{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=2&state=published","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2&state=published","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=1315&parliament=2&state=published","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=2&state=published","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2&state=published"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":64997,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/64997.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make CCTV mandatory for all slaughterhouses","background":null,"additional_details":"We urge the government to make CCTV installation mandatory for all slaughterhouses, with selected footage independently monitored by welfare experts.\r\n\r\nAnimal Aid investigated nine randomly chosen UK slaughterhouses and found breaches of welfare laws in eight. Animals were shown being kicked, slapped, stamped on, beaten, punched, burned with cigarettes, and picked up by their fleeces and ears and thrown into pens. It showed inadequate, botched and multiple stunning, and the sadistic use of stunning equipment to ‘punish’ animals.\r\n\r\nNeither the government-appointed on-site vets nor the slaughterhouse operators detected a single illegal act that we filmed.\r\n\r\nProperly monitored CCTV would deter abuse, encourage best practice, help with staff training, and provide evidence for prosecutions.\r\n\r\nCCTV won’t end slaughterhouse suffering, but it is an invaluable tool to help vets and welfare officers protect animals from gratuitous abuse and incompetent or negligent workers.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112285,"created_at":"2014-05-12T15:43:27.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:25.911Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-05-13T08:07:05.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-05-12T15:43:27.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-05-27T15:50:10.848Z","government_response_at":"2014-06-27T15:50:10.848Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2014-10-03T13:18:03.485Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-06-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government encourages the highest standards of welfare at slaughter.  Both EU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, and the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK), as amended, contain strict requirements to protect the welfare of animals being slaughtered.  In slaughterhouses, these requirements are monitored and enforced by Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency to ensure that animals are spared unnecessary suffering, distress or pain during the slaughter process.\n\nSome of the undercover evidence has been gathered in premises which already had CCTV which implies CCTV may not be an effective monitoring tool though it could be helpful as a verification tool for audit purposes after a welfare breach has taken place in a particular slaughterhouse. The Government is not convinced of the need for further legislation at this time but will be keeping the need for CCTV under review in the context of the new monitoring requirements required under Regulation 1099/2009 which came into direct effect in January 2013.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:25.905Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:25.905Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":49528,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/49528.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of young puppies & kittens without their mothers being present","background":null,"additional_details":"Puppies & kittens mass produced in horrific puppy/kitten farms are separated from their mothers too early, transported long distances & sold via pet shops, newspaper ads, websites & private dealers.\r\n\r\nThese puppies/kittens suffer:\r\n\r\nImpaired immune systems\r\nPainful diseases requiring costly treatment\r\nShorter life spans\r\nPoor socialisation leading to behavioural issues\r\n\r\nProspective owners should always:\r\n\r\nAsk “Where's Mum?”\r\nInsist on seeing puppy/kitten & mother interacting\r\nBe aware of scams e.g. fake/no mother present\r\n\r\nThe only exceptions are rescue animals that have been orphaned/abandoned.\r\n\r\nWe, the undersigned, call on the Government to ban the sale of young puppies/kittens unless their mothers are present.\r\n\r\nWe ask for urgent action to raise awareness & encourage the public to choose a responsibly bred puppy/kitten at least 8 weeks old, or adopt from a legitimate rescue organisation.\r\n\r\nThe Government must end the cruel practice of puppy/kitten farming in the UK.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111572,"created_at":"2013-05-01T18:46:32.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:01.546Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-05-02T07:23:44.000Z","closed_at":"2014-05-02T07:23:44.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-01T18:46:32.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-18T15:58:01.806Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-18T15:58:01.806Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2013-10-12T21:06:42.066Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-18","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amended and extended the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991, provides protection for dogs used in breeding establishments. Under this legislation, any person who keeps a breeding establishment for dogs and carries on at those premises a business of breeding dogs for sale must obtain a licence from the local authority.\n\nThe local authority has the discretion whether to grant a licence and, before doing so, must satisfy itself that the animals are provided with suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding material; are adequately exercised and visited at suitable intervals; and that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent and control the spread of diseases amongst dogs.\n\nFor dogs bred by breeders who are not in the business of breeding and selling dogs but who breed occasionally, so called “hobby breeders” there is the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or fail to provide for its welfare.  The maximum penalty is a fine of £20,000 or six months imprisonment, or both.\n\nAs with the dog breeding legislation, local authorities have powers to investigate allegations of cruelty or poor welfare.\n\nIn addition, any dogs transported in relation to an economic activity will need to comply with the legislation on the protection of animals during transport (EU Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005).  Under this legislation, any transporter will need to be authorised and its vehicle(s) approved.  Any business where dogs are sold will fall under the terms of this legislation.  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing this legislation.\n\nIf anyone has concerns about the welfare of dogs at a particular breeding establishment, they should report the matter to the relevant local authority, or the RSPCA who can investigate any such complaints.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:01.539Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:01.539Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":29399,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/29399.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"The Oliver King Foundation - SADS","background":null,"additional_details":"We call on the Government to take action on Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS).\r\n\r\nSADS can go on undetected, and is something which can affect people aged between 12 & 35 years old. It can be detected by simply having an ECG test.\r\n\r\nThe Oliver King Foundation was set up following the death of Oliver King, a 12 year old boy who died in Wavertree of SADS.\r\n\r\nWe call on the Government to introduce defibrillators to all public buildings by 2017, and provide staff with the appropriate training. We also call on the Government to offer all people aged between 12 & 35 a simple ECG test, which could reduce the current death rate of 12 young people a week.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110704,"created_at":"2012-02-10T11:07:54.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.663Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-02-10T11:24:54.000Z","closed_at":"2013-02-10T11:24:54.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-10T11:07:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-27T00:08:55.075Z","government_response_at":"2012-03-26T23:08:55.075Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-24T18:45:04.752Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-03-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government appreciates how devastating this issue is for all families and friends who are affected.\n\nSudden cardiac death is a very complex issue.  It can be caused by a range of different conditions, many of which are difficult to detect through screening.  There is no single test that can pick up all of these conditions, nor is it possible to say which abnormalities will lead to sudden death.  For some of the conditions implicated in sudden death there is no known or proven treatment.  The chances of sudden heart attacks in apparently fit young people are tiny, but the consequences are nevertheless tragic.\n\nWhilst screening has the potential to save lives, it is not a foolproof process.  