📚 Petition
Commons Chamber
Andrew Rosindell presented a petition to save Gidea Park library in Romford, which is threatened with closure by Havering Council. The library is a vital community hub cherished by locals, especially children and the elderly. Thousands have signed the petition to keep it open, highlighting its importance as a center for culture and learning. The petition urges the House of Commons to protect and enhance the library, rather than allowing its closure.
Summary
- Petition Presented: Andrew Rosindell, MP for Romford, presented a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of his constituents.
- Issue at Hand: The Gidea Park library in Squirrels Heath ward, Romford, faces closure by the London Borough of Havering council.
- Community Impact: The library serves as a vital community hub, benefiting children, students, and older residents.
- Historical Context: Rosindell previously campaigned to save the library in 2001 when he became an MP.
- Political Context: The closure was proposed by the Labour and Havering Residents Association, opposed by Conservatives.
- Public Support: Hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures were collected by local figures and Rosindell to keep the library open.
- Petition’s Request: The petition calls on the Government to prevent the closure of Gidea Park library and to protect and enhance it as a centre for culture, learning, and local services.
Divisiveness
The transcript provided is a petition presentation by Andrew Rosindell, Member of Parliament for Romford, and does not contain any direct disagreement. It is a formal expression of a request from constituents to the House of Commons concerning the closure of Gidea Park library. The document outlines the petition’s purpose, the support it has received, and the reasons why the library should be kept open. There is a mention of differing political views between the Labour and Havering Residents Association, who proposed the closure, and the Conservatives, who opposed it, but this is presented as factual information rather than an active disagreement within the session itself. No examples of direct confrontations or debates are present in the provided text, hence the session is rated low for disagreement.