{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=2","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2438&parliament=2","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=2","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=2"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":22251,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/22251.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":"Reject EU (Motorcycle) 'Anti-tampering' legislation, this included Art 18 & 52, that will prevent owners customising their bikes and/or using after ma","background":null,"additional_details":"This will automatically become UK law soon and it means that bikers will not be able to customise their bikes in anyway or use cheaper (still safe & approved) 'after market' parts making it too expensive for the average rider – None of these directions make any sense at all and will not improve safety in anyway; just line the pockets of the large foreign bike manufactures.\r\n\r\nBikers wil be singled out by the police and stopped and emissions checked; this is discriminatory.\r\n\r\nThey also propose to ban filtering through traffic, which would be dangerous for air-cooled machines that could blow up in traffic and is the extreme of nanny state interference.\r\n\r\nBanning of motorcycles over 7yrs old in Urban areas.\r\n\r\nClearly the EU intent to eradicate ALL motorcycles in the future and this is the thin end of the wedge...nanny state at its worst and it must be stopped right now!\r\n\r\nThis EU legislation must be rejected by the UK government .","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":17415,"created_at":"2011-11-10T00:23:11.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.130Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-10T08:39:20.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-10T08:39:20.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-10T00:23:11.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-23T10:37:09.767Z","government_response_at":"2012-03-23T10:37:09.767Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-03-23","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe are aware of the concerns of people with historic and modified vehicles.  We have talked to industry and have been alerted to the concerns of those effected. We are very grateful for the feedback received.\n\nSo far, the Commission proposal has been discussed in a series of working groups chaired by the Cypriot Presidency.\n\nWe have expressed reservations about the Commission proposal in the strongest terms both at working groups and more recently at the EU Transport Council. At Council the Minister was clear in stating that we believe that there are many elements of the proposal that result in unnecessary costs and bureaucratic burdens being incurred while failing to result in significant improvements to road safety in the UK. This includes aspects of the proposal dealing with the historic vehicles and the way vehicle modifications should be treated.\n\nThe UK has and will continue to oppose those measures that place unreasonable burdens on businesses or citizens.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.123Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:07.123Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":48869,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48869.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":"Bring Motorcycle road tax inline with that of cars","background":null,"additional_details":"Cars pay road tax on based on the emissions.\r\n\r\nMotorcycles pay road tax based on their CC\r\n\r\nFor most motorcycles, if they were cars, they'd pay no tax whatsoever...\r\n\r\n... but as Motorcycle's are still taxed based on the old method of judging their CC, motorcycles over 600cc pay £78 a year.\r\n\r\nSo a Toyota Aygo or Citreon C1, a tax class B car, pays just £20 a year, producing 139gm of Co2...\r\n\r\n....but a Honda VFR making just 16.5g of CO2, pays £78 a year, nearly 4 times as much.\r\n\r\n\r\nMotorcycles take up next to no room, are far less emitting than cars, cause far less wear/tear on the road surfaces and reduce traffic.\r\n\r\nIt's about time this fundamental unfairness was addressed, and motorcycle tax based on emission on the same basis as cars.\r\n\r\nIt is either discrimination against motorcyclists, or blatant milking of us for financial benefit. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":17253,"created_at":"2013-04-15T15:21:47.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.591Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-16T07:28:32.000Z","closed_at":"2014-04-16T07:28:32.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-15T15:21:47.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-31T02:09:52.125Z","government_response_at":"2013-08-31T02:09:52.125Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-08-31","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe decisions of successive Governments have resulted in VED being structured according to vehicle type and registration date with VED contributing to general taxation revenues.  Cars registered before March 2001 are taxed according to engine size, and those registered from March 2001 onwards taxed according to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\n\nUnlike for cars, the European Union has not yet established a design type approval test for motorbikes that requires CO2 data to be produced for each model variant.  The current scheme for motorbike manufacturers is voluntary and so does not offer a complete dataset for all motorbikes in production.  The Government is therefore not in a position to treat motorbikes on a CO2 emissions basis for VED.  The current engine capacity based rates offer the most practical and easy-to-understand way to reflect the respective emissions levels of motorbikes.\n\nThe majority of motorcycle owners, in fact, pay rates lower than the top VED rate of £78. A third of motorcyclists pay the lowest VED rate applicable to motorcycles, i.e. of £17.  The Government believes that healthy public finances are essential for future growth and jobs.  The UK is still faced with the serious and unavoidable economic challenge of tackling the debts inherited from the previous Government.  Despite this challenge, under this Government, VED rate increases for cars, vans and mototcycles are limited to inflation only, meaning that a motorist’s VED liability remains unchanged in real terms since 2010.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.585Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.585Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":16050,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/16050.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":"Flight safety and pilot fatigue","background":null,"additional_details":"We believe the UK Government has a duty to promote flight safety and protect the British public from unsafe rules and practices in aviation.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe believe that the EU’s current proposals on pilots’ Flight Time Limitations, which are supposed to guard against pilot fatigue, are commercially-driven and scientifically-unsound.\r\n\r\n\r\nUnder the EU proposals, tiredness could impair pilots’ abilities to the same extent as flying with several times the legal blood alcohol limit.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe note that the US FAA, will be publishing its own fatigue rules soon which will strengthen flight safety regulations, not relax them as the EU proposals do.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe call on the UK Government to stand up for flight safety and publically announce it will oppose EASA’s current proposals (NPA 2010-14), use its influence to persuade other Member States of that position and work to bring EU flight safety regulations up to the ‘gold standard’ of aviation safety we have here in the UK.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":17208,"created_at":"2011-09-05T08:21:17.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:12.601Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-09-05T11:19:39.000Z","closed_at":"2012-09-05T11:19:39.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-05T08:21:17.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-12-20T19:37:43.518Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":31250,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/31250.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":"RIGHT TO STRIKE FOR POLICE OFFICERS","background":null,"additional_details":"That Police Officers are given the right to strike, in line with European counterparts.\r\nThe Government should recognise this Human Right and repeal legislation forbidding the creation of Police Unions and this Right.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16960,"created_at":"2012-03-12T14:24:29.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:23.341Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-03-13T07:52:10.000Z","closed_at":"2013-03-13T07:52:10.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-03-12T14:24:29.