Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Derek Twigg, answered two written questions about Aborfield Garrison put by John Redwood, details of which may be found below.

(Source: Hansard)

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to seek planning permission for more housing development at Arborfield Garrison prior to disposal of surplus property and land. [150923]

Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence is required to obtain market value when disposing of surplus assets. Officials work closely with English Partnerships, regional development agencies, local authorities and other key stakeholders when considering its disposal strategy. This will often include an assessment of development and regeneration opportunities which can be taken forward by prospective purchasers.
Currently we are promoting the surplus land holdings at Arborfield Garrison within the emerging Local Development Framework for a residential-led mixed use re-development. This may lead to a planning application being made by MOD prior to disposal of the land.

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what area of land at Arborfield Garrison he expects to become surplus to his Department’s requirements by 2012; and how much of that area is designated brownfield. [150924]

Derek Twigg: Arborfield Garrison consists of Rowcroft Barracks, Hazebrouck Barracks and West Court Officers’ Mess that are due to become surplus to the Department’s requirements by 2012. The site areas are respectively 50.753 hectares, 67.332 hectares and 28.393 hectares. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, we consider most of the land holdings as previously developed land (often referred to as brownfield land).
In addition there is 2.24 hectares not assigned to any of the above sites and a number of Service families accommodation, owned by Annington Homes Limited (AHL), that will become surplus to this Department and will be handed back to AHL under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement.

We should also be preparing for possible sea invasion as well as improving our response to too much rainfall.

The biggest task ahead is to renew the Thames barrier. The barrier is forecast to have an effective life up to 2020. We should recognise how crucial it is to offer proper protection to the millions of people in the East Thames and London area, and should be planning a bigger barrier further east. This could be linked to land reclamation in the estuary to create value for development that would help pay for the scheme.Sea defences along the Kentish coast also need to be strengthened, now that so much new development is going into the East Thames corridor.

The government should announce a competition for private sector plans for a new barrier, asking for their bids on how much money the project could generate and what public funding might also be needed.

We should reconsider the Environment Agency’s planned strategic retreat in places along the east coast, to see if there are realistically priced solutions to keeping the sea out in other places.

The latest floods have revealed how inadequate our sewerage and drainage system has become in many parts of the country. One of the worst features of the flooding in my area was the foul water mixing with the surface water, making clean up so much more unpleasant and difficult a task.

The government should learn the following lessons:

1. It’s Inspectors should not grant planning permission on flood plain, without reaching agreement with a developer on improving local drainage and expanding the capacity of the local system to the benefit of existing homes

Last summer we were rightly worried about too little water being collected

In

On 6 July I warned about the debt mountains built up on both sides of the Atlantic during the decade of easy money, and forecast that the central Banks would carry on tightening. leading to the further collapses after the sub prime crisis.

On 15 July I talked about the huge imbalances between Asia and the US and the instability they are creating in world markets.

In the last two weeks the message has begun to get home to share markets. Tonight the UK index is down 200 points and the US one currently 340 points lower.

The Uk market has to discount the big losses made by many businesses as a result of the floods as well as the impact of tightening credit on the debt inflated markets worldwide.

During the easy come easy borrow years people fell in love with independent central banks who kept interest rates low. I wonder how long the love affair will last, if the Central Banks really mean this squeeze and carry on pressurising debt out of the system. I assume the central banks will back off quite soon. If they don’t then it could be quite a collapse.

It was kind of the French to include the garden of England in the now

Last Wednesday in the House of Commons, John Redwood intervened in the debate on the Corporate Manslaughter Bill to challenge the Secretary of State for Justice over the management of custody of offenders in the country. The extract from Hansard follows:

Mr. Redwood: I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office

At the weekend John Redwood went around his constituency of Wokingham to assess the impact of the recent flooding, which has left houses without electricity, several families in need of re-housing for the next few months, and resulted in the closure of Emmbrook School. Several Councillors have also visited people affected by the floods in their own wards and sent reports to John.

Having witnessed the damage, John Redwood yesterday asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at why several recent housing developments in his constituency had experienced flooding. In approving these developments, Mr Redwood said, the government and the Environment Agency had failed to insist on the adequate provision of drains and ditches to protect these new home owners, and he asked the Secretary of State to investigate this failure. [See item 1, from Hansard, below].

Mr Redwood will also continue to press the government on why, despite early warnings from the Met Office about the likelihood of a wet summer, in addition to concerns raised by him and others over the past few years about the risks of flooding, neither they nor the Environment Agency appeared at all prepared for what happened. People need to know exactly what the government is going to do in the future to stop this happening again.

From his tour of Wokingham and West Berkshire it was clear that the worst affected areas were entirely predictable low lying roads and homes on land near rivers. The government and its Environment Agency should do more to divert water and put in place suitable barriers near homes and important public infrastructure.

John Redwood has been concerned about flood defence for some time, and has continually warned Ministers about the likely consequences of inadequate maintenance and lack of capacity. On two occasions earlier this month he highlighted the Agency’s unsatisfactory record in maintaining flood defences. [See items 2 and 3 below].

Over the previous few years John Redwood has asked successive ministerial teams to give urgent attention to the need to replace or strengthen the Thames barrier in the immediate future, and to look at the efficacy of coastal defences in general. [See items 4-10 below].

Item 1 [Hansard, 23rd July 2007]:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Secretary of State look at why several recent developments of homes in my constituency have been flooded, and will he ask why the Environment Agency did not insist on more adequate drainage and ditches when the developments were being put in place, to protect new owners from that terrible shock?

Hilary Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in answer to an earlier question, we have now given the Environment Agency a much stronger position in the process by requiring it to be statutorily consulted when new planning applications come in. We have tightened the planning guidance

The dollar fell heavily again last night, reaching a new low of $2.06 to the pound and falling below 80 on the DXY dollar index. Wall Street also took a pounding as shareholders worried more about the housing

At the weekend John Redwood went around his constituency of Wokingham to assess the impact of the recent flooding, which has left houses without electricity, several families in need of re-housing for the next few months, and resulted in the closure of Emmbrook School. Several Councillors have also visited people affected by the floods in their own wards and sent reports to John.

Having witnessed the damage, John Redwood yesterday asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at why several recent housing developments in his constituency had experienced flooding. In approving these developments, Mr Redwood said, the government and the Environment Agency had failed to insist on the adequate provision of drains and ditches to protect these new home owners, and he asked the Secretary of State to investigate this failure. [See item 1, from Hansard, below].

Mr Redwood will also continue to press the government on why, despite early warnings from the Met Office about the likelihood of a wet summer, in addition to concerns raised by him and others over the past few years about the risks of flooding, neither they nor the Environment Agency appeared at all prepared for what happened. People need to know exactly what the government is going to do in the future to stop this happening again.

From his tour of Wokingham and West Berkshire it was clear that the worst affected areas were entirely predictable low lying roads and homes on land near rivers. The government and its Environment Agency should do more to divert water and put in place suitable barriers near homes and important public infrastructure.

John Redwood has been concerned about flood defence for some time, and has continually warned Ministers about the likely consequences of inadequate maintenance and lack of capacity. On two occasions earlier this month he highlighted the Agency’s unsatisfactory record in maintaining flood defences. [See items 2 and 3 below].

Over the previous few years John Redwood has asked successive ministerial teams to give urgent attention to the need to replace or strengthen the Thames barrier in the immediate future, and to look at the efficacy of coastal defences in general. [See items 4-10 below].

Item 1 [Hansard, 23rd July 2007]:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Secretary of State look at why several recent developments of homes in my constituency have been flooded, and will he ask why the Environment Agency did not insist on more adequate drainage and ditches when the developments were being put in place, to protect new owners from that terrible shock?

Hilary Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in answer to an earlier question, we have now given the Environment Agency a much stronger position in the process by requiring it to be statutorily consulted when new planning applications come in. We have tightened the planning guidance

I am pleased that the PM and the new Environment Secretary have decided to set up an independent enquiry into flooding. It is a good sign that they are listening to the worries many of us have about flood defences and anti flood planning and are prepared to take some advice from outside on what to do about it.

The review should examine

1. Why so many defences were not maintained in good condition, and how this can be improved in future.

2. How we can ensure drainage systems for surface water on highways and near developments can be kept clean.

3. Which ditches should be widened/deepened to take a bigger quantity of water.

4. Where new river courses can be created to take some of the excess water at times of flood, taking the water away from built up areas.

5. How future housing developments pushed through by government Inspectors can be conditional on improvements to the pattern of local drainage, given the faster run off of water they will encourage.

6. Where surface drainage needs improving urgently to handle the impact of past developments.

7. Where sea and coastal defences need strengthening

8. Where temporary or permanent barriers can be used to protect important installations or houses from nearby streams and rivers

I was dellighted to read that the government has given permission for a desalination plant for water supply for London. It is needed as a back up, and if built promptly it could save us from the embarrassment of a water shortage during the Olympics. I have been warning that if we have a summer like last year’s for the games we will have to issue leaflets to people saying “Welcome to London,. Welcome to the dirty games. Please do not shower or bath while you are here, as we need to conserve water”.

Now we need to press on with the Abigndon reservoir, to keep pace with all the new homes the government plans for the South-east, and to keep up with all the demand from all the extra people coming to live in the UK.

When rivers swell following a period of very heavy rain there are three courses of action open to the Environment Agency which has the duty of water management.

The lack of preparation by the Environment Agency for floods over the last two years should be brought out by the media following the grave situation in flooded England.

Mr Milliband, Secretary of State for the Environment under Tony Blair, failed to lift the poor performance of the Environment Agency or to come forward with flood defence plans capable of protecting large areas of England.

Barbara Young, Chief Executive of the Agency, only tells people they should log onto her website and then look after themselves. She should try logging on to a website when the living room is under water and there is a torrent outside in the road.

What we want the Environment Agency to do is to put in the flood and surface water defences we need, and to maintain them in good condition. Clearly they have done neither to an acceptable standard.

