Christmas Adjournment

My time is constrained, so in case I run out, I start by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, Mr. Speaker, his staff and indeed all the staff of the House, who go to great lengths to make our lives easier and our business run smoothly, a happy Christmas and good fortunes in the new year. I should like to raise four issues, if only briefly: the south-east plan, post offices, my local hospital and, following on from that, the funding formulae that local councils in my area are receiving from the Government. Before I do so, however, I should like to commend the idea proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is no longer in his place, of giving medals to those in the Women's Land Army. To follow on from the points that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) made, my mother was a welfare officer in the land army. She was involved in a demonstration that the girls from the land army held down the Mall at the end of the war, when they stripped down to their bras and pants in protest at not receiving demob suits. That generation of women did a great deal to further the cause of the women who sit in the House. We should pay them a significant tribute for their guts and their determination to stand up and fight for what they wanted. On the current south-east plan, however, my constituency is geographically constrained, being on a floodplain and surrounded by green belt, with protected downland to the south-east and south-west, and rural villages stretching down to the Sussex border. Guildford borough council has met its housing targets, but the town, with its narrow and constricted roads, is increasingly congested, with the study of the likely transport impact of housing numbers set out in the draft south-east plan predicting unacceptable traffic congestion. We are also conscious of other infrastructure deficiencies in water and sewerage, as well as increasing problems with flooding. The inspectors' panel report on the south-east plan, which is now being considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, increased the housing numbers for Guildford by one third, or nearly 2,000 additional houses. It also diminished the requirement for infrastructure to accompany new development, changing the need in the draft plan for development to be ““contingent”” on the provision of infrastructure to the ““timely provision of infrastructure””, which provides more scope for inadequate, inferior development without the necessary facilities and amenities. It seems that Guildford was singled out for a disproportionate increase in housing because, interestingly, it is described as a ““regional hub””, a term that had metamorphosed from the description ““regional transport hub””, which many residents in my constituency found somewhat surprising. Yes, Guildford has a railway station and a bus service of sorts, but it is a long way from having the comprehensive public transport system that the term might suggest. If Guildford is to meet the new housing targets as well as intensifying development in the urban area, it will almost certainly have to expand into the green belt to the north of the town. The effects of incremental development are already being felt in north Guildford, particularly in areas such as Stoughton, which suffers significantly from the lack of infrastructure. The threats to Waverley, in the south of my constituency, are similar. The tensions between house building, inadequate infrastructure and the use of green belts continue. Guildford is further concerned about uncertainty over the treatment of housing windfall sites. Historically, Guildford has provided much of its development on such relatively small sites, as has Waverley, and there is no sign that they will arise less frequently in future. However, the Government's new planning policy statement 3 does not want those sites taken into account in the housing planning numbers, except with laborious justification. The south-east plan inspectors were more realistic. Clarification of the Government's attitude on windfall sites is much needed, so I would appreciate it if the Deputy Leader of House could address that or get an answer on it for me. Both Waverly and Guildford are alarmed at the scale of development proposed in the inspectors' panel report, which is likely to undermine the character of the area on which its economic success is founded. Its residents feel that the inspectors underestimated the constraints on development and that their proposals will lead to huge and unavoidable congestion, as well as a deterioration in the quality of life of all our residents through the inadequacy of infrastructure. There will also be a significant impact on the local, and indeed the national economy. It would be nice to have some clarification. A recent letter from the relevant Minister says that he will"““continue to protect robustly the land designated as Green Belt.””" However, there is clearly a conflict, as is shown by the inspectors' report. Many Members mentioned post offices. My constituency, which is heading towards a consultation at the end of January, is in the same position as many others, and there is considerable concern locally. Our post offices are our lifeblood—the social glue that holds our communities together. In Guildford, that applies not only to the rural areas but to the communities that sit outside the town centre. We often hear about the impact that closures will have on elderly, more vulnerable and disabled people, but it is important to remember that in my area they will also have a significant impact on small businesses, including mail order companies, many of which operate from small premises, sometimes from home, and rely heavily on their local post offices. Although Guildford town does not look far away on the map, getting there is a significant consideration in terms of loss of time. The next matter that I want to mention is my local hospital trust. I was delighted this year when Surrey primary care trust acknowledged all the local concerns about cutting services at the trust. We are now continuing with a three-trust option in west Surrey, with some improved services at Royal Surrey County hospital. There are proposals to merge Frimley Park and St. Peter's hospitals, but they are at an early stage. Part of that success was down to the cross-party, cross-community campaign that we fought. I pay particular tribute to Professor Chris Marks, who headed up the campaign in a clearly independent and robust manner. However, to secure the hospital's future, it is important that it gains foundation status. Indeed, the Government agree. In the online document, ““Achieving balance in the NHS””, they say that they are"““committed to offering all NHS Trusts the opportunity to apply to attain Foundation Trust status by 2008.””" That is clearly what they want hospital trusts to do, but on the road to that end, someone, somewhere is blocking the application. Royal Surrey County is one of the best-performing trusts in the country. It is financially secure and achieving financial balance, it has some of the best mortality rates in the country, and accident and emergency waiting times are among the best in the country, yet the primary care trust or the strategic health authority—it is not entirely clear which—is trying to block the application. It is vital that Royal Surrey County gets foundation status. That would also be an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate just how much a hospital trust can achieve. I have asked the Minister concerned to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), and I look forward to a positive outcome from that request. The last subject that I should like to mention is local government settlements, which have been grim in Guildford and Waverley, as throughout Surrey, with a 1 per cent. increase in local government funding, 0.3 per cent. going to Surrey county council, and an equally bad settlement for the police under a very unsympathetic funding formula. Surrey is the single biggest financial contributor to the Government's coffers and I am afraid that I, like many residents, am getting sick and tired of our being used as a cash cow. Local residents expect their local councils to provide good services, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so when the Government are starving them of much-needed cash. People in Guildford, in Waverley and across Surrey feel that they are being punished by central Government. That is not the only cut. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is not in her place at the moment, my local theatre, the Yvonne Arnaud in Guildford, has just discovered that it is to lose its Arts Council funding. It is early days, but there is no doubt that the theatre is under significant threat. Middle England pays and middle England gets punished. I am sorry to sound angry because I enjoy the company of the Minister. We have a little bit of a laugh in the corridors. I am sorry to spoil the rather light mood of the House today, but south-east Surrey in particular and my constituency are a significant contributor to this Government: we are net contributors, I believe, to the tune of £5.5 billion. It is easy for the Government to dismiss us as not of any political significance, but they would be unwise to dismiss us as not of any financial significance. When my hon. Friends raise issues that are important to our constituents, the Government all too readily dismiss our concerns and talk about how wonderful everything is under their administration. We have been rather flattered by the cries recently of, ““What would you do?”” I think that the Government should start to listen to the voice of ordinary people who are raising the money that the Government are spending. They should rise to the real challenges of Government and trust local people. Stop the Stalinist top-down dictatorial approach that is making my residents so angry. The Government may have found the past four months slightly sticky, but I assure them that things can get a lot worse.