In response to a letter sent by John to the Department for Transport seeking clarification on the legal risks to homeowners, Sadiq Khan, the Minister responsible for local roads, said:

“At present, there is no legal restriction preventing members of the public from clearing the snow and ice on the highway outside their properties; it remains open for them to do this.

Provided that they are reasonable and careful it is unlikely that a member of the public would face any legal liability, and those using the road or footway have a responsibility to be careful themselves.

Action by citizens to clear snow outside their properties does not remove the duty placed on the local highway authority by S41 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.”

Speaking about the Minister’s clarification, John said: “I’m pleased that on this occasion the Government seems to be on the side of householders who just want to clear the snow from their drives or the roads outside their homes.

At a time when there is much vexatious litigation it is refreshing to see the Government apparently acknowledge that a bit of care and common sense is needed”.

The Government has now responded to John Redwood’s petition. They have said that they still accept the conclusions of the Badman Report, which are incorporated into the Children, Schools and Families Bill currently before Parliament. However, they have offered reassurances that the proposals in the Bill amount to “light touch regulation” and that the Bill will also allocate funding for parents who choose to educate their children at home. The Badman proposals will oblige parents who home educate their children to provide their local authority with a statement of the educational approach and to submit to an annual meeting with their local authority.

Speaking about the reply to his petition, John Redwood said: “I welcome the Government’s statement that they recognise home education as an established part of Britain’s education system. They say that even after the Badmam Report, Britain will still remain a liberal place in terms of regulation for parents who educate their children at home. Allowing parents to decide their children’s education is a mark of a free society”.

“However, I am still concerned that the proposals in the Badman Report will allow local government officers to question children without their parents’ consent. This Government has a rather authoritarian record when it comes to civil liberties and interfering in family life, and I am not reassured that they intend to use any new powers to interfere in home education with restraint”.

The week before the debate on the Bill, John drew the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s attention to the fact that the Government’s centralised planning policy means a large number of homes have been build on the flood plain in Wokingham, despite the local authority not wishing such developments to go ahead.

While speaking on the Bill, John concentrated on two main issues. The first is the situation where water companies fail to prevent sewage rising out of the water system and mixing with flood water, which then causes damage once it enters people’s homes. John sought clarification on whether the law as it stands places a duty on the water authorities to deal with foul water that escapes from the sewer system, or whether the law needed to be strengthened further through the new Bill. The Minister replied by saying that Section 94 of the Water Industry Act gives householders and local authorities sufficient power to insist on repairs and improvements to prevent this happening.

The second area John focused his attention on was cases where local rivers flood. John urged the Government to impose a duty on the Environment Agency to keep the water courses free of debris so rivers can flow freely when there is heavy rain. John drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the Emm Brook and Loddon in Wokingham have flooded on a number of occasions, with flood alleviation being made more difficulty by the failure of the Environment Agency to keep the waterways clear. He pointed out that, while it has been very easy to get expert opinion, reports, memos, legal advice and Parliamentary debates on flooding issues, it has proven much more difficult to get the Environment Agency to actually start the physical work of clearing the ditches and water courses. The Minister offered assurances that the Environment Agency already has the powers it needs to carry out any necessary repairs to the flood defences.

On the issue of charges for water consumption, John asked who would be eligible for assistance in meeting their bills under a proposed plan from the Government to help low-income families who use water meters. John cautioned that it would be counter-productive to start taxing medium income and moderately worse off families to subsidise other people’s water bills, and sought clarification of how the Government defined “low income” families and what the cut-off point for support would be. He also suggested that the introduction of greater competition into the water industry would help keep prices down.

John’s contribution to the debate and his interventions, taken from Hansard, now follows:

(1) Mr. Redwood: In appraising the proposal, it is crucial that we know how the Minister defines people “who would have difficulty paying”.

Cross-subsidy might be involved, and we want to avoid the pretty poor cross-subsidising the even poorer, so it is important that we know where he is minded to draw the line.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but that is absolutely why the Bill should not include specific definitions of who does or does not fall into that category. That is exactly the purpose of going out to proper consultation-so that those terms can be defined and we can accurately reflect not only how those individuals or households are defined, but how such definitions in a local area tie in with complementary national schemes.

(2) Mr. Redwood: The issue is the level of income, because I cannot persuade my fairly poor constituents to have a big increase in order to pay for somebody else.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Some of the figures put forward by Thames Water, which I can share with him another time, suggest that the number affected is a small percentage of the overall total. That means that if the money was to be recovered through other people’s water bills, the increase for everybody else would be miniscule in practice, so the slightly poor would not have to pay an undue amount in order to subsidise the very poor. However, he makes a fair point. The key issue with new clause 22 is the need to put the legality of social tariffs beyond doubt. While we have the Bill before us-what the Minister said is quite true: we might not see another water Bill for some years-new clause 22 is a timely amendment.

