{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=2&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=9&parliament=2&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=2&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=2&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":59196,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/59196.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":"Reverse Ban on Holiday's During School Term Time","background":null,"additional_details":"Reverse the amendments to the term time family holiday rules under The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 which came into force on 1 September 2013.\r\n\r\nAll children who have a good attendance record should be allowed the opportunity to enjoy quality time with their parents on an annual holiday of up to ten days, once per year. Whilst children are on holiday they are experiencing other cultures, possibly dealing with foreign currency and learning life skills.\r\n\r\nParents should not be criminalised for wanting to enjoy an affordable annual family holiday, at a time that is convenient with their employers.\r\n\r\nThese changes will also adversely affect many businesses that rely upon holiday trade from Spring to Autumn.\r\n\r\nThe Government should reverse these amendments immediately.\r\n\r\nPlease sign this petition. 100,000 signatures are required for the government to look at this issue.\r\n\r\nThank you","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":51403,"created_at":"2014-01-13T10:43:52.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:31.899Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-01-15T16:01:04.000Z","closed_at":"2015-01-15T16:01:04.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-13T10:43:52.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-02-20T04:06:29.241Z","government_response_at":"2014-03-20T04:06:29.241Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-03-20","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe law requires parents to ensure their school registered children (age between 5 and 16) to attend school regularly. The Government believes that pupils are most successful in school when they can follow an uninterrupted programme of study with their peers, consolidate their newly acquired knowledge or skills, and apply them before moving on to more complex theories and understanding. This cannot be achieved if their education is being disrupted unnecessarily because they are taken out of school during term time for a holiday. Most schools have 190 days of compulsory education in their academic year, which gives plenty of opportunities for families to plan and enjoy their holidays during school breaks.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:31.893Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:31.893Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":34073,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/34073.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 services for deaf children","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned call on the Department for Education to intervene to protect specialist services for deaf children as a matter of urgency.\r\n\r\nMany deaf children depend on multiple highly-specialist public services. We know that local authorities are cutting these services to save money, without being transparent about their decisions and actions.\r\n\r\nThese services are not a luxury. They are vital to deaf children’s education, health and wellbeing.\r\n\r\nToo many local authorities fail to take the needs of deaf children seriously or provide basic information that families need to understand decisions and challenge them if necessary.\r\n\r\nWe are calling on minsters to use their powers to hold these local authorities to account, ensure they abide by the law and stop hoodwinking families.\r\n\r\nUrgent, decisive action is needed to stop the futures of some of the country’s most vulnerable children being put in danger.\r\n\r\nThis petition has been initiated by the National Deaf Children's Society.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":51033,"created_at":"2012-05-17T09:28:04.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.236Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-05-22T08:24:10.000Z","closed_at":"2013-05-22T08:24:10.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-17T09:28:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-27T02:40:15.445Z","government_response_at":"2012-07-27T02:40:15.445Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-07-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAs the National Deaf Children’s Society acknowledge in its ‘Stolen Futures’ report, the Department for Education has already taken action to protect the resources available for special educational needs (SEN) provision, including support for deaf children. We have ensured that the Dedicated Schools Grant is, overall, at the same cash level per pupil as in 2010-11. We have also announced that we will not seek to recover SEN funding from local authorities where schools have converted to Academy status. This should help protect services on the ground at a time of transition and emphasises our commitment to improving the system of support for disabled children and those with SEN.\n\nGovernment, at both national and local level, is having to make tough choices given the current financial environment. Those decisions, however, must also be based on a good assessment of local need and well thought through and transparent. Most importantly, families should have clear, accessible information about their rights and the support available to them.\n\nOur proposed reforms will help ensure that this is increasingly the case.  Through the proposed Children and Families Bill we will require every local authority, along with local schools, health services and other partners to publish a ‘Local Offer’.  This will set out clearly the support that is normally available in that area for disabled children and those with SEN.  Families will easily be able to see what support is available and where to go if they need further 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":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.230Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:46.230Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":38182,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/38182.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 Abolition of Disability Living Allowance for Personal Independence Payments","background":null,"additional_details":"The government intends to abolish Disability Living Allowance and replace it with Personal Independence Payments. We feel the government is doing this because it is clear by awarding the contract to assess Personal Independence Payments to ATOS, it is a means to make savage cuts welfare to the most vulnerable in society. We believe peoples lives will be lost as a result of the scrapping of DLA for Personal Independence Payments assessed by ATOS.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":49688,"created_at":"2012-09-04T23:12:40.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:21.727Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-09-05T13:42:07.000Z","closed_at":"2013-09-05T13:42:07.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-09-04T23:12:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-12T07:12:09.028Z","government_response_at":"2012-11-12T08:12:09.028Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-11-12","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThis is a long overdue and principled reform which will ensure that disability benefits are brought into the 21st century. We have been absolutely clear that our welfare reform plans are designed to protect those who are most in need and will prioritise support on individuals who have the greatest needs.\n\nWe are designing Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to reflect a modern understanding of disability, to treat all conditions fairly and to ensure proper support is in place. This is a real step forward. Reforming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) also provides an opportunity to better target support for disabled people and to enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. Under Personal Independence Payment a greater proportion will get the higher rates compared to Disability Living Allowance.\n\nThe PIP assessment criteria will reflect a more complete consideration of the impact of an individual’s health condition or impairment – whether physical, sensory, mental or cognitive – than the current DLA assessment, ensuring that fair account is taken of all impairment types.\n\nWe recently announced the successful bidders for the Personal Independence Payment assessment contracts. After a fair and open competition Atos Healthcare was awarded the contract covering London and Southern England, as well as that covering Scotland, North East and North West England, while Capita Business Services was awarded the contract covering Wales and Central England as well as Northern Ireland.\n\nBy contracting with two providers we are adopting a new approach to delivering health and disability assessments working with regional providers.  This will help ensure the quality of service is delivered in a way that best meets local needs, drives best practice and allows for more robust performance management with greater scope to take action against a poorly performing provider.\n\nThe PIP contracts do not include any targets or financial incentives in relation to the outcome of assessments or decisions on benefit entitlement.  Providers will be paid for production of fair and impartial assessments and their assessment reports will be sent to Departmental decision makers, who will then make the decision on benefit entitlement.\n\nHealth professionals conducting the PIP assessments, from either provider, will be required to have a broad training in disability analysis as well as training on specific impairments. Both providers will have to conform to a rigorous set of quality standards regarding staff recruitment and training, as well as the quality and consistency of the assessments themselves, which this Department will be closely monitoring.\n\nThe PIP assessment process will be empathetic and will give claimants the opportunity to put across their view of the impact their health conditions or impairments have on their lives.\n\nWe intend to make greater use of appropriate evidence to support claims. This will include evidence from claimants and from supporting professionals. Assessment providers will be responsible for gathering evidence, although claimants will be encouraged to send in any evidence they have to hand. Claimants will also be given the opportunity to identify the most appropriate additional sources of information, particularly professionals who support them on a regular basis.\n\nA face-to-face consultation will be a key part of the process for most individuals. This will allow an in-depth look at their circumstances and will give individuals the opportunity to put across their own views of the impact of their impairment on their everyday lives. This approach will ensure that decisions reflect the best evidence. However, face-to-face consultations will not be appropriate in every case. Where we already have enough evidence on which to make an assessment it would be inappropriate, and a waste of public money, to require individuals to attend a consultation. These decisions need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, as impairments can affect people in very different ways. Furthermore, we have made it very clear that individuals who are asked to attend a face-to-face consultation will be able to bring with them a relation, friend or possibly a professional who supports them.\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":"2017-06-21T15:11:21.720Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:21.720Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":49640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/49640.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":"Reverse the changes to school term time family holiday rules","background":null,"additional_details":"Reverse the amendments to the term time family holiday rules under  The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 which are due to come into force on 1 September 2013.\r\n\r\nThese changes will adversely affect many families who cannot afford the cost of a holiday in school holidays.\r\n\r\nAll children who have a good attendance record should be allowed the opportunity to  enjoy quality time with their parents on an annual holiday of up to 10 days once per year.\r\n\r\nGood parents should not be criminalised for wanting to enjoy an affordable annual family holiday.\r\n\r\nThese badly thought out  changes will also adversely affect many businesses that rely upon holiday trade from Spring to Autumn.  Furthermore the cost of holidays in school holidays will sky rocket as a direct result of these changes.\r\n\r\nThe Government should reverse these amendments immediately.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":48943,"created_at":"2013-05-04T19:56:29.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:02.664Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-05-21T08:14:35.000Z","closed_at":"2013-08-21T08:14:35.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-04T19:56:29.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-30T17:48:41.666Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-30T17:48:41.666Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-30","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 has no plans to change its policy on this issue.\n\nIt is a Government priority that children of compulsory school age and who are registered at school attend school regularly. School absence should be reduced to a minimum.  This is because there is clear evidence that any absence from school can and does impact on children’s education attainment.\n\nThe law places a duty on parents of every school-registered child of compulsory school age to secure their regular attendance at school. The courts have interpreted regular attendance to mean a pupil attending school every day it is open for education. Failure of a parent to ensure their child attends school regularly may constitute an offence, which can lead to a parent being fined or prosecuted.\n\nThe previous law on leave of absence allowed schools to authorise up to ten days leave for the purpose of family holiday in special circumstances if a parent applied in advance. This was interpreted by some schools and parents to mean that parents had an entitlement to take their children on an annual two week family holiday during term time.  This was a misconception; the law was not intended to create any perception of an   entitlement.  The Government has now changed the law to remove any ambiguity.\n\nHead teachers will still have the power to authorise leave of absence but only in exceptional circumstances. If a head teacher grants leave, it will be for them to determine the length of time the child can be away from school. There are 190 days in a school year and enough opportunities during school breaks for parents to plan their holidays. The Government does not plan to revert back to the previous legislation.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:02.657Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:02.657Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":54958,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/54958.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":"Do not ban the Niqab/Face Veil","background":null,"additional_details":"Britain should not follow France and other EU states by banning the Niqab - face veil.\r\nBritish women should have the free right to chose how they dress.\r\nThis not about religious requirements but the freedom and right to chose.\r\nMembers of Parliament should not be debating a woman's choice of clothing.\r\nThe United Kingdom is a multicultural society where which welcomes diversity and people from all different ethnic, religious backgrounds.\r\nThat is what makes us proud to be British. Respecting a law abiding citizens rights, freedom and faith is not a threat to our borders nor our national security.\r\nThe British Government should protect the rights of law abiding citizens choice. Choice of freedom, to wear whatever item of clothing a individual wishes to do so.\r\nThe Government should not have a national debate on banning the niqab.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":47667,"created_at":"2013-09-16T20:50:00.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.629Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-10-08T16:45:25.000Z","closed_at":"2014-10-08T16:45:25.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-16T20:50:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-11-15T23:37:53.895Z","government_response_at":"2013-12-15T23:37:53.895Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-12-15","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 does not support a ban on the wearing of the burqa or other religious head coverings.  Any restrictions on what a woman can wear in public would be out of keeping with British values and our nation's longstanding record of religious tolerance and gender equality.\n\nBritain has a proud tradition of religious tolerance.  The Government is committed to creating a strong and integrated society in which hatred and prejudice are not tolerated and in which all people are free to express their identity and live without fear of harassment and crime that targets them because of that identity.  A key part of our tolerance is respect for other’s beliefs and religious practices, and an understanding of how our own practices impact on others.\n\nThe Government wants to see greater integration between communities and is strongly committed to encouraging dialogue and co-operation between people of different religious backgrounds. We think this, rather than a burqa ban, is the way to make progress.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.622Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.622Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":60635,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/60635.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":"Introduce Black History to the primary curriculum","background":null,"additional_details":"To make Black History part of the school curriculum for Primary education. It helps to enrich the development of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural needs of all ethnic groups.\r\n\r\nWe believe Black History should be made a mandatory element of the national curriculum.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":43914,"created_at":"2014-02-10T10:01:34.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:45.578Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-02-10T12:00:42.000Z","closed_at":"2015-02-10T12:00:42.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-02-10T10:01:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-24T01:24:56.460Z","government_response_at":"2014-04-24T00:24:56.460Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-04-24","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 believes that as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, pupils should learn about different cultures, and about how different groups have contributed to the development of Britain. The content and structure of the new history curriculum provides plenty of scope for black history to be covered. However, this is not prescribed in detail within the statutory programmes of study.  Instead schools have the flexibility to deal with these topics in ways that are appropriate and sensitive to the needs of their pupils.\n\nSpecifically in the history programmes of study, in primary, Rosa Parks and Mary Seacole are listed at key stage 1 as examples of significant individuals in the past that pupils could be taught about, who have contributed to national and international achievements.  At key stage 2, pupils should be taught about a non-European society that provides contrasts with British history  - one study chosen from: early Islamic civilization, including a study of Baghdad c. AD900; Mayan civilization c. AD900; Benin (West Africa) c. AD900 -1300.\n\nPupils can develop these opportunities further at secondary school level.  Key stage 3 includes the example of the impact through time of the migration of people to, from and within the British Isles, as well as Indian independence and end of Empire.  In addition, in Citizenship at key stage 4, pupils should be taught about the diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding. The new national curriculum, including the programmes of study for history, can be found at the following site: http://tinyurl.com/oh9swhp\n\nIt is important that pupils develop an understanding of the key events that have shaped the history of Britain.  Teachers do however have the freedom to teach aspects of the history of other cultures, in addition to the core content, to meet the needs of their pupils.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:45.546Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:45.546Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":53002,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/53002.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":"End the 'Parent Trap' - suspend or reduce APD over school summer holidays","background":null,"additional_details":"I am calling on the government to help British families manage the “Parent Trap” of inflated holiday prices in summer by suspending or reducing the rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) for the annual school summer-holiday period of July and August. This will allow British families to enjoy much needed quality time together at the only time children are legally allowed to take holidays. This proposed tax break will ultimately benefit parents and teachers, who are corralled into taking holiday during the school summer break, when prices are already escalated.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":43747,"created_at":"2013-07-23T10:01:10.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:34.658Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-23T11:09:13.000Z","closed_at":"2014-07-23T11:09:13.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-23T10:01:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-03T04:21:54.441Z","government_response_at":"2013-10-03T04:21:54.441Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-10-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAir Passenger Duty exists to provide revenues for the public services.  Revenue from Air Passenger Duty plays an important part in supporting this Government’s stabilisation of the UK’s public finances as the country’s economy recovers from the biggest financial crisis in generations, one of the deepest recessions of any major economy and a decade of growth built on unsustainable levels of debt.\n\nWhilst meeting this objective the Government has still been able to deliver a real terms freeze to Air Passenger Duty for three years.  During this time, rates for the vast majority of passengers have only increased by £1, and it is £13 on an economy flight to Europe.  The duty makes up a relatively small proportion of the total ticket cost. For example, it is less than 9 per cent of the cost of an early booking for return flights for a family of four to Málaga in July 2014. Other charges imposed by airlines, such as fuel or luggage surcharges, can make up a much higher proportion of the total ticket price.\n\nThe liability to pay Air Passenger Duty sits with airlines rather than with passengers.  This means that while airlines do tend to pass the cost of APD on wholesale to passengers, there could never be any guarantee of savings being passed on fully even if it were feasible to temporarily reduce it during the summer holiday period.\n\nThe Government’s approach to Air Passenger Duty is to ensure that the aviation sector makes a fair contribution to bringing down the deficit.  The sector pays no tax on the fuel used in international and nearly all domestic flights.  There is no VAT on international flights, and, unlike many countries, the UK does not charge VAT on domestic flights.\n\nAlongside three years of real terms freeze to Air Passenger Duty the Government has also made funding available to help local authorities in England freeze their Council Tax for a third year in a row.  Since 2011, the Government has announced successive increases in the personal allowance, so that from April 2014 the cumulative effect will have taken 2.7 million people out of income tax, and a typical basic rate taxpayer will see a cash gain of £705 per year.  And the longest fuel duty freeze for over 20 years means that it costs £7 less every time a typical family fills their tank, and £10 less by the end of the Parliament.\n\nThe Government, of course, keeps all taxes and duties under review.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:34.652Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:34.652Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":70689,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/70689.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":"Introduce mandatory noise complaint waivers for anyone who buys or rents a property within close distance of a music venue","background":null,"additional_details":"There are innumerate cases of people knowingly moving within close proximity of live music venues, only to try to have their licenses revoked or have them closed completely when they take exception to the noise.\r\n\r\nIt is extremely detrimental to the UK's entertainment industry, particularly on a grassroots level, when all the music venues start disappearing. Music is a key British export and to endanger our strong national artist community is to endanger a key British industry.\r\n\r\nAs such, anyone who wishes to buy or rent a property within a determined distance of a music venue should have to read and sign legislature that waives their right to complain about the noise from the nearby venue. If they do not wish to be bothered by something that was a fixture of the community long before they arrived, they should not move there in the first place.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":43323,"created_at":"2014-10-11T10:51:33.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:17.428Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-11-21T10:06:42.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-10-11T10:51:33.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-12-06T08:54:54.288Z","government_response_at":"2015-01-06T08:54:54.288Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-01-06","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe issues raised in this e-petition relate to land use in England and Wales. They touch on the law relating to the ownership of property and the private law of nuisance as well as the planning system, statutory nuisance and the regulation of public events. The underlying complaint is that new residents object to established activities within their new neighbourhood.\n\nIndividuals are in general free to live in any part of England and Wales.  They may buy, rent or be permitted to use a residence. On taking up residence they generally have the same rights as the existing inhabitants. Removing the rights of incomers to protect themselves against nuisances would discriminate against them and probably intensify the enquiries made by prospective residents, making transactions more complicated and expensive, as well as increasing the risk of post-transaction litigation about non-disclosure or limited disclosure. The Government has no plans to change the law in this respect.\n\nThe law of nuisance\n\nThe private law of nuisance is a long-standing common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The law recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the land or premises owned or occupied by them.\n\nIt is open to anyone with an interest in land to bring a civil claim where there has been an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land as a result of the unreasonable use of neighbouring land by another person (the defendant). Remedies available could include an injunction to moderate or cease the unreasonable use of the land and/or damages for the interference suffered.\n\nThe standard to be applied by the courts in determining whether the claimant is entitled to a remedy is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the claimant is living. While any benefit to the wider community arising from the defendant’s use of their land is not a defence against a claim, it may be a factor considered by the court when assessing if the use is reasonable. The fact that the defendant may have been using the land in that way before the claimant came to the vicinity is also not a defence, although the extent to which the claimant was aware of the activity when acquiring their interest in the land may be a factor that the court will consider as part of the overall picture.\n\nApplying these general principles, the court has to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. Achieving a just outcome in such civil disputes is a matter best left to the courts, and the Government has no plans to change the law in this area.\n\nThere is also statutory nuisance legislation which draws on common law nuisance. It would apply to noise from premises that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health. It also places a duty on local authorities to take action, rather than individuals relying on seeking redress through the courts. Before using this legislation, the local authority would assess whether a statutory nuisance exists based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account a range of factors including how the character of the locality (including existing noise sources) affects the situation. Individuals may also bring private actions under this legislation.\n\nThere are safeguards for music venues in relation to complaints from nearby residents. When assessing statutory nuisance and deciding on potential enforcement action and whether mitigation measures are required, the venues – or any businesses - have a defence of best practicable means if they can demonstrate that they have done all they reasonably and practicably can to minimise the noise impact. The one exception is noise arising at night (23:00-07:00) from licensed premises.  For this particularly sensitive time, the Noise Act applies and sets a noise level not to be exceeded in someone’s home due to noise coming from licensed premises.\n\nPlanning\n\nThe planning system has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances occurring in the first place. National planning policy for England as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework expects local planning policies and decisions to  avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.\n\nHowever, it should be borne in mind that the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists.\n\nElements of an ‘agent of change” or “right of first occupant” principle already exist within national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Framework for example, states that existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. In particular, the planning guidance supporting the Framework directly addresses the issue of noise sensitive developments, like new residential developments, where there is an existing noise source and includes advice on noise mitigation measures. In a recent update of the guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government underlined planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints including through looking to developers building new homes near venues giving rise to noise to include sound-proofing in the homes.\n\nLicensing of music venues\n\nCertain types of entertainment, including the performance of live music, are regulated under the Licensing Act 2003. The Government is committed to cutting licensing red tape to encourage live music, as it is part of the cultural heritage of England and Wales and is central to the development of vibrant communities. We have already done this through the Live Music Act 2012 and are going further with the Legislative Reform (entertainment licensing) Order 2014 (LRO) that will come into force on 06 April 2015.  The LRO will strike the right balance enabling communities to have more well-run music events, whilst safeguarding communities from unreasonable noise nuisance.\n\nSmaller grass-root music entertainment venues play a key role in the fostering of new talent on which the future of the UK music industry, and the significant economic benefits it brings, depend. The Government considers that licensing controls should be retained for activities and events that pose a  greater threat  to the statutory licensing objectives under the 2003 Act, but that unnecessary licensing for lower risk entertainment activities hampers creativity and hinders businesses from flourishing.  The Government considers that striking the right balance on licensing regulation will over time lead to an increase in attendance at live entertainment, providing a further boost to the cultural and creative industries, as well as significant enjoyment and social benefit for the general population.\n\nIn summary, our policies and legislation, along with existing planning guidance, allow communities to enjoy live music while managing the noise environment and without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses that provide live music. The Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome music entertainment and those who have concerns about it.\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":"2017-06-21T15:16:17.421Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:17.421Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":42143,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/42143.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":"HMRC confidential info leak","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned request that questions from the government are asked of HMRC over their handling of the \" investigation\" into Rangers Football Club.\r\n\r\n Over the last three years, HMRC have pursued Rangers Football Club for \" unpaid\" taxes in relation to several EBT schemes operated by the club. These schemes were present in all of the clubs annual accounts for the years in which they operated.\r\n\r\n The conclusion on the three year investigation was found on 20/11/12 stating that Rangers Football Club were indeed not liable nor had broken any law.\r\n\r\n Throughout this \" investigation\" there have been several leaks of confidential information relating directly to sensitive information about the club, the employees and the current state of play within the \" investigation\".\r\n\r\n The source of this leak must be identified and dealt with accordingly due to the serious breach of protocols and completely undermining the role in which HMRC are charged facilitating. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":41292,"created_at":"2012-11-21T10:14:52.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.283Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-22T11:20:25.000Z","closed_at":"2013-11-22T11:20:25.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-21T10:14:52.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-01-05T16:04:42.367Z","government_response_at":"2013-02-05T16:04:42.367Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-02-05","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIt is now in the public domain that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is seeking leave to appeal the First Tier Tribunal decision that found in favour of Rangers FC.\n\nIn relation to Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) more generally, HMRC has increasingly seen EBTs being used as a way of avoiding Pay as You Earn (PAYE) tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs). HMRC will form a view based on the facts of the case. Where HMRC believes a company has used an EBT as a way of trying to avoid obligations to account for PAYE and NICs, HMRC will challenge the arrangement and seek to recover the unpaid PAYE and NICs.\n\nIn cases where a company does not accept HMRC’s view that the EBT scheme does not work and PAYE and NICs are due, then it for the company to appeal HMRC’s decision within the appropriate time limit, and effectively choose to progress matters to litigation.\n\nHMRC is disappointed to have lost the First Tier Tribunal stage of the court process and, as stated, will seek permission to appeal the Tribunal decision.  The decision was not unanimous and the diligence of HMRC investigators was acknowledged by the whole tribunal.  HMRC is committed to tackling avoidance and it is right that HMRC challenges the type of avoidance seen in this case to prevent the loss of substantial amounts of tax and NICs.\n\nWe do not comment on speculation about breaches of confidentiality.\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":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.277Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.277Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":72458,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/72458.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":"introduce mandatory noise complaint waiver for anyone who buys or rents a property close to motorsport venue","background":null,"additional_details":"There are innumerate cases of people knowingly moving within close proximity of motorsport venues, only to try to have their planning permission revoked or have them closed completely when they take exception to the noise.\r\n\r\nIt is extremely detrimental to the UK's motorsport heritage, when all the motorsport venues start disappearing. Motorsport and the associated mechanical/engineering business is a key British export and second to none in the world of motorsports.\r\n\r\nAs such, anyone who wishes to buy or rent a property within a determined distance of a motorsport venue should have to read and sign legislature that waives their right to complain about the noise from the nearby venue. If they do not wish to be bothered by something that was a fixture of the community long before they arrived, they should not move there in the first place.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":40606,"created_at":"2014-11-26T21:57:10.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:33.072Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-11-27T13:03:30.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-26T21:57:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-12-12T17:46:31.948Z","government_response_at":"2015-01-12T17:46:31.948Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-01-12","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe issues raised in this e-petition relate to land use in England and Wales. They touch on the law relating to the ownership of property and the private law of nuisance as well as the planning system, statutory nuisance and the regulation of public events. The underlying complaint is that new residents object to established activities within their new neighbourhood.\n\nIndividuals are in general free to live in any part of England and Wales.  They may buy, rent or be permitted to use a residence. On taking up residence they generally have the same rights as the existing inhabitants. Removing the rights of incomers to protect themselves against nuisances would discriminate against them and probably intensify the enquiries made by prospective residents, making transactions more complicated and expensive, as well as increasing the risk of post-transaction litigation about non-disclosure or limited disclosure. The Government has no plans to change the law in this respect.\n\nThe law of nuisance\n\nThe private law of nuisance is a long-standing common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The law recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the land or premises owned or occupied by them.\n\nIt is open to anyone with an interest in land to bring a civil claim where there has been an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land as a result of the unreasonable use of neighbouring land by another person (the defendant). Remedies available could include an injunction to moderate or cease the unreasonable use of the land and/or damages for the interference suffered.\n\nThe standard to be applied by the courts in determining whether the claimant is entitled to a remedy is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the claimant is living. While any benefit to the wider community arising from the defendant’s use of their land is not a defence against a claim, it may be a factor considered by the court when assessing if the use is reasonable. The fact that the defendant may have been using the land in that way before the claimant came to the vicinity is also not a defence, although the extent to which the claimant was aware of the activity when acquiring their interest in the land may be a factor that the court will consider as part of the overall picture.\n\nApplying these general principles, the court has to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. Achieving a just outcome in such civil disputes is a matter best left to the courts, and the Government has no plans to change the law in this area.\n\nThere is also statutory nuisance legislation which draws on common law nuisance. It would apply to noise from premises that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health. It also places a duty on local authorities to take action, rather than individuals relying on seeking redress through the courts. Before using this legislation, the local authority would assess whether a statutory nuisance exists based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account a range of factors including how the character of the locality (including existing noise sources) affects the situation. Individuals may also bring private actions under this legislation\n\nThere are safeguards for motor sport venues in relation to complaints from nearby residents. When assessing statutory nuisance and deciding on potential enforcement action and whether mitigation measures are required, the venues – or any businesses - have a defence of best practicable means if they can demonstrate that they have done all they reasonably and practicably can to minimise the noise impact.\n\nPlanning\n\nThe planning system has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances occurring in the first place. National planning policy for England as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework expects local planning policies and decisions to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.\n\nHowever, it should be borne in mind that the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists.\n\nElements of an ‘agent of change” or “right of first occupant” principle already exist within national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework, for example, states that existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. In particular, the planning guidance supporting the Framework directly addresses the issue of noise sensitive developments, like new residential developments, where there is an existing noise source and includes advice on noise mitigation measures. In a recent update of the guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government underlined planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints including through looking to developers building new homes near venues giving rise to noise to include sound-proofing in the homes.\n\nMotor sports venues\n\nThe Government fully recognises the huge popularity of motor sport in this country both on 2 and 4 wheels. Motor sport is important in terms     sporting participation, volunteering, engineering, advancements in technology, job creation and wider economic benefits.\n\nIn summary, our policies and legislation, along with existing planning guidance, allow people to enjoy motor sport while managing the noise environment and without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate as motor sport venues. The Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome motor sport and those who have concerns about it.\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":"2017-06-21T15:16:33.067Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:33.067Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":51746,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/51746.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":"Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content","background":null,"additional_details":"The government is currently trying to push a bill forcing ISPs to provide opt-out pornography filtering, however this is an issue that fails to address any real problems.\r\n\r\nBad parenting is the real problem, and bad parents will simply allow the filter to be enabled and believe it protects their children, even though the filters are easily (even trivially) circumvented. Parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use, not rely on filters of dubious effectiveness.