Tom Richmond: Ministers need to put their house in order

THE coalition's haste to abolish Labour's target culture is admirable. Nevertheless, this does not justify Ministers riding roughshod over the law of land, as exemplified by property developer Cala Homes successfully appealing against the abolition of regional housing targets.

On this, and other issues, Ministers need to remember that people's livelihoods are allied to their decisions – like those construction firms counting upon such strategies to plan for the future. The decision of Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles not to appeal can be interpreted in two ways: either he accepts that he overstepped the mark or he knows that yesterday's ruling will be quietly nullified by the Localism Bill now passing through Parliament.

Like scrapping targets, the coalition's wish to devolve power resonates with many. Too many planning decisions have been taken in Whitehall. However, it is already clear that the Government's alternative to house building targets – the use of incentives to persuade town halls to back contentious developments – will not work.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Most councils accept that new houses are needed to reflect demographic changes. But, equally, they realise that many schemes attract opposition and the culture of "nimbyism" prevails.

This is particularly pertinent at Menston, on the outskirts of Leeds, where residents are fighting a rearguard action against two major housing schemes because the local infrastructure is already at breaking point.

In this instance, they are right to do so. The concerns are legitimate. This is not opposition for the sake of opposition. But, at some point, new houses are going to be required, The question is where, and what does the Government intend to do to ensure that the roads and drains can support this expansion?

Some targets may, therefore, be required to break this impasse and ensure that local authorities work together. If councils operate in isolation, no new homes will be built – they will simply leave it to others and vice versa. Mr Pickles should think again before one flawed policy is replaced with an equally unhelpful approach.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

AS expected, Wakefield MP Mary Creagh has made an underwhelming start to her stint as Shadow Environment Secretary.

Her opening foray was to criticise Tory minister Caroline Spelman for agreeing to a 30 per cent departmental cut, even though Labour would have gone much further if it had remained in power.

Creagh would have been advised to have offered a fulsome apology for Labour's botched handling of the Rural Payments Agency – the latest EU-imposed fine for late payments now means that the bureaucratically inept body has forked out 200m in penalties.

CONTRAST Mary Creagh's naivety with the constructive opposition of fellow Yorkshire MP Michael Dugher, a shadow defence minister clearly going places.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

With many sceptical about the amount of money that can be accrued by efficiency savings, the Barnsley MP has exposed a glaring contradiction in the coalition's ranks.

After David Cameron told Parliament on October 19 that changes in the MoD would save 4.7bn and that this would be "made easier by the return of the Army from Germany", Dugher noted Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey's written answer eight days later in which he said it is "too early to say what the financial impact will be". Harvey was on the back foot when asked for an explanation. "Moving troops back from Germany will involve an initial up-front cost, but it is important to stress that big savings will be made in the long-term," he said. We'll see.

Dugher's intervention is precisely the type of opposition intervention that is required if the Government is to be held effectively to account.

GORDON Brown was not very subtle when he talked about broken promises this week and why Britain was hardly in a position to lecture African nations to restrict a leader's period in office to two terms. Though Tony Blair was not mentioned by name, we all know who Brown was talking about. Curiously, though, he was silent on whether it is good for democracy when unelected leaders come to power. I wonder why?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

TALKING of Tony Blair, his wife Cherie has had a bad week. It appears she argued with President George W Bush so forcefully about the death penalty on their first acquaintance that her son Euan, then 17, had to tell her: "Give the man a break, mother."

And then it emerges that she is one of those misguided Labour souls who is standing by shamed ex-MP Phil Woolas after he was booted out of Parliament for lying about his election opponent.

Has she no shame?

I'D forgotten that there still existed an Office of Rail Regulation – complete with 320 quangocrats – until a Parliamentary committee criticised its ineffectual work this week reducing overcrowding on commuter trains.

I'm not surprised. The five objectives, listed on the organisation's website, do not include customer care at all, simply platitudes such as "improve and align relationships and its incentives in the industry".

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

How about the ORR's 12 executive and non-executive directors spending a week in Yorkshire experiencing rush-hour on trains, and then explaining how – and when – new rolling stock can be introduced over the next five years?

It shouldn't entail too much inconvenience on their part – Bill Emery, the chief executive, lives in Sheffield and is a chartered civil engineer who previously worked for Yorkshire Water and Ofwat.

A FINAL thought. Why weren't this week's student rioters in lectures – or studying?