House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2005 - 06
Publications on the internet

Supplement to the House of Commons Votes and Proceedings
27 April 2006

SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FROM RESIDENTS OF CANVEY ISLAND AND SURROUNDING AREAS

24th April 2006

To the House of Commons.

The Petition of the residents of Canvey Island and surrounding areas, compiled by Dave Blackwell, Christine Andrews and others on behalf of the Canvey Island Independent Party and for the people of Canvey.

Declares that the Petitioners are deeply concerned about the proposal to change the use of the Canvey Calor Gas site to import 5 per cent. of the UK's total national energy consumption in the form of LNG from ships and we wish to object to this proposal in the strongest possible terms, particularly in view of the residential properties and schools in the vicinity and the dangers from flooding or an accident such as occurred at Buncefield.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to urge Castle Point Borough Council to reject the application as soon as possible so the matter can be dealt with, if an appeal is lodged, through a full public inquiry.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.


SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF MILTON KEYNES

26th April 2006

To the House of Commons.

The Petition of citizens of Milton Keynes,

Declares that for any community to be 'sustainable' the plans for its expansion must be supported by existing residents and that Milton Keynes Partnerships' 'Public Consultation' process was not long enough to fully involve the Citizens of Milton Keynes in the decision making process regarding the 2031 Milton Keynes expansion plans.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a local referendum to decide:

If the expansion planning and delivery should be returned to those who are democratically elected to represent and service the people of Milton Keynes and the surrounding area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.


SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FROM PEOPLE OF BOYCE AND ST. MARY'S WARDS, CASTLE POINT

26th April 2006

To the House of Commons.

The Petition of people living in and around Boyce and St. Mary's Wards, Castle Point,

Declares that we the residents of Benfleet and surrounding areas are concerned about the increasing dangers in the High Road Benfleet, in the Queens Road and Vicarage Hill area, for pedestrians and particularly children and elderly people, and we therefore call for an investigation into the best scheme for traffic calming and particularly the consideration of a changed road surface with 'flash-up-your-speed' signs, for the benefit of both residents and road users.

The Petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to urge the Government to impress upon Castle Point Borough Council and the Highway Authority the importance of serving local people by providing improved pedestrian safety particularly for our children and elderly people.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.


SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FROM RESIDENTS OF THUNDERSLEY AND BENFLEET

26th April 2006

To the House of Commons.

The Petition of residents of Thundersley and Benfleet,

Declares that the proposal for change of use of Unit 10 to allow the storage of hazardous waste such as asbestos on the Manor Trading Estate in Thundersley would introduce unacceptable risk and increased pressure of use of local roads and is particularly inappropriate in view of the immediate proximity of residential homes and a primary school. The Petitioners further believe there are much more appropriate sites for this activity in the local area.

The Petitioners therefore implore the House of Commons to call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Essex County Council reject the application as requested by the Member of Parliament for Castle Point.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.


SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

Observations by the Secretary of State for Health on the Petition [15th March] from Jean Weatheritt and others for free residential care.

    The Barnett formula provides the devolved administrations with a population based share of comparable increases in spending of UK departments. It is for the devolved administrations to decide how they allocate their block budgets.

    Devolution also means that it is for the Scottish Parliament to make its own decisions on the response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. The Scottish Parliament decided that care home residents in Scotland who are aged 65 years and over could have free personal care, although they must continue to pay for their room and board if they have sufficient resources and forgo entitlement to certain Social Security benefits after four weeks.

    In England, we accepted each of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care except the recommendation to provide free personal care in all settings.

    As two of the members of the Commission explained in the Report, making personal care free for everyone carries a very substantial cost; starting at 1.1 billion a year and rising steadily to at least 6 billion a year. Such a policy would consume most of the additional resources we are making available for older people, but without improving services or allowing us to provide facilities and services that can give people the freedom to continue living independently in their own homes, for as long as possible.

    We believe our alternative proposals to improve standards of care and ensure fair access to services will generate important benefits for all older people, now and in the future.

    In October 2001, the Government delivered on time the commitment given in the NHS Plan to introduce NHS funded nursing care for those in a nursing home who had previously paid for the care they needed from a registered nurse. From April 2003, all residents of such care homes, including those placed by local authorities, have received NHS funding of their nursing care, rather than that element of their care being provided by the local council and subject to means-testing.

    In addition, we have invested in a range of new initiatives including:

  • the deferred payment scheme which means that , since October 2001, no one has been 'forced' to sell their home in order to pay to enter a care home. Councils can instead waive the fees and offset the debt against the proceeds of selling the property on the death of the owner, and

  • ignoring the value of property for the first twelve weeks of a permanent move into a care home when working out whether the resident should make any contribution towards costs, and raising the capital limits below which individuals will receive financial assistance to pay towards their care, and

  • implementation of Fair Access to Care Guidance to promote access to care services based on an evaluation of an individual's assessed needs and likely risks, including both immediate needs and needs which are likely to become more intensive.

    24th April 2006



  •  
    House of Commons home page Houses of Parliament home page House 
of Lords home page search page enquiries

    © Parliamentary copyright 2006
    Revised 28 April 2006