Friday, 24 October 2014

2.1bn euro sex and drugs tax

My first thought on hearing the news this morning was that there are people in the European Commission who would like to guarantee a UKIP gain in Rochester and Strood at the end of the month.

It seems that adjustments to EU budget contributions are made continuously on the basis of recalculations of GDP. Better people than I have commented on the flaws in GDP as a measure of the health of a nation's economy. Further suspicions were raised when I saw which other nations are expected to contribute to the poor suffering Germans and French: Greece, Italy and Spain, the most struggling of EU economies  at present. They just happen (along with ourselves) to have had their GDP estimate boosted by the inclusion of the black economy.

David Cameron has clearly taken the right decision in calling an emergency finance ministers meeting. It would be wrong simply to sulk and refuse to pay without exhaustive discussion of the basis of assessment. There would be precedent for ignoring an EU invoice, though: Germany and France both broke the Stability And Growth Pact in the early years of the century and as far as I know have never stumped up the fine which should have resulted.






Thursday, 23 October 2014

Crossley Motors

This is a small plug for an excellent website celebrating one of the unjustly rather neglected UK vehicle marques. I can remember Crossley buses in service in Manchester and the occasional Crossley saloon in my schooldays. But the history as revealed by Malcolm Asquith is richer than I expected.


Wednesday, 22 October 2014

Some follow-ups

Confirmation of the post about global temperatures: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2014/10/21/2014-headed-warmest-year/

Another cause of the missing income tax referred to in this post, and something I should have remembered from the days when I was in that situation: self-employed tax and company tax returns are made in arrears, and a high proportion of the new employment which has been created since 2010 has been in this sector. We may be looking at January before we see the expected boost in exchequer income - too late for the chancellor's "autumn" statement in December.




Contrast in archiving

The South Wales Guardian reports that the Carmarthenshire archive has been closed to the public because mould has been discovered in their store. I recall that the Guardian's own archive in Ammanford used to be an unordered pile of back issues in a corner of an upstairs room in the main library;

Swansea and Neath have, in spite of financial stringency, maintained a high-grade service to the public and professionals.



Tuesday, 21 October 2014

"The Parliamentary Expulsion Bill"

This is how David Davis MP (Con, Haltemprice and Howden) described the Recall Of MPs Bill (pdf here) as presented to the House of Commons. He sees it as a mechanism for the establishment, via the Standards Committee, to identify members who did not fit in and subject them to recall via a mere 10% of their electorate. ( Lay members are outnumbered ten to three by MPs on the House of Commons Standards Committee.)  Mr Davis is supporting amendments by his party colleague Zac Goldsmith.

Goldsmith himself pointed out that "Recall is not a new or radical idea. It exists in various forms in about 30 countries on five continents, including Poland, Canada, Germany, Japan, India, South Korea, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. It has existed in the US for more than 100 years, and in Switzerland for even longer. It is a good idea - it works - and it is great that the mainstream parties have finally accepted it."

Liberal Democrat Mike Thornton agreed that the Bill was imperfect because if it goes through unamended, the public will see that we are deciding who should be kicked out and who should not. The public must have a way of initiating a recall. However, he felt that Goldsmith's amendments would open the process to political abuse, and were so horrendously long-winded and complicated that the chances of succeeding in getting anyone recalled if they deserved it would be minimal. The process could be dragged out for two years. He was looking for a decent amendment that would give the public a way of initiating a recall.

Tom Brake, the LibDem deputy leader of the House, in summing up for the government confirmed that both the prime minister and Nick Clegg agreed that the Bill could be improved and that they are willing to listen to proposals, while rejecting the particular amendments proposed by Goldsmith.

If you want to make your views known to your MP, have a look at the Unlock Democracy pages.



More investigative resources needed

The government needs to strengthen the teams following up the excellent work by the Canadian authorities in tracking viewers of child pornography, or the public will suspect that the slackening of effort is because the researches are getting close to home.

One recalls rumours surrounding a former north-west MP which were not followed up at the time.


