| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Green Belt (Somerset)
The Petition of residents of the Woodspring constituency and others,
Declares that the Government's Regional Spatial Strategy proposes over 10,000 new homes on Green Belt land surrounding Long Ashton; and further declares that there are feasible options to accommodate necessary new housing without sacrificing the Green Belt.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to withdraw the proposed South West Regional Spatial Strategy and make a renewed commitment to the retention of the Green Belt.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. -[Presented by Dr. Liam Fox , Official Report, 2 July 2009; Vol. 495, c.1P .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, received 12 October:
The proposed changes to the South West Regional Spatial Strategy were the subject of public consultation between July and September 2008. A substantial number of representations were received during that period about the proposed area of search 1A. No new representations can be taken into account now, as to do so might be unfair to other respondents.
However, the Government's policy on land designated as green belt has not changed.
Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) states that there is a presumption that housing development should be prioritised towards previously developed land, but recognises that some Greenfield land-undeveloped land that may or may not be part of existing green belt-may be needed for development. PPS3 puts the responsibility on local authorities to decide (within the broad framework provided by Regional Spatial Strategies) where to locate housing, to identify sites and to manage previously developed land back into development where possible to minimise the call on Greenfield and designated green belt land.
Planning and Development (Northamptonshire)
The Humble Petition of residents of Higham Ferrers in the Wellingborough constituency and the surrounding area,
That major concern is expressed about proposed developments near to Higham Ferrers Nursery and Infant School and Higham Ferrers Junior School which will pose a risk to the children attending these schools. Increased traffic along the adjacent service road will pose a threat to children and parents, who use this road as a safe area for both the dropping off and picking up of children. In addition many children use this road during the day as an access route to and from the school especially to the sports facilities. Hundreds of children will be affected by the proposed developments.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to liaise with East Northamptonshire District Council and Northamptonshire County Council to ensure a safe environment for children using the schools.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. -[Presented by Mr. Peter Bone , Official Report, 16 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1071 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government received, 12 October 2009:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government notes that a planning appeal has been submitted to him in respect of the above development. The appeal was received on 29 June 2009.
The petition has been brought to the attention of the Inspector, who visited the site on 22 September. The appeal will be determined during the course of the week beginning 28 September. A copy of the appeal decision will be sent to the hon. Member.
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. 657.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, received 12 October 2009:
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 4 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 the 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.
Defence
Bullying (Armed Forces)
The Petition of those concerned about bullying in the Armed Forces,
Declares that bullying in the British Army should be stopped once and for all.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Defence to take a firm and positive action to ensure that bullying in the British Army is once and for all put a stop to now.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. -[Presented by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda , Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 136 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Defence, received 18 August 2009:
All personnel have the right to live and work in an environment free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination. These principles are enshrined in values and standards that reject any form of harassment, intimidation or discrimination and call for respect and appropriate behaviour at all times. These values and standards are introduced in recruit training and continuously reinforced throughout an individual's service.
There is a policy of zero tolerance of bullying or ill-treatment and we encourage any allegation of inappropriate behaviour to be raised to the attention of the Commanding Officer to be investigated accordingly.
All allegations of mistreatment are taken very seriously and all substantive allegations are investigated, including by Service Police such as the Royal Military Police if appropriate. For the purposes of investigations Service Police are independent of the Ministry of Defence.
There are robust procedures for dealing with all forms of unacceptable behaviour. All those who are found to fall short of the Service's high standards or who are found to have committed an offence under the various Service Acts are dealt with administratively (up to and including dismissal) or through the disciplinary process, as applicable.
All Commanding Officers are made fully aware of their responsibility to protect others from the differing forms of harassment, physical and mental intimidation and discrimination, and any suspicion of bullying is dealt with immediately. These principles are reinforced throughout all military training.
All personnel have access to the full range of welfare and well-being support. Every unit has a comprehensive welfare system, which is widely publicised. This starts with Officers and non-commissioned officers, who have a line management welfare responsibility to individuals. Within the unit, personnel also have direct access to Unit Welfare Officers, pastoral, medical and welfare staff. A further secondary level of welfare support is provided which can either be accessed directly or through unit welfare staff. An example of this is the Army Welfare Service which provides a confidential professional support service and a Confidential Support Line telephone service. Personnel also have access to the Samaritans helpline.
There is no evidence to suggest that Absent Without Leave is a problem because of widespread bullying. However, all those returning from unauthorised absence are asked whether they wish to report any concerns.
In addition, the Secretary of State for Defence has established the statutory appointment of the Service Complaints Commissioner to provide an alternative point of contact for individuals (either Service personnel or a third party who wishes to make an allegation on behalf of a Service person) who feel unable to approach the chain of command to make an allegation that a Service person has been wronged in relation to discrimination, harassment, bullying or other inappropriate behaviour. The Commissioner will refer an allegation to the person considered appropriate to receive it. Normally, this will be the Commanding Officer of the Service person who is alleged to have been wronged. However, the Commissioner may refer the case to another officer if, for example, the Commanding Officer is the subject of or implicated in the complaint.
Energy and Climate Change
Wind Farm Development (Wales)
The Humble Petition of Robert Andrew Robinson Town Clerk of Welshpool Town Council,
Sheweth that the Communities of Mid Wales (and in particular Welshpool) are deeply concerned about the effect of Wind Farm transpiration in Mid Wales and in particular through Welshpool which is proposed over a sustained period.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to initiate a public inquiry on this matter before any Wind Farm Development is approved or allowed to take place and to ensure that full, proper and open consideration occurs prior to implementation of the project in Mid Wales.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. -[Presented by Lembit Öpik , Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 264 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, received 11 September 2009:
The Government take the consideration of all impacts from wind farm development very seriously.
Where an application for a wind farm has been made under s36 of the Electricity Act 1989, a public inquiry into the application is mandatory if the relevant planning authority (Powys County Council in this case) objects. Even if the relevant planning authority does not object, I have the discretionary power to call for a public inquiry if! consider it necessary in the light of objections received.
Should I call for a public inquiry to be held, I will issue in advance a statement of the matters, which seem to me to be relevant to my consideration of the application. These matters could include transportation impacts in connection with the construction of the wind farm. The views of those objecting would be taken into account, together with all other relevant factors, in identifying these matters.
Even if a public inquiry is not held, I will similarly take objectors' views into account in reaching my decision on the application.
I am aware that Powys County Council, the Welsh Assembly Government and the developers concerned are considering transport issues raised by wind farm applications in mid-Wales.
Applications for wind farms made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be considered by the relevant local planning authority. The local planning authority would similarly consider transportation issues in their assessment of such applications.
As transport issues, including cumulative impacts, will be assessed as part of the normal planning application process for each wind farm, it would not be appropriate to hold a separate inquiry across a number of applications solely into transportation issues as requested in the petition.
Health
Storage of Embryos
The Petition of people who have embryos stored under the terms of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and the regulations made there under and others,
Declares that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1582), dated 25 July 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 July, does not provide for the preservation of embryos whose statutory storage period has expired; is concerned that in circumstances where people have stored embryos under 1991 regulations ahead of medical treatment that renders one or the other of them infertile that the lack of transitional regulations in S.I., 2009, No. 1582 will result in embryos being destroyed against the express wishes of the donor.
Further declares that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority supported the case for allowing people in such cases to have access to further extensions to the storage period.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward further regulations to allow for the continued storage if embryos for those who actively desire it in order that they might use them to have a family by means of surrogacy and act immediately to suspend the destruction of such embryos where the donors so wish.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. -[Presented by Mr. Paul Burstow , Official Report, 21 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 857 .]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Health Department, received 18 September 2009:
Under the current law, human embryos may be stored for five years. In certain circumstances, extension of storage may be allowed. However, this does not include cases where the woman to whom it is intended the embryo will be transferred would be acting as a surrogate. This is because of concerns about surrogacy at the time the legislation was made.
The Government have reviewed the storage provisions, to enable more people with premature infertility to benefit from them. The new legislation will increase the maximum storage period for embryos from five years to 10 years, and in addition will provide that storage can be extended for rolling periods of further ten years (up to 55 years in total) if a registered medical practitioner provides a written opinion that the person for whom the embryo is being stored is prematurely infertile. Under the new system, in cases where it is intended that the embryos are to be used in a surrogacy arrangement and the criteria set out in the regulations are fulfilled, the storage period may be extended.
However, this new legislation does not apply to embryos that have run out of time on 1 October 2009, and which therefore are outside the current legal storage time limits. Although only a small number of women are in this situation, we all appreciate that for them it is tremendously important as it is their chance to have a child. The dilemma is morally straightforward-we are sympathetic to these women and have been urgently seeking ways to help them-but legally it is very complex.
As a result of very careful thought and consultation with our lawyers, we have found what we believe is a solution. We are making an Order under section 64(1)(a) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 to enable the 10 year rule to apply to embryos that are out-of-time on 1 October 2009 on the basis it would be 'supplementary provision' to section 15(3) of the 2008 Act.
The Order will mean that these embryos can remain in storage for 10 years from the date they were first put into storage. Therefore, for instance, an embryo subject to the current five year storage limit that has been in storage for six years on 1 October 2009 will be able to be stored for a further four years. The Order will be effective from 1 October 2009. It does not affect the legality of out-of-time storage before 1 October 2009.
The Government's overriding priority is to have in place a legal mechanism that will prevent these embryos from being destroyed. We have therefore concentrated our efforts on producing the Order to achieve that from 1 October 2009. From what we know of the circumstances of the women affected, that will give them a number of years of additional storage.
Home Department
Air Guns (Control)
The Petition of residents of North Norfolk and others,
Declares the Petitioners' serious concern at the dangers posed to dogs, humans and other animals by the lack of controls over access to air guns; notes the distress that the loss of a beloved family pet can cause; expresses the Petitioners' sympathy with the Currah family; and considers that the lack of practical restrictions on the use and purchase of air guns needs to be urgently addressed.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to confirm they will take action to enforce the restrictions on the sale and use of air guns.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. -[Presented by Norman Lamb , Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 128 .]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |