| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): We have had an interesting debate so far, and I am sure that it will continue in that way. Many demands have been made for Government replies and action, and I am sure that the Minister will have plenty of excuses and explanations to offer.
During business questions earlier, my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), raised the matter of north-west devolution. Many people in the north-west want that project to go ahead, and I am sure that the same is true in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can illustrate the need for devolution by the failure that I have experienced in persuading the Government--or, more accurately, their agencies--to install a right-turn filter at a set of traffic lights on the A6 trunk road in my constituency.
That is a small example of how my constituents cannot get what is manifestly needed in their area because the necessary powers are exercised 200 miles away by people who do not know that the A6 is a trunk road, that it goes through Hazel Grove, and that it lacks a right-turning lane. The matter is not trivial: there have been several serious accidents in the area in the past six months, and one fatal accident, when a pedestrian was knocked down and crushed by a heavy goods vehicle.
It would be simple to make the road safe, but my constituents cannot secure the small change needed because it does not fit with the criteria set in London. I acknowledge to the hon. Member for Cheadle that I do not receive long petitions demanding devolution for the north-west, but constituents and relatives of the person who was tragically killed have asked me why the straightforward safety measures that I have described have not been put in place. I believe that ensuring that power is exercised nearer to where it makes a difference will be an important change.
Mention has been made already in the debate of the problems associated with mobile phone masts, and I doubt that any Member of Parliament has not had difficulties in that regard. The original relaxation of planning guidelines was designed to accelerate the development of the technology, but it has also caused problems.
The Orange company has erected a mast in Station road in Hazel Grove. The company claimed that the mast was less than 15 m in height and that therefore no permission was needed for its erection, but subsequent investigation found that it was taller than 15 m. The mast is situated in what I can only describe as a courtyard formed by the back yards of four streets of terraced houses, and it causes local residents a good deal of concern and anxiety.
The council has placed an enforcement notice on Orange because of the height discrepancy. The company--rather cheekily, I believe--has accepted that the mast is more than 15 m tall and has said that it is prepared to chop a bit off, but it has pointed out that the antennae on the mast would then be closer to the first-floor bedroom windows of the surrounding houses.
The company is challenging the council to say whether it wants to stick to the letter of the law in the matter, with a possible increase in hazard. The alternative is to let Orange get away with having a mast that is taller than the law permits.
The mobile phone companies have a poor reputation. They are losing the battle to convince residents that the development rights and relaxations that they enjoy are
justified. I support the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in hoping that the Minister will emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the matter.Modernisation of the House, is a matter that has been raised a number of times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, it is almost impossible to debate this matter, in the House or elsewhere, without appearing to whinge about terms and conditions of employment for Members of Parliament. That inhibits some hon. Members with more moderate and considered views, who keep silent as a result. The more strident voices are the ones that get heard, which reinforces the impression that we give to the outside world.
I hope that the Minister will accept that, in my three years of service on the Modernisation Committee, I have tried to suggest some ways in which we might improve the House's procedures. Some improvements have been made, and I believe that they are to the benefit of the House.
On the assumption that there is a wider audience outside the House, however, I want to stress that modernisation is not about acting as a trade union for Members of Parliament. Our aim is not to ensure that hon. Members eventually only need to vote on Wednesdays before 7 o'clock, and that we can do so from our constituencies. Rather, we want to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Parliament. It is not about working shorter hours, or getting lots of money, or having access to lots of computers and assistants. Our goal is to ensure that Parliament's procedures are strong enough to enable us to hold the Government to account, to pass sensible legislation, and to represent our constituents effectively.
Many people, both in the House and outside, believe that Parliament is not effective in any of those ways. The Minister is a seeker of consensus and is, I know, concerned about these matters. I hope that he will reassure the House that the appearance that the Government's initial burst of modernisation has petered out over the past 18 months is deceptive and that the Government will support further modernisation.
I said earlier today that the Government's response to "Shifting the Balance", the report of the Liaison Committee on the work of the Select Committees, was extremely disappointing. I hope that the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the paper written by his boss, the Leader of the House, was just the opening shot in a process of negotiation, and that the House will be able to reclaim some more powers from the Government.
Finally, I must mention the plea made by the hon. Member for Cheadle about road schemes in our area. He and I fight shoulder to shoulder on this matter. The review of transport problems in the region is called the multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. That title is a mouthful--if an acronym of it were possible, it would have eight letters--and it is a replacement for a policy.
As was noted earlier, the second runway at Manchester airport will open early next year. It is projected that the number of passengers using the airport will more than double between now and 2015, rising from 17 million to 40 million. An extra 30,000 jobs are forecast to be created at the airport, and a significant proportion of passengers and workers will travel to the airport on the existing road network through my constituency of Hazel Grove.
That network cannot support the traffic that it has to carry at present. There is an urgent need for the multi-modal study to reach a favourable conclusion about investment in roads and other transport options, in my area and more generally in the borough of Stockport.
I hope that the Minister, when he answers the debate, will reassure the hon. Member for Cheadle and me that the problem will not be relegated to the "too hard to do this year" tray. I hope that the problem has not been palmed off on to a study as a way of deflecting pressure and aggravation. The consequences and impact for my constituents and constituents across Stockport are severe. The existing congestion problems will become worse with the expansion and development of the airport.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these matters in the debate.
3 pm
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon): I wish to raise four issues on behalf of my constituents.
