Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many, the great residents of Stoke-on-Trent Central enjoy accessing our airports to go on holiday, so they are rightly concerned about the lack of a train link between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport that is similar to the system that runs to Birmingham airport. Having to change at Piccadilly adds delays and means that we have trouble getting businesses down. All the evidence suggests that such a link would be of economic benefit to our city. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central,
Declares that residents and businesses are concerned about the poor connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and its nearest airport, Manchester airport, further declares that, at present, local people travelling for work or holidays must take a train to Manchester Piccadilly that goes right past the airport (in south Manchester) before changing at Manchester Piccadilly; further declares that this creates risks of delays, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage and for older or disabled people; and further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would help to generate inward investment for the area, support jobs for local people, and help to put Stoke-on-Trent firmly on the transport map.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003230]
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Further to a similar online petition of more than 4,200 signatures, I present this petition on local government reorganisation in Devon. The plans published in July by the Government appear to have been configured entirely to benefit the urban areas of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and call into question service delivery, local democracy, and local identity across the county’s rural communities. Arguably there is no conceivable way that it can result in growth in every postcode. As a result I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement yesterday to revisit the current plan, and my hope is that the strength of feeling shown by residents in South West Devon, south Devon, and across the county, will result in a meeting with Ministers to discuss a way forward that benefits the whole county, with local services that we can all be proud of, and that do not create a two-tier Devon of urban versus rural.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area,
Declares that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the county of Devon have not adequately taken account of local viewpoints; further declares that it will lead to a democratic deficit for rural areas, introduces a rural council area that is too large to effectively administer, will lead to a disparity between total council tax bills for rural compared to urban areas as parish precepts will continue to be charged for rural areas, will result in the prioritisation of urban needs over those of rural areas, and will represent a loss of identity for long-established rural communities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans for local government reorganisation in the county of Devon.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003232]
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Happy birthday to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of local people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who, like me, want a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport—a connection that will benefit constituents not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but across Staffordshire, as can be seen by my colleagues who are here this evening.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern amongst residents and businesses about the poor connectivity between North Staffordshire and Manchester airport; notes that local people travelling to Manchester airport by rail must currently travel via Manchester Piccadilly on a train that passes the airport; further notes that the current reliance on a connection through Manchester Piccadilly risks a delayed journey, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage to carry, for older people, and for those who have mobility issues; further declares that too many people are forced to rely on a taxi which is often more expensive and is at the mercy of the M6, the A500 and the A34; further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would be good for inward investment to this area, including for jobs for local people; further declares that a direct train connection will also help to ensure that Keele University and all the excellent businesses based at Keele Business Park are able to remain competitive with their rivals in other parts of our United Kingdom; and further notes the decision of August 2026 to confirm the roll-out of such a direct connection.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, the relevant train companies and the relevant local authorities to successfully and speedily deliver the direct train line connection for passengers who live learn and work in North Staffordshire between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003233]
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on food security following the extreme summer heat that has left tonnes of safe, nutritious but cosmetically imperfect produce rejected at the farm gate, deepening import reliance and showing the urgent need for a good food Bill.
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that this summer's extreme heat has left cosmetically imperfect but safe, nutritious fruit and vegetables rejected at the farm gate, with one surplus food redistributor alone taking in 6,000 rejected cauliflower heads in a single week; further declares that rigid retailer cosmetic specifications are forcing farmers to destroy edible produce while shortfalls are filled by imports; further notes that new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warns 2026 could be the worst UK harvest on record, with dairy farmers already losing 18.5 million litres in milk yields and growers facing water abstraction cessations; and further declares that food security is national security, and that this waste deepens the UK's reliance on imports at the exact moment self-sufficiency matters most.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003234]