Petitions
Tuesday 23 June 2009
OBSERVATIONS
Children, Schools and Families
Schools (Yorkshire)
The Petition of residents of Barwick, and others,
Declares that providing a secondary school of 900 places in or on the periphery of Barwick would offer choice and diversity to the parents and children of Ingleby Barwick, improve standards of education for children, and would allow children to be educated locally within their town; believes that this could be achieved by moving the secondary school currently based in Egglescliffe to Preston (within the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees) so that children from both areas could attend the school.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the request made by parents to move the secondary school currently based in Egglescliffe to Preston (within the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees) so that children from both areas could attend the school.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Ms Dari Taylor , Official Report, 20 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 1605 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families:
The Government recognise that a decision on the provision of compulsory education and any school re-organisation is never an easy one. Local authorities are responsible for planning school places in their area, and have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient places and that high quality education is provided in a cost effective way. The Government would expect the local authority, in this case Stockton-on-Tees borough council, to think strategically about its school estate and re-organisation, having analysed future requirements such as demographic changes to ensure a better match between the need for places, parental preference and the supply of places, and to consult widely on its proposals.
It is for the Stockton local authority to determine the precise nature of the communications and consultation with its partners. They must consult and inform all interested partners and allow adequate time and provide sufficient information for this process. Our advice to all local authorities, including Stockton, is to start consulting early. All the normal processes associated with major changes to schools still apply, including the requirement to produce statutory proposals where required.
All local authorities in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme are asked to produce a ‘Strategy for Change’ that sets out the key challenges and objectives for the local authority in terms of transforming education, and how they plan to deliver these—Stockton is no exception.
Stockton-on-Tees local authority has already started its BSF programme. Schools in the south of the borough, including Egglescliffe, have been allocated to a future wave of investment; the timing of which is to be confirmed.
Given the early stage of planning for Egglescliffe school there is plenty of time for full consideration to be given to securing the best possible solution locally for Egglescliffe school and other schools in Stockton’s second BSF wave. The Government would expect the local authority to include the local Member of Parliament and residents of Stockton in this consultation.
Communities and Local Government
Planning and Development (Essex)
The Petition of Mr and Mrs Hall and others,
Declares that, as the close neighbours of the development at 9B Westwood Road, Canvey Island, who are really the only ones directly affected by the issue, they support the building alterations and are happy for the new roof extension on the property to remain and do not feel that it destroys the street scene in any way and that it would be disproportionate to force the removal of the alterations.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to respect the views of those living in the surrounding houses and to approve the appeal.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Bob Spink , Official Report, 1 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 134 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that a planning appeal has been submitted in respect of the above development. The appeal was received on 28 May.
Since the appeal is currently before the Secretary of State for formal determination, he cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the appeal.
The appeal will be determined by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State after an exchange of written representations between Mr and Mrs Hall, who are the appellants, the local planning authority and any other interested parties. He will also visit the site to assess the likely impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area.
Decisions on planning appeals are required to be in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Government’s statements of national planning policy, such as Planning Policy Statement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” and Planning Policy Statement 3 “Housing”, are material considerations that must also be taken into account, where relevant. It is, however, the responsibility of the inspector to weigh up all the issues in the context of specific local circumstances, having regard to the views of the appellants, the local planning authority and any other interested persons.
Planning and Development (Plymouth)
The Petition of people concerned at the proposed development of an energy from waste plant at Ernesettle, Plymouth,
Declares that the site identified by Plymouth City Council for an energy from waste plant at Ernesettle, Plymouth, is totally inappropriate for many reasons including the loss of playing fields.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to persuade Plymouth City Council to reconsider their decision and investigate alternative sites.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Alison Seabeck , Official Report, 11 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 656.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware of the proposal for an energy from waste incinerator in Plymouth. Plymouth city council has allocated four sites within its Waste Local Development Document (DPD).
This DPD has been through a full public consultation exercise in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The DPD was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 August 2007 for an independent examination; the examination was carried out on 6 February 2008 and the document was found to be sound. The DPD was adopted by Plymouth city council on the 21 April 2008.
I understand from officials in the Government Office for the South West that no planning application for an energy from waste incinerator at Ernesettle (Plymouth) has been submitted to the council for determination. The determination of planning applications is primarily the responsibility of the city council, as the local planning authority, and the Secretary of State cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of any application or prospective application.
Decisions on planning applications are made in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Government statements of national planning policy, such as Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 on planning and waste management, and the soon to be published Regional Spatial Strategy, are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in planning decisions. It is the responsibility of the local planning authority to identify and weigh all of the issues in the context of the specific local circumstance, having regard to the views of local residents and other interested parties.
Once an application has been submitted to Plymouth city council for determination, if requested, the Secretary of State will consider call-in of the application for a public inquiry. The Secretary of State will call in applications, where she considers it raises issues of more than local importance, but his policy is to be very selective about this. As it is possible that this proposal may, at some future date come within his jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter raised in the petition.
Home Department
Immigration (Asylum Seekers)
The Petition of the Vincentian Millennium Partnership,
Declares that to be an asylum seeker in 2009 in the United Kingdom can entail any or a variety of the following experiences—detention (often for years), poor
housing, isolation, being moved at short notice from communities where the person has been integrated for several years with the resulting severance from their regular sources of spiritual, emotional and medical support, being denied a choice of shops through a poverty level voucher scheme which amounts to £35 per week and, most importantly, being prevented from working or from engaging in voluntary work which often leads to depression and a lack of self worth; further declares that refusal by the asylum seeker to comply with the “system” often leads to destitution and that the only alternative may be criminal activity or prostitution; notes that being an asylum seeker often means being made a scapegoat, especially by the tabloid press which often uses a case of wrong doing by one asylum seeker to demonise them all; further notes that stories about asylum seekers being given priority for high quality housing in preference to local people are blatantly untrue but become part of the myths surrounding them; and believes that to be an asylum seeker in the United Kingdom today is to live on the edge of starvation as a cruel warning to others not to come to the United Kingdom.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that those entering our country seeking asylum are treated in a just and compassionate manner which honours the long-standing British tradition of treating newcomers to these islands with welcome, respect and fairness; and further urges the Secretary of State to seek to enshrine in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill the rights of asylum seekers to adequate housing, ESOL (English as a Secondary Language) Classes, Criminal Records Bureau checks, earn a wage and contribute to taxes, engage in voluntary work, integrate into local communities, and become valued citizens of the UK.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by John Battle , Official Report, 29 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 1001.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
The UK Border Agency proudly maintains the country’s tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. Our process for meeting those obligations is fair. All asylum and human rights claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), against the background of the latest accurate, objective, sourced and up-to-date information on asylum seekers’ countries of origin produced by the UK Border Agency Country of Origin Information Service.
If an individual claiming asylum demonstrates a need for international protection and they meet the definition of a refugee under the terms of the 1951 Convention, asylum is granted. If they are otherwise vulnerable they may engage our obligations under the ECHR in which case they will be granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. If their application is
refused, they have a right of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) or an opportunity to seek judicial review through the higher courts. In this way we ensure that we provide protection to those asylum seekers who need it through a fair and transparent process.
Our asylum support policy is properly balanced. No person who has sought protection need be destitute whilst they have a valid reason to be here. Asylum seekers who need support to avoid destitution are given it from the time they arrive in the UK until their claim is fully determined (appeal rights exhausted). Support takes the form of accommodation or subsistence or both.
The UK Border Agency provides accommodation to asylum seekers who are destitute, or likely to become destitute, whilst their claim (including any appeal) remains under consideration. This accommodation is provided under “target contracts” with public sector and private sector accommodation providers which specify the standards and services that need to be provided. There is a robust system in place to ensure that accommodation supplied is safe and habitable. The UK Border Agency seeks to accommodate individuals in regions (other than London) where they were previously in receipt of asylum support, where applicable.
Vouchers are only used for failed asylum seekers being supported under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In other words, they have been found by UK Border Agency and the independent courts not to have a protection need. They are on support as a temporary measure because they are taking steps to leave the UK or there is a valid reason why they cannot return immediately. Support continues until the barrier to leaving the UK is resolved and providing the recipient continues to meet the eligibility criteria. As section 4 is only intended as a temporary form of support, these criteria are inevitably tight.
Legislation does not allow for section 4 support to be provided in cash but additional non-cash provision is available to meet specific needs including travel to medical appointments, maternity payments and clothing for children.
Our asylum support policy incorporates sufficient safeguards: for families with dependent children under the age of 18 years who continue receiving support until they leave the UK; for children and vulnerable adults qualifying for local authority care provision; and for people who are temporarily prevented from leaving the UK through no fault of their own who are provided with accommodation and vouchers if they would otherwise be destitute.
The UK Border Agency is introducing a payment card, personalised for each applicant, to replace section 4 vouchers. The payment card will provide the individual with a much wider choice of retail outlets, be more fraud resistant and less stigmatising. It will centralise and simplify the delivery chain, especially in the administration of additional services and facility payments. The scheme will be piloted in the north west and London in July.
When an asylum seeker has been found not to need protection it is our policy to discontinue providing support. We do not consider that it is right to ask the
UK taxpayer to continue to fund those who choose to remain here when they have no grounds to stay and it is open to them to return to a home country that has been found safe for them to live in.
We plan to introduce proposals for reform of asylum support under the draft Simplification bill in October 2009. Our objectives in reform are to ensure those seeking asylum are effectively and comprehensively supported during the determination of their claim; that the system for achieving this is as simple and efficient as possible; and that it works towards the return of those who have no protection needs and who have no right to be in the United Kingdom. The UK Border Agency has held discussions with our key stakeholders on asylum support to inform these proposals and public consultation is planned.
The Government welcome the enormous contribution that the skills and knowledge of genuine refugees make to our society and economy but permitting asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers to work is not in line with Government policy. It is important to maintain the distinction between economic migration and asylum. Giving asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers permission to work would be likely to encourage asylum applications from those without a well-founded fear of persecution, slowing down the processing of applications made by genuine refugees and undermining the integrity of the managed migration system.
This is why we do not generally allow asylum seekers to work while their claim for asylum is under consideration. The only exception is asylum seekers who have been waiting 12 months for a decision where this delay cannot be attributed to them. Allowing asylum seekers to work in these circumstances is in accordance with the EC Directive on the reception of asylum seekers.
It is important that those who apply for asylum in the UK have their applications processed as quickly as possible and we have set a target to conclude (grant or remove) 90 per cent. of asylum applications within six months by December 2011. Those who are recognised as refugees will therefore be able to work here legally much sooner than in the past, enabling them to make a contribution to the UK.
A change to the policy on employment would create a disincentive to departure for unsuccessful asylum seekers and we believe would act as a draw for those who want to come to the UK for economic reasons, compromising the integrity of our asylum system and slowing down the asylum application process for others.
The UK Border Agency does not use detention arbitrarily and no one is detained simply for having claimed asylum.
Detention is a regrettable but necessary element in maintaining an effective immigration control and a fair asylum system. It is only authorized where it is considered appropriate in the particular circumstances of an individual case. Individuals may be detained pending inquiries as to their identity or basis of their claim, to prevent absconding, to effect removal from the UK or where the asylum claim is one that may be decided quickly.
Although Immigration Act powers to detain are not time limited, domestic and case law under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that detention must last for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the purpose for which it is authorised and must not be of excessive duration.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |