Shailesh Vara MP visited the Hampton Pharmacy in Peterborough last Friday, 23rd October 2015.

 

The Pharmacy offers a bespoke weight loss programme to local residents known as Waistaway. The Waistaway programme is run by Mr Gareth Evans who has been doing so since 2004.

 

Waistaway makes use of a number of different weight loss techniques and those utilised depend on the circumstances of the individual along with their weight loss goal. Factors such as dieting history, current health and reliance on medicines are all taken into account. The techniques used include: weight check and advice, food diary assessment, portion control, partial food replacement and total food replacement. Weight management is also offered on a continual basis to keep patients focussed.

 

Mr Vara said: - 

“I was very pleased to visit the Hampton Pharmacy and learn more about the very important work being carried out by Gareth Evans and his team with Waistaway. 

 

This patient-funded scheme has seen some incredible results and the benefits it brings to both the local community and the wider NHS should not be underestimated. Obesity is one of the biggest global health challenges of the 21st century and it is heartening to see how big an impact this tailored weight loss programme is making.”

 

Mr Evans added: -

“The Hampton Pharmacy team were delighted to welcome Mr Vara on Friday 23rd October. We were keen to demonstrate the value of pharmacy and the work we are doing for the local community, especially in the weight loss and weight management field. Gaining greater awareness, locally for us at Hampton Pharmacy, and nationally for the Pharmacy profession, is essential for the health of individuals and the NHS as a whole."

 

Photo: Mr Vara is pictured with Mr Gareth Evans and Mr Peter Thorley of Waistaway UK at the Hampton Pharmacy.

 

Shailesh Vara MP attended the public launch of the Upwood & the Raveleys Community Led Plan on Saturday, 24th October 2015 at Upwood Village Hall.

 

The Community Led Planning Team, a part of Upwood Parish Council, is managed by Fiona Hopkins. The Team has consulted with the local community over the last two years to seek their priorities and consider how best to improve the local area.

 

The conclusions of this work have been published in a Report and include aspects considering: transport, roads and footpaths, housing and planning, community and young people.

 

At the launch Mr Vara met with a number of people including Cllr Robin Howe, Chairman of the Parish Council and Mrs Fiona Hopkins, and discussed the priorities for Upwood and the Raveleys.

 

Mr Vara said: - 

“This is an important report and I commend Fiona Hopkins and her team for all their work in producing such a comprehensive plan. We had a very productive discussion and I look forward to working with the community to progress the proposals.”

Robin Howe, District Councillor and Chairman of Upwood & the Raveleys Parish Council said: -

 

“The Upwood and the Raveleys Community Led Plan has been almost two years in preparation and has now been completed, thanks to the hard work and dedication of Fiona Hopkins and her team of volunteers from the Parish.

 

The Plan was developed with the help of a detailed questionnaire sent to all homes in the parish which aimed to identify areas of improvement to all aspects of community life, ranging from environment and conservation to housing and planning and from public transport to crime and safety. The resultant report will be delivered to every home next week.

 

Community Planning is a great way of involving all residents in defining the place they want to live in in the future and forms a first step toward taking more local control of the environment and community which represents Upwood and the Raveleys.” 

 

Photo: Mr Vara is pictured with Cllr Robin Howe, District Councillor and Chairman of Upwood & the Raveleys Parish Council and Mrs Fiona Hopkins, Community Led Plan Coordinator at the launch event in Upwood on Saturday, 24th October 2015.

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing a very important debate about a very important subject, and also on managing to secure so many speakers on what is—save for the half-hour Adjournment debate that will follow—the last debate before the conference recess.

 

I am not sure whether congratulations are in order in the case of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has just said that he still does not know whether he will continue in his job as a shadow Justice Minister. I wish him well in the decision-making process that will take place at another level, but I hope that he will know once the conference recess is over, and, for his sake, I hope that it is sooner rather than later.

 

A number of serious points have been raised by Members on both sides, and they have been put forward in an articulate and passionate manner. I pay tribute to all those Members for the way in which they spoke up for their constituents, and I hope to be able to address many of their points. There were several recurring themes, and I shall address each subject, but I shall make reference to individuals when appropriate as well.

 

There is one point I want to take up at the outset. Several Members talked about errors in the consultation document, and for that I make an apology. To the extent that there are errors, I apologise. I want to make it clear that this is a three-month consultation, and some colleagues have already written to me. Others should please do so, and I will seek to put the record straight wherever possible. This is not an excuse—it is inexcusable to have errors when we are making such important decisions—but there have been 91 separate proposals for the 91 courts, and in an age in which we still operate with human beings, I hope that some allowance can be made for human error.

 

The court reform programme has the full support of the judiciary. It is a programme that seeks to bring the courts and the tribunal service in Britain into the 21st century. We want to create a court system that better serves the public and other users, as well as making better use of the taxpayer’s money, which helps to pay for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Hartlepool spoke knowledgably in the debate. My hon. Friend made a balanced speech, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. He spoke about Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals. Sir Brian makes a compelling case, and I agree entirely with his proposals. We wish to see them put in place as soon as possible.

 

For the record, I am proud to say that the hon. Member for Hartlepool is a friend. He made that point, and I am proud to make it as well. I hope that my saying that will serve to show that while the public might see our disagreements in the Chamber or on their television screens, there is no reason why there cannot be good friendships across the political divide.

 

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke about the justice areas. I must point out to her that the Ministry of Justice does not get involved in that issue. It is a matter for magistrates, and the consultation to which she referred is really a matter for them and not for me.

 

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised a number of points, and I take on board what he said. I will look into the fact that he has not received a reply to his letter. I am concerned about that, and I will ensure that he now gets a prompt reply.

 

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), whom I saw yesterday, talked about local issues and local justice, and I will say more about that later.

 

The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) and I have corresponded, and she has indicated that our correspondence will continue.

 

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) made a short contribution, in which he sought an assurance that this will be a genuine consultation. I can give him that assurance.

 

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) also spoke in the debate, and it was good to hear again what he had told me less than 24 hours ago, in a meeting room over coffee.

 

I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that I am open to other options, and I shall say more about that later.

 

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also mentioned local justice, a matter to which I shall return.

 

One of the strongest recurring themes in the debate was access to justice. Of course there will always be cases that need to go to court, and the court buildings will be there for the cases that need to be heard there. In the 21st century, however, we need to look again at the way everything operates, and that of course means looking at the digital and technological age. It is out there, whether we are shopping, doing our banking, renewing our passport or our driving licence, or doing a whole lot of other activities, and there is no reason why the realm of justice should not consider technology as well. That, to be fair, has been acknowledged by Members across the political divide.

 

We must also recognise that one third of the court estate is used for less than 50% of the time available. We have to consider ways of making better use of the courts so that taxpayers’ money goes that much further.

 

Crucially, we also need to consider what access to justice means in the 21st century. For many, it means proximity. They believe—in the way people have believed for decades and, indeed, centuries—that there should be a court nearby to which people can go and show their physical presence in a building that we call a court, but the reality is that we have already started a judicial process whereby people deal with cases without going to court.

 

A substantial number of magistrates court cases are already being dealt with by post, particularly low level traffic offences, speeding, avoiding payment of the TV licence and the like. We propose that they move online, to be dealt with even more efficiently. We have successfully trialled the process, and soon people will not only plead guilty or otherwise online but will be able to pay their fines online from the comfort of their sitting rooms on a Saturday evening. They will be able pick up their phone and plead guilty and pay their fine. They cannot do that now. Access to justice can be from our sitting rooms.

 

The technology can be used in other ways, too, such as video-conferencing. Colleagues have talked about people travelling to courts. We do not envisage people travelling to courts as often as they do now. With the introduction of video-conferencing, victims, witnesses and others will be able to give evidence from places near to where they live, rather than having to travel to courts. In Wales, for example, a videoconferencing facility in a community centre is available for people to use if they do not wish to go further away to a court.

 

Going to court is a stressful experience for anyone, particularly victims and witnesses, and especially if they are vulnerable. Rather than go into an austere-looking building with sombre-looking people in a court room, it would be much better for those people to go to a more comfortable room close by that has been adapted for video-conferencing facilities.

