Creeting St Peter - development looms at Gateway 14

The aerial view shown is of the outline of the proposed Gateway 14 development, all of which is on land that, not so long ago, fell wholly with the parish boundaries of Creeting St Peter. Alright, it isn't obviously scenic, although it's rich farmland, with excellent arable yields in a normal year. The village itself is out of shot, although not as far as I would frankly prefer, off to the top left hand edge of the picture.

What the site is though, is well-connected. That's the A14 running diagonally across the bottom right hand quadrant, and paralleling it in the top right hand quadrant is the East Anglian Main Line railway. When you think of it, it's pretty amazing that it hasn't been built all over already but, whilst there have been various proposals, some of which have made it as far as initial planning approval, nothing has ever actually happened. Until now...

Apparently, Gateway 14 is...

...set to become the destination of choice along the A14 corridor and will consist of a mixed-use, market facing business park for warehousing and logistics with an innovation cluster within the “space to innovate” enterprise zone. The strategic aim is to benefit the wider economic area of Mid Suffolk, especially the growth of creative and technology businesses in the area, while also maximising opportunities for inward investment, job creation and wider community benefits.

It is intended that the main infrastructure will commence by Spring 2021 so that occupation can start in early 2022.

The draft masterplans show how the site could accommodate logistics buildings up to 1,000,000 sq ft, with roadside / retail uses (subject to planning) along the A14 frontage as well as the ability to accommodate headquarters office/R&D campus style buildings from 3,000 sq ft.

Sounds ghastly, doesn't it, but I acknowledge that the language is designed to attract potential customers, rather than charm local residents.

What it means is that, as a Parish Council, we are going to have to deal with the impact of a major development, almost certainly without any support which, for a council which consists of five people, a clerk and an annual precept of £5,500, is going to be a bit of a challenge. Better still, having received a briefing note from the company "facilitating public consultation on behalf of Gateway 14 Ltd" on Monday, we are informed that the community engagement phase will end on 31 October. I can't say that I'm wildly encouraged.

Indeed, this is all going to happen very quickly;

• SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2020 - Community and stakeholder engagement on draft plans
• AUTUMN 2020 - Consider feedback and finalise plans
• WINTER 2020 - Submit hybrid planning application to Mid Suffolk District Council (MSDC)
• WINTER 2020 - Formal period of public consultation (run by MSDC)
• EARLY 2021 - Application determined by MSDC
• SPRING 2021 - Detailed designs and layout drawn up
• SPRING 2021 - Commence infrastructure on site
• 2021 - Submit detailed planning application(s) to MSDC 

There are, already, some concerns on my part. Our pedestrian access to Stowmarket appears, on the face of the draft plot layout plan, to have been diverted significantly to run alongside the A14, thus lengthening the distance, and making it much less attractive to walkers, and the new link road will doubtless lead to significant volumes of traffic on the narrow road that links Creeting St Peter to both Stowmarket and Needham Market. And, perhaps more importantly, there will be a major development filling half of the current gap between Stowmarket and our village. Logistics buildings mean lorries coming to and from, presumably 24/7, which in turn means noise, bright lights and pollution.

I might reasonably ask, "What's in it for us?", and the answer will doubtless be jobs and facilities. Admittedly, those jobs will be for people travelling from further afield than the Creetings, and given the dreadful public transport links, they'll all be driving, but Mid Suffolk District Council Conservatives are generally pro-business, so they won't concern themselves too much about that. Besides, as they own the development, and hope to profit from it, there's little incentive to do anything much to mollify us.

Ah well, we'd better get to work, I suppose...

Is an Englishman’s word no longer his bond?

Call me old-fashioned, but I was led to believe that, amongst other virtues, that an Englishman’s word is his bond. As an ersatz Englishman by virtue of my mixed race background, one cleaves firmly to such concepts as honour and decency, because they matter.

Indeed, much of our modern model of governance relies on the concept that most people are honourable or, at the very least, can be broadly trusted to do the right thing. It is suggested, for example, that 90% of taxpayers are compliant with the requirements of tax law. What that means is that regulatory authorities can focus their efforts on a minority of those whom they supervise.

The same goes for international relationships, be they between states or collections of states. There is a set of rules, some written, others unwritten, which guide how states will behave towards each other, and if everyone adheres to them, we can generally rub along somehow.

The Johnson/Cummings administration appears to think that it need not play the game, or wants to suggest that it might not, as it leaks the idea that it might pass domestic legislation designed to undermine the intentions of a legal agreement signed between the United Kingdom and the European Union earlier this year... by this administration. Now, I do note a degree of “rowing back” from various ministers but, if you are deliberately attempting to sow mistrust, this is a damned good way to do so.

And it matters. If a country gains a reputation for untrustworthiness, there is a price to be paid. Any deal that you sign needs to have the risk of default priced in, and the more scepticism the other side have in your integrity, the higher the price of that risk becomes. Naturally, it’s the party perceived as less trustworthy that pays it.

There’s also the risk of contagion. The United Kingdom has made a pretty good living out of supplying professional services to the world - banking, legal, accountancy - all of which are underpinned by trust, trust in our legal system, the neutrality of our judiciary and the concept that an Englishman’s word is his bond. Weaken that sense, and that business may go elsewhere, with the resultant damage to an economy that already relies heavily on services.

But, ultimately, the people who pay the price for such rashness are not politicians, they’re the people whose jobs are lost due to a breakdown in trading relationships, the imposition of tariff and non-tariff barriers or a simple choice by trading partners to look elsewhere for goods and services. Because trust matters, and we all, consciously or subconsciously, know that.

Local Government reorganisation - we couldn’t have Gipping Rural District back, could we?