Early diagnosis can reduce the risk of developing a condition or its complications, but it cannot guarantee protection.  It is very important that screening for a condition is introduced only where there is evidence that it will be effective, that the benefits outweigh the potential harm and that it does not give misleading information to the person being screened or the clinician.\n\nThe UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises ministers and the NHS in all four UK countries about all aspects of screening policy.  It recommended in 2008 that a national screening programme for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), an important cause of sudden death in those under thirty, should not be introduced, as sudden cardiac death can be caused by a range of conditions, many of which are difficult to detect through screening.  In addition, there is considerable risk that tests will give a positive result when a person is not affected by the condition (known as a false positive).  This could result in people worrying unnecessarily that they have a heart problem causing them to change their behaviour and possibly avoid exercise and activity beneficial to their health.  It is also possible to have a heart problem that the test does not pick up, known as false negatives.\n\nIn line with its three yearly review policy, the UK NSC is currently reviewing its policy position on screening for HCM once again. The review will take into account the most up-to-date international evidence and there will be an opportunity for the public to participate in the review process next year when a copy of the completed HCM review will be open for public consultation on the UK NSC’s website at www.screening.nhs.uk.\n\nWith regard to providing defibrillators in all public buildings, the National Defibrillator Programme, which was coordinated by the Department of Health from 2000, began placing automated external defibrillators in public places.  From February 2007, responsibility for continuing the legacy of the National Defibrillator Programme was devolved to ambulance trusts.  Most of the ambulance trusts across the UK have community resuscitation departments or similar, which work to place defibrillators in the community, and in areas of need.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.656Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.656Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":52740,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/52740.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop FGM in the UK Now","background":null,"additional_details":"Over 66,000 women in the UK have already undergone female genital mutilation (FGM) and more than 24,000 girls are at risk. FGM is a very British problem. Despite increased activities around FGM recently, it is not enough - we are still failing to stop the abuse. The multi-agency guidelines are not statutory, implementation at Local Authority and NHS level is disjointed, funding is minimal, and nobody is monitoring or holding anyone to account. As FGM falls under the Violence Against Woman and Girls (VAWG) portfolio, we believe that the Home Office should take responsibility for drawing up and enforcing the implementation of a National Strategy and Action Plan to eliminate FGM in the UK. Please join us in our call for effective leadership.\r\n\r\nLeyla Hussein, Daughters of Eve\r\nEfua Dorkenoo OBE, Equality Now\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110561,"created_at":"2013-07-15T16:20:50.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:32.438Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-16T08:48:45.000Z","closed_at":"2014-07-16T08:48:45.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-15T16:20:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-08-01T20:58:26.022Z","government_response_at":"2013-09-01T20:58:26.022Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2013-12-28T10:25:35.222Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-09-01","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe regard female Genital Mutilation as child abuse and it is illegal. The Coalition Government is absolutely clear that political or cultural sensitivities must not get in the way of preventing, uncovering and prosecuting this terrible form of criminal activity.\n\nThis Government recognises that tackling violence against women and girls, including FGM, requires a sustained, robust and dynamic cross-Government approach.  Every department needs to play its part in addressing FGM.  The Department of Health is working to improve the information collected by the NHS on FGM.  The Home Office has recently announced it will help fund a new study into the prevalence rates of FGM in England and Wales.  The Department for International Development has established an ambitious £35m programme to address FGM in Africa and beyond, with an ambition toward ending FGM in one generation.\n\nThe Home Office is the lead on violence against women and girls (VAWG) and has captured FGM in our comprehensive VAWG Strategy, rather than in a stand-alone Action Plan.  Recently updated, the Strategy (The Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls: Action Plan) has a renewed focus on protecting potential victims.  Through the plan we are working closely across Government to help secure a FGM conviction, and with charities and frontline organisations to help improve awareness of FGM.\n\nAs part of a continued effort to raise awareness, the Home Office has:\n\nJoined forces with the NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police Service to establish a dedicated FGM helpline, providing advice to anyone who is concerned about FGM:\n\nhttp://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/resourcesforprofessionals/minorityethnic/female-genital-mutilation_wda96841.html\n\nLaunched the Statement Opposing FGM, which sends out a strong message to anyone involved in this practice - it is illegal and has no place in our society.  To date, we have sent out over 37,000 of these leaflets.\n\nContinued to work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure the Government is doing everything it can to help secure a prosecution.  We are greatly encouraged by the Director of Public Prosecution’s assessment that it is only a matter of time before a perpetrator is brought to justice and the Minister for Crime Prevention will be discussing this matter with Alison Saunders shortly.\n\nFemale Genital Mutilation is a human rights abuse with devastating consequences for victims.  We are determined to work together across Government to protect victims, prosecute perpetrators and stamp out this abhorrent practice for good.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.\n\nThis e-petition has reached 100 000 signatures.  The Government has nnotified the backbench business committee in the House of Commons.  This e-petition will remain live, and people will be able to continue adding their signatures.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:32.431Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:32.431Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":35788,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/35788.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Save Childrens Cardiac Surgery at the EMCHC at Glenfield Leicester","background":null,"additional_details":"The JCPCT has put forward option B as the preferred configuration for the future of Paediatric Cardiac Surgery. This excludes the unit at Glenfield in Leicester. This decision was on the back of a public consultation process where the public, when asked to consider the options, chose the strongest option as scored by the review team - Option A. The review process needs to be looked at again before a final decision is made on the back of the new scoring and weighting. Everyone should be assured that all the current centres Quality is above the standard required before they are asked to comment on what is important to them - for example travel times ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109306,"created_at":"2012-07-06T11:37:44.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:00.557Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-07-06T12:34:06.000Z","closed_at":"2013-07-06T12:34:06.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-06T11:37:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-23T05:16:41.760Z","government_response_at":"2012-08-23T05:16:41.760Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-20T11:40:03.608Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-08-23","summary":"","details":"The Backbench Business Committee have announced that a debate on this matter will be held in Westminster Hall on 22nd October 2012.  Further information about the Committee can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/bbcom\n\nA Government response will be added to the site in due course.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:00.551Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:00.551Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":29664,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/29664.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the beer duty escalator","background":null,"additional_details":"Every year, the beer tax escalator increases the tax on beer by 2% above the rate of inflation, thus adding considerably more pressure on the British pub, the cornerstone of many of our communities. Removing the beer duty escalator at the next budget will help keep beer more affordable and go a long way to supporting the institution that is – the great British pub.\r\n\r\nGoing to the pub is a core British tradition and so is enjoying great beer. If you want to continue enjoying your fresh pint  in your local pub then it’s crucial that you support our campaign to grind the beer duty tax escalator to a halt.\r\nIf we don’t show our support for the great British pub, we risk losing more pubs and more jobs within our local communities.\r\n\r\nSupport great beer in the great British pub and sign our e-petition now..... British Pubs Need You.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":108848,"created_at":"2012-02-14T15:30:22.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:08.813Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-02-15T09:00:54.000Z","closed_at":"2013-02-15T09:00:54.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-14T15:30:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-03-03T04:30:48.443Z","government_response_at":"2012-04-03T03:30:48.443Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-01T11:59:58.436Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-04-03","summary":"","details":"This e-petition has now passed the threshold of 100 000 signatures.\n\nThe Leader of the House of Commons has written to the Backbench Business Committee, who are responsible for the scheduling of debates on e-petitions, informing them that the petition has reached 100 000 signatures.\n\nThe Backbench Busines Committee meets weekly to hear representations from MPs for debates in backbench time. The Committee can consider and subject for debate, including those raised in e-petitions, but an MP must make the case for their consideration. More information about the committee is available on its website http://www.parliament.uk/bbcom\n\nThe Government have provided the following response to the petition:\n\n“The Government recognises that pubs and brewers make an important contribution to local communities and to the wider economy, in addition to providing local employment and promoting responsible drinking. This is why at Budget 2012 we announced no further changes to alcohol duties, beyond the increases pre-announced at Budget 2008 by the previous Government. The ‘duty escalator’ refers to those inherited plans to increase all alcohol duty rates by 2 per cent above inflation (RPI) each year to 2014 - 2015.\n\nThe revenues from alcohol duty make an important contribution to tackling Britain’s debt crisis. Budget 2012’s duty increase and increases to 2014 - 2015 form part of our credible plan to reduce the Britain's debt, which is required to ensure low interest rates and a stable platform for growth. It would be worse for everyone if the Government did not take action to tackle the deficit.\n\nThe Government’s ambition is for the UK to be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. In support of this aim the Government has taken a number of steps to boost business, from which pubs will benefit. These include a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax from 26 per cent to 24 per cent in April 2012. The rate will also reduce to 23 per cent in April 2013 and then to 22 per cent in April 2014. For small businesses in particular, the Government reduced the small profits rate from 21 per cent to 20 per cent from 1 April 2011, and extended the small business rate relief holiday until March 2013.\"","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:08.807Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:08.807Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":56810,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/56810.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"The immediate release of Marine A","background":null,"additional_details":"Release Marine A & Quash his murder conviction. Marine A has defended his country from a terrorist.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107261,"created_at":"2013-11-08T14:54:30.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:10.080Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-11-12T17:43:05.000Z","closed_at":"2014-11-12T17:43:05.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-11-08T14:54:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-11-29T18:04:04.014Z","government_response_at":"2013-12-29T18:04:04.014Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2014-05-01T21:12:55.149Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-12-29","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Service Prosecuting Authority, under the authority of the Attorney General, charged Marine A with the murder of an unknown captured insurgent in a legal process that is wholly independent of Government.\n\nAfter a public trial in front of a Court Martial, at which he was legally represented, Marine A was found guilty of murder, and two other Royal Marines were found not guilty of the offence.\n\nThe identity of the victim does not change that verdict.\n\nIt would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in this independent judicial process\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:10.074Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:10.074Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":48389,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48389.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Provide more Funding & Awareness for Pancreatic Cancer to aid long overdue progress in earlier detection and, ultimately, improved survival rates","background":null,"additional_details":"Pancreatic cancer (PC): 5th leading cause of UK cancer death with the worst survival rate of all cancers yet it receives only c1% of research spend. 5 year survival of 3% hasn’t improved in over 40 years, whilst survival rates for other cancers have eg Bowel current 54%/1971 22%. Breast current 84%/1971 56%. Prostate current 81%/1971 31%\r\n\r\nPC lags behind. More funding/more public awareness is vital so that progress can be made in earlier detection and, ultimately, better survival rates. Often termed the “silent killer”, many of PC’s symptoms mirror other less critical illnesses. Sometimes GPs may not recognise these early enough, looking first at other possible causes resulting in lost time before diagnosis. By this time, in many cases, the prognosis is terminal.\r\n\r\nAnother 40 years can’t pass without change. The requirement is for significantly increased research funding and inclusion in the National Awareness & Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI) Public Symptoms Awareness Campaign","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":106410,"created_at":"2013-04-07T22:17:02.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:50.464Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-08T09:57:23.000Z","closed_at":"2014-04-08T09:57:23.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-07T22:17:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-25T13:34:18.618Z","government_response_at":"2013-05-25T13:34:18.618Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-26T22:06:39.188Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-05-25","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government and charities work closely together in pancreatic cancer research and other fields of cancer research through the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI).  Factors influencing the level of research funding are discussed in Strategic Analysis 2002: An overview of Cancer Research in the UK directly funded by the NCRI Partner Organisations:\n\nThere are a number of factors that dictate the level of research funding into a particular issue.  These include:\n\nscientific opportunity – this can be a very important factor.  In particular, developments in fundamental research and the introduction of new technologies often stimulate new approaches;\nthe burden of disease – the incidence and severity of a type of cancer will influence both researchers and funders;\nresearchability – some tumour types are easier to work on than others but can often provide a model system for other cancers, and many researchers are attracted to areas or diseases where there is real evidence or potential for progress;\nfundraising – certain types of cancer may attract more public donations than others; and\nthe quality and size of the research workforce – because of the issues listed above some areas attract more high quality researchers than other areas.  This will undoubtedly affect the number of quality proposals received by funding bodies.\n\nNCRI partner organisations take these factors into account when making funding decisions.  However, the relative importance of each of these in the decision-making process varies for each organisation depending on its corporate aims, culture and procedures.\n\nThe Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including pancreatic cancer.  These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and the NHS, value for money and scientific quality.  NIHR funding is not ring-fenced for cancer research or for research on pancreatic cancer or other types of cancer.  In all disease areas, the amount of NIHR funding depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity.  Recruitment to studies associated with pancreatic cancer by the NIHR Clinical Research Network has increased more than five-fold from 447 in 2008-09 to 2,744 in 2012-13.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.\n\nThis e-petition has passed the 100 000 signature threshold.\n\nThe Leader of the House of Commons has written to the Backbench Business Committee, who are responsible for scheduling debates on e-petitions, informing them that the petition has reached 100 000 signatures.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:50.458Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:50.458Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":40925,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/40925.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"PLEASE  BRING FORWARD  KEVIN WILLIAMS INQUEST","background":null,"additional_details":"Anne Williams has created the charity  Hope For Hillsborough FOR JUSTICE 1131537 We would like to give her something back for all the hardwork and motherly love she has displayed over these 23 years. We feel it should be paramount that kevins inquest is dealt with asap","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":106210,"created_at":"2012-10-28T12:59:52.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:46.800Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-29T11:40:15.000Z","closed_at":"2013-01-29T11:40:15.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-28T12:59:52.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-02T19:36:57.052Z","government_response_at":"2012-12-02T19:36:57.052Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-11T19:07:15.525Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-12-02","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Attorney General is deeply saddened to hear of Anne Williams' diagnosis.\n\nHe continues to give this matter priority and, as explained in his statement to the House of Commons on 16 October 2012, he is consulting the families on his application. He recognises the additional urgency this sad news brings to the process and will make his application as soon as he possibly can.\n\nA summary of the Attorney's statement can be found on the AGO website at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pages/AttorneyGeneraltoapplyforfreshinquestsforvictimsofHillsboroughDisaster.aspx\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:46.793Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:46.793Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":43154,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/43154.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"We call for a Cumulative Impact Assessment of Welfare Reform, and a New Deal for sick & disabled people based on their needs, abilities and ambitions","background":null,"additional_details":"We call for:\r\n\r\nA Cumulative Impact Assessment of all cuts and changes affecting sick & disabled people, their families and carers, and a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act.\r\n\r\nAn immediate end to the Work Capability Assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association.\r\n\r\nConsultation between the Depts of Health & Education to improve support into work for sick & disabled people, and an end to forced work under threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits.\r\n\r\nAn Independent, Committee-Based Inquiry into Welfare Reform, covering but not limited to: (1) Care home admission rises, daycare centres, access to education for people with learning difficulties, universal mental health treatments, Remploy closures; (2) DWP media links, the ATOS contract, IT implementation of Universal Credit; (3) Human rights abuses against disabled people, excess claimant deaths & the disregard of medical evidence in decision making by ATOS, DWP & the Tribunal Service.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":104818,"created_at":"2012-12-12T00:54:47.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:05.101Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-12-12T12:12:37.000Z","closed_at":"2013-12-12T12:12:37.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-12T00:54:47.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-29T22:04:38.776Z","government_response_at":"2013-01-29T22:04:38.776Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-04T14:52:54.767Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-01-29","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nCumulative impact analysis is not being withheld – it is very difficult to do accurately and external organisations have not produced this either.\n\nThe Government is limited in what cumulative analysis is possible because of the complexity of the modelling required and the amount of detailed information on individuals and families that is required to estimate the interactions of a number of different policy changes. In addition, the Government's programme of welfare reform will not be fully implemented until 2017/18 and many policy details are still to be worked through. Equality Impact Assessments are however carried out for individual policies where there is a requirement.\n\nNo other organisation produces this analysis in a robust way. The Treasury does publish some cumulative analysis with each Budget but this is a broad brush assessment of all tax, benefit and expenditure changes since 2010 across households. Because the Budget cumulative analysis is so complex, it is not robust enough to break down by family type – so impacts on disabled people cannot be shown separately.\n\nThe IFS also produces some cumulative analysis but also do not feel the results are reliable enough to disaggregate for the disabled.\n\nThis e-petition will remain open to signatures until the published closing date and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:05.095Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:05.095Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":48628,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48628.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Save UK Justice","background":null,"additional_details":"The MOJ should not proceed with their plans to reduce access to justice by depriving citizens of legal aid or the right to representation by the Solicitor of their choice.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":104068,"created_at":"2013-04-10T14:11:32.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:53.228Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-10T14:36:41.000Z","closed_at":"2013-10-10T14:36:41.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-10T14:11:32.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-19T09:37:38.147Z","government_response_at":"2013-05-19T09:37:38.147Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-07T12:46:12.472Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-05-19","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world and spend more than £1billion of taxpayer’s money on criminal legal aid each year. We must ensure we get the very best value for every penny spent.\n\nWe are tackling areas which are eroding public confidence – such as wealthy defendants who can afford to pay their own costs routinely receiving legal aid; prisoners being given legal aid for issues better dealt with by via the prisoner complaints system; a small amount of high cost cases swallowing up many millions in pubic money; and those who do not have a strong connection to this country qualifying for legal aid.\n\nUnder the proposals for reform of the criminal legal aid scheme that we are consulting on until 4 June, quality assured duty solicitors and lawyers would still be available – just as they are now. All providers would be required to satisfy specified quality standards when they submit their tenders and subsequently through contractual requirements. They would therefore all be capable and competent of delivering criminal legal aid services to any client.\n\nThe consultation proposals aim to deliver a more credible and efficient system which will save £220million from the legal aid bill by 2018/19.\n\nThe consultation is open until 4 June and the department welcomes submissions on its proposals via the following link: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:53.222Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:53.222Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":73911,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/73911.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reinstate Regorafenib on the Cancer Drugs Fund list","background":null,"additional_details":"The drug regorafenib (Stivarga®) was approved last year as 3rd line treatment for patients with advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour (a rare type of cancer found in the digestive system). Regorafenib is used to treat GIST cancer that is unresponsive to existing drugs imatinib and sunitinib. It has proved very successful, stopping disease growth or causing significant shrinkage, and is better tolerated by patients. Younger patients with a rare form of “Wildtype” GIST respond very well to regorafenib.\r\nThe withdrawal of this drug from the Fund means patients whose GIST cancer is inoperable or has spread widely and is not contained by alternatives have no other treatment options available and will die sooner than might have been the case with this drug.\r\nWe are calling on the decision to be reconsidered and regorafenib to be reinstated on the CDF list. There is currently no cure for inoperable GIST but targeted drugs like regorafenib enable a patient to live for considerably longer.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103841,"created_at":"2015-01-17T10:11:21.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:44.319Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-01-19T14:19:16.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-01-17T10:11:21.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-01-22T23:37:54.820Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-02-22T11:25:44.201Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":63445,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/63445.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Tougher prison sentencing for murdering and baiting animals and acts of cruelty","background":null,"additional_details":"I want to start a petition to raise awareness of all animals in the UK that are subjected to horrific deaths , baiting and acts of cruelty and neglect.\r\nThe story of Till the Labradors and many others like her  that have suffered horrific and painful deaths has affected animal lovers all over the world.We need tougher penalties for these crimes.People cannot play God and take the lives of our animals, its not right, its not humane and these crimes need stopping.\r\nAnimals get such bad press and if they attack one time too many are put to sleep.So why should humans be allowed to get away with murdering , baiting and being cruel to our animals.\r\nWhat we want from the Government is to see tougher prison sentencing for these crimes. Lifetime ban from keeping any animals.Increased penalties.\r\n Put an end to the uneccessary suffering of our animals","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103479,"created_at":"2014-04-05T11:06:16.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:11.198Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-04-10T11:53:54.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-05T11:06:16.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-27T14:57:10.142Z","government_response_at":"2014-05-27T14:57:10.142Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2014-09-28T18:26:35.422Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-05-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government abhors animal cruelty. Powers for local authorities and police to investigate and take action in cases of suspected cruelty are provided in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under the 2006 Act, the maximum penalty for causing unnecessary suffering is a fine of £20,000 or six months imprisonment, or both. In addition, the court can impose post-conviction penalties on anyone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal by disqualifying anyone from having any influence over the keeping of animals for as long as the court see fit.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:11.192Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:11.192Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":58166,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/58166.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Millie's Trust campaigns to train ALL nursery nurses in Paediatric First Aid","background":null,"additional_details":"Following the death of Millie Thompson and the coroner's suggestion in December 2013 that ALL nursery nurses should be trained - Millie's parents are now campaigning to have it made law that everyone working in a nursery MUST be trained in Paediatric First Aid.\r\n\r\nPlease support and sign this petition in memory of Millie and for the future safety of your children. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103063,"created_at":"2013-12-10T17:54:38.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:22.887Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-12-16T15:28:13.000Z","closed_at":"2014-12-16T15:28:13.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-12-10T17:54:38.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-03T08:27:10.999Z","government_response_at":"2014-02-03T08:27:10.999Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-11T17:17:52.990Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-02-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe safety of all children is paramount and we were very sorry to hear about this tragic accident.\n\nPaediatric first aid training is, and will remain, a statutory requirement for all providers regulated under the Childcare Act 2006. The requirements for early years providers, including nurseries are set out in the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage.  At least one person who has a current paediatric first aid certificate must be on the premises at all times when children are present, and must accompany children on outings.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:22.882Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:22.882Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":22321,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/22321.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Protect Police Pensions","background":null,"additional_details":"Police Officers cannot strike in protest about serious changes to their pay, pensions & conditions, unlike many public sector workers who plan to strike over attacks on their pensions.\r\n\r\nWe are being told to expect an increase in our pension contributions from 11% to 14.2% of our salaries! We already pay a huge amount into our pension schemes!\r\n\r\nNot only that, but we are being told we must work longer before we can claim our pension, and that when we do, it will be worth less!\r\n\r\nOn top of that, we are experiencing a two-year pay freeze together with cuts to our pay and conditions under the Winsor Review.\r\n\r\nWe call on Government to recognise the absolute uniqueness of the role of Police Officer and to Protect Police Pensions from an unfair attack by retaining the current level of contributions, not extending the time needed to work before claiming and to retain the current conditions of the Police Pension Scheme.\r\n\r\nwww.NigelTompsett.com","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102701,"created_at":"2011-11-10T17:33:10.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.737Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-11T09:45:05.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-11T09:45:05.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-10T17:33:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-29T05:24:02.102Z","government_response_at":"2011-12-29T05:24:02.102Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-07T14:14:36.028Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2011-12-29","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government has accepted the clear case, set out in Lord Hutton’s report, for reform of public service pensions, including increasing contributions and raising the age at which people retire.\n\nPolice Officers cannot be exempt from changes which are affecting workers across the public services.  However, we have done all we can to secure a fair pensions package for police officers that reflects the frontline nature of policing work and protects those closest to retirement.\n\nOn 4 September 2012 the Home Secretary announced a core design for a new police pension scheme from 2015, having carefully considered these issues in consultation with the Police Negotiating Board.  Police officers will continue to retire earlier than most public servants and police pensions will continue to be amongst the best available.\n\nMore information about the reform of police pensions is available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/pension-reform.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.731Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.731Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":67911,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67911.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Driver receives maximum sentence of 14 years per person that has been killed.","background":null,"additional_details":"On Thursday 13th February 2014, friends Kris Jarvis and John Morland had been out cycling and where returning home via Purley and were struck by a speeding car, both men were killed.\r\n\r\nKris and his fiancée, Tracey, have 5 children and John and his fiancée, Hayley, have 2 children.\r\n\r\nThe driver of the car pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving, driving while uninsured and disqualified and aggravated vehicle taking, the driver of the speeding car received 10 years and three months sentence.\r\n\r\nAlexander Walter was 2 ½ times over the legal drink limit and had taken drugs 24 hours before and had 67 previous convictions.\r\n\r\nDangerous driving can have devastating consequences.  Tracey and Hayley would like to see the Government change the law, so if a driver receives a sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, the driver receives the maximum sentence, of 14 years, per person that has been killed.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102170,"created_at":"2014-07-23T17:14:54.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.658Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-24T09:56:32.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-23T17:14:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-08-05T15:02:05.943Z","government_response_at":"2014-09-05T15:02:05.943Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-23T12:52:11.434Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-09-05","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government offers its sincere condolences to the family of Mr Kris Jarvis and Mr John Morland and is committed to keeping our roads safe.\n\nSentencing in individual cases is always a matter for the courts, which are independent from government. When deciding what sentence to impose the courts take into account all the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating and aggravating factors, in line with statute and the sentencing guidelines. The court is required by statute to take previous convictions, where relevant, into account. Where there is more than one victim, this will be taken into account and will clearly aggravate the seriousness of the offence.\n\nWe want to ensure that maximum penalties for driving offences reflect the seriousness and culpability of offending behaviour. We recognise that there are a number of issues relating to driving that are of concern to the public; this is why a review of driving offences and penalties has been announced to ensure that the options available to the courts are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the offences committed.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.651Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.651Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":26272,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/26272.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Motorcyclists Matter – to ensure that biker related questions are compulsory in the driving theory test","background":null,"additional_details":"In order to raise awareness of motorcyclists on Britain’s roads, Bennetts, the UK's No.1 Bike Insurance Specialist, is campaigning to ensure biker related questions are made compulsory in the driving theory test – who despite accounting for just 1% of road traffic, fall victim to over a fifth of all fatalities on the roads.\r\nDid you know that motorists can currently pass without answering a single question relating to bikers? As many as 7,004 bikers and their pillions lost their lives between 1999 and 2010 and the biker casualty rate is currently a staggering 61 times greater than that of motorists. With questions currently selected at random, there is no guarantee that a question relating to the awareness of motorcyclists will arise in the current test format and this petition is set to challenge that. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":85215,"created_at":"2011-12-23T12:20:49.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:40.973Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-12-23T14:01:48.000Z","closed_at":"2012-06-24T01:01:48.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-12-23T12:20:49.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-01-03T08:22:35.526Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":13716,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/13716.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Recruit 5000 more NHS midwives in England ","background":null,"additional_details":"More babies were born in England in 2010 than in any year since 1972, whilst births to women aged 30 or older were at their highest since 1946. The NHS is desperately short of midwives, and the shortage affects every region of England. We need urgent action from the Government, including a target to recruit the equivalent of 5000 more full-time midwives. Care for women but especially babies at the very start of life should be shielded from the cuts.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":76589,"created_at":"2011-08-19T14:19:52.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:07:51.044Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-22T10:53:53.000Z","closed_at":"2012-08-22T10:53:53.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-08-19T14:19:52.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-15T08:20:54.783Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":34101,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/34101.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Nurses Registration Fees","background":null,"additional_details":"We would like the Government to Review the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) with regard to the fees charged to registered nurses.\r\n\r\nThe NMC has said that it intends to consult on raising the annual fee for all Registered Nurses from £76 to £120.\r\n\r\nWhilst having a regulatory body is necessary, we feel that charging 660,000 Nurses a total of over £81,000,000 for the priviledge of maintaining our registrations is unacceptable and a potential 58% increase in our fees at this time is inexcusable. A lot of nurses resent having to pay at all, to be allowed to keep our hard earned registrations and this potential increase is devastating to many.\r\n\r\nPlease sign the petition to encourage a review of the NMC and the charging of annual fees to Nurses","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":75775,"created_at":"2012-05-17T18:27:36.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.487Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-05-21T11:11:14.000Z","closed_at":"2013-05-21T11:11:14.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-17T18:27:36.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-14T13:12:51.393Z","government_response_at":"2012-07-14T13:12:51.393Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-07-14","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is an independent body and it is therefore for the Council to determine the level of fees it charges for registration.  It is also for the NMC to justify its fee structure.\n\nThe NMC undertook a consultation on the proposed fees increase.  The consultation closed on 24 August, and the NMC is assessing the responses.  Information is available on the NMC website at www.nmc-uk.org/Get-involved/Consultations/NMC-fee-increase.\n\nMinisters have made it clear to the NMC Chair and Chief Executive that the Government does not expect registration fees for any regulator to increase unless there is a clear and robust case that any increase is essential to ensure the exercise of statutory duties.\n\nOn 15 October, the Government offered the NMC a one-off grant of £20million to improve the NMC’s performance.  The Government expects that this support will allow the NMC to protect nurses and midwives from the full impact of the proposed registration fee rise.  It is a decision for the NMC whether or not to accept the Government’s offer.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.481Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.481Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":49196,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/49196.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Promote cycling by implementing the recommendations in the 'Get Britain Cycling' report.","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned call on the Prime Minister to pledge that the Government will implement the recommendations in the 'Get Britain Cycling' parliamentary report.\r\nThe inquiry, chaired by a cross-party panel of MPs and peers, heard that promoting cycling as a healthy and affordable way to travel can tackle Britain's obesity crisis, save millions from NHS budgets, boost the economy and reduce congestion on our roads and trains.\r\nThe inquiry’s 18 recommendations focus on reallocating investment, safer road design, lower speed limits, better training and strong political leadership.\r\nThis will require cross-departmental consensus led from the Cabinet Office and Downing Street, not just from the Department for Transport.\r\nIn the Commons on February 22, 2012, the Prime Minister said of The Times's ‘Cities Fit for Cycling’ campaign: “If we want to encourage the growth in cycling we’ve seen in recent years, we need to get behind campaigns like this.”\r\nNow is the time to act on those words.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":73012,"created_at":"2013-04-23T14:46:05.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:58.563Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-23T15:47:59.000Z","closed_at":"2014-04-23T15:47:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-23T14:46:05.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-18T15:42:03.989Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-18T15:42:03.989Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-18","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government welcomes the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) inquiry and report. We will look at the recommendations carefully and respond in due course. The Coalition Government takes cycling very seriously and is committed to leading the country in getting more people cycling, more safely, more often.\n\nMany of the recommendations in the report mirror those shared with Government by the Cycling Stakeholder Forum members.  In the last 12 months we have allocated £107m of new money to support safety and community links that encourage more cycling.  This is over and above the £600m Local Sustainable Transport Fund where 94 out of the 96 projects contain a cycling element.  We have also introduced measures to make cycling safer, including flexibility for Local Authorities to introduce 20mph speed limits in residential areas and a process for applications for further rural 40mph zones.  Furthermore, we have made it easier to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions.\n\nThe Department for Transport has been co-ordinating a cross-departmental effort to promote cycling, in particular with Defra and the Department of Health.  For example Transport and Health Ministers shared a platform at the Leicester Active Travel Conference in November to promote better working between public health and transport planners.  We now plan to take this further by establishing a project team involving more departments and stakeholders.\n\nWe are working on making our towns and cities more cycle friendly. In January we announced the Cycle City Ambition Grants and have invited cities outside London to bid for a share of a £42m grant.  The guidance requires cities to demonstrate local leadership and set out a 10 year ambition for more cycling.  Successful bids will receive a cycling budget equivalent to £10 per head, which is the level of support the APPCG inquiry report recommends.  The £42m grant will also benefit National Parks who have been asked to develop schemes to improve cycling facilities to help support cycling as a fun leisure activity as well as a healthy way of getting around.  We will announce the successful bids in the summer.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:58.555Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:58.555Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":62333,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/62333.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Britain should stop all trade with Israel until the Palestinians have their illegally stolen lands back.","background":null,"additional_details":"Israel continues to steal lands from Palestinians in their own land. They evict palestinian Families from their homes so that they have to live in 'refugee camps' on ever decreasing land. They are shot at and often killed for no reason apart from the fact that they are Palestinians. They set up companies, like Sodastream on stolen land and we still trade with them. The British government should set up a trade embargo on Israel until they stop their apartheid regime. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":70382,"created_at":"2014-03-12T20:36:12.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:00.947Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-03-17T13:58:18.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-17T13:58:18.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-12T20:36:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-12T12:17:23.542Z","government_response_at":"2014-05-12T12:17:23.542Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-05-12","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe British Government firmly opposes calls to boycott Israel. We do not agree with many of Israel’s actions with respect to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and do not hesitate to express strong views whenever we feel it necessary.  At the same time, we enjoy a close and productive relationship with Israel which enables us to express our views at senior levels very frankly.  It is our assessment that imposing sanctions on Israel would lessen this influence, not increase it, and would not promote the urgent progress towards a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which we want to see.\n\nThe British Government has placed online guidance to raise awareness of the key security and political risks which UK businesses may face when operating abroad, including in Israel and the OPTs.  This includes guidance on Israeli settlements.  We are advising British businesses to bear in mind the British Government's view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region.  This is voluntary guidance to British businesses on doing business in Israel and OPTs.  Ultimately it will be the decision of an individual or company whether to operate in settlements in the Occupied Territories, but the British Government would neither encourage nor offer support to such activity.  When approached by businesses, we set out the UK’s clear position on Israeli settlements, and share with them our online guidance.\n\nThis approach is in keeping with our policy with respect to other countries.  The FCO continues to work closely with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and UK Trade and Investment, with respect to our advice to British businesses.  Our commercial and political officers at our Posts overseas stand ready to help, to lobby host Governments, advise on issues in their local markets and direct companies to best practice guidelines that may help.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:00.940Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:00.940Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":33458,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/33458.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Notorious criminals cashing-in on phone hacking compensation","background":null,"additional_details":"Criminals who are notorious as a result of a heinous crimes should not be\r\nallowed to receive damages from newspapers, or any journalists, over privacy\r\nintrusions, like hacking phones or emails.\r\n\r\nThe media are not allowed to pay criminals for their stories, and by the\r\nsame token criminals should be barred from benefiting from the attention\r\nfocussed on them because of their offences.\r\n\r\nParliament must pass a law banning the payment of damages to a criminal in\r\nsuch circumstance, and requiring any damages secured in this way to be\r\ndonated to a registered charity, nominated by the families of their victims.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":68933,"created_at":"2012-04-29T18:16:43.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:41.097Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-05-04T12:56:55.000Z","closed_at":"2013-05-04T12:56:55.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-29T18:16:43.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-31T00:20:53.527Z","government_response_at":"2012-06-30T00:20:53.527Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-06-30","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government established the Leveson Inquiry in July 2011 to examine the culture, practices and ethics of the press following the disclosure of law breaking and serious misconduct in some quarters of the press. The Government takes any allegation of unlawful or inappropriate behaviour by police officers very seriously and that is one of the reasons why the Government established the Leveson Inquiry\n\nLord Justice Leveson’s report, published in November 2012, laid bare that our existing system of press self-regulation is not fit for purpose and has let down the victims of some of the worst behaviours of the press. Leveson’s detailed inquiry and report is also a valuable addition to supporting the police in their vital work on improving integrity, accountability and transparency\n\nWhat some ordinary members of the public have endured because of the behaviours of some parts of the press is unacceptable. Government is clear that action must be taken: the package of measures agreed by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on 18 March will help deliver a new system of independent and robust press regulation in this country, one which supports our traditions of investigative journalism and free speech, and which also protects the rights of those who become the subject of news coverage. In addition, as the Home Secretary made clear in her statement to the House in respect of police integrity on February 12, the Government accepts what has been recommended on the relationship between the press and the police, and will be working closely with the College of Policing, Chiefs’ Council, HMIC and the IPCC on implementation.\n\nRegarding compensation, it is a central principle of the civil law that anyone who has suffered damage as a result of another person’s unlawful acts or omissions can bring a claim for compensation in relation to that damage. It is then a matter for the courts to decide whether the claim is properly established and, if so, what compensation should be payable. Excluding the right to bring a claim from any person or group of people would go against this principle and in cases relating to breaches of privacy through phone hacking would allow the press to break the law and commit serious misconduct without the risk of having to pay civil law damages. The Government does not consider that this would be appropriate.\n\nHowever, we agree entirely that the justice system needs to put victims of crime first, not offenders. That’s why the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 places a stronger duty on the courts to consider ordering offenders to pay compensation to their victims  The courts may also allow civil claims for personal injury to be brought outside of the normal limitation time period, where it is just and equitable to do so. That might be of use to a victim when the perpetrator of the crime does not have sufficient resources at the time of conviction, but subsequently acquires additional resources (for example, where they have received damages).\n\nThe Government is taking a number of other steps to ensure that offenders are properly held accountable to their victims. In our response to the consultation ‘Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses’, the Government made clear its intention to ensure that offenders are responsible for greater reparation to victims and to contribute to the cost of victim support services. We have reformed the Victim Surcharge and intend to use revenue from increased financial penalties to fund victims’ services, raising up to an additional £50m per year from offenders.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:41.091Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:41.091Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":20968,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/20968.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop and review the cuts to benefits and services which are falling disproportionately on disabled people, their carers and families","background":null,"additional_details":"The government were embarking on wholesale reform of the benefit system when the economic crisis struck. These welfare reforms had not been piloted and the plan was to monitor and assess the impact of the new untried approach as it was introduced in a buoyant economy. Unfortunately since then the economy has gone in to crisis and the government has simultaneously embarked on a massive programme of cuts. This has created a perfect storm and left disabled people/those with ill health, and their carers reeling, confused and afraid.\r\n\r\nWe ask the government to stop this massive programme of piecemeal change until they can review the impact of all these changes, taken together, on disabled people and their carers. We ask the government to stand by its duty of care to disabled people and their carers. At the moment the covenant seems to be broken and they do not feel safe.\r\n\r\nIllness or disability could affect any one of us at any time, while many more of us are potential carers.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":62725,"created_at":"2011-11-01T08:53:44.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:56.249Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-01T10:12:44.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-01T10:12:44.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-01T08:53:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-30T14:24:41.417Z","government_response_at":"2011-12-30T14:24:41.417Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2011-12-30","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAs set out in “Fulfilling Potential - The Discussions so Far” and “Fulfilling Potential – Next steps”, both published on 17 September, the Government is fully committed to ensuring that disabled people of all backgrounds and ages can fulfil their potential and play full roles in society.\n\nThe disability benefits system has an important role to play in providing financial support for disabled people both in and out of work, but for too long a system which was designed to help support those with the greatest needs has written people off.\n\nDisabled people are much less likely to be in employment than non-disabled people, but for many disabled people work will be the best route out of poverty and towards increased independence and well-being. Our reform of the benefits system will make sure that work always pays and provide unequivocal support for those who cannot work through the introduction of the Universal Credit.\n\nThe Personal Independent Payment (PIP) will gradually replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for 16-64 year olds from April 2013. It is being designed to reflect a modern understanding of disability and to treat all conditions fairly. This is a real step forward. Reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is long overdue and the benefit must be changed to better support disabled people to lead independent lives as they want to today.\n\nThis reform provides an opportunity better to target support for disabled people and protect those who are most in need. PIP will maintain the key principles of DLA: it will be a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people and available to people in and out of work, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more objective and more consistent manner than DLA and increase confidence that the right support is going to the right people.   However, welfare reform forms just one part of our approach to improving the lives of disabled people.\n\nIn “Fulfilling Potential – Next steps” we set out our vision and principles for the further reform needed to achieve our aims of equality and independence for disabled people. Disabled people will be at the heart of a new disability action alliance, ensuring that the policies and actions taken forward will make a real difference to their lives.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:56.242Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:56.242Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":42002,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/42002.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Live Transport of Farmed Animals","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned believe that the international trade in animals for food should be on the hook and not on the hoof. Animals should be slaughtered humanely as close to their farm of origin as possible and subject to CCTV monitoring to ensure humane standards apply.\r\n\r\nConsequently, we call upon the Government to cease immediately the live transport of farmed animals from British ports to continental Europe and to make that cessation permanent by appropriate amendment to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Act 1847.\r\n\r\nWhile the trade continues the full costs of all veterinary and Animal Health regulatory inspections as well as lairage and emergency facilities should be borne by the hauliers and shipment industry, rather than by the taxpayer.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":60520,"created_at":"2012-11-19T08:57:39.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:55.296Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-19T13:44:24.000Z","closed_at":"2013-11-19T13:44:24.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-19T08:57:39.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-19T17:28:03.695Z","government_response_at":"2013-01-19T17:28:03.695Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-01-19","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government would prefer to see the export of meat or germ plasm rather than livestock, and that animals are slaughtered as close as practical to their point of production.  However, the export of livestock for slaughter within the EU is a legal trade.\n\nTo ban the trade, either directly or by indirect means, would be illegal and would undermine the principle of the free-movement of goods enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Nevertheless, if livestock is transported for slaughter, consignments must meet the full requirements of the EU legislation on the protection of animals during transport (Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005).\n\nThis legal position on the trade in livestock has been confirmed by a number of rulings in  the High Court and the European Court of Justice in the 1990s.  The High Court judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the 1995 joined cases of R v Dover Harbour Board (ex parte Gilder), R v Associated British Ports ex parte Plymouth City Council and the European Court of Justice case C – 1/96 R v MAFF ex parte CIWF are both good examples of these rulings.\n\nMention is made of possible amendment to the Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.  UK ports are generally subject to the requirements derived from Section 33 of this legislation.  This states that:\n\n\"Upon payment of the rates made payable by this and the special Act, and subject to the other provisions thereof, the harbour, dock, and pier shall be open to all persons for the shipping and unshipping of goods, and the embarking and landing of passengers.\"\n\nThis legislative provision is designed to ensure that ports are available to all without discrimination in a consistent manner.  It would not be an appropriate legal instrument to use to introduce an effective barrier to trade for the use by port authorities as they see fit.  In any case, attempting to ban the live export trade in this way would still be illegal as it would undermine the principle of the free movement of goods enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n\nA debate was held on this issue in the House of Commons on 13 December 2012.  You can read the text of the debate in the Official Report at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121213/debtext/121213-0002.htm#12121342000004  For further information about the Backbench Business Committee please visit www.parliament.uk/bbcom\n\nThis e-petition will remain open to signatures until the published closing date and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:55.289Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:55.289Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":356,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/356.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Britain wants referendum to leave EU","background":null,"additional_details":"The Daily Express is crusading to end Britain’s membership of the European Union. We want the Government to arrange for an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU either by means of an enabling referendum or directly so that the British people are once again placed in charge of their own political destiny. We would like this matter debated in parliament\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":59346,"created_at":"2011-07-29T16:56:18.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:05:49.368Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-04T14:28:37.000Z","closed_at":"2012-08-04T14:28:37.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-07-29T16:56:18.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-04T10:32:37.218Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}