REPRESENT is about you and your connection to Parliament. Your response could be about making your voice heard, or about ensuring others listen. It might be about how you are represented now or how you would like that to be changed. Or it might be about your identity and how that affects how you are represented in 2012. Whatever it is you would like to say, you can do it with lyrics, rhyme, prose, or even just a couple of sentences.

“I think REPRESENT offers an exciting opportunity to talk about representation and what it means to get your voice heard. I am delighted that the poem will be shown in the historic setting of Westminster Hall during the Arts in Parliament programme this summer, and I encourage everyone in Lincoln and indeed Lincolnshire to get involved,” said Mr M^cCartney MP.

Using the responses from across the UK, award-winning poet and performer Inua Ellams will create a single poem which will be shown as a film online and in Westminster Hall in the Houses of Parliament between m 1 – 6 August 2012.

To participate, include your first name, age and city or town you live in, and submit your short contributions via: email torepresent@parliament.uk, Twitter using the hashtag #represent2012 or YouTube. Submissions must be received by Monday 25 June 2012.  For full rules and details visit: www.parliament.uk/artsinparliament

REPRESENT is a partnership project between Arts in Parliament, an innovative and unique programme which brings visual art, music, dance and poetry into the iconic setting of the Houses of Parliament in the Olympic year, and the UK’s leading spoken word organisation, Apples & Snakes.

-ENDS-

In short, ill thought out regulations cost businesses time and money, damaging both growth and prospects for greater employment.  However, sometimes, the regulation itself is fine – it is inconsistent or inappropriate enforcement that causes problems or could just be so much better.

That is why the Government have launched Focus on Enforcement – a new campaign and call for evidence.  For the first time, information about regulators is being made available in one place so that businesses and members of the public will be able to have their say about how the enforcement of regulation affects them and to suggest areas of enforcement that should be considered for possible review.

Karl said, “The Government would very much like to hear from members of the public, civil society organisations and businesses, examples of good and bad enforcement practice so we can both share good practice and seek reform of areas that are causing problems.  I would ask my Constituents and businesses and organisations in the City of Lincoln to submit their suggestions tohttp://discuss.bis.gov.uk/focusonenforcement.”

The best ideas and suggestions will be chosen for further investigation and the Government will report its findings on the website http://www.bis.gov.uk/ together with the actions it proposes to take in due course.

- ENDS -

For further information, please contact Karl M^cCartney MP at karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

Electricity from wind farms is unreliable, and requires a considerable degree of backup sources from more controllable energy sources, such as coal and gas plants, to compensate for periods of low output.  Whilst Britain currently only has around 3,500 wind turbines, the Government is looking to increase this figure substantially.  We will need a significant increase in the UK’s generating capacity, just to maintain the current level of energy supply during intermittent periods, when we cannot rely on wind farms.  The Government is also looking to provide energy firms with financial incentives to construct a greater number of gas power stations to enable our country to provide back-up for any wind farm energy production.  These so-called ‘capacity payments’ could lead to homeowners and businesses in Lincoln paying energy firms fees all year round, just to keep energy plants on standby for times of reduced energy output on wind farm sites.

As taxpayers we are also currently paying £400 million in subsidies every year to the wind farm industry, and as a Conservative, I am sceptical of the merits of such a project, if it requires such a high degree of taxpayer funding to underwrite the existing costs for this technology.  Additionally, onshore wind production increases the price of energy bills to every home and business in our City.  Although Ofgem estimates that the impact on an individual household’s energy bill to be just under £5, this still means that as a country we are paying nearly £115 million extra on top of the Government subsidy towards these inefficient projects. That is over £500 million – a year! Additionally, whilst the construction of wind farm sites may provide some short-term employment, the vast majority of wind farm developers are not based financially in the UK; and so a considerable portion of the subsidy that taxpayers provide will inevitably mean scarce financial funds are heading abroad.

Furthermore, the degree to which these projects can provide long term employment for communities affected by their construction will be limited.

Moreover, new research in the United States indicates that rather than helping us combat climate change, wind farms are actually contributing towards the problem, by keeping the air temperature elevated overnight on and around the sites on which they are situated.  Although the impact from the current number of sites in the UK is thankfully limited, the ever increasing number of wind farms envisioned by some in the Government and Whitehall could lead to changes in regional weather patterns, as the excess warm air can affect the formation of clouds.

Not only are these giant turbines costly and ineffective, but they are also a scar on the countryside in which they are located.  Such structures are completely out of keeping with the natural landscape in which they are positioned and can compromise wildlife habitats. They are not a welcome addition to the aesthetic of our green and pleasant land, and more crucially they negatively impact on the quality of life of those who are unlucky enough to live near the blighted sites.

All in all, there are a number of problems associated with this renewable resource, and we need to look at other viable alternatives, which can not only help us reduce our carbon footprint, but also provide value for money for taxpayers by delivering efficient energy production for all of us at home, or in business.

“In addition to the CQC’s report, my recent visits to the Hospital have assured me that the Trust remains fully committed to addressing all the issues raised and that they are working very hard to identify where improvements can be made.”

- ENDS -

For further information, please contact Karl M^cCartney MP at karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

Over the last several weeks, in anticipation of today’s local elections, I have spent many evenings and weekends with Conservative Council candidates knocking on doors and speaking to voters.  The economic downturn and the measures the current Conservative-led Government has had to take to deal with the largest budget deficit in the G20, bequeathed to us by the previous Labour Government, is not an ideal backdrop for fighting an election.  And all candidates for all parties will have – perhaps to varying degrees  – carried out campaigning of some sort over the past few weeks and maybe longer and this evening it all comes to fruition – or more likely tomorrow in the very early hours of the morning in the Drill Hall.

On the doorstep, I know there is a great deal of frustration about the current economic climate and the effects this is having on people.  But the Conservatives in Government are sorting out the mess left by Labour.  We are fixing Labour’s broken economy.  Not only taking the tough but necessary decisions to get to grips with our debt and put our house in order but making sure our economy rewards those who work hard and play by the rules, and punish those who do not.  We are dealing with Labour’s ‘something for nothing’ culture by capping the amount that a household can claim in benefits to £26,000 – a cap that Labour oppose.  We are also tackling abuses at the top by taxing the banks, clamping down on tax avoidance and imposing the toughest rules on bank bonuses in the world.  We have extended Right to Buy discounts for Council homes and published a new planning framework, turning 1,000 pages of guidance into 50 pages – that’s reducing bureaucracy that I commend to anyone.  Further, Conservatives run the best-value councils in the Country and have been leading the way – as the largest party in the Coalition – in helping freeze Council Tax bills for the second year in a row.  This is a record to be proud of considering that in the 13 years of the last Labour Government your Council Tax more than doubled.

Of course, we have faced difficult headlines in the past few weeks but in the long run, it is these achievements that people will remember – especially considering the inheritance we received from the Labour Government.

Conservatives in Government are taking the tough decisions to take Britain in the right direction and secure a better future for our children and grandchildren. Labour left Britain in a mess and have not learnt from their mistakes, only being able to offer an alternative of more spending, more borrowing and more debt.

Elections are by their very nature, of course, politically tribal affairs – that is the essence and reality of democracy.  The political parties contesting the local elections have different views about the past and different proposed policies for the future.  However, I also recognise that the individual candidates are people like you and me but all of them taking part, certainly for the mainstream parties, are similar in one crucial respect I would argue: they all want to improve their local community and the quality of the lives of the people living in their ward.  As a former Parish Councillor, Borough Council Candidate, a school governor at various schools, a magistrate since 1999, a former Board Member of the Witham Internal Drainage Board and, of course, a Member of Parliament, this sense of public duty is one that I entirely understand and share. The City of Lincoln has a proud history of public duty from its elected citizens, and others, and they all deserve our support.

It was King George IV who once said: “The highest of distinctions is service to others.”  Each of the candidates standing in today’s election in Lincoln would like to serve the people in their local community, and our City as a whole, and I would urge everybody in Lincoln who has the opportunity to vote today, to do so.  It isn’t too much too ask.

]]> http://www.karlmccartney.co.uk/2012/05/lincolnshire-echo-article-3rd-may-2012/feed/ 0 http://www.karlmccartney.co.uk/2012/05/karl-heralds-todays-insurance-summit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=karl-heralds-todays-insurance-summit http://www.karlmccartney.co.uk/2012/05/karl-heralds-todays-insurance-summit/#comments Wed, 02 May 2012 13:10:26 +0000 admin http://www.karlmccartney.co.uk/?p=991 The Transport Secretary, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, will meet with the insurance industry, consumer and business groups today (Wednesday, 2 May) to ensure everything possible is being done to drive down the cost of motor insurance.

Justine Greening will outline progress following the Prime Minister’s summit in February and confirm new measures being taken by Government to encourage the insurance industry to reduce premiums, including for young drivers.

Transport Secretary Justine Greening said, “Car insurance costs are simply too high: they must be reduced.  The Government has already taken tough action to ban referral fees, reform no win no fee rules and crack down on fraudulent whiplash claims.  But I think we can go further.  Why is it when the overwhelming majority of UK young drivers are amongst the safest in the world and we are seeing faster reductions in casualties for this age group than for all drivers as a whole – that premiums are still sky high? That is why we will be talking with young drivers to find out what they think can be done to reduce the cost of car insurance. Insurers need to take full advantage of the use of telematics, or in-car black boxes, which will allow young drivers to prove how safe they are.  There is no getting away from it: the cost of car insurance is bearing increasingly little relationship to the real world.  I am convinced that by working together with drivers and the industry we can bring some common sense back and get premiums down.”

City MP, Karl M^cCartney, said, “I am pleased this Government is tackling this issue of high motor insurance premiums.  Action needs to be taken by the legal profession and insurance sector companies with regard to the issue and it may need regulation to force them to comply.  The cost of motor premiums has been driven up by insurers, solicitors and claims management companies who have encouraged people involved in road accidents they did not cause to claim for personal injury, car hire, and other legal costs.  While we do need to improve the regulation of this, I feel very strongly that there has to be changes in the law too.  And whilst we are examining the issue of insurance, costs, claims, including bona fide whiplash claims and insurance scams, we also need to address the 1.5m drivers on our roads that currently remain uninsured.”

- ENDS -

For further information, please contact Karl M^cCartney MP at karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

Type 1 diabetes is a serious autoimmune condition that causes the body’s own immune system to turn on itself and attack cells in the pancreas, which produce insulin.  The condition affects about 300,000 adults in the UK, including over 26,000 children and requires multiple daily insulin injections and finger prick blood tests to manage.

Commenting on the event Mr M^cCartney said, “It was a pleasure to attend the ‘Type 1 Parliament’ lobbying event and the meet with Marie, Findley and other attendees last Wednesday.   As a result of this event and conversation and correspondence with Marie and Findley, I have already written to Rt Hon David Willetts MP, the Minister of State for Universities and Science at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, requesting an update on the measures the Government is taking to encourage and fund medical research into Type 1 diabetes and I await his response with interest.”

Over the last few years, JDRF has successfully built awareness for type 1 diabetes and has developed a political presence within Westminster through the devolved administrations, campaigning on the postcode lottery on the provision of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors and advocating the importance of funding medical research for type 1.  In 2009 the UK Government, through the funding bodies including the Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research committed £51 million to research, to tackle the growing problem of diabetes.  Of this, only £6 million was applicable to type 1 diabetes.  In relation to funding, the UK falls way behind other developed countries and JDRF believes that this needs to change.  Not only will greater investment in research ensure we find the cure for type 1 diabetes sooner; it could also bring significant advantages to the UK economy.

-ENDS-

For more information about type 1 diabetes and JDRF, please contact JDRF on 0207 713 2030 or jperry@jdrf.org.uk.

Following the Housing Act 1980, nearly 2 million social homes have been bought by their tenants under Right to Buy, increasing home ownership, improving social mobility and building mixed communities. It gave decent, hard-working people on lower incomes a helping hand into owner-occupation, enabling households to own their home who would never otherwise have been able to do so.

The Right to Buy gave something back to families who worked, paid their rent and played by the rules. It allowed them to do up their home, change their front door, improve their garden – without having to ask permission from clipboard-wielding bureaucrats down at the town or city hall.

And you can literally see the policy’s beneficial effect. Those new front doors signalled new life and diversity in housing estates, giving people a sense of pride and ownership not just in their home, but in their whole street and neighbourhood. Once monolithic and mono-tenure estates have now benefited from that increased sense of shared ownership and social responsibility.

The previous Labour Government’s stealth cuts over 13 years included slashing the discount for Right to Buy through imposing new regional caps, failing to increase the cash levels of the new caps in line with house prices, further cutting the discounts caps and increasing the length of residency to qualify for Right to Buy. The Labour Government’s own research warned Ministers that these cuts would curtail the Right to Buy. After a decade of Labour strangling the Right to Buy, the average discount had fallen from 50 per cent of the market value of the property to just a quarter; in London, the discount was worth just 10 per cent. Unsurprisingly, by 2010, Right to Buy sales had dwindled to just over 3,000 a year.

One of the reasons I came into politics was to fight this type of class war that strips people of the opportunity to improve their lot, creates roadblocks to aspiration and hinders social mobility.

Now our Conservative-led Government is working to change our country once again for the better and that we are championing the Right to Buy as a shining example of how people can help themselves and aspire to a better standard of living.

It is why I am so pleased why we are increasing the maximum Right to Buy discount to £75,000 across the country – quadrupling the potential discount in London and trebling it elsewhere. And we are undertaking a major campaign to help advance the cause of home ownership amongst council tenants, alongside sensible advice on the financial responsibilities of having a mortgage.

Additional homes sold under Right to Buy will be replaced by a new home for affordable rent, with receipts from sales recycled towards the cost of replacement. This in turn will provide a boost to the economy from increased housebuilding and, alongside our other housing reforms, will help tackle the massive housing waiting lists that almost doubled under Labour.

The Right to Buy is a great opportunity for people who aspire to own their own home, rewarding those who work hard and want to ‘get on’ in life. But more importantly, it is a real chance to advance social opportunity, transfer power from the state to communities and improve individual people’s lives.  Locally, Lincoln City’s Conservative Councillors have a proud record with regard to defending and retaining the City’s Council owned housing, unfortunately the Labour City Council under their present leader, and their previous Government when in power, have a less than exemplary record with regard to this issue.

I have recently written to Cllr Ric Metcalfe, the Leader of the City of Lincoln Council, asking what the Council will be doing to meet its statutory duty to make tenants who are my constituents aware of the changes.  Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP, has branded home ownership as ‘the English disease’.  Whilst Miss Flint’s statement succinctly illustrates exactly where Ed Miliband’s Labour Party now stand, I do hope that on her recent visit to Lincoln, Miss Flint was unable to persuade her Labour colleagues at the City Council of this flawed and out-of-touch notion.  I await Cllr Metcalfe’s response on this issue with interest.

“Is my Rt Hon Friend aware of recent very good news in the manufacturing and engineering sectors in Lincoln.  Hoval have seen an increase in turnover of over 20% to around £17.5m, Italian firm Bifrangi have confirmed a c.£50m investment in a new tooling press, one of the largest in the world, and Siemens are involved with the first new Engineering School in our country for 20 years, at the University of Lincoln.  Would my Rt. Hon. Friend accept my personal invitation to visit Lincoln and see for himself the excellent progress our City is enjoying under his Conservative-led Government? “

Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP:

“I am very grateful for my Hon. Friend’s invitation and I shall try and take it up.  As I said earlier, [despite] the very disappointing [GDP figures] today, underneath there is a rebalancing that needs to take place and is taking place, in terms of manufacturing investment, in terms of exports and in terms of the Government getting behind that with more investment in apprenticeships, more investment in technical hubs at our universities like the one at the University of Lincoln, and cutting business taxes so we get Britain working and making things again.”

- ENDS -

For further information, please contact Karl M^cCartney MP at karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

Chris Bryant: You broke my leg.

Karl M^cCartney: Not on purpose.

We were told during the dying days of the previous Labour Government that the 50p tax rate was always intended to be a temporary measure. That remark came from very near the top level, as it was made by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). Many of us suspect, however, that at the top of that economically discredited Labour Government, the then Prime Minister, who is now much missed in his absence, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had a more political plan, perhaps with three prongs. First, the 50p tax rate was a bone to throw to the Opposition’s political masters who run the unions. It said, “Look how we are clobbering those who earn—or should I say ‘are paid’—slightly more than you.” Secondly, it was part of the Labour party’s scorched earth policy, a desperate act up there with the protectionist decision of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath further to increase the indebtedness of our armed forces’ budgets by ensuring the most watertight contract, despite the fact that Whitehall lawyers are not renowned for their prowess in closing legal loopholes, for two new aircraft carriers, which funnily enough were not to be built in English or Conservative Members’ constituencies.

Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl M^cCartney: Not at this stage.

18 Apr 2012 : Column 353

Thirdly, the 50p tax rate was designed to be something that any new Government would have to address at some time early in the next Parliament and to reduce to an acceptable level to ensure the competitiveness of our nation in the international marketplace.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Karl M^cCartney: In a minute.

One hopes that the Labour party knows and realises that the 50p tax rate it introduced for spurious reasons made our country economically uncompetitive, but it has never let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite, has it? It is not fair to say that the reduction in the 50p tax rate and other measures announced in the Budget are a tax break for the wealthiest because, in total, the measures announced will see the wealthiest paying many times more.

Alison McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl M^cCartney: No, I certainly will not at this stage.

Chris Bryant: That is very ungenerous to a lady.

Karl M^cCartney: Later, I will be as generous as the hon. Gentleman was if hon. Members will let me get through some of my speech. I certainly will not speak for as long as he did.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I think we are having a few too many interventions. I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that although the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney) might have broken his leg, he obviously did not break his tongue, which he ought perhaps to hold a little more.

Karl M^cCartney: Thank you, Mr Hoyle for letting me continue. I feel I ought to correct what might be an untruth: I did not break the leg of the hon. Member for Rhondda. I gave him quite a good pass—not even a hospital pass—on the rugby field and the two large gentlemen who were about to tackle me then tackled him.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility agrees that the 50p rate raises only a fraction of what was supposedly intended. So, one of my questions to the Chancellor and his Ministers is whether they know of any reason why any Member would disagree with the highly respected OBR other than for disingenuous political gain?

The 50p rate is bad economics. The previous Labour Government’s Chancellors and Prime Ministers and the Labour party’s current shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), are well aware of that privately but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it publicly. Ultimately, it is the highest tax rate in the G20. Our Government are clear where they stand on the 50p tax rate: it has not raised anywhere near the revenue expected as many individuals cleverly engaged their own or their accountants’ knowledge to bypass the rate and lower their tax bills. The Government have now sent out a clear signal to the international community that Britain is open for business and will no

18 Apr 2012 : Column 354

longer have the highest tax rate in the G20. The same clear signal cannot be said to be coming from those on the Opposition Benches.

Owen Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl M^cCartney: Not at this point.

It has been interesting—and would be again—to hear from the Chancellor or his Ministers what positive signs we have seen from businesses after he announced the change? Once again, why does the Labour party fly in the face of business leaders’ opinion? As I have said, the 50p tax rate raises only a fraction of what was intended and is bad economics. It is better to put the British economy first, ahead of cheap headlines, but then that was never the Labour way, was it? One would have thought by now that Labour might have learnt some economic lessons.

The cut in the 50p tax rate was never a priority of this Government. Raising the personal tax allowance and helping low and middle income earners has always been the No. 1 priority tax cut for the Government and that is what we have done. This is a Budget to be welcomed by all with far-reaching tax reform that Labour should be embarrassed it never even considered. It announces the largest ever increase in the personal tax allowance, which will benefit 24 million ordinary families up and down our country. Most basic rate taxpayers will gain at least £220 every year. In total, this Government will have taken 2 million low paid people out of tax altogether.

Labour spent much of the aftermath of the recent budget indulging in photo calls in unfamiliar territory for Labour Members—any pasty shop they could find. Even an unannounced visit to my own constituency of Lincoln by the photogenic brother of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), featured such a stunt. Among all this new-found fondness for pasties, but perhaps notably not for one bottle of a famous brown sauce, the Leader of the Opposition has strongly criticised the decision to cut the top rate from 50p.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made a laughable claim when he said:

“After today’s Budget, millions will be paying more while millionaires pay less.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 452, c. 809.]

He is the true heir to Blair, is he not? Soundbite, not substance—and not even basic mathematical understanding. After this Budget, not only will millions of people pay less tax, but many low earners will pay little or no income tax. If, as we know, the 50p top rate raised only a fraction of what was intended and in addition harmed our international competitiveness and, as other Budget changes have ensured that the direct cost of the reduction to a top rate of 45p has been mitigated many times over, that should surely be welcomed by Members on both sides of this House.