Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Another much valued institution in the health economy of Tunbridge Wells is the homeopathic hospital, which has been in the town for over 100 years. It is one of only about half a dozen in the country. I myself have not benefited from homeopathic remedies, nor do I have any great enthusiasm for them, but many of my constituents feel that those treatments help their conditions, especially chronic conditions. The Ministers colleagues have said repeatedly in recent months how important it is to consider the treatment of chronic conditions rather than just acute care.
What is innovative about the homeopathic hospital in Tunbridge Wells is how it combines conventional and alternative remedies. It offers not only homeopathy but various other complementary remedies. The proposed savings from cutting homeopathic services are in the order of £160,000 a year, but people who are using those services will not just disappear from the system. They have conditions that need to be treated; they are likely to be treated in other, conventional ways, and will be paying more visits either to the acute sector or to their GP. It would be misguided to regard a saving of £160,000 as a realistic prospect, and it would be regrettable to lose something that is very valuable and provides choice in the health economy in the area.
Finally, we have in and around west Kent cottage hospitals that are under threat. Although there areno cottage hospitals in my constituency, those at Tonbridge and at Hawkhurst serve my constituents. At a time when Ministers have recognised the importance of community institutions in promoting health care, it is regrettable that those hospitals have a question mark over them, especially when they are among the most cherished institutions in our local communities. They have benefited from the hard work, the fundraising efforts and the voluntary activity of local people over many years.
At a time when we are spending record sums on the NHSsomething that I welcomeit is galling and troubling to my constituents that across the board we have such question marks over the provision of future services and delays to some of the most longed-for changes to those services. Health will be at the top of the list of concerns for my constituents in 2007. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise with the Minister the concerns of my constituents, and I hope that tonight, or when these questions are referred back to the Secretary of State, he might be able to provide some new year reassurance to my constituents thatthe Government will think carefully about the measures proposed. In particular, I hope that they will look favourably and urgently on the Pembury hospital proposal.
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): We are fated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, always to rendezvous at the fag-end of any debate, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in a Christmas Adjournment debate. I hope that the empty condition of the green Benches opposite does not signify the contents of my speech.
At the outset, when I was putting my remarks together, I had resolved to be full of Christmas cheer, but there are some important issues in my constituency
which leave me rather depressed. I will mention those later, but I want to begin by making my only reference to a national or international issue. Some hon. Members have today referred to the Iraq war. I have to say that it is a dark cloud over British politics. It has done much to undermine peoples faith and trust in elective politics in this country. Some Members would not agree, but I have to say that it is an obvious sign of the Governments moral and political bankruptcy. The Government will have to be held to account one day. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said that the people had not yet spoken, but they will.
I thank and pay tribute to members of voluntary organisations and charity groups in my constituency, who do a fantastic job every week, year in, year out, to help people less fortunate than themselves. It is important to remember their contributions at Christmas. I should also like to thank people who work in public services, both in Peterborough and across the country, including ambulance crews, the police, and people in the health service, who will have to work over Christmas.
There is good news: Peterborough, which has a Conservative city council, is rightly proud of its status as an environment city, and we will entrench our environmental credentials in the new year. Environment wardens are to be employed across the city to deal with problems such as fly-tipping and littering, and we are introducing a new, innovative name-and-shame initiative, in which the photographs of suspected litter louts will be printed in the local press. I am delighted to say that support for those new initiatives comes at the same time as an extremely modest 1.4 per cent. increase in council tax, which was passed yesterday at the city council cabinet. Members and officers have worked hard, using a business transformation team, to identify savings and efficiencies. It is a tribute to the council that, six years after taking over from a Labour administration that bankrupted the city of Peterborough, it is in a position to deliver first-class services. It increased its comprehensive performance assessment rating to three stars, while cutting council tax for the 160,000 people of the city.
However, there are issues that cause me great concern, and one of them is the perennial problem of crime. The northern division of the Cambridgeshire constabulary continues to lack enough full-time police officers, and last week I learned from figures provided in an answer to a parliamentary question that Cambridgeshire constabulary has something like the fifth lowest number of police constables per capita of the population. There have been increases in violent crime and burglary, and instead of people going through the criminal justice system in the correct way, increasing use is being made of cautions and other such measures.
In 2003, my predecessor argued that the northern division of the constabulary was underfunded and should have more police officers, yet nothing has been done about the issue. There is an obsession with providing police community support officers, but they are not substitutes for full-time police officers, especially as the tapering funding is being reduced. Eventually, the burden will fall on city council tax payers. The number of urban post offices in my constituency has been reduced from 24 to 17, and the likelihood is that the number will drop to 14 or fewer
under the Government plans outlined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week. That is a major issue, because it is not just rural areas that suffer from the closure of post offices; vulnerable people, older people, those with mobility problems and young families suffer as a result, too.
