Politicians Should Be Judged By Their Actions and Not Their Words

Councillor Brian Parnell: Unlike Labour Conservatives Have Budgeted Free Bus Travel Across Hampshire for Southampton Pensioners

The local elections have started in earnest!

I have been reading some of the literature that Labour candidates in the city are distributing.

Some of the claims beggar belief!

In particular Labour are deeply critical of the Lib Dem run council. They even claim that the Conservatives are in alliance with Lib Dems locally.

A few facts for people to consider:

1. Labour were an unmitigated disaster when they ran the city.
2. Whilst they are making all sorts of promises at election time they were unable to deliver the things they promise when the ran the city. Also they didn't budget for the majority of things that they are now promising when they put forward the budget proposals for the city (e.g. extra road repairs, free bus travel for pensioners across Hampshire, kerbside collection of glass)
3. The reason the Lib Dems are currently in power in Southampton is that Labour voted to put them in office in May 2006!

Supporting Families in Southampton

On Monday Councillors Gavin Dick, Brian Parnell and I visited one of Southampton's 3 family centres. We spent a morning at the centre in Derby Road talking with staff about the sorts of issues that they deal with.

We were enormously impressed at the amazing work done with vulnerable children and families with dealing with problems such as drink, drugs issues or violence.

Talking with staff was extremely educational and we met a number of really dedicated people.

I am amazed that Labour in last month's budget setting meeting at the city council wanted close this or one of the other centres.

Family breakdown is a huge problem in this country and Southampton certainly has it's fair share of difficulties. We have to support parents and where children are in danger act to protect them.

Southampton Strategic Services Partnership

Last Wednesday there was a very important Council Meeting in Southampton. A decision was taken to continue negotiations with the firm CAPITA about a possible deal to transfer to them the administration of a range of council services. This is a very important issue as it affects hundreds of Council staff, involves millions of pounds of public money and is about the delivery of important council services.

For the past 4 years the council has been working on a project to look outsourcing council services such as IT, customer services, HR functions, payroll, property services.

The project was initiated by the Labour Party when they ran Southampton City Council and was subsequently picked up by the Lib Dems when they formed the Administration in 2003. However all political groups have been fully involved in the discussions over the last 4 years.

A range of large companies expressed an interested in running council services and after many months CAPITA has emerged as the final company with which the council will conduct negotiations. A final decision on whether or not to sign a contract will be taken by Councillors in July and if it is decided to proceed, CAPITA will take up the running of some council services in October.

A number of articles have been written on this subject. Conservative Councillor Gavin Dick posted his observations after the meeting. Labour Councillor Matt Stevens wrote a piece before last Wednesday's meeting. Click HERE for the Daily Echo's write up.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted to continue negotiations with CAPITA. Labour voted against.

I have received quite a bit of correspondence on the matter so I will set out my views on the matter.

The Business Case

The first thing to note is that outsourcing in local government is not a new thing and a number of councils have entered into these strategic partnerships and had a great deal of success. For instance Westminster and Liverpool. Southampton is fairly unique in that practically all its services are delivered in house.

Southampton City Council needs to radically improve its customer services. Years of under investment in modern technology and IT systems have meant that the council can’t deliver at the moment the sort of service to its customers that it thinks it should be providing in today’s world.

Moreover the council doesn't have a great deal of choice. The city council is not given sufficient resources by government. Council Tax increases are capped by government at 5% each year. This means it must become more efficient and effective in the way it works. The alternative is the standard of service that is provided falling.

Considerable investment is needed in IT and in process improvement. This investment should over time deliver what the customer wants and also will save money as the council works smarter and more effectively. This money can be put back into providing even better service and value for money.

A deal with CAPITA offers several things:

- Millions of pounds of up front investment
- Provides considerable service improvements which meet the council's aspirations,
- It achieves considerable cost savings and through the process of smoothing savings over the term of the contract and the council will be able to draw on these savings quite quickly.
- It transfers the risk of delivering or not delivering improvements and savings to the partner.

With these things on offer I feel that the SSP will be good for the taxpayer and for those use the council’s services. There are other ways of potentially achieving the same things but I feel that the SSP offers the best route to success.


Staff Concerns

I know that people are worried about their jobs, what the SSP means for them, their families and their futures.

The Conservative Group were certainly very conscious of this and it was very much in our minds when we debated the issues on Wednesday.

