely
remarked is that the very large rise in personal allowances over 65
is going to make most people who have saved up for a second pension
significantly better off.

What I'd have liked to see would have been a 1p cut in basic rate and
no abolition of the 10p rate - that would have helped a wide spectrum
without hurting anyone. The problem in 'fixing' it in the latest
Budget was that the 2p cut had already been announced, and simply
reversing the 10p abolition would cost £7 billion and isn't really
affordable in the current economic climate. I don't think the egg can
sensibly be unscrambled with last-minute changes in the current
budget process but I'm continuing to press for help for this group
(now with many more allies!) and I hope to see progress in the
November pre-Budget Report - it clearly has belatedly been accepted
as a major problem. My personal preference would be for a higher
personal allowance with a higher upper threshold for NI payments
(benefiting everyone up to middle income but making the wealthy pay
their share of NI).

One point that several people have raised is why we keep focusing on
child poverty – doesn't it encourage people to have kids before they
should, and aren't other kinds of poverty just as important? The
answer to the first point is that it's seriously bonkers to have all
the upheaval and cost of having children just to get the relatively
limited benefits that are available (it used to be true that you
could get a council house that way, but it's far from true now). The
answer to the second is that child poverty seems to have a major
impact both on health and behaviour later on, so if we are able to
eliminate it we will be really reducing problems 10-15 years from
now. But I think there's a case for making some of the benefits in
voucher form (for food, clothing, toys, etc.) to ensure they're
actually spent for the kids.

As always, your feedback is welcome. If you'd like to explore the
broader impact of all this in detail, there a good paper that focuses
on poverty here, even though it's a couple of years old:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/3/bud05_taxcredits_500.pdf

- see in particular chart 3.1 on page 21, which shows how taxes
and benefits affect you as you move up in income.

2. Partisan notes
------------ ---------

For new readers: while I try to keep my newsletters generally free of
party political argument, I sometimes need to respond to criticism
from Conservatives. I corral that into this separate `partisan notes'
section, so those who aren't bothered can skip it.

As most of you know, we are a Tory target seat, so Lord Ashcroft and
others have financed a campaign in Broxtowe that will cost in excess
of £125,000 – over six times the legal spending limit in an election.
Since that would be illegal in the campaign itself, you'll be getting
lots of full-colour Tory leaflets over the next year, and one went
out this weekend. I can't remotely compete with that, and the
professionals on both sides are looking with interest at Broxtowe and
similar seats to see whether money can buy political success.

The current one contains several factual errors. In particular, it
bizarrely claims I've "refused to meet Government Ministers"
who "plan to build" on Green Belt land. I'm not convinced that even
Tories have a vision of me being pestered by Ministers to discuss
housing projects and telling them "just go away!", but for the
record:

(1) I've discussed the projection of housing need both with
Ministers and their advisers, and the figures are simply demographic
extrapolations of current social trends (living longer, nearer
cities, in more divided family units, adding up to the need for more,
smaller, suburban homes). It no more makes sense to demand that
Ministers come up with nicer figures than to demand that they order
the Met Office to produce better weather forecasts.

(2) Whatever the total number needed – and not even the
Conservatives deny that there is a shortage – the key question is
exactly *where* they're built. That is not a matter of Government
planning (with the partial exception of the possible Rushcliffe eco-
town) but of decision-making for each individual site. My main
criticism of the Conservatives is that even where they have
councillors they were slow to inform people on the issue and they
continue to treat it as a party political football – they've shown no
interest whatever in talking to the local body that is actually about
to make recommendations on the issue.

I'd also make a similar general comment on the leaflet. Virtually
*every* section except the candidate's "celebrity breast" painting
comes down to "why your Labour MP and the LibDem-led council are
rubbish". I have to say that in most constituencies people would
recognise this as business as usual – where party A holds the seat,
party B's leaflets are all about slagging them off, while the
incumbents hit back by saying it was much worse under the previous
lot.

It's not something I've ever done much of, and nor did my Tory
predecessor, Jim Lester. Our approach has been that if we try to
explain the national issues in a balanced way and do our best for the
constituency, it'll do more good and encourage people to vote for us
more than if we rant incessantly about rival parties: it lasted Jim
for 23 years and I've done it for 11 so far. Ms Soubry would clearly
do it differently, and it'll be one of the choices you have when the
election comes round.

Best wishes

Nick

Two clarifications, and important flood protection news

4 April 2008

Hi -

Sorry, an omission and a typo in my message earlier:

- The discussion on the credit crunch next week is at the New Venturwe
Social Club, on the Siemens site behind Beeston Station.

- The former LibDem councillor who is organising the rock-bike event is
Tom Ruffin.

I'm also now able to report from my discussion with the Environment
Agency - they asked me not to pre-empt their announcement to
stakeholders today. They say their modelling has confirmed the analysis
last autumn which led them to put the priginal proposal on hold, and
they believe that in order to protect the entire Nottingham area
adequately they do need a 2.1 metre wall, and currently they still plan
to put it along The Strand. They are 'looking for ways to make the
proposal more acceptable' to objectors. The scheme will cost £50
million and is designed to reduce flood risk in our area to 1% each
year (with obvious benefits for insurance as well).

The AFAA, the local campaign who oppose building on The Strand and
favour building behind the sports fields through a part of the SSSI
(arguably not the key part) are continuing to press their case. The
issue is about to come to a head, since one way or another, the
application is expected to go in during the 3rd quarter. If approval is
given within the current financial year, funding remains secure.

I'll continue to keep you posted.

Best wishes

Nick

Major update on development proposals

31 March 2008

Hi all –

I had the long-awaited meeting with Nottingham Regeneration Limited
today.

A bit of a dilemma: several hundred of you have signed up
specifically to get information about this issue, and I've got a lot
more information now. But there is some other interesting stuff to
say as well, and I don't want to put people off from seeing it by
first writing reams about development. Solution: two messages this
week – and this one is *only* about the housing development issue. If
you don't care about that, read no further! It's long, it's dry, it's
technical - but it has important consequences for the future of most
of Broxtowe.

The meeting was with the only other MPs who have expressed concern to
NRL, Paddy Tipping and Vernon Coaker, and in addition to NRL's
executives had a number of County Council planning staff and a wide
range of representatives from environmental groups whom we'd invited
(notably the Ramblers and CPRE were there in force, plus the Notts
Wildlife Trust).

Here are my notes, with a Q&A at the end for readers who would like
more detail.

1. What is the estimated need for housing?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

It's generally agreed that there will be a need for a significant
number of additional homes (probably 60-70,000) over the 20 years
from 2006-2026 (some of them have already been built, of course,
since we're now in 2008 – in Broxtowe alone, the number already
approved, built or under construction since 2006 is more than two
thousand).

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which contains these estimates is
currently being updated, and will be published next month. It's
expected to have a figure in the above range, and may propose figures
for each borough to share out the numbers. However, that's subject to
change – the boroughs can get together as they're doing, and propose
a different share-out. The RSS won't discuss any specific sites.

2. What will the NRL study do?
------------ --------- --------- ---------

The NRL study that I've been lobbying to influence will look at
specific sites around the conurbation with a view to reducing the
number. Two dozen large ones and a number of smaller ones have been
proposed. It will list each one, and note advantages and
disadvantages of each. Some will have so many disadvantages that it
will be possible to rule them out without further ado. As you know,
this has always been my primary objective: to get the clearly
unreasonable proposals dismissed at an early stage, so we can forget
about them and get on with life. The NRL study will not approve any
sites, but simply note that some have fewer drawbacks than others.

They expect to finish the first part of this study in May, but are
likely to need further work to assess details. We can expect to see
it in full by September, though I hope to be able to get some
indications before then, probably by July. It will appears with notes
from the councils on issues and options to weigh up. If, for
instance, one site is brownfield but would cause traffic congestion,
while another is greenfield but has good transport, NRL won't try to
tell us which is best. There will then be extensive public
consultations on the choices.

3. What about communities?
------------ --------- --------- -----

An important new factor is that the Government expects all councils
to produce assessments of community viability before proceeding with
any new housing approach. This hasn't really been done before.

Let me give an example: the Toton development on part of the Army
depot site was a pretty good one in classic planning terms – it was
brownfield, near major shopping, and on a good bus route. But
although I supported it when it was built, I urged that there should
be a community centre with facilities for different age groups, and
that hasn't happened, so there really isn't as much community life as
there is in, say, Beeston.

Apart from leisure facilities, the Government wants to see a host of
other issues addressed as part of the process: school availability,
doctors, local employment, transport connections (e.g. new bus
routes) and access to green space (an important argument in our
context, as we want to protect such access for the communities
already in place). This will all slow down the process for those
sites not ruled out by the NRL study, since the developer won't just
have to show that the site is OK for housing, but that it fits with
the council's wider community concept.

4. What about stability?
------------ --------- --------

I pointed out that it's only four years since the last time we fought
over the Watnall issue. How could we avoid going round the same
issues again every few years? They said the objective of planning
through to 2026 is to avoid that. Each council will be expected to
have a rolling five-year overview of which sites are coming up for
potential development, but only within the long-term framework, so if
an area is said to be unsuitable in the current review, it will stay
that way unless there are really major unforeseeable changes.

