| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): The Minister will be aware that I led an all-party delegation from the county council to meet his predecessor. It is notable that, with the exception of one hon. Gentleman who has just arrived, no members of the Conservative party are present in the Chamber, because it is unrepresented in Cornwall. The previous Minister made it clear that he wanted the county council to be completely detached from all provision of residential care. He wanted it all put out to the private sector. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the new Government take a different attitude. I ask the Minister to recognise that many other local authorities, including Labour ones, have had to adopt similar provisions to those in Cornwall. Those authorities will
listen carefully to the assurance that he has just given that the Government will be prepared to help the authorities--I hope, financially--to maintain their responsibilities.
Mr. Boateng: I make it clear that we recognise that, alongside local authorities, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that no old people are made homeless when a trust such as the one in Cornwall collapses. I shall come in due course to the Government's attitude towards the balance of private-public provision and the role that we believe voluntary, private and statutory sectors should play.
The county council has assured the social services inspectorate that it is fully aware of its responsibilities towards residents and that it will act to protect their interest. Contingency plans have been made to cover the transfer of residents from homes owned by Cornwall Care in the event that the trust collapses. Any such transfer will be made over a reasonable period of time and will take full account of residents' individual needs. We shall monitor the situation very closely in that regard.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne for drawing the matter to the attention of the House. She is right--it may grieve hon. Members on the Liberal Benches--to point out that the controlling party on the county council, the Liberal Democrat party, must bear some responsibility for what has arisen. It does bear some responsibility. It has, of course, the responsibility to ensure that it puts in place arrangements that protect, secure and safeguard the position of senior citizens for whose care it is responsible. I hope and believe that it will be mindful of that responsibility.
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng:
No, I have given way enough to Liberal Democrats.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that we shall do all in our power to ensure that the ruling party has available to it the advice that the social services inspectorate is on hand to give. The Liberal Democrat ruling party can be sure that that advice will be forthcoming.
I look forward to visiting the west country--tomorrow, as it happens--where I shall be meeting the assistant director of social services for Cornwall, Sandra Whitehead, with whom I shall certainly raise the concerns expressed in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I shall do so not least because Sandra Whitehead will be accompanied by the director of Age Concern, which I have no doubt has its own concerns about the welfare of residents.
My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that very many members of our older generation feel disenchanted and disenfranchised. They feel that they have been let down--and they were shamefully let down by the previous Government. It is our intention to address those feelings of betrayal. We are determined to bring senior citizens very much into the centre of our policy
making and provision. We are determined that they shall be empowered and enabled by the process, rather than disenfranchised, as they understandably and justifiably feel that they are.
We want consistency and fairness, which is why we have made clear our intention to introduce a long-term care charter that tells people what standards and services they are entitled to expect from health, social services and housing. In developing that charter, we shall work closely with service users to ensure that their views are taken on board. We believe in genuine consultation in developing policies. Had such consultation taken place earlier in Cornwall, had those in a position to affect events been able to draw on the wisdom of our senior citizens and organisations that represent them, we would not find ourselves on the sorry path on which we find ourselves today.
We attach importance to proceeding not on the basis of whether provision is in the public or private sector or on the basis that characterised the previous Government's attitude of private good, public bad--that was a previous dispensation and is no longer so--but with determination to ensure that what counts is quality; that what matters is value added to the lives of the recipients of care and value for money for those who are called on through their taxes and contributions at local and national level. We intend to ensure that people get such value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to some matters that are the subject of an industrial tribunal and an appeals process. She will understand why I cannot involve myself in such matters, which are for the industrial tribunal and the courts, where they and the issues that have arisen from litigation are being addressed. Industrial tribunals are independent judicial bodies and Ministers cannot comment on their decisions or intervene, as I am sure my hon. Friend understands.
It is important, not only Ministers but for the whole House--my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne did it in no uncertain terms--to highlight the value that we attach to those who work in residential homes. The people who work in homes, such as those managed by Cornwall Care, do a hard and at times difficult job, very often in circumstances in which they do not feel as appreciated as they might. We appreciate them; they are engaged in a very important task. We ask of them to care for those who are older and vulnerable.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the staff of our residential and other homes feel that they have access to not only high-quality training but, as individuals and through their unions and associations of staff and workers, development of policy.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives):
Will the Minister give way?
The staff have a wisdom through day-to-day contact with senior citizens from which we could all benefit.
I very much look forward to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne on this subject. She clearly displays a knowledge of the contribution of her constituents who are not only in
receipt of care but responsible for giving it on a day-to-day basis. Her voice will be particularly welcome in that regard. Her academic discipline in social studies will obviously be of enormous value to the House and her constituents in such an important area of social policy.
We are concerned that, throughout the country, there should be a system of care for the elderly that is buttressed by a framework that provides good quality care not simply for those who have the ability to buy it but for those who need it. That is crucial to our vision of that care.
In due course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce how we propose to fulfil our commitment on the funding of long-term care for the elderly. In the meantime, we shall continue to promote high-quality provision, ensure fair access to it and offer opportunity and choice to all.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
It is a great pleasure to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), to her new position. I wish her well. I am sure that she will enjoy her new role, and I know that she will discover that it is a controversial job.
My contribution is not intended to be controversial. Indeed, it will be completely non-controversial and non-confrontational as long as I get the answers that I need. First, please may we have a decision on the Salisbury bypass, and please can the answer be yes?
As I pointed out in a letter to the Minister's colleague, Baroness Hayman, we have just been through a general election in which I was the only candidate in Salisbury in favour of the bypass. In fact, I have favoured it for about 30 years for the city in which I grew up--long before I became the local Member of Parliament. The Labour party had a sensible attitude about the bypass and said that it should be subject to a review. Its candidate said that he was not opposed to a Salisbury bypass; indeed, he said that he rather favoured a ring road of some sort. Of course, my principal opponent, the Liberal Democrat, was opposed to the bypass. There was a shift in the Green vote, which went up from 609 to 623. That was a small increase despite the fact that every possible opportunity was taken during the election campaign to turn the ballot into a bypass referendum. I rejected that attempt, but I know that some people thought that we had such a referendum, and I know that a lot of views were swayed in my favour on that basis.
Salisbury is a mediaeval city and its transport problems are not soley connected with trunk routes. In fact, there are seven radial routes into and out of the city, but the bypass is a free-standing proposal. That is what makes it different from many other proposals that are connected to trunk road schemes or even trans-European networks. The bypass proposal is probably the most free standing of those considered by the old Department of Transport.
I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to reconsider the evidence of the public inquiry. That does not mean that I and all those in favour of the bypass have not taken it seriously. I have discovered, however, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially for the people who have not lived with the problem for as many years as I have.
I am aware that a lot has happened since the inquiry closed. For example, the bypass has been considered by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and the royal commission on environmental pollution. Planning policy guidance notes have been issued, as well as a sustainable development strategy. We have also had the great transport debate. Many other important changes have taken place, some technical and some political, including the general election, in which transport was, quite rightly, an issue.
I know that Ministers must and will take all those findings into account. They will listen to all the individuals who have expressed an interest--including the lobbying groups and the environmental campaigners--and then they will make their decision. Today, I want to
ensure that the Minister is aware that the decision on the bypass should be taken according to a broad view of the problem.
There are lessons to be learnt from what we have been through in Salisbury. First, that bypass is a case study of poor public sector decision making. The same could be said of the private sector if that bypass had happened to be a private sector proposal. That, however, is the subject for another debate.
I have been aware of the problem not just as a long-standing resident--I have lived there on and off since 1947--but as the local Member of Parliament and as a Minister at both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport.
It is true that the previous Government made a number of improvements to the system according to which we decide on the transport infrastructure, particularly roads, with the introduction of round-table conferences and changes to the procedures governing public inquiries, but we did not go nearly far enough. I hope that the new Government will have a radical look at the way in which we reach solutions on the transport infrastructure, because it is not just about roads.
I welcome the merger of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. That will make life much easier and more sensible, because it will remove the destructive rivalry that previously existed, which did none of us any good. If we can concentrate instead on the enormous wealth of talent and expertise at professional and civil service level in those former Departments, we shall be able to contribute significantly to an improved transport system.
The second lesson that I draw from the Salisbury bypass fiasco is that it is quite wrong to make a judgment solely on the ground of flora and fauna. I am not belittling for one moment the arguments of those who have quite rightly put forward the scientific arguments in favour of retaining the environment as it is without interference. Indeed, they have a duty to do so. I have, however, seen remarkable examples of translocation of flora and fauna in connection with various modes of transport including roads, railways, bridges and docks. That means that a sensible approach can be adopted, unless something is so utterly unique that it must not be moved even a few feet.
I want to ensure that the debate on the Salisbury bypass is put in a wider context, because any Government must ensure that that debate is considered in the context of the real world of people. It must be judged according to the quality of life of those who live in Salisbury and its surrounding villages. After all, we are talking about their inheritance, because their forefathers built their communities and shaped the valleys and fields. We are talking about people's employment and their entitlement to the quiet enjoyment of their city and countryside and their local leisure activities.
In the past year or more, we have heard a deafening roar from the green lobby about the Salisbury bypass. Some of its comments have been very silly indeed. I was always brought up to believe that one should not believe what one reads in the papers. Some of the choicest comments about the bypass have been published in some
of the flashiest broadsheets. For example, I have read nonsense such as:
Some rather more seriously damaging material has also been published by the Countryside Commission, which should know better. I hope that the Minister will always ensure that the information that she is given is high quality and concentrates on scientific or landscape considerations, rather than on sheer emotion.
The Countryside Commission recently published an expensive brochure full of colour photographs. Of the seven photographs of the area of the bypass, four are looking in the wrong direction. Those areas have nothing to do with the bypass. Of the four Constable paintings reproduced in that brochure, not one is anywhere near the bypass or represents any part of the countryside through which that bypass would go. That brochure does not do the standing of the Countryside Commission any good. People must be part of the decision making.
We cannot ignore the built environment. Ministers have to consider not only the countryside heritage, but the built heritage. A main reason for building the Salisbury bypass is to give the city of Salisbury back to the people for whom it was designed. It is a unique mediaeval cathedral city; it was designed in a piece with a chequered pattern of shops and dwelling houses around its heart. It was designed for people and we want it to return to them. The built environment is part of the reason for the bypass, which will take traffic further away. I have seen a lot of press gossip saying that the scheme is dreadful because it puts a motorway close to the cathedral. The reverse is true, but when has the truth mattered when debating environmental arguments?
The built environment and heritage are crucial. Salisbury is at the centre of seven radial routes. We want to ensure that Salisbury is given back to the people and not swamped, either by local people using the roads or by through traffic that does not want to be there. We should make a judgment on all the environmental issues, not just the green issues.
Another lesson to be learnt is that delay is bad for people; it is bad for their quality of life and for their jobs. It is even bad for the very policies about which the anti-roads lobby claims to care. I am president of the Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury--COGS--and
last Saturday we had a raffle in the marketplace; we had a day of celebrating cycling and cycling policy in the district. The irony is that the Salisbury transport strategy--including county council transport policies and programmes that will do so much to introduce cycle routes around Salisbury--is on ice because of the bypass decision. That is folly.
There is something else special about the Salisbury bypass. It is part of a design, build, finance and operate--DBFO--scheme called the Wessex link, which involves more than simply Salisbury. It is sensible and strategic to consider such matters in one go rather than to tackle them in a piecemeal fashion. There are two groups in the scheme: the A36 scheme, which is the Salisbury bypass, and the Heytesbury to Codford improvement. There are also the A303 schemes--Stockton Wood to Wylye, Mere to Chicklade, which includes the Chicklade bypass, the Ilminster bypass and the Sparkford bypass in the west country. Those schemes are all linked to the decision.
I must also mention the A303 where it passes Stonehenge and the welcome announcement by English Heritage that it wants on-line dualling past the stones, which is what the Department of Transport wanted in the first place and what local people certainly want. Local people might be reconciled to a tunnel if we could find the money for it. I hope that that will not lead to open warfare with the National Trust, but that is a subject for another occasion.
While we wait for the decision, we have a rough time locally. The Brunel link bridge, linking a major industrial estate out of the city centre to the bypass, should have been built 30 years ago or more. When Salisbury rural district council, as it then was, built the industrial estate, it promised the traders and industrialists moving on to it that the bridge was included as part of the deal. They have been scrapping ever since. The Netherhampton road roundabout on the proposed bypass has been put in at the request of Wiltshire county council and would be paid for by the council--that is a measure of its good endeavours.
While we wait for the decision--and my goodness, how we have waited--there is traffic chaos in central Salisbury. Let us consider the situation. There is a mediaeval city; there is a row about a car stack; a multi-storey car park is cancelled; another car park is closed while it is being refurbished; while that is happening, the marketplace is dug up and half the parking spaces are cancelled--a matter over which the traders are taking legal action--parking charges are doubled to compensate for the lack of parking spaces; the area is pedestrianised and the traffic flows in the city centre are changed without proper consultation; a multi-million pound park-and-ride scheme is embarked on without any consultation with the biggest employers in the town; an investigation is conducted into the possibility of introducing into the middle of the mediaeval city trams that will run into Cathedral close.
I am delighted to assure the Minister that neither of us is responsible for that chaos. The Liberal Democrats have presided over that chaos, which has been pathetic and appallingly sad for the ancient city of Salisbury, its modern people and traders. The Minister and I both want to help and I know that she will leave no stone unturned in her attempt to resolve this terrible mess. The best thing that she could do would be to give us a decision on the Salisbury bypass, because so much flows from that.
I wish to ask the Minister a question on a practical point--I do not expect an answer now, but I ask her to consider it. One reason why so many people who are
reconciled to the need for a bypass are still anxious about it is the height of the embankment across East Harnham meadows, which is up to 7 m--more than 20 ft. Part of the reason for that is gradient engineering--the road goes down into a valley and up the other side. Another reason involves the height needed to plant trees to screen the road.
The height may also be necessary to ensure clearance across the waterways, although I am not sure who will use them. There have been incidents of canoeists trying to use them, but canoes do not have big clearance problems. The meadows are not put to a lot of use and there is no commercial boat traffic. There is an access problem for farm and National Rivers Authority vehicles travelling along the sides of the road. There is a case for trying to lower the road by several metres; that may be possible even if it means that the road has to undulate slightly over the main river channel. That would help the residents of Bridford, who would not feel so cut off from the city of Salisbury up the river.
There is no ducking or dodging the problem of where the bypass would cross the river. In engineering terms, there is no doubt that it could run through a submerged tunnel, possibly a deep-bore tunnel, but that is not very practical. The one thing that is certain is that if the bypass is not built, traffic congestion--involving both through and local traffic--will become worse. There are various things that we can do. The Minister and I know that we could price people off the road in various ways. But a public transport network, even in Salisbury and its surrounding villages, would do no more than chip away at the edges of the problem in Salisbury--as the inspector who undertook the inquiry acknowledged in his report.
I welcome the Government's new approach to an integrated transport strategy. I am looking forward to hearing what that means in detail. I know that we shall have to wait until next spring for that. We must ensure that an integrated transport policy does not mean simply cancelling bypasses or simply cancelling roads; I am sure that it will not.
1 pm
"Labour will halt the controversial Salisbury bypass, which will ruin one of the best-loved views in Britain, if it wins the general election."
That was reported under a headline which ran:
"Immortalised by Constable, threatened by the Tories . . . saved by Meacher?"
I have read a number of choice comments that are simply not true. For example, it has been claimed that the bypass would destroy
"the last open view of Salisbury Cathedral across the water meadows."
What tripe. It has been claimed that it will
"seriously damage the water meadows".
In fact, the main water meadows are scarcely touched by the scheme. It has also been claimed that the bypass will
"do little to ease congestion in Salisbury as only 6 per cent. of the vehicles entering the city are through-traffic."
It is extraordinary that anyone should have worked out such figures. All manner of claims have been made. Poor old Constable, he seems to have a lot to answer for.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |