All 9 Petitions debates in the Commons on 7th Sep 2015


Wed 22nd Jul 2015

House of Commons (27) - Commons Chamber (10) / Petitions (9) / Written Statements (5) / Ministerial Corrections (2) / General Committees (1)

House of Lords (22) - Lords Chamber (12) / Grand Committee (10)


Tue 8th Sep 2015
Share Page

Petitions

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Monday 7 September 2015
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

HS2 Proposed Golborne Connection

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of Lymm, Warburton, Rixton-with-Glazebrook, Culcheth, Lowton and the surrounding areas,
Declares that the proposed HS2 Golborne Link from Hoo Green to Bamfurlong will cause severe and permanent damage to the communities it passes through; further that the link will destroy farms and farm businesses in designated green belt areas; further that it will lead to the loss of over 700 jobs and will endanger environmental sites and amenities; further that it will necessitate building a railway viaduct more than 30 metres high over the Manchester Ship Canal, destroying the villages and communities in its path; further that it will bring no benefits to the area it passes through; and further that it could be replaced with cheaper localised upgrades to the West Coast Main Line and via the recently proposed hub station at Crewe.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the Golborne Link from the proposed HS2 route
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001541]
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Staffordshire

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of the South Staffordshire constituency and others,
Declares that the Petitioners note that South Staffordshire District Council intends to increase the allowance of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers by 33 pitches over the next 15 years; further that the Petitioners believe that there are already sufficient pitches available for Gypsies and Travellers in the constituency; and further that the Petitioners believe that no more pitches should be allocated.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that no further pitches for Gypsies and Travellers are allocated in South Staffordshire.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Gavin Williamson, Official Report, 13 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 838.]
[P001419]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, and cannot comment on specific cases or local plans.
The previous Conservative-led coalition Government did away with the Labour Governments unelected regional planning bodies and their top-down targets, which did nothing but fuel opposition to development and increase community tensions.
Our planning policy for Traveller sites ensures that it is down to democratically elected local authorities to determine what level of provision is needed and suitable in their areas, mindful of the protections the National Planning Policy Framework accords to our sensitive areas. Our policy is clear that traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent, are inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should be approved only in very special circumstances and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new traveller sites in the open countryside.
When developing a local plan, local authorities set out the evidence of the needs they are planning for, including for Gypsies and Travellers, which is consulted upon and examined publically by an independent examiner. We do not centrally monitor site provision as local authorities are responsible for enabling sites, for planning for these locally, and for reporting on progress to their local communities.
Since the introduction of the planning policy for Traveller sites policy, Ministers have been concerned that not enough protection is being given to the green belt and countryside. The previous Government consulted on proposals to ensure fairness in the planning system with everyone treated equally and decisions on development and enforcement action taken at the local level wherever possible and continue to take this work forward.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Protection of the wrecks of HMS Cressy, HMS Hogue and HMS Aboukir

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Gillingham and Rainham,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the sites of three ships, HMS Cressy, HMS Hogue and HMS Aboukir, lost during the First World War should be protected.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to designate these three wrecks under the Protection of Military Remains Act.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Rehman Chishti, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 24P.]
[P001525]
Observations from the Minister for Defence (Earl Howe):
Ministry of Defence officials are considering which ships should be included in the next tranche of wrecks designated protected status under the Protection of Military Remains Act (PMRA) 1986. We can confirm that HMS Cressy, HMS Hogue and HMS Aboukir are part of that consideration.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Use of body image altering software programs

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Humble Petition of the organising group of the pupils of Dame Allan’s School, namely Diane Rasul, Ria Barber, Virginia Barbour and Amarah Latif.
Sheweth that the Petitioners are campaigning to abolish the use of Photoshop and other image altering software programs from use on images of people.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to actively encourage regulators to put an end to the use of these programs which enable the spread of an unrealistic body image.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Chi Onwurah, Official Report, 20 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1088.]
[P001464]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Education:
The Government work to support positive and diverse representations of people. The Government ran the Body Confidence Campaign from 2010-2015, which aimed to raise awareness and understanding of body image and challenge the cultural norms and gender stereotypes that so often undermine people’s confidence and abilities. The Government Equalities Office continues to promote and support positive and diverse representations of all people, to celebrate good practice in industry where it is demonstrated, and works closely with the advertising and education sectors to produce resources that improve media literacy so that young people can become more informed and resilient consumers of media content.
This Government uphold the core principle of freedom of expression, recognising the invaluable role a free press plays in our cultural and democratic life. The Government do not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law of the land. However, this does not mean that newspapers can publish anything with impunity. We have introduced a new system of independent press self-regulation that protects press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made. Both the industry and the Government agree that independent self-regulation of the press is the way forward.
Photoshop and image altering software is used widely across advertising, marketing and other industries. While this can sometimes distort reality and promote unrealistic and unattainable ideals of beauty and perfection there are many legitimate creative reasons for altering images of people. Abolishing image altering software infringes on the freedom of the press and limits creative and artistic freedoms. Such acute action does not take into account the many circumstances where images of people are altered in any number of ways to promote diverse ideas or points of view and to create art and artistic representations that include images of people. It is not possible to monitor image manipulation carried out by individuals who create art, web pages or publications across many media, both digital and print.
We believe the most effective action to challenge limited, sexist or stereotyped portrayals of people in media is led by consumer pressure rather than banning editorial content. We have seen evidence that the best way to encourage effective and lasting change is to encourage industry to change from within, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because listening to what the public wants and engaging with consumers is good for business.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Heavy Goods Vehicles on the A519 (Staffordshire)

