Petitions
Wednesday 13 May 2009
OBSERVATIONS
Communities and Local Government
Council Housing (London Borough of Sutton)
The Petition of tenants of the London Borough of Sutton, and others,
Declares that, through the rents they pay, council tenants are net contributors to the Exchequer, paying more to the Treasury in negative subsidy than the Treasury pays out in subsidy with current estimates putting the profit from rents to the Government in 2008-09 at £185 million to £200 million; regrets the fact that the review of housing revenue account subsidy is not yet complete and believes that the current system is unfair and unsustainable; further declares that in the current climate and times of hardship for many, rent increases of over 6 per cent. driven by the Government’s rent restructuring policy is unjust; further declares that the £10 million taken from Sutton tenants for last year will be increased by three quarters of a million pounds this year which now represents 38 per cent. of rent income.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to reform the system to allow tenants to benefit directly from the rent they pay through investment in the condition of their homes and the quality of the services they receive and to reduce the amount of negative subsidy or at least freeze it until the review is finalised.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Paul Burstow , Official Report, 25 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 420 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government acknowledges and fully understands the concerns of tenants regarding the present system of council housing finance, which results in the redistribution of subsidy between areas based on need.
The Minister for Housing and Planning has responded to recent extraordinary conditions regarding the sharp fall in inflation and announced on 6 March 2009 proposals to halve the average guideline rent increase for 2009-10. The proposal should significantly reduce the overall Housing Revenue Account negative subsidy position for England. Communities and Local Government has already committed to looking again at the guideline increase for 2010-11. With regard to overall spending on housing, HM Treasury’s planned investment in 2009-10 is approximately £6.9 billion.
The Review of Council Housing Finance was launched in March 2008 and is scheduled to report to Ministers in 2009. The Review is looking at all aspects of system reform, including the feasibility of “self-financing” where local authorities could exit the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. It has examined the case for continuing
the substantial investment in social housing stock that began with the Decent Homes programme and which has resulted in more than £29 billion being invested up to 2007-08. Other areas of scrutiny have included rents policy, the role of the landlord and service provision, the treatment of debt in the system, and the case for maintaining a centralised, redistributive system. A period of consultation will follow the Review.
It would not have been possible to complete the Review any earlier due to the complex nature of the system and the many inter-related components which affect it, the commitment to involve stakeholders throughout the process, and the need to gather evidence to support its conclusions.
Eastham Library
The Petition of residents of Eastham, and others,
Declares that the decision by Wirral’s Cabinet to either close Eastham Library or transfer it to community ownership is wrong in both form and substance; further declares that the concept of community transfer has not been sufficiently thought through here and it will give rise to widespread concern about the future of the facility; notes that since Eastham Library was previously recommended by Wirral Council “to be retained”, the people of Eastham have not been given any chance to respond to the consultation and make their views known; and further notes that the people of Eastham, as the rest of Wirral South, see themselves as always getting short shrift in relation to the North of Wirral
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to encourage Wirral Council to reconsider its decision to close Eastham Library if community ownership cannot be found by end of June 2009.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Ben Chapman , Official Report, 17 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 881 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State acknowledges the concerns expressed regarding the closure of Eastham Library.
I understand that Wirral undertook a Strategic Asset Review to look at making the best use of its resources, its objective being to improve service delivery, offer better value for money, and support regeneration of the whole borough. A six-week consultation was undertaken which concluded that in total eleven out of 24 libraries should close. In particular, two libraries that had been earmarked for closure would remain open, but a further two would close, one of these being Eastham Library.
The Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has intervened under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and has ordered an inquiry into the proposals.
In the light of this action all closures have been postponed.
Planning and Development (Essex)
The Petition of Graham Bracci, residents of the Dutch Village and others,
Declares that Castle Point Councillors are wrong to seek to develop the fields behind Limburg Road and Holland Avenue with an estate of 400 houses; believes
that this would put Canvey’s roads and other infrastructure under intolerable pressure; notes that this area is subject to flooding and should be controlled under Environment Agency flood protection development policies; further believes that there is sufficient brown field land to meet the target for new build and that councillors should consult residents properly and listen to them more seriously, should improve Canvey’s infrastructure and change their plans to cram yet more housing estates on the Island.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make it clear to Castle Point council that it will uphold the Environment Agency’s rules on development in flood risk areas, that the Council should provide better infrastructure and should protect Castle Point Green Belt.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Bob Spink , Official Report, 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 402 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government understands that no planning application has yet been made to Castle Point Borough Council in respect of this proposal. If an application is submitted before the council reach their decision they must take into account: the provisions of the development plan for the area; any relevant views expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and other third parties; and any other relevant material considerations which fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. They should also be guided by the policies and advice set out in the Department’s Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Statements (PPGs and PPS’s) and planning circulars.
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), Development and Flood Risk, provides the policy framework for local planning authorities to avoid, manage and reduce flood risk to new development without exposure to unnecessary flood risk. This is supported by the Practice Guide published in June 2008 to assist local planners in implementing PPS25 policy.
There is an urgent need for more housing development in this country. The location of new housing is very important, to ensure new development is in sustainable locations. It is also important amongst many other issues, that the character of settlements are protected as appropriate, and that the countryside is protected for its own sake if appropriate to do so.
In considering planning applications, Castle Point Borough Council is required to take into account the relevant policies in the development plan. The Government’s statements of national planning policy, such as Planning Policy Guidance 2 “Green Belts”, are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in planning decisions, but it is the responsibility of the local planning authority to identify and weigh up all the different issues, in the context of the specific local circumstances, having regard to the views of local residents and other interested parties.
On 9 January 2009, Castle Point Borough Council published for consultation its “Core Strategy Proposed Publication Document”. It should be noted that the “Core Strategy Proposed Publication Document” (LDF), does not allocate any sites as such but indicates the broad locations where the development will occur. Its consultation period ended on 20 March.
Should an application be made, the Council will be required to publicise it in order that the public, statutory consultees and other interested parties may make known their views.
Public Libraries (Wirral)
The Petition of residents of Higher Bebington, and others,
Declares that the decision by Wirral’s Council to close Higher Bebington Library does not take into account the high regard in which it is valued by local residents and users; further declares that there was strong representation for the retention of Higher Bebington Library during Wirral’s consultation period over its Strategic Asset Review; notes that Higher Bebington would benefit from the continued existence of a library facility in the sense that it serves just that community; and further notes that the concept of community transfer (which, according to Wirral Council, could be “vigorously pursued” after the closure of Higher Bebington Library) has not been sufficiently thought through.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Wirral Council to reconsider its decision to close Higher Bebington Library.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Ben Chapman , Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 1041 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State acknowledges the concerns expressed regarding the closure of Higher Bebington Library.
I understand that Wirral undertook a Strategic Asset Review to look at making the best use of its resources, its objective being to improve service delivery, offer better value for money, and support regeneration of the whole borough. A six-week consultation was undertaken, which concluded that in total 11 out of 24 libraries should close, Higher Bebington Library being one of the 11 identified for closure. As part of the review Wirral Council is proposing a number of multi-purpose complexes across the Wirral, one of which will be sited in Bebington.
The Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has intervened under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and has recently appointed Sue Charteris to carry out an inquiry into the public library service in the Wirral. Her report is due in June and the Secretary of State’s decision will follow shortly after.
In the light of this action all closures have been postponed.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sri Lanka
The Petition of supporters of members of the Tamil Diaspora in the United Kingdom,
Declares their deep concern about the current humanitarian crisis facing the Tamil people in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to call on the Sri Lankan Government for an immediate ceasefire to be implemented to prevent the unnecessary loss of innocent civilian lives; to recognise the right of the Tamil community on the island to self-determination; and to allow all necessary humanitarian aid and international aid workers into the conflict zone in northern and eastern Sri Lanka instead of calling for the Tamil people to leave their traditional homes and villages.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda , Official Report, 22 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 337 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
I remain extremely concerned about the current situation in northern Sri Lanka. The most pressing concern remains for the safety of the tens of thousands of civilians that humanitarian agencies estimate remain caught up in the fighting. It was our concern for their safety that led my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to first call for a ceasefire on 14 January. I have repeated the call for a ceasefire on numerous occasions, most recently during my visit to Sri Lanka with French Foreign Minister Kouchner on 29 April.
Both Foreign Minister Kouchner and I welcomed reports that significant numbers of civilians have been able to leave the conflict area over the last few weeks. The Government of Sri Lanka’s announcement of a cessation in combat operations using heavy weapons is a welcome first step, but there are credible reports that civilians continue to be killed and wounded every day as a result of the fighting. We condemn the killing of civilians in the strongest possible terms and we have repeatedly called on both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law. It is essential that both sides do everything possible to avoid harming civilians and ensure vital aid reaches those civilians who need it.
We are also concerned about the conditions facing the internally displaced persons (IDPs) who have managed
to escape the fighting. We have made clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that more needs to be done to provide them with humanitarian and medical aid, specifically: visas and travel permits should be issued swiftly to humanitarian staff; full access should be given by humanitarian agencies to IDPs as soon as they have crossed the front line and the monitoring of all stages of screening; a proper resettlement programme should be developed with specific deadlines to fulfil the Government of Sri Lanka’s commitment to have 80 per cent. of IDPs returned to their homes by year’s end; and improved distribution of sufficient food and medicine to meet the needs of civilians trapped in the conflict zone. We are pressing the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil the commitments it has made to improve conditions in the IDP camps and we are working with a number of independent agencies to ensure these standards are met.
The (UK) Government have taken practical steps to alleviate the suffering of civilians. On 26 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged a further £2.5 million for humanitarian aid for displaced persons, taking the total UK humanitarian assistance to £7.5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, visited Sri Lanka on 27 April to conduct an humanitarian assessment. Following my visit with Foreign Minister Kouchner, on 4 and 5 May, a cross party group of MPs, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), held talks with the Sri Lankan Government, humanitarian agencies and visited the IDP camps.
The Government want to contribute to a renewed drive for a political solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. We believe that for peace to be sustainable, an inclusive political process that takes into account fully the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankan communities, Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim, is essential.
The UK remains active in the UN, EU, G8 and with other key international partners, including the US and India, to ensure that the spotlight of international concern remains firmly on the situation in Sri Lanka. The Government of Sri Lanka can be in no doubt about the depth of feeling in the international community regarding the need for a ceasefire and for a co-ordinated humanitarian relief effort to alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians.
| Index | Home Page |