Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Stunell

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stunell]

A high proportion of the 280,000 long- term empty homes are indeed in the private sector. That is why we have provided funding to support bringing them back into use for social homes, and a second round of funding where there are clusters of empty homes, which will be helpful in those areas. As for the orders that the hon. Lady referred to, only about 50 homes in the whole country have been subject to that procedure in five years. It is not a very effective measure, but it should be a back-stop, which is why we have put in place a new two-year limit.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that one category of accommodation that is now often empty is bedsitting rooms in sheltered accommodation for the elderly? We have an example of that in Wooler in Northumberland. Does he recognise that it will be necessary for us to create more suitable accommodation for elderly people, both to enable such properties to be taken out of use permanently, and to meet the requirements of an ageing population?

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and draw his attention to the national planning policy framework. In drawing up its housing strategy, Northumberland unitary authority must take account of the needs in its area. Of course, the Government are funding a social and affordable homes programme, which will deliver 170,000 affordable homes by 2015. I very much hope that housing providers in Northumberland will be bidding for money from that fund in a suitable way.

Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Stunell

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stunell]

Coming to Parliament is an educational process, and I am delighted to have learned yet another place name. That protest group has attracted the hon. Gentleman’s support, which I fully understand. That led him to introduce his Bill, which in turn generated a lot of support from around the country for his cause.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made some strong, cross-party points in supporting the hon. Gentleman’s case, as did the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley.

My long-standing right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also made some points. He discussed my first point, which concerns the need to strike a balance between the competing needs of local communities and national policy. In that respect, he discussed the possibility of local authorities developing and implementing buffer zones to provide local protection for communities. I assure him that it is both possible and right for local authorities in developing their planning policies to consider buffer zones on a case-by-case basis. The separation distance would have to be justified. Of course, some local planning authorities have such buffer zones in place.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend does not quite get the point. Something is not a buffer zone as we understand it if is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is a reasonable expectation in almost all conceivable circumstances that there will be a set minimum distance, which does not have to become a battle ground between the local authority and the developer or on an issue that might be overturned on appeal.

[Andrew Stunell]

Whether a condition appears as part of a council’s adopted and approved local plan—for instance, the Northumberland unitary council development plan—or is imposed by the Secretary of State or, indeed, by legislation makes no material difference. I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the Scottish and Welsh buffer zones, as they have been described, or bans have been prayed in aid. I also draw his attention to the explanatory notes produced by the Library. They make it quite clear that the policy on open-cast mining in Scotland does indeed have a presumption on 500 metres, but it is subject to some quite important exceptions. They say:

“Site boundaries within 500m of the edge of a community may be acceptable where it would result in improvement of local amenity or future development opportunities by clearing an area of derelict or despoiled land, the stabilisation of an undermined site or similar benefit. Topography, the nature of the landscape, visibility and prevailing wind directions may result in a greater or lesser distance being required, depending on specific local circumstances.”

So a number of important caveats relate to the Scottish buffer zone, which has been prayed in aid. As I understand current planning law and what the law will be after the passage of the Localism Bill, it would be perfectly open to Northumberland unitary authority to decide to adopt such a planning approach. Whatever the planning approach —whether it is statutory, as in Scotland, or based on the development of the local planning system—it would of necessity have to take account of particular circumstances.

Anti-Semitism

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Stunell

Thursday 20th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I shall certainly leave plenty of time for Back-Bench speakers. Indeed, I appreciate the opportunity, as a Front Bencher, to sneak in and contribute to the debate.

The debate is very timely, as a number of speakers have pointed out, and that is a tribute to the Backbench Business Committee process which I hope is fed back to the appropriate quarters.

It would not be right to go any further without giving praise and thanks to the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism, in particular the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I welcomed the tone that he set for the debate, making it clear that anti-Semitism is a cause of deep concern, crossing party boundaries, and has prompted what I hope is the clear intention of the new Government to continue building on the foundations laid under the previous Administration and to carry forward the work commissioned by his all-party parliamentary group. I thank him for his support for my stewardship, which I fully understand is conditional upon future progress if, none the less, welcome for all that. The debate is an opportunity to demonstrate our strong and enduring commitment to tackling anti-Semitism, as a House and not just as a Government or as a set of political parties.

I will start by responding to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and to one or two other points. I will then set out what the Government propose to do, and provide feedback on the Government response to the report by the all-party group, which we published before Christmas.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of internet hate and, perhaps more generally, the consequences of the electronic world as it affects the print media. The Government response published in November drew attention to our work with newspaper editors and the Press Complaints Commission, which, it is fair to say, was not really conclusive. Nevertheless, a working group on online matters is run by the Press Complaints Commission. I assure hon. Members that I shall keep track of that and, where appropriate, provide a bit of impetus. It is appropriate for me to pass on the remarks made in this debate to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to ensure that the points raised are not lost to them.

