Published at 11:10, Thursday, 19 July 2012

SIR – Once again our Prime Minister David Cameron has instigated yet another attack upon working class people by threatening to withdraw housing benefits for the under-25s.

He accuses housing benefit claimants of laziness and living the life of luxury at the expense of people who work. He says he is on the side of “hard-working people” and talks up the ideology “making work pay”. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Housing benefit claimants do not – and never have – lived a life of luxury. How the hell can he say he is with “hard-working people” when he does nothing to prevent employers from sacking people?

How the hell does he promote the ideology of “making work pay” when his government instigates a “workfare” policy where unemployed people are forced to work without pay?

Unemployed people are told to go and look for work, but the problem is there aren’t any jobs.

This attack will be an open door to unscrupulous landlords who will exploit the present housing crisis.

Then there is the rhetoric of the capitalist perpetrated financial crisis that our society is in, yet the government does absolutely nothing to stop the millionaires from avoiding tax and does nothing to prevent the NHS from being put out to private tender.

More grotesquely is the Queen getting a 20 per cent pay rise, which will bring her salary to £36 million or what about Bob “The Banker” Diamond ripping Joe Public off?

Time to fight back! Time for a full-scale general strike!

Charlie DOWTHWAITE

Barrow-In-Furness

SIR – Reading the letter “Do we really need seven council leaders and 359 councillors?”, (The Whitehaven News, July 5) I don’t think we do.

I do not profess to be politically astute or wise on the Cumbrian councils’ set-up, and up to a point it confuses me. I know councillors are in place because that is where they wish to be and this with a proviso that they have the general support of their constituents, but when councillors do not have this support they are superfluous.

With this in mind, I considered how a reduction in Cumbria’s councils and councillors could be achieved in a constructive and painless way. I think we could well accept the good example set and quoted by the writer, that of Durham with its 126 county councillors.

Using a similar set of figures to the writer’s, may I offer a constructive suggestion for Cumbria? My breakdown, terminology and classification might differ to the writers but I think it is on a similar line, although I stand to be corrected.

All these groups form a blanket over the county. Group A – 268 parish/district councillors; Group B – 84 county councillors; and Group C – seven council leaders.

By far the largest section of government in Cumbria is the parish/district councillor group. It would appear they have room to adjust without too much tribulation. Could a reduction be achieved in this group by amalgamating groups of smaller parish councils? There appear to be far too many for their own good. Amalgamation for two or more small parishes would give them more strength in numbers and more resources to draw on. This could be done on a general consensus by the parish groups; a minute placed on their agenda could place this item open for discussion before the first due four-year voting period and clear the way for any necessary legislation to be put in place.

For this to happen there also has to be a shown wish by the general public for change. I don’t think this is an avenue that would be a personal aim for some politicians, but many councillors night recognise this as the way forward. It could produce a quality of leadership and control, from among the best, with a finite demand for the right person to fill governing positions.

In group B – the 84 county councillors – there is a question of duplication in organisation and control in what appears to be a top-heavy tier. I believe this large group does seem to be an unnecessary arm of local government.

Is a cull required? Could this group be repotted? County councillors might wish to enlighten me, I would appreciate it. On a cull, the county councillors’ expertise and knowledge would not necessarily be lost; the proficient among them would become a valuable part of a new more cost-effective and constrictive county councillors’ parish group set-up. There would be places available, but councillors would be in a smaller and more competitive workplace.

Is Group C – the seven council leaders – a bridge to nowhere, and could they also be culled to zero? Some could survive as county councillors representing a large parish or amalgamation of two or more small parishes, this in turn would give them strength in numbers and produce more resources to draw on. I would think this would reduce duplication in organisation and control and bring about more accountability.

On this I would listen to the astute in my journey into the council web. One senior county council leader could be in a better overall position to effectively assess the county’s general overall needs. This would be achieved with the assistance of a cabinet group and the new group of county councillors (in effect parish county councillors).

Finally, as to the comment from Pat Graham, Copeland Borough Council’s director of services, she was stating what should be a fact of the obvious, that the council is “actively considering” working with other Cumbrian authorities and conducting a “root and branch review” of all council services for customer needs at what the council can afford – it is not about self- preservation. Well spoken – we should expect no less from her forward-looking statement, with related action to follow.

Would my suggested overhaul require the dimensions of “The Ides of March” with our local Julius Caesar perishing for the common good? We do not need a dictatorial approach, a position I feel we are now in. We do need unity and democracy from within local government and the county ranks.

Steve HASSON

Church Street, Whitehaven

SIR – This should be a time for the UK to take pride in being the host country of the 2012 Olympics. It is a matter of shame, however, that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) has selected Dow Chemical to sponsor the plastic wrap adorning the stadium in East London.

Dow Chemical owns Union Carbide, which ran the chemical plant responsible for the Bhopal disaster of 1984, one of the worst industrial tragedies of our time, in which more than 20,000 people lost their lives. The victims and their families have still never been adequately compensated and the area remains contaminated.

It is high time Seb Coe and LOCOG apologised to Bhopal’s survivors and retracted statements defending Dow. Why should the UK public, who are so excited about the Games, have this toxic legacy on their conscience? The UK should be setting an example to ensure that potential sponsors of major sporting events in future come under much greater scrutiny over their track record on human rights and the environment.

Alan ALEXANDER

Amnesty International West Cumbria

SIR – We hear so much bad press about West Cumberland Hospital that I feel I must write to defend what I have always known as an excellent service.

My 11-year-old daughter was admitted to Fairfield Ward recently with an illness. During her five-day stay nothing was too much for any of the staff. Cleaners, student nurses, nurses, doctors and consultants all were completely dedicated to their role.

We were kept fully informed and involved in her care and there was absolute professionalism in all the staff.

I do think that those who complain expect hospital staff to be magicians. They have very limited funding and no crystal ball! They do an excellent job with what they have. Thank you and keep up the good work.

Helen WHELAN

Pica, Workington

SIR – I don’t know which disgusts me more – Bob Diamond and his multi-million-pound pay-off or the obscene amount that Neil Goodwin is being paid by the North Cumbria Health Trust (“£1,750 – daily cost of NHS trust chief”, The Whitehaven News, July 5).

Is it any wonder that the trust is in financial trouble?

Whichever governing body authorised this (and his predecessor Ms Heatly’s salary) should look long and hard at the moral justification for these obscene payments while services and staff are being cut.

There has been a catastrophic failure of Copeland Council, local MPs and the Quality Care Commission to monitor and hold accountable the North Cumbria Health Trust running of the West Cumberland Hospital.

It was a sorry day when we merged with Carlisle’s PFI hospital which was doomed to failure from the start (just like Blair’s and Brown’s other grand pie-in-the-sky schemes which finished in the recycle bin).

As interim executive Neil Goodwin earns £1,750 a day, or £129,000 for five months’ work – more than the Prime Minister. Are we the public getting value for money? I really don’t think so.

I think the people of Copeland and Allerdale deserve some answers from our MPs and councillors and at least there should be an inquiry. To me there is no difference between the Trust being in enormous debt but still paying top managers undeservedly high salaries and the bankers’ bonuses and the banking crisis.

Tommy DOUGAN

West Lane, Flimby

SIR – I was very interested in Alan Irving’s article (“Companies invited to apply for N-fund”) and as the holder of British patent GB2383286 “method and apparatus for splitting pipes” I decided to enquire further into the matter.

It appears that only registered companies only can apply for the grants – this, I suppose, is understandable as any sane individual given a decent sum would rapidly head for the sun rather than put up with the weather we have had recently.

That said, it does not help people like myself who have spent money on a patent, built a prototype machine and find it very difficult to move forward. So now I am inviting any local small or large engineering or decommissioning company to have a look at the patent, see a demonstration of the prototype and see if we can get some of this grant money and provide one or two more jobs for us in the west of Cumbria.

A. B. HICK

Ellathwaite, Kinniside

SIR – I write in response to an article published in The Whitehaven News (June 21) on the opinion poll conducted on behalf of the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (MRWS).

In that article, the personal views and claims made by Professor Stuart Haszeldine were inadvertently presented by the newspaper as those of the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences. The views are simply those of Professor Haszeldine, who does not speak on behalf of the School.

My view is that the current process is still at an early stage and is being developed with considerable rigour, care and sensitivity; taking into account and acting on advice and scrutiny not only from CoRWM but also regulators and independent assessors. Arrival at any decision to participate is in the hands of the West Cumbria communities and if such a decision is made, a geological disposal facility will only be sited in West Cumbria after its suitability has been assessed through further professional investigation.

Professor Simon HARLEY FRSE

School of GeoSciences

University of Edinburgh

SIR – Given WCMRWS gives no alternative to deep ground storage and all the risks it brings to the environment and control of the situation, I would suggest a look at the way we store now at ground level and take it a step forward.

A semi-buried building which is as near as possible bombproof with the soil placed on the sides of the building that is removed from underneath when construction takes place. I ask owners, managers and staff of Sellafield to come on board to deliver with their knowledge design and technology this or some other alternative.

If this design was adopted it would be given a licence for 10 years. If after inspection it failed, all material would be removed; but if it passed it would be renewed for 10 years. As a Cumbrian I would like to protect our county as best as we can and I don’t think the MRWS partnership is doing this.

I would suggest old decommissioned sites would be used for such a development, which do not need granite rock support. If, say, four sites were found, the present proposed repository would be divided by four, plus space for backup if other sites failed. As far as possible it provides a 25 per cent less impact in emergency mode plus back up storage at the other three sites.

I hope some funding would be found for the detrunked A595/A5902 south of Calderbridge if storage is permitted.

S LINFOOT

Egremont Road, Hensingham

SIR – In response to the comment by the new chair of the MRWS, Coun Elaine Woodburn, that “Colin Wales may feel that only an ‘enlightened majority’ should be allowed to make decisions on issues like this. However, in a democracy we do not tell people they cannot have a view on matters of policy because they are not experts”, it would appear that Coun Woodburn is once again being selective in the way she chooses to respond.

For the avoidance of doubt I also said... “AND the majority no vote by CALC both provide a more educated and lucid democratic indicator?” This is the 75 per cent NO vote to continuing with the MRWS process in Allerdale and Copeland. Of course it is the case that we do not tell people they cannot vote just because they are not experts – that is the whole basis of public trust in our politicians. We rely on our elected politicians to reflect our views and to make the right choices which reflect our views. It is the cornerstone of our democratic system.

The importance of the 75 per cent No to the continuance of the MRWS process by parish councils to which Coun Woodburn chooses not to respond cannot and must not be ignored. The Parish Charter signed up to by all tiers of local government for Allerdale states that: “Cumbria County Council and Allerdale Borough Council recognise that local councils are a vital part of democratic local government, representing communities at the most local ‘grass roots’ level”; It is also repeated on the Copeland Council website but only in draft format waiting to be adopted formally. Will Coun Woodburn sign up to it as her counterparts in Allerdale have?

So why does Coun Woodburn choose to ignore the views expressed by the 75 per cent NO majority of parishes in Copeland and Allerdale as to the lack of trust in the MRWS process? Perhaps it might be because, as she comments in her letter, “...the statistically representative opinion poll shows that support for taking part in the search for a repository site is actually higher the more that people know about the process”. Statistically unrepresentative I may be, as it would appear the parishes most definitely are, but I think it a sad day for our valued democratic system when my views are expressed by a “telephone opinion poll” rather than the ballot box!

Colin WALES

Sedbergh

SIR – My own apologies to Dr Wilson (letters, July 12), and to all of your other readers who may have been confused and misled by my own confusion as to just what form the fission-product waste will be in when it is transferred to the proposed underground storage unit.

That, however, leaves all of the other issues unanswered.

Then there is the minor matter of just how such a unit will continue to be operated when filled with ground-water – as, from Dr Wilson’s earlier letter, is expected.

With all of the electrical power supplies ‘shorted’; all of the machinery brought to an abrupt and permanent standstill; and all of the lights gone out...

It is to be hoped that the Sellafield management and CORWM have already drawn up a Plan B.

J TAYLOR

Frizington

SIR – St John’s, St Joseph’s and St Paul’s Churches in Frizington would like to thank all those who generously supported the coffee morning on Saturday.

The proceeds raised £332 will be split equally and sent to CAFOD (Catholic Overseas Development Agency) and Christian Aid.

G EVERETT

Frizington

Published by http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk