Monday's Letters: We can't afford to ignore need for flood action

Meetings with the Environment Agency have revealed that they are modelling flood prevention measures in the Goole and Selby areas to check that they are effective, this despite already having spent many millions of pounds on flood prevention work in that area.

Many more tens of millions have already been spent on flood defences in the Humber Estuary, and hundreds of millions more are promised, yet none of this gives an assurance of flood protection.

It is now proposed to spend 200m on new port facilities on the south bank of the Humber – surely the time has come for a unified approach to the management of the Humber Estuary, the first part being a feasibility study of the building of a barrier across the Humber at or near its mouth. Such a barrier could incorporate, and give the following benefits:

Each end of the barrier would incorporate a port capable of taking the largest vessels. Barges would take their cargoes around the estuary. Sea locks would allow coastal vessels through into the "Humber Lake".

A hydro-electric scheme could be included. The off-peak supply could be used to make cement, which coupled with rock from the north, could be used for sea defence work along the length of the east coast.

The winter water level could be controlled to ensure that all rivers and drains out-falling in the Humber had a permanent unobstructed outfall, thus doing away with the need for pump or tidal

flood banks.

The summer water level would be at a higher level, to be a source of irrigation for large areas of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Forecasts of long, dry summers makes this new asset probably worthy of a scheme on its own.

The potential recreational use is immense. The huge expanse of water within proximity to a large part of the population, would give opportunity for the creation of marinas and associated water sport activities.

The collective benefits of the above must at the very least justify a feasibility report.

The question is not can we afford to do the work, but especially in view of the flood risk, can we afford not to do it?

From: John Goodman, King Tree Avenue, Cottingham, East Yorkshire.

Why we need to cut public spending

From: TW Jefferson, Station Road, Hensall, Goole.

DAWN Richards's alternative to the coalition's spending review (Yorkshire Post, October 21) is well supported in terms of statistics, but her conclusions cannot go unchallenged.

It is not safe to argue that because our level of debt is lower than other countries we do not need to reduce it. With the exception of Germany, all the countries Ms Richards mentions have serious problems they are trying to address.

It is not safe to argue that because our public sector debt is lower as a percentage of GDP than it was for most of last century, that it is not a problem.

It is not so much where we are now that counts as our direction of travel. The fact is that even after the coalition's cuts, our national debt will go on rising at an alarming rate for the next few years. Our interest payments alone will soon be over 1bn per week.

It is not true that the annual deficit is caused just by tax shortfalls. Not even Labour advocate plugging the deficit by increasing taxes alone, so Ms Richards is in a very small minority if she believes government expenditure does not need cutting.

It was not just the banking sector that caused the crisis.

The Labour government must take the lion's share of the blame because they failed to ensure that regulation was effective and they recklessly allowed the economy to

expand on the back of unsustainable government expenditure.

Two thirds of the electorate voted for the coalition parties. It was only through compromise that a stable government was formed. No one gets exactly what they want, but a minority government at this time would have been disastrous.

Addicts make poor parents

From: Tony Sellars, Doncaster.

REGARDING the drug addict recently given cash for a vasectomy, I have spent years involved in a community project in an ex-mining village supporting addicts and their families and helping them kick the habit.

I applaud this initiative by the American charity.

Anyone who has seen the result of pregnancies by drug-addicted parents would want to do something about this. While some addicts may make good parents, they are the exception rather than the rule.

Most of them end up by not contributing to our society but follow their parents into a lifelong cycle of deprivation and no amount of government intervention can help most of these families in the long term.

At the present time, any treatment for this addiction usually entails a substitute for the drug, such as methadone or other stuff (paid for by you, the taxpayer).

Most addicts would agree that their priority is not bringing up children or indeed contributing to society in anyway, once you are addicted your only goal in life from waking up is to achieve a drug comatose state.

The majority of men when faced with unwanted children soon flee the scene leaving the woman to look after herself and the child.

A simple solution would be to introduce a contraceptive in this heroin substitute while they are still addicted to the drug. This contraceptive would be in all methadone and not just for the women.

Our society can no longer ignore this problem. We need to act now.

Charity begins at home

From: Janet Berry, Hambleton, Selby.

IT seems absurd that foreign aid is to be increased when family allowance is to be denied to many parents over here. When is the Government going to realise that we are no longer an important colonial power and can no longer afford to be bountiful?

We have travelled intensively and have seen many cases of abuse of money and goods which often do not reach the people in need and in shocked disbelief seen the prestigious offices and cars of government and organisations that are supposed to support these people. Look at Robert Mugabe and many other corrupt leaders.

When, oh when will they learn that charity begins at home? We would be far better off for a start if we left the European Union which continues to make our elected members rich and us the poorer.

Why don't companies care about customer service?

From: JL Brookes, Dene Close, Woburn Sands, Milton Keynes.

ONE morning last week, in an attempt to resolve problems with various organisations, I spent a long time trying to speak to a human being – building society 10 minutes; Royal Mail five minutes (this concerning a long period of abysmal late delivery of the Yorkshire Post).

Do any of these large organisations have any regard for customer service? My impression is that as long as you pay your dues to them they view you as a "customer unit" whose only function is not to trouble them but simply pay up and shut up.

Additionally, I have also received a letter from a mobile telephone company, replying to an inquiry I made concerning a letter I

received from them.

I quote: "Sadly, we have no record of sending a letter to you."

Strange, I have the non-letter in front of me...

Is it me? Am I no longer in touch with the real world? Are "modern" people no longer concerned with such sloppy "service?"

Is it strange that I object after jumping through their hoops (press one for this, press two for that), no doubt providing them with a little icing on their cake at 40p per minute and, of course, allowing them to employ perhaps one person to deal with customer complaints?

Unfortunately, the time is fast approaching when this "service" is no longer acceptable and, in self-interest, I shall have to make do with old-fashioned, genuine eye-to-eye service.

I hope there are more than a handful of your readers who agree with me that we need to let these organisations know that we are the customers, that we are the people who put the cake on their tables; that we are, in the end, just as important as they are.

Perhaps they need reminding that, without their customers, they are nothing.

An unwelcome wind of change

From: Charles Metcalf, Sherburn in Elmet.

SO, the Government which could not afford to lend money to Forgemasters to further our skills and manufacturing capabilities in new technology in this region somehow finds money to give to companies operating on both sides of the Humber for wind turbine production, an outdated and totally inefficient technology of a bygone age (Yorkshire Post, October 26).

It seems that I have put my voting cross in the wrong place.

From: David Quarrie, Lynden Way, Acomb, York.

THE saga of the Sheffield Forgemasters loan, offered by the last Labour

government, but now cancelled by the coalition, has one big area of puzzlement to me.

If the case for the loan is so good, why hasn't any bank offered to lend Forgemasters this money?

If their business plan is not sound, then why should the Government (in truth the UK taxpayer) risk our money?

Labour MEPs opposed rise

From: Linda McAvan, Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber

Like David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions and Lib Dem Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander, Tory MEP Timothy Kirkhope was completely wrong to say Labour MEPs voted for a rise in the EU budget (Yorkshire Post, October 28).

In fact, the opposite is true: Labour MEPs voted against the call for a 5.9 per cent budget increase.

We also proposed cuts of more than one billion euros to agricultural subsidies. The voting record is there for all to see.

Mr Kirkhope should check his facts before seeking to make political capital.

I trust he will now write to correct his unfortunate error now that he is aware of the truth.

Home thoughts from Bradford

From: Phil Hanson, Beechmount Close, Baildon, Shipley.

NICK Ahad's article is encouraging people to think positive about Bradford (Yorkshire Post, October 27).

Why don't these do gooders ask Bradfordians what they think of the city?