Outdoor Sport and Recreation

Debate between Andrew Bingham and Tracey Crouch

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing the debate.

I am the Member of Parliament for High Peak, which, as I often say, is the most beautiful constituency in the country—that will be disputed, but I have not had an intervention yet—and the outdoors is what we do. I am a little older than my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but I echo what she was saying. I grew up before computers and—

[Tracey Crouch]

TVs.

[Andrew Bingham]

Not quite before television. I might look that old, but I assure the Chamber that I am not. I was going to say that we were the “jumpers for goalposts” generation, when we were always outside, playing football in winter and cricket in the summer. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that I have indeed made a daisy chain as a small boy, but I will not embarrass the young lady I gave it to by naming her. We used to do so much outside, whether collecting frogspawn or climbing trees and things like that. Consequently, we were healthier for it. That is why the outdoors is so important.

High Peak is a beautiful area. In many respects, we can be the playground of the nation. I am lucky; I live in Chapel-en-le-Frith; I open my front door and I see hills and green fields. Custodians of such fields were mentioned earlier, and they are incredibly important. Fields and outdoor areas do not simply happen; we have to thank the custodians and the farmers for doing what they do. It is a huge playground that people can use and that is completely free. That is such a benefit.

Among the outdoors pursuits that take place in High Peak was the Tour de France, which touched my constituency recently, creating a huge increase in cycling, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). On the subject of my hon. Friend, he accompanied me down a pothole in my constituency recently. I proceeded to get stuck briefly, but having lost a bit of weight, I am sure that we could go down again and I will slither easily through that tight gap. Potholing and caving also bring huge numbers of people into High Peak. They come to High Peak; they spend their money; they benefit the economy; and more than that, they benefit themselves. Anyone who takes part in outdoor pursuits is the main beneficiary, because of the health that they bring.

Two weeks ago, I undertook to hike around the boundary of my constituency, which is approximately 65 miles, which I did over a few days. The highest point that we got to was about 1,700 feet above sea level; the highest point in my constituency is Kinder Scout at 2,088 feet, so we were not quite at that height. We crossed the Pennine way, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) walked last year or the year before. The scenery and the fresh air are so good for people, but they also bring them to my constituency. I go to areas such as Castleton and the Hope valley in the summer and everywhere there are people with maps around their necks, the big boots and what I call the speckly socks, all coming to the Peak district and High Peak to get exercise. That is the important thing.

We hear so much on the health agenda about obesity, particularly among young people. I understand the attractions of Facebook and various computer games, but we need to encourage people to get out and about. We live in a beautiful country, so let us use it and get the benefit. As I said, when doing so, we are also benefiting our local economies. We all talk about deprivation in the inner cities and so on, but I prefer to talk about rural deprivation. As a result of the remoteness, we have to suffer certain things, such as not getting the same number of buses and so on, but we have that fantastic facility on our doorsteps. We should use it to get people back to exercising. The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned exercise through prescription by doctors and, when I served on the local authority, we used to advocate that where we could. The Government should look at the health benefits.

As has already been said, the debate could have been held under the heading of health, education or the Treasury, but we are having it under sport. There are so many benefits. I am conscious that we are running out of time, so I will not go on too long, but the benefits are immeasurable and the people who benefit the most are those who take part. As Members of Parliament representing seats that all have the benefits of outdoor pursuits, we can encourage people to take part in them.

As I said, my walk last week took me four or five days and touched most parts of my constituency. The interesting thing was the difference in the scenery and the terrain, whether the steep hills coming up over the Snake pass and down into Glossop or the valley of the Goyt. Everywhere we looked was a photograph in the making. As others have said, the air was clear and the weather was reasonably good, which was quite helpful, because we can get a little rain in High Peak. The benefits were immeasurable, and we should try to share them with as many people as possible. The Government should do what they can to encourage people to use what I described before as the playground that we live in. It is there; it is healthy; it is beneficial; and it is free. No one can be excluded from using it; we need only encourage them to do so.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andrew Bingham and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I wish to speak only briefly. I am inclined to support Lords amendment 31 this evening, but I intend to listen to the debate carefully before the Division. In the meantime, I hope to make clear my views on this issue.

I ought to start by placing on record the fact that I used to work for one of the UK’s largest insurance companies. My views might therefore surprise many, particularly on the other side of the House. I have always felt that we as a nation have simply not done enough to support mesothelioma victims, but that includes all parties—Government, insurers and lawyers. I have views on mesothelioma—but not on other asbestos conditions—that are different, in part, to those of the insurance industry. With meso, people die quickly and painfully, and often with good cause for compensation, but without any early settlement in sight. A person can have mesothelioma only as a consequence of exposure to asbestos; therefore, it is impossible to bring a fraudulent claim. It is clear that all parties should be working together to ensure that, when a victim passes away, they are able to provide financial security for their family.

It is not my insurance background that drives my real interest in this issue; it is on a constituency basis that I care most. Medway has been highlighted as a hot spot for mesothelioma, which is unsurprising given that the towns have historically provided the industrial hub for Kent, and that the Chatham dockyard was one of the biggest employers for many decades. Shipbuilding and ship repairing have long been associated with asbestos-related conditions, and the predicted figures for future cases of mesothelioma in Chatham follow the pattern of other areas with a shipping past. However, we must not forget that other professions, not least teachers, are coming forward with the condition—including a constituent I met recently.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, has a higher than average incidence of mesothelioma. We have no shipbuilding, but there has been significant employment in other asbestos-related industries across High Peak. I praise her for pointing out that other professions are involved as well.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that this disease affects many people.

In recognition of the high number of cases of mesothelioma, and of the swift and horrible deterioration in the health of its victims, my local primary care trust continues to invest in providing specialist nursing for meso victims, including dedicated Macmillian nurses and support staff. That is hugely welcome for those who suffer directly, and for the families who support them through their dying months. I should like to thank them for their commitment and dedication in often very difficult circumstances.

I should like to see everything possible being done to support mesothelioma victims, especially in regard to providing financial peace of mind before they pass away. Anecdotal evidence shows that sufferers often pass away long before their claim has been settled, leaving their grieving families to settle the claim. Sometimes, the stress of doing so is too much and the claim is no longer pursued. Much has been done on the employers’ liability tracing office, but not much has been done on the insurer of last resort, the employers’ liability insurance bureau—ELIB. That is disappointing. Each party is blaming the other for the lack of progress, as is always the case. The people who lose out are the victims and their families. Although this involves a different Department, I hope that if the Government take away one message from my short contribution today it is that there should be no more delays. It is time to resolve the issue and set up ELIB now. Too much time has passed on consultation, and it is time for action.

If I have one concern about Lords amendment 31, it is its breadth. I want to see meso victims receive a fair package of compensation, and I am concerned that the Bill as drafted will cause a significant sum of their compensation package to be lost in success fees paid to lawyers. The amendment is not meso-specific and could be interpreted as relating to other respiratory diseases—hence my slight hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting it. However, meso claims account for over half of all asbestos-related claims, so, on balance, it is an important addition to the Bill.

I recognise that the proposed Jackson reforms include a 10% uplift in general damages. I note the Association of British Insurers is warning that mesothelioma sufferers might not benefit from those reforms if the amendment goes through. I do not believe that, and I want to issue the counter-warning that, on fatal industrial diseases such as mesothelioma, the Government will be judged on what they do to help victims, whether through financial or other types of support. The 10% uplift is necessary and right.

I know that others are keen to speak and, as promised, I shall listen to the rest of the debate with interest. I pray that I never contract a disease as nasty as mesothelioma, but I also pray that the Government do all that they can to support those who do, including by providing easy access to justice and ensuring that full and fair compensation is paid to the victims as quickly as possible.