| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kidney: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend as long as he is not about to tell us that there are plans to build such a centre in Middlesbrough.
Dr. Kumar: Is my hon. Friend asking for cluster development support from the Government? From his description, the scheme would seem ideal for that form of development, which the Government promoted strongly in the competitiveness White Paper.
Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
I mentioned new and renewable energy sources. We are certainly trying to get support from the DTI for a cluster of power-related industries and suppliers. I know that there is Government money to support such development.
However, the national centre for food will stand alone. It will attract visitors from all over the country and will offer a superb showcase internationally for British food and catering techniques. I am not sure about cluster development for that scheme, although as I live in my constituency, I am optimistically looking forward to the great new eating places that are going to open there. That will be superb.
In relation to funding and to the point made by my hon. Friend, I think that the food industry, which is extremely successful in the UK, will be interested in supporting the project. I should like to see other developments around Stafford as a result of the industry's support for the national centre. If there is a cluster of locations and jobs, that would be an excellent development.
There will be much private investment because the idea is unique; it has exciting potential and there will be obvious gains for investors. However, it is intended that entry would be free to the centrepiece of the scheme--colloquially known as the great British kitchen. There would be no fee for displays of, and an education in, the history of British food--the public parts of the scheme. There is no doubt that that aspect will not be so attractive to private sector developers. The trust is concerned about whether the Government would consider the scheme worthy of public support if there were a gap between what
those developers would pay for and the overall funding needs of the project. However, I have mentioned so many Departments that it is inconceivable that there would not be some support.The one difficulty that has arisen in my discussions with the trust, with Advantage West Midlands--our regional development agency--and with the Government office of the west midlands is that Stafford has never featured on any map of areas of deprivation or those in need of assistance. Sometimes, that is the key to obtaining investment. The Government may need a little ingenuity to justify investment in Stafford.
I hope that they will show such ingenuity for the following reasons. I described how well Stafford responded to a great shock recently. I am proud to represent an area whose people show such a great can-do attitude. We have never been an area of great deprivation because we have always managed for ourselves. However, at present, we have hit some choppy water and we shall be in some difficulty if we cannot pull through it. We have the right attitude; we want to overcome the problems. A helping hand from the Government at the right time will help us, so that we never appear on a map as an area in need of extra assistance. I hope that a little bit of preventive action from the Government will help us to continue to be the successful area that I am delighted to represent.
3.34 pm
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): The Minister will notice a difference in my tone on local matters. That is because on the first Thursday in May there was a political sea change in Southend. The council moved from Labour-Liberal control by one to Conservative control with a majority of 11. Every Labour candidate was defeated--as were all but two of the Liberal candidates.
The Conservative party campaigned on several issues; now, it is up to the party to deliver. The Minister will recall that, on occasions such as this, I often share my feelings on such issues with the House. I am, therefore, delighted to tell the House that the new Conservative council has decided to stop the ridiculous idea, introduced by the previous Lib-Lab council, of bus lanes all along the London road. They would have destroyed businesses and damaged the general environment of the area.
I am also delighted that the Conservative council has decided to change the ridiculous proposals for double yellow lines on either side of Hainault avenue, and that an especially vindictive action of the previous council--charges for people with learning disabilities--has been overturned. If the Minister can come up with a solution to how the Conservative council can defeat graffiti, I should be only too happy to pass it on.
Two weeks ago, I was privileged to be invited to the Barbican centre to attend the presentation of a bronze award to my constituent, Mr. John Foster. The event was organised by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It was the first time for 20 years that a Southend lifeboat man had received such an award. Mr. Foster was supported by helmsmen Michael Whistler and Ian Rees.
I shall not go into the full details of their heroic actions on 24 October, when they set sail in the Lady Jane. However, they were undoubtedly responsible for saving
the lives of three people. We heard two magnificent speeches at the presentation. The first was from the Princess Royal, who shared with us her experiences of the bravery of lifeboat men. Apparently, she launched the boat that rescued the three people--that was a nice touch. The second speech was given by the lady who has presented "Songs of Praise" for the past 13 years; she made a wonderful speech.On that occasion, I was struck by the crazy circumstances in which the general public go out to sea--although I am not referring to the events that led to the award for my constituent. I am not a sailor. As soon as the water gets choppy, I feel desperately ill. However, when I learned from private conversations how some members of the public risk not only their own lives but those of lifeboat men, I could hardly believe it. In my extreme ignorance, I did not realise that one could buy any boat and immediately set out on the water. I knew that there was no test such as those for driving cars and motorbikes, but I thought that at least people received some training and a certificate before they could be in charge of a reasonably sized craft.
I heard of people going out in rough weather--despite all the warnings--without wearing a life-jacket. That is crazy. Will the Minister reflect on that point? If he does not have time to deal with it when he sums up the debate, perhaps he could write to let me know whether the Government have any plans on that matter. Although I applaud the bravery of all our volunteers, it is extraordinarily irresponsible of members of the public to risk not only their own lives but those of others.
My second point, which is about mobile telephones, has already been touched on. As a result of what I shall say, I will never ever be offered a consultancy by a mobile phone company. I am proud to say that I loathe the things. When I go on a train, I hear members of the public use their mobile phones. Their conversations are not private and they tell so and so--one cannot help listening--that they will be home in 10 minutes or that they have got on to the train. I do not know what their loved ones can do about the fact that they have got on a train. One cannot help listening to inane conversations, which presumably cost money.
I often wonder whether things are so desperately important that we have to be immediately accessible to a person at the other end of a phone. I have to admit that I own a mobile telephone, but that is because I won it in a raffle. I suppose that I could have given it to someone else, but I thought that it would be churlish to do that. I am not running up a telephone bill, but I buy units and use the phone in a mean fashion just in case someone genuinely thinks that he needs to contact me urgently.
I do not understand the technology, but, like the technology for fax and other machines, it is wonderful. However, our constituents are alarmed by what is going on. The Minister will probably say that it was all the fault of the Government whom I supported that companies are allowed to put up telephone masts. I must have had my eye off the ball, because I would have been more vocal if I had known that that was happening. If they did, I do not know why this Government cannot intervene to stop the process.
I wish to share with the House the flavour of the correspondence that I have had on the issue. In Cottesmore gardens, a mast was installed on 16 May.
The residents received late notice of its installation and the possible dangers of transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Although there is no evidence available that shows that such masts damage health, it is reported that
- children have been seen as most vulnerable to mobile phone radiation because they are still growing and their immune systems are not fully developed.
- The Stewart Inquiry, led by Professor Sir William Stewart, is also expected to advise that mobile phone transmission masts should be kept away from schools, hospitals, and residential areas.
- I understand that the Stewart Inquiry is expected to advise against the installation of mobile transmission masts in residential areas. If this is indeed the case, surely any morally responsible and reputable company would not have continued with such a plan.
- Is this really necessary? If it is dangerous to the health of our youngsters, we do not want it.
The masts are monstrosities. They look like rocket launch pads, they are being erected all over the country and they are hideous. On that count alone, we should unite against them. That might make us very unpopular with the companies, but so what? The matter is out of control, but I hope that the Minister will offer me some encouragement on that point.
I notice that hon. Members are beginning to twitch, so I shall make three final points. I asked my secretary to look up constituency correspondence that highlights policies that the Government have failed to deliver or that are unfair. Two of my constituents are happy for me to quote them, but the other one will have to be known as Mr. X.
The first letter is about Mr. Bowden's jobseeker's allowance. I was contacted by Mr. Bowden who wished to travel out of the country with his wife to attend his sister-in-law's funeral in Paris. However, as he was claiming jobseeker's allowance, he was informed by the Benefits Agency branch in Southend that, on leaving the country, he would have to provide it with a letter stating the dates that he was going and the reasons why. He would then have all benefit stopped while he was out of the country--in his case for a day, because he was going there and back on Eurostar--and, on his return, he would be asked to submit a completely new claim for jobseeker's allowance. The whole application process would begin from scratch. Goodness, that is ridiculous. Anyone with common sense would hope for discretion. Because Mr. Bowden had to travel to a bereavement, surely the behaviour of the agency was unreasonable.
My constituent contacted me because he thought that he was penalised for being honest. He honestly contacted the Benefits Agency to inform it that he would be absent for a day and because he thought that it could not be reasonably argued that attending a funeral in a close European country, such as France, makes one less available for work--perhaps, he could have had a
wretched mobile phone if he needed to be called urgently for an interview--than if he had had to attend a funeral in the United Kingdom.I wrote to a Minister, but I shall not name that Minister. However, I will quote the letter that I received in reply. It said:
- Decisions on availability for work, or whether restrictions placed on availability are reasonable, are made by the decision makers, who make decisions fairly and impartially on behalf of the Secretary of State. No one, including Ministers, can interfere with the decision making process.
The decision maker is the first tier of the decision making process. Their decisions carry the right of apply to The Appeals Service with a further right of appeal, on a point of law, to the Social Security Commissioner.
Sometimes we are guilty of hurriedly passing on by phone the covering letter that goes with such ministerial replies. However, that reply was not a very good one. Apart from the fact that it endlessly repeated the word "decisions", the answer was crazy. If the Minister gets a chance, I hope that he will send a message to the Department of Social Security and that, if he has the time, he will write to me about this issue.
I have the correspondence in which Mr. X wrote to me about television licences for the over-75s. He was concerned about the concession and he pointed out that when a married couple have enjoyed the benefit and the elder partner dies before the younger one reaches the age of 75, the concession will be taken away from the widow or widower until that person reached that age. As the survivor, particularly a widow, will almost certainly be worse off financially, it seems unfair that he or she will have to start paying the cost of the television licence on the death of a loved one. Before Labour Members ask about what the Conservative party suggested yesterday, may I say that I recognise that point? However, we have a Labour Government and it was their idea for television licences. I hope that the Minister will lean on the Department in the hope that we can have a sensible reply to my constituent's point.
My final point is about a concern expressed by Mrs. Day, a teacher at West Leigh school. This is what has happened to her over the past few weeks. She took up the Government's offer of the computers for teachers scheme in February this year. In order to take advantage of the offer, Mrs. Day borrowed the money from a friend. She paid £1,000 for the computer and duly sent off the completed form, expecting her £500 to be forthcoming.
- Please allow one month from despatch for receipt of payment.
Finally, on the 21st attempt, the phone call was returned. However, that was in the middle of a teaching day, and Mrs. Day, who did not have a mobile phone with her, was not available to take the call. The lady left two numbers on the answerphone but--surprise, surprise--calls to those numbers have not been acknowledged.
In April, Mrs. Day wrote to Caxton house. To date she has not received a response. Shortly afterwards, undeterred, she e-mailed and finally got a response. "Thank goodness!", I hear everyone cry. Unfortunately, the response to the e-mail bore no relation to the query that she raised. She has since found out that it was simply a standard reply.
We heard the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mention West Leigh school earlier. Besides Mrs. Day, six other teachers there took up the offer and are still waiting for their money. Without my pouring poison on the situation--I have no idea what the politics of those seven teachers are--I can report that they feel let down by the scheme.
I have found that locally, since the first Thursday in May, things are improving, but nationally, there are still matters that trouble my constituents, and I hope that the Minister will have good news for them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |