Latest newsletters >>

Next newsletters >>

Energy event POSTPONED/housing numbers/NHS experiences

30 August 2008

Hi all -

1. Energy event postponed
------------ --------- ----

Alan Simpson's office rang to say he turns out to be unavailable on
the date we planned the discussion of home energy saving/production,
so we've decided to postpone it. A likely new date is September 24
(we'll just be back from the Labour conference), but I'll confirm
next week. Apologies to anyone for the inconvenience, but he's such
as an expert on the issue that it seems a pity to do it without him.
So the next events are:

Sept 8: Amnesty discussion
Sept 10: NHS discussion
Sept 12: debate with candidates from other parties
Sept 17: discussion of policing in Broxtowe with the two Inspectors
Sept 24 (probably): rescheduled energy event

It'd help our planning if you can let me know if you plan to come to
any or all of these.

2. Housing numbers
------------ ------

The housing development issue may seem to have gone quiet after a
number of the major sites were ruled out, but I remain strongly
opposed to the main remaining ones on our green belt, and in favour
of the Stanton Ironworks option next door, even though that has road
access issues to be solved.

One factor is that the housing need for the area has been broken down
by district (e.g. Broxtowe is estimated to need 8000 homes by 2026,
though this includes some already built), and we need to ensure that
if we help facilitate a major housing development nearby (e.g. on the
Ironworks) it helps meet our own target.

The Ironworks development (over 5000 homes) would be likely to mean
that Erewash district had more houses than foreseen and we had fewer,
but as local authority boundaries are quite arbitrary the main point
is that there will be enough housing to meet need west of Nottingham.
I wrote to the Minister (Hazel Blears) earlier this month to note
that the local authorities are working together on this and get
confirmation that a joint recommendation that meets the overall need
will be acceptable.

A difference of approach here has arisen with Ms Soubry, the
Conservative candidate: I had a letter from her yesterday which
proposed a joint request that we simply ask for the Broxtowe number
to be reviewed. Ms Soubry told the Watnall meeting on the issue that
she believes that there is no scope for any additional housing in
Broxtowe at all, which goes further than I do, and she is also
opposed to the Ironworks site.

She is entitled to her view, but I don't think we can simply say no
to every site even if it's brownfield, and also that it's a mistake
to try to solve the problem by Broxtowe trying unilaterally to cut
its allocation and push the number elsewhere. All that will happen is
that the other districts will do the same and we'll end up with a
mess. Perhaps it's something we can discuss at the all-party debate
on the 12th? It's vital to get the approach right and the
consequences will remain long after we have all departed from the
scene.

She also writes that she agrees that it's not a partisan issue. A
snag about this is that her last leaflet says, "Conservatives are
claiming victory" over the Green Belt and contrasts this with alleged
complacency by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I've welcomed her
assurance: it would be nice to assume the leaflet is a temporary
lapse. In my own leaflets on the issue I've made no attempt to claim
that the success in getting several sites rejected is a Labour thing -
it's simply a vital issue for the area which MPs and councillors
need to solve together.

3. Personal NHS experiences
------------ --------- ------

I've had a couple of opportunities in the last year to try out local
NHS services at the sharp end. My GP diagnosed possible cancer a
while back, and recommended some tests. He called up the Choose and
Book system on his PC and printed out a list of hospitals offering
appointments, and I was able to pick one that could see me a few days
later (it was a false alarm).

I'm told that the system isn't popular with either many GPs (who find
it a nuisance in their busy practice) or many patients (who when
they're sick don't want to have to go through a choice and would
rather simply be given a date at the QMC). I can only say I
appreciated it - it meant I could dispel the worry 10 days earlier
than if I'd had to wait for the local hospital, and also that I could
pick an exact time to suit me, rather than simply take whatever I was
given. If you need a test yourself, it's worth asking for the option.

More recently I broke a tendon in a fingertip and went to the walk-in
clinic in Nottingham (next to the BBC building). It's ludicrously
sited for a "walk in", since you can only sensibly get there by car,
but the turnaround is certainly fast - I was in and out within 10
minutes. They said I needed a split at A&E, so I went on to the QMC
and that too was very fast - a diagnosis in five minutes, an X-ray
immediately afterwards, the splint itself 10 minutes later. I was
given an appointment a couple of days later to see a doctor to check
it and brief me about the prospects (I have to wear the thing for 6
weeks and may then get a functioning fingertip back, or not - we'll
see!).

Nobody involved was aware I was an MP (except for one nurse, who
asked my job and looked profoundly disapproving when I told her) so
it wasn't special treatment. I know from previous experience when my
wife had an asthma attack that a Saturday night can be very
different, but if you can use the service in the daytime my
impression is that you don't need to worry about the huge delays that
one reads about.

The hand-cleaning issue is another matter, though - there was a sign
directing visitors to a soap dispenser, but it was completely lost in
a forest of other signs and I didn't see anyone using the dispenser.
I only noticed myself because I was looking for it (management tell
MPs that the issue has been addressed so I wanted to check). It's
something I'll be raising with the management again at our next
meeting.

4. Next of kin mobile numbers
------------ --------- --------

A constituent asks me to pass on this initiative, which could be
crucial in emergencies:

Very frequently hospital A&E departments have to deal with patients
who are not carrying any form of ID and who are too ill or badly
injured to be able to give details of their next of kin, but they
very often do carry a mobile phone. In 2005 a British paramedic had
the idea that if the mobile's directory had an entry ICE (for "In
Case of Emergency") A&E would have a ready-made way of talking to
next of kin. This is particularly valuable if the patient has pre-
existing medical conditions which the next of kin can tell A&E about.

The International Telecommunications Union recommends putting entries
in your mobile's directory, prefixed with 01, 02, 03 and so on,
(e.g. "01 husband", "02 daughter", "03 doctor") so in the event of an
accident you will help emergency workers identify contacts in order
of priority and notify them. Remember to use the international form
of their number, e.g. "+44115nnnnnnn" for a Nottingham number. This
does work even if dialling within the UK.