We would not support this if we felt that it was going to be a bad deal for staff and for Southampton.

The SSP does not just offer opportunities for council services within the SSP scope.

It is more than that. CAPITA’s aim is to create a regional service hub in Southampton. That means possibly bringing in other councils and other service providers in the region. If successful this will be great for the city economy and will create more jobs. The council and ultimately the local council taxpayer will share in profits from an expanding business. Staff may well have greater employment and development opportunities in such a business.

We therefore all benefit if we can make this work.

It is true that there are no guarantees for staff however that would be the case even if the council didn't pursue the partnership. Staff transferred to CAPITA would have their pensions protected and CAPITA would be granted admitted body status to the Hampshire Pension Fund. This is the fund that council staff in Southampton currently pay into and this is an important safeguard.



The Labour Position

The SSP was originally a project set up by the last Labour administration. The Lib Dems have continued with it and the Conservative Group have gone along providing constructive input but making it clear that we will support a deal only if it is good for Southampton – the taxpayer, staff and those that use council services.

UNISON have come out strongly against the outsourcing move. They have decided that they will encourage strikes and will ask staff to "work to rule" to show their protest. They have also said that they will actively work against political parties that support deal with CAPITA by providing financial assistance to their political opponents in the forthcoming local elections.


Labour have decided to pander to the UNISON position and are also saying that they will try to frustrate and block all moves to appoint CAPITA, encouraging strikes, encouraging staff not to work with the company and issuing threats. The language used by some Labour Councillors in the Council meeting on Wednesday was shocking. Threats of intimidation and strife were reminiscent of the militant left in the 1970s.


It was Labour who started the process of working with a private company with aim of outsourcing council services. However when faced with the eventual decision and hostile unions they have shown their true colours. All the things that Labour were looking for from a deal with a private company are on offer from CAPITA; investment, better services, financial savings and better job prospects for staff. However Labour have turned away from this to cosy up to their financial backers, the trade unions. They are putting themselves first and not Southampton.


The Labour Party are now arguing that the Council should try and achieve savings and service improvements in house. It is possible that the Council could achieve this. CAPITA in my view are more likely to deliver as they will be tied into a contract to deliver services at a set price. They also have the expertise in delivering organisation change and implementing new technologies which will improve services.

Why we should be very wary of the politicians

The biggest reason why I think the council would not deliver the improvements if it went at it alone is the risk posed by interfering politicians. If the Council did it alone it would have to borrow millions of pounds to invest in improvements. It would then have to deliver the savings over the next ten years to justify that investment. In Southampton we have elections every year and the political make up of the council can change annually. This means each year a different political party could be in charge and setting the council's budget. It is too tempting for politicians to change direction if things get tough. The way that Labour have behaved and the language that they have used shows that they absolutely cannot be trusted to see a long term project through.

Council officers recommended that the council proceeds with this deal with CAPITA. We were right to listen to them. By contrast council staff should be very wary of the politicians.

99 Tax Rises

Gordon Brown is due to set his 11th Budget on Wednesday.

If he remains true to form we can expect to set to see his 100th tax rise.

Since 1997 Gordon Brown has raised tax 99 times, mostly by stealth. Here is a list of all the tax hikes he has imposed over the years.


