Wednesday 10 November 2010
Petition presented to the House on Tuesday 9 November 2010 but not read on the Floor
Elizabeth Regina Love Correspondence
The Petition of Mr Martin Burke,
Declares that on 10 December 2004 Her Majesty the Queen honoured Mr Martin Burke with the invitation that the badge for his business, the letters E and R with a heart design, be Her Majesty’s (with effect from 28 February 2004). Declares that the correspondence between the petitioner and Buckingham Palace in 2004 was private, however sometimes confusion has arisen so in June 2007 the letters were made public.
Declares that at first glance the correspondence may appear to say the opposite of what it does say so a detailed analysis has been given, available at the new web address www.elizabethreginalove.com/correspondence (changed from www.eheartr.com).
Declares that this analysis firstly notes the way of operating in the petitioners’ first letter dated 28 February 2004: that if you announce your intention to do something and nothing is said then leave is granted, and further declares that in now over 6 years since no instruction to cease and desist has been given, on the contrary. Notes that further detailed analysis of the correspondence is given in this analysis. Further declares that the petitioner was asked very courteously that the badge for Emotion Records be The Queen’s Cypher. Declares that in respect of this the trading name of Emotion Records Limited was changed to Elizabeth Regina Love and its range of activities further widened.
Further declares that the guidance from the Lord Chamberlain’s office on the use of Royal Arms, Names and Images is that the use of the Royal Arms and of Royal Devices, Emblems and Titles, or of Arms, Devices, etc., [ ... ] is prohibited by the Trades Marks Act 1994, unless the permission of the Member of the Royal Family concerned has been obtained, and that the Lord Chamberlain’s office gave the Queen’s permission.
Notes that the apparent ambiguity in the correspondence was not a mistake, and that the petitioner was being asked to take the consequences of any misperception.
The petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons accept a copy of the analysis of the correspondence for inclusion in the House of Commons Library, and that were the question put the House consent to the request(s) in this Mr Burke’s 17th petition first emailed to the House on 30 March 2010, and amended and added to on 5 August 2010.
And the Petitioner remain, etc.
Intercity Express Programme
The Petition of residents of the Sedgefield constituency, and others,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the Government should implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express programme, which would lead to Hitachi building a manufacturing site in Newton Aycliffe; and further declares that this would result in the creation of hundreds of direct jobs and thousands of jobs in the supply chain, of which the majority would be in manufacturing, giving a much needed boost to the North East economy and improving rail services nationwide.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express Programme.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Phil Wilson, Official Report, 13 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 459.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
In February 2009, Agility Trains, a consortium of Hitachi and John Laing, was appointed preferred bidder to build and maintain a fleet of new Super Express trains under the Intercity Express Programme (IEP). The initial order, together with all of the options, would have brought the total fleet size up to 1,400 rail vehicles.
If the order goes ahead, Hitachi has made clear its ambition to establish a new assembly plant at Newton Aycliffe in the Sedgefield constituency, within County Durham to build the new trains. The new plant would employ around 500 people, and a further 200 during construction.
The Government also understand how important this project is to British manufacturing and the north east, and how seriously the project is being taken in Japan.
In his recent review of IEP, Sir Andrew Foster suggested that the programme should be paused while possible credible alternatives are assessed, and the Department has been progressing this work. Agility Trains made a submission to the Department during September, and it improves the business case for that particular option.
The work has been focused on how this option compares to the others: in terms of value for money and affordability.
We are currently giving further consideration to the revised proposals from Agility Trains for the Intercity Express Programme, and announcements on other DfT rolling stock programmes will be made in the light of the Government’s ongoing work on IEP.