5. What next?
------------ ------

We agreed to meet again in September, by which time we should have
both the overall numbers and a pretty good idea of which areas are
still in question. I proposed that NRL should add to its governing
board a representative of the environmental groups who were present,
and they promised to look at doing that – apparently it has never
been suggested before, since up to now NRL has mainly been looking at
brownfield sites where environmental issues had been less prominent.
I also urged early publication of proposals (*before* the planners
had made up their minds what the wanted to do) so that there was the
maximum opportunity to debate them before anyone made up their minds:
the process so far had, I said, made a lot of people worried that
there would be a fait accompli and we would simply not accept that.

I hope this is helpful. Many thanks to everyone who helped get this
early meeting with NRL. Please see the Q&A below for when I'm likely
to be asking you to help with further action to protect the future of
our communities.

Best wishes

Nick

Q&A

What is the expected timeline? When can you next influence it?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

APRIL 2008: Specific site planning applications expected in
Rushcliffe. If approved, these will take away a significant part of
the housing demand, but Rushcliffe will want to delay decisions if
possible to fit in the overall picture.

Announcement of short-list for eco-towns – this will tell us whether
the Rushcliffe proposal is still a possibility.

MAY 2008: Consultants' report on individual sites received by NRL
with pros and cons for each site. Councils assess it and draw up
issues for consultation, including initial outline of community
strategies.

Revised RSS study with overall numbers projection published.

3RD QUARTER 2008: Consultation on community strategies under way.
I'll report regularly on this as it emerges and let you know how and
where to give input.

Councils publish NRL report and initiate public consultation on
options for assessing specific sites. At this point, I'll be asking
you to mobilise to oppose anything we think unreasonable.

I'll report back from the further meeting with NRL.

4TH QUARTER 2008: By then we should know the decision on the tram,
which is likely to be relevant to the debate. The initial
consultations should be concluded.

2009: Possible specific planning applications for any sites that have
survived the process.

What sort of homes are needed? How is the figure arrived at?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

The estimate is a demographic extrapolation of long-standing trends
in how long people live, the tendency to split up into smaller units,
and so on: the trend has been upwards, which is why we now have long
waiting-lists and people struggling to get on the housing ladder.
It's reflecting a number of different types of need, from the basic
accommodation (typically small flats) to get people out of near-
homelessness, to `starter homes' for couples, to family homes once
couples have children. It allows for the fact that some existing
homes (up to 6% in some areas) are currently vacant – councils are
keen to nudge people into filling them, but some are the wrong size
or in the wrong place for the need: an empty four-bedroom house in
Trowell doesn't help a couple starting out in Chilwell. The city will
take much of the growth, but some will need to spread around the
conurbation.

What are the main issues for our area?
------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

The most controversial proposals in our area are Watnall-Kimberley-
Moorgreen (the Moorgreen Fair site and onwards up to the edge of
Moorgreen and Kimberley), Trowell/Stapleford/ Cossall (e.g. Field Farm
reaching up to the edge of Cossall), and Chilwell/Bramcote – e.g. the
area all around Bardills reaching up towards Bramcote Village) – see
my earlier updates for details. There is also a proposal near the
Nottingham Business Park off the B6002 which could have serious
consequences for Nuthall roundabout congestion (already horrific at
peak times).

The issues I've been raising on your behalf are principally these:

• Impact on green belt for leisure (walking, sports, etc.),
visual attractiveness and impact on wildlife

• Impact on traffic, with a knock-on effect on the environment –
the Nuthall Island is a particularly obvious problem, but there are
others too.

• Impact on flooding. This is particularly an issue with the
Field Farm and Chilwell proposals – building on flood plains and
disrupting water courses has very significant risks which I'm anxious
to ensure that NRL's study properly reflects

• Impact on local infrastructure and communities. See the
issues raised in point 3. In particular, Government policy is to
maintain Green Belt separation between Nottingham and Derby, and some
of the proposals would affect that quite strongly.

If there are issues which you feel I've overlooked, please let me
know!

Numerous local issues/Tibet/post offices/Gurkhas

20 March 2008

Hi all -

Lots to report this time:

1. Housing development update

Nottingham Regeneration Limited have now agreed to meet me (and the
two other MPs who have criticised the process, Paddy Tipping and
Vernon Coaker) on the 29th. We've also arranged to meet a number of
environmental groups that day, notably Notts Wildlife Trust and the
CPRE, to reinforce our case. Seriously grateful thanks to everyone
who has helped keep up the presssure on this.

Meanwhile, I have a second meeting with the promoters of the proposed
major brownfield site at Stanton Ironworks. This would almost
certainly more than satisfy the entire housing need between
Nottingham and Derby for the next generation, but it would need a
better access road over a green area. In principle this seems to me a
more acceptable approach than concreting over a whole area, and if
the details are promising I expect to support this.

2. Ercisson/Siemens/ HSBC

I've asked for a meeting with HSBC management about the prospects for
the site (by Beeston Station)and will be seeing them on the 26th. The
twin objectives are to get a honest appraisal of the prospects for
new employers coming to the site (to help Ericsson employees decide
whether to stay in the area) and to propose a joint marketing
initiative for the site with funding from several quarters - more
details when I've talked to them.
One issue here is flood protection, as the Environment Agency has
blocked some plans for site development pending resolution of the
Attenborough issue. So:

3. Environment Agency

I'm seeing them at the beginning of April to get an update on when
they expect to resubmit flood protection plans and what their
proposals are likely to be - this is now equally important for
Attenborough and Rylands residents as well as many others who have
flooding concerns. i'll report back in two weeks.

4. Integrated transport breakthrough

A project that I first proposed two years ago has finally come to
fruition, with the help of enormous efforts by my Kimberley council
colleague, Richard Robinson: a shuttle bus from Ilkeston to Cossall
to Awsworth to IKEA to Kimberley to West Nuthall to the Phoenix park
tram stop. It should start on November 1, and run 364 days a year,
all day and early evening. The idea is to give people in the north of
the borough good integrated access to the tram as well as shopping
options in tthe other direction. Despite support from British Land
(the owner of the IKEA site) it was hard to get a workable package
until Graham Spencer in Awsworth had the bright idea of contacting
Ilkeston Tesco - they have now come on board and will co-finance it.

Although the route doesn't currently cover the B600 and East Nuthall,
I hope to get extensions in due course if it's a success. It will
link in with the bus from Eastwood and Giltbrook to IKEA. We can't
improve the environment *just* by raising taxes on big cars - we need
to provide good public transport alternatives, and I'm thrilled (and
relieved) that it's worked out.

5. Tibet

Obviously an issue deserving a separate piece, but this is just to
note a local aspect. I've been working with the Dalai Lama's team to
bring him first to Westminster and then to Nottingham, and as you
have probably seen he'll be giving a seminar at the Ice Stadium in
late May on peace, Buddhism and the environment. When I started on
the project it didn't have a major political dimension, but as things
stand it will give us a chance to show solidarity with Tibet as well.

Consumer warning - partisan corner!

With a general election just a year or two away and Broxtowe a target
seat, I'm now getting more or less weekly attacks from the
Conservatives. As I've always tried to keep my emails fairly non-
partisan and I don't want to spoil that, I'm just going to add a
section for the party political issues at the end. That way, if you
don't want to see them, you can just read the earlier part and then
press "delete".

There are two this week. First, Broxtowe Conservatives have demanded
that I support a Conservative motion calling for a freeze on post
office closures. The problem about it is simply this: the only reason
that closures in Broxtowe were limited to three branches is that the
Government has promised the Post Office £1.7 billion of subsidy and
investment; without that, the Post Office estimates that it would
need to close two thirds of its branches. The Conservatives, who have
said that they will make cuts in some areas to finance spending in
others, have flatly refused to commit to honouring the subsidy. So
they're simultaneously demanding a freeze in closures while cutting
off the funding that enables most of our branches to survive. I'd
like to invite Broxtowe Conservatives - who were late to support
Bramcote Hills in the consultation and never bothered to petition for
the Rylands branch - to try to get a commitment from their leadership
to at least maintain the subsidy.

On a more useful note, I've asked the County Counicl to look at
Bramcote Hills and Rylands for the 'Essex solution', involving
restarting the branches with additional County services. Notts has
expressed interest, but it will require the post Office to cooperate,
which they've shown little sign of doing so far (they declined my
Freedom of Information request for details on grounds of commercial
confidentiality) .

Second, the question of whether Gurkhas who have served Britain
should be allowed to settle in Britain on a decent pension. All
Gurkhas who served since 1997, when Labour took over, have been given
that right. The Conservatives, who refused to do any such thing for
18 years, are demanding that it be made retrospective to cover their
period in power. I see a good deal of hypocrisy in politics, not all
from one side, but this must be something of a record.

On which fierce note, I'll leave you for now!

Best wishes

Nick

Ericsson cuts and moves to Coventry/abortion and stem cell research

12 March 2008

Hi all -

This is mainly to let you know the bad news about Ericsson in
Beeston. First, before I forget, I omitted the time for the
eat'n'debate event on anti-social behaviour at the Yod Thai in
Beeston on Sunday - it's 12.30.