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-28T22:24:59.811Z","government_response_at":"2012-07-28T22:24:59.811Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-07-28","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Home Secretary has been clear that police officers cannot strike. That is not going to change.  As a civil emergency service, it is vital that the service is able to discharge its duty to protect the public and keep the peace, at all times, particularly those of serious national and local disorder.\n\nIt is important to note that police officers are not the only public servants who face restrictions on taking industrial action.  Other workforces such as the armed forces and prison officers are also prohibited from strike action.\n\nThe Government has no intention of repealing legislation forbidding police officers from joining unions. The Police Federation of England and Wales was created to represent police officers in response to the prohibition on strike 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":"2017-06-21T15:10:23.335Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:23.335Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":41600,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/41600.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":"Repeal the Welfare Reform Act 2012","background":null,"additional_details":"We want Parliament to repeal the Welfare Reform Act of 2012.\r\n\r\nThe Act vindictively targets all benefit claimants disproportionately causing millions of people financial hardship, poverty and at risk of starvation and homelessness.\r\n\r\nThe Bedroom Tax, the abolition of Disability Living Allowance, changes to Social Fund, ending of Council Tax Benefit, draconian sanctions on those deemed to have not actively sought work and more are all measures that have and will cause severe hardship.\r\n\r\nThe Act, in particularly targets sick and disabled people causing them immense hardship and unnecessary suffering.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16861,"created_at":"2012-11-12T12:07:04.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:52.380Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-12T15:30:45.000Z","closed_at":"2013-11-12T15:30:45.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-12T12:07:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-28T21:13:23.495Z","government_response_at":"2013-03-28T21:13:23.495Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-03-28","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 it should be encouraging greater responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, and training and targeted support for those looking for work. The 2012 Welfare Reform Act introduced a wide range of reforms to make the benefits and tax credits system fairer and simpler by creating the right incentives to get more people into work, protecting the most vulnerable in our society, and delivering fairness to those claiming benefit and to the tax payer.\n\nThe nation’s finances also need to be put on a more sustainable footing – while this means making difficult decisions on tax and spending, we believe it is possible to do this and help people lift themselves out of poverty, and stay out of poverty, through work and saving backed by the right support and encouragement.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:52.374Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:52.374Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":45329,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/45329.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":"General Election - 500,000 epetition signatures required","background":null,"additional_details":"We call upon the Government to undertake the following:\r\n\r\nThat upon receipt of an epetition with more than 500,000 signatures requesting a General Election; they should:\r\n\r\na) Dissolve Parliament within 30 days of receipt of the petition\r\nb) Hold a General Election within 3 months of the dissolution of Parliament\r\n\r\nWe believe that this measure will ensure that democracy and accountability are exercised by the people rather than by the political elite.\r\n\r\nIt will ensure that politicians are more likely to keep to their promises, and govern in the interests of the many, rather than the few.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16511,"created_at":"2013-02-02T04:00:27.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:23.528Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-04T10:02:48.000Z","closed_at":"2014-02-04T10:02:48.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-02T04:00:27.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-25T22:49:24.971Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-25T22:49:24.971Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-25","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government will not seek to dissolve Parliament before 2015. We came together at a time of crisis to fix the country and ensure our long term prosperity. We intend to secure a country in a better state than when we came into office.  Although we know that not everything we do is popular, we know it is necessary for Britain to rebuild and compete in the world. We are making progress and keeping our promises by cutting the deficit, cutting crime and immigration, reforming our welfare and education systems to help people work hard and get on. We have cut corporation tax and are slashing red tape to make Britain a good place to do business, and have increased the personal allowance to cut taxes for millions of low and middle income earners, frozen council tax and cut fuel duty to help families with the cost of living.\n\nPractically, the Fixed- term Parliament Act 2011 abolished the Prime Minister's prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The Act provides that Parliament can only be dissolved early if a Government is unable to secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days of a no-confidence vote, or where at least two thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election. The legislation established five year fixed terms for the UK Parliament. The next General Election is therefore planned in law for 7 May 2015, and polling day will ordinarily be the first Thursday in May every five years.  A debate in Parliament on an e-petition is unlikely to result in legislation to undo this legal lock.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:23.522Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:23.522Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":52121,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/52121.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 Governments victimisation of pensioners living abroad  who have contributed to the welfare state by withdrawing their winter fuel payment","background":null,"additional_details":"Many pensioners have decided to move abroad whilst still remaining  UK citizens, All of these pensioners have contributed to the welfare state via taxes and national insurance throughout their working lives I believe withdrawing their winter fuel payment is unjust and so I therefore ask this Goverment to reconsider its position on penalising pensioers who have earnt this benefit","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16393,"created_at":"2013-06-27T13:13:36.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:26.638Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-06-28T12:33:05.000Z","closed_at":"2014-06-28T12:33:05.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-27T13:13:36.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-10-17T20:25:24.705Z","government_response_at":"2013-11-17T21:25:24.705Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-11-17","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government remains committed to protecting key support for older people for the life of this Parliament, in line with Coalition Agreement.\n\nWinter Fuel Payments are non-contributory and were originally introduced to give older people in the UK the reassurance they can keep warm during cold weather. However, following a European Court judgment, Winter Fuel Payments are now also made to eligible people living outside the UK in another European Economic Area (EEA) Member State and Switzerland.\n\nTo help return to the original policy intention, the Government intends to bring in an eligibility criterion, effective from winter 2015/16, based on country of residence with Winter Fuel Payments going only to eligible people living in EEA countries with colder climates.”\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:26.632Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:26.632Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":4854,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/4854.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":"Preventing Group B Strep infection in newborn babies","background":null,"additional_details":"We, the undersigned, ask the Department of Health to ensure that: every woman is routinely given accurate information about group B Streptococcus (group B Strep or GBS) during antenatal care; every low-risk woman is offered a sensitive test for GBS, ideally at 35-37 weeks of pregnancy; and every higher-risk woman is offered antibiotics in labour.\r\n\r\nGBS is the UK’s most common cause of life-threatening infection in newborn babies. Offering antibiotics in labour to Mums whose babies are at raised risk would prevent most of these infections. Babies are at raised risk when their Mums are carrying GBS during the current pregnancy, have previously had a baby with GBS infection, whose labour starts or waters break before 37 weeks of pregnancy, whose waters break more than 18 hours before delivery or who have a fever in labour.\r\n\r\nSuch prevention strategies massively reduce GBS infection in newborn babies (in the USA by almost 80%) yet the UK incidence is up 16% since 2003.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16077,"created_at":"2011-08-05T13:16:00.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:06:28.810Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-15T10:19:03.000Z","closed_at":"2012-08-15T10:19:03.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-08-05T13:16:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-12-07T06:10:13.647Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":60004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/60004.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":"Record the suicide rate of ex-soldiers to help fight Post Traumatic Stress Disorder","background":null,"additional_details":"We want the Ministry of Defence to record the suicide rate amongst ex-military personnel. This will help with understanding the full extent of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder within our veterans. Currently the only statistics available from the Ministry of Defence are for serving soldiers. Fuller accounting will mean better help for our military and their families. No ex-serviceman should be left to fight PTSD without support from the same Government who sent them to war.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":16053,"created_at":"2014-01-31T10:46:50.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:39.467Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-02-11T10:56:54.000Z","closed_at":"2015-02-11T10:56:54.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-31T10:46:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-05T03:24:37.091Z","government_response_at":"2014-07-05T03:24:37.091Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-07-05","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAll three services have seen a declining trend in suicide rates since the 1990s. The MOD routinely monitors the prevalence of suicide in UK Armed Forces and some veterans through statistical reports produced by Defence Statistics.\n\nResearch undertaken by the MOD and Manchester University published in 2009 established that young ex-military personnel who entered service at a young age already had an increased risk of suicide. This may explain why those serving for a relatively short period of time before being discharged were most likely to take their own lives.\n\nThe MOD is currently undertaking a study on veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will monitor the causes of death (including suicide) of all serving members of the Armed Forces from 2003 until the end of operations in Afghanistan. The intention is to run the study for the lifetime of the cohort; the population will therefore include both serving and discharged personnel.\n\nApproximately four percent of UK Military personnel report symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is similar to its prevalence in the general population. The Defence Mental Health Services provide a comprehensive treatment service for Service personnel and have extensive experience in the treatment of mental health problems and psychological injury.\n\nWhilst we are confident that the mental health services provided by the MOD and the NHS are comprehensive and effective, there is always more we can do. With this is mind, we have committed £7.4 million to improve mental health support still further. This money will fund, amongst other things, the ‘Warrior’ programme, assisting families who are caring for Veterans with issues such as PTSD.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:39.461Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:39.461Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":65582,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/65582.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":"Urgent Review of Noise Abatement legislation","background":null,"additional_details":"We call upon the Secretary of State to conduct an urgent review of all applicable Noise Legislation so that the collective right of local communities to be able to enjoy well-run and managed music venues is properly balanced within the law against the individual rights of owners and occupiers of adjoining properties to limit environmental noise.\r\n\r\nWe request that this review specifically addresses the possibility of new owner/occupiers or developers misusing existing legislation to demand a lowering of environmental noise in a zone in which it has traditionally existed, resulting in the potential closure of highly valued community spaces including music venues, church halls and arts centres.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15954,"created_at":"2014-05-26T10:10:01.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:31.410Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-05-28T07:28:58.000Z","closed_at":"2014-08-28T07:28:58.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-05-26T10:10:01.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-26T03:28:20.091Z","government_response_at":"2014-07-26T03:28:20.091Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-07-26","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nLegislation relating to noise is very wide ranging.  It includes regulations that cover building standards, housing, health and safety at work, antisocial behaviour, noise from outdoor machinery and noise as a statutory nuisance. The Government has recently reviewed its noise legislation as part of the Red Tape Challenge and believes that the law, as currently constituted, strikes the appropriate balance between managing the noise environment and considering the needs of business.\n\nWe believe that it is important that communities are able to enjoy well-run and managed music events and have introduced policies to support businesses and music venue premises. A key example is deregulating entertainment licensing, a process that started in October 2012, when the Live Music Act came into force.  This removed the licensing requirement for amplified live music taking place between 08:00-23:00 before audiences of no more than 200 people on relevant licensed premises authorised to sell alcohol for consumption on those premises, and suspended any existing conditions on the premises licence or club premises certificate relating to live music.\n\nMore recently the Government proposed raising the audience limit set by the Live Music Act 2012 from 200 to 500 to enable greater numbers of businesses and music venue premises to benefit.  We also proposed removing the licensing requirement for live music activities between 08:00-23:00 before audiences of no more than 500 people on local authority, hospital, school and community premises, such as church and village halls. A draft Legislative Reform Order to further amend the Licensing Act 2003 will shortly be laid before Parliament.\n\nHowever, it is also important to have safeguards in place to protect the wider rights of individuals in a community.  Statutory nuisance legislation seeks to stop noise that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health.\n\nSince the late 1800s, it has become well established in case law that it is not a defence to proceedings for nuisance that a complainant ‘came to the nuisance’. Enforcement action can be taken in relation to issues that constitute a statutory nuisance, regardless of whether those circumstances arose before the complainant became the occupier of the affected premises. This is to protect a person’s rights to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the premises owned or occupied by them. This principle applies equally between two business occupiers or two residential occupiers as between a resident and a business.\n\nIt is for the local authority to decide on a case by case basis whether or not a noise constitutes a statutory nuisance and the ‘character of the locality’ is one of a number of relevant factors that an environmental health officer (EHO) will consider. Therefore, well-established music venues in an area would certainly be a consideration for an EHO. They also take into account matters such as how loud the noise is, the reasonableness of the activity being carried out, the time of day of the occurrence, its duration and its frequency of occurrence.\n\nThe planning regime also has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances. Planning policies and decisions should avoid noise 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 health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, 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, EHOs and the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists.\n\nThe Government recognises that smaller music venues are the breeding ground for musicians to hone their craft. The future success of the UK music industry depends, in part, on new talent from the grass roots who have developed their talent performing in front of audiences in smaller venues of up to 500 people.   The Government wishes to see 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\nThe Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome music entertainment and those who have concerns about it, and between   necessary protections from unreasonable noise and removing unnecessary burdens on small businesses.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:31.404Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:31.404Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":20685,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/20685.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":"Say NO to ACTA","background":null,"additional_details":"ACTA is one more offensive against the sharing of culture on the Internet. ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is an agreement secretly negotiated by a small \"club\" of like-minded countries (39 countries, including the 27 of the European Union, the United States, Japan, etc). Negotiated instead of being democratically debated, ACTA bypasses parliaments and international organizations to dictate a repressive logic dictated by the entertainment industries.\r\n\r\nACTA would impose new criminal sanctions forcing Internet actors to monitor and censor online communications. It is thus a major threat to freedom of expression online and creates legal uncertainty for Internet companies. In the name of trademarks and patents, it would also hamper access to generic medicines in poor countries.\r\n\r\nStop ACTA from ruining Free Speech NOW!\r\n\r\nFor more information, visit http://www.laquadrature.net/ACTA or watch http://youtu.be/citzRjwk-sQ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15676,"created_at":"2011-10-28T15:58:12.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:53.802Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-01T09:14:06.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-01T09:14:06.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-10-28T15:58:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-26T02:58:12.491Z","government_response_at":"2012-03-26T01:58:12.491Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-03-26","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nACTA seeks to improve the global enforcement of intellectual property rights through the creation of common enforcement standards and practices, and more effective international co-operation. It could assist in tackling the large-scale infringement of intellectual property by organised crime and contains safeguards to ensure consistency with fundamental rights, privacy and data protection. It is important to note that no changes to EU or UK law would be necessary as a result of ACTA.\n\nThe ACTA negotiations, like other inter-government negotiations, were confidential.  However, the public was informed of their launch and the European Commission consulted regularly during the negotiations.  The UK explicitly pushed for greater transparency in the negotiations which led to the draft text being released in April 2010.  To inform our position, the UK Intellectual Property Office also sought the views of a range of stakeholders during the negotiations, including business, internet service providers and consumer interest and open rights groups.\n\nThe European Parliament rejected the treaty earlier this year, making it unclear whether the UK and other EU Member States will ever be in a position to ratify the Agreement.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:53.796Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:53.796Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":55062,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/55062.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":"Royal Commission into Police Pay and Pensions","background":null,"additional_details":"Home Secretary stopped the existing final salary system to a career-average scheme and an increase in average contributions  Not only that, but they are being told they must work longer before they can claim their pension, and that when they do, it will be worth less\r\n\r\nPolice Officers now find that the pension scheme they signed up to in good faith, as a reasonable compensation for the dangers they face and had a reasonable expectation of it being honoured.\r\n\r\nTo remove their secure, planned futures from them in this manner is unjust and immoral.Police Officers have had a massive reduction in their living standards and pensions over the last few years\r\nThe overhaul of police pensions should be fairer for the Police.\r\n\r\nThe only way that this can be achieved is through a Royal Commission being set up to examine Police pay and Pensions\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15653,"created_at":"2013-09-19T15:32:13.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.619Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-09-20T10:34:19.000Z","closed_at":"2014-09-20T10:34:19.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-19T15:32:13.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-15T00:45:27.344Z","government_response_at":"2014-02-15T00:45:27.344Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-02-15","summary":"","details":"The Government believes that our police officers do an important and challenging job and wants police pay, pensions and conditions of service to recognise this.  It accepted the clear case for reform set out in Tom Winsor’s report on pay and conditions and Lord Hutton’s report on public service pensions. Both these reports thoroughly examined the issues and we do not believe that a Royal Commission is necessary.\n\nPolice officers cannot be exempt from changes which are affecting pensions of workers across the public services, including increasing contributions and raising the age at which people retire.\n\nThe Government has consistently committed to protecting accrued rights built up under present pension arrangements.  The current police pension schemes, in common with other schemes, will remain in place in their present form until March 2015.  This means that the benefits built up until that time will be based on pension linked to final salary and pension age set out in the relevant scheme.\n\nThe Government has also committed to protect from these reforms those who were nearest to retirement: that is those who were within ten years of their normal pension age at 1 April 2012.\n\nThe Government has done all it can to secure a fair pensions package for police officers that reflects the frontline nature of policing work and protects those closest to retirement. Police officers will continue to retire earlier than most public servants and police pensions will continue to be amongst the very best available.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.612Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.612Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":48886,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48886.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":"Goverment to take a Safeguarding Children position against sites like Ask.Fm","background":null,"additional_details":"Cyber-Bullying has been an ever increasing problem within the UK for a considerable amount of time with one of the biggest offenders becoming Ask.Fm , a site popular amongst young people where posts can be made with confidence anonymously which has led to bullying, mental health problems and suicides as well as grooming.\r\n\r\nThe problem cannot be allowed to persist and whilst there is public opinion about digital rights please sign if you would like the Government to step in and insist that Ask.fm and similar sites help us protect our young people. They are able to join from the age of 13 and can post anonymously. There is no option to block other users and only a basic 'report' button. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15413,"created_at":"2013-04-15T19:49:35.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.793Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-05-08T11:50:12.000Z","closed_at":"2014-05-08T11:50:12.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-15T19:49:35.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-03T21:35:37.050Z","government_response_at":"2013-10-03T21:35:37.050Z","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\nCyberbullying can be a particularly insidious and harmful form of bullying. It can be a 24/7 phenomenon with no refuge for the person targeted.\n\nThe law makes it very clear that if something is illegal offline, it is also illegal online. Bullying itself is not a specific criminal offence; however some types of harassment or threatening behaviour – or communications – could be criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Communications Act 2003, and the Public Order Act 1986.\n\nGuidance outlining the government’s approach to bullying, legal obligations and the powers schools have to tackle bullying can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/antibullyingguidance. This document has been produced to help schools prevent and respond to bullying (including cyberbullying) as part of their overall behaviour policy. Government has ensured that teachers have the powers they need to tackle bad behaviour and bullying. New search powers included in the Education Act 2011 have given teachers stronger powers to tackle cyber-bullying (via text message or the internet) by providing a specific power to search for and, if necessary, delete inappropriate images (or files) on electronic devices, including mobile phones.\n\nOfsted now clearly holds schools to account for how well they deal with behaviour and bullying. Since January 2012 inspectors must consider pupils’ freedom from bullying, harassment and discrimination.\n\nThe Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and the UK Safer Internet Centre have advised Government on the development of a new Computing curriculum which will ensure that children are taught at all stages how to use technology safely and respectfully, and how to report concerns.\n\nSince 2010, the Government has committed £2m directly to the Beatbullying charity to support the Cybermentors programme, to give online support to victims of bullying, and to train 3,500 11-17 year olds over two years to act as mentors, backed up by support for teachers and parents.\n\nProtecting children online is everyone’s responsibility. The website Ask.fm recently announced changes to its services: better moderation of posts, a more prominent reporting button and better guidance on how to switch off the anonymity function.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.787Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:55.787Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":46498,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/46498.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":"Scrap plans for the HS2 'Paving Bill'","background":null,"additional_details":"The mad rush for the HS2 project is being fuelled by sentiment and sound bites which have no basis in reality, and the proposal to submit a paving bill reflects this.\r\n\r\nThe DfT has knowingly fabricated the supporting evidence for HS2, using every outdated figure and model available to them. As a result, they have presented a grossly inflated business case which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The costs are too great and the value for money of the project is far too low at a time of supposed austerity.\r\n\r\nEnvironmentally HS2 is a disaster threatening at least 350 unique habitats, 50 ancient woodlands, 30 river corridors, 24 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and hundreds of other important areas which cannot be replaced.\r\n\r\nHS2 would have significant social impacts, uprooting householders and devastating communities without proper compensation.\r\n\r\nHS2 is simply a vanity project and must be cancelled.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15361,"created_at":"2013-02-27T17:25:05.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.515Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-28T09:07:04.000Z","closed_at":"2014-02-28T09:07:04.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-27T17:25:05.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-27T04:29:40.708Z","government_response_at":"2013-07-27T04:29:40.708Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-07-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government understands the concern that many people in Britain have over the impact of HS2. Such large infrastructure projects are often accompanied by vocal opposition, and we are, of course, keen to engage with all concerned parties as HS2 moves forward.\n\nIt is impossible to undertake an infrastructure project of this magnitude and importance without causing a degree of environmental disruption, but we aim to mitigate this as much as possible. Our draft environmental statement represents the largest environmental impact assessment ever undertaken in the UK, and builds on the previous work in the Appraisal of Sustainability.\n\nIt is not true to claim that the Government has fabricated any evidence to support the business case for HS2. The business case is sound and we are committed to ensuring that it will provide value for money to the taxpayer.\n\nMoreover we have committed to reviewing our business case on a regular basis and are planning to update our economic analysis and publish an updated economic case later this year. The economic case forms part of the full business case for HS2. Other documents of the business case consist of the strategic case, the financial case, the commercial case, and the management case.\n\nBut the business case is just one part of the equation. HS2 will significantly increase capacity on our north-south rail lines, simultaneously bringing the North and South closer together and allowing for significant investment and regeneration in areas outside of London.\n\nThe High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill is a big step towards realising this. Once enacted, it will give the Secretary of State powers to begin spending on preparatory works for HS2. This will allow more detailed design and survey work to commence while the hybrid Bill for Phase One makes its way through Parliament.\n\nThe 'paving' Bill is also essential in allowing for the provision of compensation. The Government has undertaken to have a re-consultation on property compensation following the outcome of the Judicial Review earlier this year. The Bill ensures that, whatever the the results of this re-consultation, those affected by HS2 will have access to a fair and generous compensation package.\n\nHS2 is a project which is vital to securing Britain's future growth and ensuring our transport network is prepared for the future. It is a generational project, which will bring benefits for decades to come. The High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill is a huge step forward in this project, and we do not believe that scrapping it would be in the national interest, either now or in the future.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.509Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.509Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":66982,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/66982.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":"GDC ARF","background":null,"additional_details":"We want the government to review the General Dental Councils Annual retention fees which are payable by all UK dentists.\r\nCurrently the fee stands at £576 and proposals have been made to increase this by 64% for dentists to £945 a year. We feel this is ridiculous and needs to be reviewed. If fees need to be increased this should be in line with inflation and any further deficit be addressed from other sources of revenue.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15244,"created_at":"2014-06-30T21:30:40.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:43.894Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-01T08:10:12.000Z","closed_at":"2015-01-01T09:10:12.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-30T21:30:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-08-30T16:56:12.220Z","government_response_at":"2014-09-30T16:56:12.220Z","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 has provided the following response:\n\nThe General Dental Council (GDC) regulates dental professionals in the UK.  All dentists, dental nurses, clinical dental technicians, dental technicians, dental hygienists, dental therapists and orthodontic therapists must be registered with the GDC to work in the UK.\n\nThe GDC is an independent body and, therefore, it is for the GDC to determine the level of the annual fee it charges for registration.  The proposed fee increase is subject to public consultation where the GDC’s case will be scrutinised.  The Department of Health does not usually contribute to such consultations.  However, all professional regulators, including the GDC, are aware that the Department would not expect registration fees to increase beyond their current levels, unless there is a clear and strong business case that any increase is essential to ensure the exercise of statutory duties.\n\nThe GDC’s consultation opened on 30th June and is due to close on 4th September.  GDC registrants and other interested parties are encouraged to contribute their views to the GDC’s consultation, which can be accessed at the following link:\n\nhttp://www.gdc-uk.org/GDCcalendar/Consultations/Pages/Consultation-on-the-Annual-Retention-Fee-(ARF)-Level-for-2015.aspx.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:43.889Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:43.889Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":5334,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/5334.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":"pertition against EU Anti-tampering proposed legislation for motorcycles ","background":null,"additional_details":"we the undersigned would like to protest against the\r\nEU Anti-tampering proposed legislation for motorcycles ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15215,"created_at":"2011-08-05T19:53:15.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:06:33.247Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-08T08:42:43.000Z","closed_at":"2011-11-08T09:42:43.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-08-05T19:53:15.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-07T14:38:25.096Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":38011,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/38011.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":"Method of production labelling for all meat and dairy foods sold in the UK","background":null,"additional_details":"We call upon the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, Jim Paice MP, to introduce new legislation so that all meat and dairy products, for example chicken, cheese and bacon are clearly and honestly labelled to show the farm system used to rear the animal.\r\n\r\nIf method of production labels were mandatory, shoppers would be able to make an informed choice, buying products such as meat and cheese based on animal welfare standards as well as price, taste and quality.\r\n\r\nThis petition is part of the Labelling Matters campaign, being run in partnership by Compassion in World Farming, RSPCA, Soil Association and WSPA. www.LabellingMatters.org\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15162,"created_at":"2012-08-31T12:10:13.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:20.280Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-09-03T08:50:28.000Z","closed_at":"2013-09-03T08:50:28.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-31T12:10:13.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-01-01T17:38:31.419Z","government_response_at":"2013-02-01T17:38:31.419Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-02-01","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe ability for consumers to make informed choices about the food products they buy is important to the Government, but has to be balanced against the realities of cost and consumer support. Defining a method of production for animals incorporating standard welfare criteria is extremely difficult and would need to be agreed across the EU.  Larger animals are moved around and can experience many different surroundings during their lives, making it difficult to determine what overall method of production has been used to raise them. Standards covering methods of production do exist (often through industry assurance schemes) but incorporating these into a standard method of production on a ‘one size fits all’ basis would be hard given the variety of breeds, geographical situations and rearing conditions.\n\nThe Government supports accurate voluntary labelling. The significant swing in recent years to free range hen production is a good example of how the voluntary approach can be successful - there is no legal requirement for broiler or laying hens to be reared as ‘free range’, yet producers recognised the added value to be gained from doing so and being able to label their products accordingly.\n\nThe Government will continue to work with animal welfare, food industry and consumer groups to assure the right balance between labelling, costs and demand.\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":"2017-06-21T15:11:20.274Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:20.274Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":74463,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/74463.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":"Access to medicines for brain tumour patients","background":null,"additional_details":"We want to ensure innovative therapies get to brain tumour patients as quickly as possible.\r\n\r\nThis could be achieved through the following initiatives:\r\n\r\nEarly Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS): This could help move towards precision medicines to treat the rarest conditions where patients are willing to take higher risks with experimental drugs and there are no viable treatment options.\r\n\r\nAdaptive pathways (also known as adaptive licensing):  An approach that would license drugs earlier than currently happens, while continuing to assess the effects of the drug after the licence has been granted.\r\n\r\nThis petition calls on the Government to:\r\n\r\n- Properly resource the EAMS to ensure that brain tumour patients have access to drugs with the potential for efficacy;\r\n\r\n- Support the adaptive pathways approach to improve the efficiency of the drug development process, following the pilot by the European Medicines Agency.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15157,"created_at":"2015-02-02T09:58:11.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:47.953Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-02-04T14:57:56.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-02-02T09:58:11.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-02-22T13:08:27.985Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":68064,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/68064.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 NHS privatisation","background":null,"additional_details":"Call on the Government to support Clive Efford MP's  'NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDED DUTIES AND POWERS) 'Private Member's Bill\" on 21st November 2014.\r\nResponsible department: Department of Health\r\nGovernment to support Clive Efford MP's private member's bill (NHS amended duties and powers).\r\nTo:-\r\n•\tstop the Privatisation of the NHS,\r\n•\trestore the legal duty of the Secretary of State for Health to provide National Health Services,\r\n•\tamend the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to remove the competition requirements,\r\n•\tamend the ability to provide private health services,\r\n•\tamend the provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 relating to Monitor,\r\n•\trepeal Section 75 Regulations.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":15078,"created_at":"2014-07-28T12:55:04.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:54.083Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-28T14:20:55.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-28T12:55:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-10-17T23:04:41.236Z","government_response_at":"2014-11-18T00:04:41.236Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-11-18","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government’s reforms are not about privatisation, but about placing the financial power to change health services in the hands of those NHS professionals whom the public trust most, and putting clinicians, rather than politicians, in control of healthcare.  The principles the NHS was founded on will remain as important in the future as they were when the NHS was created: of healthcare free at the point of use, funded from general taxation and available to all based on need rather than the ability to pay.  Clinical services will continue to be available on the basis of need, as they are now.\n\nMinisters believe that competition can help to deliver better quality care and better choice for patients, and improved value for the taxpayer.  The Government’s aim is for patients to have access to the best possible services, and providers from the voluntary, charitable and private sector all make a valuable contribution to the delivery of NHS services.\n\nThe Health and Social Care Act 2012 did not introduce competition to the NHS, and overturning this legislation would not therefore prevent competition law applying to the commissioning of NHS services.  The Act simply continued an approach of managed competition in the NHS and established Monitor as an expert health sector regulator to provide an alternative to the potentially costly process of bringing a court case against NHS commissioners.  The NHS (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill would remove the mechanism that allows Monitor to ensure that competition operates in the interest of NHS patients.\n\nThe Bill also seeks to revoke the NHS Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations 2013 made under section 75 of the Act.  These Regulations continue the rules and guidance put in place by the previous administration that require commissioners to secure NHS services from the provider or providers that are best placed to meet the needs of patients and can improve the quality and efficiency of services.  Revoking these Regulations would therefore not change the framework within which commissioners must take decisions on when to competitively tender a service, and Ministers believe would be a backwards step in the drive to improve NHS services.