Note that within the UK, agreeing to your essential medical records
being on the NHS 'spine' can also make a critical difference. This
has come under criticism on privacy grounds, but unless one has an
acutely embarrassing condition (which one can have excluded from the
record) it seems to me that the balance of advantage is
overwhelmingly in favour of doctors who treat you knowing about your
blood group, allergies, and other issues. If you're allergic to
penicillin, for instance, the risk that this becomes known to someone
unauthorised seems pretty minor (so what if they do know?), but it
could save your life if the A&E doctor knows about it when you're
unconscious.

Best regards

Nick

Events galore! Home energy/local policing/Amnesty/NHS/multi-party debate

19 August 2008

Hi all –

I got back a week ago but have been catching up with things that came
in while I was away. I had a good time – won one tournament, though I
only got the bronze in Diplomacy this year, and spent a little time
looking round the pretty area of Pennsylvania. I'm much refreshed and
hope you've been enjoying a good holiday too.

This is mostly about coming events, but I'll add a note below on the
new Ilkeston-Cossall- Awsworth- Kimberley- Nuthall West-Phoenix Park bus
service.

As I'm usually tied up in London Monday to Thursday, I've been
organising a variety of meetings in the next month before Parliament
resumes. I hope that you'll find some of them interesting:

WEDNESDAY September 3 evening 8pm:

ENERGY AND YOUR HOME
------------ --------- --------- --------

This is an eat'n'debate session planned for the Durham Ox Chinese
restaurant in Beeston, with three parts:
- Alan Simpson MP as guest speaker will talk about what he's
done with his own home and what the opportunities and obstacles are
to future-proofing your home against energy shortage
- I'll talk briefly about the Government consultation on
microgeneration and what we want to do to promote alternative ways of
saving and producing energy in the home
- Cllr Steve Barber will describe what Broxtowe Council is
doing in the area
and then we'll throw it open to general discussion.

The usual format of these events is that we offer as much food as you
can eat from a buffet and as much debate as you would like, and in
return ask participants to pay £20. £10 of this goes to the
restaurant, the rest to my campaign fund.

However, we're anxious that nobody on a low income should feel left
out, and a sponsor has kindly appeared to raise money to match the
contribution element (she's retired and will be taking part-time work
to be able to afford to help me in this way – a rather magnificent
offer). So if you can only manage £12, that's fine – she'll match
your £2 contribution.

MONDAY SEPTEMBER 8: (probably 730pm):

AMNESTY MP QUIZ
------------ --------- ------

This is the annual grilling that Amnesty give me in Beeston Library.
All welcome – there are usually 20 or so people there, questioning me
on human rights issues at homer and abroad. No charge.

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 730pm:

NHS FUTURE
------------ ------

This one, at the New Venture Social club behind Beeston Station, is
one of Beeston North Labour Party's series of often critical events
where they invite speakers who challenge different aspects of
Government policy. Justine Schneider, Professor of Mental Health at
the University of Nottingham, will discuss health policy. No charge.

FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 12 evening, Roundhill School:

POLITICS IN BROXTOWE
------------ --------- --------- -----

Debate with my Conservative opponent Anna Soubry; the LibDems have
also been invited and I'd guess their candidate David Watts will be
their representative. Ms Soubry's agent from the city party called
round with a challenge, and I always agree to debates if they're on
fair terms. There's no charge but we'll have a whip-round to cover
the cost of hall hire.

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 17 evening, location to be confirmed:

OUR LOCAL POLICING STRATEGY
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------

Non-political discussion with Broxtowe's two police inspectors, John
Lees and Richard Stapleford. I arranged this because I'm often asked
questions about overall policing strategy in the borough which go
beyond the "what's happening on Town Street" queries that are
discussed at CAT meetings. How is neighbourhood policing going?
What's the balance between officers in cars and officers on the beat?
What happens next if you report a suspicion? Are police overwhelmed
by paperwork? Are the crime figures genuinely better or is it spin?
When should you call 999, Crimestoppers, the police station, or your
local officer? They won't discuss individual crimes (`why don't you
arrest that bloke in number 17 in my road?') or Home Office policy –
the idea is to give you a feeling for the local policing strategy
from the people who decide what it should be, and the chance to
suggest changes.

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 7.30pm, probably New Venture Social Club:

LABOUR MP QUIZ
------------ --------- ----

This is the members-only quarterly event that I do for local Labour
members to quiz me on policy issues. It's a (doubtful!) perk of being
a member that you get to sit with me for two hours discussing the
fine details of any aspect of party policy.

New bus service
------------ --------

As many of you know, Cllr Richard Robinson and I have been working
for a long time to get a bus service connecting the north of the
borough with the Phoenix Park tram stop. First, this should enable
many more people to use this spur of the tram instead of driving to
town or struggling to find a space at the Phoenix Park car park.
Second, it should ease congestion on the roads, all the more
important with the new range of shops opening in a few weeks' time
next to IKEA. Third, it does something concrete about promoting
public transport instead of just talking about it. And fourth, it
provides a service that actually serves Kimberley on Friday and
Saturday evening (Trent/Barton decline to do so, after an incident
with a rowdy passenger two years ago).

This is now all signed and sealed, and it'll start on October 3.
It'll run 364 days a year, with new environmentally- friendly buses
run by Veolia. We hope it'll be a great success, and ultimately go to
other points in the north as well as those mention above.

The background is that I originally thought of the idea over two
years ago, and asked Trent/Barton, who had a look at it but decided
against. I asked Richard Robinson to help find an alternative, and we
persuaded British Land (who own the IKEA site) that it would be in
their interest to give start-up funding support; we also found that
Veolia were interested in the idea. There was still a funding gap for
the start-up costs, but Graham Spencer, a party colleague in
Awsworth, suggested approaching Tesco in Ilkeston, and they proved
willing to chip in as well.

There were then endless discussions of details, with ultimate
success. Richard, who if he were a dog would undoubtedly be a
particularly determined terrier, has chalked up 150 phone calls, 512
emails and twelve face-to-face meetings as he harried everyone to
finish the negotiations, and I intervened at various times when it
got bogged down. The outcome is quite unusual and has attracted
national comment – it's a possible unique case of several local
businesses being brought together by politicians to provide an
integrated transport option with no taxpayer funding.

