Gary's views

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:00 +0000

2010
What does 2010 hold for us all? The mystery of life is that we have no way of knowing. We make our plans and resolutions, but events can make mockery of them.
One thing we do know for sure is that we will have a general election. My message on this is simple: please vote. As I constantly tell sixth-formers in regular meetings with them, we must not take our democracy, however imperfect, for granted. We should not assume that because this is Britain, our freedoms will always be with us. If voter turnout continues to dwindle, if we give in to cynicism, we create a vacuum, but it will not stay a vacuum for long. Something unpleasant will fill it.
I accept that 2009 was not a great year for our Parliament. The long running expose of MP's expenses has undermined trust and confidence. But it is sorted now. It was a horrible wake up call and we have responded. We have a new expenses system which is simple and transparent. We have a new independent regulator. A record number of MPs are leaving the House of Commons, some will be prosecuted. Most of us have stayed within the spirit and letter of the rules and are even paying back sums that an independent investigator, applying a different set of rules, has applied retrospectively.
So this dreadful scandal is no longer a reason not to vote. Nor is the argument that all parties are the same. Even if that were true, which it most firmly is not, people still have to select a local MP and I am pleased to say that candidates still come in all shapes and sizes to suit all tastes! There is no excuse not to vote.
Let us all hope that in 2010 the economy starts to recover. But there is an elephant in the room. The size of the budget deficit (we are currently spending �175 billion a year more than we are getting in) and record public debt (racing on towards a trillion pounds) will dominate the economic landscape. Whoever wins the next election, hard choices will have to be made on tax and public spending which will put the dampers on economic recovery. Get ready for a few years of slog.
But even against a gloomy backdrop we can all make positive decisions in our relationships and families. May I wish all of you a potential-achieving New Year!

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:38:00 +0000

CLIMATE CHANGE
50% of us are not yet sure about climate change, according to opinion polls. We can all see that the climate is changing, but we also know that it has done this periodically throughout the history of this planet, hence the Ice Age. The key issue is: are we causing it?
I have to make a confession, which will disappoint some. I have tried really hard to buy into the hard core green agenda over the past few years but something inside prevents me from going the whole way. I realise that pumping all of this carbon into our atmosphere can hardly be a good thing, but is it really causing a change in weather patterns of this awesome globe on which we live? I want to believe and yet�
Is it truly possible, I hear you ask, that all of these international scientists could be wrong? Well, yes actually. The people who built the Titanic branded her as the ship that could not be sunk. Many economists over the past 15 years have been telling us there would never be another recession. Experts can be wrong. They can also have their own agenda, as we have seen recently. This new-found focus on climate change must not become another religion. It is not heresy simply to raise a question or two.
The nation is divided on this. You can tell that because at the same time as world leaders are grappling with emergency measures in Copenhagen, our streets are still full of twinkling Christmas lights!
But perhaps it doesn't matter. Because we know that gas and oil � the great carbon producers � are running out anyway and energy security is going to become the hottest issue of the next 50 years, both viewpoints lead in the same direction. We will have to conserve energy anyway (reducing carbon), we will have to place greater reliance on renewables and other forms of energy production anyway (reducing carbon) so we may as well crack on with it.
Here is what I think:
1. We should all try and reduce our carbon footprints.
2. Government policy should encourage the creation and use of alternative energy sources and gradually disincentivise heavy carbon production
3. Continual efforts must be made to reach international consensus
We are stewards of this planet and must take better care of it. But all of this must happen at a rate and at a pace we can afford.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:08:00 +0000

RECESSION
This is not over. The news of 1700 job losses at Corus in Tyneside last week sent shock waves rippling through the British economy. Many small businesses are hanging on by their finger tips. Over one million Brits agreed to a pay freeze or cut in wages last year. Confidence remains low. The banks are still behaving badly, clawing back wherever they can. Public spending cuts � whoever wins the next election - are bound to take their toll on the economy, as the new government tries to attack the massive debt mountain.
For all of these reasons we cannot assume that we are set fair to recover even if the figures for the current quarter show that we are technically out of recession. There remain, sadly, a number of pent up problems in our financial system that could turn around and devour us. Some predict a double dip, others the gentle floating free from the rocks. In truth, nobody knows. There are as many scenarios as there are economists. We will just have to wait and see.
The banks must start lending again � not irresponsibly for that triggered the problem - but sensibly without wanting belt, braces body and soul in return. The government have poured in billions on our behalf to rescue them and the Bank of England have printed �200 billion and handed it over to banks to help them lend again. It is not working. I understand the strong feeling towards bankers and their excessive bonuses, but it would help us more if we could solve the lending logjam rather than take our revenge.
There is positive news. There has been so much capacity stripped out of some industries that they are starting to recruit again to cope with demand. The car scrappage scheme has been a success � such that there is now a waiting list for new cars and the price of second hand cars has risen. Value for Money businesses have enjoyed great success. Those on tracker mortgages still in work have found that disposable income has gone up not down, although this will not last forever.
But if ever there was an age of insecurity, surely this is it. Banking system shaken, Parliament shaken, climate change fears reverberating in the background.
As we approach Christmas 2009 perhaps has there ever been a better time to seek our hope, not in politicians or experts or material things but in more timeless truths.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:46:00 +0000