(3) Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend considered how the introduction of proper competition into the water industry, for retail as well as for large customers, would solve many of the problems and probably bring prices down without a Bill?

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment. We are doing some serious work in that regard. We have had some meaningful discussions with the authors of the two reports. We need to take a longer-term view, and that would be part and parcel of the White Paper, but it certainly could have a positive impact on bills.

(4) Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for being so helpful, but will he answer my query? Does the law as it stands place a duty on a water authority to deal with foul water that escapes and causes problems, or do we need to strengthen the law?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall return to that issue in a moment. I believe that such powers exist-not in this Bill, but under existing water industry legislation. However, I shall seek some inspiration to recall the exact Act.

(5) Mr. Redwood: That goes to the heart of a big problem in my constituency, where the rivers Emm and Loddon have flooded on all too many occasions in the past decade. Part of the problem has been the failure of the Environment Agency to maintain the free flow of the waters, which means blockages that exacerbate the flooding. I hope that my hon. Friend is successful with new clause 2.

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that support from my right hon. Friend. There is an argument that the Government have reduced the maintenance programme while increasing along with inflation the budget for substantial infrastructure projects. Capital expenditure has been maintained and even modestly increased, but the same has not happened on the same scale with maintenance.

(6) Mr. Redwood: Is not one of the problems with this whole area that we can all get access to lots more experts, memos, legal advice and buck passing, but we cannot get access to any money for men in diggers to get the ditches cleared?

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point. The spirit of it is exactly right. It underlines the risk of endlessly creating more and more bureaucracy and responsibility. Some of it may be welcome, but if it is allowed to grow without restraint, we may find that the practical result is less flood defence, not more.

(7) Mr. Redwood: I welcome in particular new clause 2, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. First, I welcome the fact that it states:
“The Environment Agency must undertake a programme”.
We need greater clarity throughout the legislation on who is responsible for what, and the new clause gives a lead on that. Secondly, I welcome the requirement that the Environment Agency undertake regular maintenance of the major watercourses. Under existing legislation the Environment Agency is responsible for the major watercourses, but as I discovered when trying to follow up on the persistent-the all too regular-flooding incidents in my constituency in recent years, it is terribly difficult to get any single body to take responsibility. There is always buck passing between the EA, the water companies and the local authority; each of them makes out a case that it is not technically responsible.

Clarity is essential and, unfortunately, I do not believe that the Minister’s legislation, in its widest sense, provides that. The Bill seeks to provide it in some areas, but in other areas it will be a lawyers’ charter. I have a heavy feeling in my heart that there will still be endless battles to establish who is responsible for what. I hope that we have not lost the clarity provided in existing legislation on the fact that main rivers and watercourses are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. That should remain the case; the Environment Agency should maintain them to ensure that the flows are as good as possible, given the existing channels and water flows in those rivers, and should come up with major and minor capital schemes to improve them where we persistently and regularly encounter obvious flooding problems.
My constituency is typical of those which were badly attacked by floods in 2007-but this flooding did not just happen in 2007. We have often been told that these events happen once in 100 years, but for many of my constituents such flooding might be a two or three times in a decade event; it is becoming extremely persistent.

The main reason is overbuilding on the floodplain, which is often forced on the council against its will and when its judgment was rather better. In such situations, I have always encountered a secondary problem of inadequate facilities and the inadequate maintenance of facilities. That means that water flows are impeded or are simply too great for the facilities provided by the Environment Agency, the water company and, in some cases, the local authority, and thus there is bound to be another flood. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort in addressing the initiative proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Let us consider the problems in my area. The River Emm is a rather small stream at most times, but can swell quickly; the River Loddon is a fairly big river, because it is close to joining the Thames by the time that it flows through my area; and on the edges there is the Thames itself and some Thames floodplain. All of those flood, and it is clear that some of the problem is the aggravation that comes from improper maintenance. All too often branches get caught in the River Emm, resulting in the detritus of leaves, litter and so on which creates a mini-dam at various places along the watercourse. Vegetation grows extremely quickly in the rather wet summers that we are having these days and that creates another barrier to the free flow of water. Clumsy people sometimes do not help the matter by putting a shopping trolley or an old pram into the river, thus adding to the trees and the vegetation, and before we know it, there is a dam in the river. Maintenance work cannot be done once a year; people have to be sent out regularly to inspect and to supervise. If a little work were done often, it would not be so expensive. We need boots on the ground; we need someone who walks the course. We need someone who has the tools and equipment necessary to remove that detritus.

One of the obstacles on the Loddon, which is a bigger river, results from the fact that people dropped a lot of masonry some years ago when they were building a bridge-undoubtedly this was a public sector project that caused problems. These people never bothered to take the masonry out of the river bed and so at a very crucial point where the river abuts a pub and houses there is insufficient depth. That is where it naturally floods. It also usually floods the main Reading road.

In the most recent bad floods, all the main roads to Reading were cut off, with the exception of the motorway. It is odd when someone in high-tech valley 35 miles from London cannot for a whole day make a simple journey into the main town in the middle of our high-tech valley because the rivers have not been kept clear or the necessary capital works have not been carried out to handle the water. I hope that the Minister will take this more seriously.

I am glad that the Liberal Democrats support the proposal. Their spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), has brightened up our debates, because it is the first time that I have seen someone come along with carefully prepared and beautifully typed-out scripts on each of the provisions, with his notes on the Liberal Democrat amendments on yellow paper, his notes on the Conservative amendments on blue paper, and his notes on the Government amendments on light pink paper-that paper should probably be dark red now, as they have moved on.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Deepest red.

Mr. Redwood: Exactly. I am sure that the Minister is upset that the notes on the Government amendments are only on mild pink paper.

Martin Horwood: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that if he had tabled any amendments, the notes on those would have been on extremely dark blue paper.

Mr. Redwood: I think that was a compliment, but I cannot be sure. The hon. Gentleman’s well prepared support is welcome, and I am sure that he speaks for his community, as I speak for mine. I think that all sensible right hon. and hon. Members of this House would wish to support this proposal, because it is clear and positive, and it addresses one of the reasons why we have all too frequent flooding in our constituencies despite the fact that a stitch in time-simple action-would save nine.

The proposal would even be a public expenditure cut, and we need that at the moment. Little-and-often maintenance would mean that we would not have huge clear-up and clean-up costs and we would have none of the bureaucracy that one encounters after a big flood, when one sees inquiries, lawyers, highly paid executives, more quangos and more legislation. I assure the Minister that we are not short of any of those things.

When dealing with the flooding issue I have found all too many expensive and intelligent people to whom to talk, write or complain, or to receive memos or arguments from. I have met all too many people who work out strategies and plans, and who tell me why one cannot do it today but that one might, after spending a long time in a queue, be able to do it tomorrow. As I keep saying to these people, all we want is someone who does something: a man or woman in a digger who clears a ditch; someone who puts a new pipe in; someone who goes out to cut the vegetation down; or someone in a pair of gumboots with good sturdy tools that can clear a ditch that is too small for a digger to go down. That is what we need. I suspect that it would cost a lot less than the massive bureaucracy that this legislation and its predecessors has created. I want an Environment Agency that actually gets out there and does some physical work; I do not want an Environment Agency that gives 1,000 clever excuses while my constituents have to continue to be flooded.

(8) Mr. Redwood: I rise to discuss Government new clause 22. As I have said in interventions, we all feel well disposed and warm towards the aim of more affordable water for people on lower incomes, but I find it difficult to welcome the way in which the Government propose to do that, as we need some indication of the detail that needs to follow to make this a sensible and workable scheme.

The best way to make water more affordable for those on low incomes and for those on any kind of income is to introduce competition and get the costs of producing the water down. I believe that it would probably cut the cost by about a fifth if we introduced comprehensive water competition and used the pipe network as a common carrier. It is easy to do. It has already been done in the case of gas and other fluids requiring access to pipelines. There is no natural monopoly in the provision of water, the collection of water or the delivery of water. If there is any monopoly element in the provision of pipes, it can be dealt with quite easily by a proper common-carrier regulated system.

However, those who are introducing the new clause need to give us more indication of how poor people have to be to qualify under it. It seems to be a cross-subsidy scheme. As the Minister has been gracious enough to accept, if the very poor are beneficiaries, everyone else could be losers. The Liberal Democrat spokesman suggests that it will not mean much of a loss for people on fairly low incomes because not many people would be helped by the scheme. That may be true.

Martin Horwood: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was listening carefully, but that is not what I said. I said that, because the subsidy was going to be spread across a very large number of people-in Thames Water’s proposed scheme, the suggestion is that 95 per cent. would be subsidising and only 5 per cent. benefiting, although that might be a bit niggardly-that would mean a terribly small increase for everyone else. That is what I meant-that the moderately poor would have hardly any increase at all.

Mr. Redwood: I think that that is what I said in slightly different language. I said that not many people would benefit. The hon. Gentleman is saying that only a very small percentage of people would benefit. However, I think that he will find that quite a lot of people think that their water bills are too high. It is not just the people on the lowest 5 per cent. of incomes who think that their water bills are too high. I suspect that perhaps half the people think that their water bills are too high and a lot of them will be very disappointed, so we need to send the right kind of signals if we are really talking about only 5 per cent.

While the hon. Gentleman is right that, on the numbers, the increase for the other 95 per cent. will not be huge, there will none the less be some increase for people who are clearly really quite poor as they are in the bottom 6 or 7 per cent. of the income scale-because, on the hon. Gentleman’s numbers, they will be excluded. We therefore need to have a better feel for the numbers before we can come to a fair conclusion on this; we need to know how big the increase will be, how many people will be paying it, and how many will benefit. I still think it would be much better to find a way of reducing the bills generally, as that would alleviate problems for the many people who find the water bill difficult to afford and feel that it has increased too much in recent years with no improvement in the service.

I also wish to make a few remarks on new clause 18, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. It may be sensible, but both the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams need to help me a little by explaining what they mean by sustainable water management. It is one of those phrases that people trot out; they say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have sustainable water management?” It is very difficult to say, “No, we don’t want that,” as nobody wants unsustainable water management, but we have to unpack this common jargon and explore what it means. If it means we are going to have some common sense on the provision of clean water in adequate quantities at all times of the year and in all years to my constituents, I would welcome that. If it means that the water companies will do rather better in handling the disposal of foul water than at present, which would also matter a great deal to my constituents, I would welcome that very much, too.

Let me offer one of quite a few possible examples of poor water service in my constituency from the main monopoly provider. There is an area of nice housing where there has been over-building on floodplain land. That has led to too much surface water, which the drainage system cannot handle, so the surface water rushes through the housing area, hits and knocks out the pumps that are meant to take the foul water safely underground, and the foul water then swells up from underground and mixes with the surface water already running around in this low-lying housing area. As a result, people have very unpleasant things coming into their drawing rooms and kitchens, and they then cannot live in their houses for the next year while they are being cleaned out, dried out, re-plastered and so forth. That is totally unsatisfactory in 2010 in the United Kingdom, which is meant to be a rich and caring country with lifestyles of a sensible level.

If having sustainable water management means stopping such things happening, and saying to companies that allow them to happen, “You have some responsibility and you need to come up with solutions more urgently out of your rather generous cash flows and large capital programmes,” I am all for having sustainable water management. I suspect that this is what a lot of Members would find that their constituents want. They want more than the sensible and fine words in these various new clauses; rather, they want to know that something will actually happen. That is why I say this could be a very good idea, and I welcome what my Front-Bench colleagues are trying to do, but it can work only if the Minister both agrees that it is a sensible idea and then puts the detailed provisions into the regulations, so that monopoly local providers are under an obligation to deal with the obvious offences that we see in the service they are delivering.

The water industry as a whole has all the characteristics of a monopoly provider. Were we to have three dry and hot summers in a row-oh, blessed memory, when we had such things-I am sure that we would run out of water very quickly and be told we had to kill all our plants in our nice gardens because we could not afford to water them any more. That should not happen. These companies should be able to handle such weather conditions. Above all, however, they should be able to handle conditions in which we have quite a bit of rainfall. This country has had a lot of rainfall over many years; we seem to be having a succession of wet and damp winters and summers at present. Companies should be made to organise things so that they are able to handle such eventualities, because if customers cannot switch to another company that will do the job properly, it is terribly important that there is a regulator in place that will take the necessary action. I therefore hope that if we are in favour of sustainable water management, that means we are in favour of tackling these problems vigorously and thereby giving reassurance to my constituents that they will not be flooded in future.

(9) Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Is the Minister aware that her top-down planning policies mean that places such as Wokingham have to build on flood plain, leading to flooding of adjacent dwellings, because they are instructed to do so when they would not otherwise dream of it?

Ms Winterton: Considerable guidance is in place on building and flood plains. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that guidance applies at various levels. It is important that councils are able to take decisions according to the situation that they face locally.

The River Loddon is controlled by two overfalls and two adjustable weirs at Arborfield Mill. Thames Water own the land and are responsible for the maintenance of the site, but residents have complained that the weirs are set in a manner which fails to adequately protect from flooding.

John wrote to the Environment Agency last month asking them to make adjustments, and in their response they say that they are working with Thames Water to carry out the necessary changes. They will be reducing the level of the fixed crest weir, which will reduce upstream water leaks, and this work is due to be completed in March.

John Redwood said: “I am pleased there is some progress and that Thames Water and the Environment Agency are carrying out their responsibilities. I am grateful to the various residents’ groups who have pursued this diligently. However, much more needs to be done to improve the flood defences, and overall progress is far too slow”.

The Government did confirm that UK Financial Investments did not undertake currency cover in respect of the £170 billion of foreign currency loans covered by its underwriting for RBS.

John Redwood said: “The Government’s response is wholly unsatisfactory and tells us that not only are they not taking the debt crisis seriously, they have no idea as to the level of exposure. It was wrong of them to take a huge stake in the banks, only to then show such little interest in how they operate”.

The full text of John Redwood’s Parliamentary Questions, taken from Hansard, follows:

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether UK Financial Investments is seeking representation on the Dubai World creditors’ committee. [307159]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In line with its Investment Mandate, agreed with Treasury, and the Institutional Shareholders’ Committee Statement of Principles, UKFI acts as an engaged and informed institutional shareholder for the banks in which Government have shareholdings.

Day to day management of the banks’ business is a matter for the banks’ boards.

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely level of financial exposure of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to Dubai World debt. [307157]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Treasury is unable to disclose such information as it is commercially sensitive.

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether (a) UK Financial Investments and (b) HM Treasury is undertaking currency cover in respect of the £170 billion of foreign currency loans covered by its underwriting for Royal Bank of Scotland. [307151]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: United Kingdom Financial Investments does not have the remit to undertake currency cover in respect of foreign currency loans.

The Treasury does not normally buy insurance against risk.

As a result of their victory in the contest Carrie and Laura won the John Redwood Cup for debating for their school, as well as an overhead projector kindly donated by 3M. The teams from St. Crispin’ and Luckley Oakfield will also have the chance to see real parliamentary debating in the New Year, when they will be invited by Wokingham MP John Redwood to visit the Palace of Westminster and watch Prime Minister’s Questions from the visitors’ gallery.

During the contest both teams put forward passionate arguments in favour of open and closed door immigration policies, before taking contributions from the audience. Previous topics for debate in the competition have been equally contentious subjects, like bankers’ bonuses, footballers’ pay, freedom of speech and British history. The final round was presided over by John Redwood, who acted as “Speaker” for the evening. The contest was judged by Cllr. Norman Jorgensen, Donald MacDonald from RBS and Ian Graham from Clifton Ingram.

At the end of the final round a short prize giving ceremony was held, where John Redwood presented certificates and House of Commons pens to all those who took part, as well as engraved plates to the runners-up.

Speaking about the contest, John Redwood said: “I would like to congratulate Carrie and Laura on a fantastic performance. The final motion was very contentious and they argued a difficult and, perhaps unpopular, case, with skill and finesse. They had obviously put a lot of work into preparing for the contest and this was reflected in the clarity and eloquence of their contributions”.

“I would also like to acknowledge the hard work all the other teams put into the contest. Once again we saw very high standards from Wokingham’s secondary schools”.

“The debating competition teaches valuable skills such as public speaking, the ability to formulate arguments on complex subjects and express them clearly, and the ability to think on one’s feet. These are valuable life skills and will be appreciated by any future employer”.

“I am grateful to 3M, Bill Clark and Clifton Ingram, whose generous financial support made this year’s contest possible”.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

“More for Less: Cutting Public Spending, Protecting Public Services” looks at the annual accounts for the main Whitehall departments, which were published just before the summer recess. The pamphlet uses the Government’s own figures to identify what they are spending on staffing, human resources, pensions and programme costs, how much they think they will have to cut from each department’s budget to balance the books, and what can be done to deliver great efficiencies and reduce the cost of public provision without harming essential front line public services.

Among some of the points highlighted in the pamphlet are the following:

* The Government has over the last year gone on a spending splurge for the banks in the form of quantitative easing, bank guarantees, equity purchases, borrowing and bailouts totalling more than £750 billion. By way of comparison, the annual NHS budget is £117 billion.

* When the Conservative Party suggested that public spending could be reduced by £34 billion in 2005, Alistair Darling claimed this would be the equivalent of sacking “every teacher, every GP and every nurse in the country”. Yet the Government are now planning their own cuts of £35 billion in 2009-10 as part of a value for money programme.

* Going through the accounts of the main Whitehall departments, certain themes are common to them all. They all have too many quangos, expensive top staff, and bloated advertising and spin budgets. The Department for Communities and Local Government has 75 members of staff employed in communications, and 123 staff earning more than £100,000 a year. The Home Office employs 92 staff whose function is “unknown”.

* The public sector pensions bill dwarves our existing financial commitments. The civil service pensions bill totals £7.1 billion, while unfunded public sector schemes and deficits in funded public sector schemes are now around £1 trillion – on top of all our existing hundreds of billions in debt and obligations.

* There is a big gap between the best of the public sector and the best of the private sector. The error rates in some Whitehall departments are very high. The average number of staff sick days per year in the private sector is three; in the DWP it is nine and in the Ministry of Justice it is ten.

* There is much that an incoming Government could do on its first day in office to curb spending and instil a more responsible attitude towards taxpayers’ money in Whitehall, such as freezing external recruitment, slimming down senior management structures, halving the advertising budget, banning consultancy contracts and scrapping wasteful and unnecessary programme spending.

You can download “More for Less: Cutting Public Spending, Protecting Public Services” by John Redwood and Carl Thomson by clicking here.

Last week’s contest saw one team from Luckley Oakfield propose the motion, “This House would use the law to reduce the pay of British bankers”, which was opposed by Bearwood College. St. Crispin’s proposed the motion “This House would use the law to reduce the pay of British footballers”, which was opposed by a second team from Luckley Oakfield.

At the end of the contest the two teams with the highest scores were one of the teams from Luckley Oakfield, made up of Helena Thompson and Lucy Hammond, and the team from St. Crispin’s, made up of Laura Webber and Carrie Matthieson. Both teams will now go through to the final at the end of November, where they will compete for the John Redwood Cup for debating. The winning school will receive a projector from 3M for their school, and both teams will be invited to lunch at the House of Commons and a chance to watch Prime Minister’s Questions with Wokingham MP John Redwood next spring.

John Redwood chaired the proceedings at the semi-final, and said: “Once again the standard of debating was really high. I was particularly impressed by the debate on footballers’ pay. Both the teams had really done their research and put forward some impressive arguments. The judges told me it was very close and difficult to pick two winners”.

The motion to be debated in the final round will be “This House believes that anyone who wants to come and live in the UK should be allowed to do so”. St. Crispin’s will propose the motion and Luckley Oakfield will oppose it.

There will also be a short prize giving ceremony after the final debate where all the pupils that took part in the contest will receive certificates commemorating their participation in the tournament.

The evening will start at 7pm in Wokingham Town Hall on Friday the 27th November. Attendance is open to all, and we would strongly encourage you to come along and support the local schools.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

At the first round of the competition on Thursday the 15th October, two teams from Luckley Oakfield emerged victorious to proceed through to the semi-final. The triumphant pupils from Luckley Oakfield were Camilla Potter and Perdita Foster, who successfully argued against the motion “This House thinks that everyone who wants to go to university should be allowed to do so”, and Helena Thompson and Lucy Hammond, who argued against the motion “This House believes extremist views should not be aired on television”,.

The Luckley Oakfield contestants will be joined by the successful pupils from the second round, held on Thursday the 22nd October at Bearwood College. Charles Conway and Sam Mohsen will represent Bearwood College, and Laura Webber and Carrie Mathieson will represent St. Crispin’s.

The two winning teams from the semi-final will then face one another at the final round in Wokingham Town Hall on Friday the 27th November. The winning team will receive the John Redwood Cup for debating and an overhead projector for their school courtesy of sponsors 3M. Both the winning team and the runners-up will receive a tour of the Houses of Parliament and the chance to watch Prime Minister’s Questions, while all the participating pupils will receive certificates acknowledging their contribution to the contest.

Speaking about the first two rounds, John Redwood said: “The standard of debating was excellent in both preliminary rounds and even the teams that failed to get through to the semi-final were of a very high standard”.

“I would like to thank the teachers who have prepared and help coach their pupils, and am very much looking forward to the semi-final”.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

The full text of John’s interventions, taken from Hansard, follows:

Mr. Redwood: As the Minister who promptly paid compensation, with the permission of the House, after the regulatory failure in the Barlow Clowes case was found to be maladministration, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that a future Conservative Government would be prompt in making some compensation available to Equitable Life victims?

Mr. Hoban: My right hon. Friend speaks from his experience of Barlow Clowes. The Prime Minister has tried to avoid paying compensation to people who suffered loss through the maladministration of Equitable Life. He is trying to block the process and has fought every step of the way to prevent that from happening. I am happy to say that we want to ensure that policyholders receive the justice that they deserve. The Chief Secretary was careful in his language and phraseology about quite what would happen in spring 2010, so it seems that whoever wins the next general election will have to deal with the problem, and clear up the mess that this Government have left, in order to provide justice for Equitable’s policyholders.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Is not the bottom line, then, that whenever the next general election is held the Government will go into it having to say to Equitable Life policyholders, “We have not agreed any compensation for you”?

Mr. Byrne: I hope that we will not be in that position.

Jacob Wallis, aged 6, from the Westcott Infant School, has had his drawing chosen to illustrate John Redwood’s parliamentary Christmas cards by a panel of judges. Every year, John asks primary school age children to paint or draw a picture about Christmas. The winning entry is used as the design for John’s Christmas cards, with four runners up having their pictures reproduced on the back of the card. The winners and runners-up also receive several blank copies of the card to keep as a memento.

This year’s runners-up were Brony Swinyard, aged 6, from Westcott Infant School, Dean Clacey, aged 9, from Emmbrook Junior School, Shriya Fatania, a year 3 pupil from the Hawthorns School, and Adam Blee from Emmbrook Junior School.

Speaking about the results of the contest, John Redwood said: “I’m very pleased that Jacob has created such a great picture for me to use on my Christmas cards this year, and am sure the recipients will appreciate the time and effort that went into the design”.

“I would also like to congratulate Brony, Dean, Shriya and Adam for their hard work. All the entries were of a high standard and I hear the judges had difficulty in deciding on a winner”.

“I’m grateful to the primary schools in the constituency who did so much to help publicise the contest. I find the competition is a good way to kick off the Christmas season, and I’m looking forward to seeing the final result when it comes back from the printers shortly”.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

This Thursday, Luckley Oakfield will kick things off by proposing the motion “This House believes extremist views should not be aired on television”, with Forest opposing. The Willink will then propose “This House believes in free speech, as sticks and stones may break your bones but names can never hurt you”, which will be opposed by Maiden Erlegh.

The Forest School’s second team will then propose “This House thinks that everyone who wants to go to university should be able to do so”, opposed by Luckley Oakfield’s second team, and to wrap up proceedings Maiden Erlegh’s second team willl argue “This House would scrap coursework in favour of exams”, opposed by The Willink.

The contest is open to anyone who wishes to come and observe and we would ask teachers to encourage their pupils to attend even if they are not taking part. If you would like photographs for media purposes please arrive slightly earlier as we will be starting at 7pm sharp.

The competition is a yearly event, with previous contests having been won by the Emmbrook and Maiden Erlegh schools. It is organised by Wokingham MP John Redwood and is made possible by sponsorship from 3M, Clifton Ingram and Bill Clark.

For more information, please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205, or if you have any questions on the day please contact Christine Hill on 0118 962 9501

The deadline for entries is Monday the 19th October. Your pictures and paintings about Christmas should be sent or dropped off to Christine Hill at the Wokingham Conservative Association, 30 Rose Street, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1XU and must not be folded. If the picture is drawn it should be in bright and vivid colours so it can be electronically scanned and reproduced. Please write your name, age, and school in pencil on the back of your painting.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

The Christmas card competition entails primary school pupils from the Wokingham constituency sending a painting or drawing about Christmas to John’s constituency office. The winning entry is chosen by a panel of judges and appears on the front of John’s parliamentary Christmas card, which is sent to MPs and local people in the constituency. Four runners-up will also have their pictures printed on the back of the card, and the winners and runners-up will receive a clean copy of the card to keep as a memento.

The winners are chosen on an individual basis, rather than a per-school basis. Last year some schools held art classes where pupils painted pictures and they were then all sent in by the participating school. Other schools simply promoted the competition to their pupils, who then sent in individual entries.

The deadline for entries is Monday the 19th October. The pictures and paintings should be sent or dropped off to Christine Hill at the Wokingham Conservative Association, 30 Rose Street, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1XU and must not be folded. If the picture is drawn it should be in bright and vivid colours so it can be electronically scanned and reproduced. Please write your name, age, and school in pencil on the back of your painting.

Speaking about the competition, John Redwood said: “This is a fun way for primary school pupils to see their work in print and be involved in an MP’s work in a small way. Last year’s competition was a great success and proved popular with everyone involved.”

Last year’s competition was won by Sam Pulleyn and in 2007 the winner was Connor O. S. Piper, both of Winnersh Primary School. JPEG graphics of their entries for press reproduction are attached, as is a PDF of the competition flyer. We would be extremely grateful for your help in promoting the competition.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205

This is the sixth annual debating competition that John Redwood has organised for schools in his constituency. The competition has been won by the Emmbrook School for the last two years. All participants receive certificates and prizes from the House of Commons, with the winning team receiving the “John Redwood Cup” for debating. The John Redwood Cup is engraved with the winners’ names and presented to the school for the year. The winners and runner up team receive a trip to the Palace of Westminster, which includes lunch with John and a chance to watch Prime Minister’s Questions live from the public gallery. The winning school also receives an overhead projector donated courtesy of 3M.

This year’s competition has been kindly sponsored by 3M, Bill Clark and Clifton Ingram. The judging panel will be made up of local councillors from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, reporters from the local press, and local businessmen. Further details, including the motions for debate, will be sent to the press closer to the preliminary rounds.

For more information please contact Carl Thomson on 020 7219 4205 or Christine Hill on 0118 962 9501

Notes for editors:

1. We would be grateful if you could publicise all four evenings and encourage readers and interested parties to attend.

2. The judges for the first two rounds will be Cllr. Beth Rowland (Liberal Democrat), Rebecca Johnson of the Wokingham News and Cllr. Pauline Jorgensen (Conservative). The chairman for the first round will be former Chairman of Wokingham Borough Council, Iain Brown.

3. The judges for the semi-final and final rounds will be Cllr. Norman Jorgensen (Conservative), Ian Graham of Clifton Ingram and Donald MacDonald of RBS. The chairman will be the Rt. Hon John Redwood MP.

4. The motions for debate will be sent to the schools one month before the preliminary rounds, and two weeks before the semi-final and final rounds.

5. The dates when each school will be participating is as follows:

Thursday 15th October, Luckley Oakfield School, 7pm

Luckley Oakfield (Team One) vs. Forest (Team One)
The Willink (Team One) vs. Maiden Erlegh (Team One)
Forest (Team Two) vs. Luckley Oakfield (Team Two)
Maiden Erlegh (Team Two) vs. Willink (Team Two)

Thursday 22nd October, Bearwood College, 7pm

Bearwood College (Team One) vs. St. Crispin’s (Team One)
Padworth College (Team One) vs. Holt School (Team One)
Emmbrook (Team One) vs. Bearwood College (Two)
St. Crispin’s (Team Two) vs. Emmbrook (Team Two)

Holt School (Team Two) vs. Padworth College (Team Two)

The rankings were based on the judgement of more than 1,500 people who voted in the Total Politics annual blog poll during the second half of July. Total Politics is a politics and lifestyle magazine that has on its advisory board political heavyweights such as Paddy Ashdown, David Davis, David Trimble and Denis MacShane. The full list, together with articles from leading blog commentators, will be published in the Total Politics Guide to Political Blogging, which will be sold in bookshops from mid-September.

John’s blog is well regarded by journalists and political bloggers. Unlike his blogging rival Tom Harris, John’s website doesn’t have any articles about Doctor Who or how to survive a zombie attack, but it does contain comprehensive blog posts about subjects such as Britain’s debt crisis, quantitative easing, bank bonuses, pensions, inflation, energy policy, the recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking about the result, John Redwood said: “While I was disappointed my website wasn’t rated the best MP’s blog this year, I was still pleased to come second, and to be voted the best blogging Conservative MP. This shows that when politicians drop the spin and communicate with voters in a straightforward manner about complicated subjects, they get a good response and people engage back sensibly”.

“My blog isn’t an MP’s website as narrowly defined. It is a running commentary and an invitation to my readers to debate with me on subjects ranging from local issues to the state of the world economy”.

The Emm Brook project will introduce several measures to hold excess water during times of heavy rainfall, including a flood storage option adjacent to and upstream of the Tesco shop in Wokingham. Subject to the results of the Emm Book Options Study, which will be completed in November, the Environment Agency expects design work to begin this year and construction to start at the beginning of the next financial year.

Speaking about the flood protection plan, John Redwood said: “While it is disappointing that Government funding has not materialised, I am pleased there does now seem to be tangible progress, including an estimate of when work will begin”.

“The flood defences around the Emm Brook do need attention. I have found it most frustrating that while everyone recognises this and there has been endless meetings, discussion and correspondence on the subject, this has not been sufficiently matched by action on the ground”.

“Let’s hope they now stick to the timetable they are talking about. Along with the recent awarding of a flood grant for work on Sylvester Close and the Environment Agency’s recent maintenance work on the Emm Brook, I am hopeful that this is a sign our message is finally getting through”.

The exchange, taken from Hansard, now follows:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): How much compensation does the Minister envisage for his ex gratia scheme? I do not suppose that he has put a penny in his budget for this year or for next, so I do not believe that he intends to pay any.

Mr. Byrne: That is not an estimate that I shall present to the House this afternoon; it is something that I shall look at when Sir John presents his initial recommendations.

In a letter to Equitable Life policyholders in Wokingham, John wrote:

“Several of us asked for a deadline for the development of the scheme and for the payments under it. I also asked for some idea of how much would be paid, and on what basis to the losers. The Minister would not answer any of these basic points. Even the Labour MPs present were astonished at the Government’s insouciance and asked the Minister to hurry up and secure payments for those who have lost out.

I am afraid the Government seems happy to wait for more delay and I think it is unlikely that any payments will be made before the next General Election.”

The text of John’s intervention from Hansard follows:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Does he agree that it was always absurd to suppose that an illegal immigrant coming into this country would somehow escape all passport checks but would suddenly be caught out by a check on an ID card? It is completely unnecessary, is it not, to demand an ID card as well as a passport? We should use the passport.

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, if we had a proper border police force in this country—that is what we need—the problem would not arise in the first place because we would intercept those illegal immigrants at the border.

Over 150 applications to the “Pathfinder” grant scheme asking for more than £18 million were submitted to DEFRA as part of the Government’s response to the floods caused by the heavy rainfalls of July 2007. Sylvester Close in Wokingham has been selected for the first round of grant awards. The money will provide increased flood protection to 20 properties with a grant of £114,000.

John Redwood has also welcomed work by Wokingham Borough Council to the inlet and outlet to the culvert under the A329M, as well as maintenance by the Environment Agency on the Emmbrook from Sylvester Close to Blue Bell Meadows, which should help alleviate some of the flooding issues in the area.

Speaking about the grant award, John Redwood said: “This is good news for residents but we have waited far too long for it”.

“A great deal of my postbag since July 2007 has been taken up with flooding issues. I have been in regular correspondence with the Environment Agency, the water companies and Wokingham Council with a view to getting all these outstanding issues resolved speedily. I have held meetings with Ministers and made formal submissions to various reviews and Government proposals”.

“It has been frustrating that progress has been so slow, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. However, there is still long way to go before I will be satisfied that everything has been done to protect the whole of Wokingham from the kind of flooding that we saw a few years ago”.