All 4 Petitions debates in the Commons on 9th Jun 2010


Tue 8th Jun 2010

House of Commons (27) - Commons Chamber (9) / Written Statements (7) / Westminster Hall (5) / Petitions (4) / Ministerial Corrections (2)

House of Lords (9) - Lords Chamber (9)


Thu 10th Jun 2010
Share Page

Wed 9th Jun 2010
Petitions
Petitions
Wed 9th Jun 2010
Croydon FC
Petitions
Wed 9th Jun 2010
Crystal Palace FC
Petitions
Wed 9th Jun 2010
EU Referendum
Petitions

Petitions

Wednesday 9th June 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wednesday 9 June 2010
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Croydon FC

Wednesday 9th June 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of the supporters of Croydon FC,
Declares that there have been talks with Croydon Council for many years about providing security of tenure for Croydon FC at the Arena, South Norwood, as well as talks about the destruction of the playing fields to the south of the Arena as a result of their use as a place to dump spill from the construction of Croydon Tramlink, and that no progress has been made with these talks.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask Croydon Council to bring the discussions with Croydon FC to a positive conclusion for both parties and for the South Norwood community.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 7 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 41P.]
[P000826]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport:
The issue regarding Croydon FC’s tenure at the Arena, South Norwood is a matter that should be resolved by the Local Authority and Croydon FC. Government cannot get involved in the local decision making process.
In respect of the playing fields situated to the south of the Arena, under planning guidance, local authorities are required to protect all open space which communities need. For this reason, the dumping of spill from the nearby Tramlink development should be dealt with as a priority by the local authority.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Crystal Palace FC

Wednesday 9th June 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of football supporters,
Declares that The Football League should exercise discretion in its application of its rules that has led to the 10 point deduction from Crystal Palace FC, and notes that unlike other football clubs penalised after seeking administration Crystal Palace FC was placed in administration against its wishes, and notes that Lloyds Banking Group has an important role to play in returning Crystal Palace FC to profitable trading by working on the ownership of Selhurst Park being returned to the club.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage The Football League to consider whether it should remove or reduce the points penalty meted out to Crystal Palace FC, and as a major shareholder in Lloyds Banking Group that it should ask the senior management of Lloyds Banking Group as to what action it is taking to reunite Selhurst Park with Crystal Palace FC so as to aid Crystal Palace FC in returning to profitable trading.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 788, c. 508.]
[P000808]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport:
It is naturally a worrying time for all those associated with Crystal Palace, and of course we understand the frustrations felt—not least by the supporters who remain the lifeblood of the club.
Football clubs remain an important part of the community, and every care should be taken to protect their long-term future through good financial management.
It is for the clubs themselves to ensure they manage their finances well, and for the football authorities to regulate the game to the highest standards.
Government are supportive of the measures that the football authorities have taken in recent years to strengthen the financial regulation of clubs and help monitor club debt. However, the issue of a points deduction is one for the relevant regulatory authority, in this case the Football League, not Government, to address.
We are delighted that an agreement in principle has been reached for the sale of the club and Selhurst Park to the CPFC 2010 Group and we hope this agreement can be finalised quickly to ensure the club can focus on the forthcoming season. The club has a proud history, built on the loyalty of its supporters, and we wish it the very best for the future.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

EU Referendum

Wednesday 9th June 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of the people of Croydon,
Declares that there should be a referendum on European Union membership.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call a referendum on EU membership at the same time as the next General Election.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 348.]
[P000782]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
The Petition of the people of Croydon declares that there should be a referendum on European Union membership and requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to call a referendum on EU membership at the same time as the next General Election.
The Government do not plan to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU. However, we are determined to maximise democratic and Parliamentary control over EU decision making. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power or competences from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum before the UK could ratify that Treaty. We will also ensure that any decision by a future Government to join the euro would be subject to a referendum, though we have agreed not to join or to prepare to join the euro in this Parliament. We have also agreed that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the next Parliament.
We will amend the 1972 Act to ensure that the use of any clauses which allow the powers of the EU to expand in future without a new Treaty—sometimes known as passerelle or ratchet clauses—would require primary legislation. Any use of a major ratchet clause which amounted to the transfer of an area of power to the EU will also be subject to a referendum. We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.
All of this will ensure that there will be no extension of the EU’s power over the UK without the British people's consent. The UK will continue to be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page