I was in Brentwood on Saturday, and met a number of people who had heard me on “Any Questions” on BBC Radio 4. They asked the usual question: “Do you know what you’ll be asked before you go on?”  The short answer is no

Illness prevented me from being an Any Questions panellist in January, but when the producers offered me some other possible dates I plumped for 25^th April.

It turned out my opposite number in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears MP, was also appearing. As well as her Ministerial responsibilities, Hazel runs Labour’s local election campaign. I have responsibility for running the Conservative campaign, while the Lib Dem panel member, Lord Razzall was the man behind his party’s election campaigns from 2000 to 2006. The programme promised lively discussion between three people hotly involved with this week’s elections.

Before you go on the radio, you obsess about what questions are likely to be asked. Given the controversy of the 10p tax band I thought that was a likely subject, but knew it had been discussed last week. It was still a hot topic thought, and my research into the subject paid off.

On the morning of the programme researchers from Conservative Central Office fired practice questions at me, and prepared a brief for me to read on the train. I met up with my old chum, Jonathan Dimbleby, at Macclesfield Station, and we travelled to the restaurant where all panel members, bar Hazel Blears, met for a pre-programme meal and chat. We arrived at the school hall venue ten minutes before transmission.

The first question was a nightmare, because it was on the teachers’ strike and all panellists had the same view. Opinions diverged on political questions relating to Mr Brown’s popularity and the 10p tax band. With five minutes to go I began to relax, until I realised the last question was about what qualities a fairy godparent would bestow on a child. Strangely, my brief had not prepared me for this. I chose empathy because the ability to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, and to be able to think of other people is so important in politics and life.

After a brief reception at the school, a car arrived to take me and Lord Razzall back to London, so I arrived home just after half past two in the morning.

Last month I wrote in this column about new research which showed how much the cost of living is rising. I wrote then how bread, butter and eggs – basic dietary staples – have gone up in price, as have petrol, gas and electricity.

And now the ten pence tax rate has been abolished. The new financial year saw this starting rate of tax, which gave most benefit to the poorest workers and pensioners in society, taken away and replaced with a twenty per cent starting rate.

It is disgraceful that over two million pensioners are living in poverty and I am very concerned about the serious plight of today’s pensioners. I am frustrated by Gordon Brown's claims that pensioner poverty is falling when the poorest pensioners are seeing their income drop.

Recent figures have shown that the poorest quarter of pensioner households saw their income rise by less than one per cent last year, well below inflation. The worst-off single pensioners saw their real incomes, taking account of inflation, drop by around four per cent. Recent figures have shown that the worst-off single pensioners saw their real incomes, taking account of inflation, drop by around four per cent.

Even pensioners who have worked all their lives and made investments to see them through their latter years are badly hit by the loss of the lower rate. I am aware of women constituents who retired at sixty, but who will not receive the increased personal allowance for pensioners until they are sixty five, who are significantly worse off now.

Almost four million retired women are not receiving a full state pension and a further one million will retire on inadequate pensions between now and 2010. It is now the case that around two-thirds of pensioners living in poverty are women.

But it is not just pensioners who are hard hit. Low income workers, including those just out of school and college and starting work for the first time are worse off. The Tax Credits system, which itself has often caused more problems that it is worth if my constituency post bag is anything to go by, helps some people but many others do not qualify for Working Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit. Even the Government’s so called safety net fails many of the poorest in society.

I am strongly opposed to the Government doubling tax on the lower paid and will fight against it as the Finance Bill begins its passage through Parliament next week. The Government is in disarray over this issue and several Labour MPs, including Frank Field MP who tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill this week, have already joined the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in opposing the measures. 

What Britain now needs is a long-term economic strategy that learns the lessons from the incompetence and waste of the last decade. A Conservative Government would set out a plan to share the proceeds of economic growth over an economic cycle between public spending, reducing Government debt and lowering taxes.

It has been suggested this week by the Local Government Association that an £80 fine should be imposed upon the driver of any car from which litter is thrown onto the roadside. I read the suggestion with interest, having myself been the victim of this method of litter disposal on several unfortunate occasions.

Some ten years ago I was the proud owner of a Citroen DS, a car of French descent, with the excellent suspension of that nation’s car design and a rather fancy sun roof. Many was the time I could be seen bowling up and down the motorways of England, the sunroof open and the wind blowing through my hair. Yes, it was ten years ago, and yes, my hair was fulsome.

On one of these carefree journeys, something made me close the sunroof. Maybe I had sub-consciously noticed gathering rain clouds, maybe some sixth sense had alerted me to oncoming danger. Moments later a car drew up beside me in the overtaking lane. The female passenger of the car wound down her window and threw out the not inconsiderable contents of a child’s potty, liberally splattering my Citroen’s bonnet and, thankfully closed, sunroof.

I was not happy. I did, however, discover the Citroen’s windscreen wipers were well above average in their ability to clear unexpected detritus from the screen.

Potty contents have been a one off.  Fast food remains are a daily battle. I live about one cheeseburger and three quarters of a bag of fries from a “drive-thru” MacDonald’s. I know this because the remaining quarter of fries, a semi-bitten gherkin and the cardboard packaging land in my garden on a regular basis, thrown from the windows of the cars which have just “driven thru”.

It seems the LGA is suggesting we now need to regulate for good manners. What kind of person thinks it is acceptable to throw potty contents or the remainders of a fast food meal out of the window of a moving car? Are they the same people who feel it is fine to spit chewing gum out onto the streets?

Perhaps more thought needs to go into the throwing of litter. If this ill mannered behaviour is to continue, I need just a few chicken nuggets and a bag of fruit slices to fully cater for my staff Christmas party. Alternatively, take your litter home with you.

It is now a month since Chancellor Alistair Darling’s first Budget, and the implications of his announcements are still sinking in for many people.

I have a received a number of letters from constituents who live and work in rural parts of Brentwood and Ongar. For them a 4x4 vehicle is not a status symbol, or an over-ambitious way to keep the children safe on the school run. For many people who live and work in the countryside car-ownership is not a choice or a luxury – it is a simple necessity.

Public transport is, in many cases not a viable alternative to private motoring in the countryside. Indeed, many people in rural areas have no choice but to drive 4x4 vehicles, as that is what the practicalities and the terrain demand. According to the Countryside Alliance, approximately 250,000 of the 1.6m 4x4s in Great Britain – a significant proportion – are used for practical purposes. Unfortunately, this has not been recognised by the Chancellor, and drivers of these vehicles face further increases in vehicle excise duty (VED).

 I am concerned this will hit many people’s budgets badly and I think that the Government should be honest about this. The Budget Red Book claims that the Chancellor’s changes to VED will mean that ‘the majority of motorists will be no better or worse off in 2009’.  However, of the 9.5 million cars which have paid the graduated VED since its creation in 2001, 6.6 million fell into bands D, E and F.  This means that 70 per cent of car owners will be forced to pay a higher tax charge. 

I do believe, however, that it is vital that we recognise the environmental impact of motoring. Although the motor car has brought both personal freedom and economic improvement to this country – something that I want to see continue in the future – it is imperative that we take steps to reduce the damage that cars can do to our environment. I think that part of the solution will be ensuring that we drive cars with lower carbon dioxide emissions, and I am pleased that manufacturers are now bring forward technologies which will help us achieve this.

That said, we must make sure that we strike a balance between the environmental impact of cars and the needs of those living in rural areas.  I understand that agricultural vehicles are currently exempt from payment of vehicle excise duty, although this only applies to a limited number of vehicles. 

In terms of the Conservative approach to road taxes, I think that there is a case for green taxes, but only if they are offset with tax reductions elsewhere.  This is based on the principle that the burden of taxation should be shifted away from “good” things – such as income and jobs – onto “bad” things such as pollution. Crucially, our approach is revenue-neutral, meaning that the overall tax burden will not rise.

What has happened to commonsense? Why in the face of technology does logic take second place?  Those Brentwood commuters who were on the Gidea Park to Brentwood Station replacement bus service on Good Friday must have wondered if they were on the roller coaster ride to hell.  This was because the replacement bus service using a satnav chose to take the route down Kavanaghs Road managing to stop just a few feet away from the substantial railway bridge blocking the path of the bus. 

I know Kavanaghs Road reasonably well and am aware of the railway bridge and the various signs leading up to it warning of its height.  Even if the bus driver was unfamiliar with Brentwood he or she must have surely seen the warning signs.  But the driver paid more attention to the siren voice of the satnav, which if at the last moment he or she had not applied the brakes, would have smashed up against the bridge.

This is not after all the first time that residents of Brentwood have been inconvenienced due to the vagaries of satellite navigation.  It is not so long a go that a patient being transferred from St Georges’ Hospital to Warley, a very simple journey, which even at peak hours would not take more than 45 minutes, found themselves on the outskirts of Manchester before the clueless Ambulance drivers realised that they were lost.

I have not as yet received the response from the bus company but I am expecting something along the lines of the excuse issued by the Health Authority.  They went to great lengths to explain that there was a glitch in the satnav programming.  On closer examination of the excuse it became clear what they really meant was that the wrong address had been keyed in.

Even accepting this mistake surely it must have occurred to the drivers as they drove up the M1 that there was some mistake, but they kept their blind faith with the computer rather than using their eyes.

The Gidea Park bus fortunately has passengers on board who knew the locality and directed the driver safely to Brentwood.  I hope that on the return journey there were passengers who knew the way to Gidea Park but as there are no reports of a bewildered bus driver circling Brentwood with wild eyed and desperate passengers on board I assume the bus returned safely home.

In Brentwood, there is a man who visits the local supermarket every week to do his grocery shopping. He is a man of habit, who buys the same items each week: chicken, apples, eggs, milk, cheese, bread, vegetables, cat food, lavatory paper. Perhaps, as a treat, a little steak and kidney pie in a tin and a nice bottle of Chianti.

Little by little the man has noticed prices going up. Until last week. In just one week he found the cost of the food and grocery items in his basket had increased by four pounds. In a week.

Unfortunately, as all too many of us are aware, the cost of living is rising. Official inflation is running, according to the Government, at 2.5%. But if you go shopping on a weekly basis, pay gas or electricity bills, tax the car, or pay your council tax, you will know the real cost of living is rising much faster.

The increased cost of gas and electricity has been widely documented in the media. In the last month alone, 440,000 families have moved into the “fuel poverty” bracket, joining the 4.4million families already suffering the effects of rapid fuel rises.

But gas and electricity prices have only increased by 10%. Compare this with the 37% increase in the price of butter, the 34% increase in the price of a dozen eggs, and the 28% increase in the price of a loaf of bread.

My Conservative colleagues have commissioned research from the House of Commons Library which shows the prices of goods and services which are bought frequently have tended to increase more rapidly than the official inflation rate. The prices of many basic household items – bread, butter and eggs – have seen double digit rises in recent months.

It would be wrong to suggest the Government could directly control the cost of living in a modern market economy. But it can avoid making things worse. Unfortunately, the recent Budget did make things worse for the average family by imposing tax rises of £110.

These tax rises are on top of a doubling of council tax in the last ten years, a trebling of train fares, and a doubling of the cost of running a family car. And you may have noticed, we’ve also got the highest interest rates in the developed world. That means mortgages, student loans and business credit is more expensive.

Gordon Brown made one hundred and eleven tax rises during his ten years as Chancellor including the abolition of tax credits on pension funds’ dividends, and increases in stamp duty. 

Without wishing to sound overly Biblical, or indeed like a Tim Rice/Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, the Government has failed to put enough aside in the good times to prepare for when times are hard. That means there is no quick fix, and things will not get better soon.

I’d say we should drink to better times ahead, but with my colleagues’ research suggesting beer will cost £6.50 a pint by the time the Olympics come to London, you may want to consider a nice glass of water.

There is an old after dinner story concerning a Member of Parliament who had a nightmare in which he dreamt he was making a speech in the House of Commons Chamber,  Realising he had nothing sensible to say he woke up in a panic to find that he really was delivering a speech to a packet House of Commons.  Last Wednesday I saw fact imitating art with Mr Darling stumbling through his first and hopefully last Budget. 

This was a very bad Budget and added an extra £110 a year to the tax bill of every family.  Taxes are up on wine, beer and spirits, taxes are also up on business to the tune of nearly £2 billion over the next three years.

Borrowing is also up. As recently as six months ago Mr Darling was predicting that he would borrow £120 billion over the next four years, last Wednesday he announced that borrowing had increased £160 billion in the same period.  The budget deficit is now 3 per cent of GDP.  This is one of the worst figures for an industrial nation, only Pakistan, Egypt and Hungary have figures as bad.

Since the Budget I have received many emails complaining about the changes in vehicle excise duty trying to argue that somehow the Government has made a mistake and does not realise how damaging the will be on ordinary families.  This along with the new car purchase tax will make owning and running an ordinary family car prohibitively expensive.  Cars like the Ford Mondeo, the Vauxhall Vectra and the Nissan Micra cannot be described as luxurious or extravagant cars.

At a time when locally Mayor Livingstone’s Low Emission Zone is going to bite hard, putting up the price of a Ford Transit or Vauxhall Movano is going to add to the cost of buying new vehicles.

If you want to know how much you will have to pay for your existing car there is a link within this article on my website to a full list of domestic motor vehicles.

Following the increase in utility bills and council tax the Government is really hitting families when they are down. 

The Budget was a unique mixture of gesture politics and tedious repetition.  “Steady as you go” looks like it has hit the rocks.

The fate of Post Offices in the Brentwood area has been a key issue for many people recently. In the last six months we have seen a consultation which allowed the Post Office on Warley Hill to remain open, while the branch on Hanging Hill Lane was closed. In the eighteen months of the nationwide Post Office consultation, up to two and a half thousand Post Office branches may close.

The main High Street Post Office moved to its new first floor premises in WH Smith last month. I was against the move because of the problems with access: not only is the lift small, but the disabled parking spaces on the High Street are now a one hundred metre walk away. It seems access has not been helped by the decision to merge the two WH Smiths into the Baytree Centre premises, making aisles narrower and access even more tricky for those with mobility aids or pushchairs.

And there are more people trying to use these new premises because of the closure of the Hanging Hill Lane branch. I am keeping a watching brief on the outcome of the move, but am aware already there is deep dissatisfaction in the town about the new premises.

With all this in mind, I feel the recent decision by Essex County Council to enter into negotiations with Post Office Ltd about keeping open a number of post offices previously earmarked for closure is a groundbreaking move.

So many vulnerable people need the services provided by the Post Office, and the Government has been closing almost ten a week since 1997. Although it can be argued that much of tasks previously exclusively handled by the Post Office can now be done elsewhere – online or via banks and building societies – there is little that can be said against the benefits offered by Post Offices in rural areas, or areas with a high elderly and vulnerable population.

Essex County Council has agreed a two month negotiation period which will look again at thirty two Post Offices across Essex which have been identified for closure by Post office Limited. Those which meet strict criteria based on financial viability and local need will be offered a share of £1.5m support from Essex County Council over the next three years.

Of course, critics claims the county council is spending its money where it should not.  It opens the possibility of providing council services through post offices, and a recognition that in some parts of the county this is the last community facility left.. The County Council wants any money it invests to assist each saved Post Office branch to become financially self sufficient and “cost-neutral” to the council.

For those familiar with the world wide web and the wonders of internet shopping and banking this may seem like a last ditch attempt to keep a dying business alive. But for those who cannot easily travel to another Post Office, or who live in a village with limited public transport, or who just care for the environment enough not to want to drive to town to post a parcel, this plan could be just the right thing.

More than a hundred and fifty thousand people have this week voted in a cross party campaign calling for a referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.

Voting, which was organised by the cross party “I Want a Referendum” group, was held in just ten marginal constituencies. The turnout was higher than in local elections, and the final result showed eighty-eight per cent of those who voted were in favour of holding a referendum.

I felt very strongly that the Government should hold a referendum on the new EU Treaty, even before the results of this unofficial poll. Gordon Brown, when he finally arrived in Lisbon last year , signed up to major shifts of power from Britain to the EU and major changes in the way the EU works. 

During his campaign to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a clear promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. This Treaty is almost exactly the same as the Constitution – so he has broken his promise.

And that broken promise has been noticed. Even though the “I Want a Referendum” poll was unofficial, the 36.2% turnout means that a higher proportion of people voted in these unofficial referendums than in real elections in their local area. The average turnout for local elections, when not held with general elections, since 1996 is 35.4%. The average turnout in referendums on directly elected mayors - including in London - was 30.1%.

I wholeheartedly believe that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives, to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy, it is right that Parliament decides how we are governed on issues such as healthcare, education and policing. But Parliament should not be able to give up the powers it has been granted by the British people without their consent.

I was shocked to learn this week that the Government has knowingly covered up mistakes in council tax bandings to dodge paying refunds to householders.

The reason given for the cover up has been shown to be the fear of “adverse press coverage”.

My colleagues and I have asked a series of Parliamentary Questions over the last few weeks and months in an effort to find out more about council tax revaluation. You may remember, this was due to take place in May 2007,  but the controversial plans were postponed in October 2005.

Ministers told me as recently as last November, “we have no plans for a revaluation”. However, the answers to the Parliamentary Questions have revealed not only plans to hold a council tax revaluation in England, but also evidence that many people are paying more than they should be because their house has been put into the wrong (higher) band.

The questions I and my team asked have also forced the publication of the Government’s “Council Tax Revaluation Programme Board”. Ministers blacked out certain sections, saying they related to “ongoinig policy issues”. Embarrassingly, it was discovered the text behind the blacked out sections in the electronic minutes can be read.

The sections showed a strategy has been drawn up for future revaluations using the Government’s new technology and council tax property data base. Did you know every home, including yours,  has been given a twelve digit “Unique Property Reference Number” under a secretive project called “ValueBill”?

More worryingly, the programme board minutes showed the Government knows many homes are in the wrong council tax band, and householders are paying more than they should. This is where the “adverse press coverage might come in”, if council tax refunds dating back many years had to be made to householders who have struggled with their over-high council tax payments for years.

The number of appeals against council tax bandings have soared recently, but there are still no figures show how many people, who haven’t yet appealed,  could be paying less. My figures, based on the revaluation in Wales last year, suggest there could be as many as 400,000 properties wrongly banded and paying more than necessary.

Thanks to a colossal blunder by Labour Ministers, the cat is out of the bag that a council tax revaluation is taking place by stealth. These secret minutes show that Ministers have tried to hide their plans to hike taxes on family homes.

It is scandalous that the Government has found out that many homes could wrongly banded, but have refused to correct these errors to avoid paying refunds and incurring bad press coverage. A revaluation isn’t needed to correct simple mistakes that should be fixed. This shows how Labour is only interested in changing council tax when it raises extra money for Gordon Brown’s coffers. Ministers have been caught red-handed fiddling the tax system to make families pay more.

Ends

More information

Look around your home. Do you notice anything different about it? Maybe not to the naked eye, but I can reveal your home has been branded with an ID number, as part of plans for a council tax revaluation and new bin taxes.

A major investigation by me and my team, involving a detailed series of Parliamentary Questions has revealed the covert introduction of a modern day “Domesday Book” by the Government to be used to increase local tax bills.

The investigation has shown every home has been given a twelve digit “Unique Property Reference Number” under a secretive project called “ValueBill”. This will enable tax inspectors and town halls to size up homes and charge higher council taxes, as well as assisting with the implementation of fortnightly rubbish collections and bin taxes. Let me make it clear, I am against fortnightly bin collections.

I have found internal Government documents which reveal that this ID home database has been created using aerial photography and GPS satellites to allow “the tax assessor to be aware of both the physical attributes of the property and its location”. This discovery is disappointing to me because I had been assured by Ministers that aerial and satellite technology had not been used for the council tax revaluation.

I am concerned our privacy and liberty is being eroded day by day. There is already public concern over every person being forced to carry an ID card. Now I believe people’s homes have been branded with sinister serial numbers in a covert Government project. ValueBill could see names of local villages and neighbourhoods being wiped off the map, to be replaced with anonymous 12-digit serial numbers.

Given that the Government cannot be trusted to keep the personal and bank details of Child Benefit recipients secure, it cannot be trusted with this state database. You will be shocked to learn that so-called Data Protection laws offer no protection against Government spies in the sky and tax inspectors building up an Orwellian database of every home.

I will fight to scrap these plans, and this increasingly chilling council tax revaluation.

Within living memory the London smog, caused by pollution trapped in winter mists and fog, was the cause of many deaths amongst the very young and very old living in the capital.

In the last half decade, significant effort has been made to clear up pollution and promote clean air. The difference has been noticeable, with buildings emerging from their pollution-black coatings, and fewer deaths occurring as a direct result of polluted air.

It would seem, at face value then, that the introduction this month by London Mayor Ken Livinstone of a Low Emission Zone within the M25 is another fine step towards improving the air quality of those living just a few miles from us here in Brentwood.

The Low Emission Zone, or LEZ, aims to improve air quality within the M25 by deterring the most polluting vehicles – older diesel-engined lorries, coaches, buses, large vans etc. – from being driven in the Greater London area. The scheme will be phased in between February 2008 and January 2012.

The LEZ is a matter for local London politicians, such as the Mayor and GLA representatives, rather than national politicians such as me. However, I am aware of the concerns of a number of small and medium sized businesses in Brentwood, who face having to pay crippling fees to take their existing work vans, minibuses and coaches into the LEZ. I know the scrutiny of the Mayor’s plans has been conducted by the Conservative Group in the GLA, and I understand that although they have been generally supportive of the principle of the LEZ, they have called for measures to help small/medium sized businesses to comply with the scheme.

I am concerned the decision by the Mayor to impose charges on certain higher polluting vehicles wishing to enter the Zone will see larger firms merely swapping their newer vehicles onto the London routes, and putting their older vehicles onto the roads outside London. The problem of pollution would not be solved, just moved out of the London area.

Even for those businesses wishing to clean up their fleet of vehicles, the problem is not easy to solve. There are waiting lists of up to two years for some new vehicles, while some existing vehicles cannot be converted. Many businesses face huge additional costs just to carry out their day to day work.

However, in terms of the national picture, I believe that it is vital that we recognise the environmental impact of motoring. Although the motor car has brought both personal freedom and economic improvement to this country – something that I want to see continue in the future – it is imperative that we take steps to reduce the damage that vehicles can do to our environment.

It is clear that if we are to improve our stewardship of the environment, without taking the unrealistic step of reducing people’s access to motor travel, changing technology is an essential part of the route we must take – we all need to drive greener vehicles. And we must begin right away to encourage the acceleration of that technological change.

It is very disappointing that the International Cycling Union has decided that the Weald Park site for the Olympic Mountain Bikes is “too easy”.  I doubt that I am alone in thinking that it might have been slightly more helpful had they come to this conclusion a lot earlier, nothing, after all, has substantially changed in the topography of Weald Park for a few hundred years and nothing fundamental since the retreat of the glaciers during the ice age.

The British organisers seem to be genuinely surprised by the International Cycling Union’s decision.  I had a very long telephone conversation with Seb Coe and you could hear the disappointment in his voice when he briefed me on the decision.  I have known Seb for the best part of thirty years, before he became an Olympic medallist we were office holders in the youth wing of the Conservative Party. 

Seb was full of praise for the Officers and Members of both Essex County Council and Brentwood Borough Council, who must be feeling bitterly disappointed.  I hope that the Mountain Biking course can be located still in Essex but this is scant comfort for the Brentwood organisers who have delivered everything the Olympic organisers wanted promptly.

The previous week the three MPs who represent Epping Forest District Council, of which I am one, met with the District and County Councillors plus representatives of the Lee Valley Park Authority.  You may recall in a previous column I warned that there was a chance that Essex council tax payers would potentially be liable for any cost overrun or legacy from the Olympics.  Following my warnings in national and local newspapers and the Gazette column the Park Authority released a statement to say that they had no plans to raise the levy against Essex and that their budget was adequate.

On close questioning it rapidly transpired that they could make that undertaking because no decision had been made about whether the Park Authority should be wholly, partially or not responsible for the legacy of the Olympic Games.  They are due to take that decision soon.  Without the fuss generated by this newspaper and others it would have been taken without any real notice being taken by anyone other than those who serve on the Authority’s Board.

In other words we do not yet know the extent, if any, that Essex council tax payers will have to pay out for the Olympics.

I have uncovered some rather bad news that has the potential to hit you in the pocket.  Through a series of Parliamentary Questions and through a leaked report it has emerged that residents of the London Boroughs and the council tax payers of Hertfordshire and Essex may have to take on some of the burden of the burgeoning costs of the Olympic Games.

Up to a few weeks ago it was widely assumed that the proportion that council tax payers would have to stump up was restricted to London and consequently we would be safe from any overrun of the cost of the Olympic Games.  We have already seen the cost of the games well exceed the original estimates.  Now it appears that an obscure regional QUANGO – The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) which already owns some of the Olympic parkland and is funded from the council tax base of Essex, Hertfordshire and the London Boroughs by an annual levy could make an additional charge on these bodies.

A private and confidential report from Deloitte (the auditors) on the possible implication of the Olympic legacy for the LVRPA says “substantial increases will probably be needed in capacity and necessary resources to fund it”.

On the basis of the report a number of Parliamentary Questions were tabled and it was revealed that Ministers have already instructed officials to begin talks with the LVRPA on the “liabilities arising from London 2012”.

Any cost overrun of the 2012 Olympics will be shared between the National Lottery and local tax payers.  Both Athens and Sydney faced significant cost overruns so that we along with Londoners will face a debt mountain.  The citizens of Montreal have only just paid off the debts that the City ran up for the 1976 Games.  On top of that there is still considerable uncertainty that the new sporting facilities will be able to break even after the Olympics.  If not, ongoing subsidies sometimes euphemistically referred to as “revenue funding” will be required from local tax payers to keep them open.

The Government is currently both defensive and jittery over the Lee Valley disclosures and I will continue to press them for the truth.  A break down of the Parliamentary Questions and the justification for these worries is available on my website www.ericpickles.com