\r\n\r\nIt also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked at the ISP level in the name of protecting children, who are in fact being harmed more by poor parenting. Aside from content of a clearly illegal nature the government should not be forcing the presence of filters at all, but instead pushing to improve the involvement of parents in a child's life, and to promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting \"solutions\".","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":39173,"created_at":"2013-06-17T13:10:34.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:23.459Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-06-18T07:08:13.000Z","closed_at":"2014-06-18T07:08:13.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-17T13:10:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-08-03T21:15:14.453Z","government_response_at":"2013-09-03T21:15:14.453Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-09-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIn his speech on the 22 July[1], the Prime Minister announced a set of new measures for the internet industries to help parents keep their children safe online.\n\nFrom the end of this year, when new customers set up a broadband account, they will be prompted to set up parental controls. If a customer repeatedly clicks ‘yes’ to get through the set-up quickly, filters will be automatically selected. Parental controls are easy for the account holder to change, so customers who do not want filters can simply switch them off. In addition, parents will have the option to customise filters, so that only the categories of content that they choose will be filtered out in their household.\n\nThe Government is aware of concerns that filters may lead to over-blocking.  A UK Council for Child Internet Safety working group will look at this issue specifically and will report back to the Ministerial chairs.  If a consumer or a website owner feels that a site has been wrongly or unfairly blocked, they can seek redress directly with the relevant internet service provider (ISP).\n\nISPs have contracts with their customers which include good practice Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) about what may be hosted on their servers.  Most AUPs already contain a general clause which allows them to remove sites or content which contain inappropriate or offensive material, even if it is not illegal.\n\nThe Government expects these sites to respond to complaints quickly and effectively as it is they who are best placed to deal with these issues.  In the UK, we support a self-regulatory model for the internet industry as legislation can rarely adapt and change quickly enough to respond to the constantly evolving online environment.\n\nIt is important to note that in an open society like ours, it is necessary to find the right balance between protecting the public and legitimate freedom of speech. The Government will continue to work with ISPs and the rest of the internet industry to help people enjoy the benefits of the internet safely.\n\n[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:23.453Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:23.453Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":46739,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/46739.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 Mallory Park Circuit","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned, believe that Mallory Pk Circuit should not be closed, re-developed or sold for any other use than the persuance of Motorsport.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":39168,"created_at":"2013-03-05T18:57:04.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:35.904Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-03-07T14:41:53.000Z","closed_at":"2014-03-07T14:41:53.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-05T18:57:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-23T04:57:28.294Z","government_response_at":"2013-05-23T04:57:28.294Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-05-23","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWhilst the Government recognises that there is strong support that motorsport should continue at Mallory Park, it understands that there is an issue about the current levels of excessive noise and that Hinckley and Bosworth Council is seeking an amicable resolution to the question.\n\nAlthough the land is privately owned, any future change of use would be a matter for consideration by the relevant planning authority and be subject to its findings. This is, of course, primarily a matter for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council.\n\nMallory Park is a valuable resource that brings benefits to the locality, commercially and for the purposes of enjoyment, and so it is important that a workable and permanent solution is found to the benefit of all concerned.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:35.898Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:35.898Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":34522,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/34522.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":"Animal Cruelty Improved legislation","background":null,"additional_details":"Within the UK Judicial System, sentencing guidelines are set by the Sentencing Council and they provide detailed guidance to Magistrates Courts across the UK.\r\n\r\nThese guidelines state that offences of Animal Cruelty (as described in the Animal Welfare Act 2006) is triable only summarily (cannot go to Crown Court) and carry a maximum penalty of £20,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment.\r\n\r\nWe would like to see a zero tolerance on animal abuse as there is absolutely no excuse for it.\r\n\r\nWe would like to see sentencing increased to a maximum of 2 years custodial and a lifetime ban for persistent or serious offenders.\r\n\r\nWe would also like to see animal protection agencies become part of the criminal justice system so they can continue to undertake prosecutions but do not have to pay the prosecution costs","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":39119,"created_at":"2012-05-30T16:06:56.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.654Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-05-31T09:48:27.000Z","closed_at":"2013-05-31T09:48:27.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-30T16:06:56.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-17T01:28:04.882Z","government_response_at":"2012-08-17T01:28:04.882Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-08-17","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal, was reviewed by the Parliamentary Select Committee for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) last year.  The Committee did not recommend increasing the maximum penalties available to the courts.  There are, therefore, no proposals to increase the penalties for cases of animal cruelty.\n\nThe Government considers that existing maximum penalties of a fine of £20,000 and six months imprisonment are appropriate.  The courts must decide what the penalty should be for each case taking into account its individual circumstances and the Sentencing Council Guidelines.\n\nWhilst the Government appreciates that the RSPCA spends considerable amounts of money in bringing prosecutions each year, we should not forget that they are a registered charity.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can only consider prosecutions on behalf of the police (public prosecutions).  In such circumstances, the RSPCA could not investigate complaints and then pass on files to the CPS to prosecute as RSPCA prosecutions are private prosecutions.  Furthermore, RSPCA inspectors and prosecution case managers have developed a great deal of skill and knowledge at investigating and prosecuting animal cruelty cases, which makes them best placed to continue this work.  Therefore, the Government could not consider the suggestion that the RSPCA be brought within the criminal justice system.\n\nThe RSPCA are not publicly supporting this campaign.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.649Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.649Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":45966,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/45966.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":"No state funeral for Maggie Thatcher","background":null,"additional_details":"Say no to a state funeral for Maggie Thatcher","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":38534,"created_at":"2013-02-14T15:23:06.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.843Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-15T09:49:41.000Z","closed_at":"2014-02-15T09:49:41.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-14T15:23:06.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-03T18:29:11.727Z","government_response_at":"2013-05-03T18:29:11.727Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-05-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nOn Monday 8 April the Prime Minister’s Office announced that, with The Queen’s consent, Lady Thatcher would receive a Ceremonial Funeral with military honours. Further details are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lady-thatchers-funeral","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.838Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.838Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":23526,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/23526.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":"Grant a pardon to Alan Turing","background":null,"additional_details":"We ask the HM Government to grant a pardon to Alan Turing for the conviction of 'gross indecency'.\r\n\r\nIn 1952, he was convicted of 'gross indecency' with another man and was forced to undergo so-called 'organo-therapy' - chemical castration.\r\n\r\nTwo years later, he killed himself with cyanide, aged just 41. Alan Turing was driven to a terrible despair and early death by the nation he'd done so much to save.\r\n\r\nThis remains a shame on the UK government and UK history.  A pardon can go to some way to healing this damage.  It may act as an apology to many of the other gay men, not as well known as Alan Turing, who were subjected to these laws.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":37405,"created_at":"2011-11-21T18:54:44.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:18.499Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-23T12:11:08.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-23T12:11:08.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-21T18:54:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-01-11T10:21:36.472Z","government_response_at":"2012-02-11T10:21:36.472Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-02-11","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAlan Turing was a truly exceptional individual. The contribution he made to science, particularly to the development of computing, and the work he did at Bletchley Park during the Second World War make him worthy of our admiration. The fate he suffered – convicted of gross indecency as a result of a consensual homosexual relationship – was a sad indictment of the attitudes prevailing at that time. Lord Sharkey introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Lords on 25th July which would grant a statutory pardon to Dr Turing, and the Government will consider its response to this Bill in due course.