Speeches
Alison’s extensive political experience has enabled her to work in various areas and over the years she has been involved in numerous projects both with central and local government. Her key areas of interest are defence, housing, health, local government, and in her role as PPS to Geoff Hoon she has a very keen interest in foreign affairs.
Key interests: Defence, health, local government, foreign affairs, housing, transport issues. You can read Alison's recent speeches on key issues here.
Parliamentary Debates/Speeches
Water Bills (South West) Adjournment 24 April 2007
Alison Seabeck (PPS Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Plymouth, Devonport, Labour).
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore share my concern that plans to bring in the 5,000 km of private sewers under South West Water's remit could add to the cost to bill payers? Will he seek clarification from the Minister on that?
Barry Gardiner (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Link to this | Hansard source
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) has done his constituents a real service by enabling us to debate this issue. I am well aware of the depth of concern in the region.
I pay particular tribute to the untiring efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who recently led a high-level delegation from the National Consumer Council and South West Water to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. I give his apologies that, as the Minister with primary responsibility for this issue, he is not here today. He is in Copenhagen on ministerial business, but I know that he would have wanted to respond to the points that have been made, and that he will read Hansard with great care.
I also pay tribute to Seabeck"my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) who, in the relatively short time that she has been in the House, has grasped this extremely complex issue in an outstanding way. She raised with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell the issue of private sewerage, and I give her the assurance that she sought that the matter is at the forefront of Ministers' thinking. The Government have decided in principle to transfer private sewers to the company. We shall consult on the route and timing of that transfer, and take full account of the cost to customers when we do so. Ofwat provided a model of the impact on bills of the decision on private sewerage. That produced a range of different impacts for each company, and that will be clarified and improved as we develop the approach for adopting private sewers.
Local Government Opposition Debate 24th April 2007
Alison Seabeck (PPS Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Plymouth, Devonport, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
This has already proved to be a highly emotive debate, which is indicative of just how important local government is to Members. Sadly, it has also been very predictable. It has clearly been a simple mechanism to enable the Opposition to run scaremongering stories, in the final week of the local election campaign, that have no foundation in fact. As chair of the all-party group on local government, that saddens me enormously. I would therefore like to focus on the positive aspects of the all-party group's work and on some specifics of the future of local government.
The all-party group, supported by the Local Government Information Unit, is reviewing the possibility of enhancing the role of the councillor and of encouraging more people from diverse backgrounds to step up to the plate and seek election, thereby bringing with them a wealth of experience. We hope to feed our findings into the Roberts review being undertaken for the Department for Communities and Local Government. The future of local government depends in part on the quality of the people whom we attract as councillors. The stream of negativity from the Opposition today is hardly a good advert for the job.
The all-party group heard from a range of witnesses—from councillors from all the main parties, from experts such as Professor Steve Leach, from Paul Wheeler of the political skills forum, from Dr. Stuart Wilks-Heeg of the university of Liverpool, and from those representing minority groupings. We also asked the media to participate. There is an enormous amount of enthusiasm from elected representatives who have submitted evidence on the role that they have undertaken, and for the innovative work going on within existing parameters to engage the public more widely, and to assist them in understanding the service that their council and councillors can offer.
Interestingly and in contrast with today's debate, the all-party group meetings have been productive. It has been largely agreed on a cross-party basis that some of the problems flagged up tonight can be resolved only if we move forward in a more consensual and positive way. The view has also been expressed that the best authorities already make good use of existing powers to reach out to their residents and electorates. There is some excellent practice out there, and the Government's beacon council scheme certainly does an excellent job in highlighting best practice and disseminating information more widely.
A number of Members have, through various early-day motions and private Members' Bills, supported the extension of local authority power and the wider empowerment of individuals in their relationship with their local council. The Local Government and Participation in Health Bill takes forward most of the key strands of the ideas being put forward and further enhances arrangements through local area agreements, for example, without some of the drawbacks of the measures proposed by others. The Opposition pamphlet setting out their position on sustainable communities raised concerns from experienced Members in all parts of the House. It suggested that local authorities should be given greater powers to set targets and to establish programmes directed at local needs, but quite how that fits in with proposals that would require Whitehall to deliver an action plan to achieve them I cannot imagine. Full cognisance does not appear to have been taken of the fact that local decision making means decision making within the locality.
It is unclear how the Opposition's proposals would be achieved—how the mechanisms and the administration of their proposed scheme would be handled. Given their dislike for all things regional—and, by default, for regional offices—would they move this power and responsibility toward the centre? They have come up with few genuine proposals for the future of local government that stand up to scrutiny, and we have heard nothing new from them today. However, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill has managed to obtain broad support, and its passage through Committee was notable for the positive and often consensual debates that were held.
That approach has been mirrored elsewhere. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association, welcomed the White Paper that preceded the Bill, saying that it reflected the growing confidence in, and competence of, local government, as well as the belief that the best way to deliver the best services to local people is at a local level. Front-line services should be focused on the needs of those who use them. Lord Bruce-Lockhart also acknowledged that the proposals would help to free up elected councillors to put local people first in the delivery of the right services at the right time and in the right place. Many of the witnesses to the all-party group have supported the view that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill is a real step in the right direction and that the challenge is there for authorities and individual councillors to grasp the opportunities presented to them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about taking responsibility and the avoidance of Government interference in other areas. He should, therefore, support what the Government are trying to achieve with local government. The Government want to release some of the central controls and to enable far greater control over decision making to be devolved to councillors and citizens.
In his report, Sir Michael Lyons reaffirms the importance of local decision making and sees a positive future role for local government in fostering a new public confidence in our local governance arrangements. It is an incredibly detailed and thorough piece of work, as one would expect from Sir Michael. Although he dwells at length on a number of matters outside the question of taxation, Sir Michael does tackle the thorny issue of trying to find a solution to the perennial problem of local taxation.
It would be in all our interests to resolve that problem once and for all and to accept that, at least in part, local taxation needs to be property based. No tax is popular, but every party in this House that aspires to being in government should want that problem sorted out in a way that at least enables local government to operate on a sound footing, plan long term and offer clarity to the taxpayer. The approach that I have suggested would also promote a greater sense of fairness and justice than currently exists.
The Opposition have tried to imply that the Government want to introduce a waste tax in addition to the council tax, but that is merely further scaremongering. That proposal was simply one of the many options put forward by Sir Michael Lyons for consideration. Local authorities of all parties are looking at mechanisms that would enable the better management of waste. Some are using sticks and others carrots: for example, Conservative Barnet council has been targeting residents in respect of waste, and fining them. Which council can say that it would not want to use such a power in the future?
When I sit through our debates on local government, I am always saddened to hear the unremittingly negative comments from the Opposition. They have yet to come to this House and offer any serious positive proposals that will help local government move forward. Hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench could take lessons from those of their colleagues on the Back Benches who attend the all-party group. They contribute in a positive way, and understand the important contribution that local government and local councillors make to their communities.
It may be that the Opposition's attitude to local government is still shaped by the 1980s and early 1990s, when local government was seen as a nuisance. It was the subject of swingeing cuts that caused morale among councillors to plummet, but the mood now is very different. Yes, councillors have been subject to inspection—but what a difference that has made. There has been an impressive turnaround in the number of authorities ranked as good or excellent—
Debate on Trident - March 14th 2007
House of Commons Debate on Trident 14th March 2007 - Source HansardAlison Seabeck, PPS Geoff Hoon Minister for Europe
"Had I been asked to deliver this speech 35 years ago when I was a young, idealistic student, I would have taken a different view and given a different speech. There are a number of reasons why I have changed my position. My support for the new programme is not based simply on its economic benefits for the south-west defence-based industries, although understanding the complexity of the procurement process and the nature of their highly skilled work has informed my position.
As we have heard in powerful speeches from colleagues in all parties, there are a number of key issues and questions. Do we need the deterrent? What is the threat now that the cold war is over? Are there legal arguments against the ongoing programme? They are good questions. Many colleagues pressed the point about where the future threat lies. Is there a threat? I do not know, but we cannot take risks. None of us is psychic. We do not know what the threat will be in 20, 25 or 50 years' time. We cannot work on the assumption that we will be able to get by on our stock of conventional weapons if a threat emerges at some future date. Leaving until later a decision on the go-ahead for submarines capable of launching the missiles—the decision is about giving the go-ahead for the submarine procurement process—could leave the UK facing an enemy with one arm tied behind its back.
We cannot rely on diplomacy to get us out of any future confrontation. It would not be rational to do so. Relatively recent history shows that such an option could leave our nation exposed. In the 1920s, following the war to end all wars, disarmament was the preferred option, for reasons we all understand. However, military dictators stepped in to fill the vacuum, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) described earlier, because certain western democracies were seen as vulnerable. Diplomacy failed us then, and we were not prepared. It took the Herculean efforts of armament workers in the UK who rushed to produce weapons, as well as the incredible bravery of our service personnel against enormous odds, particularly in the early years of the war, to get us to the point where victory was possible.
Delaying the decision would be disastrous on defence grounds. Abandoning the programme may be a desirable outcome for many colleagues in this place and could be welcome in other quarters—probably foreign Governments who have no nuclear weapons and no desire to build them. However, there is no evidence to suggest that such a course of action would encourage others to follow our lead. I can see no way in which it would give states developing nuclear weapons—North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India or Israel—any reason to stop their programmes. Indeed, it could have the opposite effect.
In Plymouth, a city associated with the armed forces and one of the cities most heavily bombed during world war two, we understand the deterrence process. Equally, we understand the importance of the SSBN—ship submersible ballistic nuclear—programme to the economy of our city and the wider south-west, as well as to the UK's maritime industrial base. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), has already made that case well. I can but reiterate the point that the importance of a decision to continue with Trident—on what is generally seen throughout the House as the most effective delivery platform for the missiles—cannot be understated.
What we have in Plymouth is unique and what the defence industry requires is also unique. Admittedly, our skills could be used in other fields, but only the Ministry of Defence buys submarines and wants maintenance programmes for them. In Plymouth, we have the skills. Submarines cannot be conjured out of thin air if the strategic position changes at a future date. They cannot be built in the same way that fighter planes were rushed out in the second world war.
No one can feel comfortable in a world where nuclear weapons exist, but we do not live in a secure world environment. Twenty years down the line, I certainly do not want to have to explain to a population threatened by a state with nuclear weapons that we do not have the capability to respond."
House of Commons: 22nd January 2007
2nd Reading of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Alison Sebeack MP for Plymouth, Devonport
"The Bill, which was described to us today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a platform to deliver real change on the ground and real changes for local people to influence local decision making and improve their lives, comes when there is no doubt that our modern society is attaching far greater importance to what happens in our immediate neighbourhoods. Paradoxically, this is at a time when we are travelling more and when global issues are attracting much more of our attention.
I suspect that some of this renewed interest in localism and localities results from the centralism that we have experienced over the past few decades—centralism and paternalism from the state, which apparently knows best. However, the public are critical of the apparent growing differential between the type and quality of the services offered by neighbouring local authorities. We have a far more discerning and demanding population, aided by fast and effective access to information and media headlines. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we have experienced an increase in criticism about a lack of local involvement, and concern about postcode lotteries.
We should put that criticism in context. In 1997 Labour inherited demoralised, cash-starved local authorities whose interest in performing well for their citizens was, understandably, not a top priority. They were simply trying to stay afloat. Our first priority in government was to raise standards and aspirations, which meant the centre continuing to take a very close interest in the delivery of local public services. With so many local authorities now performing well, it is possible for Ministers to let go of some of the control mechanisms and to trust local councils and local people.
The Bill is a move in the right direction, as it has the potential to offer local councils more freedom and power. Local authorities need those powers if they are to provide effective leadership. Citizens, too, will be able to take advantage of the opportunities offered in the Bill better to hold their elected representatives to account.
There is widespread support for the Bill. I recently spoke at an event organised by the New Local Government Network and attended by representatives from local authorities—elected and officials—and by voluntary and community organisations. There was a degree of consensus that the Bill was positive for the sector, but—there is always a but—a number of issues were raised, and concerns were expressed that the Bill lacked teeth or, though well intentioned, was a little too vague in some areas.
I should like to focus on a couple of matters. The first relates specifically to the role of the voluntary sector and existing non-statutory partners. Everyone agrees that successful communities depend on strong local government. Sir Michael Lyons is clear about that when he refers to the importance of place shaping in achieving good community cohesion and thriving local economies. That can happen only if we have clear local leadership and greater involvement and engagement with the public and a range of partner bodies.
The voluntary sector plays an important role, which the Minister responsible for the third sector acknowledged in his recent public comments. It is not there to take over delivering services but clearly has the experience, expertise and contacts on the ground to offer support and partnership when appropriate. It is also in a good position to assist individuals to scrutinise local authorities and elected members. Indeed, volunteers often act as advocates for marginalised groups in our society—the very people whom the Bill seeks to empower.
The Bill places a duty on statutory partners to co-operate and consult with
"such other persons as appear to be appropriate".
Although I fully appreciate the problems of listing people and groups in legislation, I hope that the Minister for Local Government will understand that, although the best authorities already co-operate with and consult non-statutory bodies, too many councils do not and will not unless some means is found of compelling them to do so. Will the Minister set out the mechanisms that enable the Department to ensure that local authorities seek the voluntary sector's support and advice? The National Council for Voluntary Organisations is worried that we are considering an extraordinarily grey area and would like the voluntary and community sector to be recognised as an essential non-statutory partner.
Issues that relate to delivering the many proposals in the Bill also have an impact on the voluntary sector. In the main, it does an excellent job, but if the Government and local authorities are serious about using its expertise to best effect across the range of new aspects that the Bill outlines, it will need support to build capacity. Local authorities should also take account of other Government-funded programmes for supporting the sector, such as Change Up and Capacity Builders. It is important, when providing support to the community and voluntary sector and enabling it to engage with the Bill, to link what is happening locally and nationally. Otherwise there is a risk that the Bill's best intentions—empowering local citizens to have their voice heard—will not be fulfilled as comprehensively as it is hoped.
Making the public aware of the new opportunities in the Bill will fall partly to the voluntary sector. When we look back on the Bill, the last thing we want to do is wonder why, as we have with other game attempts to engage the wider public, so many people continue to feel disillusioned about their ability to make their voices heard or influence decision making.
The provisions to extend scrutiny powers are important, but questions have been raised with me about their scope. They represent a further devolutionary move, which enables the partnerships to be more accountable to the communities that they serve and is therefore welcome. Respected organisations such as the Local Government Information Unit, the Centre for Public Scrutiny and the Local Government Association have asked why several key local providers, especially in the health sector, have not been included. Again, I appreciate Ministers' dislike of including lists in legislation, but perhaps the Minister will explain the reasons behind the exclusion of NHS foundation trusts and health trusts as well as housing associations from the short list."
Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office, Denton & Reddish, Labour) Link to this |
As my hon. Friend knows, on several occasions I have raised examples of leisure trusts or arm's length housing companies depriving locally elected councillors of background information, which would have been required under the access to information regulations in the Local Government Act 1972, but is not under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Does my hon. Friend perceive an opportunity in the Bill, through strengthening overview and scrutiny functions, to ensure accountability when co-operation does not work?
Add your comment
Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Plymouth, Devonport, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, I agree. In Committee, we have some scope to make progress on that. My hon. Friend mentioned arm's length companies. Housing associations are an interesting case. Given that much of the Government's housing policy has been to move local authorities' role to providing a strategic overview of housing of all sorts of tenures in their area, it is perhaps a little odd that housing associations are not included, especially when they are often partners in a range of social policy initiatives, such as those on antisocial behaviour, as well as being the main social housing providers in some areas. There is also the wider criticism that a minority of housing associations are not as accountable to their tenants as they ought to be. The Bill provides a real opportunity to do something about that.
Following on from what my hon. Friend has just said, there is also a case to be made that contractors providing services to the public sector and carrying out public functions ought to be included. Will the Minister tell us whether there are precedents for imposing responsibilities on private bodies involved in the delivery of public services in that way?
I am also concerned that partners do not appear to be required to attend scrutiny meetings, which is also the point that my hon. Friend has just made. I am not convinced that sending a written report will be adequate, either. The provision in the Bill seems to be a watered-down version of what was in the White Paper. Clause 93 seems only to place a requirement on members of the authority, whereas paragraph 3.35 of the White Paper stated that
"we will require those public service providers (other than the police who will instead be subject to the new scrutiny arrangements set out in the Police and Justice Bill) to appear before the Committee".
I might have misread the Bill, or failed to read across to another clause, in which case I stand to be corrected, but I would welcome clarification on that point from my hon. Friend the Minister.
The community call for action will be a useful tool for citizens whose local authorities are not already following best practice. We all know that well-run councils enable proper scrutiny, but others can behave in petty-minded ways, either for political or personal reasons. Individual councillors sometimes complain that their voice is not heard or that they are not taken seriously, perhaps because they are in a minority, either politically or for reasons such as race, gender or religion. I must stress that that is not the norm, but in those cases, the public can understandably feel helpless and voiceless. It is important, particularly in the interest of community cohesion, that the voices of those in our smaller minority communities are heard, and that they feel fully represented by their elected representatives.
The Commission for Racial Equality is rightly keen to ensure that community calls for action are operated fairly and monitored centrally, so as to ensure that all citizens' views are equally championed and investigated. The community call for action can strengthen the hand of councillors and citizens, but we also need to be wary of the vexatious citizen or group. Proper safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the call for action is not misused, for example, to slow up important decisions or to give interest groups more influence over decisions in the wider community.
I know that SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—also has worries about that part of the Bill. We all know that those who are well educated, literate and who have good communication skills can quickly form action groups, not necessarily for the benefit of the whole community but more on a nimby basis. They have the power and the tools to do that, and unless the voluntary sector is given the right funding and recognition to support the vulnerable, certain groups in our communities will still not be heard or have the support that they need.
Other hon. Members have already expressed concern about local area agreements. I am pleased that the targets are to be extended, and there is evidence from the existing scrutiny of health that that will strengthen partnership working and assist in finding solutions to local problems. However, the Bill restricts the duty to respond to scrutiny to specific agreed LAA targets, which leaves gaps. Many outside bodies would like to see the scrutiny power over partner agencies extended to cover other issues of local concern, and not just the issues covered by LAA targets.
I should like to make one small point relating to the openness and accountability of first-tier councils. Will the Minister explain why the Department does not hold a database of first-tier authorities? Is it because the bureaucracy involved would be enormous, or are there other good reasons? He will know that this issue exercises the National Association of Local Councils, and it would be helpful if that matter were clarified.
The Bill specifies a new duty on local authorities to extend the participation of local citizens, which will be essential if the raft of measures set out are to be translated into better and greater engagement from residents. However, the duty does not specify how that is to be done. It appears to leave it up to the local authorities themselves. How will the Secretary of State monitor whether local authorities are widening participation? The Bill is wholly non-prescriptive on that issue. So much of the Bill's success hinges on greater involvement from a range of partners, and yet it appears to leave how that is done in the hands of councils, which is little change from the current situation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will offer reassurance on that matter.
There is much to be gained from the Bill. I suspect that good local authorities and well organised community groups and individuals will make good use of it, in the same way that the best councils make good use of tools already at their disposal. With planning gain supplement in discussion, I know that section 106 is not necessarily popular, but the best councils used section 106 agreements to good effect, and it has taken the others a long time to catch up. In Committee, let us consider whether strengthening some elements of the Bill will enable swifter and better use of such tools by our citizens and local representatives.
Climate Change Speech March 2007
I have been asked to speak briefly to assist in starting the discussion on Climate Change and Environmental issues
One key statement has to be made at the start – let’s be absolutely clear the scientific debate on Climate Change is over. It is happening, it is largely man-made even allowing for fluctuations which have occurred since time began and it has a consequence for everyone.
The Stern Report showed very clearly that it will cost far more globally to tackle the problem than it would to invest in a solution. This is the clear line which the Government is taking to encourage us as individuals to think about our energy usage; local authorities to consider their activities and other countries to work internationally to develop solutions to meet the particular circumstances in the country whether a developed or a developing state.
There are practical solutions and technologies to assist in this from wind and solar power to carbon capture and storage. There is some excellent work being carried out here in the Plymouth Marine laboratories which is close to coming up with a further imaginative means to use algae to capture carbon, algae which also has a myriad of other uses from producing sun protection creams through to providing a component substance for use with bio ethanol.
There are three strands of action. Action at an international level is essential and the British Government is leading the way. Convincing others that tacking climate change does not come at the expense of economic growth has been central to our argument and the Stern Report has reinforced the position. Putting pressure through the EU on international partners is also vital and I do think that the EU has an extremely important role to play here. The British Government has met its Kyoto commitment and in fact is expected to exceed but we still have some countries who are not even close.
Local councils and businesses are major users of power – they should all be carrying out an environmental audit to inform decisions about energy use. It really is a no brainer to turn lights off for example but how many buildings and offices across the city are lit up like Christmas trees 24 hours a day. Turn them off and save money. Turn computers off and save money too. I recently visited an NHS site and was shown a room with a suite of computers in it – very single one was on stand by and no-one was using them!
Speech to the Plymouth & South-West Co-operative Society
I am delighted to be here to speak at the Plymouth & South-West Co-operative Society rally.
From the original ten tradesmen who founded the Plymouth & south west co-operative society nearly 150 years ago, it is plain to see from the number of members present here today that their founding principles of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity have made it into a major driving force for social and community cohesion.
This evening I am going to speak briefly about the fantastic role that the Co-op plays in delivering social change and its continuing participation in Government decision making. I would first like to point out that the Government does not see the co-op as an alternative to delivering solutions itself but rather sees it as a strategic partner who can effectively get to the heart of the community in ways that central government departments cannot do so easily.
At the local level, I was happy to hear that the Plymouth & South-West Co-operative Society has been working closely with local communities and the post office to save post offices that are facing closure. The relocation of Brixham post office, for example, into the local co-op food store now means that the excellent service the post office provides will continue.
The recent local agreement singed between the Plymouth & South-West Co-operative Society and Scottish power for the supply of green energy to all co-op stores and the head office here in Plymouth and the South-West is indeed commendable. This is very much in line with the government’s current position promoting the use of renewable energy and its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. I am a keen supporter of the climate change and sustainable energy bill and believe that the co-op’s decision will influence others in the area, showing them the way forward as is the co-operative tradition. the Co-op’s Climate Care project which provides renewable cooking fuel and wind turbines in India along with the carbon offsetting initiative nationwide, are helping to tackle very serious environmental issues which need to be addressed.
On the theme of International Development that Gareth spoke of earlier, the co-op was and continues to be one of the forerunners in selling fair trade products. Your commitment to Ethical Trading & Fair Trade which you have upheld for over a decade has seen local food stores promoting fair trade products for a number of years and now we see other, profit orientated, supermarkets dedicating resources to the sale of fair trade products. This is just one example of how the co-op continues to have a strong impact on social affairs and the ethics that have bonded the Labour Party and the Co-Operative Society for over a century.
The Government is still very much committed to local communities.
I am very pleased and honoured to be a member of the co-operative party first in south London and now here in Plymouth. I firmly believe that the co-op values are an integral part of the local community and will continue to deliver an unrivalled service to those in need.
Marine Environment Debate 19th April 2007
Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that highlights the importance of not rushing the Bill and counters the argument made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). This is a very complex area, not only as regards what is happening on the surface of our oceans—we do not fully understand what is happening in 90 per cent. of the area underneath them either
Speaking for you in Parliament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit: www.theyworkforyou.com and you can see a complete list of all the questions I have raised in the house.
March 2007
Parliamentary Questions — Defence: Injured Troops (26 Mar 2007)
Alison Seabeck: What progress has been made in improving health care provided to troops injured on operations on their return to the UK.
Derek Twigg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Veterans), Ministry of Defence)
Selly Oak hospital, part of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, is the primary reception hospital for operational casualties. It is a centre of excellence for treating the injuries sustained by our troops. A military-managed ward reached initial operating capability in December 2006. There are 22 military nurses, including military nursing managers, who work at all levels on the ward. That allows the presence of military nursing staff on duty on every shift. We have also increased the overall number of military psychiatric support nurses andhave military welfare staff and liaison officers at the hospital.
Personnel who require rehabilitation following hospital treatment may receive it at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court. That world-class facility provides high-quality, appropriate prosthetics and adaptations, manufactured on site and individually tailored as necessary to the specific patient.
Alison Seabeck
My hon. Friend knows that a large contingent of personnel from Plymouth is currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cannot emphasise enough the importance to the families of understanding that there is a decent health care service in place for those who are injured, and equally for those who return from stressful tours of duty. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, despite the recent incident in Cyprus, the Ministry will continue to support decompression programmes—one of which I saw on HMS Temeraire—to assist, for example, Iraq veterans back into regular Army service?
Derek Twigg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Veterans), Ministry of Defence)
It is clear that we provide top quality, world-class medical support and treatment for our injured service personnel. I have talked to many injured service personnel and their families in recent months.A recent survey at Selly Oak of those who had been discharged showed everybody saying that their care and treatment had been excellent, very good or good. It is clearly an important facility, which we are continuing to develop. We are taking an initiative on reservists and mental health. Mental health support exists pre and post-deployment.
Decompression is important, and commanding officers decide how it is handled and delivered. It clearly has an important role to play in allowing service personnel who return from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to terms with their experiences, discuss any difficult problems that they may need to take forward and, of course, relax. That is all part of the process before returning home to their loved ones.
Alison Seabeck 12 March 2007
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what length in miles of unadopted sewers there is in each region of England.
Ian Pearson (Minister of State (Climate Change and the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) | Hansard source
The most recent Ofwat estimates of private, unadopted, pipework outside the property curtilage, in England, by water and sewerage company area, are set out in the following table:
Water and sewerage company Length of unadopted sewers (kilometre)
Anglian 21,000
United Utilities 21,000
Northumbrian 9,000
Severn Trent 29,000
Southern 13,000
South West 5,000
Thames 26,000
Wessex 8,000
Yorkshire 16,000
9th March 2007
Written Answers — Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Sewers
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence his Department has collected on the condition of unadopted sewers in England.
Ian Pearson (Minister of State (Climate Change and the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) |
The Government recently announced its decision to transfer responsibility for private sewers and drains to water and sewerage undertakers. This will apply to private sewers and drains in England which drain to public sewers. The accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment explains that uncertainty surrounding the extent and condition of private sewers and lateral drains would only be resolved by undertaking a full internal survey and mapping exercise at prohibitively high cost. The unpublished UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) report, 'The Real Cost of Taking Over Private Sewers and Drains', estimated that a mapping exercise for England and Wales would alone cost £118 million. This would not investigate the condition of private sewers.
27th February 2007
Oral answers to Questions — Communities and Local Government: Social Care Alison Seabeck: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) might be addressed by the strength of local area agreements? If so, will he tell us what discussions he has had with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services on this matter?
Phil Woolas (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Through local area agreements, supported by the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, which I met last week, we can examine how better co-operation between agencies and partners can result in not only better service provision but better use of public money, both capital procurement and revenue expenditure, through the sharing of decisions, investment and savings. That is the way forward.
Written Answers — Minister for Women: Females: Councillors (27 Feb 2007)
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of women councillors.
Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Opposition Day — [7th Alloted Day] — Royal Navy (26 Feb 2007)
Alison Seabeck: As a Member representing a seat containing the largest naval base in western Europe, I have taken a close interest in the debate. I shall touch on elements of the Opposition's motion, as well as concerns raised elsewhere, and avoid turning the debate into one based solely on the naval base review and the so-called beauty contest between Portsmouth and Plymouth. In recent weeks, the media have...
Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Opposition Day — [7th Alloted Day] — Royal Navy (26 Feb 2007)
Alison Seabeck: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and need say no more than that. At the moment, there is a problem in respect of the ownership of DML, and that is a little unsettling. However, I have no doubt that, once those matters are resolved, the work force will settle down and do what they do best—that is, provide design, build and support solutions to the Navy. The Opposition's motion refers...