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Declares that residents of Eccleshall and Woodseaves object to the use of the A519 (running through Eccleshall and Woodseaves) by HGVs; further that the Petitioners object to the application for a new access road to serve the Raleigh Hall Industrial Estate, which would increase HGV use of the A519; further that the new access point would be more dangerous because large HGVs would be turning to join a 60mph road; further that the number of these vehicles using the A519 route has become completely unacceptable, with hundreds passing through a day; further that the increased HGV traffic poses a serious danger to pedestrians; further that the risk of a crash is high, and could cause considerable damage to property and loss of life; further that the subsequent volume of HGVs using Stafford Street and Castle Street in Eccleshall means they are damaging the road surface; further that this situation has led to problems in Eccleshall because HGVs have difficulty passing each other on the Stafford Road outside the Claremont Garage, putting pedestrians at risk; further that the pavements in Woodseaves are very narrow, and HGVs are mounting them to pass one another; further that the A519 is not a primary route and there is no intention of it becoming a primary route and that Satellite Navigation companies should be advised of this matter; further that planning permission has been provided for haulage companies to set up in the Eccleshall area with a focus on the A519; further that Woodseaves residents in particular have been forced to abandon their front gardens because of noise and pollution, they are unable to sleep at night because of the noise, and their homes are being damaged by the weight of HGV traffic on the road; and further that approximately 3 HGVs pass through Woodseaves per minute.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Transport to impose a speed restriction and weight limit on HGVs using the A519, to object to the proposed application for a new access road off the A519 that will serve the Raleigh Hall Industrial Estate and to advise Satellite Navigation companies that the A519 is not a primary route.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Sir William Cash, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1543.]
[P001482]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
Local highway authorities are responsible for managing the highway network in their areas. They have a responsibility to provide appropriate traffic management schemes for their roads. Local authorities have powers under sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) designed to regulate, restrict or prohibit the use of a road or any part of the width of a road by vehicular traffic for a wide range of safety and environmental reasons.
For the A519, the local highway authority is Staffordshire County Council. It is for them to decide whether to implement a Traffic Regulation Order for vehicles using the A519. In respect of speed limits the Department for Transport (DfT) sets national speed limits and publishes guidelines for local highway authorities on the use of local speed limits. This guidance can be found on the gov.uk site at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01-2013.pdf.
A local highway authority is not required to follow the guidance set out by DfT and can apply its own criteria in determining whether local speed or weight limits are appropriate.
The planning application for a new access road for the Raleigh Hall Industrial Estate is before Stafford Borough Council. They are the local planning authority who will decide whether to approve or reject the application. It is for the local highway authority, Staffordshire County Council, to object to the application if there are what is considers unacceptable implications on the A519, or work with the applicants and the planning authority where the proposed development is not suitable.
The A519 is a non-primary route. This information is reflected in mapping and signage of the road. Satnav manufacturers produce special devices for heavy goods vehicles to provide them with routing information appropriate to their vehicle, including warning them about low bridges and narrow lanes, saving time, fuel and money as well as reducing the impact on local communities.
Neither the Department nor individual local authorities have any direct power over the routing guidance offered by satnav devices. Routing guidance provided by satnavs should only ever be considered advisory; it is for motorists to determine the best route for their journey.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Installation of bus stop on Henry Cort Way in Gosport