 

Call me a hopeless romantic if you will, but I have to admit that I’ve grown fond of local government in a way that, had you asked me two decades ago, I would have snorted with derision. Perhaps that’s the difference that being a councillor at the very lowest tier of local government makes, even though my ambitions at any higher level are, at best, dormant these days.

Suffolk currently has three tiers of local government - County, Borough/District and  Town/Parish. Not so long ago, we had seven local authorities forming the second tier - Babergh (think South Suffolk), Forest Heath (Newmarket and Mildenhall), Ipswich, Mid Suffolk (Stowmarket and the hinterland), St Edmundsbury (Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill), Suffolk Coastal (Aldeburgh and Felixstowe) and Waveney (Lowestoft). All just a bit too small to be effective, not entirely well run and drifting towards obsolescence.

As the squeeze on local government finance began to hurt, it became clear that amalgamation was an easy way to cut costs, with Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury eventually merging to form West Suffolk, and Suffolk Coastal and Waveney merging to form East Suffolk. That left Ipswich, whose Labour leadership had no desire to be subsumed into a larger, likely Conservative leaning authority, and Babergh and Mid Suffolk who, having gone down the road of merging back office functions, were unable to persuade the voters of Babergh that full merger was acceptable. And that’s where we are now.

The Government, having indicated a desire to create new, larger authorities, covering a population of 300,000 to 400,000, imply a future of two unitary authorities, East Suffolk and West Suffolk, as the alternative - Greater Ipswich and Rural Suffolk - is likely to please nobody much. And, in truth, given the likely financial savings, it seems like a logical, possibly inevitable, outcome.

There is an irony there, in that, until 1974, we had... East Suffolk and West Suffolk. Below that, as the map indicates, we had a curious miscellany of County Boroughs, Municipal Boroughs, Urban Districts and Rural Districts, with Creeting St Peter falling within the Gipping Rural District. Prior to that, the 1934 local government reorganisation saw the merger of the East Stow (including Creeting St Peter) and Bosmere and Claydon Rural Districts. East Stow wasn’t big, with a population of about 7,000. Heavens, I could have been a councillor there...

In truth, I probably tend towards the view that a coming together of smaller authorities is likely to free up resources for public services rather than administration, although that view might not be wholly shared by local Liberal Democrats. On the one hand, larger wards take local councillors further away from those that they represent, whilst on the other, how many people can identify their local councillor(s) anyway? The romantic in me appreciates the personal touch, the pragmatist the financial benefits that economies of scale bring.

We’d probably end up with two Conservative-led authorities but, given that all but Ipswich are currently Conservative-led, what is there to lose? And, if our ultimate goal is to protect existing services and, one day, provide new ones, then the financial savings matter - the Golden Age of local government finance is receding into the rear view mirror (if it ever existed).

The trick will be to find ways of including the Towns and Parishes in a new structure where powers are devolved to those Councils that have the scope and/or wish to take responsibility, probably the Towns at first with larger Parishes following thereafter. Here in Creeting St Peter, I suspect that little will change - how much responsibility could a village of 275 souls realistically take on? - but even here, there might be things we would want to assume control over one day.

Unfortunately, regardless of how you organise local government, you need competent councillors to set the strategy, monitor delivery and assume responsibility, and the evidence is that it’s getting harder to attract good people. In Mid Suffolk, Liberal Democrats have been fortunate in that those who have sought election and been successful have generally been solidly committed to the communities they represent, and of enough talent to hold administrations to account. But it gets harder every year to attract fresh blood - a lot of work is required to win an election, and even the local Conservatives find it difficult to find enough candidates, despite the expectation that they will get elected on the basis of their blue rosette.

So, less councillors might make things easier for a while, and buy time sufficient to make the life of a local councillor that little bit more attractive, a little bit more accessible.

We’ll see though. An attempted reorganisation just before the 2010 General Election ran into the sand when Labour threw their hands in the air and suggested that it was all too difficult. Persuading a bunch of Conservative councillors that they should accept abolition quietly may be equally problematic...

It seems that the Conservatives do believe in virtue signalling, after all...

And so, it seems, I am to be driven back to the office, whether I want to do so or not. Apparently, the Government believe that, if the Civil Service goes back to a routine of commuting and meetings, the private sector will feel morally obliged to follow.

Admittedly, taking a moral lead doesn’t work too well for the Civil Service as a rule. Austerity saw us receive a series of nil or negative real terms pay “increases” which saw our pay fall by about 15% in real terms over a decade, whilst median pay rises across the workforce at least kept pace with inflation for the most part. And it’s been many a year since any government made changes to Civil Service pay and benefits that led the way in terms of enhancements.

But, in truth, we’re an easy target. Nobody much cares whether or not the Civil Service can recruit or retain staff, there’s a general assumption that we do nothing but drink tea and shuffle paper all day, that we receive gold-plated pensions and act as a restraint on progress and innovation. Of course, the fact that we exist because Government, and you the people, require someone to apply the laws and rules that you both insist upon introducing, appears to be a never-ending surprise to you all. Twas ever thus.

Sending us back to our city centre offices won’t make a lot of difference to the economy - many of my colleagues prefer to bring their own lunch, or can’t afford the price of a Pret sandwich, anyway, and given the organisational difficulties of escaping a ten storey building which has only three lifts in order to take a lunch break, I wouldn’t expect town centres to see a huge difference in footfall when we do return.

And, of course, we’ll be adding to the pressure on the restricted public transport services that now operate. HMRC, for example, having closed its network of local offices over the past three decades, now operates out of a small number of large office blocks which have, quite deliberately, little or no parking space - part of a policy of reducing traffic congestion in our major cities.

In addition, as part of a strategy to reduce costs, there now isn’t a dedicated desk for each staff member - we hotdesk instead, with desk provision based on a ratio of six or seven desks for every ten “full time equivalent” staff (i.e. part-timers are counted as the relevant fraction of a full-time staff member), and tablets instead of fixed computer stations. And that’s one of the reasons why we adapted so well, and so quickly, to working from home. Many of the people I speak to have no idea where I am, and care even less.

But, if it is insisted that I return, I will. And yes, there will be issues about social distancing and face mask wearing, there will be issues about how and when you can leave the building given restricted lift capacity, but if that’s what they want, that’s what the Government will get. Morale will probably fall amongst those who have adapted well to home working, but that’s a problem for management, I’d suggest. Will we be more efficient? In some ways, yes, in others, no.

Ironically, it will make not a whit of difference to the private sector. After all, their success depends on doing whatever increases efficiency and profitability the most, not on displaying some vaguely defined sense of morality without advantage. And the Government, especially this one, is hardly going to make them.

A Rural Bus Ride in the Time of COVID-19...

We’ve heard a lot about the problems of public transport operators since the pandemic set in - very few passengers, restrictions on those who do use it, and the financial crisis that an absence of fare revenue has wrought. Out here in rural Suffolk, there aren’t that many trains, and the notion of commercial bus services is quaint, to put it mildly. Most services outside of the major towns require a subsidy from the County Council, and with local government finances ever more tightly squeezed, their future is shaky.

Ros was chairing the ALDC Annual Conference today, and suggested that I might like to go out somewhere. Trains were out, as the High Output Track Renewal was at work south of Stowmarket, so I was reliant on buses.

With COVID-19 reducing discretionary travel to negligible numbers, our already sparse network was virtually skeletal, but as we’re all being encouraged back to work, they’re all being reinstated, and so I could catch a 114 bus from Little Stonham to Eye, as long as Ros was willing to drop me at the stop - it is nearly five miles away. At Eye, for contractual reasons, it would be transformed into a route 112 bus for the short dash to Diss.

And so, bright and early, Ros dropped me at a remote bus stop (in fairness, she did make sure that the bus came), and I was off in my own elongated taxi, there being no other passenger. Stonham Aspal, Mickfield and even Debenham, a relative metropolis, came and went without sight or sound of company. Rishangles and Thornham were a blur and then, at Occold, that staple of rural buses, a little old lady with a shopping basket got on. By the time we left Eye, there were four of us. Luckily, the bus seats 49...

I didn’t have long in Diss, which wasn’t a wholly bad thing to my mind, because I had a bus to catch for Norwich. There are four or five buses a day on the direct route up the A140, but I had in mind something different.

Norfolk County Council had, pre-pandemic, decided to try an experiment, introducing a Saturday service from Diss to Norwich via East Harling, the intention being to enable the villagers living in the wedge between the A11 and the A140 to go for a day’s shopping in Norwich and leave the car at home. You get about three hours in the city, enough for some shopping and a bite of lunch. There’s only one bus in each direction, but we’re used to that out here in the sticks.

Route 37A starts off by heading west out of Diss, passing through Roydon and Bressingham before veering off through the Lophams and then on to East Harling. You’ve now travelled ten miles and are now further from Norwich than you were when the bus left Diss. You are now heading in the right direction, at least.

I was, not entirely unexpectedly, the only passenger as we left Diss, but a rather enthusiastic woman got on in Roydon, and told me how wonderful the new service was, and how she was encouraging people to use it. She was going to East Harling to meet her sister and so, when we arrived, she got off. It was just me and the driver now...

Kenninghall, Banham (for the zoo), Buckenhams Old and New, passed by without a pause, let alone a passenger, then a detour through Carleton Rode and Bunwell before reaching Tacolneston. Still nobody to share our ride. Ashwellthorpe, Wreningham and Bracon Ash were left behind us before we pulled into Mulbarton. Surely we’d pick up someone there - it’s a growing community with a decent non-league football team and a supermarket? But no, we were left to carry on in glorious isolation all the way to Norwich, where I thanked the driver for the entertainment and got off.

Yes, it had taken three and a half hours to get to Norwich, compared to the usual half hour or so on the train, but the countryside’s lovely at this time of year, and I wasn’t in a hurry. Besides, if nobody uses these services, there soon won’t be services to lose...

The Great Hole of Creeting St Peter...

It is, as they say, never-endingly exciting here in Creeting St Peter.

Anglian Water had visited about two weeks ago to do some work at the northern end of the village but, afterwards, a leak had developed in the centre of the village. You know how it is with systems, you fix one thing and a weakness elsewhere appears. I didn’t think too much of it at the time. However, when it appeared to be getting worse, I thought that I ought to see if Anglian Water were aware of the problem.

They’ve got an app, so I checked for reports and, to my surprise, discovered that it appeared not to have been notified. And so, as a responsible citizen, I marked the spot on the online map, wrote a brief explanation of the problem, and waited. I didn’t have to wait long.

Jordan rang me within half an hour, asked a few questions and, once I had convinced him that this was seemingly unrelated to the long running drama which is the leak south of the bridge over the A14 to the south of the village, he advised that he would come out and take a look. Two hours or so later, Jordan rang again to confirm that we had a leak. Engineers would be assessing it shortly, he said.

This morning, men turned up in white Anglian Water vans, closed the road through the village, and dug a big hole in the road where the leak was. It might have been nice if they had told anyone they were coming, but we did get an automated telephone call when it proved necessary to turn off the water supply to two-thirds of the residents.

Fortunately, the water was only off for about three hours, but the road is still closed and likely to be so for a few days yet, based on the size of the hole they’ve left and the fact that a permanent junction pipe needs to be fitted.

In the meantime, the village is cut in half with the only access from one side to the other being on foot. At least, as one resident said, we haven’t had anyone speeding through the village all day...

Building a trusted, modern tax administration system... am I missing something?

 

Alright, I admit that how our taxation system is administered is perhaps not high on the agenda of many of you out there. But, perhaps because I am part of the current tax administration system, I take a closer interest in the topic. After all, shouldn't the organisation which raises £600 billion for public spending be of interest to anyone who cares about governance?

Five weeks ago, HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs published "Building a trusted, modern tax administration system", which outlines a path towards a major overhaul of how taxation is administered over the next decade with, as you might expect, a significant emphasis on digital transformation. Naturally, I support anything which makes the taxation system easier to navigate for customers of HMRC - less time spent managing your tax affairs means more time to run the business, make profits or spend time with your loved ones and other interests.

And, over the thirty-four years that I've worked for HMRC, I've seen some enormous changes in how the system works, indeed, when I joined in 1986, we were still issuing paper assessments which required mountains of carbon paper (look it up if you're so young that you don't remember it), and an army of clerical staff to shuffle paper, transport it and store it so it could be retrieved later. Filing ranges full of highly flammable paper, repositories and increasingly complex references, these were a part of everyday life. Now, I press a button, and a machine springs into life hundreds of miles away prints my letter and envelopes it so that I never see a piece of paper.

Technology is, inevitably, more efficient than people, more reliable, less likely to fall ill (although when it does...) and produces a consistency of outcome that is desirable in a system which is bound by a set of published rules.

In truth, the prospects of a world where businesses upload information directly into HMRC's computer systems holds little real fear for me. It is, it seems to me, an inevitable result of the opportunities that digital technology creates. Besides, I'll be gone within twelve years anyway...

However, I am troubled by one aspect of the report, or rather the aspect which is noticeable by its absence, i.e. the people who will deal with the public facing stuff - compliance, recovery, advice. There is no reference at all to the people who will manage the brave new world of HMRC.

You see, a trusted, modern tax administration system requires bright, motivated people to do the things that technology can't. A computer program can assess the relative risks generated by the entries in a tax return, but only a human can go out and test the explanations given by the customer, or judge what is missing. Only a human being can negotiate payment schedules, or determine whether or not a reference is correct or not where the answer is unclear, or variable.

Salaries in HMRC are increasingly uncompetitive, with clerical staff increasingly being caught up by the National Living Wage - that contact centre staff member you're asking about your tax repayment is increasingly likely to be being paid the same as they would be stacking shelves in Tesco - and technically trained tax inspectors are easily tempted by the remuneration levels paid to tax advisors in the private sector.

Ensuring a trusted, modern tax administration system does imply that you can trust the skills of the people who manage it at every level, and you can recruit and retain the calibre of staff you need only by providing a competitive package of pay and benefits. Otherwise, you risk having a system like that of the Wizard of Oz, impressive looking on the outside but, once you pull back the curtain, increasingly ramshackle underneath.

There is only one thing more expensive that good administration, and that's poor administration, and reliance on only one aspect of what should be a holistic package of reforms undermines even the best of intentions. But, in a world where civil servants often seem to be treated as mere production units rather than partners in reform, perhaps I shouldn't be all that surprised...

A gentle stroll, a cup of tea and a nice piece of cake...

The problem with being locked down for a while is that, eventually, you need a change. In the early days of the pandemic, we had the advantage of being in a small village, surrounded by a network of public footpaths. We were faithful to the rules, taking only one walk per day, but making it a decently long one. Indeed, we discovered some routes that, whilst we’d known they were there, we’d never walked before.

And, with a mild, dry Spring, we were able to get plenty of fresh air and exercise. Eventually, however, we’d exhausted many of the options and a change of scenery was required. Thankfully, that coincided with the reopening of some of the local National Trust properties on a limited basis.

We’ve not been members of the National Trust for very long - with our busy lives, we’d not really thought that we’d visit enough properties to make it worthwhile. We’re not even entirely bothered about the stately homes they preserve - they’re interesting, but not necessarily enthralling. However, the grounds are often rather lovely, and we do enjoy a walk in the countryside.

However, we’re not keen on crowds, especially in the current circumstances, so when the National Trust announced that admission would be strictly limited, and that pre-booking was required, our attention was instant. And now, our week has another punctuation mark, on a Friday when slots are released for the following week or so. Ros, being the early bird of the two of us, picks one of the properties and books two places so that we can have a nice stroll in relative peace.

We’ve been to Ickworth and Anglesey Abbey, Wicken Fen and Sutton Hoo, Blickling Hall and Oxburgh Hall, to name but a half dozen, and even if the weather isn’t brilliant, we’ve managed to take in some lovely scenery and burn some calories. The latter is useful because no National Trust visit is really complete without a nice cup of tea and a piece of cake, with perhaps a little browse in the gift shop afterwards.

Now I know what you’re thinking, that it’s a bit bourgeois and middle class. However, I’ve found that, as I’ve mellowed, that a chance to take a walk and let the mind wander a bit avoids my becoming mentally jaded. And our membership does go to support the preservation of some precious islands of calm in an increasingly crazy world.

Of course, the National Trust does have its critics. The recent “controversy” over slavery and the extent to which the profits of slavery allowed the building of many fine houses is merely resentment of the fact that, then as now, some people make their money by some rather suspect means. Buying and selling people was hardly morally upstanding, even by the standards of the day, but it was extremely lucrative. Ros and I take an interest in social history, and considering how someone made enough money to build such properties is, in itself, interesting. History is, after all, rather more than kings and queens, wars and famines.

As long as there’s a half-decent chance of a slice of lemon drizzle cake, I think we can probably cope with a little realism in our lives...

A penny on the pound on income tax for...

Rishi Sunak has a problem. He’s spent an awful lot of money to enable the economy to limp through the pandemic and to save millions of jobs. And now, he has to find a way of staunching the flow of cash and to start to restore the national finances without causing the calamity he sought to avoid in March.

That’s going to be easier said than done. As Government ministers and right-wing pundits have realised, without people returning to town and city centres, those jobs can’t be protected forever, and as financial support is gradually withdrawn, businesses that didn’t have to pay to furlough staff are now having to face the prospect of either contributing increasing amounts toward keeping staff at home doing nothing, or letting them go. And you can probably guess what’s likely to happen...

The Sunday Times reports that Rishi is considering four things in terms of tax changes;

• An increase in the rate of corporation tax to 24% from the current 19%
• A resetting of capital gains tax rates to reflect the equivalent rates of income tax, effectively treating them as additional income
• Changing the way that company dividends are taxed - currently the tax system encourages companies to pay their directors in dividends rather than through a salary as dividends aren’t charged for National Insurance purposes
• Restricting the rate of tax relief on pension contributions to 30%

It’s interesting stuff, albeit not exactly radical or groundbreaking.

Today, I want to look at the recent history of Corporation Tax, as it’s something I know a bit about, having worked in the field for a decade after the turn of the millennium.

It’s easy to forget that the current rates of Corporation Tax are something of an aberration. Indeed, Corporation Tax rates peaked under the Heath Government in 1973 at 52% (42% for limited companies with annual profits lower than £25,000). You might not be surprised to hear that the Thatcher administration saw that rate fall to 34% (25% for limited companies with annual profits lower than £200,000).

Things stabilised for a while until the dog days of the 1992-97 Major administration when, in an attempt to be popular for something, rates were cut to 21% and 30% respectively.

Gordon Brown inherited that, and did little to change the basic rates, which stabilised at 20% for small companies and a basic rate of 30% otherwise. Instead, he tinkered with a starting rate, first at 10%, then at 0%. What that achieved was an explosion in the growth of limited companies, given the suddenly obvious advantages of paying yourself in dividends rather than exposing yourself to income tax and National Insurance Contributions. It didn’t last, but the damage was already done.

It was the Coalition years which saw the next dramatic move, with the basic rate being rapidly reduced to match the Small Companies Rate, parity being reached (at 20%) in 2015. Nonetheless, Government receipts from Corporation Tax have remained pretty buoyant and increased quite dramatically in the post-Coalition period (there’s usually a lag between rate changes and their effect).

So, an increase to 24% would really only return the position to that of 2012/13. Would it drive businesses offshore? Possibly in some cases, although if other countries are looking to raise income simultaneously, the benefits of relocation may be limited. And, in any event, even at 24%, the United Kingdom would still be competitive against its major European rivals.

In other words, how much harm could it do?

There are, of course, alternatives in terms of corporate reliefs - reducing the rate of first year capital allowances, for example - although it might be argued that a change in the basic rate is easily understood by those to whom a message is being sent.

My gut feeling is that equalising the basic rates of Corporation Tax and Income Tax would be unthreatening, even if it might not raise much money. Far better politically to do what Chancellors have tended to do in recent years - technical adjustments  that slide under the radar with the media but raise useful extra sums.

August 2020 - Parish Councillor report

August is traditionally a quiet month in the Parish Council year - we take the month off from meetings as both Clerks and Councillors alike head off on holiday. Admittedly, this year is a bit different, what with COVID-19, but the principle remains broadly the same. I’ve not been idle though, and so it seems appropriate to report what I’ve been doing.

In terms of Council business, I’ve focussed on Fen Alder Carr, the nature reserve that we took over responsibility for a few years back. Residents will probably know that it has been closed to the public for some time, as the wooden boardwalk that represents the only means of access to the site is in a dangerous condition. Given that the only options are repair or replacement with earthwork embankments, both of which are massively outside of our ability to fund, I fear that our only option is to “hand the keys back” to Suffolk County Council, or to leave it closed indefinitely.

Unfortunately, we hold the site on a 99-year lease, with a break point at 25 years, i.e. in 2039, so handing the keys back is unlikely.

The County Council recently announced that they would be created “healing places” for people who have lost loved ones through COVID-19, so I did write to the relevant County Portfolio Holder, Richard Rout, and our County Councillor, Gary Green, to see if they might be interested in using Fen Alder Carr in such a way. But, whilst their responses were very polite, it doesn’t appear to suit their published intentions.

I’m also looking at the terms of our lease to ensure that we are complying with its requirements, which has proved to be quite interesting.

Otherwise, I’ve reported the water leak which sprang up last week at the junction of Pound Road and The Lane, and can advise that, within three hours of my report, Jordan from Anglian Water had contacted me to confirm the location and visited the leak to... confirm that there was a leak. Engineers will be out to take further action shortly. If you do see a water leak somewhere, here’s the link that allows you to report it...

I’ve also reported the damaged direction marker at the bottom of Pound Road where it meets Mill Lane - it seems that the sign itself has come adrift of the bracket that holds it in place. It would be nice if Suffolk Highways are able to repair or replace it shortly, but given budgetary pressures at County level, I’m not holding my breath. Again, if you see a damaged piece of road or a broken sign, you can report that using the Suffolk Highways reporting tool.

The Parish Council will next meet on 21 September, almost certainly virtually. If you have any concerns, or if there’s anything we can do to help, feel free to get in touch with any of the five of us. I can often be found walking around the village as part of my exercise regime, and I’m pretty friendly, so don’t be shy.

Is the urging back to our offices in any way altruistic?

I am a bureaucrat, thus my days are usually spent in an office, in a town centre location. I go for a walk at lunchtime every day, mostly to get my 10,000 steps a day, but occasionally to pick up the odd thing that I need - a loaf of bread, perhaps, or a birthday card, or a sandwich. At least, I did, until five months ago. I haven’t been back to my office since.

It has been an interesting time. Without the need to catch a community bus at about 7.45 every morning, I can sleep in a little and still start work at 8.30, and I can finish at 5 and make dinner, leaving time for an after dinner stroll around my village. I save a sizeable chunk by not having to commute, about 10% of my gross salary, some of which is spent on slightly higher utility bills, and extra groceries.

I can, if I prefer, work different patterns, depending on what I’m doing, or can break up the day into chunks, working say a four hour shift in the morning, taking a long lunch break, and working another four hour shift in the afternoon, if that suits. Think of it as an extended version of flexible working hours - my employer gets my time when I’m more motivated to work and I am thus, theoretically, more productive.

Richard Littlejohn and a bunch of other people whose views can usually be categorised as right-wing, believe that I should be “back at work”. Admittedly, most of us in the despised public sector never actually got furloughed - one of those nice tax officers helping people with their claims under the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme is me, for example. His assumption, that if you’re not in the office, you’re not working, is pretty bloody offensive, if you ask me.

Of course, there are casualties. All of those outlets which exist to service office workers may well not survive and those that do will have to adjust. On the other hand, a lot of people working in the service sector can’t afford to live in, or even near, the inner city, and thus ironically are commuting to follow those working there. Potentially, that means that I might use a barber in Stowmarket or Needham Market instead of in Ipswich, or buy a sandwich there. Somebody will still need to cut my hair, or make my sandwich, but they won’t be commuting either and they can either reduce their prices to reflect their reduced overheads, or maintain prices and make greater profits.

And, if your livelihood depends on commercial property, you might have a bit of a problem. On the other hand, if you’re renting out office space by the hour, day or week, like WeWorks (for example), you might have more opportunities for business. Housing costs will be reduced if you really don’t need to live in expensive urban areas, and work-life balance is likely to be enhanced for many.

It isn’t a utopia. For some people, working from home is challenging. Creating a clear division between work and home is difficult if both are located in exactly the same space. Being in the same place as your loved ones all of the time can have an impact on relationships - we all need some personal space and time sometimes - and for those of whom see work as an escape from an otherwise dull or depressing life, the loss of that escape can lead to mental health issues.

Some will prefer the office existence, others will be happy to go in two or three days a week, varying on their personal circumstances. What it does offer is freedom and choice, two things that right-wing commentators are usually rather keen on. Clearly, it wasn’t the sort of choice and freedom they had in mind. Or, perhaps, the idea of freedom and choice was intended for them alone.

But, ultimately, a key decider of our working future is what is profitable or advantageous to our employers. If they see an advantage to having more staff working from home, be it in terms of reduced costs or higher productivity, they’ll probably encourage it, and all of the whining from the likes of Richard Littlejohn will have absolutely no effect.

Me, myself, I... him, her, they...

One of the things about life is that, if you’re paying attention, you learn more about the world about you and about the people that inhabit it. This summer has been a case in point.

A chunk of it was spent acting as Returning Officer for the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats - an independent Returning Officer is required for such groups - and I was seriously exposed to the world of pronouns for the first time. There’s no doubt that the world we live in has become more complex and, as our society becomes more diverse in every sense, the range of linguistic options becomes wider. And pronouns are a part of this widening that, for my generation (I’m in my mid-fifties), can feel a bit daunting.

In an era of “culture wars”, there appear to be two ways of dealing with that, the first being to simply ignore it, refer to people as he or she, and not worry too much (or even at all) about whether you offend people. You’re probably the sort of person who complains about political correctness and lives in a relative monoculture. Given that I’m a self-described liberal, you might guess that this doesn’t work for me.

Suffolk is, for the most part, a relative monoculture. Whilst I’ve rather fallen in love with my small village in the Gipping Valley, minorities are highly noticeable because there are so few of them. It’s comfortable and, in some ways, unchallenging. And so, having to interact with a group of people who are extremely diverse, such as LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, is a reminder of how diversity and mutual respect should work. From my perspective, that was about getting pronouns right, using phrases such as “ladies and gentlemen” which, when you’re addressing a group which you know includes non-binary people, is actually just gratuitously rude.

I was taught early on in life that you should try to treat people as I would wish to be treated myself, and it strikes me that, in order to gain respect, you have to show some. And, by referring to people using their preferred pronouns is a part of that. Their preferred pronoun is a part of who they perceive themselves to be, so how much harm is it doing to me to use it?

And it does puzzle me why people get so angry about pronouns. What impact that it have other than asking you to think a little about the people you interact with, and why is that a bad thing? In a society where people seem increasingly to forget the impact that their actions have on other people, and often give the impression of not caring about that, wouldn’t it be great if people were a little more self-aware?

It isn’t necessarily “easy”, and people like me will get it wrong from time to time. A polite correction should suffice to enable us to get it right going forward though, and making an effort to overcome years of social upbringing and environment should deal with the rest.

So, bear with me - I am trying...

Are the Liberal Democrats manageable? - the bureaucrat’s cut

Last Wednesday, I had an article published by Liberal Democrat Voice and, I think, was well received. But perhaps I should take the opportunity offered by my own blog to expand a little... the original article is in italics...

Two weeks ago, I wrote a piece questioning a proposal for managing the Party through a Steering Group, pointing out that, based on what I had been led to understand, it appeared to duplicate existing bodies while adding another step between those in charge and those to whom they are accountable. Subsequently, there were reassurances given, which I think were reasonable.

But today, I have another question.

When the Liberal Democrats were formed, it was said that it was a merger of one Party whose motto was “never trust the members” with another whose motto was “never trust the leadership”. The problem is, that the two beliefs continue to run in parallel, and are reflected in how we run our Party today.

Our Committee structures are designed to ensure that there are myriad people whose role is to reflect and defend the views and positions of their “client group”, and others whose purpose is of oversight without apparent responsibility. So, for example, the Chairs of the various Federal Committees are members of the Federal Board so that they can be held accountable. Meanwhile, the Federal Board appoints representatives on the various Federal Committees. Why? Do they not trust the Chairs to report backwards and forwards faithfully?

So, perhaps somebody might like to explain the following;

1. What are the Federal Board’s representatives on its subsidiary committees for?
2. What instructions are they given in taking up their roles?
3. To whom are they accountable and how?

We could slim down the various Federal Committees by stripping out some of the duplication - how many of the represented groups have members who have been directly elected in their own right, for example, and wouldn’t that be better anyway? Does the Federal Board need to be represented on every other Committee?

I would argue that it does not. “Report up, scrutinise down”, should be the thread that runs through the Party’s committee structures. And besides, wasn’t one of the key concepts of the last Governance Review that people shouldn’t, as far as possible, serve on more than one Federal committee?

And members don’t help. Every three years, we elect a bunch of people to Federal Committees to “break up the Establishment” and then, as soon as they’re in post, we charge them with being “the Establishment” and display as much distrust of them as we ever did their predecessors.

I’m afraid that I’ve observed this too often. People are elected on the basis of their claims that they can change things without necessarily understanding why things are as they are or, in a few cases, caring to find out. Federal Conference Committee is a case in point - a committee which has, from an outsider’s perspective, been rather well run over the years, with a willingness to engage. And yet, we go through a regular cycle of members complaining about the lack of variety in terms of venues, running for election to FCC, and then discovering that the criteria for a successful physical conference are surprisingly restrictive.

The problem is that the Party’s democracy is performative, not real. We have elections, but accountability and scrutiny are poor. Finding out what the Committees do between elections is difficult - the various minutes are seldom published, very brief reports go to Federal Conference. Here at Liberal Democrat Voice, we publish reports as they are sent to us, but we’re an imperfect way of reaching the wider membership. Meanwhile, it is difficult for individual Committee members to report back on their own personal activities, which makes voting on their records challenging and occasionally unfair when they run for re-election.

Jennie Rigg made the very reasonable point that it isn’t easy to report back as an individual, as she noted in her frank comment;

When I was elected to FCC by the wider membership I blogged about what happened, and included vote numbers in my blog posts. There was significant pushback against this from almost all of the rest of the committee. I took to instead saying things like “unanimous” “large majority” or “close vote” instead because one doesn’t like to upset people, but it just shows that even someone like me can be pushed into being less transparent than they would like by the urge for secrecy from others….

I feel her pain, having written extensively on the dilemma eleven years ago. It gets no easier, and with the fragmentation of social media, it becomes harder to reach a wide audience in any event. Is the angst worth it?

Openness and transparency are supposedly liberal values. They’re certainly mine, even allowing for the fact that there are certain subjects where discretion is not only appropriate but wholly necessary. But for openness and transparency to be practical, you need trust - on both sides. Is anyone willing to start the process of building that trust?

I would courteously suggest that the Party President takes a lead on this, preferably not via his own blog, but through official Party media. Whilst as individuals, our cynicism doesn’t necessarily create difficulties for the Centre, we have little means by which to make change happen. The Leadership, on the other hand...

Memories of sea otters

It is hard to believe that, a year ago, Ros and I were coming to the end of our Alaska cruise, still hoping to see sea otters up close and personal. The cruise hadn't been quite what we had originally intended, for which I blame the US authorities - a ban on non-US citizens driving zodiacs meant that we weren't able to do all of the things that we had intended. This put a bit of a cramp on the wildlife element of the trip.

Indeed, we'd reached the last full day of the trip, and I was beginning to get a bit edgy about the lack of sea otters. So, why sea otters?

Well, how can I put it, they're incredibly personable creatures, with a relaxed attitude, a sense of fun and the most wonderful fur. Cute too, as anyone who's seen a video of a baby sea otter will testify. We'd seen them in aquariums, but seeing wild ones was very high on the bucket list indeed.

As our ship edged slowly into Cordova, our penultimate stop, the cry went up that there were sea otters. And, indeed, there were. Not too close, but close enough to make them out with binoculars. And maybe, just maybe, we might see more.

On coming ashore, I wanted to look at the harbour, only to be confronted with a rather nonchalant sea otter, floating idly by the edge of the harbour wall. Catching Ros's attention, we watched as it bobbed about a bit, did a few turns and dived beneath the surface. It turned out that the harbour at Cordova was a bit of a sea otter hangout - they were everywhere, determined to put on a show for any tourists who might drop by.

It was simply wonderful.

They are bigger than you think, about the size of a large spaniel, with sharp teeth, and making a welcome comeback after having been nearly hunted to extinction for their fur. Indeed, they've done so well that the local First Nation groups are concerned about their competition for fish stocks. Admittedly, the sea otters got there first, so my sympathy is a bit limited, especially as sea otters would probably bring significant tourism revenue into the Alaska coastal communities.