Monday, 20 October 2014

Further devolution - an opportunity for rail transport

In announcing Scotland's next rail franchise, the SNP government's minister for transport, Keith Brown, took the opportunity to criticise the system under which it was awarded. In his statement of 2nd October, he told the Scottish Parliament:

I wish to remind members of the context of railway franchising. As members will recall from my statement earlier this year on the award of the Caledonian sleeper franchise, franchising is a requirement under the Railways Act 1993, and it precludes any UK public sector organisation bidding to operate a railway service. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, that is an unfair restriction that ought to be changed so that private and public sector bidders can compete equally. I have written to three Secretaries of State for Transport to request a change in law and each request has been refused.

Over 13 years, the Labour Administration chose not to widen access to rail franchising to UK public sector organisations, despite having ample opportunity to do so—the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005 are silent on the issue. In fact, the Labour Administration supported franchising and its restrictions. In 2009, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, reassured the House of Commons Transport Committee that

“The evidence so far is that the franchising system has continued to prove its worth.”

I am left to deduce from its legislative silence and its vocal support for franchising that the Labour Administration was clearly happy to leave us operating these patently unfair procedures.

This week, we have started laying the tracks of the Borders railway, but the tracks of the franchising process were laid by Tory and Labour Governments at Westminster.

Earlier this week, I was asked to cancel the franchising process. Doing so might have left us liable for bid costs in excess of £30 million from our five bidders. Members should remember that it cost the Department for Transport more than £50 million for the failure of the west coast franchise, about which Ed Miliband said:

“It is a disgrace that it is going to cost £40m and perhaps more of taxpayers’ money because they have bungled this franchise.”

Nobody in the chamber can guarantee what new powers we will get and on what date, but we know that a delay in the process would be for a number of years. It would be costly and a bad deal for the travelling public, and I am not willing to put at risk the expectations of our passengers or the interests of the taxpayer by playing fast and loose with rail franchising.


There are those, even within the Liberal Democrat party, who see franchising as the only way to introduce private finance into train operating. However, Railfuture's John Rogers offered an alternative when he gave evidence to the Welsh government enterprise and business committee's inquiry last year. He said

We do not yet have full responsibility for rail transport in Wales. I, on behalf of Railfuture Cymru, urge the Government of Wales to do all that it can to get maximum and complete powers over rail transport in Wales, so that it can be planned for the benefit of the nation. It should not be about going cap in hand to Westminster and maybe being rebuffed or bogged down.

and

when we drew up our plan we simply said that, rather like Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—the best example we saw was that of the Republic of Ireland—there should be a vertically integrated not-for-dividend company owned by the Welsh Government, which would appoint the best possible people to run it at arm’s length, but lay down what British Rail did not have, that is, complete cross-party political backing, adequate finance, and some kind of parameters for standards of service, reopening and integrated transport. In Wales, there are so many gaps in the rail network, or what is left of it, we should be considering long-distance bus services, as well as rail, as part of the overall pattern. It is rather sad what is happening with Arriva at the moment. We should be integrating Carmarthen northwards, and Afon Wen to the top and so on. I am open-minded on this. If we have a Government-owned, not-for-dividend, arm’s-length, high-powered, efficient company that the nation can be proud of, which fulfils the criteria that the Government lays down, I am easy on it. It is a matter of getting rid of this tiresome, hideously expensive franchise system.
The committee's final report showed an open mind:

We have listened to arguments for and against the different possible models for managing the next franchise. We are not fixed on any one approach but we agree with some witnesses that the key criterion should be choosing the model that delivers the best outcomes for passengers and taxpayers. The Welsh Government also needs to be clear about how the risks involved in the chosen management model will be managed. A decision on this has to be made by 2015 at the latest.

I suggest that both Scottish and Welsh governments should take advantage of the pressure which the "Better Together" vow has put on Westminster in order to have the Railways Act 1993 amended. If the Treasury wants an example of a viable not-for-dividend company which has invested in infrastructure, they need look no further than Welsh Water.