\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":"2017-06-21T15:09:18.493Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:18.493Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":72236,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/72236.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":"For dialysis to remain a prescribed service on the NHS in 2015","background":null,"additional_details":"Kidney disease charities were \"stunned\" to have been told this week (20 Nov '14) dialysis will no longer be a prescribed service on the English NHS from next year.\r\n\r\nCare for dialysis patients should not be the responsibility of CCGs (clinical commissioning groups).  Dialysis is a specialist service that should be managed by renal experts.\r\n\r\nWe want dialysis to remain a prescribed service on the NHS.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":35891,"created_at":"2014-11-20T16:12:24.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:31.027Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-11-21T17:04:11.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-20T16:12:24.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-12-09T17:12:06.238Z","government_response_at":"2015-01-09T17:12:06.238Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-01-09","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Secretary of State for Health is responsible for deciding which services NHS England will directly commission as specialised services, and makes regulations accordingly.  In deciding whether it would be appropriate for a service to be commissioned by NHS England rather than clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), the Secretary of State must have regard to four statutory factors appearing in section 3B(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, namely:\n\n·        the number of individuals who require the provision of the service or facility;\n\n·        the cost of providing the service or facility;\n\n·        the number of persons able to provide the service or facility; and\n\n·        the financial implications for CCGs if they were required to arrange for the provision of the service or facility.\n\nThe Secretary of State must also obtain appropriate advice for that purpose and consult NHS England before making regulations using these powers.  The Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group (PSSAG) was established by the Department in 2013 to provide the Secretary of State with this advice.\n\nPSSAG met on 30 September to consider a number of proposed changes to the specialised services portfolio, including the transfer of commissioning responsibility for renal dialysis services and morbid obesity surgery services from NHS England to CCGs.\n\nPSSAG considered these two services against the four statutory factors set out above and concluded that they no longer meet the requirements for national commissioning by NHS England.  PSSAG therefore recommended that commissioning responsibility for renal dialysis services and morbid obesity surgery services should transfer to CCGs.\n\nThe Department requested a public consultation on the logistics and timing of the transfer of these commissioning responsibilities.\n\nThe consultation sought views on what type of support CCGs will need from NHS England to be able to commission renal dialysis and morbid obesity services effectively and whether, if all this support can be put in place, the timing of the transfer is right.  This public consultation was launched on 27 November and closed on 9 January.\n\nFurther information on the process set out above, including PSSAG’s recommendations, can be found in the consultation document at the following link:\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380041/2014_11_Consultation_document.pdf\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":"2017-06-21T15:16:31.021Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:31.021Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":33898,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/33898.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":"Funding for Research into Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH)","background":null,"additional_details":"Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) takes the lives of newborn babies all too often. CDH is a birth defect that can affect any unborn child and requires additional ante-natal care plus intensive care and treatment of the affected newborn. There is no known cause or prevention and treatment remains medically challenging and costly. The babies that survive may endure ongoing medical problems ranging from asthma and feeding problems to chronic lung and digestive problems, developmental delays/issues and oxygen dependancy. We want the Government to provide funding to enable well designed research into the cause of CDH with a view to finding the prevention and better treatment of the condition, resulting in saving lives and potentially saving costs to the NHS long term.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":35853,"created_at":"2012-05-11T14:29:21.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:44.716Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-05-15T09:47:57.000Z","closed_at":"2013-05-15T09:47:57.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-11T14:29:21.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-05T07:27:15.329Z","government_response_at":"2012-08-05T07:27:15.329Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-08-05","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 recognises the distress caused by congenital diaphragmatic hernia and appreciates the efforts that are being made to raise awareness of this condition.\n\nWith regard to the specific funding of research into the cause of CDH, both the Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) welcome applications for support to research into any aspect of human health and these are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.\n\nThe NIHR programmes support high quality research of relevance and in areas of high priority to patients and the NHS.  Further information, including the scope of the programmes and the arrangements for making applications for support, is available on the NIHR website at www.nihr.ac.uk.\n\nThe MRC is one of the main agencies through which the Government supports medical and clinical research.  The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.  Further information can be found on the MRC website at www.mrc.ac.uk.\n\nThe NIHR hosts the UK Clinical Trials Gateway website, www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk, which provides patients, clinicians and the public with information about clinical trials.\n\nThe Gateway currently provides details of an ongoing trial at Great Ormond Street Hospital comparing open and keyhole surgery for newborn babies with congenital diaphragmatic hernia or oesophageal atresia with tracheo-oesophageal fistula.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:44.710Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:44.710Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":44403,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/44403.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":"Do not privatise the Probation Service","background":null,"additional_details":"Privatisation of the Probation Service and 'payment by results' is unlikely to work in reality.\r\n\r\nMany offenders will not be supported to make the necessary changes in their lives, as the 'results' will not be overt. Privatisation of a service such as this can cause a lot of harm, especially if it is money orientated, true and accurate 'results' may not be reflected in reality. Businesses want to make profits, not losses.\r\n\r\nLow to medium risk offenders can turn into high risk offenders overnight. People working with offenders should be well trained and skilled professionals.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":35495,"created_at":"2013-01-14T06:51:21.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:15.629Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-01-14T17:11:59.000Z","closed_at":"2014-01-14T17:11:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-01-14T06:51:21.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-07T03:10:34.819Z","government_response_at":"2013-04-07T02:10:34.819Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-04-07","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:.\n\nOn 9 May 2013, the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, announced new measures to reform rehabilitation services for offenders.  Aimed at tackling our stubbornly high reoffending rates, these measures will ensure for the first time, every offender released from custody receives a minimum of 12 supervision and rehabilitation in the community.  To achieve this, the Government is legislating to extend this statutory supervision and rehabilitation to the most prolific group of offenders – those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. We are putting in place an unprecedented nationwide ‘through the prison gate’ resettlement service  meaning offenders will be given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community..  We will support this by ensuring that most offenders are held in a prison designated to their area for at least three months before release. We are opening up the market to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers, so that we get the best out of the public, voluntary and private sectors, at both local and national level.  The providers will have the flexibility to do what works but will only be paid in full for real reductions in reoffending.\n\nProtecting the public is our top priority. Management of those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm will remain with the public sector.  Cases will be referred by the provider to the public sector probation service for a reassessment of risk if there is a significant change in the offender’s circumstances, or intelligence received  indicate that the risk of serious harm may have escalated to high. If the public sector probation service assesses the case as having escalated to high it will take over the responsibility for that case.  New providers will have contractual obligations to work in partnership with the public sector probation service in managing risk of serious harm.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:15.623Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:15.623Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":32542,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/32542.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":"Peace in Burma - Please do something more Mr Cameron","background":null,"additional_details":"Please help aid agencies into Burma, supply needed food and medicine. Please continue upon your current work and increase aid, if you can. Do as much as is feasibly possible, do not abandon your fellow man! We believe in our Government.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":34874,"created_at":"2012-04-03T22:18:02.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:34.206Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-04-13T08:33:48.000Z","closed_at":"2013-04-13T08:33:48.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-03T22:18:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-04T16:30:47.969Z","government_response_at":"2012-07-04T16:30:47.969Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-07-04","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Department for International Development (DFID) is providing support to a number of humanitarian agencies to supply food and medicine to the people of Burma.\n\nIn Kachin State, DFID has provided £2m to meeting humanitarian needs through a number of local Non-Government Organisations. This support is helping to meet the needs for shelter, water, sanitation, heath, bedding and food security of around 27,500 people who have been internally displaced following fighting in that region.\n\nDFID has also agreed on 31 October to provide £2m worth of funding to Non-Governmental Organisations working in Rakhine State, where inter-communal violence has displaced over 100,000 people. UK support will ensure improved safe hygiene for over 58,000 people, more than 32,000 of whom are children, and improve access to treatment for acute malnutrition for 5,000 children.\n\nIn South-East Burma, where more than 500,000 people have been internally displaced and a further 140,000 Burmese people live as refugees in camps across the border in Thailand, DFID has provided food, medical and other essential support for many years. DFID has recently approved a new programme of support to people affected by conflict on the Thai-Burma border, which will provide improved sanitation facilities for Internally Displaced People, immunisation programmes for children, ante-natal care for pregnant women, and food security for 135,000 people in South East Burma.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:34.200Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:34.200Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":39708,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/39708.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":"Keep Richard III remains in Leicester","background":null,"additional_details":"For the mortal remains of England's last Plantagenet King, Richard III, the last King to die in battle, recently discovered under a Council car-park in Leicester, to be re-interred with due dignity and respect in Leicester, where he was originally buried.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":34479,"created_at":"2012-10-03T17:06:03.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.439Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-12T11:54:53.000Z","closed_at":"2013-10-12T11:54:53.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-03T17:06:03.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-04T10:15:11.480Z","government_response_at":"2013-01-04T10:15:11.480Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-01-04","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Secretary of State grants licences to exhume buried human remains under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.   Around 200 licences are issued each year for archaeological purposes.\n\nOn 3 September 2012 the Ministry of Justice granted a licence to Leicester University to exhume human remains found during the excavation of a Leicester car park. The excavation was primarily to investigate a Franciscan friary but also to locate the remains of King Richard III who, evidence suggested, was buried there in 1485.\n\nThe University carried out a series of tests on the remains and on 4 February 2013 announced that one set was those of King Richard III “beyond reasonable doubt”.\n\nThe MoJ licence prescribes that the remains should, no later than 31 August 2014, be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum or be reinterred at St Martin’s Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place; and that in the meantime they should be kept safely, privately and decently by the University of Leicester. The University intends to reinter Richard III’s remains at St Martin’s Cathedral in Leicester.\n\nThe Secretary of State for Justice and the University are currently defending a judicial review of the decision to grant the exhumation licence to the University of Leicester. This judicial review touches on the question of where Richard III should be reinterred.  It would be inappropriate to comment further while the judicial review is ongoing.”","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.433Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.433Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":67979,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67979.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":"Christians under serious threat in Mosul, Iraq","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned call upon the UK Foreign and Commonwealth office to take decisive and immediate action to support the thousands of innocent Christians and others in Mosul, Iraq who are currently facing the threat of murder, rape, forced conversion to Islam and FGM.\r\n\r\nWe ask you to work to ensure safe passage for these people, to work with relief and development agencies to ensure they receive food, water, shelter and medical attention, and to listen proactively and quickly to the informed voices of organisations working on the ground in the area, offering whatever help is most needed there.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":33848,"created_at":"2014-07-25T15:35:00.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:53.322Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-25T19:11:35.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-25T15:35:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-08-31T10:58:48.514Z","government_response_at":"2014-09-30T10:58:48.514Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-09-30","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe UK Government remains very concerned by the threat from the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which is seeking to stoke sectarian conflict across the Middle East.  ISIL’s violence and brutality is a threat to Iraq and the wider region, as well as the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Prime Minister issued a statement on 8 August condemning ISIL attacks in Iraq, and highlighting the developing humanitarian crisis of those who have fled their homes.\n\nSince the most recent round of violence began in 2014, more than 1.5 million people have been displaced across Iraq.  The United Nations has now declared the situation as the highest level of humanitarian emergency.\n\nOur position is that Iraq’s leaders must show unity, and put aside their differences to focus on the security threat.  Moderate forces from all communities need to be brought together to stand up to the extremist threat.  The vast majority of Iraqis want to build a safer and more prosperous country, and do not want to return to the violence of the past.\n\nThe UK response is focussed on:\n\nAlleviating the immediate humanitarian suffering of the victims of ISIL.  The UK is providing £23 million in immediate assistance, to provide clean water and sanitation, essential medicine and funding for NGOs and charities.  Some of this has been sent as humanitarian airdrops.  It has also been used to provide technical assistance and supplies.\n\nPromoting an inclusive, sovereign and democratic Iraq.  We welcome the formation of a new Government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on 8 September.  This is a critical first step on the way to addressing the serious security, political and humanitarian challenges facing Iraq.  It is now vital that all political blocs work together to overcome those challenges.  The British Government will work closely with the new Government of Iraq as it fights terrorism.\n\nWe continue to speak directly to the Iraqi Government on the situation.\n\nOn 26-27 August, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office responsible for our relationship with the Middle East, Tobias Ellwood MP, travelled to Iraq to urge the Iraqi government to protect all communities, and to deal appropriately with those who are found responsible for any acts of violence and intimidation because of political, ethnic or religious affiliation.  The UK remains resolute that all perpetrators should be held to account.  During his visit, he pressed the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to ensure his new government in Iraq would ensure the protection of all minorities, promote human rights and reassert the rule of law.\n\nMr Ellwood also met leaders of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the church to which many Iraqi Christians belong, making a statement strongly condemning the persecution that Iraq’s religious minorities have suffered.\n\n(Published as of 17th September – A further updated response may be provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as necessary)\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:53.315Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:53.315Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":35394,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/35394.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":"Full disclosure of all Government documents relating to the 1972 building workers strike and the conspiracy trials at Shrewsbury","background":null,"additional_details":"In 1972, building workers held their first ever national strike for decent pay and health & safety at work. Five months after the strike ended, 24 trade union members were charged with offences allegedly arising from picketing in Shrewsbury in September 1972. They included individuals who were convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment. Government files relating to the strike have been withheld from the National Archives even though more than 30 years have passed.\r\n\r\nWe call upon the Government to release all Cabinet minutes, documents, discussion papers, civil service notes, reports and telephone records produced from 1972 to 1976 by Government departments, agencies and prosecuting authorities relating to the strike, the building workers' unions, the arrested pickets, the prosecutions at Mold and Shrewsbury and the subsequent appeals, as well as any other material pertaining to the case that fall outside the above time period.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":33735,"created_at":"2012-06-27T13:52:31.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:57.065Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-06-27T16:53:22.000Z","closed_at":"2013-06-27T16:53:22.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-27T13:52:31.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-20T19:14:39.367Z","government_response_at":"2012-09-20T19:14:39.367Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-09-20","summary":"","details":"We are aware of claims in the media that people have been unable to sign this petition, and that the petition has been subject to manipulation.\n\nThere is no basis for these claims.  The administration of signatures is automated and not subject to any form of interference, while no evidence has been provided to show that there are any issues with the site that prevent signatures from being added to this or any other e-petition.\n\nAdvice on how the e-petitions site work and how to provide feedback can be found using the links at the bottom of this page.\n\nThe majority of papers relating to the trials of the “Shrewsbury 24” are already available at The National Archives (TNA).\n\nUnder the Public Records Act 1967 (PRA) all records selected for permanent preservation must be transferred to TNA by the time they are 30 years old, unless certain other conditions apply. These conditions, which are set out in Section 3(4) of the PRA, are that the information is required for administrative purposes or that the information ought to be retained for “any other special reason”. Where this is deemed to be the case the department in question must seek the approval of the Lord Chancellor.\n\nSuccessive Lord Chancellors have since 1967 been satisfied that security and intelligence information falls within the categories of information that may be retained, and have signed a “security and intelligence instrument” to approve this approach. The “security and intelligence instrument” was most recently renewed in December 2011 and applies until 31 December 2021.\n\nAlthough the Lord Chancellor signs the “intelligence and security instrument” that enables departments to retain information of this type, he does not determine the individual cases in relation to which it is employed. It is a matter for the individual government departments holding particular papers falling within the scope of the “security and intelligence instrument” to decide whether they wish to rely on it to retain them.  At present we are aware that the Cabinet Office is relying on the “intelligence and security instrument” to withhold a small number of papers supplied by or otherwise relating to the intelligence agencies.\n\nFor this reason we are unable to meet your request to release all of the papers relating to this case.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:57.059Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:57.059Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":33327,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/33327.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":"David Cameron and George Osbourne to Resign","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned petition for the resignation of David Cameron and George Osbourne.\r\n\r\nSince entering office, David Cameron, George Osbourne and the Coalition as a whole have shown themselves repeatedly to be utterly out of touch with the British people's needs and utterly incapable of making any improvement to the financial situation in the UK.\r\n\r\nTheir sole solution to every embarrassment and failure has been to blame the previous government, who left office over two years ago, since that time there has been no improvement and it is an affront to people's intelligence that we be expected to believe that the last government are still responsible for the current situation two years down the line.\r\n\r\nWith members of all parties commenting on their concern and distrust of the current government, it is clear that public and political confidence in them is nearly zero.\r\n\r\nWe call for the resignation of David Cameron and George Osbourne and for a new general election to be called.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":32401,"created_at":"2012-04-25T14:50:08.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:40.127Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-04-27T08:41:24.000Z","closed_at":"2013-04-27T08:41:24.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-25T14:50:08.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-22T16:30:00.465Z","government_response_at":"2012-07-22T16:30:00.465Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-07-22","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThis Government is fully committed to a programme of work that will continue to the next election – in May 2015 – and beyond. In 2010, the Coalition parties came together in the national interest and formed a Government at a time of real economic danger. The deficit was spiralling out of control, confidence was plummeting and the world was looking to Britain with growing anxiety about our ability to service our debts.\n\nThis Government’s most urgent job was to restore stability in our public finances and confidence in the British economy. In just two years we cut the deficit by a quarter and set out a credible path towards our goal to balance the current budget over the economic cycle. Yet we have also taken action to ensure that we build a stronger, more balanced economy capable of delivering lasting growth and widely shared prosperity.\n\nWe have had to make some difficult choices, but we have not baulked at the tough decisions needed to secure Britain’s future. Whether it is reducing the deficit, rebalancing the economy, regulating the banks, tackling climate change, modernising our energy and transport infrastructure, putting our universities on a sustainable financial footing or dealing with the challenges of an ageing population and reforming public sector pensions, we have consistently chosen to do what is right over what is easy or popular; what is in our country’s long-term interest over our parties’ short-term interest.\n\nWe have recently published a Mid Term Review document, setting out our achievements to date, and we will continue to put political partisanship to one side to govern in the interests of the country.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:40.120Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:40.120Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":29103,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/29103.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":"Negotiations on changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme","background":null,"additional_details":"The Secretary of State for Education made a statement on 20 December on changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS), confirming that teachers will have to pay 50% more for their pension and face having to work much longer before they get their full pension.\r\n\r\nUnions representing the vast majority of teachers and lecturers have declined to sign up to the proposed Heads of Agreement.\r\n\r\nDespite the Secretary of State’s assurances that sufficient time & resources would be provided to secure a solution, an arbitrary deadline was imposed on the discussions and no additional resources provided.\r\n\r\nI petition the Government to enter into genuine negotiations on the future of the TPS, including the cost-ceiling, the normal pension age and the future level of employee contributions.\r\n\r\nTo achieve a negotiated settlement the Government must accept that further discussions and additional funding are needed.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":32121,"created_at":"2012-02-06T16:50:19.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:04.049Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-02-07T11:21:23.000Z","closed_at":"2013-02-07T11:21:23.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-06T16:50:19.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-04T10:41:10.223Z","government_response_at":"2012-05-04T10:41:10.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-05-04","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 been involved in extensive negotiations with unions across the public sector and on a scheme by scheme basis. Following detailed negotiations each scheme published its Proposed Final Agreement (PFA) on 9 March 2012. The PFAs set out the core parameters within which each public service pension scheme would operate and the unions agreed to take these to their executives.  The reformed TPS will provide a pension scheme which guarantees teachers one of the best pensions available but keeps a firm lid on rising costs for future generations.\n\nWhile it is recognised that not all unions have accepted a reformed scheme policy, a sufficient number of unions from across the public sector have signed up to the PFAs. Negotiations on scheme design are now closed and will not be re-opened. Government departments are however committed to discussing, with all unions and employer representatives, details for implementation of the scheme design.\n\nThe government has been involved in extensive negotiations with unions across the public sector and on a scheme by scheme basis. Following detailed negotiations each scheme published its Proposed Final Agreement (PFA) on 9 March 2012. The PFAs set out the core parameters within which each public service pension scheme would operate and the unions agreed to take these to their executives.  The reformed TPS will provide a pension scheme which guarantees teachers one of the best pensions available but keeps a firm lid on rising costs for future generations.\n\nWhile it is recognised that not all unions have accepted a reformed scheme policy, a sufficient number of unions from across the public sector have signed up to the PFAs. Negotiations on scheme design are now closed and will not be re-opened. Government departments are however committed to discussing, with all unions and employer representatives, details for implementation of the scheme design.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:04.040Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:04.040Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":73628,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/73628.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":"Minimum milk price for farmers","background":null,"additional_details":"Many farmers are being driven into crisis as retailers slash the milk price further. This is to petition the government to set a minimum milk price payable to the Farmer to protect their business, livelihood & the future of the industry. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":31870,"created_at":"2015-01-09T19:29:40.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:42.181Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-01-12T10:16:04.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-01-09T19:29:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-01-24T14:11:35.126Z","government_response_at":"2015-02-24T14:11:35.126Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-02-24","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 understands that some farmers are struggling with low prices and we are doing everything we can to help them through this period. We have asked HMRC and the banks to take a sympathetic stance with dairy farmers, and we have ensured that farm payments for dairy farmers are prioritised by the Rural Payments Agency.\n\nThe Government has created a Groceries Code Adjudicator to address the market dominance of the large retailers and ensure suppliers are treated fairly and lawfully. In the dairy sector, an industry code of practice on contractual relationships is in place to increase trust and transparency and to give farmers a fairer deal. However, the Government cannot legislate on prices, which must be agreed by retailers, processors and producers.\n\nThe Government wants a competitive and resilient dairy industry that can take advantage of the growing demand for British produce. The industry is working together to develop actions to end the current trade deficit in dairy products and increase exports. This is on top of work that the Government is already doing to push for better country of origin labelling on dairy products, and open new export markets. Dairy exports are now at record levels: reaching £1.4billion last year, a 51% increase since 2009.\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":"2017-06-21T15:16:42.175Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:42.175Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}