INCINERATOR
Battle is joined! Viridor, the large waste company, are pushing ahead to apply for planning permission to build an Energy from Waste facility (otherwise known as an incinerator) at New England Quarry just to the south of Lee Mill. Local opinion is firmly against this project, and having seen the detailed plans in my office at Westminster last week, so am I.
There are 4 ways of dealing with waste: stick it in the ground (landfill), recycle it, decompose it (anaerobic digester) or burn it (incinerator.) Of course we all support recycling and must do more, but that will not come close to disposing of all of our waste. Our landfill options are limited now that Chelson Meadow is full, we could not possibly decompose all of our waste in south Devon and so 3 local councils acting in partnership have concluded that an incinerator is the least worst solution. It is hard to argue with that, so the issue is � where should it go?
Viridor will argue that as their site is an old quarry and is designated in the local plan for waste disposal, it is the obvious place.
There are at least three reasons why I disagree. First, to get all of the waste there would mean 100 extra lorries laden with waste storming through Lee Mill every day. Already 7000 vehicles pour through this village, and it is unacceptable to burden them further. Viridor have tried hard to find an alternative traffic solution but have failed. Second, I have now seen the impressions of what this facility would look like from several locations around the constituency. The visual impact would be horrendous. Third, although the experts tell us these things are safe, the proximity to the Yealm and attractive farmland makes it environmentally contentious.
There are two processes running at the same time. The planning decision which will be made by Devon County Council and the decision on whether the Viridor bid is chosen by the South West Waste Partnership. We must focus our energies on persuading these decision-makers to reject this proposal in 2010. I believe there are better sites available, notably the dockyard/naval base.
There is a public exhibition at the Smithaleigh Hotel on 10th December to view the plans. I have called a public meeting for 7pm on Monday 14th December at the Watermark Ivybridge to discuss these proposals and agree on an action plan. Please be there if you can.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:49:00 +0000

QUEEN'S SPEECH
"What a load of nonsense," whispered a fellow MP to one of his party colleagues while we crammed into the House of Lords waiting for her Majesty to start reading the script written by the government, "the sooner we abolish it the better!" His comment was not about the contents of the Speech, which I might have shared, but about the ceremony that surrounded it.
But I enjoy the time-honoured pageantry that surrounds the state opening of Parliament. Of course these traditions have to be constantly reviewed to make sure that the ceremonial does not get in the way of the substance, but once a year � is that too much to ask to roll out the Crown Jewels, the red carpet, those magnificent horses and all of the splendour? I think not.
Combining heritage with the current is something our country does well. Tradition on its own can become death; modern practices with no root can fall over in a storm � it is the bringing of them together that yields the fruit.
It would be possible for the speech setting out the government's priorities for the year to be read by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons with no reference to the Head of State. But would we be any better off? And what would we lose? Who would tune in to that? This annual celebration is a reminder that our reigning monarch is our Head of State; it is her government, made up of members of parliament that the country has elected. A very effective arrangement and long may it continue.
To appreciate Britain we must understand the delicate, largely unwritten, nuances that make up our constitutional settlement, these invisible threads that bind our society together. At the other end of the scale, in every community, other forces are at work: the myriads of small organisations and charities and voluntary groups that do such much on the ground to keep our communities vibrant and cohesive. It is a joy for me, as I trundle around the constituency each weekend, to encounter the selfless work that so many of these do.
One of them is the Plympton Community Council and they are holding their Christmas Fair at Harewood House Plympton between 10 am and 1pm on Saturday 5th December. I mention it partly because it will be wonderful and partly because they have threatened to do nasty things to me if I do not.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:53:00 +0000

TV
The death of actor Edward Woodward brings sadness to those of us who remember his starring role in Callan. It was one of my favourite programmes when I was young. It got me to thinking about the television (and radio) programmes that help define our lives. I vividly remember my dad listening to "Sing something simple" on Sunday evenings in the milking parlour while I was helping him; the Generation Game and Morecombe and Wise which we always watched as a family along with the Forsyth Saga and many others.
Today's children will no doubt take fond memories of X factor and Strictly Come Dancing into their later years. There is something powerful about these very popular programmes. It is a good thing when families watch their favourites together, it is often the only time they sit around and talk with each other. It is also surely a positive thing for the country, the sense that most of us are doing the same thing at the same time. This gives us a common talking point and helps create national cohesion.
It is also quite funny to hear men say things like "I don't really watch it, but the kids have it on," or "the wife likes it" and then go on to describe in great detail how they hate John and Edward or secretly admire one of the dancers on Strictly. Today I am coming out � in our household we record them both and watch them on Sunday afternoons. There now I've said it.
Cultural cohesion is an important thing. We must celebrate diversity but also find common ground on which we stand. The Internet, video games and i-pods all take us into our own little worlds and promote individualistic pursuits. These great TV programmes (16.4 million people watched X-Factor on Sunday) bring us together and help us bond with each other. Just as a real community needs a meeting place or two for social interaction � a village hall or a church � so the country needs virtual meeting places where people from all ages and backgrounds can meet. Everybody at work on a Monday morning or at the bus stop or over coffee at home can comment on Ola's dress or Daniel's tantrums.
Needless to say the makers of these programmes did not set out to underpin national cohesion. Simon Cowell is hardly some Churchillian figure. But it is an unintended consequence and a very welcome one.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:17:00 +0000

PARENTS AGAIN

Just imagine it, your kids are of your hands, you are in your early or late fifties, maybe older, have slogged your guts out all of your life and are looking forward to a few years of "me" time with your spouse, in spite of the fact that he now has hair growing out of his ears and quite a few bits of his body have moved south. Saga holidays, washed down by the occasional visit to a National Trust property, beckon.

But then events take a dramatic turn for the worse and you end up having to bring up your grandchildren full time.

This is the fate of over 200,000 people in this country. Parents again. It was not what they had planned; it was not of their making. In most cases it has come about because their own son or daughter has fallen into the dark pit of drugs dependency and is no longer capable of raising his or her own children. You face an awesome choice: tear up all of your plans or watch those little children who you have bounced on your knee, who listened adoringly to your absurd made up tales about Jimmy Crow and Bim-Bam the magic horse, placed into foster or local authority care.

I sat with a group of people just like this in Plymouth on Friday to hear their stories. It was humbling and compelling. Many of them are struggling financially as well as emotionally and physically, to take on such unplanned responsibilities just when they should be taking it a bit easier. Needless to say, many of the children concerned were scarred by the experience that had led to the intervention and getting them back on the straight and narrow is a demanding task.

Well, at least, you say, the welfare state would recognise this selfless act that will save the country hundreds of thousands in fostering costs. Wrong. There is no separate recognition for this kind of intervention. But there should be. As I have often argued, our support system does too much for some people but not enough for others. Not only are they saving the tax payer a fortune, but with all of their grey-haired parenting experience, they are producing well turned out future citizens that would not happen if the state became the parent of last resort.

This group certainly deserves more support and I shall try and make sure it happens.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:53:00 +0000

COCAINE
For the first two days of this week I was doing drugs in the Netherlands. I should explain that it as a Home Affairs select committee visit as part of our current enquiry into the cocaine trade. It has been both fascinating and harrowing.
Why come to Holland? First of all being such an international port much of the trade in narcotics that streams into Europe does so through this European neighbour. Secondly, it is estimated that most airports apprehend about 14% of passengers passing through with drugs in their luggage or body, whereas in Schipol Airport, Amsterdam they claim a strike rate of 30%.
It was unnerving to watch the process whereby passengers are suspected and then scanned for swallowing little packages of cocaine in an attempt to smuggle them into the country. We saw x-ray shots of where people, called mules, had swallowed as much as 100 of these packages, each one the size of a lipstick container. Once arrested, they are taken to cells with special toilets that catch this prized waste as evidence for prosecution. We learnt a lot from a very impressive set of officers.
Then we went to a coffee shop � a euphemism for a place you can buy and smoke cannabis. In this crazy world in which we live the Dutch have banned tobacco smoking in public places, but in these establishments you can smoke cannabis. We learnt that this great experiment is failing. It has not kept people away from hard drugs. The government is slowly closing these places down.
Then we saw the thousands of containers pouring into Rotterdam and the techniques used to try and spot those containing illicit drugs. Needles and haystacks came to mind.
My mother thinks that we MPs should not travel anywhere but do it all on the phone and Internet, thus saving the taxpayer money. But we saw things on this visit which will help us shape a report that might just improve the way we do things in this country to try and stamp out this lucrative but deadly trade. No country in the world has done this successfully and perhaps the demand is so great, the profits so massive that it cannot be done.
But with better education, more protection of our flimsy borders, betters use of technology and shared information, we have to try to prevent the evil of drugs ripping even more young lives and families to pieces.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:01:00 +0000

BNP
If the BBC had intended to act as a recruiting sergeant for the BNP it could not have done a better job. I have no difficulty with the invitation to a BNP MEP to appear on Question Time � what else could you do in a democracy? But to reconfigure the entire event into a one-sided assault upon Mr Griffin was ill-judged. And to have BBC radio phone-in programmes focussing for days on whether he should be invited before the event and then debating how it went afterwards added fuel to the fire. The audience for the programme rose from 2.5 million to 8 million and they witnessed a display of abject unfairness which could only have increased support for this party. They saw a man who claimed to voice their concerns being hounded by the pack.
The real problem however in current British politics is that we have created a vacuum. I was hopeless at physics at school but I do remember that if you create a vacuum something will always try and fill it. There are genuine policy concerns around immigration, integration and Britishness which we have been too timid to tackle in the past 15 years. If you dared to challenge levels of immigration you were branded a racist. The result: a good old fashioned void at the centre of national anxiety which the BNP have been allowed to fill. Add in a recession, disillusionment with the political classes, a few predictions about immigration fuelled population growth, and hand it all over to the Daily Mail to trumpet with their customary hyperbole and you have the seeds of a very real problem. Not wholly unlike the situation that allowed Hitler to come to power between the two world wars.
As they have democratically elected people the BNP are entitled to be heard, but to not make them the centre of attention. You only need to know one thing about them: my favourite rugby player Jason Robinson, Cheryl Cole's husband Ashley and Leone Lewis would not be allowed to join the BNP because they have a non-white skin.
But we in mainstream parties must get our act together quickly. We must clean up our expenses mess at Westminster even if there is some personal unfairness in the decisions Sir Thomas Legg has reached. We must bring forward robust mainstream solutions to the issues that people fret about and fill the void. We have months not years.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:00 +0000

POLICE & TRAVELLERS

I received an extraordinary letter this week from a senior police officer in response to my recent missive urging them to do more to tackle the outbreak of travellers we have experienced in this constituency in recent weeks. Various sites in Plympton and Ivybridge have been occupied by our nomadic friends.

The gist of the response was: not much point in moving them on as they will only go somewhere else and until local authorities provide the permanent places, what�s the point? I have responded with due dismay. This is not what we expect from our boys in blue. If anybody wonders why people are so upset by these invasions, just ask those who have to suffer them. When the travellers come to town, nuisance and litter and sometimes far worse, abound.

I understand the position of the police. It must be galling to expend the manpower in shifting these law-breakers on, knowing that they may well invade somebody else�s property just around the corner. But that is precisely what we wish them to do and when the criminal law has been broken, to take appropriate action. But somebody high up in Devon and Cornwall constabulary seems to have decided that this is a social problem and not a matter for them. I have had frequent complaints from land-owners and local authorities about the lack of co-operation from officers in carrying out what is admittedly a thankless task. The softly-softly approach also seems in part to be an over reaction to perceived ethnic sensitivity. It is not about ethnicity, it is about behaviour.

We have to go back to basic principles. Travellers may well have chosen their alternative lifestyle � good luck to them, but that does not give them the right to gatecrash private property. The reason local councils are not queuing up to provide permanent traveller sites is because their electorates do not want them in their communities. Look at the fuss about the one proposed for Efford. There is no evidence that even if provided the itinerants would choose to live there and when the sites provided by the tax payer are full up, the problem will be as great as ever. If there is a change in government this unpopular top-down pressure is likely to disappear.

Of course travellers have rights, but not to live on someone else�s land. The police should change their approach to this or risk losing public support.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:36:00 +0000

ROYAL MAIL

Lions led by donkeys, represented by dinosaurs. That is my assessment of the situation facing the much loved Royal Mail. The decision to strike because they cannot agree on how to restructure the business to meet the rapidly changing environment is like trying to cure a headache by slitting your own wrists. The senior management of this crucial business lack a clear strategy, despite astronomical salaries. The trade union leaders are a throw back to a bygone era, resisting change and howling at the moon.

Reality check: the royal mail is very old fashioned, operates an antiquated culture and desperately needs to modernise to compete in an age where people in their eighties are sending e-mails to their grandchildren at university rather than a letter, where people are texting or going on facebook to stay in touch with their loved ones rather than putting pen to paper. We have seen this in my own office in the past few years. Letter volumes are declining, electronic traffic increasing.

As a result the royal mail is struggling. Apart from its revenue challenges, it has a massive pension fund shortfall due to incomprehensible decisions on employers contributions in the past decade. There are still great opportunities for this company – not least the parcel business as so many of us are now ordering goods online, together with the massive Christmas and greeting card business –but they need to up their game to benefit from it..

So what is there response to this future-threatening set of challenges? To go on strike in the run up to Christmas, in the middle of a recession. Everyday now mail order giants like Amazon are switching their lucrative delivery contracts away from Royal Mail towards some of their major competitors. Given the volatility and track record of Royal Mail I doubt if those contracts will ever be recovered. The government tried a partial privatisation, seeking to bring in major investment from a competitor, but could not find Parliamentary support in the run up to an election. In the current financial climate no government is going to take on its pension debt.

So this once great organization now lumbers towards the edge of the cliff. Choosing to strike at this time is sheer madness.

I hope the donkeys and dinosaurs can somehow bridge their differences and find a positive way forward before another British institution goes the way of Woolworths.

For the sake of the lions.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:10:00 +0000

CHILD PROTECTION

We have all been truly shocked by the child abuse scandal centring on the nursery in Plymouth. The fact that it involved two women, the fact that it happened here, the fact that it happened at all. Most of us are baffled that anybody can derive pleasure from such warped activity, but it is a further example of the limitless capacity of the human spirit for depravity. We have to accept that human beings seem capable of anything. The challenge for policy makers is: what are we going to do about it to better protect children?

I am not talking about knee jerk reactions that make us feel we are doing something, but measures that actually work. In truth, the measures introduced after the appalling atrocities at Dunblane, where several children were shot dead, came within this category. Restricting access to firearms for legitimate owners, including sportspeople, looked like tough action, but what did it do to restrict the supply of weapons on the black market to those who intend harm? I doubt if it has saved a single life, but (and I was a member of the government at the time) it made us feel better and made us look decisive. That should not be the test.

We already have draconian CRB checks on all those working with children. Already I was feeling that these CRB records have gone too far. I have several constituency cases at the moment where the police have recorded information that is little more than hearsay on people’s files and it is impacting innocent lives unjustly. Now we have a new form of registration affecting people who just regularly give children a lift in a car. There is talk of banning nursery workers from taking mobile phones with cameras into their place of work. We are in danger of falling into the Dunblane trap. If deceitful, dark-hearted, people are minded to carry out their perverted activities on vulnerable children, it is unlikely that bureaucratic regulations will make much difference.

The Internet is a large part of the problem. Greater efforts must be made to somehow discover and report when this incredible invention is being used for harmful purposes. More research is required on a technical solution to this. But even if such a thing were possible it all brings 1984 a step closer. So once again I seek your views. What in reality can we do to make children safer?

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:42:00 +0000

PARLIAMENT SITTINGS

Your Parliament rose for the summer on 21st July and will sit again on 12th October 2009. That is about 12 weeks during which ministers receive no parliamentary grilling. Is this right?

Most Parliaments have a long summer recess. To represent your area you need a good knowledge of local issues and the summer is a good time to spend more reflective time in the constituency listening to various people and groups of all kinds. Although many jobs are equally as intensive, there is no doubt that politics comes with its own unique pressures and by the middle of July we are all on our knees. A proper break helps to restore sanity.

Despite these arguments, I have come to the conclusion that our summer break is now too long. Although I have enjoyed pottering around SW Devon this summer, I think we should go back in early September. 6 weeks is long enough to recharge batteries and most of us these days live in our constituencies and are already very familiar with local issues.

However there is a problem: the party conference season. It starts in mid September with the Liberal Democrats and minor parties, followed by Labour and then us. But I have a solution to that too: scrap the party conferences.

I believe they belong to a time now past. There was a time when conferences actually made policy. This no longer happens – policy is made by party leadership in every case. There was a time when political parties enjoyed mass membership and the annual conference was a time to meet with like minded people and catch up all the news. Now numbers for all parties are dwindling and the new media age means that we can be in daily contact, if not hourly, via the web with both policy and gossip. Having the party conference season is not a justifiable reason for Parliament not to sit, especially when times are tough.

Not that I want it to pass even more unnecessary legislation or suffocating regulation, we already get far too much of that. But in the end governance is about decisions made by ministers and having them come to the House to answer questions, to explain their decisions is the best way of holding the government to account. Parties can still have shorter weekend conferences but this should no longer stand in the way of proper democratic accountability. What do you think?

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:39:00 +0000

ON THE BUSES

I have long been baffled about why I get such a regular trickle of complaints about the bus service in Plymstock and virtually none about the service in Plympton. They are similar suburbs with similar needs housing similar types of residents. The difference of course is that Plymouth Citybus operates services in Plympton and First Group in Plymstock. First Group is apparently the largest transport provider in the world, so why can’t they keep my constituents more satisfied?

This could all change with news that Citybus is intending to run 6 new services into Plymstock from late October, sparking newspaper coverage of a new bus war, the like of which we have not seen for years. I hope there is no bus war, but I warmly welcome this initiative, and have been urging Citybus to send buses into this neglected suburb for some time.

I understand that part of the new service will replace the old 5 and 6 routes that were so popular. I have a very simple challenge to all of you who have contacted me in recent months about the poor state of public transport east of the Plym, once these new routes are in place: use it or lose it. If this bold new initiative succeeds there is no reason why it cannot become a long term arrangement. This is good news for those who rely on the bus and is also timely because it will not be long before the contract for the new high quality public transport link connecting the soon to be built new town at Sherford to the rest of the city will be out to tender. I think it helpful that Citybus will by then be running services along the A379 that might connect into the new high speed route should they win the bid.

So I wish Citybus well with its new venture. It is a successful and well-run company that makes a profit by looking after its customers and makes the most of its local knowledge and support. Although it is owned by the local council it has been running its own affairs for many years and rightly so. I have never understood why a local authority should own a bus company, rather than focussing on the delivery of essential services. If a new buyer for this business is found, there is no reason to suppose that its focus on customer satisfaction would change.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:03:00 +0000

BRIGHT FUTURE

In the past week I have had much meaningful dialogue with local young people. I have spent time with Laura Baker, of Hele School, Plympton, one of only 30 young people to have been chosen to take part in the Prime Minister’s Global Fellowship scheme to spend 6 weeks in China to learn more about business in that country and relationships between our two nations. I have sat around the table with engaging sixth-formers from Ridgeway School, Plympton to discuss a new blog we are planning to launch that will tackle issues relevant to young people; to kick off cyber-discussions on thorny issues that they will choose. And I have spoken to, listened to and answered penetrating questions on a whole range of issues from a group of 261 highly focussed sixth-formers at Ivybridge Community College.

These interactions were at best inspirational for me and never less than stimulating and encouraging.

We sometimes get gloomy about the behaviour of the coming generation. It is true that some of the language, dress sense and attitudes are different from those of yesteryear. However, I can well remember my own parents being baffled about clothes that I wore (I remember one particularly striking pair of purple trousers) my Rod Stewart hair cut and my desire to “hang around town.” Every generation will seek to distance itself from the one immediately preceding it – it is part of growing up.

Being a teenager today is different from any other generation. They are bombarded from all sides by so much information, opportunity and temptation from the pulsating 24/7 wall to wall media and communications revolution that has overtaken us. The ready presence of drugs, alcohol and online perils stalk them in a way that previous generations have not known. I take my hat off to any parent steering teenagers through today’s maelstrom.

My experiences of this past week have been a timely reminder that that despite all of the hazards of modern life, those who are coming through our education system today still share timeless values and aspirations that will, for the most part, steer them into lives of individual reward and help our society to remain strong. Most young people want to make the most of themselves, seize opportunities to travel and learn, meet the right person one day and have their own family.

There is much wrong with 21^st century Britain, but spending time with local youngsters gives me hope.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:04:00 +0000

SHERFORD THREE

Maybe because there were two councils involved; perhaps because of last minute delays or because August was rapidly approaching, the decision on the new town at Sherford has not received as much publicity as it deserves. It has now got the go-ahead, although in a completely different format to that previously understood. It is 99.9% certain that the bulldozers will arrive on site within the next few months and certainly by March 2010. It is going to happen. Even though the developers and the planners remained locked in negotiations about the amount of cash to be pumped into the community (s.106 agreement), it is time to accept that this is going to happen; and soon.

Probably at the end of the construction in, say 7 years time, it will all look very much like the plans with which we have become too familiar. But the phasing of the project is poles apart to that which we had been promised. We were told that the town centre, the school and the road changes would be put in place first. That has all been swept away by harsh economic reality.

Now, starting next spring, 700 houses will be built in phase one at the Elburton end, of which only a small proportion will be “affordable”. Phase two, 18 months or so later, will see some of the infrastructure works begin to take shape and more houses to the north and the town centre begin to form. Then we will see some of the much needed facilities for the community including a sports hall and swimming pool. Somewhere along the way a school will appear, although what kind of school is yet to be thrashed out.

All the way through this process, my main concern has been the impact on existing communities, especially our already hard pressed transport systems. There will be improvements to Deep Lane, Stanborough Cross and the A379 into town, although the precise details and phasing of these works remains undecided.

With the future development of Langage as a giant business park, the possible incinerator near Lee Mill, and this new town, the east of the Plym is going to change beyond recognition over the next two decades. With river to the west, sea to the south and moor to the north, the only way Plymouth could grow was eastwards. After many years of talking, the gruesome reality of major change is about to hit us.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:52:00 +0000

WORKLESSNESS

It is tough in a recession, when jobs are harder to come by, to tackle the thorny issue of worklessness, but tackle it we must. The news that one in six households in the UK has nobody in work should cause us all concern. The BBC illustrated this story with a Lego-like graphic of suburbia with every sixth house highlighted in red. It is not like that of course. Although there are pockets of worklessness everywhere, this is particularly a scourge of metropolitan Britain, with many inner city estates with very few people in work.

Even in the boom years there are too many people who have never had a job. Some have no intention of working and are probably the second or third generation of households where the concept of getting up in the morning, putting on a decent shirt and going off to work is as alien as flying to Mars. This group of people, a stubborn minority living in our midst, have sometimes been described as the Underclass, an unflattering term but accurate. Needless to say, crime, benefit fraud, drugs and anti-social order are not strangers to these doors. The sad thing is that such a lifestyle is not in their own interests because few of them flourish. Meaningful work is a necessary ingredient for a successful life.

Successive governments have tinkered endlessly with the benefit system and we still can’t seem to get this right. Those who are minded to play the system (characterised by the Boswell family in the hit TV drama Bread) will always find ways of fiddling. The real problem is that the measures necessary to tackle this problem would be so draconian that they might never be politically acceptable.

For example, to argue that those who have no intention of working should get no benefits at all runs smack bang into legitimate concerns about the dependants of such people; why should they suffer? Similarly, to argue that teenage girls getting pregnant should never get a council house, to remove the existing perverse incentive, raises issues about child welfare. You see the difficulty.

This stultifying welfare dependency has other consequences. Because so many Brits have no intention of working, we are attracting hard working immigrants to do the necessary work, which brings with it another set of long term challenges.

So the prize for cracking this tough nut would be very high indeed. Can it be done, there’s the question?

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:54:00 +0000

LOCKERBIE

It is fashionable to play Fantasy football and place yourself in the shoes of well known football managers. What about fantasy politics. What would you have done, if you had been either Jack Straw, our Lord Chancellor, or the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill? Would you have granted the convicted criminals their freedom on compassionate grounds?

We do not necessarily have all of the facts, as the real decision makers did. Just because something appears in a newspaper sadly does not make it true. But one of the great things about modern communications is that we get bombarded with information enabling us to stand at least partially in the place of those who must decide. If there was other information which helped shape these decisions, it would almost certainly have emerged by now.

From what I have seen and read I would have let Biggs go home to die with his family. He committed a serious crime but has served many years in prison, many more than some who commit far worse crimes, and is clearly now not a threat to anybody. He may not have shown much remorse, but he did not take the life of another person, although arguably he may have inflicted damage on the train driver that did shorten his life.

But I would never have let Mr al-Megrahi go, not in a month of Sundays. I understand the need occasionally to show compassion, but this has to be tempered with Justice. The crime in question was one of the most heinous and cowardly acts of the age, responsibly for killing 291 innocent people.

There seemed to be a feeling around that perhaps this particular prisoner was not necessarily guilty, but that should have played no part in this decision. You cannot be half guilty. If there were circumstances suggesting he was innocent, that was a matter for an appeal and should have been separated from this decision taken on compassionate grounds, because of his prostrate cancer.

I still cannot for the life of me see how this decision was reached. It has made us look soft in the eyes of the world, upset our closest allies and handed a propaganda coup to those who wish us ill. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi went home to a hero’s welcome. As he has now dropped his appeal against the conviction we are never likely to know if he was truly innocent.

What would you have done?

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:46:00 +0000

CONTROL

It�s all my fault of course. As soon as Parliament rose I zoomed down from sticky horrible London and leapt into my shorts to go into my local office; the heavens looked down and laughed, the skies opened and the deluge began. I should apologise in person to all of the tent dwellers, the caravaners, the would-be surfers and the hikers. I am sorry to all of the holiday-makers I have since seen driving past me, three children in the back seat bored and irritating each other, windows steamed up, Dad looking cross, temperatures rising inside the car if not outside.

The weather has shown itself once again, in our traditional English summer, to be outside of our control. Indeed, it seems that it is becoming increasingly difficult even to predict it, let alone control it. I have lost count of the times in recent weeks where the forecast has said one thing but the elements disagreed the very next day. Some will argue that this increasing unpredictability is due to global warming, but I blame the Met Office for re-locating to Exeter. They should have come to Plymouth.

We think we should be able to control everything, but we never will. If something goes wrong in our life, we look for someone to blame, somewhere to get redress. That is why in recent years we have spawned so many layers of appeal and the burgeoning Ombudsman industry. The impression is given that no matter how trivial the claim, there is always another level of appeal; I know my rights.

Injustices occur and I encounter them often in my surgery. It is important that public decision makers should be held to account when things go wrong. But do we need more and more quangoes to tackle all this? But I would prefer to put our trust in two ancient traditions: the legal system and Members of Parliament. There is a strong argument for scrapping the Ombudsman labyrinth, saving millions and plough it back into legal aid so people have access to proper justice once again in a modernised judicial system. That way frivolous and vexatious claims get screened out early on and genuine victims get real compensation.

Alongside that we should not forget the role of elected representatives to fight on behalf of constituents when things go wrong. The purists may not like it, but it has the advantage of working very well. Unlike our summer weather.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:02:00 +0000

URBAN FRINGE

Sometimes the most boring aspects of political life can be the most important. Take this one: cross border co-operation between Plymouth and South Hams councils. Yawn!

In fact it is crucial. Traditionally local government officers act strictly within their own boundaries, but in this area almost all of the strategic issues arise on the border between two authorities, the new town at Sherford and the future development of the job-creating business park at Langage to name but two. So it has been good to witness very strong co-operation between the two councils over the past two years for the benefit of all of us.

As you read these words you will have heard whether the plans for Sherford have been approved by the relevant planning committees, although as I write them this crucial outcome remains up in the air. The original plans, painstakingly put together over many years, have been blown to smithereens by the recession. The commitments to put the high street and much of the infrastructure in first have evaporated due to economic necessity. I commend councillors for taking their time over this, working across borders and not being railroaded into these vital long term decisions.

Both councils are now also consulting on what they call their Urban Fringe Development Strategy – which basically means how much building to allow on the perimeter of Plymouth (all of which is in this constituency) over the next 15 years. The spotlight falls on potential sites at Staddiscombe, Newnham, Woolwell and Roborough. How much building should be permitted? How will it fit into the existing infrastructure and what impact this will have on existing communities? Should these houses all be built within the city perimeter or at Sherford and leave these green field sites alone? These are all decisions that fall to be made and co-operation between councillors and officers across the divide is crucial. It is also an opportunity for you to have your say and I hope that you will.

This collaboration is important for another reason: the future of the frontier itself. Many senior residents can remember when Plymouth’s tanks rolled onto the lawns of Plympton and Plymstock in the early 1970’s. The strategic development sites mentioned above are obvious targets for further boundary extensions in the future. But the more the two councils can co-operate together and produce joint strategies and services that benefit all local citizens, the weaker the argument for boundary changes.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:58:00 +0000

DALEY
The run up to the school holidays is always an enjoyable time as I get asked to attend prize givings and sometimes present prizes and say a few words.
It is a timely reminder that despite a negative press the current crop of youngsters is just as talented as previous generations and contains the same mixture as every cohort that any of us can remember. Each school year seems to comprise a tiny minority of truly gifted and exceptional people, who will go on to break records and invent new technologies or lead communities. Each group contains a larger but still small minority of those who have less intelligence who seem to be programmed to self-destruct and create mayhem. The majority are somewhere in the middle and most of these will go on to live responsible lives even if they may have the odd stormy incident upon the journey of their teenage years. Think back to your own school days. I doubt very much if the proportions of these three groupings has changed much over the years. Language and dress codes change (and how) but the same principles seem to be in play.
We should not resent the talented few who will fly high, but should inspire them to fly higher still. We should be proud of young people like Tom Daley who is such a great ambassador for his generation. Just think about the relentless regime of daily discipline that this teenager puts himself through - it is not just about natural talent. I saw this summer a handful of remarkable children receive countless prizes and was inspired by their achievements. We should not be levelling down, but lifting up.
The minority of real trouble makers have always been there. We must identify and crack down on the real ring leaders but do our best not to criminalise those on the fringes of this group who could be "saved" (from themselves) and live decent lives.
The main focus of our schools should be to inspire the vast majority of students to reach their utmost potential. We are very fortunate in this constituency to have five excellent secondary schools that serve our young people well. I have seen first hand the unstinting effort of so many of our teachers, and they deserve our thanks.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:15:00 +0000

BANK LENDING

The cry goes up: we have to get the banks lending again. But they are lending again. The point is they are now lending more cautiously than they did before. Isn’t that exactly what we want them to be doing? What some commentators are really calling for is a return to the irresponsible lending of the recent past, the very thing that triggered this recession.

For several years there will be very few 100% mortgages on offer and businesses can expect to have to back up every pound they want to borrow with substantial capital and security. This is one reason why the economy will only grow slowly once we come out of this recession, because whilst the banks retain a corporate memory of the recent blood bath, prudence and caution will be their constant guides. This is to be welcomed, but it does mean that the growth spurts of the past ten years are a thing of the past.

But that is not the end of the story. We have to take into account the stark reality about government finances. Our public debt is spiralling out of control, with borrowing this year alone – just to pay the bills - of �175 billion, more than five times the defence budget. Commentators including the IMF are warning Britain that we have to get our debt levels under control and fast.� Whoever wins the next election will have to take action to cut back public spending and reduce some of this accumulated debt. That is bound to impact public sector jobs over the next few years.

Add all of this together. Unemployment is currently 2.4 million and still rising. Most of these jobs have been lost in the private sector and it is unlikely that our economy, for the reasons given above, will be creating masses of new jobs in the next few years. Factor in the likely job losses in the public sector over the same period and you do not need to be a genius to work out that employment prospects in the medium term are bleak, especially for younger people.

This is one reason why it is time for any government to now take a much tougher line on non-EU immigration. We need to cap the numbers coming to live and work here, especially at times like these. Let us equip our own workforce to take up whatever new jobs there are, before looking overseas.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:00 +0000

AFGHANISTAN

It has been painful to hear the news of the increasing death toll of our troops in Afghanistan. It begs the question why are we out there.

I strongly support the mission of taking the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda to prevent that part of the world becoming a crucible of terrorist training and planning once again. We must not forget that it was from Taliban-run Afghanistan that the attack on the twin towers was planned and put into practice back in 2001. It was there that training camps were set up to fire up young radicals to bring their terror to our streets in the USA and UK, including the attacks in London on 7^th July. It could be Plymouth next.

I entirely accept the argument that if we don’t challenge them in their bleak homelands, we will have to challenge them ever more frequently on our own streets.

So this crucial campaign has a clear mission. The current surge by US and UK troops under the NATO banner will result in more casualties but hopefully drive the Taliban back and destroy their capacity to reap mayhem and incubate terrorist activity around the world.

What I am less certain about is the lofty ambition to turn this region into some kind of 21^st century paragon of democracy. Or rather I would support it, if it were realistic. I fear that Afghanistan is still very much in the pre-democratic phase – mainly run by gangsters and warlords. The best we can hope for is to destroy the Taliban’s potential for a generation and then withdraw our forces to allow the Afghan people to run the country as best they can, with no doubt much aid being poured in from the developed world.

And while our troops are doing such heroic work in such inhospitable conditions, they should have the very best kit to protect and equip them for the job. We should never send our soldiers and marines into conflict with second class equipment. People ask in a recession where the extra money would come from. I approach this differently. If defending our nation is any government’s first priority, the defence budget, an adequate one to meet our commitments, should be the first claim on the Exchequer. Once that amount is sorted, we can turn to the other spending commitments that have to be made. In a dangerous world, our armed forces should always come first.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:32:00 +0000

ENERGY PARK

I had my first visit to the intended Langage Energy Park on Friday. You had to behold it with the eye of faith. It is a currently just a series of areas of grassy sites flanking the new power station on which buildings will (hopefully) be built one day.

When the idea of the power station was first touted, we were promised an Energy Park alongside which would attract businesses from all over the country, creating thousands of jobs for local people. I was keen to find out where these jobs had got to.

Plymouth is pursuing a growth strategy. The city is intended to grow by 30,000 people over the next 20 years. For the one new town that is being built in the South Hams the city is building 3 such settlements within its own boundaries over a similar period. This is fine, but where will these people work? The answer is in large measure: Langage. It is the chosen site for the employment needed to support the growth strategy for the entire sub-region.

Huge sums of money are necessary to convert the massive chunks of land from green spaces into thriving places of employment. There is little sign of it at the moment. The Regional Development Agency has a few millions that may be headed this way to kick start it and I urge them to act swiftly. Planning issues also remain, notably highways. The road system in this area is already over-loaded. There is talk of a southern route into Langage and significant upgrading of the Deep Lane intersection, but much of that depends upon Sherford being built and/or government grants being pumped in and I am beginning to wonder whether there is any money left for such projects.

It is now clear that there is no queue of high energy-using companies wanting to relocate to this corner of the country for cheap electricity. On that issue we were sold a pup and even after the recession this is unlikely to change. The energy park will effectively be an extension of the existing business parks at Langage with mixed uses from warehouses to offices.

Few of us wanted the power station or the energy park, but we do need work for the next generation. It is now time for all of us to work together to make the very attractive plans for job-creating buildings leap off the page and became a reality.

streeterg@parliament.uk (Gary) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:42:00 +0000

PARENTING

At a recent meeting with primary head teachers in Plymouth the conversation turned to the state of our nation as seen from the primary school. Amidst some positives and recognising a rapidly swirling world, the report swiftly became gloomy: disruptive behaviour on the increase, capacity for social interaction on the decrease and parental abdication of responsibilities off the scale. In the same week, news reached me that a pack of young people (aged 10 to 14) is running amok in parts of Plymstock once more, despite the best efforts of the police.

It is not the children’s fault, it is we the parents.

Let’s get one thing straight: teachers are not responsible for bringing up our children, we the parents are. The police are not there to discipline our kids. We are. I saw a 10 year old girl in a shop on Friday fling a huge packet of sweets into the trolley. Her mother said no, but after a major strop, the delightful child won the day. What chance for her future?

Some are trying to be their child’s best friend. That is not our role. We are to love, provide shelter, encourage, discipline, teach and do our best, but above all to be a parent. This means drawing boundaries and saying no and meaning it and enforcing it with sanctions if necessary. Of course the task is easier with two, although some single parents are managing heroically, whilst some households with two adults just can’t be bothered. It is not about one or two; it is about responsibility and commitment.

There are many challenges that any incoming government will face: the recession, balancing the books once again and recapturing lost confidence in Parliament to name but a few. But something must be done to sort out the state of family structures in the UK, and the behavioural consequences which flow from it. We will never have enough teachers or police officers or social workers for the state to do the job that the family is designed to do.

The more provision we put in place, the more some parents will simply back off and expect the rest of us to raise their children. Fining parents who can’t be bothered has not proven successful. Parenting classes don’t seem to attract the ones who really need it.

Irresponsible parents are still a minority, but a growing one. We need a change of direction. All ideas gratefully received.