Best wishes

Nick

Alcohol deaths/Beeston club/police advice

31 July 2008

Hi all –

I'll be off tomorrow for 11 days, as you know, but there are a few
urgent things to report. Forgive me for being a bit briefer than
usual for each. First, Broxtowe police are asking for volunteers to
help advise vulnerable people on how to protect their homes against
crime. You'd need to go to a one-day course on August 26. If you'd
like to know more, contact
richard.stapleford@nottinghamshire.pnn.polic.uk.

1. Campaign to educate young people about alcohol death
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

The family of Stacey Rhymes, the 24-year-old Bramcote girl who died
of alcohol addiction, have asked me to help with a campaign to
educate children about the risks. They aren't trying to ban alcohol
or impose savage restrictions, just to give schoolchildren the same
sort of detailed information that they get about drugs – what are
safe levels, what the effect of drinking too much is in the short and
long term, and so on. You can see the tragic story here:
http://tinyurl.com/5wyaoz

Coincidentally, Broxtowe Youth Council, who are elected by all the
schools in the area, have made education of kids about alcohol their
main campaign this year, so I'm putting the two in touch with each
other. I'm thinking of inviting all the head teachers of secondary
schools in the borough to discuss how BYW and the Rhymes family can
present the campaign – perhaps with a joint event for the whole
borough, or individual visits to each school. The idea would be an
informative piece, not preachy but simply explaining the effect at
different ages and the point at which is becomes dangerous.

Suggestions for how this can be best pursued very welcome. If you'd
like to help the effort, please contact Simon Beavan (Stacey's uncle)
at ssli@ntlworld. com .
The family did everything they could over years of effort and deserve
support, especially as they are trying to have something good come of
it rather than just putting it behind them. They also want to
campaign against cheap multipack sale of alcohol in supermarkets and
look at other issues like late-night licencing and sale at petrol
stations.

2. The battle to save the New Venture Social Club
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Local councillors and I have had an extremely hectic week as the
planning application from HSBC to redevelop the old Siemens site in
Beeston Ryland came to a head. In principle, the application is very
welcome – HSBC are hoping to restore the site to its former glory as
a major centre for employment, starting with the Olympic timing
contract winners ATOS Origin. However, they didn't envisage keeping
the club building, and as thing stood they would have been homeless,
possibly in a few months' time.
The club, which has over a thousand members, organised a petition
with over 600 signatures urging a rethink. The local councillors
(Steve Barber, Pat Lally and Frank Prince) gave me the petition and
asked me to press the case. I took the fight to HSBC in their Canary
Wharf offices, and warned them that the whole application was at risk
unless they were prepared to help find a solution.
HSBC have now agreed in principle to lease the Trent Vale sport
ground site to the council, with a new home for the club envisaged on
the site. Last night, just before the committee met, they confirmed
this in writing. After passionate speeches on behalf of the club by
representatives of the club and local residents and Steve Barber, the
council voted unanimously to give outline approval to the development
only subject to further discussions about the club, car parking,
disabled access to Beeston station and other concerns. The packed
meeting repeatedly applauded speakers who stressed the value of the
club, which is the only one of its kind in the Rylands.
The club is not yet out of the wood, since financing and ownership
for the new building has to be agreed and I can see difficult
negotiations over the coming months. But they were staring into the
abyss and I'm very pleased that HSBC have proved open to persuasion
for the sake of good community relations. If it works out, it will be
the best possible start to HSBC's new development, and a model for
how we would like other new investors like (ahem!) Tesco to work with
the area.
There was some criticism of me (from the usual political quarters)
for not giving an update before yesterday. I did get a first draft of
the HSBC statement on Friday, but it was marked "Strictly
confidential and without prejudice", and I didn't want to mess up the
chances of progress by any premature leaks. I passed it to the
council leader, who had urgent discussions with councillors and
officers and went back to HSBC early this week to ask for a statement
that could be put in public to the committee: this finally arrived
yesterday afternoon.

3. Various short items:
------------ --------- ------

a) Coming events:

August 2: charity Summer Fair at the Midland German Shepherd Dog
Rescue Centre on Saturday 2nd August at North Lodge Kennels, Kings
Corner, Derby DE21 4RG. Sale of toys, games, books, clothes, shoes,
pet items, electrical goods, houseware, bedding furniture, and much
more, plus tombolla stall, raffle, and refreshments. 10.30 am to 4.00
pm. All the proceeds go to run the Rescue Centre.

September 12: I've agreed with my Conservative opponent, Anna Soubry,
to debate her and a LibDem (probably their PPC David Watts) at the
Roudhill School, Beeston – more details nearer the time.

I hope to organise a debate on energy in September, looking at the
horrific rise in prices and what we can do both nationally and
locally to become more independent of the international oil and gas
suppliers – details to be confirmed.

October 10: Discussion of education issues with Ed Balls, details
t.b.c.

b) Snippets:

- It's reported that work on Beeston Tesco will finally start
next month. They were waiting till the Job Centre had completed its
move into the new premises (which was a planning condition) – I
opened this officially on Monday morning.
- There is a big push coming against anti-social behaviour in
Kimberley.
- The latest Broxtowe South figures show a further drop in
violent crime of 18.6% over last year, with all crime also down
again, but burglary has risen and is the next target for the police
effort in the area.
- Many thanks for the many positive comments on the welfare
reform proposals, with some concerns too. If you'd like to respond to
the official consultation, it's now up on the DWP website here:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/ - with a
deadline of October 22.
- Several people have asked if I'm involved in the Labour
leadership debates. The answer is no – I think they're a media-
inspired distraction from getting on with the job of tackling soaring
fuel prices and the other pressing economic issues. I have strong
views on what we ought to be doing on fuel, but am inhibited in
publishing them because of my position as PPS to the Energy Minister –
anything I say will start a media hare running. But I've made
representations in the right places: we'll see what happens.

I'd be grateful if you wouldn't respond to this email with anything
that needs a reply from me unless it's very urgent – I'll check
before leaving Saturday morning, and try to check in the US, but
otherwise will be back on August 11. My office on 0115-9430721 are
open as usual.

Best wishes

Nick

Development proposals update/what do you think of the welfare reform?

24 July 2008

Hi all -

Couple of quick notes first. Kathy and David Jenkins ask me to thank
every who supported their cancer research do (previously advertised
here) - they raised a whacking £1400 on the day.

It's now Parliamentary recess. Contrary to what you may read in the
press, this doesn't mean I'm about to take 3 months off! But I'll be
away on holiday from August 2 to August 11. I'm taking some time off
in the Amish country in Pennsylvania and defending my title as world
Diplomacy champion (it's a board game - as some of you know, I used
to write books about these things which sold 100,000 copies back in
the 80s) at the World Boardgames Convention. It's all very
unpolitical and I'm afraid leaves a carbon trail as I'm crossing the
Atlantic, but a change of pace is generally a good idea now and then.
I'll check my email now and then but would be grateful not to get non-
urgent requests in that period. My office is of course open as usual,
and I'm available as always before and after the Aug 2-11 period.

This update is for two issues, to let those of you interested in the
development proposals know about the latest news, and to invite you
to comment on the welfare reform proposals. If you're only interested
in the housing issue, I suggest skipping down to it as I'm first
going to discuss the welfare ideas in some detail.

1. The welfare reform proposals
------------ --------- --------- ---------

These are quite far-reaching and important to get right. You can find
them in full, together with the official consultation link, here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/

You can find an independent summary of the proposals by the Child
Poverty Action Group here:

http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb190/WR_greenpaper.htm

More briefly, here's my summary. It's generally agreed that the
Government has been successful at reducing numbers claiming job
seekers' allowance (still around a 30-year low – in Broxtowe the
proportion is under 3%), and although the current world turmoil is
expected to lead to a rise, it is still going to be a long way under
the 3 million levels of the past. However, there are a lot of people
who have been on Incapacity Benefit for a long time, and it's also
generally agreed that this is a mixture of:
• people who really are not able to work and struggle to get by
at all
• people who are no longer able to work at their previous jobs,
but might be able to do something else if they got enough help
• people who actually could work but are claiming benefit
anyway, in some cases because they were genuinely too ill to work
before, have now recovered, but have not volunteered that information
The idea is to increase benefit for the first group, assist the
second group with training and other support on condition that they
agree to try to adapt, and identify and withdraw incapacity benefit
from the third group. Note that the focus is on new claimants, though
all existing claimants will have their medical position reviewed: if
you are still unable to work you can carry on getting the existing
incapacity benefit.

Major changes would be:

- Replacing incapacity benefit and income support for new
claimants with medical difficulties who are assessed as able to work
by an Employment Support Allowance. This would consist of the basic
Job Seekers' Allowance (which you get simply for actively seeking
work) plus a top-up if you agreed to a programme tailored to your
situation to help you get work. For instance, if you used to have a
manual job that you now can't do because of a bad back, but you could
potentially do a desk job, you might agree to go on a computer skills
course and start applying for jobs that involve data entry

- If your medical problems were so severe that you obviously
couldn't do any kind of work, you'd instead get an allowance larger
than the current incapacity benefit. The idea here is that the
current benefit is kept low to avoid people pushing to get it when
they could really work, but if we're being stricter about insisting
that people work if they can, then we ought to be more generous to
people who actually have no chance of working,.

There are also lots of other elements proposed, e.g. that support for
people with drug addiction should be conditional on their accepting
entry in a rehab programme, but the above is the core of the
proposals. An important element is both helping and leaning on
employers to remove barriers to work – many people with a disability
are frustrated by quite simple things that are easy to fix if the
will is there.

Why might you oppose these ideas? Some critics dislike the element
of compulsion: if you are seen as able to work, you only get the
Support Allowance if you agree to specific actions aimed at getting
back to work. The critics argue that it's unusual for people not to
want to work, and this will make them liable to have to jump through
hoops that they don't really believe in (e.g. reluctantly attending a
course without any confidence that it will help) instead of really
focusing on their needs. Others (e.g. Frank Field) say that having
two systems of support (one for the very ill and another for the
rest) is too complicated, and we should have a single system so that
everyone who wasn't working got the same, and anything extra for the
very ill was provided by a separate disability allowance. The snag
about that, in my view, is that it would force the very ill to apply
twice, first to show that they couldn't work and then to get the
extra allowance.

Feedback, as always, welcome – this is the stage of the process
where it's easiest to get changes. My personal view is that it's a
logical next step – having tackled mass unemployment on the regular
labour market, it makes sense to tackle incapacity benefit, and to
distinguish between more help for the very ill and more insistence on
employment-related activity for everyone else.

2. Housing development – latest news
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------

The Government has now published its Regional Spatial Strategy, which
provides the framework for the local discussion on development plans.
You can find all the main points here:

http://goem-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal

but as that's a long document you may prefer to read my summary first:

- They confirm that the demographic estimate for new housing
need in Greater Nottingham by 2026 is 70,500, of which the largest
part should be provided from regeneration within the city. This takes
into account current empty property, economic trends, and the current
waiting lists. Specifically, they suggest that Broxtowe and Erewash
should each allow the construction of around 8000 homes over the 20-
year period (to put this in context, the proposed Stanton Ironworks
brownfield site, if approved, would on its own cover nearly half of
that).
- They say that if the councils in and around Nottingham are
able to agree a joint proposal that redistributes the number of
houses (e.g. more in Rushcliffe, fewer in Gedling, or vice versa)
that would be fine. This corresponds to what the seven councils
involved (from all political three parties) are trying to do, so it's
fair to give credit to the councillors for anticipating this.
- They explicitly endorse the principle that the Green Belt in
our area between Derby and Nottingham should be protected, and also
that communities should be kept separate to avoid suburban sprawl.
They reject a proposal that the Green Belt should be waived on other
sides of the city, and say that any encroachment on Green Belt should
only be considered if brownfield sites have been exhaustively
reviewed first.

The next steps are the City's proposals for regeneration and new
housing (expected very soon) and the seven councils' publication in
the autumn of an `options and issues' paper setting out alternative
strategies. In the meantime, I'm supporting the efforts of STRAG and
others to build a coalition to oppose the huge development proposed
off Coventry Lane, and expect also to oppose the site west of
Bardills. Thanks to everyone who is sending feedback on these, and
also for your comments on the proposed housing at Toton Sidings, for
which the comments so far are quite evenly divided. I hope the above
update is useful – stay tuned!