 

Medway magistrates court has been connected to every police station in the county that has a custody suite. If somebody is arrested and kept overnight in a police cell, the police and the defendant do not have to go to court the following day and the video-conferencing facilities do the work that would otherwise have required people to be physically being present in court. We intend to extend the practice in Kent.

 

Many prisons already have video-conferencing facilities. All here will agree that it is eminently sensible that we do not have the scenario, which we had everywhere until very recently and we still have daily in many prisons, where prisoners are transported from the prisons to the courts, with all the security, travel, costs and so on involved. We are going to have a system that can dispense with the costs, the travel, the hassle and the inconvenience —it will be a lot cheaper.

 

We already have, albeit not to the extent we would like, a system whereby lawyers do not go to court and hang around for a considerable time before appearing for 10 or 15 minutes before a judge. Both sets of lawyers and a judge can agree a time and have a conference call. The lawyers stay in their offices or their chambers, and the judge stays in his or her office in the courtroom, and in 10 or 15 minutes they resolve the issue, which otherwise would have meant lawyers going to court, with all the time, stress, inconvenience and cost involved. All of that is now dispensed with. Clearly, there will be a reduction in travel times. This system will be speedier and more efficient, and it will certainly be of great assistance to those of a vulnerable disposition.

 

We have to recognise that the public expectation has changed—I referred to that earlier—particularly among the young. They expect that they should be able to do things online, and that is increasing. We have a duty to recognise how the world is changing and how the new generation is operating. It would be wrong for us in Parliament not to recognise that the systems for which we are responsible should adapt to the way the world is operating.

 

We must also recognise that the state of some court buildings is not fit for the 21st century. Some are simply not fit for purpose, some are listed and some are not compliant with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, particularly regarding facilities for disabled people. We have courts that do not have proper facilities for prisoners to arrive and be taken in a secure fashion to a cell or a room. We have courts that do not have proper facilities to keep victims and witnesses separate. The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked what criteria we had used. We may not have used the criteria for some of the questions that he raised, but I hope that by illustrating the inadequacies of some of our courts we will have gone some way towards showing some of the practical considerations we have taken into account, as well as utilisation, of course. I spoke yesterday to a Member who contributed to this debate, along with a magistrate from his constituency. The magistrate, who was lobbying to keep his court, actually referred to some buildings as “Dickensian”.

 

Let me be very clear: although the current court building is up for consideration for closure, I am very much open to suggestions about other buildings, such as town halls or civic buildings. For example, where a court is utilised at the moment for one, two or three days a week, there is no reason why there cannot be court proceedings in a town hall or civic building for two days a week. Council leaders have approached me saying that they would be open to their council chamber being used as a court. Sadly, in the case of the one particularly strong representation that was made to me there are no nearby courts proposed for closure, but this person asked me to bear him in mind in case circumstances change.

 

I want to make it clear that, right now, we are paying for buildings seven days a week, 24 hours a day, when they are actually being utilised for a fraction of that time. The modern world says that we should move on and rent premises elsewhere.

 

Ann Coffey: The Minister is very eloquent about his vision for the justice system of the future. I absolutely agree with every single word he says about 21st century justice and looking at alternatives, but the problem is that I cannot relate that to the consultation document before me. I cannot see how his vision is met within the proposals for the closure of courts in Greater Manchester.

 

What we are seeing is something that is too embedded in court closures, rather than that vision across the county.

 

Mr Vara: We have set out our arguments in the consultation document to the extent that there are other submissions that can be made. I have made it clear, and I will make it clear again, that Members can write to me. This was not a rushed consultation over a four-week period or anything like that. This was a 12-week consultation. Many Members have written to me, seeking clarifications. I have responded as promptly and as efficiently as I can. The consultation started on 16 July, so I made it absolutely clear to my office that any Member who wanted to see me in the two weeks before the conference recess should be able to do so, and I am happy to say that I have managed to achieve that. Incidentally, the hon. Lady mentioned that she had asked three questions. They have been replied to and published. One of them requires quite a bit of time to get the information, but I have undertaken to write to her. My replies might be in her office, or she might not have got round to seeing them.

 

There is a vision, but I invite colleagues to write in with other suggestions. I am mindful of the fact that I must give a couple of minutes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who proposed the motion, but in the minute I have left I will talk about technology.

 

We have already started to spend a budget of some £130 million to ensure that we have a first-rate digitalised system. Furthermore, we have a world class legal system. These reforms will ensure that we maintain it. I have seen many Members, and I look forward to seeing any more who still wish to see me. Some might even want to see me for a second time, and I am happy to do that. I am certainly open to more correspondence.

 

4.57 pm

 

| Hansard

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): As always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I thank my three hon. Friends for their contributions today. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate, but I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for her contribution and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for his intervention.

 

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. There is no doubt that all three Members have been diligent and conscientious in how they have spoken up for their constituents. They have corresponded with me and met me. Indeed, they have enforced the point by having this debate. I have to say that I have learned a lesson. I tried to jest a little in oral questions when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that the figures he cited reflected the low levels of crime in Suffolk. I had the last word in the Chamber, but that has rebounded, because he has been able to come back to me this morning. Nevertheless, he has eloquently put forward the arguments for his constituents, as have the other Members.

 

I again emphasise that the consultation on the reform of the court system in England and Wales is genuine. Indeed, the consultation asks people to make submissions if they can suggest alternative places where the court can sit. There is this notion of the majesty of the court building as we have all known it for centuries and decades, but the 21st century has brought about enormous changes, and with those changes we must recognise that the traditional court building can also change. That is why I have specifically asked for contributions from members of the public and the legal profession if they can suggest alternative venues, such as town halls or other civic buildings, where we might not need to sit for five days a week, but where we could sit simply for a day or two.

 

James Cartlidge: I accept the Minister’s point; we all support the overall principle of trying to achieve efficiency savings in public services and so on, but does he appreciate that if there is no alternative, it is about having a minimum level of access to justice and the concern that we might be going beyond that? If that is the case, we should accept that we may simply have to preserve the current building, for example in Lowestoft.

 

Mr Vara: I hear loud and clear what my hon. Friend says, but I will come on to what access really means in the 21st century shortly, if he bears with me. I make clear that any proposals from the consultation will be seriously considered by me and my officials. I take on board the figures that have been mentioned for the number of courts in Suffolk and the surrounding areas and the concerns expressed on the physical building being in Suffolk.

 

I also take on board what my hon. Friends say on travel times, but I turn to what precisely “access to justice” means. Access to justice in 21st-century Britain is different from what it has meant in centuries and decades before. Before, it meant proximity—the ability to go physically to a court, with all the majesty that goes with it—but the world has changed. People now work online. They do things from the comfort of their sitting room. People can now sit on a Saturday evening in the comfort of their armchair and, by use of their mobile phone, go online and plead guilty to low-level offences in a magistrates court, such as low-level traffic offences or the avoidance of payment of a TV licence. Likewise, people will be able, by use of their mobile phones, to pay any fines that may be imposed.

 

In like manner, access to justice can mean that victims and witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable, do not have to go to a court and experience all the stress that goes with that. They can go to a room in their locality and, through video conferencing, access a court located elsewhere. Solicitors and barristers no longer have to go to court and hang around for two or three hours to have a five or 10-minute hearing before a judge. They can arrange a telephone conference. Lawyers on both sides of the case can sit in the comfort of their offices and a judge can sit in the comfort of his chambers, and at a given time the three of them can teleconference. That is happening. That is access to justice without moving, from people’s homes and offices.

 

James Cartlidge: Will the Minister give way?

 

Mr Vara: I am mindful of time. If my hon. Friend will bear with me—

 

James Cartlidge: What if people have no broadband?

 

Mr Vara: I am coming to modern technology. I appreciate the difficulties of broadband. I appreciate the IT teething problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned. The Ministry of Justice is spending £130 million to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service will have an efficient communications system, fit for the 21st century. Of course there will be problems. Nothing will ever be perfect, but that is not to say that when we encounter a problem, we step back. Judiciaries and legal systems across the rest of the world are moving on. If Britain is to stay as a global legal player, we must move and recognise the way that access to justice, technology and the legal process now operate. We are working on the IT problems.

 

My hon. Friend spoke of his concern that the trials were being carried out only in metropolitan areas and said that that reflected badly on the service that people get in rural areas. Let me be absolutely clear: the service that people receive throughout England and Wales will be uniform. The pilots are carried out in metropolitan areas to ensure that the technology is tested against a whole range of cases, and that is more available in metropolitan areas than in rural areas, where volumes tend to be lower.

 

In the limited time remaining, which is about 90 seconds, I hope I can sum up by saying that the consultation is genuine. I welcome alternative proposals, whether they are on the siting of courts, the use of video conferencing or other measures that we may not even have thought of. I reassure my hon. Friend that this is a genuine consultation. I have taken on board all that he and my other hon. Friends have said, and I again commend him for having taken the trouble to secure this debate. I hope that I have given him some comfort that I will reflect carefully on all that he and my hon. Friends have to say.

 

| Hansard

 

| Consultation

 

4. Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP): What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that people accessing new pensions freedoms receive appropriate advice. [901149]

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): Ministers in this Department have met and continue to meet the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers to discuss this and other matters. My Department works closely with the Treasury, as well as with the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that the requirement for individuals to take independent financial advice works as intended.

 

Ian Blackford: Has the Minister read the report from the Strategic Society Centre which points out a link between guaranteed retirement income and wellbeing? I am deeply concerned that we are not offering adequate protection to pensioners, given the choices that they face, and I ask the Government to look again at the question of promoting guaranteed income in retirement and to accept their responsibility to protect pensioners.

 

Mr Vara: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are not taking our responsibility seriously. He will be aware that Pension Wise offers free impartial guidance that can be given by telephone, online or in face-to-face meetings, and that the Money Advice Service provides a free directory with more than 2,250 firms registered on it. That equates to more than 6,000 individuals who can give advice. In Scotland, there are 162 firms that can give such advice to people, so there are plenty of people out there, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of individual cases, I would be happy to hear from him.

 

Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): Is the Minister aware that certain savers who have old, with-profits policies are being forced to pay for financial advice and to get a sign-off, sometimes on an insistent client basis? It can often cost them a lot of money to access their money under the new freedoms. Would the Minister be prepared to look at this matter again, in order to strike the right balance between providing the right advice and not pricing people out of the market?

 

Mr Vara: My Department is keen to ensure that the consumer does not miss out, and we are working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that the rules and regulations are fit and proper. If my hon. Friend would like to bring any particular cases to my attention, I would be happy to look at them.

 

Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): Will the Minister tell us when the Government are going to publish the information on the take-up of the Pension Wise service, and what action they are taking to combat the scammers, who have scammed £4.7 million out of people in the first month of the new scheme?

 

Mr Vara: If the hon. Lady has any specific information on that, I would be happy to receive it from her. We will be publishing the figures on the take-up of the Pension Wise service in due course, but I do not have them at the moment. It is a relatively new operation, and we need to give it some time. In relation to dealing with scams, we are working with the Financial Conduct Authority and we are seeking to stem these scams and any others that there might be.

 

| Hansard

 

 

 

7. Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): What steps he is taking to increase public awareness and understanding of the new state pension. [901153]

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): We have begun a new media campaign for the new state pension. It will use the full range of communication tools, including press, radio and digital means. Material has been updated to be clearer, to engage people and to help them better understand what the changes mean for them.

 

Graham Evans: The basic state pension would have been £560 a year higher by the end of the last Parliament if it had been uprated by earnings alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that maintaining the triple lock gives pensioners the greater certainty about their security that they definitely deserve?

 

Mr Vara: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point in this House. It is important to remember, notwithstanding the tough economic climate, that we on the Conservative Benches have looked after the pensioners. We have given them security and the protection that they need, and I can assure the House that they will continue to have that protection with the triple lock.

 

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Does the Minister understand that a great number of women who were born in the 1950s feel that the Government did not adequately inform them not only about the changes to the state pension age affecting their retirement, but about the speeding up of that process? Will he look again at that basic unfairness for a group of women who have paid in but who are getting nothing out?

 

Mr Vara: May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the original increase in ages was started under a Labour Government? We have relaunched the campaign to ensure that the target group of people—those who are within 10 years of retirement from April 2016—take an active role in trying to find out how they will benefit under the new state pension.

 

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that the Association of British Insurers published figures this summer about the new pension freedoms which show that people with big pots are buying income drawdown and that people with small pots are cashing out. He knows that women live longer than men and that they have smaller pots than men, so what is he doing to ensure that women’s income in retirement is properly protected?

 

Mr Vara: Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not dictate what anybody should do with their pension pots. What we have put in place is the means by which people—both men and women—can seek advice. As I mentioned earlier, there is the Money Advice Service, which has on its books more than 2,250 firms across the country that can give advice. It is for people to take that advice and then to decide. We will not dictate how people should deal with their money.

 

| Hansard

 

 

 

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government agreed to lift the Pension Protection Fund cap imposed on long-serving employees’ pensions when a pension fund collapses. Will he tell the House when he will bring forward the appropriate legislation to make that happen?

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will appreciate that I am not prepared to make an announcement about that at the moment. When I do make an announcement, he will be the first to know.

 

| Hansard

Shailesh Vara MP has written to Mike Petrouis, Managing Director of Planet Ice in Peterborough, asking him to review the planned increase in fees for Figure Skating coaches.

 

Planet Ice has recently changed the conditions under which the facilities can be used by figure skating coaches, substantially increasing their weekly rent to £300. As a result a number of coaches will find it not viable to continue to work at Planet Ice. A parking charge has also been introduced at times that will only affect figure skaters.

 

Planet Ice is used by skaters of all abilities and ages and also by those with medical conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome or Crohn’s disease for whom the sport is of immense benefit. Mr Vara feels that the plans could have serious implications for both figure skaters and their coaches.

 

Mr Vara has also written to Jennie Price, Chief Executive of Sport England, concerning the fee increase and asked her if there is any way in which Sport England can help local skaters.

 

Mr Vara said:

 

“I am very concerned about the changes made by Planet Ice. The increased fees will have a negative effect on Figure Skating in the area as we have a number of Figure Skaters set to compete at the British Championships later this year. This change in the rent will severely limit the chances of those hoping to compete at the event.

 

Access to sporting facilities, particularly for the young, so that people can pursue their interests and maintain healthy lifestyles is important. In the case of Figure Skating this is also something of immense benefit to those with medical conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome or Crohn’s disease. This move by Planet Ice may well lead to a reduction in the number of people taking part in the sport and I very much hope that there will be a review of the rent increase.”

 

Shailesh Vara MP has written to Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council, asking him to review plans to switch off street lamps in Bury at night.

 

Bury has been chosen as one of sixteen parishes in Cambridgeshire which will be controlled by a Central Management System. This will mean that the street lights can be controlled remotely, via mobile internet signal, and would be switched off completely for a certain period each night.

 

Mr Vara along with local councillor, Cllr Peter Bucknell, and Mr John Prestage, Chairman of Bury Parish Council, are concerned about the plans and feel that there could be serious implications for both pedestrians and motorists.

 

Mr Vara said:

 

“I am very concerned about the council’s plans to move Bury to a part-time lighting system which works remotely and I am working with local councillors and the Parish Council to oppose this change. Bury has a busy, winding and narrow road running through it and switching off street lights at night could pose a serious risk to pedestrians and motorists alike.

 

I have written to Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County, asking him to review the decision and I very much hope that common sense will prevail.”

 

Cllr Peter Bucknell commented:

 

“I was totally shocked to read the proposals to switch-off the majority of the street lights in the village of Bury and have requested justification from the County Council.  Why do seventeen parishes have Central Management Systems whilst, thankfully, the other sixty seven Huntingdonshire parishes do not?”

 

Mr John Prestage, Chairman of Bury Parish Council added:

 

“I am alarmed that whilst we are offered consultation, the only option is how many lights the village wishes to fund. There is to be no discussion on the designation of major traffic routes through our village – yet again the local voice is ignored as irrelevant.”