Government needs to think again about on-shore wind
Tuesday 7th February 2012

I’ve joined 105 other MPs in signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister asking him to reconsider the level of Government support for onshore wind.

Whilst fully supportive of our pledge to be the greenest government ever, I have never been convinced of the efficiency or effectiveness of on-shore wind. As a result I feel that the high level of subsidy currently available for onshore wind would be better spent on other renewable energy types. I also want to ensure that the new planning regime properly takes into account the views of local people in all areas, including the area of renewable energy. For these reasons I was very happy to put my name to this letter.

The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Prime Minister

As Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, we have grown more and more concerned about the Government’s policy of support for on-shore wind energy production.

In these financially straightened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies on-shore wind turbines.

In the on-going review of subsidy for renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.?
We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating unwanted on-shore wind farm proposals through the planning system. Thus we attach some subtle amendments to the existing wording that we believe will help rebalance the system.

Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with the inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. We would urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Heaton-Harris, Christopher Pincher, Nadine Dorries, Karen Bradley, S.J. Baker, David Davis, Matthew Hancock, Richard Bacon, David Nuttall, Bernard Jenkin, Dr. Daniel Poulter, Anne Main, David Mowat, Karen Lumley, Nadhim Zahawi, Natascha Engel, Pauline Latham, Sarah Newton, Geoffrey Cox, Brandon Lewis, Adam Holloway, Damian Collins, David Morris, Graham Brady, Louise Mensch, Robert Walter, Aidan Burley, Bob Blackman, Nick De Bois, Steve Brine, Robert Syms, Caroline Nokes, Brian Binley, Steven Barclay, Julian Lewis, Lorraine Fullbrook, Graham Evans, Douglas Carswell, Patrick Mercer, Rory Stewart, John Glen, Mark Pritchard, Caroline Dinenage, Neil Parish, Stephen McPartland, Greg Knight, David Ruffley, Tracey Crouch, Priti Patel, Karl McCartney, Tony Cunningham, Christopher Chope, Dan Byles, Edward Leigh, Richard Harrington, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Guto Bebb, Kris Hopkins, Iain Stewart, Mark Spencer, John Stevenson, Bill Cash, Andrew Griffiths, Simon Harris, Peter Bone, Charlie Elphicke, Justin Tomlinson, Mark Pawsey, Stuart Andrew, Marcus Jones, Alun Cairns, Richard Drax, Martin Vickers, Craig Whittaker, Bob Stewart, Adam Afriyie, Jack Lopresti, James Wharton, Julian Sturdy, Heather Wheeler, Nigel Mills, Simon Reevell, Mark Reckless, Paul Maynard, Jeremy Lefroy, Jackie Doyle-Price, James Gray, Mark Williams, Andrew Rosindell, Oliver Heald, Andrea Leadsom, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Charles Walker, Andrew Percy, Andrew Bridgen, Andrew Turner, Mark Garnier, Andrew Bingham,Stewart Jackson, Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone, James Clappison, Sammy Wilson, David Tredinnick, Roger Williams, Nicholas Soames

What the IMF really said
Monday 6th February 2012

The IMF’s World Economic Update, released today, makes sober reading for the world economy, stating that “The Global recovery is threatened by intensifying strains in the euro area and fragilities elsewhere”

The organisation has downgraded global growth forecasts by three quarters of a percentage point and even downgraded growth in developing and emerging economies. Particularly badly hit is the Eurozone with Germanys growth put at 0.3%, France’s at 0.2 and Italy and Spain both in negative territory at -2.2% and -1.7%.

The IMF is entirely clear of the cause specifically that “growth in most other advanced economies is also lower, mainly due to adverse spillovers from the Euro area”. So any claim that the report is blaming poor domestic demand, or too tighter an austerity programme in the UK is entirely untrue.

If anything the IMF highlights the dangers of failing to deal with a deficit, pointing to Japan and the USA when they say “Another downside risk arises from insufficient progress in developing medium-term fiscal consolidation plans in the United States and Japan”, continuing “As long as public debt levels are projected to rise over the medium term, and in the absence of well defined and credible fiscal consolidation strategies, there is the possibility of turmoil in global bond and currency markets.”

Ed Balls has of course been quick to jump on the one line that supports the position of stimulus hungry indivudals such as himself and organisations such as NIESR, claiming that “..they [the IMF] have called on countries with low interest rates, like the UK, to reconsider the speed of their spending cuts and tax rises.”

What they actually said though was that “Countries should let automatic stabilisers operate freely for as long as they can readily finance higher deficits. Among those countries, those with very low interest rates, or other factors that create adequate fiscal space, should reconsider the pace of near term fiscal consolidation.”

When speaking about the UK specifically they point out that the government is already taking action and make no call for opening the spending taps as Ed Balls claims, stating that “To prevent a further slowdown of the economy, the government has indicated [In the Autumn Statement] that it will accommodate the weakened cyclically adjusted balance and let automatic stabilisers operate freely over the next three years.”

For Ed Balls to claim that we are going to far and too fast, compared to Labour’s own plans (which would have cut four of every five pounds we are) and should instead be borrowing vast mountains of money to spend more is simply ridiculous and not backed up by the IMF. Especially as they are clear that “Implementation of credible medium-term debt reduction plans remains a priority, as high debt levels make these countries vulnerable should interest rates increase.”

There is no doubt that abandoning our credible plan to get the deficit under control now and deal with debt in the medium term would spook the markets and increase interest rates. With the previous government having left us with some of the highest public and consumer debt levels in the world this will be far from a good thing.

Question to the Prime Minister
Thursday 2nd February 2012

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon, Conservative):
Eight million households have to make do with earning £26,000 or less before tax. What message does my right hon. Friend think that we will be sending to those people if we renege on our promise to cap benefits at £26,000 a year?

David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative):
There will be many people in the country who criticise the benefit cap, saying, “Actually, £26,000, £500 a week, is too high.” I think it is fair, I think it is right, but I think that people expect their politicians to make it clear that you are better off in work than you are on benefits. Plenty of people are excluded from the cap because they are on disability living allowance, not able to work and the rest of it, but if you can work you should not be better off on benefits. That is a simple principle, and I find it amazing that the Labour party cannot agree. One more go? One little nod? Nothing.

Immigration and the stimulus vs. growth debate
Monday 23rd January 2012

Last Friday I had two articles published, one on ConservativeHome on immigration and the other on Stimulus vs. Growth on PoliticsHome. You can read them below.

Statistics and spin in immigration
I am strongly in favour of evidence-based strategy. Before I became a politician I built a business based around that idea, and it was the approach I also took to how we ran the company. If a manager had an idea that was going to “transform the business”, I’d always ask them to show me the evidence first. The problem with evidence, particularly statistical evidence, is that you can nearly always find a way to make it fit your own argument. Evidence-based policy making is therefore fraught with difficulties and complications.
Take immigration. For years the last Labour government...
Read more

Stimulus vs. Growth, let's have some honesty
With GDP figures due next week, you’ll be hard pressed to find a commentator or politician who expects them to be fantastic. We’re unwinding the biggest debt crisis in history and watching the Eurozone limp towards a solution, hardly the most fertile of ground for growth.
Of course Labour MPs are quick to blame the Government. We are “cutting too far, too fast” they parrot from the Whips handout....
Read More

Bryant and Timms can’t think for themselves, luckily they have Jonathan Portes to do it for them
Friday 20th January 2012

Today seems to be the day for articles about immigration statistics. First thing this morning Jonathan Portes, director of the NIESR, blogged in response to Damian Green and Chris Grayling’s article in the Telegraph. Then this afternoon Chris Bryant and Stephen Timms also stepped up and wrote a piece for PoliticsHome claiming that Green and Grayling had used dodgy statistics.

For people who are so worried about accuracy in statistics it’s also good to see that Bryant and Timms are so keen on accuracy when it comes to words. Word for word accuracy as it happens (See the red below). Of course when it comes to sourcing they’re slightly less concerned, confusing the NIESR’s report for Portes’ blog. Their claimed quote doesn’t appear in the report, but the words used are identical to those used by Portes.

Nothing like a bit of plagarism to help argue your point on accuracy.

Labour's Plan B would cost Stratford households £89m a year
Wednesday 14th December 2011

It’s well known that Labour’s Plan B would result in an extra £326bn of borrowing over the course of this Parliament, but new figures show it could also result in a loss of £89m a year to the local Stratford economy.

On the day the Coalition Government was formed, UK Gilt yields (interest rates) were similar to those of Spain and Italy, yet today they are 4.8 percentage points lower than Spain’s and 4.7 points lower than Italy’s.

Spain and Italy have both been punished by the markets for their lack of a credible deficit reduction strategy, whilst the UK is being seen as a safe haven with record low rates as a result. Labour’s plan to borrow £326bn more and as a result only quarter rather than eliminate the deficit, would undoubtably see our interest rates rise to those of Spain and Italy, hitting every day people hard.

Why, because, rather than being based on the Bank of England Base rates, fixed rate mortgage rates are based on 10 year gilt yields or market interest rates. This means an increase in the cost of government borrowing will result in an increase in mortgage costs.

The average UK mortgage is £109,643 so a 1% increase in mortgage interest rates would see an average family paying a £1,096 a year in interest. If rates increase to those of Italy the average household would see their annual mortgage bill rise by over £5,000.

Here in Stratford there are 17,870 households with a mortgage, who if they each had to find an extra £5,000 a year would collectively be paying an extra £89.35m. That’s £89.35m less that they can spend in our local economy.

Another letter to the Times (signed by 20 MPs)
Tuesday 13th December 2011

As I stated in the update to my blog post of the 8th of December the Times only published my correction letter in edited form. As a result 19 other MPs and I have co-signed the following letter to the editor asking for a full correction.

Dear Sir

Re: Benefit claimant figures totally inaccurate

As Members of Parliament for the areas highlighted in your 28th of November article, “Welfare benefit appeals see costs soaring”, we are writing to express our dismay at the fact that you have not corrected the grossly inaccurate figures used within it.

As Nadhim Zahawi MP, pointed out in his letter to you, none of the figures quoted for your top 20 areas were correct, however you chose not to include this paragraph when you published the letter on the 8th of December.

In the piece you wrongly stated that the largest increase in benefit claimants in the country was in Ribble Valley, with an increase of 181.7%. In reality Ribble Valley saw a decrease of 2.36% between May 2010 and May 2011, and all but 7 of the 20 areas you highlighted saw a decrease in claimant numbers (see enclosed). The largest increase anywhere in the country was 4 per cent, significantly below the 181.7% quoted, whilst 65 percent of Local Authority areas recorded a decrease in claimant numbers.

This Government is committed to tackling the something for nothing culture left behind by the Labour government, and with the introduction of universal credit we will ensure that work always pays. Already we have seen a national fall of 0.68% in the number of people claiming benefits and we expect this to continue to fall, despite the tough economic situation we find ourselves in. 

As well as being wholly inaccurate the figures used in your article give entirely the wrong impression of, not only the progress we are making, but the situation in the country at large and therefore need correcting.

Yours faithfully

Alan Duncan MP, 
Anne Main MP, 
Annette Brooke MP, 
Ben Wallace MP,
Caroline Nokes MP, 
Chris Grayling MP, 
David Gauke MP, 
Dominic Grieve MP, 
George Freeman MP, 
Jeremy Wright MP,
Jake Berry MP,
James Duddridge MP,
Jeremy Lefroy MP, 
Kwasi Kwarteng MP, 
Mark Pawsey MP, 
Mel Stride MP, 
Nigel Adams MP, 
Richard Harrington MP, 
Sam Gyimah MP,
Nadhim Zahawi MP

Update 16th December
The Times has (£) printed a correction and reprinted their map with the correct figures for the 25 areas highlighted.

Their correction:

"In a news item which appeared last month (Welfare benefit appeals see costs soaring, November 28), we published data on the levels of benefits claims over the coalition’s first year in power. It has now emerged that a production error meant that the information we included was incorrect.

As part of the item, we included incorrect details of the changing benefits claims in 25 local authorities. Today, we have included an updated map showing the actual change to the number of people claiming benefits in May 2011 compared to May 2010.

An accompanying news story stated that “more than 20 local authorities had seen the number of people claiming benefits increase by 50 per cent or more since the coalition came to power”. This was based on the same production error and was also incorrect. No local authorities saw a rise of that size, while most saw the number of benefits claimants fall over the period.

Overall, data from the Department for Work and Pensions show that the number of people claiming benefits fell by 0.66 per cent between May 2010 and May this year.

Ministers have begun a programme to check whether the 2.56 million people on incapacity benefit are actually fit to work."