Petitions presented to the House but not read on the Floor
The Petition of persons resident in the Teignbridge parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people’s homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Richard Younger-Ross .]
Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Richard Younger-Ross .]
The Petition of the tenants of Sutton Housing Partnership and others,
Declares that the decision to postpone and cut back funding to support home improvement works to meet the Government’s decent homes standard will condemn thousands of tenants to a future in poor and inadequate housing while continuing to pay millions of pounds in rent as a negative subsidy to the Treasury.
Further declares that the decision to switch funds from improvement to new build is misjudged and was made without consultation with local authorities, Arms Length Management Organisations or tenants.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty’s Government not to renege on its promises and stand by their pledge to tenants by fully funding the decent home programme
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. Paul Burstow , Official Report, 21 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 855.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that a petition was received relating to the decision likely to defer Decent Homes funding in the London Borough (LB) of Sutton as a contribution to fund the Housing Pledge initiative.
London Borough of Sutton has now formally withdrawn from the Judicial Review proceedings issued against the Department. The Judicial Review challenged the likely deferral of Decent Homes ALMO funding in Sutton.
The Home and Communities Agency which manages the ALMO Decent Homes programme has concluded negotiations with Sutton. Decent Homes funding has now been made available to Sutton in 2010-11.
The Petition of Doug Beard, residents of Shipwrights Drive, Highfield Avenue, Castle Point and others,
Declares that they object to the link footpath between Shipwrights Drive and Highfield Avenue, Hadleigh; that this footpath is a focus for vandalism to adjacent residents’ properties and close residents, resulting in hundreds of pounds of damage to roof tiles, walls, security lights, and regular attendance of police officers; further, that this footpath does not provide sufficiently significant convenient access for local residents to outweigh the considerable loss of quality of life caused 24/7 to residents; that for these and many other valid reasons residents of Shipwrights Drive and Highfield Avenue, Hadleigh call for the complete closure of the link footpath since this is, on balance, in the public interest.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, the Highways Authority and all
Councillors, to ensure the immediate closure of the link footpath between Shipwrights Drive and Highfield Avenue, Hadleigh.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Bob Spink , Official Report, 16 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 847.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
There are two ways in which local residents may seek the closure of a public footpath for reasons of crime prevention.
One is to ask the local authority to make an order under section 118B of the Highways Act 1980. Such an order, if confirmed, would permanently extinguish the public right of way. However, the local authority would first have to apply to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to have the area designated for the purposes of crime prevention. A section 118B order would have to be advertised by the local authority and if there were any objections, the order would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Further information is available through the following link:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/prow/extinguish.htm
The other way is to ask the local authority to make a “gating order” under sections 129A to 129G of the Highways Act 1980. A gating order enables a local authority to restrict public access to a footpath and gate it (at certain times of the day if applicable), without removing the underlying highway status. Local authorities are able to make “gating orders” on grounds of antisocial behaviour as well as crime. There is no legal obligation to submit a gating order to the Secretary of State where there are objections. Further information is available through the following link:
http://www.asb.homeoffice.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=7924&terms=gating+orders&searchtype= 2&fragment=False
The Humble Petition of Sharmeen Datoo of 1317 Lincoln Road, Peterborough, PE4 6LW,
that Newborough Pharmacy in Newborough, Peterborough be supported and kept open. This pharmacy provides a valuable and much needed service. It will be a great loss to the community if the pharmacy is to close on account of lack of your support.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House asks the Secretary of State for Health that he does all in his power to ensure that the Pharmacy in Newborough, Peterborough remains open. Furthermore that he asks the Peterborough Primary Care Trust to review its decision to grant dispensing permissions to another Practice in the City to dispense in Newborough.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr. Stewart Jackson , Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 346.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:
The Government are committed to ensuring that people have access to NHS pharmaceutical services. For Newborough village, NHS Peterborough is responsible for the provision of such services in accordance with the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005.
The Government understand that this specific case is currently the subject of an appeal. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment while this process is under way.
The Petition of the people of Croydon,
Declares that Andrew Pelling has served as an effective Member of Parliament for Croydon Central putting Croydon first and would serve Croydon well again if he were to be persuaded to stand for re-election in the upcoming General Election.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons uses the powers of the new Business Committee to table further debates on Parliamentary reform to allow discussion on the advantages of independence in the House.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. Andrew Pelling , Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 790.]
Observations from the Leader of the House of Commons:
On 22 February and 4 March, the House of Commons agreed to a series of reforms to enhance how the House of Commons operates. These reforms included the establishment of a Back Bench Business Committee, the election of chairs and members of Select Committees, and engaging the public with Parliament.
The Petition of the people of Croydon,
Declares that they would support the introduction of a 24 hours a day service on the 64 bus route.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Transport for London in this proposal of a 24 hours a day 64 bus route.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. Andrew Pelling , Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 789.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport, received Thursday 1 April 2010:
The Mayor of London has overall responsibility for transport in the capital, including all London bus services.
The Department already provides substantial funding to TfL, which has risen dramatically since 2000, more than doubling to £3.3 billion in 2010-11. This funding is not ring-fenced to specific projects. It is for the Mayor
to make best use of the funding available to him to deliver transport services (existing or new) where this offers value for money or addresses an identifiable transport demand.
The Petition of Carol Tebbutt, members of Age Concern Canvey Island, the residents of Castle Point and others,
Declares that they object to the reduction in frequency of low-floor buses operating on the number 21 bus route between Southend and Canvey Island, operated by FirstGroup; that this reduction in the number of low-floor buses discriminates against passengers with greater accessibility needs, including the elderly, infirm, adults accompanying small children and those with limited mobility; further, that this route is used by residents travelling to and from Southend Hospital and requiring frequent, accessible, reliable and comfortable bus services; that for these and many other valid reasons only low-floor buses be operated by FirstGroup on this route and at greater frequency.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press FirstGroup to operate only low-floor buses and at shorter intervals on the number 21 bus route between Southend and Canvey Island.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Bob Spink , Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 783.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
The Government recognise that buses are, and will remain, the most important public transport option for most local journeys. Our overall aim is to drive up standards to provide a better quality service for those who already use buses and to make buses an attractive alternative for those who currently drive for short journeys.
Since deregulation of the bus industry in 1985, the majority of bus services outside London are provided on a commercial basis by private operators. Decisions such as where to run services, the frequency of those services, the type of vehicle used, and the level of fares charged are mainly a matter for the commercial judgment of the operator concerned. But it is of course in the commercial interest of bus operators to ensure that they provide a service that meets demand, and to ensure that the quality of their service is good. The Government recently introduced the Local Transport Act, which strengthens the powers to local authorities to work in partnership with bus operators and specify improvements to services on particular routes.
The Government want to make sure that everyone, especially those from disadvantaged groups and areas, can gain access to jobs, services and social networks. As part of this commitment all buses used on scheduled services with more than 22 seats will be required to be fully compliant with the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 by 2016. The transition will take place over time and transport operators will inevitably use a mixed fleet of accessible and non-accessible vehicles. It is important that the regulations are affordable and sustainable. Following both informal and statutory consultation, which included a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, this date was considered to represent a
reasonable compromise between the needs of disabled and other passengers, and the vehicle manufacturers and operators.
I will ensure the concerns raised about the use of low floor buses on this route are brought to the attention of the operator of this service.
The Petition of the people of New Addington,
Declares that that they seek a speedy improvement in the street environment so as to rid Central Parade, New Addington, of muddy paths from the bus stop to the shops, rotted posts, broken paving, collapsed kerbs and run down street furniture.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to secure a response from Croydon Council undertaking to invest in the improvement of the street environment at Central Parade, New Addington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. Andrew Pelling , Official Report, 29 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 605.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
We would always encourage good practice in street design and this is reflected in the guidance we produce. We recognise the importance of well designed high quality public places and their ability to improve quality of life.
However, Central Parade in New Addington is a local road for which the London Borough of Croydon has responsibility. It is for the Borough to decide on policies and priorities for improving local roads, and the Government have no power to intervene in its decisions.