Petitions

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Monday 2 September 2013

Proposed closure of Post Office on Lupus Street (London, SW1)

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency,
Declares that they object to the plans by the Post Office management to close its office at Lupus Street, Pimlico, London SW1 by March 2015 as it would be to the serious inconvenience of local residents and to the detriment of the community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to intercede on their behalf to require that the Post Office maintain this important facility in its current form and location and desist from its plans to close it.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mark Field, Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1270.]
[P001198]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, received 19 August 2013:
The Government note the views of the petitioners about the future of Lupus Street Post Office branch, which is currently directly operated by Post Office Ltd, and is known as a Crown branch.
The Government note that the implementation of the Crown Transformation Programme is an operational matter which is the responsibility of senior management at Post Office Ltd. The Government, as shareholder, do not play any role in decisions relating to individual post office branches. In considering the future provision of Post Office services in Pimlico, it is important to note the wider context of Post Office Ltd’s proposals to franchise 70 Crown post offices and to merge or relocate a small number of other Crown branches.
The Government note that the 2010 Spending Review contained a clear commitment to modernising the post office network and safeguarding its future, and allocated a £1.34 billion funding package to provide for significant investment across the post office network. A condition of this funding package requires Post Office Ltd to continue to maintain a network of at least 11,500 branches, to comply fully with the access criteria, and with no programme of branch closures.
The Government note that the 373 branches of the Crown network have incurred heavy and historic losses, totalling £37 million in 2012-13. Eliminating these Crown losses is a key element of Post Office Ltd’s strategy to provide for the long-term sustainable future of the network, and the Government support the business in delivering that strategy.
The Government note that the current losses incurred by the Crown network contribute to around a third of the losses sustained by the network as a whole and this is not sustainable. No business, including the Post Office, can continue with a situation where some of its high street branches cost substantially more to run than they generate in revenues. In the case of the Lupus Street Crown branch, it costs £1.84 to generate every £1 of income.
The Government note that within their broader strategy for eliminating these unsustainable losses and achieving break even for the Crown network by 2015, Post Office Ltd has identified a group of branches where they see no prospect of eliminating the losses at a local level under the current operating and cost structure. The precise reasons will vary from location to location but commonly include factors such as high property costs and sub-optimal location to attract the necessary increase in custom and business to make them profitable.
The Government note that in the case of Lupus Street, Post Office Ltd is proposing to merge operations with the nearest alternative Crown branches at Vauxhall Bridge Road and Eccleston Street, which are within half a mile, and a mile of Lupus Street branch respectively.
The Government note that Post Office Ltd has however made it clear that, under each proposal, the full range of post office services would continue to be available in close proximity to the existing Crown branch. Furthermore, before any changes are made to the existing service provision in Pimlico, there will be a twelve week local public consultation under the terms of a Code of Practice agreed between the Post Office Ltd and Consumer Futures. The public consultation focuses on specific and detailed proposals for relocating the service provision, including such matters as ease of access, and responses are carefully considered by Post Office Ltd before a final decision is reached.

Cannock Hospital

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Cannock Chase,
Declares that the Petitioners support Cannock Hospital and wish to ensure that it becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery, fully used, and with a secure and professionally managed future, within the NHS.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure Cannock Hospital becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery and has a secure future.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Aidan Burley, Official Report, 18 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1415.]
[P001216]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Health, received 22 August 2013:
This issue is the subject of a local consultation exercise, led by the Trust Special Administrators (TSAs) at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I am asking Monitor, which appointed the (TSAs), to ensure that the views of the petitioners are taken into account when making their decision.

Proposed Closure of Suffolk Court Care Home

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner objects to the proposed closure of Suffolk Court Care Home in Yeadon; further that with the increase in numbers and age of older people in our community, Suffolk Court is a vital resource, providing security and practical care for those unable to be sustained at home by community services; further that closing Suffolk Court would undermine services to the elderly and vulnerable in Yeadon.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons call upon Leeds City Council to reassess its priorities and keep this essential service open.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Greg Mulholland, Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 1022.]
[P001188]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Health, received 18 July 2013:
Local authorities are responsible for providing social care services, including residential care, in their areas. Local authorities are autonomous public bodies and it is a matter for the local authority concerned to decide how best to meet the need for social services, including residential care, in its area. It would not be appropriate for Government Ministers to intervene in such matters, provided of course that local authorities are acting lawfully.
It is for the local authority concerned to decide how best to meet the need for social care services. Local authorities are entitled to review their direct provision of residential care and other services to see if they can achieve a higher quality of care and better value for money.
Ministers do understand how traumatic it can be for frail, older and vulnerable people who have to be moved from residential care homes which have become their true homes. In considering changes to the extent of their direct provision of residential care, local authorities should ensure that, if care homes have to close and residents have to move, such moves are handled sensitively, with full account taken of the welfare and wishes of residents and staff of the homes concerned.

Services for Stafford Hospital

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Stafford and surrounding area,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Trust Special Administrators, Jeremy Hunt and any other individuals responsible for the future of Stafford Hospital should support the hospital and save its acute services.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure that Stafford Hospital retains a 24/7 A&E department, level 3 critical care and emergency service and full maternity services.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Jeremy Lefroy, Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 330.]
[P001194]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Health, received 22 August 2013:
This issue is the subject of a local consultation exercise, led by the Trust Special Administrators (TSAs) at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I am asking Monitor, which appointed the (TSAs), to ensure that the views of the petitioners are taken into account when making their decision.

A controlled crossing on Ashby Road (Daventry)

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe a controlled crossing should be installed outside the Falcolner’s Hill/Parker E-ACT Academy/Dolphin Day Nursery on the Ashby Road.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to install such a controlled crossing.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Chris Heaton-Harris, Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1270.]
[P001215]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport, received 12 August 1213:
The design, installation and maintenance of pedestrian crossings are matters for local highway authorities, in this case Northamptonshire County Council. They have powers to establish crossings on their roads, as well as a duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to “secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians)”.
Local authorities would need to consider local factors such as pedestrian numbers, road layout, traffic flow and speed and accident records in deciding whether a crossing is necessary, and if so what type to provide. The Department for Transport has published guidance on the assessment and design of pedestrian crossings, in two Local Transport Notes (LTNs):
LTN 1/95: The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings
LTN 2/95: The Design of Pedestrian Crossings
Both publications are available on the Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/local-transport-notes.
Local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. It would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in the process of local democratic accountability.

Cambridge to Fenland Train Service

Monday 2nd September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of North East Cambridgeshire,
Declares that at present the population of March has no access via public transport to evening entertainment and activities in Cambridge; further that the population growth rate, faster than for the East of England region and England overall, experienced by Fenland demonstrates the need for better public transport; further declares that another Petition on this subject has been signed by more than 700 residents of North East Cambridgeshire.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to require a late train service from Cambridge to March in the next Greater Anglia franchise.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Stephen Barclay, Official Report, 15 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 885.]
[P001197]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
The Government are currently developing the specification for the Greater Anglia Direct Award due to run from July 2014 to October 2016 when the new full East Anglia franchise will begin.
The Direct Award is focused on setting the correct baseline and allowing for the opportunity to assess options for the future franchise while avoiding prejudicing the terms of the 2016 competition.
Looking ahead, the Government will begin to consult on the specifications of the new full East Anglia franchise in late 2014, seeking to secure a quality and affordable service that best fits the needs of the people of eastern England and the requirements of the regional economy. We will consider the firm plans for the new Greater Anglia franchise following this consultation.
Before specifying requirements for additional services or station calls, the Department would need to be satisfied that there was a strong value-for-money business case for doing so. The Department needs to ensure that resources are allocated where they will deliver the greatest benefit.
As such, I am afraid the Department is not currently in a position to commit to specifying additional services from March to Cambridge at this point in time. We will of course consider any proposals received during the upcoming consultation.
The Petitioners may also wish to share their views with Abellio directly as well as the short-listed bidders for the 2016 franchise when these are announced. This is because the future franchise may well allow a certain amount of flexibility for train companies to operate services over and above those which the Department specifies in the contract.