The hon. Gentleman, and others, spoke about the problems in higher education. That point was reinforced for me when I heard a speech by the Chief Rabbi who visited the Department for Communities and Local Government and spoke powerfully about the need to tackle that issue. I share the hon. Gentleman’s commendation of the Manchester university protocols—like him, I declare an ancient interest in that university. Work needs to be done, and I will say more about that in a few minutes.

There have been three powerful pleas to deal with election campaigning, and of course, all mainstream parties signed up to rules, guidelines, advice and codes before the last election. I think that reconsideration of recent events is appropriate. I do not want to introduce an element of controversy, but perhaps a recent court case has a bearing on the issue. I want to talk to the Electoral Commission about whether progress can be made, and draw on incidents that have been raised in this debate. If hon. Members have more relevant evidence that they feel should be considered, I invite them to make it available to the Electoral Commission.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred to football, and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) declared his undying love for Tottenham Hotspur—we all have our weaknesses, so I understand that. However, there is clearly something to be done in that area, and I was interested to hear the concern of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who said that he had not received an appropriate and timely response about his work from the Football Association. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in DCMS and perhaps there will be some air time for that. We talk about the nudge theory these days—perhaps the matter just needs a bit of a nudge. A problem exists in relation to specific incidents, events and clubs, and it should be paid proper attention.

The final point made by the hon. Gentleman that I will mention relates to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. Subsequent to the election, the Prime Minister put on record the Government’s intention to make a donation to that foundation. No announcement has been made about the timing or the size of the donation, but the words used by the Prime Minister were “a substantial contribution”. I cannot take the matter further at the moment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue is on the agenda.

It may be possible to respond to all the points raised, but this is a Back-Bench debate, so some matters are probably best left on the record. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) reported that the Community Security Trust headquarters is in his constituency. As he will know—I wrote to him to tell him—I visited the trust in the autumn and was extremely impressed by its work. I support the hon. Gentleman’s view that the trust makes an important contribution to tackling community tension and plays a part in developing the big society.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) asked about the future of the Prevent Violent Extremism programme. She will know that Lord Carlile is carrying out a review on behalf of the Home Office, and that reports and policies are being developed. Announcements will be made in the near future, and I assure the hon. Lady that this Government are as concerned as any other Government have been to take whatever appropriate steps are needed to guarantee the security of all citizens in the country.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to reinforce a point that I made earlier about the importance of actions taken to prevent terrorism and the finding of new recruits in the Muslim community. That issue should not blind us to the equal importance—at least in the long term—of ensuring that young people who have no interest in getting involved in terrorism do not absorb a too hostile and prejudiced agenda from some radical preachers, even though they may resist the urge to get involved in terrorism.

[Andrew Stunell]

My right hon. Friend asks me to draw a fine line between having unpopular opinions and committing violent, unpopular and illegal acts. I do not want to get drawn too far into that debate, but the Government and the DCLG are developing their thinking on how to promote integration in our society and tackle the alienation of all groups, even those not necessarily connected to a religion or ethnic background. Unfortunately, there are plenty of alienated young people who do not fit either of those two stereotypical models. Ensuring that we promote the integration of all into society is an important Government objective.

Reference has been made to the cross-Government working group that was set up to tackle anti-Semitism, and I will report briefly on what the group has been doing and what it proposes to do. The group meets quarterly to monitor further progress on the commitments made by Departments to tackle anti-Semitism. That work can be seen in the Government’s response document from last November, and the group ensures that those commitments are followed through. In the first instance, the working group focuses specifically on issues that are still cause for common concern. Anti-Semitism on the internet is top of that list, and we have undertaken to give regular progress reports to Parliament on that subject.

I had a meeting yesterday with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention. We looked at how to ensure that issues of concern to the DCLG and the Home Office can be jointly taken forward, and we will do what we believe to be necessary in order to stimulate action.

Later this year there will be a second ministerial seminar to find ways of improving action and impact. It will involve colleagues from a number of Departments including the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service. There will be representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the DCLG, as well as MPs, lawyers and departmental officials. The seminar will be led by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who is the Minister with responsibility for communications. We are pushing forward on this. We are clear that we must find ways of tackling at both national and international level anti-Semitism on the internet.

I want to pick up the point about anti-Semitism on university campuses. First, although I am sure that it was implied in many of the remarks that were made, no one actually mentioned further education, and further education colleges and campuses—