The NHS is a major concern in my constituency, where there have been bed closures and ward closures. Posts have been lost in the city, and that worries me, too. In particular, I am concerned about the new super-hospital. There is yet to be a final sign-off from either the Department of Health or the Treasury. I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said about the constant waiting game to find out the fate of important facilities. In my constituency, the concern is about the £300 million Greater Peterborough health investment plan, which will mean a new mental health unit and a new acute hospital.
Call me an old cynic, but in the era of heat maps and the Minister without Portfoliothe right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), the chairman of the Labour partysitting in on planning meetings with the Department of Health, I am extremely worried that large-scale investment in the NHS locally will go the same way as it did in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for example, where a £500 million programme was cancelled. I await the new year with interest, and I hope that a project which has been on the books since 1995 will go ahead and that the Government will keep faith. It will be a major blow for my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who is on the Front Bench today, if the project is not to proceed.
There are many good things going on in the city of Peterborough, including the master plan, a major urban regeneration programme through the regeneration company Opportunity Peterborough, a new university centre following an amalgamation with Anglia Ruskin university, and the largest secondary school academy in England and Wales, the Thomas Deacon academy, which it is hoped will make a massive impact on the historic underachievement of secondary school pupils in my constituency. Working class families in my constituency deserve the best education, and for too long they have been let down. That is why, although it is a Government policy, I support the decision to go ahead with the Thomas Deacon academy.
With respect to the growth agenda, I do not believe we have joined-up government. Cambridgeshire is the fastest-growing county in England. Peterborough and North-West Cambridgeshire are the fastest-growing constituencies in Cambridgeshire. We do not have a coherent, cohesive plan for rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, community facilities, water supply, policing and many other services. It is time that all the Members of Parliament for the county had an opportunity to lobby the Minister responsible. He will look at the Thames Gateway, which will interest the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Members representing constituencies in the south midlands, such as those in Corby, Daventry, Northampton, Kettering and Milton Keynes should also be involved. If we do not get it right, the south midlands and the Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough
corridor will be a car park within 10 years. We will not be able to move. The huge impact on the quality of life will be negative, rather than positive.
I shall speak briefly about the Prime Minister. I was conscious of the passion felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who has the benefit of 23 years experience of serving the people of south Essex. He clearly felt some antipathy towards the Prime Minister. We have come full circle, from the glad confident morning of 2 May 1997, with the flag-waving apparatchiks in Downing street who were all cajoled to attend, to where we are nowthe Walter Mitty delusional farewell tour to the middle east in the hope of a legacy.
The legacy exists: one third of children leaving school functionally illiterate; the incidence of MRSA growing in our hospitals; massive bed and ward closures; a pensions system bankrupted; our civil service traduced; our intelligence services and Parliament misled; the armed forces used for party political reasons; a transport system in shambolic gridlock. That is the legacy of the Prime Minister, the man who was going to be purer than pure, whiter than white. If I sound less than charitable, it is for good reason. My constituents, who have a lower life expectancy than those in Cambridge, for example, 30 miles away, who have poorer housing stock, poorer educational attainment, and worse rates of heart disease and stroke, are directly affected by the manifest failings of the Labour Government.
Putting that to one side, I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members, staff of the House and, most importantly, my constituents, whom I have the great good fortune and privilege to represent, a wonderful happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this Christmas Adjournment debate. I extend warm Christmas wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the staff and officers of the House, and to all Members of the House of Commons of all political parties. This is a wonderful time of year for all people to celebrate Christmas and to uphold the Christian traditions of our country.
As hon. Members will know, I am proud and honoured to be the Member of Parliament for the Essex market town of Romford. I was born and bred there, and I am pleased now to be its representative here in the House of Commons. The people of Romford have a great deal of common sense. They are hard-working and patriotic and believe in the values of this country, as I do.
In Romford we are part of the London borough of Havering, which is part of Greater London. We do not particularly like being lumped in with Greater Londonwe want to be part of Essex and uphold our traditional roots. Unfortunately, we are now under the reign of Ken Livingstone, who takes rather a lot of money out of the pockets of the people of Romford and spends it everywhere but in my constituency, so that we subsidise Greater London. I hope that when we consider the Greater London Authority Bill next year, Ministers will consider the position of outer London boroughs and a fairer deal will be given to places such as Romford, which subsidise inner London.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he really saying that he would return to government from Chelmsford, with some of his constituentsretired folklosing the capacity for free travel right across Greater London, which my constituents would very much like to have, and which is one of the privileges of being in the Greater London area? Is he prepared to surrender that important and valuable facility?
Andrew Rosindell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. As an MP who represents a constituency outside Greater London, he probably does not appreciate the fact that the London boroughs pay into a separate fund for the pensioners travel passit is not paid for by Ken Livingstone. We pay a huge amount for police and other London-wide services from which we gain almost no benefit whatsoever.
Andrew Rosindell: I will not give way any more, because I want to cover a lot of other subjects.
Unfortunately, we are paying for the police for the whole of London. We have very few police in Romford. Collier Row particularly suffers from a lack of police. Inner London receives the funding; outer London does not. My constituency suffers terribly, despite the fact that crime is going up dramatically there.
There is also a lack of funding for our parks and open spaces. I pay tribute to local organisations such as Friends of Cottons Park, Friends of King Georges Playing Field, and Friends of Rise Park, who have done an enormous amount of work independently of Government and the council to raise funds and attract sponsorship and grants to upgrade their local parks. I am delighted that a new group called Friends of Lawns Park has recently been launched, with my support and that of the local councillors for Mawneys ward, Councillor Robby Misir, Councillor Melvyn Wallace, and Councillor Peter Gardner.
I am concerned that again we are going to lose post offices, which are an essential part of the lifeblood of our local community. A couple of years ago, despite campaigns by myself, councillors and local people, six post offices were shut as a result of Government policythose in Rise Park, Ardleigh Green, Gidea Park and Collier Row, as well as two in the Mawneys area. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will assure me that no more post offices will be closing in Romford.
Romford was the first local council to bin political correctness and fly the Union jack, the flag of our country, from the town hall not just for a few days a year but every day of the year. That decision has now been followed by many other councils, but it was made in the teeth of opposition from the Labour council at the time, which said that it was not the right thing to do. We now also fly the cross of St. George to represent England, and we are proud to do so. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell me why, despite the enormous expense that has gone on building Portcullis House and its flagpole, no flag has ever flown from it. How can that possibly be right?
Andrew Mackinlay: I am listening to the hon. Gentlemans diatribe, but outside my office in Tilbury, which he knows quite well, because I have thrashed him at a general election, there are three flagpoles, to one of which I have contributed a Union flag. It has been there since the time of the Ark and we are proud of it, so he cannot claim that Tory councillors in Romford and Havering are the only ones who are proud of the flag. It is simply not true, as we know from examples throughout the United Kingdom.
Andrew Rosindell: I do not doubt the hon. Gentlemans patriotism, but it was the Labour council in Romford at the time that voted against a motion to fly the flag of our country. That is recorded as having happened and it is undeniable. It was the market traders, local councillors, local people and myself who forced the Labour council into flying the flag on the Queen Mothers 100th birthday. The flag has not been removed since. The council had to fly the flag because the people demanded it.
This has been a sad year, because we have lost one of the greatest Members of Parliament in the House of LordsLord Harris of High Cross, who died a couple of months ago. He was a truly great man. He was not a member of any political party, but he influenced the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher, who led our country to the economic success that it enjoys today. He was a man who upheld the freedoms and liberties of British people, and he pioneered the free market economics that benefits all people in this country. His death is a tremendous loss to Parliament. We are all very sad that Ralph is no longer with us, but his legacy lives on, with his policies being pursued by both the Conservative party and a Labour Government.
I am also disappointed that the St. Georges Day Bill, which I promoted, did not receive the necessary time this year to become the law of this country. I thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who co-sponsored that Bill, and I look forward to the Government recognising St. Georges day, as we do St. Patricks day. I believe that all countries should have a day that they can celebrate and support. I thank all hon. Members who supported that Bill, which I promoted earlier this year.
We also celebrated the 80th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen in 2006. What a magnificent Head of State we havewhat a truly wonderful lady, who represents our country for all people and unites this country. At the end of this year, I should like to wish her many happy returns for her 80th year. We very much look forward to her continuing as our Queen for many years to come. Next year we shall celebrate the diamond wedding anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. No doubt we shall all pay tribute to them when that time arrives.
Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Highgrove house, by invitation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, along with a number of other Members of Parliament, to see the work of the Princes Trust and all the charities in which he is involved. There is a lot of unjustified and unfair criticism of His Royal Highness. I hope that people will look at the work that the Prince of Wales does in so many areas, particularly for the young people, and acknowledge that he is a tremendous champion of so many good causes in our country.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |