Gary's News and views
Gary writes a weekly article which appears in the Plympton Plymstock and Ivybridge News in South West Devon. The articles are published here.
Thursday 31 October 2013
LISTENING AND LEARNING
One of the reasons I enjoy chairing debates at Westminster is that you learn a lot. When speaking in a debate you tend to focus on your own remarks and ignore points made by others. Just the way it is.
But in the chair you have to listen to every word. This Tuesday I presided over a debate about whether the government should formally recognise and compensate the British nuclear test veterans. Listening to the arguments was a reminder of how the world has changed. In the 1950's while nuclear power was little understood a number of controlled explosions were conducted by the British Government in the south pacific to help us develop the technology. Several servicemen were witnesses to these explosions without any proper protection. I gather some of them were just dressed in shorts, albeit from some distance away. The issue remains whether they or their families should now receive extra help in relation to any medical conditions caused by levels of ionising radiation.
There have been three specialist reports on this matter commissioned by various governments between 1983 and 2003. None of them have shown that the incidence of cancer in the group exposed to these experiments was greater than in a matched control group. In other words the cases of cancer type illnesses (which might be brought on by radiation) were no higher in this group than other people of their age. Because of this no specific compensation scheme has ever been set up. Our Supreme Court also looked at this matter and agreed that the veterans had not established any harm caused to them and found in favour of the MOD.
The issue that the MP campaigning on behalf of the veterans tried to establish was that the next generation of these veterans lived in fear of some kind of cancer being passed down the generation because of radiation. However, it does not seem that there is any evidence for this and without that there is no basis for taxpayer's funds to be used to provide extra compensation.
Although we are all sympathetic to the lack of protection afforded to these brave servicemen in a very different age, unless evidence of a causal link between illness and the bomb blasts can be established, I think the government is right to hold firm. Our support for veterans is crucial, but extra help must be based on clear evidence. Nonetheless a very interesting debate.
One of the reasons I enjoy chairing debates at Westminster is that you learn a lot. When speaking in a debate you tend to focus on your own remarks and ignore points made by others. Just the way it is.
But in the chair you have to listen to every word. This Tuesday I presided over a debate about whether the government should formally recognise and compensate the British nuclear test veterans. Listening to the arguments was a reminder of how the world has changed. In the 1950's while nuclear power was little understood a number of controlled explosions were conducted by the British Government in the south pacific to help us develop the technology. Several servicemen were witnesses to these explosions without any proper protection. I gather some of them were just dressed in shorts, albeit from some distance away. The issue remains whether they or their families should now receive extra help in relation to any medical conditions caused by levels of ionising radiation.
There have been three specialist reports on this matter commissioned by various governments between 1983 and 2003. None of them have shown that the incidence of cancer in the group exposed to these experiments was greater than in a matched control group. In other words the cases of cancer type illnesses (which might be brought on by radiation) were no higher in this group than other people of their age. Because of this no specific compensation scheme has ever been set up. Our Supreme Court also looked at this matter and agreed that the veterans had not established any harm caused to them and found in favour of the MOD.
The issue that the MP campaigning on behalf of the veterans tried to establish was that the next generation of these veterans lived in fear of some kind of cancer being passed down the generation because of radiation. However, it does not seem that there is any evidence for this and without that there is no basis for taxpayer's funds to be used to provide extra compensation.
Although we are all sympathetic to the lack of protection afforded to these brave servicemen in a very different age, unless evidence of a causal link between illness and the bomb blasts can be established, I think the government is right to hold firm. Our support for veterans is crucial, but extra help must be based on clear evidence. Nonetheless a very interesting debate.
posted by Gary @ 09:26
Thursday 24 October 2013
HOT TOPIC - IMMIGRATION
One of the stormy issues we have debated in Parliament this week is the Immigration Bill which introduces a whole range of measures designed to tighten up the rules on inward migration and making it easier to remove people from our shores.
I strongly support the right to remove people who have committed a criminal offence from the UK even if a human rights action is brought and also cutting down on the interminable appeals of would-be migrants. There will also be other measures designed to flush out illegal immigrants as well as defray of the cost of using the NHS.
It is difficult to do much about migrants joining us from other EU countries as the right to live and work in any EU country is very much part of the deal, although we are reviewing access to benefits. No doubt this will be uppermost in many people's minds when we come to vote on EU membership in 2017.
Policy on immigration 15 years or so ago was short-sighted. There was a deliberate attempt, now well documented, to bring people to this country to help us to grow the economy while keeping wage inflation low. Immigration has always been part of our history and has brought many benefits and still does, but it must be balanced and controlled if we are to maintain public confidence. Our systems should always treat people with respect, but we must place a higher price on social cohesion and preserving our British culture.
The coalition government has done well since 2010 in reducing net migration by a third, but we realise that there is much more to do, hence the bill this week. All European countries are facing the pressure of people seeking a better quality of life for themselves and their children; it is not just the UK. This pressure is unlikely to go away in the short term, and this is one reason why I support targeted overseas aid, to help developing countries put in place minimum standards in their own countries so fewer people will seek to come to Europe.
Immigration is probably the hottest topic in my e-postbag with dozens of constituents every week expressing views on this with varying degrees of despondency. If mainstream parties do not grip this, with reason and force, we will leave open a gaping hole in our political space which more extreme parties will seek to fill. And then heaven help us.
One of the stormy issues we have debated in Parliament this week is the Immigration Bill which introduces a whole range of measures designed to tighten up the rules on inward migration and making it easier to remove people from our shores.
I strongly support the right to remove people who have committed a criminal offence from the UK even if a human rights action is brought and also cutting down on the interminable appeals of would-be migrants. There will also be other measures designed to flush out illegal immigrants as well as defray of the cost of using the NHS.
It is difficult to do much about migrants joining us from other EU countries as the right to live and work in any EU country is very much part of the deal, although we are reviewing access to benefits. No doubt this will be uppermost in many people's minds when we come to vote on EU membership in 2017.
Policy on immigration 15 years or so ago was short-sighted. There was a deliberate attempt, now well documented, to bring people to this country to help us to grow the economy while keeping wage inflation low. Immigration has always been part of our history and has brought many benefits and still does, but it must be balanced and controlled if we are to maintain public confidence. Our systems should always treat people with respect, but we must place a higher price on social cohesion and preserving our British culture.
The coalition government has done well since 2010 in reducing net migration by a third, but we realise that there is much more to do, hence the bill this week. All European countries are facing the pressure of people seeking a better quality of life for themselves and their children; it is not just the UK. This pressure is unlikely to go away in the short term, and this is one reason why I support targeted overseas aid, to help developing countries put in place minimum standards in their own countries so fewer people will seek to come to Europe.
Immigration is probably the hottest topic in my e-postbag with dozens of constituents every week expressing views on this with varying degrees of despondency. If mainstream parties do not grip this, with reason and force, we will leave open a gaping hole in our political space which more extreme parties will seek to fill. And then heaven help us.
posted by Gary @ 13:20
Thursday 17 October 2013
FREEDOM, LAW AND ORDER
I have sometimes been known to moan about the performance of police forces in this country, especially the Metropolitan Police. I do think that something went awry 20 years or so ago in police leadership leaving us with too many risk-adverse politically-correct technophobe forces that leaked like sieves and performed badly.
This seems to be well on the way to being corrected. The necessary changes to all public sector working arrangements and pensions have been a challenge but recent policing trends are positive. Policing is a dangerous and difficult task and it is vital that public respect and confidence are maintained.
The involvement in the tragic Madeleine McCann case is a timely reminder that warts and all the specialist police forces in the United Kingdom are more than a match for other forces throughout Europe and probably the world. The initial investigations by the Portuguese police were obviously bungled. It certainly gives me confidence to see officers from Scotland Yard now exploring fresh evidence.
Paradoxically, it might be technology that has helped put policing in the UK back on the front foot. The advent of DNA analysis and the fact that phone records leave a trace has enabled a new generation of forensic types to be recruited to track down and capture the terrorist and the petty criminal alike. The expansion of Close Circuit TV and the retention of historic footage online rather than on clumsy video tapes have made a real difference. Although criminal masterminds will always try to be one step ahead, it does seem that technology at the moment is giving our law enforcement officers an advantage, however temporary.
This brings into debate the discussions about essential freedoms and the prospect of a Big Brother society, and of course we have to be careful. Over the years I have heard a lot of views on this and have no doubt where the balance of opinion lays in my constituency.
People want to be safe. The vast majority of us have nothing to hide, indeed our lives are sailing close to being boring. They want the police to have every tool that technology allows to catch the mindless idiots who break into our homes, steal from shops and attack others on the street.
This is why confidence in our police officers is crucial. We want them to have powerful weapons to protect us and we need to know we can trust them. We are getting there.
I have sometimes been known to moan about the performance of police forces in this country, especially the Metropolitan Police. I do think that something went awry 20 years or so ago in police leadership leaving us with too many risk-adverse politically-correct technophobe forces that leaked like sieves and performed badly.
This seems to be well on the way to being corrected. The necessary changes to all public sector working arrangements and pensions have been a challenge but recent policing trends are positive. Policing is a dangerous and difficult task and it is vital that public respect and confidence are maintained.
The involvement in the tragic Madeleine McCann case is a timely reminder that warts and all the specialist police forces in the United Kingdom are more than a match for other forces throughout Europe and probably the world. The initial investigations by the Portuguese police were obviously bungled. It certainly gives me confidence to see officers from Scotland Yard now exploring fresh evidence.
Paradoxically, it might be technology that has helped put policing in the UK back on the front foot. The advent of DNA analysis and the fact that phone records leave a trace has enabled a new generation of forensic types to be recruited to track down and capture the terrorist and the petty criminal alike. The expansion of Close Circuit TV and the retention of historic footage online rather than on clumsy video tapes have made a real difference. Although criminal masterminds will always try to be one step ahead, it does seem that technology at the moment is giving our law enforcement officers an advantage, however temporary.
This brings into debate the discussions about essential freedoms and the prospect of a Big Brother society, and of course we have to be careful. Over the years I have heard a lot of views on this and have no doubt where the balance of opinion lays in my constituency.
People want to be safe. The vast majority of us have nothing to hide, indeed our lives are sailing close to being boring. They want the police to have every tool that technology allows to catch the mindless idiots who break into our homes, steal from shops and attack others on the street.
This is why confidence in our police officers is crucial. We want them to have powerful weapons to protect us and we need to know we can trust them. We are getting there.
posted by Gary @ 08:47
Thursday 10 October 2013
DIFFICULT DECISIONS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Predicting the future is a mug's game, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that local authorities are going to have to make some tough decisions in the next few months if they are to come up with credible budgets.
I make no apology for confirming that the government is cutting grants to local councils. It really has no option. The government is still spending £110 billion this year more than we are getting in, all of which it has to borrow. We have tough plans to gradually reduce this annual deficit by 2017 and after that we will start to attack the vast mountain of debt that will by then make Mount Everest look like a mole hill. Reality check: whichever party wins the 2015 election, spending by government including local government is going to have to decline. Even though the economy is picking up, the black hole in our finances will take years to repair.
I have had meetings with Devon, Plymouth and South Hams councils in recent days. All of them are struggling to cope with unprecedented grant reductions from central government. This is making every council look long and hard at what services they will have to cut, reduce or deliver differently. This can be a valuable exercise in itself, but we should be under no allusions. There will be some difficult outcomes.
Residential homes run by local authorities may have to be transferred to the private sector. Youth activities may have to be run by the community. School transport budgets will come under the microscope. The maintenance of our roads might take another hit. How we access council services will have to be stream-lined and maximum use of technology will have to be made. Councils will have to decide what services they can support and what they have to cut.
These difficult decisions will be for elected councillors to take.
We are entering a brave new world, where, through financial necessity, the state is going to become smaller. This means that if we are to properly care for the most vulnerable in the midst, the citizen, the community, must become stronger. This will be a test of our unselfish natures. It is an opportunity for the faith communities and charitable sector. It will require a change of mindset: the state cannot do everything.
I have no doubt that in our part of the world we will respond to the challenge.
Predicting the future is a mug's game, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that local authorities are going to have to make some tough decisions in the next few months if they are to come up with credible budgets.
I make no apology for confirming that the government is cutting grants to local councils. It really has no option. The government is still spending £110 billion this year more than we are getting in, all of which it has to borrow. We have tough plans to gradually reduce this annual deficit by 2017 and after that we will start to attack the vast mountain of debt that will by then make Mount Everest look like a mole hill. Reality check: whichever party wins the 2015 election, spending by government including local government is going to have to decline. Even though the economy is picking up, the black hole in our finances will take years to repair.
I have had meetings with Devon, Plymouth and South Hams councils in recent days. All of them are struggling to cope with unprecedented grant reductions from central government. This is making every council look long and hard at what services they will have to cut, reduce or deliver differently. This can be a valuable exercise in itself, but we should be under no allusions. There will be some difficult outcomes.
Residential homes run by local authorities may have to be transferred to the private sector. Youth activities may have to be run by the community. School transport budgets will come under the microscope. The maintenance of our roads might take another hit. How we access council services will have to be stream-lined and maximum use of technology will have to be made. Councils will have to decide what services they can support and what they have to cut.
These difficult decisions will be for elected councillors to take.
We are entering a brave new world, where, through financial necessity, the state is going to become smaller. This means that if we are to properly care for the most vulnerable in the midst, the citizen, the community, must become stronger. This will be a test of our unselfish natures. It is an opportunity for the faith communities and charitable sector. It will require a change of mindset: the state cannot do everything.
I have no doubt that in our part of the world we will respond to the challenge.
posted by Gary @ 09:19
Wednesday 9 October 2013
DIFFICULT DECISIONS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Predicting the future is a mug's game, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that local authorities are going to have to make some tough decisions in the next few months if they are to come up with credible budgets.
I make no apology for confirming that the government is cutting grants to local councils. It really has no option. The government is still spending £110 billion this year more than we are getting in, all of which it has to borrow. We have tough plans to gradually reduce this annual deficit by 2017 and after that we will start to attack the vast mountain of debt that will by then make Mount Everest look like a mole hill. Reality check: whichever party wins the 2015 election, spending by government including local government is going to have to decline. Even though the economy is picking up, the black hole in our finances will take years to repair.
I have had meetings with Devon, Plymouth and South Hams councils in recent days. All of them are struggling to cope with unprecedented grant reductions from central government. This is making every council look long and hard at what services they will have to cut, reduce or deliver differently. This can be a valuable exercise in itself, but we should be under no allusions. There will be some difficult outcomes.
Residential homes run by local authorities may have to be transferred to the private sector. Youth activities may have to be run by the community. School transport budgets will come under the microscope. The maintenance of our roads might take another hit. How we access council services will have to be stream-lined and maximum use of technology will have to be made. Councils will have to decide what services they can support and what they have to cut.
These difficult decisions will be for elected councillors to take.
We are entering a brave new world, where, through financial necessity, the state is going to become smaller. This means that if we are to properly care for the most vulnerable in the midst, the citizen, the community, must become stronger. This will be a test of our unselfish natures. It is an opportunity for the faith communities and charitable sector. It will require a change of mindset: the state cannot do everything.
I have no doubt that in our part of the world we will respond to the challenge.
Predicting the future is a mug's game, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that local authorities are going to have to make some tough decisions in the next few months if they are to come up with credible budgets.
I make no apology for confirming that the government is cutting grants to local councils. It really has no option. The government is still spending £110 billion this year more than we are getting in, all of which it has to borrow. We have tough plans to gradually reduce this annual deficit by 2017 and after that we will start to attack the vast mountain of debt that will by then make Mount Everest look like a mole hill. Reality check: whichever party wins the 2015 election, spending by government including local government is going to have to decline. Even though the economy is picking up, the black hole in our finances will take years to repair.
I have had meetings with Devon, Plymouth and South Hams councils in recent days. All of them are struggling to cope with unprecedented grant reductions from central government. This is making every council look long and hard at what services they will have to cut, reduce or deliver differently. This can be a valuable exercise in itself, but we should be under no allusions. There will be some difficult outcomes.
Residential homes run by local authorities may have to be transferred to the private sector. Youth activities may have to be run by the community. School transport budgets will come under the microscope. The maintenance of our roads might take another hit. How we access council services will have to be stream-lined and maximum use of technology will have to be made. Councils will have to decide what services they can support and what they have to cut.
These difficult decisions will be for elected councillors to take.
We are entering a brave new world, where, through financial necessity, the state is going to become smaller. This means that if we are to properly care for the most vulnerable in the midst, the citizen, the community, must become stronger. This will be a test of our unselfish natures. It is an opportunity for the faith communities and charitable sector. It will require a change of mindset: the state cannot do everything.
I have no doubt that in our part of the world we will respond to the challenge.
posted by Gary @ 11:50
Thursday 3 October 2013
PLANNING - CHANGING WITH THE TIMES
All landscapes change over time as technology and social practices develop. The canals were originally built as an in-land transport system for heavy cargo. Then the railways came along and canals fell into disuse and now they are used primarily for leisure.
Along came Dr Beeching and many old railway lines are now used by walkers and cyclists, and our countryside is scarred instead by massive motorways. No doubt the M5 will one day be supplanted by whatever comes next. We adapt.
Never more so than in retail since the Second World War. The advent of out of town shopping centres which are so convenient and offer enormous choice and value for money has put a huge dent in the high street, especially in secondary shopping locations, like Plympton and Plymstock and Ivybridge. And just when you sense the high street might be making a bit of a comeback, along comes internet shopping. Wallop. My children hardly ever go to a shop these days. They order everything on line and it is brought the next day by the postman or a white van.
How should we respond? One way is to make sure our town centres are as attractive as possible and offer other tempting delights to augment the shopping experience. We are trying to do this in Ivybridge through the Town Team which will be unveiling its plans shortly.
But we should also not try and resist the irresistible. King Canute got his feet wet. We should enable our planning system to reflect modern realities. For example, who among us think that those five empty units on the ground floor of the McCarthy and Stone building on the Ridgeway will ever be used for retail again? We should allow them to be turned into residential units forthwith. We need more single bedroom units.
When I walk from my London flat to the House of Commons at 7.20 a.m. and back again at 10.20 p.m. (got the message?) I walk past several office blocks being converted into residential flats. With the advent of technology we simply do not need as many offices any more. So the landscape is necessarily adapting.
There are advantages in having people living in our town centres, as certainly needs to happen in the centre of Plymouth.
Paradoxically, their increased footfall can help keep the high street healthy.
The planning system must be flexible enough to reflect the need to adapt as society changes.
All landscapes change over time as technology and social practices develop. The canals were originally built as an in-land transport system for heavy cargo. Then the railways came along and canals fell into disuse and now they are used primarily for leisure.
Along came Dr Beeching and many old railway lines are now used by walkers and cyclists, and our countryside is scarred instead by massive motorways. No doubt the M5 will one day be supplanted by whatever comes next. We adapt.
Never more so than in retail since the Second World War. The advent of out of town shopping centres which are so convenient and offer enormous choice and value for money has put a huge dent in the high street, especially in secondary shopping locations, like Plympton and Plymstock and Ivybridge. And just when you sense the high street might be making a bit of a comeback, along comes internet shopping. Wallop. My children hardly ever go to a shop these days. They order everything on line and it is brought the next day by the postman or a white van.
How should we respond? One way is to make sure our town centres are as attractive as possible and offer other tempting delights to augment the shopping experience. We are trying to do this in Ivybridge through the Town Team which will be unveiling its plans shortly.
But we should also not try and resist the irresistible. King Canute got his feet wet. We should enable our planning system to reflect modern realities. For example, who among us think that those five empty units on the ground floor of the McCarthy and Stone building on the Ridgeway will ever be used for retail again? We should allow them to be turned into residential units forthwith. We need more single bedroom units.
When I walk from my London flat to the House of Commons at 7.20 a.m. and back again at 10.20 p.m. (got the message?) I walk past several office blocks being converted into residential flats. With the advent of technology we simply do not need as many offices any more. So the landscape is necessarily adapting.
There are advantages in having people living in our town centres, as certainly needs to happen in the centre of Plymouth.
Paradoxically, their increased footfall can help keep the high street healthy.
The planning system must be flexible enough to reflect the need to adapt as society changes.
posted by Gary @ 09:35