As always, if you don't need a personal reply, it helps me if you
add "NNTR" (no need to reply).

Best regards,

Nick

DIY guide to car tax

11 July 2008

Hi all -

In view of all the alarming headlines on car tax, I thought it might
be useful to give a link to a couple of sites enabling you to see for
yourself whether your VED (annual car duty) would go up, down or stay
unchanged if the proposals are carried through. This one explains the
changes in principle:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/CARS/news/41183.html

and this one enables you to enter the exact model of your car to see
how you would be affected personally:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/

Most people aren't actually affected much either way, but the impact
on the biggest gas-guzzlers is dramatic: the Ferrari Spider goes up
£245/year! As a general guide to the current rhetorical barrages, the
position is this:

* Normally VED goes up by a few pounds a year, keeping pace with
inflation generally

* The changes will reduce this for low-emission cars and increase it
for high-emission cars, phased in over 2009-2010.

* It is *both* true to say that most drivers will be paying more
(because of the normal increase of a few pounds) and that most
drivers will be paying less than if the changes hadn't been made
(because most drivers have smaller, low-emission cars for which the
increase is lowered). It's worth checking the exact wording of what
newspapers say on this, as everyone is picking the version that suits
their political stance. The Telegraph succeeded yesterday in
suggesting that 9 million people would pay £245 extra! - you had to
read the article to find the weasel words "up to", with many people
paying around £5-£15 extra.

* My impression is that not many people really object to the change
for new purchases: if you insist on buying a petrol-guzzling fume-
emitting Ferrari, it's reasonable to pay a hefty car tax, so long as
you know what the impact will be. The controversial element is
changing VED drastically for cars that people have already bought.
There have been several Budgetary statements that car tax was
shifting in this way, but no real details till now, so people who
bought higher-polluting cars feel they've been caught unfairly,
especially as it depresses the second-hand value. Note that cars
registered before 2001 aren't affected by the changes.

* The difficulty about cancelling retrospection is that it would
create a paradox that high-polluting cars bought last year would pay
lower VED than low-polluting newer cars bought this year.
Nevertheless, my advice to Darling has been to look again at the
retrospective element, which will in environmental terms be of
diminishing importance as the older cars gradually disappear.

Hope this is useful! Feedback welcome, NNTR where possible...

Best wishes

Nick

Housing/a nasty rumour/badgers/why don't you revolt?

07 July 2008

Hi all -

Thanks for all the comments on the housing development
recommendations - I'm accumulating them and will be reporting further
when I've got the bulk of the feedback. As expected, opinion is
running very strongly against the Field Farm/Coventry Lane
development north of Stapleford, and I'd be interested in setting up
a cross-party campaign against this. If you'd like to help in
organising it (whatever your political views), please let me know.

1. A nasty rumour
------------ -----
Sorry to start off with something party political, but I'm starting
to get letters from very distressed constituents, triggered by a flat
lie in the current Conservative leaflet. It says:

"GP surgeries throughout Broxtowe are under threat of closure. The
Government is determined to impose polyclinics (impersonal super
surgeries) whether local people or doctors want them or not.
Parliamentary candidate Anna Soubry said, 'Patients will be forced to
travel further and lose personal contact with their GPs.'"

Here's a short letter I've had as a result: "I am 83 and live in
Beeston. My doctor saved me from dying of cancer. I am terribly
unhappy that the government wants to shut his surgery. He has been
very good to me and I don't want to lose him. Please, why are you
doing this?" I've had three more like that and I'm sure there are
more to come.

What are the facts? I asked the Primary Care Trust, who are
responsible for all surgeries in Nottinghamshire. They say:

a) There are no polyclinics planned *anywhere* in the whole of
Nottinghamshire. The concept is that several single-handed GPs can
club together to employ additional staff to do tests and minor
treatment (e.g. physiotherapy) to avoid the need for hospital
referrals. However, while this could be needed in London, where there
are lots of single-GP practices, Notts PCT feels that they aren't
needed here, so there won't be any. The local PCT has the final say -
the Government has left it to each local body to decide.

b) There will be one new GP-led surgery in Notts, which will be
either near Hucknall, Mansfield or Newark. The idea is to increase
provision in an area where GPs are more thinly-spread. They say they
expect no effect whatever on the future of our surgeries in e.g.
Beeston.

That's the totality of the changes. To tell people that "GP surgeries
throughout Broxtowe are under threat of closure" really is
unscrupulous scaremongering for political gain. People are free to
oppose the concept (I know that some local surgeries have done so, as
has the BMA nationally), but that shouldn't slide into upsetting
people with something that is known to be false.

I know that there are Conservative Party members who get my emails,
and I'd like to urge you not to continue to deliver this particular
leaflet until a correction can be added. You can say whatever you
like about me, but please stop scaring vulnerable people.

2. Badgers
----------

Just a short note to celebrate the decision not to proceed with a
badger cull. It's an issue that I've lobbied on, as a member of the
local Badger Trust. If we thought that a cull would actually
eliminate TB in cattle and badgers, we'd have to consider it (TB is a
nasty illness for the animals, as well as a huge drain on the
taxpayer and farmers). However, the scientific advice is that a cull
might actually make the problem worse, because if a badger is killed
then a possibly infected badger moves into the vacant sett. The
problem remains very serious, and doesn't have an easy solution: what
we're doing is pushing vaccination research and discussing tighter
controls on cattle movement with farmers.

3. Why don't you revolt?
------------ --------- ---
A constituent who normally supports me has asked a question that's
also being posed by critics: why don't I break ranks and vote against
the Government on issues where I have a different view? It's a
reasonable question, and I'd like to discuss it here, as frankly as I
can, as it reflects a genuine difficulty in the way politics works in
Britain. We should have the opportunity to explore it further on
Saturday at the lunchtime eat'n'debate event on "Are parties and
whips a good thing or a bad thing?"

The starting point is that every party in Parliament gives members a
choice between being 'insiders' or 'outsiders'. The parties operate
like families - you can be part of them and influence where you live,
where you work, where you go on holiday, sometimes winning the
arguments, sometimes losing, but accepting the family decision; or
you can live in the garage and take little part in the decision-
making process.

You aren't allowed to flip back and forth - there is no difference in
the reduction of influence between breaking the whip once and
breaking it every week. The deal is that you get to take part in the
negotiations over the content if you agree to abide by the outcome.
You are still free to criticise party policies and call for change,
as I frequently do (e.g. I think our refugee policy is barely
tolerable, and I was both openly and privately critical of the 10p
tax decision), and you can even support legal action by your
constituents against the government, as I've done over open-cast
mining.

If I'd voted against the government in *every* vote since 1997, not a
single decision would have changed, since if I recall correctly there
has never been a majority of only 1. By playing the 'inside left'
position, there have been countless Bills that I've got changed in
what I think of as a more progressive or simply more sensible
direction. I have good friends in Parliament who have chosen
the 'outsider' role and revolt regularly: several are now standing
down, partly because after a while the lack of influence makes them
feel that they aren't really achieving very much. And yet, they're
doing a useful job too - if there were no consistent 'outsider'
rebels (like, say, Alan Simpson), the 'insiders' wouldn't have the
leverage to get changes.

Here's a recent concrete example of how the choice works. The
Government proposed to support the possible detention of terrorist
suspects for 42 days while the suspicion is investigated. I can see
that this might sometimes be needed, but it seems to me that if the
suspect turns out to be innocent they could suffer very severe
financial losses by unable to work or pay bills throughout that time.

So when I was consulted, I said that my requirement for supporting
the legislation was that if someone was detained for more than a
month and later proved innocent (released without charge or
acquitted), they should get substantial compensation. Ministers
originally resisted this (because of the precedent), but on the day
of the debate the Home Secretary agreed. In return, I voted for the
proposal. If I'd taken the 'outsider' role, the majority would have
been 6 instead of 8 but with no safeguard. As it was, I think it did
more good to get the safeguard accepted.

I must say that I don't really like the way the system works - I'd
rather that there was more leeway for occasional voting dissent
without losing influence. But we have to operate in British politics
as it is, and MPs of all parties have the identical choice.
Obviously, if a party consistently ignores your advice and constantly
does things you think are wrong, there comes a point where you change
roles, first heading for the garage and maybe later leaving
altogether. But I think the Labour philosophy of mutual support and
cooperation remains a noble one that sometimes goes astray, rather
than one with such fundamental flaws that I would be happier with
another party.

As always, feedback welcome. Where you don't need a personal reply,
please add NNTR ('no need to reply'). If you'd like to come to
Saturday's event to discuss this personally, please let me know.

Best wishes

Nick

Major housing development news/ next newsletter online/ cancer event

30 June 2008

Hi all –

This is mainly to let you know the housing development update news –
there is lots to tell! But first a couple of other things:

1. Next newsletter
------------ --------- --
In the coming weeks, volunteers are kindly going to be delivering my
next newsletter updating people on what I've been doing. However, you
can actually see the whole thing online here:
http://www.broxtowe labour.org/ files/PosPol% 20June%202008. pdf
Feedback welcome! As I try to do most of the time, I've avoided
making any party political points. But the joke's on me in one way –
having put forward a small Print Bill, I see the printer has put the
imprint (saying who it's published by, and that it's funded from the
Communications Allowance) in absolutely tiny print. Sorry about that!
The print version has to go to 40,000 homes. If you're not already
signed up to help deliver it and would like to, I'd be delighted to
hear from you!

2. Cancer research fund-raiser
------------ --------- --------- -------
Garden Party in aid of Cancer Research UK. 5th July at the home of
Kath & David Jenkins, 21A Grasmere Road, Beeston. 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. Cakes, plants, books, bric-a-brac for sale; plus Tombola and
Raffle. Admission £1 (inc. coffee/tea & biscuits).

3. Housing development latest
------------ --------- --------- --------- ----
As promised we had a detailed briefing from Nottingham Regeneration
Limited on Friday – this is the body acting for the eight local
councils who I've been lobbying on your behalf. Highlights:
NRL have recommended REJECTION of these sites of interest to us:
• Watnall/Kimberley/ Nuthall/Moorgree n
• Nuthall A6002 (by the business park)
• Trowell to Cossall
• Chilwell/Bramcote east of Bardills
If this recommendation is adopted, then no major housing development
on these areas is foreseen before 2027 at the earliest (to avoid
constantly revisiting the same issues).
They have RECOMMENDED for short-listing these sites for possible
housing development between now and 2026:
• North of Stapleford up to the ridge, running along Coventry
Lane up to Bilborough College (3800-5700 homes by 2026)
• West of Bardills and Stapleford Lane, the space behind George
Spencer running down to the sewage works (1400-1900 homes)
• Toton Sidings, the area previously considered for the sleeper-
crushing factory (600-800 homes)
Also on the short list are huge sites in Rushcliffe (Clifton Pastures
alone to get 7500 homes with the emphasis on affordable housing) and
Ashfield and Stanton Ironworks. The expectation is that the total
anticipated need over the next 18 years (including current waiting
lists) will be about 3000 homes a year, though in view of the current
climate in the housing market it's expected that this will start very
slowly and speed up later. Two thirds of that will be covered by
urban development on brownfield sites and use of currently empty
properties in Nottingham City, so we're looking at about 1000/year
for the conurbation around the city, of which Broxtowe's share might
be a few hundred a year. It's therefore likely that about half the
short-listed sites will be rejected at the next stage – they don't
need that much, and some of the sites contradict each other (e.g. I
doubt if Stanton and the area west of Bardills will both get
developed – they'd impact the same road network). It will be up to us
to put the case to see that the right sites are adopted.

What happens next?
• The full report will be online today (Monday) at
www.nottinghamshire .gov.uk/regional spatialstrategy. htm
• Next month, we should get confirmation of the demographic
estimate of the total needed by 2026, and also the City's estimate of
how many they expect to be able to provide
• The councils will draw up a paper by the autumn identifying
pros and cons of each possible site. Any input on this that you'd
like to give me will be assembled and submitted to the councils.
• There will then be a formal consultation on which sites
should be taken forward.
• The councils will attempt to agree on a joint recommendation
next spring.
• There will then be a final round of consultation on that
• If it's approved, it will form the framework for council
planning frameworks and individual planning applications in the years
to come.

I'm very pleased that we were able to get several very controversial
sites excluded in the first round. This is exactly what I hoped for
when lobbying NRL earlier than most MPs: I know how these things
work, and it's always better to nip schemes in the bud if possible.
At the Friday discussion, the gigantic Rushcliffe scheme passed
without comment, since Rushcliffe's MP wasn't there and hadn't
lobbied NRL. He'll get the chance at a later stage, but it's harder
if they've not heard the objections at an early point.
What about the three schemes left in our area? The most controversial
is undoubtedly the one north of Stapleford along Coventry Lane. This
would overturn the findings of the Planning Inspector of a few years
ago, and consume a very large green area: I expect to oppose it
strongly – apart from the landtake itself, I don't see where all the
extra traffic will go. If it goes north it will run into the Nuthall
roundabout; if it goes south it hits the A52: both are already
congested. The proposal west of Bardills is also likely to meet
opposition, as it's a popular walking area. By contrast, I suspect
there will be quite a few people who see advantages in the Toton
Sidings idea – if housing is built there, it prevents another noisy
commercial project from being proposed in the future. Access to this
would be from the long Eaton side, so the usual reservations about
traffic probably don't arise.
We have a few months before the next stage, and before submitting
detailed comments, I want to consult constituents about these
proposals.
As always, comments welcome on both housing issues and my
newsletter – because of the usual pressure of work, "NNTR" ("no need
to reply") notes will be welcome where you think it appropriate!

Best wishes

Nick

Watnall site reportedly ruled out

08 June 2008

Hi all

An update on the housing development proposals: it looks as though
the huge site at Watnall/Nuthall has been ruled out. Following the
meeting with Nottingham Regeneration Limited (NRL) which I mentioned
last time, I'm informed that their report will be finalised and
published next week, and presented to MPs and planning chiefs next
Friday.

I understand that the Watnall site has been found to be unsuitable,
based on the reasons which I raised with NRL on your behalf: the loss
of Green Belt, the impact on wildlife, the limited local facilities,
and above all the impact on the traffic network. The brief for the
consultants was to find suitable "sustainable urban extensions", a
key criterion for which is to have good communications with the city
centre, and that simply wouldn't be possible if thousands of
additional cars were plonked down in Watnall.

We need to make the small reservation that this is based on a draft,
and the final report is still being written for next week, but it
looks promising. It's rumoured that other sites have not yet been
ruled out, but I'd like to wait until we have firm information before
setting any hares running on that.

I gather that the Conservatives have swiftly put out a press release
claiming all the credit. I don't want to be rude, but this is pretty
silly, since lots of people will remember what actually happened. I
alerted residents to the proposal and NRL's refusal to talk to
elected representatives, and asked people to write to NRL, to urge
them to listen to us. Over 2000 people did so, either directly or
through me, and we collectively put a huge number of concrete issues.
Ms Soubry for the Conservatives sarcastically dismissed the focus on
NRL as a 'red herring' and said people should write to the local
council - the point being that it enabled her to have a go at the
LibDems (who lead the council).

The NRL study has now rejected the site. I think lobbying NRL has
proved to be a good idea, and it would be nice if those who opposed
doing that just shared in the pleasure at the outcome, rather than
trying to play party games. Better still, they could work with me on
a non-partisan basis in defending the other sites.

I'll make a single political point of my own: when we have an
election, a question I'll be asking is this: do you want an MP who
works effectively on your behalf, or an MP whose first instinct is
always to look for a party political angle? There is more to life
than party politics, and sometimes it's better to concentrate on
getting a result for perople who depend on you.

Best wishes

Nick

What should we do about fuel? / Should we vote for 42 days? / housing /arts show

19 June 2008

Hi all

A few local things first, then I thought it might be helpful to
discuss the issues around fuel costs and the 42-day detention issue
(which will be voted on this Wednesday).

1. Development controversy – next stage
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --

The Chair and Chief Executive of Nottingham Regeneration Ltd came to
brief me on the progress of the assessment being done on potential
development sites. It's now expected to finish in early July, but
there will be a preliminary presentation to planning officers of the
seven participating council on June 18, chaired by Broxtowe's Chief
Executive, Ruth Hyde. I talked to Ms Hyde about having a further
presentation for elected MPs and councillors immediately afterwards,
and she's consulting on that: I hope to be able to report more about
the trend of the findings later this month.

The study is expected to rule out some sites are clearly unsuitable,
and I hope that all the input that I've been passing on from so many
of you will help in that. For other sites, the pros and cons as they
see them will be identified, and the councils will then need to start
a public consultation after identifying the key alternative options
and issues that arise. For example, if they decided that one of the
proposed sites near the Nuthall roundabout was worth further
consideration, they'd need to address the issue of traffic – would
they budget for additional side-roads to avoid the roundabout,
improvements to the roundabout, or propose to just accept more
congestion? And what about noise, infrastructure, wildlife, and so on?

Based on the consultation over the alternatives, the councils will
then come up with a plan for the whole conurbation, which will then
have a further round of consultation before being finalised and
leading into individual planning proposals. While I don't know more
than this at the moment, I'm on the case and hope to be able to
report further soon.

2. Beeston Arts Festival
------------ --------- --------- ---

Local artists have banded together to do a joint festival on Saturday
June 21 at the Pearson Centre in Nuart Street from 10 to 5. There
will be demonstrations of artists at work in oils and watercolour,
workshops and activities for children, and of course lots of art to
look at. It's free and there are refreshments. It will be followed
the next day by an Open Studios Trail, which is designed to work like
a garden trail event – you get (for £2) a list of studios to visit
and see the artists in their lairs, so to speak. I've agreed to open
the Saturday event at 11, and hope to see some of you there. Contact
rita.mitchell@ ntlworld. com for details or just turn up on the day.
I have a picture of Beeston in my Westminster office from the
predecessor event that the council has run in previous years, and
that had a sad little postscript this week. The artist's sister wrote
from America to say that the artist, Ron Vango, had died a few years
ago, and she wondered if the family could have a copy of the
Christmas card that year, which featured the picture, as a memento.
I'm not sure the council has any of the cards left – do any of you
have one that you wouldn't mind giving up for the family? I offered
to return the picture, but the Ron was apparently quite chuffed to
have it in Westminster, so the family think it should stay there.

3. Soaring fuel costs – what can be done?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --

The issue that comes up most when I canvass at the moment is the
soaring cost of petrol, with an unpleasant prospect for fuel bills
this winter as well. A few short-term and longer-term comments:

• The big issue about fuel used to be the tax on it, but after
several years of near-freeze this has been outstripped by the import
cost (around 50p of the £1.20ish that you pay at the pumps is duty).
There isn't much we can do in the short term about the import cost,
but if the current high price continues or rises further, I suspect
the 2p duty rise scheduled for the autumn will be cancelled.
• What is happening is that the `terms of trade' have moved
sharply against the developed world as fuel demand outstrips supply,
and we are collectively poorer, but the pain is being inflicted
disproportionately on drivers and people on low incomes who need to
heat their homes a lot. That's why there's a good case for freezing
the duty even though there are environmental reasons to curb fuel
use: people are really suffering from the rises.
• There are a couple of myths circulating. One is that fuel
prices in Britain are higher than on the Continent. In fact, we are
currently 9th in Europe for unleaded petrol (we are 2nd highest for
diesel, because we require it to be ultra-low sulphur), and most
countries are in the same bracket (for obvious reasons – if one was
much cheaper, people would transport their fuel over the border).
• Another myth is that the Treasury gets a windfall gain from
VAT on the higher price. The reason this doesn't happen is that we
don't actually get richer if petrol prices go up, so if we spend more
on petrol we spend less on, say, furniture or CDs. As there's the
same VAT on nearly everything, it simply balances out, with no net
gain or loss.
• In the longer term, we simply must reduce our dependence on
oil and gas. It used to be a debate between what was cheap and what
was prudent and what was environmental – now all three things are
pointing in the same direction. I've never met anyone who favoured
expanding *both* more renewables and new nuclear – people have got
into campaign mode for one or the other as though they were mutually
exclusive. But I actually think we need to do both, as quickly as we
can. Government policy is to get to 15% of energy usage from
renewables by 2020 (currently 3%), which means essentially a lot more
wind farms, the Severn barrage and a push for solar, photovoltaic and
combined heat and power.
• We also need to get serious about saving energy. At present,
nearly all the funding for this is going into Warm Front. Under this,
the Government helps people on pensions and low incomes to insulate
their homes and modernise their heating systems – this keeps them
warmer, reduces their bills and cuts energy use. But there's scope
for much more support for people willing to invest in solar energy
and other renewable home improvements. We also need to be tougher on
unnecessary energy use – e.g. shops that keep the lights on all
night, so passers-by can admire the goods at 2am!

4. 42 days?
------------ --
I'm encountering a lot of uncertainty over what is actually being
proposed, so let me quickly run through my understanding of it.
At present, if I'm suspected of a terrorist offence, I can be
detained for up to 28 days without charge, while the police search my
home, study my computer, investigate my links with others, and so on.
Every week, they have to persuade a judge in a fresh hearing that it
would be dangerous to release me and they are genuinely making
progress. If they've not reached the point at 28 days where they can
charge me with a good chance of success in court, they must release
me. So far, only a small number of cases have reached 28 days: the
suspects were then released.
There is an exception to the 28-day rule. In extreme cases
(e.g. a conspiracy sets off simultaneous bombs in ten towns at once),
the Government can declare a national emergency. Detention is then
allowed for 56 days without charge.
What we are debating this week is introducing something halfway
between those two. It would allow in effect allow 42 days for a local
emergency for a particular set of suspects. The Government would need:

• Agreement by the Home Secretary and Director of Public
Prosecutions that there is a "grave, exceptional threat", defined as
terrorism that threatens the serious loss of human life or serious
damage to human welfare in Britain, or to the security of the UK.
This may involve the disruption of energy supplies or the transport
network in Britain, or mass killing outside Britain (e.g. if we had
foreknowledge of something like 9/11 or the Madrid bombings).

• Independent legal advice that it was urgently needed

• Approval of Parliament

• Weekly approval by a judge for the additional two weeks

If all these conditions were satisfied, then for a period of one
month the police would be allowed to question the suspects for up to
two further weeks (42 days instead of 28) before charge. After that,
the emergency would automatically lapse and if the police wanted to
do it again they'd need the whole process to be repeated.
What are the criticisms of this?

• If the police know they've got more time, might they not
simply use it when they aren't really making progress, spinning out
the process in the hope of getting confessions?

• While most of us could get back to normal life after a month
in detention, six weeks is pushing it: will you still have a job,
what will have happened to your mortgage?

• What if the alleged plot relates to somewhere like Darfur or
Iran where rmed factions conspire against each other: won't the
police get sucked into lengthy investigations of foreign conflicts on
dubious evidence from one side or the other?

• Might the police not use the powers disproportionately
against groups who are active politically but not violent, like
supporters of extreme parties?

I've been reserving my position up to now, as I wanted to see
convincing safeguards against misuse. It seems to me that the current
package is now so carefully-framed that I could accept 42 days under
the exceptional circumstances described (and yes, if I had a relative
myself who was suspected of a plot threatening the massive loss of
life, I'd accept that a 42-day investigation was proportionate) . I've
been trying to add to the package improved compensation agreed for
people who are detained for up to 42 days and then released or
acquitted: that would, I think, take a lot of the force out of the
concerns.
It's been suggested that this is all a political scheme
to `look tough' and embarrass the Conservative Party. I don't think
so – the people I talk to are agonised and serious. Moreover, nobody
forced the Conservatives to oppose it, and frankly I think they are
themselves playing politics over the issue. If they were in
Government, I suspect their objections would disappear – they simply
see it as a way to have a go at Gordon Brown.
What will happen? It'll probably get through the Commons, and
then be bounced by the Conservative- LibDem majority in the Lords. It
will then go back and forth until some sort of compromise is reached
(35 days?) or one side gives in.
As always, feedback welcome!

Best regards,

Nick

previous newsletters >>