Skip to main content

Petitions

Volume 530: debated on Monday 27 June 2011

Petitions

Monday 27 June 2011

Observations

Business, Innovation and Skills

Post Box Provision (Nelson, Lancashire)

The Petition of residents of Nelson, Lancashire, and others,

Declares that there is a need for a post box outside the main Post Office in Nelson.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Royal Mail to take all possible steps to ensure that a post box is provided outside the main Post Office in Nelson.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Andrew Stephenson, Official Report, 8 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 245.]

[P000924]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills:

The provision and location of Royal Mail post boxes is an operational matter for Royal Mail and is the direct responsibility of the company. The Government, as shareholder, do not play a role in operational matters for the company and cannot intervene is such matters.

Requests in relation to this issue should be raised direct with the company.

It may be useful for you to be aware that in considering the provision of post boxes, Royal Mail takes into account a range of factors including the number and location of existing post boxes in the area. I understand that there is already a post box in the area, which is sited 115 metres away from the Post office. Customers can also post inside the Post Office and at Royal Mail’s local delivery office, which is also in the vicinity.

Justice

Industrial Compensation (Stanley Embling)

The Petition of Stanley Embling, a citizen of the UK from Scunthorpe,

Declares that the Petitioner has tried everything in his powers as a former employee of British Steel to obtain compensation for an industrial accident, while on duty; that the Petitioner has suffered from negligence by his employer and their denial of fair hearings for industrial compensation, and that this included intimidation, deception by management, with coercion into retirement; notes that the Petitioner believes that his GMB Union has conspired to defraud him of what was owed to him and many other employees and that, in his attempts to get justice and compensation, he experienced unprofessional conduct and misfeasance by solicitors, the Law Society, the Police, two MPs and HM Court Services; that the Legal Aid Commissioner, the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, the Humberside Police, the Serious Fraud Office and the Metropolitan Police have either refused or failed to investigate the white collar crimes against the Petitioner; and notes that a one-page summary detailing names of solicitors and MPs is publicised on the website of Victims Unite.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to compensate the Petitioner in this case.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Nic Dakin, Official Report, 29 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 2P .]

[P000913]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Justice:

The Government are not in a position to comment on or intervene in cases which are or have been the subject of litigation. In general terms, for a negligence claim to succeed the injured person (the claimant) must show that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care towards him or her, and that as a result of a breach of that duty, he or she has suffered the injury. The claimant must also show that the type of loss or injury for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of the duty. The determination of liability in individual cases is a matter for the courts, having due regard to all the circumstances of the case and the actions and standards that it is reasonable to expect from each of the parties involved. It is not for the Government to compensate individuals in cases where they have been unable to secure compensation through the courts.

The legal profession is self-regulating and independent of Government. The day-to-day responsibility for regulating lawyers lies with the relevant approved regulator. The Law Society, through its regulatory arm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, is responsible for the regulation and discipline of solicitors. Approved regulators are overseen in the discharging of their regulatory duties by an independent oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board (LSB). Complaints about solicitors are dealt with by the Office of Legal Complaints under its Ombudsman Scheme, which is also independent of Government and the legal profession.