South Swindon has had significant problems with bus services over a number of years. Of course, many services are fine and a huge proportion of drivers do all that they can to meet their timetables. However, I frequently receive letters and comments from constituents about buses that do not turn up on time, or are dirty, or have drivers who are not sensitive to the fact that my older constituents take time to get to their seats. Such problems put people off using the buses. Unless we can ensure that our bus services are reliable and pleasant, with fares that are easy to understand, we will not deliver on our huge transport agenda which relies on buses as a main form of public transport.
I welcome the Transport Bill, which gives local authorities powers to strengthen their control over local bus companies. However, I am concerned about whether those power go far enough. We should not be shy about giving maximum powers to local authorities. It is clear that the market does not work when it comes to many local bus services. It is in the interests of two competing bus companies to ensure that their bus gets to the bus stop 30 seconds before the other company's to pick up the passengers. The more powers local authorities have to deal with bus services, the better the bus services will be in my constituency, and the more likely we are to be able to try to get rid of the worst ones. Dealing with the problems will make the buses work in the interests of our constituents--the passengers. I should like the Government to look at whether we have done everything that we can on fare policies and frequency of services so that we can deliver the services that our constituents need.
I have regular talks with my local bus companies. I think that they are doing everything that they can to make services more reliable, but they are very concerned about the competition authorities, which virtually tell them that they should not co-operate to deliver the services that our constituents need. The bus companies feel the push from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to deliver a service, while the competition authorities are ready to slap them down if they are seen to co-operate too much in the market.
There remain real difficulties, which I hope that the Government will consider as we follow the Transport Bill through to delivery in our constituencies. Unless we can
have really good-quality bus services, we will not be able to deliver the whole of the transport and environmental agenda.The second issue is child care. The impact of the working families tax credit has been incredible. Family after family has told me what a huge difference it has made. When a bill comes through their door, they do not need to go into a panic or a sweat, because, for the first time, they are being rewarded for being in work, and it is making a huge difference.
I have had a few letters from constituents who have looked to the working families tax credit to help them with child care costs. They were very pleased that the Government launched a national child care strategy and delivered more child care places in my constituency. However, many of my constituents who are in low-paid work, particularly shiftworkers, want to use nannies, because they want their children to be looked after at home. Not many child minders are willing to look after children at night, which is what shiftworkers need. They are disappointed that, when they look into the detail of the working families tax credit, they find that it does not cover those costs. The Government should look at that problem. I know that the Government are concerned that if they are putting public money into supporting child care, it should be regulated in some way, and I understand that concern. But how much difference is there really between child minders and nannies? Is it not just a case of whether children are looked after in their home or in their neighbours? Surely we can come to a compromise to help low-paid workers in my constituency, particularly shiftworkers, who cannot use child minders. Some people want to have their children cared for at home, and they should have Government support for child care so that they can benefit from the working families tax credit as so many other families are.
My third point also comes from my constituents. There are strong environmental groups in Swindon, and people have an environmental focus to their thoughts. They want to see much more recycling and much greater emphasis placed on the environment. I know that they will be pleased that the Government published their waste strategy earlier today. It emphasises the need to increase recycling and composting, and to reduce waste at source.
There is one section of the strategy that immediately raises concerns with me and I know that it will with my constituents, and I hope that we will be able to debate it in the future. It has put the recovery of energy, as it is described--incineration, in other words--on an equal footing with recycling and composting in the waste hierarchy. That has watered down the Government's desire in the consultation paper "Less waste more value" to move away from the previous Government's approach of putting energy recovery on a par with recycling.
We know the problems that can occur with incineration, such as hazardous emissions, an increase in traffic going to the incinerators and disputes over location. No one wants an incinerator in their back yard. Given those problems, and the huge enthusiasm for recycling, I hope that we can look at the issue further. Recycling creates jobs and contributes to our global environmental aims of carbon dioxide reduction targets. I hope that we will have a chance to debate that in more detail to focus more on recycling.
There has been some debate about Members of Parliament, and what happens in the House. A while ago I did some research on what happened to the waste from
the House. I started it at a time when, unbeknown to me, the House authorities were reconsidering the contract for waste. When I started my research, it was fantastic: all our waste was sorted and, sure enough, the paper went off for recycling. I thought that this was great, and that we were leading by example.A little later, I was very disappointed to hear that the contract had changed, and that now all this paper--what some people might regard as all the hot air that is produced in the House and recorded--goes to contractors who make more hot air out of it by incinerating it. I hope that there will be a change in the House and at a national level. We are incinerating our waste and creating energy out of it rather than recycling it in the first place. That is an important issue for the House and the country.
My fourth and final point is an international one. International issues feature largely in my postbag at the moment. The debt campaign is still alive and kicking, and I am pleased about that. It is a really big issue affecting many countries. I know that the Government have done a lot, but we need to do much more, particularly with the summit in July coming up.
A number of constituents have also written to me about arms exports and the need for further arms controls. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) presented an excellent ten-minute Bill that would stop British people and companies being involved in selling arms to countries where arms embargoes apply. We must take a responsible attitude to arms sales, which do huge damage--often to civilians--that can rarely be repaired. Arms sales fuel conflicts, and we should minimise our involvement in them. We should use our talents in more productive engineering and manufacturing, and promote reconciliation and development, not arms sales. I know that the Government recognise the need for further legislation. Four years ago, the Scott inquiry recommended urgent legislation. We should register arms dealers and licence all the deals that involve United Kingdom companies and nationals.
My constituents have made it absolutely clear to me that dealing with arms sales is a priority. We must find time to take action now. The issue is not only of concern in Swindon but has widespread support in the House. An early-day motion on the subject has attracted support from 153 Members.
I hope that the Government will continue to look at those four issues, which are regularly raised by my constituents, who look forward to further progress on all of them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |