Angie Bray MP: It is un-Conservative to make the many pay for the sins of the few - including with alcohol pricing

Angie Bray is the Member of Parliament for Ealing Central and Acton. Follow Angie on Twitter.

Many of my colleagues represent constituencies where alcohol creates frequent and recurring problems for local communities. Ealing and Acton certainly has its fair share of drink issues - often centred on young people getting seriously drunk and indulging in anti-social behaviour ranging from noise, to property damage and violence.

I’m in favour of tougher enforcement and am encouraged by new measures like the late night levy in the Government’s Alcohol Strategy. I also think we need to revisit some of our local planning rules on late night licensing and supermarket opening hours, because much of the anti-social behaviour that blights neighbourhoods and town centres is fuelled by easy access to liquor, late at night.

I am not at all clear, though, that the introduction of minimum pricing of alcohol units is going to do the trick. I can see the attraction - curbing the purchase of alcohol by making it more expensive sounds easy. But do we really believe that upping the price of a can of lager or a bottle of cheap cider will deter a gang of people who are out late at night with the sole intention of getting bladdered? Surely they’ll just find other ways around this? The facts bear this out. Minimum pricing advocates look to a University of Sheffield report to back up their claims. According to its claims, the 6% fall in consumption between 2004 and 2008 should have resulted in around 20,000 fewer alcohol-related admissions in 2008 alone. In fact, official figures show a rise in admissions of over 300,000 in that period. 

Angie Bray MP: In praise of the expanded National Citizen Service as it enters its second year

Angie Bray is the Member of Parliament for Ealing Central and Acton. She is also Parliamentary Private Secretary to Francis Maude. Follow Angie on Twitter.

Last October I spent a truly brilliant afternoon at Twickenham – not watching the rugby, but attending a graduation ceremony for some very impressive 16 year olds who had just completed their National Citizen Service (NCS) during their summer holidays. They were, in many cases, accompanied by proud parents and some were invited to speak about their experience – 100% thumbs up sums up their response. They all received certificates, including one signed by the Prime Minister, and they then moved to another floor of the stadium where a charity fair awaited them. Within minutes, they were all signing up to a variety of volunteering opportunities. Clearly they wanted to continue what they had already started. 

What started in the pilot scheme last summer is planned, eventually, to become a rite of passage for all 16 year olds. At a minimum cost – and with bursaries available for those who couldn’t otherwise afford to attend - they will all get the chance to spend a few weeks of their summer school holiday with others from a wide variety of backgrounds, communities and schools, learning to build teams and to put those teams to good use on behalf of their neighbourhoods. It is, of course, a massive challenge, but high expectations usually produce the best results. 

The combination of team-building exercises on outward bound courses, mentoring for the teams as they carry out charitable projects and the chance to learn more about chosen subjects and skills, proved last summer to be a successful mix. Certainly, the West Londoners I spent time with, as they planned their social action projects, exuded confidence, enthusiasm and commitment. They had also succeeded in working together in teams made up of complete strangers – until they got to know each other.

Angie Bray MP: We now know how wasteful the last Labour government was and Francis Maude is delivering the savings for taxpayers

Angie Bray is MP for Ealing Central and Acton. She is also Parliamentary Private Secretary to Francis Maude.

Let’s be honest: cutting waste is not exactly glamorous. But it is hugely important, above all at a time when public spending is being squeezed to cut the deficit. We all knew that the Labour Government wasted taxpayer money like it was going out of fashion. And so after the election Francis Maude was determined to get on with the difficult and complicated work of cutting out the wasteful spending that spiralled out of control under Labour.

Francis knew he had to leave no stone unturned in tackling the endemic inefficiency in the way Government is run. And that is just what he has quietly got on with. In only 10 months more than £3.75 billion of cash savings has been found. To put this in perspective that is enough money to fund the salaries of 200,000 junior nurses or the equivalent of saving more than £225 worth of tax for every working household right across the country.

Cutting waste is not sexy and it’s not easy: it puts you up against swathes of vested interests and does not garner many headlines. Some in the Civil Service resent the stopping of pet projects and vanity advertising campaigns; it also involves a degree of centralisation which is not always popular. But it is vitally important and in Francis we have a minister who is totally committed.

From conversations with Francis, it seems we can’t underestimate how bad the situation we inherited from Labour was. The government basically had no idea how much it spent with its major suppliers, was not buying anything in bulk, kept minimal records on its spend on things like consultants and required no central sign off for any advertising campaigns. A box of paper bought from £73 in one department cost £8 in another – more than 9 times as much. There was a Civil Service redundancy scheme which allowed payoffs of over six times annual salary. Simply put, it is totally unbelievable how badly things were run under Labour, and no business would ever have got away with it.

Angie Bray AM: Alternatives to the congestion charge

Angie Bray AM is the London Assembly Member for West Central (encompassing the Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and the City of Westminster). Recently promoted to the ‘A’ list, she is also the Leader of the London Assembly Conservatives and the spokesperson for the Congestion Charge.

Much has recently been made of the exciting new format for the selection of the next Conservative candidate for Mayor. An open primary, seeking to draw in as broader range of candidates as possible, and seeking to enfranchise all Londoners in the selection process is an excellent way of getting the best candidate and connecting with voters. But what issues will the future candidate have to campaign on, and what looms largest in Londoner’s minds?

Right at the top of the pile has to be congestion. It is clear that the issue of congestion in London will not go away, and the challenge for all politicians and parties is to find a truly effective and lasting solution. The introduction of the congestion charge in 2003 was a bold measure, seeking to grasp the nettle, but it has ultimately be proven as an ineffective and broadly unpopular measure. The western extension, due to come on line next year is even more unpopular and has been fiercely opposed by most of west London.

However, as much as we can point out the flaws of the current system (of which there are many) and campaign on the unpopularity, the unfortunate fact is that, at the time of the next Mayoral election, the scheme will have been in place for 5 years. Our arguments have been well rehearsed; simply expressing opposition alone is no longer an intelligent strategy, and the Conservatives should be talking about what lies ahead, rather than repeating well-worn arguments.

When it comes to road user charging, the essential trade off for motorists is that a charge is paid in exchange for a quicker journey. Unfortunately, the Mayor has dropped his side of the bargain, with the average speed in central London the second lowest on record since 1968. The only time it was lower was in the period immediately preceding the congestion charge (2000-2003), where it is well known that a plethora of traffic management measures such as more bus lanes and a re-phasing of all the traffic lights held speeds down far below the level of the existing trend. Today, as the Mayor admitted recently, the average speed in London is just 10mph.

And, as the Mayor announced at the recent Question Time at City Hall, he is now shifting his focus from cutting congestion to cutting emissions, with a proposed £25 a day charge for the heaviest polluting vehicles from 2009. Cutting emissions is the right principle, but yet again he has gone for a negative incentive, rather than a positive incentive. (I would welcome reader’s views on this, is £25 too much?)

Never the less, proper road pricing (which is different to the congestion charge permit system) can be a positive measure to combat congestion. A brief glance at other schemes around the world shows how road pricing can be used effectively, without penalising the motorist.

Every other major scheme in the world (Singapore, Stockholm, Trondheim) charges based on when you use the road, and what vehicle you drive. This way, they can both reduce emissions and improve the flow of traffic based on demand. In Singapore, as a result of this approach, the average speed has never fallen below 15mph. In Stockholm, drivers never pay more than £4, with the most expensive time period £1.40 and traffic has fallen by 25% since January. Whilst in London, the fall has been measured at 26% since 2003. Crucially, Stockholm get their figure from literally counting the cars and comparing them on a month by month basis, whereas London measures it by counting cars only in spring and autumn. Additionally, you may have heard the Mayor saying that congestion has fallen by 30%, however, according to TfL’s own annual survey; “road users were probably (my emphasis) experiencing an effective 30% reduction in congestion.” So much for accuracy!

Other schemes also utilise ‘tag and beacon’ technology, where sensors fitted in cars automatically have money deducted from the driver when they drive in a certain area, at a certain time of day. These Oystercards for cars in London would make flexible pricing easier, and ease the burden on retailers during the day. This is especially important, as the damage done to small/medium retailers and businesses was one of our original reasons for opposing the scheme, three years on and the negative effects are clear. There are, of course, serious arguments against such ‘spy-in-the-sky’ technology, and the best schemes do not compel drivers to have sensors in their cars, using a back-up camera system. Other measures, such as the introduction of school buses for primary school children would immediately ease congestion even without road pricing.

Certain changes, like changes to pricing and environmental incentives could be made virtually immediately. A maximum cap would ensure small businesses that make multiple journeys are not heavily penalised, and a quarterly review of pricing (as they do in Singapore) would enable the Mayor to closely manage average speeds. So there are examples of fairer, more effective alternatives. It is important for us to have this debate, as simply saying ‘get rid of it’, without articulating what the positive alternatives are and without having a serious dialogue on where to go next will only leave the next Mayoral candidate with nothing new to say on one of the most important issues in London.