Royal Naval Deployment: Mediterranean

Debate between Anne Main and Michael Fallon

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The legal position is that people cannot claim asylum on board Mounts Bay if it is not in UK territorial waters, so that is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman might think. We are working with other Governments to develop a policy that will ensure that those who are picked up in international waters can be returned to Turkey. At present, those who are picked up in Turkish waters by the Turkish coastguard can be taken back to Turkey, but as I have said, if they are picked up in Greek or international waters—the boundary there is complex and indeed disputed around the islands of the eastern Aegean—at the moment they will be taken to a place of safety in Greece.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Given that this is an extremely lucrative trade for people smugglers and that, as the Minister says, Turkey does not have the capacity to do this on its own, how can we be sure that this is not a revolving door involving migrants who are being taken back to Turkey, allowed to stay there a while, and then get back on boats again to try their luck several times?

[Michael Fallon]

The best assurance that I can give my hon. Friend is that we are determined to try to help Turkey to break that business model, by ensuring that those who smuggle and send women or unaccompanied children on insecure boats for what may be a short but still a very dangerous sea crossing, can be identified, charged and prosecuted through the Turkish courts, so that we eventually discourage the flow from the beginning.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Anne Main and Michael Fallon

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The local authorities would have to do that if a planning application were made in the normal way. Under the new relaxed procedure, the costs will be lower. As I have said, however, if it seems likely that there will be a significantly greater burden on local authorities, we will discuss that with them to ensure that it does not happen.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Government have taken account of Back Benchers’ concern about neighbour notification. Does my right hon. Friend know how many authorities currently believe, or know, that they are operating with a deficit in terms of planning fees? My local authority believes that it subsidises planning, and that the fees recovered do not cover the planning service that is currently provided.

[Michael Fallon]

The object of the scheme is that we end up with fewer, not more, planning applications, and that should save local authorities some expense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I will first address some of the points that have been made on the change to permitted days. It has been suggested that 21 days might be too short, but that is exactly the same as the equivalent period under the planning regime.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) have suggested that neighbours further afield than those who adjoin might be denied the opportunity to object to something, but it is hard to understand why they would have stronger objections than those who live much closer. I therefore suggest that the focus of objection needs to be the impact on immediate neighbours.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I have serious concerns that some people may feel unable to object because of their relationship with their neighbour. They may be disadvantaged, so another neighbour could object on their behalf.

[Michael Fallon]

I would hope that neighbours would talk to each other and discuss any proposed developments. They should not feel that they are not able to object. As I have said, it is hard to understand why those who live further away should have, or should be entitled to register, stronger objections than those who live next door to the property concerned.

My hon. Friend raised two other issues, the first of which was what would happen if the extension turned out to be larger than or different from the original proposal. Under the notification, the plans have to be deposited with and approved by the building control regime, which will exercise supervision in exactly the same way as it does for a normal planning application. It would also be able to require modifications to an extension that did not fit the original plans.

Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the issue of fees, which I addressed when I opened the debate. I repeat that if she turns out to be right about the actual cost to local authorities, we will, of course, discuss any concerns or new pressures on them with the Local Government Association in the normal way. Our position, however, is that there will be considerable savings as a result of a number of applications not going through the normal planning route.

Finally, on the employer shareholder clause, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was a little cavalier in some of his arguments. First, he suggested that my noble friend Lord Deben opposed the clause, but he voted for it in a Division last night, so the hon. Gentleman was not accurate about that. Secondly, he suggested that people would be forced to give up their employment rights for what he called “worthless shares”, but they cannot be forced to surrender their employment rights unless those shares are worth at least £2,000. If they turn out to be worth less than £2,000, the employee shareholder would, of course, be fully entitled to be considered to have the rights that he or she previously had.