1997
1. Mortgage interest relief cut
2. Pensions tax (payable tax credits abolished)
3. Health insurance taxed (income tax relief abolished)
4. Health insurance taxed again (IPT)
5. Fuel tax escalator up
6. Vehicle Excise Duty up
7. Tobacco duty escalator up
8. Stamp duty up for properties over £250,000
9. Limit carry back of trading losses to one year
10. Dividends on trading assets
11. Taxation of finance leasing
12. New Windfall Tax on utilities
13. Futures and options
14. VAT: cash accounting scheme
1998
15. Married couple’s allowance cut
16. Tax on travel insurance up
17. Tax on casinos and gaming machines up
18. Fuel tax escalator brought forward
19. Tax on company cars up
20. Tax relief for foreign earnings abolished
21. Tax concession for certain professions abolished
22. Capital Gains Tax imposed on certain non-residents
23. Reinvestment relief restricted
24. Corporation Tax payments brought forward and ACT abolished
25. Higher stamp duty rates up
26. Some hydrocarbon duties up
27. Additional diesel duties
28. Landfill Tax up
29. Exceptional increase in tobacco and alcohol duties
30. Amendments to offshore trusts
31. VAT: fuel scale charges
1999
32. NIC earnings limit raised
33. NICs for self-employed up
34. Married Couple’s Allowance abolished
35. Mortgage tax relief abolished
36. IR35: Taxation of personal services companies
37. Company car business mileage allowances restricted
38. Tobacco duty escalator brought forward
39. Insurance Premium Tax up
40. Vocational Training Relief abolished
41. Employer NICs extended to all benefits in kind
42. VAT on some banking services up
43. Premiums paid to tenants by landlords taxed
44. Duty on minor oils up
45. Vehicle Excise Duties for lorries up
46. Landfill tax escalator introduced
47. Higher rates of stamp duty up again
48. Capital gains on sale of companies
49. Controlled Foreign Companies: taxation of dividends
2000
50. Tobacco duties up
51. Higher rates of stamp duty up again
52. Extra taxation of life assurance companies
53. Rules on Controlled Foreign Companies extended
54. Aggregates levy increased
55. Changes to double taxation relief
56. Rent factoring
57. Capital gains tax: use of trusts and offshore companies
58. VAT: capital asset disposals
2001
59. Controlled foreign companies regime
2002
60. Personal allowances frozen
61. National Insurance threshold frozen
62. NICs for employers up
63. NICs for employees up
64. NICs for self-employed up
65. North Sea taxation up
66. Tax on some alcoholic drinks up
67. New stamp duty regime
68. New rules on loan relationships
69. Taxation of foreign company UK branches
2003
70. VAT on electronically supplied services
71. IR35 applied to domestic workers
72. Betting duty change
73. Tax on red diesel and fuel oil up
74. Controlled Foreign Companies measures on Ireland
75. Vehicle excise duty up
76. VAT: on continuous supplies
77. VAT: on privately operated tolls
78. Treatment of options for the purposes of tax on chargeable gains
79. Landfill tax increased
2004
80. Minimum 19% tax rate on distributed profits
81. Transfer pricing and thin capitalisation
82. Increase in rate of tax on trusts
83. Increase in tax on red diesel fuel
84. Increase in tax on other road fuels (including LPG)
85. VAT: transfers of going concern
86. Insurance premium tax: Changes to GAP insurance
87. Taxation of life companies
88. Foreign earnings deduction for seafarers
89. Construction industry scheme
2005
90. Stamp duty land tax: ending commercial disadvantaged areas relief
91. Increase in North Sea corporation tax
92. Further increase in tax on red diesel
93. Increase in taxation of leasing
94. Company car tax up
2006
95. Further changes to oil valuation for tax purposes
96. Stamp duty land tax: ending relief for initial transfers into unit trusts
97. Removal of income tax exemption for loaned computers
98. North Sea Oil tax increased
99. Air Passenger Duty doubled

A Saint Forever

On Saturday night I went to the unveiling ceremony for the statue of Ted Bates MBE at the Southampton Football Club.

The unveiling of the giant bronze statue marked the end of a three year journey by the Ted Bates Trust, raising money to honour 66 years of service to the club by the man who became known as Mr Southampton.

It was a fantastic evening, with the highlights for me being a video of Ted's life set to the music of Alphaville's "Forever Young", as well as a speach by Lawrie McMenemy.

Make Your Home Greener and Save Money!

ConservativeHome carries this story on possible Conservative proposals for reductions in Council Tax for people who have energy efficient homes.

It's very important to use carrots as well as sticks in trying to create a greener environment.

Policies need to be simple though. There is no point if it means creating huge amounts of bureaucracy.

Thoughts on House of Lords Reform

I missed all the news about the House of Lords reform last week as I was on holiday. However I have found it very interesting catching up on all the news in the papers and on the Internet.

I remember reform of the House of Lords being an essay topic when I did A-Level politics. My view then (1994) was that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The mixture of hereditary peers and life peers seemed to work. It provided an effective check on over powerful Governments. It wasn't dominated by the whips and it contained significant expertise. It was an effective revising chamber.

I think given the choices available MPs were probably right to opt for a wholly elected House of Lords. Essentially there were really only 3 choices: 1) a 100% elected chamber 2) a 100% appointed chamber 3) scrap it entirely.

Anything in between really just creates more confusion.

Given all the problems with cash for peerages and the appointment of cronies I think going for an appointed chamber would really be a bad move.

Scrapping it also seems very wrong given the check the House of Lords provides on a powerful Government. There has been significant erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in favour of the Executive over the last ten years. A strongish second chamber seems more relevant than ever.

So that leaves an elected chamber.

An elected chamber brings its own problems though. It means yet more politician and more expense to the over taxed tax payer. It creates a danger that the Lords will attempt to expand its power given is greater legitimacy and this might create parliamentary deadlock (although less legislation may not be a bad thing!). A list system hands a great deal of power to political parties. It will mean the parties chose those most likely to get elected and it means that the whips would tend to dominate.

Dan Hannan made an interesting suggestion on the Direct Democracy website (I think before the actual vote took place). His suggestion was that County Councillors and Unitary Authority Councillors are seconded for periods at a time to serve in the second chamber. Initially this seems like an odd suggestion. Although the more you think about it the more merits it might have. It introduces indirect democracy. It avoids the need for yet more politicians. It introduces a geographical link as each Councillor represents an area of the country. It would mean more independent minded people. Councillors aren't usually career politicians. The whips would be less powerful. It would enhance the prominence of local government and might encourage better people into local politics. You could have the Councillor for each authority selected by lot rather than appointed. It would given smaller parties and independents a voice.

This system would by its nature create a second house of junior importance to the Commons.

Worth a thought.

New College Development Plans

Last night I went to a roadshow organised by Linden Homes about their Plans for developing the former New College Site (La Sainte Union) on the Avenue / corner of Archers Road. Their plans are for large numbers of flats, a few houses, some commercial offices and some sheltered housing.

I met a number of local residents and spoke with Linden Homes and their architects. No formal planning application has been submitted yet and so the plans are still in draft form.

However based on what I have seen so far I have some concerns.

1. Traffic Congestion. Archers Road is terribly congested already. A new development will mean many more vehicles coming and going. Planning permission was recently granted for large numbers of flats the other side of Archers Road on the old nurses / social services site. The proposed new development for New College has 2 points of access on to Archers Road.

2. Parking. If insufficient parking is provided it will mean more cars clogging up the surrounding streets. I was pleased to see that the developer is considering underground parking under the flats and 3 story townhouses with a garage on the bottom level. I would like to see the maximum amount of parking if the development does go ahead.

3. Design. The site is in the Avenue Conservation Area and it borders another conservation area. The developers are looking to protect some of the old buildings however the new buildings that they propose are of a very contemporary design (think Ocean Village). In my mind a development that is in keeping means that the new buildings look similar to existing ones rather than looking completely different.

4. Combined Heat and Power. There is CHP plans in the city centre (the big red building near Toys R US). This is gas turbine power station (previously a geo thermal power station) that heats most of Northern Above Bar. It is considerably more efficient the normal means of providing heat and power and therefore more environmental. A lot of new housing developments in the city centre have linked into the CHP network. Apparently Linden don't intend to use CHP for this development. I have asked why as it seems worthy of proper consideration.

I have mentioned all the above points to Linden Homes and will follow it up with a letter to them.

There is another Roadshow this morning at New College, for those that didn't get a chance to have a look yesterday.

Public Rights of Way And Silverdale Road

A number of people have contacted me over the past week or so about a letter they have had from the Council about Public Rights of Way. All the questions were about Silverdale Road.

I have spoken with the Council about this and below is an explanation.


Council has been doing a review of Rights of Way in the city and is updating its formal documentation and maps.

If a path or cut way has been used over a long period of time by the public it can become a formal right of way whereby people have a right to access it.

The Council has produced some modifications to its official maps. People were given the right to object and then a public enquiry was held last year.

The results of the enquiry then went to the Inspectortate. They made some amendments. It is those amendments that the Council is referring to in its recent letter and which people can comment on. There is a final opportunity to object and objections have to go to the Inspectorate.

Silverdale Road.

Cut through to Hill Lane.
This has been confirmed as a public football and this was upheld by the Inspectorate. People can still object to this if they think that its should not be classified as such and objections need to be made to the Inspectorate by 14th March.

Cut through to Northlands Road (at the back of Grenville Court).
This was not included in the enquiry as The Banister Management Company felt that there was evidence to support that this pathway was not a public right of way and that isn't and hasn’t been treated as one in the past. This path therefore is not being looked at and will not be an official public right of way.