Petitions

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Monday 11 April 2016

Sunday trading hours

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that devolving the power to set Sunday trading hours to local councils will lead to longer Sunday opening hours; further that large stores should not be open longer on Sundays; further that longer opening hours would change the nature of Sundays forever; further that millions more people would be required to work on Sundays; and further that a local petition on this matter has been signed by over 300 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons opposes Government proposals to devolve the power to set Sunday trading hours to local councils and introduce longer Sunday opening hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Frank Field,Official Report,9 March 2016; Vol.607, c. 1P.]
[P001679]
Observations from the Minister of State for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry):
The Government wanted to give communities the power to decide for themselves whether extending Sunday opening hours was right for them. This is a huge economic opportunity, and we wanted to see the benefits of economic growth being felt in every corner of the country. It would have created thousands of jobs and given people flexibility—as the impact assessment set out, it would have been worth an estimated £1.5 billion to the economy (over ten years).
It is disappointing that the House voted to prevent this from happening, and we have no plans to reintroduce the proposals at this stage. The Government do, however, remain committed to helping local areas and high-streets compete effectively.

Proposed sale of the Kneller Hall site

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of the Twickenham constituency,
Declares that the Ministry of Defence's proposed sale of the Kneller Hall site should not go ahead; further that the site has played an important role in the local community over many decades; and further that the Royal Military School of Music is historically important.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop the sale of the Kneller Hall site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Dr Tania Mathias, Official Report, 10 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 1702P.]
[P001672]
Observations from the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Mark Lancaster MP):
The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans announced on 18 January 2016 that, as part of the Government’s prosperity agenda, the MOD is committed to releasing land to contribute towards 55,000 new housing units this Parliament. Kneller Hall is one of the first 12 sites to be announced for release.
Kneller Hall is the home of the Corps of Army Music and the Royal Military School of Music, the facilities in which they are currently homed are ageing, inefficient and not fit for purpose. The site is not designed for its current use. To bring the site up to standard for its current use would cost at least £30 million. The commandant of the Royal Military School of Music has confirmed other sites would provide far better and greatly improved training facilities for his people.
The residents of Twickenham and its surrounding boroughs are not alone in their strength of feeling and, indeed, in their drive to want to retain a local Defence presence. However, the simple fact is that these plans are not directed at individual communities, regiments or bases. This is about ensuring that Government funding is in the right place to ensure the continued defence and security of the United Kingdom.
This is very much a two-stage process. The first stage is establishing that there is not a military use for the site, but the second stage—the future—is for the local community to decide. The MOD will engage with the local community and the local planning authority to decide the best future for the site, which will not be released before 2018.

School hall for East Markham Primary School

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of the Newark constituency,
Declares that East Markham Primary School should have a hall provided by the County Council; further that the petitioners believe that the education of the children at the school is suffering for a variety of reasons including that there is no indoor PE or indoor drama facility, there is overcrowding and that the school has no ability to put on plays, concerts or performances for groups larger than around 30 people; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 186 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Nottinghamshire County Council to provide a school hall for East Markham Primary School.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Robert Jenrick, Official Report, 17 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 1299.]
[P001547]
Observations from the Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb):
The provision of a school hall would fall under the responsibility of the local authority as it is a local authority maintained school.
On 9 February 2015, the Government announced £4.2 billion for capital investment in the condition of our schools over the period 2015-16 to 2017-18. This is in addition to the £5.6 billion that had already been announced for the current spending period, 2011-12 to 2014-15.
As well as providing funding directly to schools for their immediate priorities, much of this funding is allocated at local authority level so that investment decisions can be taken locally. Since 2011-12, Nottinghamshire County Council has been allocated some £39.8 million of capital support for investment in the condition of its maintained schools. In addition, a further £6.2 million was announced for 2015-16, and the same amount has been indicatively allocated for each of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years. From 2015-16, we have used the information we have collected through the property data survey in allocating funding for school condition needs. This provides bodies responsible for school buildings (e.g. local authorities) with a fair share of funding according to their needs.
The school also has the option of becoming an academy and joining a multi-academy trust, which could make it eligible to benefit from the Trust’s capital allocation.
We would therefore recommend that the school continue to discuss its concerns with Nottinghamshire County Council. Now that the next three years of schools condition allocations have been announced, we trust that they will be able to give greater assurances in developing a plan to address the school's investment needs.

Speed limit in Southampton Itchen

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of Southampton Itchen,
Declares that there should be a reduced speed limit in residential areas of 20 mph where local residents request it from their local authorities, in particular in Southampton Itchen; further that many residents fear someone will be seriously hurt or killed if action is not taken to reduce the speed limit; and further that the case for reducing the speed limit is even more serious on roads where there is no off road parking and where cars cause blind spots and significantly increase the risk to pedestrians.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Southampton City Council to listen to the people of Southampton Itchen and implement a programme of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas where residents request them.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Royston Smith, Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 922.]
[P001674]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones):
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
Traffic calming, 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.

Third crossing (Lowestoft)

Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of Waveney,
Declares that the decision to build a new crossing over Lake Lothing in Lowestoft is agreed with all possible speed; further that there is significant local support for a new crossing; and further that the new crossing would positively impact upon the local economy in Lowestoft and the surrounding area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to confirm funding for the project in order for construction to begin as soon as possible and be completed by 2020.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Peter Aldous, Official Report, 08 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 247.]
[P001676]
Observations from the Minister of State, Department for Transport (Robert Goodwill):
The Chancellor confirmed funding at the spring Budget of £73.4 million for the third crossing at Lake Lothing in Lowestoft. This represents 80% of the estimated scheme cost of £91.7 million, with Suffolk County Council taking responsibility for meeting the remaining 20% and any increases in costs beyond that. Funding for the scheme will come from the £475 million Large Local Major schemes fund that was included in the spending review 2015. This funding is part of the Local Growth Fund.
Now that funding for the scheme has been agreed Suffolk County Council can commence with the required statutory processes and the Department for Transport expects Suffolk County Council to further develop the business case for the project. Funding is subject to final business case sign off before construction can begin.
It is the responsibility of Suffolk County Council, as scheme sponsors, to complete the delivery of the scheme to the desired timescales.