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Gosport,
Declares that there should be another bus stop near the Bridgemary Road walk through to Vian Close and further declares that a local petition on this matter was signed by 94 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to install a new bus stop near the Bridgemary Road walk through to Vian Close in Gosport.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Suella Fernandes, Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1340.]
[P001534]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
I recognise the importance of public transport for both the sustainability and independence of communities, and its valuable role in preventing isolation.
Bus services in particular are vital for connecting people to services and jobs, and for connecting communities.
Responsibility for the siting of bus stops rests with the local traffic or transport authority. The provision of bus stops and shelters is a matter for the authority to consider, either within the council, or with the bus operators in the area. Approval is required before a bus stop sign may be used but planning permission is not, though the authority may consult with the police or other affected traffic authority before carrying out the necessary siting works.
The legal framework for bus shelters is set out in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 as subsequently amended. Local authorities and parish councils can provide and maintain bus shelters with the consent of the highway authority. For local roads, where most bus shelters will be erected, the highway authority will be the county council or unitary authority, in this case, Hampshire County Council.
While my Department has no direct responsibility over the design or positioning of bus stops and shelters, I strongly encourage authorities, bus operators and local communities to work together to decide how best to provide access to services for residents.
I would like to thank you for bringing the issue to my attention, and thanks especially to all your constituents who signed the petition.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Road Safety on Spencefield Lane (Leicester)

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that road safety has become a serious concern on Spencefield Lane, opposite St Paul’s Catholic School and Krishna Avanti Primary School; further that parents, teachers and local residents fear that inadequate pedestrian crossings and road safety measures risk the safety of school children and vulnerable adults who cross the road each day; and further that a local petition on this issue was signed by 362 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Leicester City Council to implement measures to improve road safety on Spencefield Lane, including a pedestrian crossing, without delay.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Keith Vaz, Official Report, 17 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 434.]
[P001529]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
Local highway authorities are responsible for managing the highway network in their area. They have a statutory responsibility to provide appropriate traffic management schemes for their roads. They have powers (under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to take whatever measures they see as appropriate to manage traffic flow, reduce congestion and improve road safety.
The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for setting strategy and policy context, and establishing and managing relationships with organisations that are responsible for delivery.
The provision of pedestrian crossings is a matter for the local highway authority, in this case Leicester City Council. It is for them to decide where and what type of crossing to provide. In doing so, they may use various criteria to help them prioritise the needs of different sites, including accident records, but these criteria are not set centrally by the Department for Transport.
The Department’s advice to local authorities on this, LTN 1/95: The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, sets out a suggested framework for assessing potential sites, and deciding which, if any, crossing type is appropriate. This publication and others which provide guidance on a variety of traffic management measures such as traffic calming are available on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-transport-notes.
Following this guidance is not a regulatory requirement, and local authorities are free to set their own criteria for assessing and prioritising crossing sites if they wish. The authority could also consider other ways of making it easier to cross the road - for example, by installing other traffic calming measures.
The DfT’s THINK! campaigns and road safety education resources focus on teaching children how to cross the road safely. In particular, our Tales of the Road Highway Code booklet for young road users is a useful guide on road safety with emphasis on the Green Cross Code which teaches children how to cross the road safely. The materials are available free online at: http://think.direct.gov. uk/resource-centre.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Speed limit and traffic calming on Monmouth Road in Walsall

Monday 7th September 2015

(8 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that there is currently a 30mph speed limit on Monmouth Road, Bentley, Walsall, where there is a primary school and the entrance to a playing field. The playing field entrance is in constant use by dog walkers, families and the football clubs. Many vehicles travel at excessive speeds. There is a risk of serious incident if measures are not put in place to reduce the speed of vehicles using Monmouth Road.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to implement a 20mph speed limit and traffic calming measures on Monmouth Road, Bentley, Walsall.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Valerie Vaz, Official Report, 21 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1461.]
[P001537]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for setting legislation and for guidance to traffic authorities on how to provide various traffic management measures. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide appropriate traffic management schemes for their roads (under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) therefore they are free to make their own decisions about the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. They are also responsible for ensuring that their actions are within the law, and are accountable to local people for their decisions and their performance.
Local highway authorities can introduce 20 mph speed restrictions through 20 mph zones, which need to have specified types of traffic calming features at specific minimum frequencies or they can introduce 20 mph speed limits. The Government’s Strategic Road Safety Framework recognises that these speed restrictions can be useful in the right locations but that these are local decisions which should be made in consultation with local communities.
The DfT provides guidance for local authorities in Speed Limit Circular 01/2013 – ‘Setting Local Speed Limits’ which is at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits
With regard to traffic calming, this is also a matter for local authorities. The DfT has published guidance on the design of traffic calming measures is in Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/07 Traffic Calming’ which is available on the DfT website at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-transport-notes
Any concerns should be taken up with the local authority. Ministers and officials have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in legislation.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page