They knew heavy rain was coming, yet obvious weak points on river banks near main roads were not bolstered by sand bags or other containment. Some important drains and flood defences were not maintained to a good standard, leaving them unable to cope with large volumes of water.

Instead of giving Barbara Young easy interviews for her to pump out her self justifying script, she should be asked why the Agency has done so little to improve the condition of existing defences, failed to put in more new defences and failed to put in temporary water containment.

We do not want more flood warnings - we want more flood protection.

And where have Ministers gone to? Why aren’t they out and about seeing what can be done to help people?

Target - “Increase from 50% 2004-5 to 56% 2005-6 percentage of urban flood defence structures and linear defences in good condition or better”

Result - not achieved for 3rd party maintained defences (42%), achieved for EA ones. Target is low.

They knew the floods were coming. They knew where the floods were likely to hit. They did very little about it.

A slice of life at the Today programme

This morning was a classic illustration of the bias of the BBC. During the last part of the programme we heard the following items in sequence:

1. A review of the papers. This highlighted the bad floods, with no mention of the failure of the government to sort out heavy flooding on roads and railway lines despite early warnings. It then alleged the Conservative party post the by-election results was in a bad way, drawing on the Star and Daily Telegraph.
2. A fawning interview with Lady Young, head of the Environment Agency. She was not asked why the Agency she presides over admitted last year many of its flood defences were in unsatisfactory or worse condition. She was not asked what her Agency was doing to try to maintain flood defences to a higher standard this year. She was allowed to praise the government for giving more money for better flood defences in 2010-11 why not now? Why should we believe promises of money for after the next General Election. She was not asked which schemes should be a priority to protect people next time. She was allowed to advertise the Agency’s website. Any serious reading of it reveals what a poor job the Agency has done.Why does it spend over

John Redwood raised again the need to prepare for future sea surges, storms and heavy rainfall causing flooding by strengthening or renewing the Thames barrier defence to the east of London. He proposed that the new Ministerial team enable the private sector to plan a new sea defence, using profits from land reclamation in the Thames estuary to help pay for the works. John believes we need to adapt to possible floods, and to periods of drought, by proper water management. He welcomes this week’s decision to install a desalination water plant in east London.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the new ministerial team urgently look at the need to strengthen or replace the Thames barrier at some point in the next decade, as current predictions are that its design-life probably will not extend beyond 2020 at the latest? Given the pressures from flooding risks and the Government’s worries about global warming, is there not an urgent need to manage the consequences of such developments, and could we not link a new barrier to reclaiming land from the estuary so that we create valuable land for building?

Mr. Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the defences, and that is being considered. All those issues are a question of balance. Judgments have to be made on the types of defences and where they should be. We should not confuse

Last Wednesday in the House of Commons, John Redwood intervened in the debate on the Corporate Manslaughter Bill to challenge the Secretary of State for Justice over the management of custody of offenders in the country. The extract from Hansard follows:

Mr. Redwood: I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office

The main parties would be quite wrong to breathe a collective sigh of relief about the absence of prosecutions, and then carry on raising large sums from individual donors as if nothing had happened. They would also be wrong to think the public would instead like to pay more tax to underwrite big budgets at party HQs.

Instead they should do the following:

1. Agree a limit of say

The two by-elections have probably saved Sir Menzies Campbell as leader of the Lib Dems.

For all those of us who want the Eurosceptic majority to be represented by a Eurosceptic government, this is very good news. The last thing we want is a plausible Lib Dem party capturing more Eurosceptic votes by playing down their root and branch enthusiasm for European integration, whilst keeping their underlying commitment to the EU project.

I am surprised people are surprised by recent revelations from the BBC.

For years they have taken a pro big government and pro EU line in much of their news output. Interviewers queue up to ask Ministers why they don’t tax more, intervene more, do more. They hardly ever ask why they tax so much, intervene so much, legislate so much. For a long time they have sought to chase audience by trying to make things more exciting and controversial.

Between 2001 and 2005 BBC Radio Berkshire which serves my constituency hardly ever asked me on to discuss anything I had put out by way of press release. They took no interest in the many things I did for my local community. They specialised in ringing me up when they hoped I would make a comment out of line with official party policy on a subject I had not expressed a view on, or when they wanted me to give out “right wing” views which they could

I asked the Home Secretary what she would regard as a satisfactory clear up rate for crime.

She was unable or unwilling to answer.

She clearly knew that the current clear up rate is very poor - some say as low as 3 crimes in 100 - and does not think she can do much to improve it.

Amidst all the talk about the crime rate one obvious point is overlooked. Parliament is constantly pushing it up by creating more and more offences. If the government wished to get the crime rate down, one of the ways would be to review all the things currently treated as crimes, and reduce the numbers. Then the authorities could concentrate their efforts on detecting and prosecuting offenders.

Most people think there are two types of crime that matter and need proper police and court attention.

The first most serious are crimes of violence against people, ranging from murder through rape to assault. We all agree these are crimes,and expect the authorities to devote enough time and resource to finding offenders and prosecuting them.