THE announcement in the Daily Echo on November 24, reference the possible development of a four/five star hotel in Ocean Village, Southampton, with a restaurant, perhaps managed by a Michelin-star chef, filled me with admiration for the businessmen who could envisage that such an enterprise was a sound financial investment, having seen the state of the city for much of last year and the impact this would have upon guests for this type of venue.

Then, to see on the facing page comments from Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead against privatisation of public services in the city, indicating it ‘was not common sense, because we need good services, and they need to be guaranteed’ did raise a thought that either Mr Whitehead spends none of his time in and around Southampton these days, or he is living in some parallel universe that I am unaware of, but does seem to be open to many of our current MPs.

So, Mr Whitehead, the current services in Southampton have been good and guaranteed have they? I already know the answer to that, it will be the fault of the council or the Government for not funding them sufficiently that caused the withdrawal of those services, and the public was in full sympathy with that action.

Well, many of the public realise the council or the Government have no money of their own and all such funding is from the tax payer i.e. the public, and we can see the services provided within Southampton have not been good or guaranteed and would like alternatives to existing provision to be explored.

Otherwise those of us on a pension will be required to pay maybe 25 per cent VAT on household items instead of the current 20 per cent. Yes, I do understand that Mr Balls thinks we can see a reduction in VAT, but it has been obvious that he has been living in a parallel universe for some years where he believes his form of economics will not produce any reaction from the markets, and we will still pay two per cent interest on our debts and not seven per cent as some other EU countries are now doing.

Contracts with a private service supplier could easily include performance requirements and penalty clauses, as is common within industry.

How about a refuse collection service that not only needs to meet appropriate standards but also includes a clause that if refuse is not collected the cost of the service not supplied is refunded to the taxpayers who have been charged for that service?

Now, I think you will find the taxpayer (the public) would find the concept of getting the service you pay for, or if not, getting your money back, quite attractive.

Additionally, a contract can also be drawn over a time period which allows other suppliers to compete at regular intervals to ‘guarantee’ good services.

MARTIN COLLYER, Swanmore.