Lemurs next, I think...

Creeting St Peter: a question of vision and accountability

Pretty much ever since I arrived in the village in 2008, the fate of the land bordering our side of the A1120 slip road has haunted us. It is, I freely acknowledge, a perfect location for development, sandwiched between the East Anglian Main Line railway and the A14 with its link between the container port at Felixstowe and the Midlands.

But, up until recently, whilst there was a lot of talk about first a lorry park, and later a business and enterprise zone, nothing had actually happened, except that the site had been transferred from Creeting St Peter to Stowmarket courtesy of a change to the parish boundary. In fairness, given that such a change would enhance the financial benefit to the locality, I couldn't really complain.

However, the land was recently purchased by Mid Suffolk District Council, who now rather need to create an income stream to achieve value from their investment, and things are beginning to move rather faster.

Naturally, as the Chair of the Parish Council most affected, I am taking an interest. I'm keen, for obvious reasons, to establish a dialogue with the developers at as early a stage as possible - raising our issues at an early stage increases the likelihood that we can achieve some positive outcomes for the community, and allows for better engagement for residents.

And so, I looked to establish where I might start. The project is led by a company called Gateway14 Ltd, working in conjunction with its development partner, Jaynic Ltd. Gateway14 Ltd is in turn wholly owned by MSDC (Suffolk Holdings) Ltd, which is 100% owned by Mid Suffolk District Council. It seemed to me, therefore, that I should seek a response from the senior director of the holding company, Cllr Gerard Brewster. Cllr Brewster is the sole independent councillor in Mid Suffolk, but is Deputy Leader of the Council, having been co-opted into the Conservative-led administration - his vote gives them control of the Council on the casting vote of the Chair. He's also the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth. 

And so, I sent him a very polite e-mail;

Dear Cllr Brewster,

In my capacity as Chair of the Parish Council most seriously impacted by the Gateway 14 project, I note the information supplied in the District Council's latest press release on the subject.

I wonder if the Council is intending to consult with local residents prior to seeking planning permission, and would be grateful for your thoughts on how this might be achieved in the near future.

I would be happy to arrange opportunities for the District Council to meet (physically or virtually) with residents to outline development plans and to discuss what opportunities might arise in terms of facilities or opportunities for our village.

Ros in the Lords: Written Question - Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Asked by: Lord Hylton

Asked on: 6 July 2020

To ask the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body whether the Strategic Review of the Restoration and Renewal Programme will be conducted by one person, or corporately by the Sponsor Body.

Answered by: Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Answered on: 7 July 2020

The strategic review is being led by the chief executives of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Sarah Johnson and David Goldstone, with support from infrastructure and programme management experts drawn from both organisations. The chairs of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Liz Peace and Mike Brown, will also provide input.

As the review progresses input and challenge will also be sought from a challenge group including representatives from both Houses and externally.

The review is expected to conclude in the autumn and its findings will be considered by the Sponsor Body Board and the Commissions of both Houses in the first instance.

Ros in the Lords: Agriculture Bill - Committee Stage

When Ros first went to the Lords, twenty years ago, one of the first pieces of legislation that she was involved in was the Countryside and Rights of Ways Act. But, with the Government now obliged to establish some sort of UK replacement for the Common Agricultural Policy in order to subsidise British farmers, the terms of that support are being debated...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]

My Lords, like some other noble Lords, I fell victim to the Second Reading cull. Had I been able to speak at Second Reading, I would have focused entirely on the question of public access, so I am very pleased to have the opportunity this evening of supporting my noble friend Lord Addington’s amendments and saying a few words.

We are all agreed that the principle of reward for public good is the right one, and it feels to me as if public access is one of the most important public goods that we can put in the Bill. We know that open-air activity in the countryside—not just walking but all sorts of activity—has a huge contribution to make to individual health and well-being. I think it should sit alongside access to good-quality food as an important outcome of the Bill. I was very heartened to hear the Minister’s response to the last group amendments, when he talked about the importance of projects for well-being and partnership working with other departments.

But it goes much further. There is, of course, an economic development argument, with people coming to visit farm shops, cafés and pubs, but it is even more fundamental than that. One thing that has troubled ​many of us is the real disconnect between people, the food they eat and the way that it is produced. Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments later in the Bill to deal with that. Regular access to the countryside is one important way of helping to stimulate this interest in and understanding of the way that our food is produced. It is also a way of exciting young people into thinking, potentially, about careers in agriculture, land management or forestry—individuals who come from towns, not necessarily just country dwellers. The same can be said about biodiversity, landscape, animal welfare—the more access people have to the countryside, the more committed they will be to those things.

For a decade, I chaired a rights of way committee in Suffolk. I know that some landowners are more accommodating than others and that some users do not behave in ways that we might like them to, but this stand-off really does need to end, because going forward, the link between individual taxpayers and farmers will be much clearer than it was in the days of the CAP. If people have a perception that they are somehow not welcome in the countryside, they will ask, “Why should my tax money support you?” I think that it would be in everyone’s interests to begin to think much more carefully about public access.

In the interests of time, I will not go through the amendments, but there are two categories. There are the ones that seek to make sure that nothing in the Bill makes the situation any worse. An example is the important question of cross-compliance: making sure that we do not pay for farmers and landowners who do not even comply with their duties under the Highways Act. Nor should we be using taxpayers’ money to help them to do what they should be doing anyway. So we have one set of amendments that are negative in focus, but then the much more positive ones which talk about enhancement and all the things we do to improve public access—not just public footpaths and rights of way, but access more generally, and particularly how we should think about getting people from towns and cities out into the countryside that we all enjoy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.