Tag Archives: opinions

I have long argued we should be able to produce a new UK fishing policy which is kinder to both our fish and our fishermen.

Fishing for Leave has come up with some interesting proposals designed to allow us to catch more fish for our own consumption whilst conserving more fish at the same time.

As they point out, it is not difficult to design a better policy than the long lasting Common Fisheries Policy. This was based on a quota system for each type of regulated fish. A fishing vessel had to throw back all dead fish that did not conform to the required limits on landings. It meant the UK fishery caught a lot of fish that had to be dumped dead.

After years of this damaging approach they decided to try to ban dumping. This is difficult to enforce without cameras on every boat in the right places. It also means when enforced  vessels are  banned from fishing as soon as they  hit quota problems on any given species.

Fishing for leave recommends a different approach. All fish caught should be landed and used. If we can eat all the fish caught we can  catch far fewer fish than needed with a discard policy in place, whilst landing more than under the old policy. The fishery would be protected by limiting days at sea for the fleet, to limit overall catches. In order to stop vessels pursuing too many fish of a particular kind because it is valuable or popular the system would include reducing days at sea for any vessel that did pursue too many fish of a species that was at risk.

This proposal looks like a good basis for forming a new policy. The aim must be to protect our fishery so it is there for the future. There has to be some way to prevent excessive exploitation leading to a bad decline in fish stocks. It should also aim to deliver a fishing industry that does supply us with the fish we want to eat. We always used to have a surplus of fish when we ran our own policy, and can do so again.

The official HMT and OBR figures for 2016 shows the following

Total gross contributions       £23.148 billion    (£445m a week)

Gross contributions less rebate    £17.865 bn    (£343 m a week)

Gross contribution less rebate and monies paid back to the UK  through EU programmes    £11.73bn  (£225 m a week)

The gross contributions are made up from

Customs revenues      £3.347bn

VAT EU share   £3.647bn

GNI levy           £16.154bn

We need some new estimates of what customs levies would bring in were we to opt for the WTO model. Indicative figures are that the UK would levy £12bn on EU imports into the UK. This money would be available to give back to UK consumers as tax cuts and benefit increases, so customers were not worse off if they wished to continue to buy so much EU product.  The EU would levy £5bn on UK exports to the EU, which would still leave our products more competitive than two years ago before the rise of the Euro.

The WTO model the big attraction of no so called divorce bill.

The UK economy has been good at creating many new jobs over the last seven years. It has been successful at taking unemployment down substantially. One of the main aims now should be to promote higher skilled and better paid jobs. This is the essence of  how to tackle the so called productivity problem.

It is  normally easier to get from a job to a better paid job, than to get from unemployment into work. It is possible for many to work with their employer. Good companies have schemes to foster training and to help employees achieve qualifications. This usually leads in turn to promotion within the firm.

There are many skilled areas where the UK is recruiting where we could do with more skilled young people from our own Colleges. Various companies and industries complain of a shortage of good people with the right skills. Often they turn to inviting in people from overseas to fill the gaps. The UK economy has been great at generating jobs for new migrants as well as for people already settled here.

Raising employee productivity can take place in several ways. The company may just get better at selling service or product, and raise the amount supplied per worker through good sales combined with processes that allow the existing workforce to service some of the growth. The value of the company’s output may rise for other reasons. When, for example, the oil price goes up the employees of the oil producers become more productive because the  value they each produce rises. A company may introduce better product or service which commands a higher prices which also boosts productivity.  A company may invest more capital in computing, automation or more modern process which can allow the same workforce to produce and sell more.

The UK has a great opportunity to replace more imports with domestic production given the improvement in our competitiveness in the last couple of years.

Before the election I was asked about my attitude to the possible construction of more homes in Grazeley when Wokingham next needs to find new areas for development after completing the four large areas currently underway.

I said I would want to know what investment would be needed in schools, surgeries, roads and other public facilities and how these would be paid for. I would also want some reassurance that making a plan around one main development for the  next plan period would not leave us vulnerable to landowners and developers persuading Planning Inspectors to grant them additional planning permission elsewhere in the Borough. The Council may wish to concentrate the growth in one major new settlement but needs to know this will not be overturned.

I have been in discussions with Councillors and Ministers about these issues since the election. This post is to confirm that so far I have  not seen details on how either of these two matters would be resolved, so I am still pressing for more information. There is no great urgency, as there are still many planning permissions outstanding for the current plan period, where the Council has identified where it wishes the new homes to go. I remain open minded over how many homes could be accommodated in our area in the next plan period, and where they might best be delivered. I am  very conscious of the strains placed on all our infrastructure by the pace of building under the current plan.

I will be supporting the Council on appeal where developers are trying to secure permissions outside the approved places under the current plan and where the Council asks for my assistance.

In the endless referendum debates and interviews about the money I always stressed that the £350 m was an accurate official figure for the gross amount. I also quoted the various  net amounts if they were relevant to the specific question.

Quite often Remain speakers claimed we do not send the gross amount, but retain the rebate at home. We have further confirmation from the EU that we do send the gross amount and have to reclaim the rebate later. Now there are stories that the EU will not pay the last rebate owing. In that case we should only send the contribution net of estimated rebate.

We also read that the EU thinks we should accept some  future liability for Ukrainian loans from the EU. This reveals an interesting EU worry. EU policy towards the Ukraine has been problematic. The wide ranging Association Agreement was part of the reason for political change in Ukraine which led to the loss of Crimea and to a bitter civil war which damaged the economy. The EU and the IMF were drawn into offering substantial financial support for the troubled economy.

It is difficult to see why the UK when out of the EU should have to stand behind loans the EU has made when we will not be receiving any financial gains the EU might make on other assets.

If this  is the best the EU can come up with we should continue to plan  to leave under the WTO option. The UK should not make any concessions.