|
Tram decision - it's a yes - and MP expenses
Hi all -
Two things I'd like to address in detail today, so I'll go straight into
them.
(a) Tram decision
As I predicted last week, the tram decision has been made, and it's a yes.
The Inspector's report has been published as well, and I understand has
not recommended major changes (I and other had proposed alternatives to
parts of the route), and the Government has approved the funding of 75% of
the cost, both to support public transport and as part of the acceleration
of investment to help employment with long-term public works during the
recession.
Some obvious Qs and As:
1. When will it start running?
ETA is 2013. NET have done a lot of preparatory work so the initial
planning stage should be short, but it's a huge project so it'll take four
years to complete.
2. Does that mean four years of chaos?
No - if the Line One approach is followed, what they'll do is work on each
stretch for three months at a time. There are generally two phases: first
they have to move utility cables, then they have to lay the track. So each
part of the route in turn is likely to have two 3-month periods of
disruption during the time between 2010 (when actual building gets under
way) and 2013.
3. Who pays for the 25% local component?
The remaining cost is mostly due to be funded from the proposed City
Workplace Parking Levy, which I anticipate will be approved as well - it's
unlikely they'd approve the project but not the means to fund it. However,
in view of the concerns expressed by constituents and businesses and the
current economic problems, I'm pressing for a delayed start to this (it
was due to begin in 2011), ideally so people don't have to pay the levy
until the tram extension is actually running.
4. Who pays for any cost overrun?
The private partner. In return, if the system runs according to set
performance criteria for 30 years, they'll make a sizable profit.
5. What about people and businesses directly affected?
I'm asking NET for early meetings with each affected group so they know
exactly what will happen, when it will happen, and what help they'll get.
There's particular attention to Neville Sadler Court (part of which will
be replaced by a new building). This will be more disabled-friendly but
the upheaval is highly unwelcome to many of the mostly elderly residents
there and they'll need lots of support. It also affects people all along
the proposed route, and traders on Chilwell High Road, who should get a
support package.
6. What will the impact be on house and business prices?
The experience elsewhere has in general been that prices near the route go
up, though this is often after an existing business or resident who
dislikes the idea moves out and the property is bought by someone who sees
it as attractive. Businesses who benefit from the tram will include
specialised shops (who can attract more customers from further away);
individuals are of course those who often want to commute to town or to
the QMC (which will have a dedicated entrance for the tram).
7. Could the decision be reversed?
It's very unlikely - the contracts will be signed in the coming months,
and it would require either the City or the Government to do a complete
reversal of policy before then (the County's position is not as crucial).
I certainly wouldn't recommend it - despite my reservations about the
route, I've always said that if it was approved then we need to get on
with it, as people have been living in limbo for years, and I'd oppose any
rearguard action to delay it. The Conservative Party has campaigned
against it, as they did against the original Line One, but as with the
Attenborough flood defence project I hope they'll accept that there comes
a point that we need to stop arguing and start work.
8. What's the bottom line?
This is the second stage of a transition of Greater Nottingham to be
served by a modern and environmentally- friendly public transport network.
I've lived in cities which had a network of trams and buses sufficient to
avoid the need to own a car at all (in London, it's eccentric to drive for
most purposes, since the tube is much faster and more reliable), and when
we get to that point it will do a great deal for the prosperity and
attractiveness of the conurbation. I expect further extensions, and am
arguing for one to run to the north of the borough (reaching out from
Phoenix Park to Nuthall, Kimberley and beyond). In the short term, though,
it means considerable disruption, and it will be part of my job to liaise
with NET on behalf of residents to try to ensure it's minimised.
(b) MP expenses
I entirely share the exasperation that I'm sure many of you feel with the
further revelations on this. This is what I said in Parliament when we
were debating disclosure of receipts recently:
http://www.publicat ions.parliament. uk/pa/cm200809/ cmhansrd/ cm090122/
debtext/90122- 0013.htm (scroll down to 2.54)
In the same spirit of full disclosure, here are my expenses for the latest
financial year for you to consider. I'm going to go into boring detail to
err on the right side, but please feel free to ask me for further detail
about any of them.
Accommodation allowance: £23,057. Of this, nearly £20,000 was is the rent
of the furnished one-bedroom flat in Great Peter Street - this is what
central London rents are like. Since some MPs seem to have odd rental
arrangements, I'd like to add that the landlord is a property company with
whom I have no connection. The balance includes utilities and the
additional council tax arising out of having a second home. I don't claim
for furniture, fittings, videos or anything else out of the ordinary. When
I eventually leave Parliament, I'll give notice on the flat and will have
made no money out of the arrangement. I normally stay in the flat 3-4
nights a week: it's the smallest flat I've ever lived in, but it's
expensive because it's close to Parliament.
Office costs: £19,125. This is partly £9000 for the rent of my
constituency office, which is where most of my staff handle casework.
We've had the rent assessed independently by an estate agent to check it's
the appropriate amount. Further expenses include telephones, fax, office
equipment (e.g. a shredder), casework and anti-virus software, and office
furniture (e.g. filing cabinets). All receipts will be published in June
so you can study each purchase and rental arrangement.
Staffing: £92,719. This is the largest figure, reflecting the budget for
salary and NI for three full-time staff. In fact, I've chosen to have
seven part-time staff, working in Westminster and the constituency with
different skills. All the salaries are paid directly to staff in
accordance with the recommended salaries, which you can find on the
parliamentary website.
Stationery: £450. This is simply paper and envelopes.
Postage: £1,606. This is the cost of the prepaid envelopes which I use
when I'm replying to a letter from you.
IT: £1,295. All team members have computers, and each year one or two get
replaced as they get older.
Staff cover: £189. This was to pay for cover for a staff member who was
ill.
Communications Allowance: £9,995. This is to pay for non-partisan updates
and surveys, such as the recent letters on proposed housing developments
in different parts of the constituency. It also paid for one edition of my
newsletter "Positive Politics". This is only allowed when the publication
has no controversial material (attacks on other parties etc.)
Car mileage allowance: £1,961. This pays towards the cost of using a car
in the constituency (or occasionally to go to Westminster - normally I
take the bus, tram and train).
Rail: £5,893. This pays for the weekly commute to and from London.
Staff travel: £803. Sometimes one of my staff needs to travel to of from
Westminster, e.g. for a meeting to liaise with other staff. They made a
total of 12 return trips between them.
European travel: £236. When I was PPS to the Energy Minister, I was
invited by Swiss MPs to Bern to hear what they'd been doing in renewable
energy. This was the cost of the flight and one night's stay.
As you see, it adds up to a good deal of money, though none of it goes
into my pocket. There have been lots of suggestions for ways to save
money. The big figure is staff salaries, but this could only be
realistically reduced if there was less casework - typically I process
around 50,000 enquiries a year (mostly email these days), and I work a 10
to 12-hour day, 7 days most weeks, so there's no realistic scope for doing
more myself. A normal case will be that a constituent asks why payment of
a pension has been interrupted: I'll write an initial response and then
pass it to a staff member to look into, writing a follow-up letter as
necessary until it's cleared up.
Most of the attention recently has been on the accommodation allowance. In
my view, it would be better if this never involved purchase of property,
and we all simply rented furnished flats as I'm doing. It would be an
option to rent outside Central London - that would reduce the rent but
increase the travel cost; more significantly, it would reduce the time
available for working if I was travelling late at night across London (I
generally go to the flat at 1030 but resume answering emails till
midnight). I'd favour Parliament buying the County Hall building (now a
Japanese-run hotel) over the river from parliament with a one-off cost and
putting MPs up there: the one-off cost would of course be huge, and
unpopular, but it'd eliminate the ongoing cost forever thereafter.
I hope this is helpful. If there is any aspect of my expenses about which
you'd like to know more, please let me know. My only request is that you
don't judge all MPs as the same!
Best wishes
Nick |
