---

Christmas Adjournment

In a similar vein to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I wish to raise several issues. This is the last Christmas Adjournment debate before we face a general election, and this has been a dreadful year. Labour has succeeded in destroying the country and it has destroyed this place. The place in which we work has been greatly diminished. We are seen as an irrelevance and no longer as an attractive ornament. What has happened in the past year is an absolute travesty. Underlining everything, we have the state of the British economy. It is in a terrible state. We owe £178 billion and the Government are trying to kid us all that they have done a splendid job in running the finances and the problems are just part of the world phenomenon. Every Wednesday the Prime Minister used to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that he had abolished boom and bust. Well, my constituents are puzzled about where the boom has been, and they are convinced that this country is bust. I lay the blame entirely at the feet of this Government. As chairman of the all-party group for small shops, I spent the summer visiting every small shop in my constituency. My goodness, times are tough for them. The slogan "If you don't use 'em, we'll lose 'em" is true. They are having a very tough time in competition with the larger supermarkets, as several of my hon. Friends have mentioned. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will rally round at a reception early next year to support small businesses. I am very worried about the state of our finances, and we will not come out of recession until next year. A related issue is the pay of public servants. The allowances and payment of parliamentarians have come under great scrutiny this year for several reasons. Many suggestions have been made about how we could save money. However, it is not clear how the pay of other public servants, especially at senior levels, will be judged and scrutinised under the freedom of information legislation. Some of them seem to be completely impervious to such scrutiny. The electorate employ us as Members of Parliament and they renew, or end, our contract at a general election. However, it has not yet been determined how other senior public servants and leaders of these umpteen quangos can be removed from office if the general public are dissatisfied with their performance. As long ago as 2000, I raised the issue of public appointments in South Essex health authority in a Westminster Hall debate. It was all about the merger of two trusts and how people with mental health problems would be regarded in the future. I mentioned the potential appointment of a chief executive, and I remember clearly how the then Labour Minister dealt with the issue. Basically, I was told that Southend and Thurrock would be merged, but it turned out to be a takeover by the Thurrock trust. The person to whom I referred in that debate was appointed as chief executive, and recently, under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been found that nine years on that gentleman is paid more than £200,000 and received a bonus of £17,500. This is absolute madness! We hear constant reports in the press about Members' allowances, and quite rightly there will be changes to the proposed system, and of course there is the furore surrounding bonuses for bankers working for the financial institutions bailed out by the British taxpayer. Yet where is the scrutiny of public sector pay of senior people in, for instance, the health service and police? The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) alluded to that point. The payment of public sector executives is completely cut off from the harsh realities of the UK economic situation. The average family is struggling at the moment. The Government should pay more attention to that situation. Over the past three years, Essex has had three chief constables. The first chief constable's contract was not renewed, the second took early retirement and a third was appointed this year. The third was apparently one of three candidates, but the other two dropped out of the competition. In other words, there was a choice of one, and he was appointed. I and, presumably, my Essex colleagues were never told of the appointment until 26 October, when I received a letter from the new chief constable's personal assistant stating:""You may like to amend your records to reflect that Mr Jim Barker-McCardle was appointed as substantive Chief Constable with effect from the 8th September 2009"." There was no embarrassment at all. My goodness! When this place had some standing, on the appointment of a new chief constable, Members would, out of common courtesy, be sent a letter from that person informing them of the appointment. We have become such an irrelevance that we do not get any letters from chief constables—we are not even told that a new one has been appointed—and when we complain to Ministers, they simply say that they have no responsibility in the matter. It is disgraceful! Even the former chairman of the Police Federation has, in a Home Office-commissioned report, criticised the complex organisational and decision-making structure at the top of the policing system, which generates confusion about accountability among police officers. I must say that although the Independent Police Complaints Commission is very well led, in reality its judgments have no teeth. Any judgment is simply given to the chief constable, who does not seem to be responsible to anyone. I cannot see the purpose of Essex police authority. As we all know, the cost to the country of the war in Afghanistan and our previous involvement in Iraq has been very high, not just financially, but—much more importantly—in the loss of young lives. Many of us had the honour of greeting troops returning from Afghanistan last month. They are doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. Last Monday we lost the 100th British soldier in Afghanistan, and two more have been killed recently. All of us are watching the Chilcot inquiry very carefully, but however soft the questioning is, it seems certain that the previous Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the House of Commons about why we should get involved with Iraq. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said that the ex-Prime Minister engaged in an "alarming subterfuge" with the then American President. The former Prime Minister has now told us, in an interview with a celebrity, that he would have gone to war regardless of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am one of those Conservative Members of Parliament who were stupid enough to believe what the then Prime Minister said, but it was not his choice to make; it was the choice of this House of Commons. It is an absolute disgrace that he has come out with that statement in a soft interview with a celebrity. I hope that when the former Prime Minister gives evidence next year, some action will be taken as a result of what he says. I think that he deliberately misled Parliament on that issue, and why oh why he was so sycophantic to the United States of America I cannot imagine. Even the new American President, who in the build-up to the American election talked about cutting troop numbers in Afghanistan, is now sending another 30,000, which is more than his predecessor sent. What is going on now is absolutely crazy. Why the American President got the Nobel peace prize, before he had done anything whatever, I do not know. Again, that astonishes me. I am the chairman of the all-party group on solvent abuse. Solvent abuse is an area that receives very little attention, despite the fact that NHS research shows that volatile substances are the most common entry-level substances among young people who choose to take drugs. More children aged 13 and under use volatile substances than use any illegal drug. St. George's, university of London has done some excellent work in its report, "Trends in Death Associated With Abuse of Volatile Substances", and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will urge a Secretary of State to have a meeting with the all-party group. A constituent, Mr. Congdon, has raised the issue of Vioxx with me. He very much wants compensation for UK users of Vioxx from Merck, Sharp and Dohme. Tragically, his wife died as a result of taking that prescription painkiller. From 1999 to 2004, Vioxx was widely prescribed as a painkiller for arthritis, migraines and menstruation. There have been many lawsuits in America, but in this country nothing whatever has been done about giving compensation. Another constituent, Kevin Jones, raised with me the issue of tax credits. Having phoned the so-called helpline, I could not have found the person who answered to be ruder. When I said, "This is a helpline," and told her that I was an MP, she said, "So what?" If anyone wants proof of how diminished we are out there, there it is, on the so-called helpline. What has happened with tax credit claims that were overpaid is an absolute shambles and has certainly caused enormous difficulties for many constituents. Last Friday I met the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, whose job it is to advise and support local not-for-profit groups. It does a wonderful job under difficult circumstances. However, as with many third sector organisations, budget cuts have forced the association to cut down on a number of its activities. One of the most worthwhile projects that it runs is the vinvolved project, a volunteering project for 16 to 25-year-olds. The funding is secured only until March 2011, and I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House could see what she can do to encourage the Treasury and others to give that excellent organisation some support. Last week I spoke at the National Audit Office's rheumatoid arthritis conference, in my capacity as the joint chairman of the all-party group on inflammatory arthritis. A National Audit Office report entitled "Services for people with rheumatoid arthritis" was published in July, and it makes it clear that services are very patchy throughout the country. I hope that the Health Secretary will do whatever he can to bolster support for people suffering from arthritis. During the summer Adjournment debate, I raised the issue of seat belts. We all remember the row that took place in the House when we first voted to make seat belts compulsory. A number of Members of Parliament thought that it was not the right thing to do, although it turned out to be completely the right thing to do. However, some people, in order to be more comfortable, do not wear their seat belts as they should. Instead of the collar bone taking the full force in an accident, damage can be done to the ribcage and to vital internal organs. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on my concerns on that issue to the Secretary of State for Transport. We often think about animals at Christmas time, and I hope that there will not be the usual number of unwanted pets this year. I was recently at a gathering organised by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to celebrate the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. That organisation does a wonderful job of looking after animal welfare. As the animals are unable to speak for themselves, I hope that at this time we will do all that we can to support their welfare and to ensure that there are not too many unwanted pets this Christmas. I join all others in wishing everyone a very happy Christmas and a much better new year.