Letters round-up

A government spokesman has issued the following statement: “The government will carry on this tradition of providing a better life and opportunities to people fleeing poverty and suppression”.

Of course the world can provide endless numbers who fit that category but we all know that the majority of the immigrants at Calais are not in that category and still the British/French authorities refuse to lock them up in a secure compound like Sangatte until they can be packed off home again.

Instead, they waste thousands of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on a useless fence. After all, who is this government supposed to be governing for, us or the Third World? I have a feeling all this is for our sin of having had an “evil” empire. As Churchill said, at least in those days these people had the protection of the Crown and rule of law.

If we were so evil why are they all fleeing in our direction?

Martin Cruttwell, Scrayingham

Many of my parishioners in and around Kirby Misperton have expressed to me their frustration and anger that the government doesn’t seem to be listening to local opinion about fracking.

However, having attended a meeting at Kirby Misperton village hall with Kevin Hollinrake MP giving a talk and taking questions on fracking I can now see that he at least is listening to local opinion, he just isn’t going to represent it.

There was, at the meeting, a sizeable majority against the proposed fracking site near Kirby Misperton but Kevin explained that he could not come out against it because as an MP he had to consider both national as well as local issues.

No doubt locals will form an opinion of him and his regard for interests other than their own.

Rev Stephen Gamble, Kirby Misperton

Continuing the correspondence from Mr Gwilliam (June 24) and the use of AV+ for representation in the Palace of Westminster.

Using the 2015 results: If the requirement for a guaranteed seat was that a candidate must poll at least the national average votes-per-seat (47,225-54,508) then on four would have come anywhere near, but missed. Were it set to be 50 per cent or more of the votes cast in a constituency then: Labour would have 105 guaranteed seats; Conservatives 174; SNP 33 and Lib Dem, Northern Ireland and ‘others’ three between them.

This would leave 338 seats to be allocated by committees. To my mind this is unsatisfactory since it is open to manipulation, or worse. Even then by using the ratio of votes cast per ‘party’ divided by the national average-per-seat would leave the total three seats short of a House. Might these be selected by toss-of-a-coin?

If AV+ is even considered for use there would have to be very careful analysis of the ‘adjustment mechanisms’ which would be needed to ensure that all, as in 2015, the 650 seats were properly allocated and that no Constituency was left dissatisfied to the point of insurrection. If the constituency model were to be abandoned what would replace it? And how would the electorate (e.g. the Gwilliams and Loxleys) of the UK ‘know’ their representative? – Discuss.

DM Loxley, Hartoft

Firstly, thank you to everyone who had sufficient faith to vote for me in the recent Ryedale DC elections. Unfortunately I didn’t quite convince enough of you. I’ll possibly try again next time, but in the meantime, I’ll just have to continue asking awkward questions.

Most people reading this will be drivers. I’ll assume you approve of compulsory third party car insurance. It’s preferable that any innocent party doesn’t have to pay the high cost of inevitable collisions. While you, of course, will be an excellent driver, you will know people you would barely trust to safely boil a kettle, or are woefully inconsiderate to others, yet hold a driving license. Market forces of the insurance industry decide relative risk, basing premiums on experience and driving history. That way, the industry makes a profit. Those who have a proven safety record and abide by sensible regulation pay less.

Now let’s compare this with the risks of the fracking industry. Following several years of erratic, gung ho and frequently dangerous driving in the US and Australia, the industry now has its sights set on moving to the UK. Much of their previous driving history is in vast remote expanses, safely hidden from view, although the sorry facts are fast coming to light, despite determined attempts to safeguard the data.

However, they do have a good lawyer. We are repeatedly told that unlike elsewhere, these drivers will be safely regulated, although how this will happen given the savage cuts to all the regulators and enforcers is a mystery. The industry is adamant they’ll drive safely over here, which sounds promising, but there is neither precedent nor proof.

Meanwhile, the risks and consequences are much higher due to vastly greater traffic and population densities and complete lack of remote expanses (despite what certain London based politicians may think). Quite bizarrely given those risks and consequences, there are no plans for compulsory insurance of this industry in order to pay for or rectify any damage it causes. Let them drive on your property and even your current insurer will refuse to cover the cost of any damage. This issue potentially affects everyone in Northern England.

Halliburton are Third Energy’s sub-contractor of choice to do their fracking. Halliburton are the company who were found largely responsible for the environmental catastrophe of Deepwater Horizon, when nine separate safety features failed, causing a major blow out. Would you insure, or give a license to a driver with a safety record like that? And would you let them drive without insurance?

Here’s an idea. Our government has an unshakeable belief in private industry (see NHS, utilities, East Coast main line etc). Therefore, allow market forces to assess the risk from the fracking industry and enforce compulsory insurance in line with the degree of risk and the cost of repair. After all, insurers have genuine expertise in this field. If safe regulation and operation reduce the risks to an acceptable level, the premiums will be affordable. If cover is refused, there’s a clear message. A little judicious ‘leaning’ by those in power to persuade insurers to provide cover would be interesting – surely they couldn’t agree to cover anything that would potentially bankrupt them if they had to pay out. That’s not how the free market economy works. I first suggested compulsory insurance (or an independently administered bond) to my MP over two years ago, so they’re obviously thinking long and hard about it.

Incidentally, in the USA the fracking industry is $235 billion in debt, struggling to pay the interest on loans and with companies going bankrupt. Without insurance, who pays when things go badly wrong? We do.

Mike Potter, Pickering