1. Ericsson announcement

Ericsson announced last July that they were planning to cut back
their Beeston presence, and they've now gone the whole hog and said
they will end their lease later this year, in order to merge into a
new R&D centre that they're completing in Ansty, by Coventry. As part
of a global cost-cutting exercise, they are laying off 147 staff in
the coming months; the remaining 168 will be offered places in
Coventry.

I've quizzed them about details and got a few points that may be
helpful:

- They are consulting the union and individual staff over the next
three months.

- If not all the 168 staff take up the Coventry offer (as is likely),
they're open to discussing with those who've been made redundant
whether they could take up the opening.

- They say there is some prospect of jobs elsewhere in the Ericsson
group, possibly abroad (though since it's a global cutback I'm a bit
sceptical)

- They'd not yet engaged with HSBC, who own the site, about the exact
date to terminate the lease.

It's obviously bad news for all those affected, who face either
looking for new work or at best being uprooted to Coventry. I've
asked for a meeting as soon as possible with HSBC to get an update on
their progress in attracting high-tech firms to the site, potentially
offering the right type of job for the staff affected. They
successfully got ATOS-Origin and I know were hopeful of getting more,
though the delay in getting Nottingham flood protection was a problem
for potential planning permission. I'm also seeing the Environment
Agency on April 1 to try to push for a good outcome on the flood
protection aspect. I'll keep you posted.

2. Abortion and stem cell research

A number of you have written about the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Bill, which will come to the Commons in a few weeks' time.
Campaigns assosiated with several religious groups have been urging
amendments in various areas, and I wanted to give some early
indication of my thinking and invite comment. Some key issues:

Abortion: David Steel, who pioneered the current Abortion Act, has
called for a review of the 24-week term limit, on the basis that it
was set as the earliest time that the foetus was likely to survive
outside the womb; with scientific advance this might now be earlier.
Conversely, Evan Harris, who has campaigned on a pro-choice basis, is
proposing amendments removing some of the hurdles nowe involved in
abortion - he proposes that only one doctor should sign the form, not
two, and that nurses could assist an abortion at home instead of
requiring a clinic visit.

Stem cell therapy: scientists have been doing research using stem
cells, taken from embryos at a very early stage - the research must
by law stop before the embryo reaches 15 days. Some of this research
involves mixing human and animal tissue, on the grounds that human
eggs are in short supply and needed for fertility treatment.
Scientists believe that the research could lead to major
breakthroughs in genetic disorders; critics note that no such
breakthroughs have yet occurred.

Identification of the father in IVF procedures: it is already legal
for gay women couples to have a child via IVF. The law would allow
them to register as the legal parents: campaigners argue that the
sperm donor should be registered as the father.

Some thoughts on these points: it is argued by many who believe in
the soul that human life is essentially fully-formed from conception
and abortion is therefore killing a human being (some even take this
to the point of opposing contraception, because it prevents a
potential human being). With all respect due to those who believe
this, I don't feel we can legislate on the basis of the belief, and
in any case I think that a ban on abortion would take us back to the
horrors of large numbers of illegal abortions in dangerously poor
conditions.

Moreover, when the embryo is only a week old, it is essentially a
small clump of cells with no nervous system, not obviously different
from a fingernail (which also contains fully-fledged DNA). So I'm
instinctively relaxed about stem cell research, especially if it will
reduce the need for research with fully-sentient animals. On the
other hand, I'm suspicious of the human tendency to underestimate the
capacity of others to feel pain and emotion, so the older the foetus
becomes, the more uneasy I feel about abortion.

I understand that research suggests that the foetus can start to feel pain from 20 weeks, and if the original basis for the 24-week limit has changed I'm open to persuasion that we should look at it again. If we were to reopen the abortion issue in this way, I'd also want to look at the Harris amendments - if someone does have an abortion I don't see any reason to make it needlessly unpleasant and difficult, and allowing it to be done at home seems to me defensible. But part of me feels that it's undesirable to unpick the issue since the current compromise has survived for a long time.

As for the IVF issue, can any of you advise me about the current
situation? If X donates sperm used in IVF for a single woman who is
not gay, is X's name on the birth certificate as the father? If so,
isn't it amazing that anyone is willing to do it, and be recorded as
the father of a child with a woman he's never met? If not, how would
it differ in the case of a gay couple - indeed, how would the agency
know if the mother had a gay partner or not? I'm sorry to be ignorant
on this very basic point, but I try to be honest with people and I
realise I don't fully understand this issue yet.

As usual, feedback welcome, ideally with the "no need to reply"
note. This is an issue where feelings run very high, and I'd
appreciate it if you would use persuasion rather than the "how dare
you even consider voting differently from my opinion?" line of
argument which is popping up in some of the correspondence. I think
these are difficult issues and I'm just trying to work my way to the
right answers, I hope with your help.

Best wishes

Nick

Security and liberty - do they conflict? / Development/ local party politics

09 March 2008

Hi all –

As the local development issue has dominated my recent updates, I'd
like to start this one by consulting you on issues being debated in
Westminster (next week I want to talk about the abortion and
fertilisation bill), but I'll add a further update on the housing
issue below.

1. Security and liberty: do they conflict?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -

I've been asked by Home Office Ministers to review the potential
personal benefits of a voluntary ID card, and also want to discuss
with them the concerns that people have. Because my background is in
IT and I've lived in countries with identity registers and cards,
they felt I could bring a fresh eye to the project.

The project, as you may have seen, is to complete the current project
to record the fingerprints of all visa and asylum applicants (they've
collected a million so far, and in the process spotted 10,000 people
who had previously applied, often under a different name) and then
move on to record fingerprints for passport applicants. People won't
need to have an ID card, but if you want one it should cost around
£30 and last 10 years.

The idea is that eventually all residents should have their
fingerprints registered so that identity can be verified in case of
legitimate need (e.g. someone has been arrested and refuses to say
who he is, or a traffic accident victim is unconscious and it's
urgent to identify him), while the card will provide easy proof of
identity and address for people who want it (we are surely the only
country in the world that asks people who want to open a bank account
to produce a gas bill).

A big concern that some have is the `audit trail', which is a record
of which organisations have checked your identity. This was designed
to protect the individual (since it enables you to check that nobody
you hadn't authorised has been checking up on you), but people worry
that a list of such enquiries could give clues about your lifestyle –
e.g. if you have had enquiries from several banks, perhaps you are
shopping around for a mortgage, or if there's a hospital check (to
see you're entitled to free long-term treatment as a British
resident), it could hint at a major health problem. I've been
thinking about this, and I'm thinking of proposing that we should
give everyone full control over their records, so that we can inspect
and delete entries in the audit trail whenever we want to – first we
could have a look to satisfy ourselves, then get rid of any enquiries
that we would rather not have on record.

Whatever one thinks about this idea, it's just one example of the
recent debates on whether greater security involves a threat to
liberty. Another is the DNA register. As things stand, if you are
ever arrested for an offence, a DNA sample is taken and kept on
record, even if you're later acquitted. Two recent convictions for
murder resulted from previous DNA samples for unrelated offences. The
campaign Liberty argues that all records should be deleted except for
serious sex and violence offenders, on the grounds that committing a
minor theft shouldn't leave you on file for life. This would however
have meant that one of the murderers (who had only been convicted of
burglary) would not have been caught. Another view (currently being
tested in the courts) is that you should only go on file if you're
convicted. Alternatively, some MPs have proposed that *everyone* in
Britain should be compelled to give a sample.

What do you think? The case for the current system is that the
target group is arguably exactly the right one: people who've
committed crimes or at least come under such serious suspicion that
they were arrested. Adding another 50 million records right down to
bedridden 95-year-olds would be hugely expensive and produce
diminishing returns. On the other hand, certain crimes like rape
would be almost entirely soluble if everyone had to give a sample,
since it's not possible to commit rape without leaving DNA traces,
and many assaults would be easy to solve too. Or do you support the
Liberty position and feel the whole thing is too intrusive except for
the most serious offenders?

Technical notes: I understand that a DNA sample is essentially a
bit of spit – no needles etc. are required. DNA evidence is not
treated by the courts as 100% conclusive – in rare circumstances you
can get "false positives", especially if the sample isn't very good
and you have a big database. It's obviously a huge help to police to
narrow a case down to a couple of potential criminals, though.

2. Development update
------------ --------- --------

I'm glad to say the Nottingham Regeneration Limited have agreed to
meet me, and I'm now pressing for an early date for this. Very many
thanks again to all who wrote to them to urge them to listen. I would
still like to be able to talk to their consultants as well so as to
influence each stage of the process in our collective interest.
Some of the local developers have been in touch to put their side
of the story: the church group (not Beeston Free Church as I reported
earlier) who own land west of Bardills, Peverils who want to develop
the Chilwell segment (they say they would allow a tram park and ride
site), and the consultants working on the Stanton Ironworks proposal,
which seems potentially attractive to me. I remain entirely
unconvinced by the Peveril (Chilwell), Trowell/Cossall and
Watnall/Nuthall sites.

The timetable is roughly this:

March 15: I've organised a meeting with my colleagues Paddy Tipping
and Vernon Coaker with the County Council and numerous NGOs with an
interest in the local environment – the Wildlife Trust, CPRE, etc.
These are not represented on NRL and we are keen that they too should
be able to weigh in at an early stage.

Early April: the consultants should complete heir report to NRL.

Summer: NRL should report back to the councils on which areas look
plausible for development. I am hoping that, following all our
efforts, at least some of the Broxtowe areas will be seen as clearly
unsuitable.

Post-summer: the councils update their assessments in consultation
with the Government Office for the East Midlands.

2009: concrete planning proposals are likely to be put to the elected
councils for anywhere that has survived the initial process.

3. Local party politics
------------ --------- -----

A correction from my last update: Conservative councillors tell me
that the person who misrepresented me at the Chilwell meeting, who
looked to me like Cllr Tom Pettengell, was actually someone else. I'm
happy to accept the assurance and would like to apologise to Tom.

Meanwhile, though, the Conservative candidate, Anna Soubry, is
maintaining a continuous barrage of partisan comment on the issue.
Her report on the Bramcote meeting says this: "No explanation was
given for the fact that the Lib Dem Leader of Broxtowe Council didn't
attend as billed. I somewhat suspect he hasn't quite recovered from
his "Chilwell experience" when residents booed and heckled him". She
goes on, "In recent weeks I have been concerned that the local Labour
MP is raising a number of red herrings. Initially he blamed the
threat to Broxtowe's Green belt on "greedy developers" was not true
[sic] and now concedes that the report that raised the threat was
commissioned by all the local authorities in Greater Nottingham.
Maybe it's just a question of time before he admits that the figures
of 60,000 new homes in 25 years have come from his Government as a
target that must be met".

Finally, on the issue of NRL's refusal to listen to input, her only
comment is a dismissive: "Your Labour MP knows fine well the
consultants who are assessing the sites are under no duty whatsoever
to meet with local politicians" . Ms Soubry has consistently said that
if she were the MP she'd leave local planning matters to local
Conservative councillors and instead would be demanding from
Ministers that they reconsider the projected housing need for
Nottingham.

Well, I try to keep my updates largely non-partisan but I can't
ignore this sort of stuff altogether, as otherwise it gets accepted
by default. So a few factual comments:

a) Of course the threat to the Green Belt is from developers. If
nobody wanted to build on it, we'd have nothing to discuss.
b) Yes, the consultants aren't under a duty to talk to local
politicians. But in my opinion it was both undemocratic and short-
sighted for NRL to instruct them not to. This isn't a party point –
NRL gets its instructions from three Tory councils, two Labour ones
and two LibDem-led ones.
c) Asking Ministers to reduce the projection is like lobbying
for a better weather forecast. There is an affordable housing
shortage in the area right now (see every council's waiting lists and
the price of starter homes), and the projected need is the best
estimate of demographers. We can't simply wish it away or say we
don't care about people who can't afford a decent home: the
responsible thing to do is to fill vacant property and find suitable
sites for affordable new homes.
d) It's flatly untrue that the organisers (the respected and
entirely unpolitical Bramcote Conservation Society) had billed the
presence of the LibDem council leader.

I also disagree with the whole "Westminster village" idea of MPs as
being focused only on Westminster, leaving local councillors to deal
with local matters. It's tidy, but it means you let down people who
need help and were relying on you. MPs should in my view focus on
anyone who is making decisions that affect their constituents. Right
now, the only people making assessments that affect us are NRL and
their consultants, so I'm focusing on NRL.

I'm also trying to keep constituents in the picture. Most people
first heard about the issue because I wrote to them: if they were
waiting for a Tory councillor to get in touch, frankly many would
still be in the dark. Ms Soubry spends most of her messages on the
issue trying to make party political points against LibDems and
Labour. I can do that sort of thing too, e.g. pointing out that the
latest Tory leaflet on Chilwell is so obviously un-locally produced
that it even manages to misspell Chilwell. But this sort of point-
scoring doesn't save a single blade of grass, does it? If you would
like a more party political and Westminster- focused MP than me,
you'll have the option to choose Ms Soubry in a year or two. In the
meantime, I'd like to concentrate on the issue at hand.

Feedback, as always, welcome, though I'm still catching up with the
avalanche of letters supporting the development campaign, so NNTR (no
need to reply) preferred if you don't really need an answer. And
thanks to everyone for their patience.

Best wishes,

Nick

Development/Europe/fair trade/cycling

04 March 2008

Hi all –

Apologies for the longer-than- usual gap since the last update. Two
things have intervened: the numerous letters that came in with the
2000+ supporting letters on the development issue (many people took
the opportunity to ask about other things); and the current Energy
Bill, which is eating a lot of my time as it works through committee;
and a three-day absence. I've also just come back from three days
away (got up at 445 this morning, so please ascribe any typos to
zonkedness): I took up a long-standing invitation from Swiss Energy
Committee MPs to compare policies with our current Bill, and while I
was there was also a guest speaker at a Social Democrat conference at
the weekend.

As usual when I've been away, there are a lot of emails pending
(438, to be precise) and the Bill Committee resumes in an hour's
time, so I hope you'll forgive brief updates. If you're awaiting an
answer to an email, I hope to respond within the next three days.

1. Development proposals update

Many thanks to the large numbers of you who wrote to Nottingham
Regeneration Limited asking them to reconsider letting me see their
consultants. They are still digging in their heels on that, but have
offered a direct meeting with NRL itself. I'm continuing to press for
access to the consultants as well, but in the meantime have accepted
the NRL invitation and asked for a meeting as soon as possible.

Thanks also to everyone who came to the meetings in Chilwell and
Bramcote – at least 150 at each, the latter organized and ably
chaired by the Bramcote conservation society.
Party politics reared its head as a senior Conservative councillor
told the Chilwell meeting that in my question on the issue in
Parliament I had said I was happy with green belt development so long
as it wasn't too profitable. Just for the record, that is a fib –
this is the link again, so you can check for yourself (you need to
let 10 seconds run for the last answer to finish):

http://tinyurl.com/23bkvo

There has been more in the same vein, and it's silly, because we
don't actually have an election now – what we have is a threat of the
entire area being concreted over. It would be nice if the
Conservatives were willing to work with me on this – there's time
enough to have a go at me when the election comes round.

What happens next? The consultants will report back to NRL next
month, with or without my input, and NRL will then report to the
seven elected councils who commissioned the study. That will
influence the individual council development plans, which are
prepared in consultation with the Government Office for the East
Midlands, and I hope to be able to report that at least some of the
sites have been effectively ruled out. Any surviving proposals are
likely to lead into the usual formal planning process, with a public
hearing and council consideration next year. If anything in our area
actually gets through – and I remain hopeful that we can see them
off – then construction would be likely around 2011.

2. European Treaty

Parliament is about to conclude the three-week debate on the European
treaty, and there will be a vote tomorrow on whether to call a
referendum over it. Those who have been on the list for a while may
remember my earlier updates on this, but for those who are newer
these are the ones where I discussed it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/410 and

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/396

The former is briefer but probably more interesting since it gives
links to analyses of the Treaty by the rival camps so you can see for
yourself whether you approve or disapprove of its contents as well as
whether it resembles a Constitution. Message 396 above summarises the
main points if you don't have time to plough through it. After all
the page-by-page debate in Parliament over the last weeks, my view
remains that it's a useful but workaday package and that if we were
to have a referendum it should be on Britain's EU membership rather
than on how many commissioners we have or how often the Presidency
rotates.

3. Beeston a fair trade town?

As we come to the end of Fair Trade fortnight, Broxtowe council,
working with Oxfam, is looking at making Beeston an official Fair
Trade town, supporting the sale of goods in local shops produced to
high ethical standards. The Fairtrade Foundation, which overseas
Fairtrade in the UK, awards Fairtrade Town status to towns that meet
five goals, covering:
• Support from the local Council
• Fairtrade products available in shops and cafés
• Fairtrade products used by workplaces and community
organisations
• Media coverage and popular support for the campaign
• A Fairtrade Steering Group to keep the campaign going
If you'd like to support the continuing effort (or indeed if you'd
like to disagree with it!) you can get more details if you ring 0115
917 3654.

4. Roundhill Primary cycling challenge

Roundhill school is doing a project to encourage cycling by young
people all the obvious reasons – fighting obesity and helping the
environment – and 14 parents and a staff member are doing a sponsored
cycle all the way to the Eiffel Tower in Paris. If you'd like to know
more and support it in some way, contact
ZoeFletcher@ roundhill. notts.sch. uk.

5. Expenses note

I try to be as transparent as possible about expenses (you can see my
full statement last year at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/409 before any of
the recent scandals arose), so a brief note about how I paid for the
energy discussion in Switzerland. MPs are encouraged to meet
counterparts to learn from other countries' experiences, and are
entitled to make three trips a year to European countries for up to
three days, with business class air fare and the cost of the stay
reimbursed. Most of us rarely get round to it as there's too much to
do, but finding out what others are doing is not a bad idea in
principle and prevents re-inventing the wheel. I in fact flew economy
(cost £90) and will claim for one day's stay (the others being party
business so not claimable). If anyone wants more details (cost of
meals, public transport in Bern, etc.) don't hesitate to ask.

Sorry this is all a bit rushed – I'd appreciate responses being
marked "NNTR" (no need to reply) for a few days while I catch up –
unless, of course, you really do want an urgent reply, in which case
please mark it URGENT.

Best wishes,

Nick

previous newsletters >>