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:54.076Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:54.076Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":61335,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/61335.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":"Lower the age for a smear test to 20","background":null,"additional_details":"A smear test is a test to detect cervical cancer. The tests are done to prevent cervical cancer, not to diagnose it. If ignored and not treated, it could develop into cancer of the cervix. Cervical cancer is not uncommon, there are around 3000 new cases of cervical cancer each year in the UK. In Scotland and Wales, the age to get a smear test is 20, so why not in England?? Personally, I think the age should be lowered from 25 to 20.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14934,"created_at":"2014-02-23T22:28:14.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:52.187Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-02-24T09:12:56.000Z","closed_at":"2015-02-24T09:12:56.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-02-23T22:28:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-26T14:07:13.211Z","government_response_at":"2014-07-26T14:07:13.211Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-07-26","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department has provided the following response:\n\nThe UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises Ministers and the NHS in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy and supports implementation.  Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria.\n\nIn 2012, the UK NSC carried out a review looking at the latest available evidence for the risks and benefits for cervical screening in women aged 20-24.  The Committee agreed with the decision previously made by the Advisory Committee for Cervical Screening (ACCS) in 2003, and confirmed in 2009, which recommended that the age of first invitation for the NHS cervical screening programme should be 25.  It agreed on the basis that the evidence indicates that screening women below this age has relatively little benefit, with screening doing more harm than good.  Its next review is due in 2015/16.\n\nThe UK NSC reported that no new scientific evidence was available to support the reintroduction of screening for women aged under 25.  It also found that treatment following screening in this age group could lead to an increased risk of complications in childbearing, as well as causing unnecessary anxiety following a false positive, which occurs in one in three women in this age group.\n\nCervical cancer in women under the age of 25 is very rare.  Younger women often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix that screening would identify as cervical abnormalities; in most cases, these abnormalities will resolve themselves without any need for intervention.\n\nIt is recognised that cervical cancer is linked to a persistent infection with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a very common sexually transmitted infection.  As a result, the HPV vaccination programme was set up to offer girls from the age of 12 immunisation against the most high-risk strains of HPV, before many girls become sexually active.  The HPV vaccination programme started in September 2008 with all 12 to 13-year-old and 17 to 18-year-old girls being offered the vaccine in school.  Girls then aged 18 who accepted the vaccine will soon be receiving their invitation to enter the NHS cervical screening programme this year.  It is expected that the vaccine will have reduced the already low rates of cervical cancer in these young women, and allow them to be protected for years to come.\n\nThe ACCS did, however, recognise the need to ensure that young women who presented at a primary care setting with symptoms of cervical cancer were given the best advice and, if required, a further examination.  It recommended the development of new guidance, Clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of young women aged 20-24 with abnormal vaginal bleeding, which was published on 3 March 2010.  The guidance was produced by a multi-disciplinary group, including professionals, patients and the voluntary sector.  It was reviewed by a number of GPs, and was endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Physicians.  The guidance can be found at www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/publications/doh-guidelines-young-women.pdf.\n\nIf a woman aged under 25 is concerned about her risk of developing cervical cancer, she should contact her GP, who will be able to examine her and refer her to a gynaecologist if clinically appropriate.  It must be noted that a cervical screening test is a population screening test, not a diagnostic test, and is therefore not appropriate for women with symptoms.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:52.182Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:52.182Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":72199,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/72199.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":"Cancer Drug Fund","background":null,"additional_details":"This petition has been set up by a group of ladies who are dealing with the effects of Secondary Breast Cancer  (SBC).\r\nIt has been widely reported in the news that upto 25 cancer drugs which NICE have deemed too expensive for the NHS are going to be withdrawn by the Cancer Drug Fund (CDF), because of the costs, it is believed this includes all Breast Cancer drugs on that list.\r\nMany of us have had these drugs prescibed with dramatic results, others are running out of options and these drugs are our only chance of extending our lives.\r\nWe would like to remind the government of the Tory pledge, which was made before the last election, to enable NHS doctors to prescribe any drug if they believed a cancer patient would benefit.\r\nWe the undersigned are demanding access to all cancer drugs, that are deemed beneficial by a specialised oncology consultant, to their patients.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14877,"created_at":"2014-11-19T11:31:11.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:16:30.777Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-11-19T16:28:16.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-19T11:31:11.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-01-02T19:19:47.846Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":35949,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/35949.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":"Pension Justice for Troops","background":null,"additional_details":"On 12 June 2012, the MoD announced the redundancies of over three thousand service personnel. Of this figure a number were within twelve months of their immediate pension point.\r\n\r\nThese redundancies do not honour the original employment contract or covenant between soldier and the MoD. These men and women have all faithfully served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and repeatedly risked their lives on different tours of duty, with the expectation that, when they completed their period of service, they would be eligible for a pension on which to build a new life for themselves and their families. Given future planned redundancies in the forces this issue is likely to affect many more service personnel.\r\n\r\nWe call on the Government to urgently review these cases to ensure natural justice and provide the opportunity for all affected personnel to serve the extra year, or less, to reach their immediate pension point as set out in their original contracts of employment.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14573,"created_at":"2012-07-11T09:43:03.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:02.031Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-07-11T14:52:02.000Z","closed_at":"2013-07-11T14:52:02.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-11T09:43:03.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-13T20:25:31.606Z","government_response_at":"2012-12-13T20:25:31.606Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-12-13","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 is aware that some Service personnel made redundant or due to be made redundant will be close to their immediate Pension or Early Departure Payment (depending on which pension scheme they belong to). However, there was no deliberate selection policy or targeting of those close to the point at which they would receive an annual income on retirement. Those who narrowly miss out on receiving an immediate income will receive a significantly larger tax free compensation redundancy lump sum payment and their pension benefits will be preserved for later payment.\n\nIt is regrettable that although proximity to pension was not a factor in selection for redundancy, it is inevitable that some of those affected may leave without completing sufficient service to qualify for an immediate income. However, any change to the current policy would only create a new “line” and could well result in a different group feeling disadvantaged.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:02.025Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:02.025Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":41702,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/41702.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":"Don't Scrap January A-Level Exams","background":null,"additional_details":"Ofqual have announced that from September 2013, A-Level students will be unable to sit exams in January. This petition requests that the government retracts their proposal.\r\n\r\nThe pressure on students studying A-levels is already huge; the government’s proposal will exasperate this and prevent many capable students from achieving their full potential. Furthermore, it will disadvantage young people who have missed school due to uncontrollable circumstances such as illness, bereavement or disability. The decision as to whether or not January exams benefit students should remain a choice for schools.\r\n\r\nThe role of education is to enable students to achieve their best, if you can appreciate the harm that this change will inflict, then please support young people across the UK by signing below.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14327,"created_at":"2012-11-13T19:22:42.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:53.079Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-16T14:06:52.000Z","closed_at":"2013-11-16T14:06:52.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-13T19:22:42.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-23T23:16:45.257Z","government_response_at":"2013-04-23T22:16:45.257Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-04-23","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nOfqual is a non-ministerial government department set up under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, 2009 (ASCLA), and is responsible for regulating the exam boards and regulated qualifications in England.  Although it is a Government department, Ofqual is an independent regulator and is responsible directly to Parliament.  The decision in respect of January assessments is therefore a decision taken by Ofqual.\n\nOfqual, in its role as regulator has specific obligations under  ASCLA  to  maintain standards in regulated qualifications, such as A levels,  both over time and  with comparable qualifications internationally;  to ensure that assessments give a reliable indication of achievement; and that there is public confidence in these regulated qualifications – in short that they are ‘ fit for purpose’.   Ofqual is also required to consider the reasonable requirements of learners, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and other users of qualifications, including higher education, industry and employers.\n\nA levels in their current form were introduced in 2008. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, as the regulator of examinations before Ofqual, had collected information from a sample of A levels and found that between two thirds and three quarters of students re-sat at least one unit.\n\nIn Autumn 2010 the  Department of Education White  Paper ‘ The Importance of Teaching’  proposed  to  review A levels  to ensure that universities were more involved in their design.  This White Paper  identified  concerns  with the current  A level system  as it allowed for re-sits of modules, which can be seen as undermining the qualifications and educationally inappropriate. The Department for Education asked Ofqual to review the rules on re-sits to prevent students from re-sitting large numbers of units.  There have been a number of developments since, but the intention now is that work will be undertaken to revise A levels in preparation for first teaching in some subjects from September 2015.\n\nBefore consulting on A level reform, Ofqual commissioned Ipsos Mori to carry out research into the views of the higher education sector, teachers and employers.  This was published as ‘Fit for Purpose? The view of the higher education sector, teachers and employers on the suitability of A levels’ in April 2012.   Ofqual also published last year its research comparing A levels with similar qualifications used overseas.  Overall, A levels stood up well, though there were some specific issues identified in some subjects.  Also, the Ipsos Mori research  found that the number of assessment opportunities was seen to create a problem with A level courses becoming too dominated by early assessment at the expense of learning, and too much tactical resitting (described as a ‘resit culture’).  This suggested a need to move to a linear approach. The proposal to remove the January assessment option and to require examinations at the end of the two year course of study therefore had a solid evidence base.\n\nOfqual consulted on A level reform, including the future of AS, between 19 June and 11 September 2012.  An equality impact assessment was published alongside the consultation. Responses were encouraged both on the Ofqual website and via focus groups, which were set up to invite the views of a range of stakeholders.  All options proposed removing January examinations, and the intention to remove January assessments was also made clear in comments and speeches by Ofqual’s Chief Executive alongside the consultation.\n\nOfqual appointed an independent company, Alpha Plus, to conduct the focus groups and analyse the consultation responses, and their report was also published on Ofqual’s website.  Over half of the stakeholder responses were supportive of the removal of January assessments and comments made supported the initial concerns regarding January assessments.   Approximately two thirds of students and about a third of parents  did not agree with this proposal, and this was taken into account when Ofqual made its final decision.\n\nOfqual proposed in the consultation to implement the structural changes in two stages.  Stage one, which could be done relatively quickly, was to remove January assessments.  Stage two, which would take longer, would be to change the subject content and the structure, and that is the process that is now underway.\n\nIn light of the responses to the consultation, which took into account the equality impact assessment and comments on that assessment, Ofqual decided to go ahead with the proposed short term changes – the removal of January assessments for A levels in England – and published its decision on 9 November.  In making its decision, Ofqual acknowledged that this would affect those learners who had commenced their two year course of study in September 2012.  The current A level courses are two year courses with examination options in January and June.  The removal of January assessments requires learners to sit their examinations in June only.  This decision applies equally to all students.\n\nThe A level and GCSE Code of Practice and  Ofqual’s  Conditions of Recognition require exam boards to make reasonable adjustments for learners with learning difficulties and other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, so arrangements are already in place to minimise any disadvantage to this group of students.  Exam boards can also make alternative arrangements for students who are genuinely unable to sit examinations due to accidents or illness.  In making its decision to remove January assessments, Ofqual considered the  impact of the proposed A level reforms generally and  the report by UCF GHK  ‘Impact assessment of A-level reforms’ is also published on Ofqual’s website (http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2012-11-07-impact-assessment-of-a-level-reforms.pdf).  The final equality impact assessment on the consultation was published in November (http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2012-11-08-equality-analysis-of-the-a-level-reform-consultation.pdf).\n\nThe issues raised in the petition were taken into account when Ofqual made the decision, as part of the evaluation of the responses to the consultation.  The decision to remove January assessments is the first part of wider reforms for A levels to ensure they remain fit for purpose, and to take account of the research and consultation responses.\n\nAwarding organisations cannot separately identify whether a candidate is year 12, year 11 choosing to sit examinations early, a mature student or a student who is resitting examinations, so exceptions cannot be made for specific groups of students in deciding who should be allowed to sit examinations in which series.\n\nGiven the evidence behind the decision to remove January assessments, and the responses to the consultation, there are no plans to reverse and allow January assessments.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:53.073Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:53.073Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":62894,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/62894.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 Mildenhall Stadium and give rights to existing activities with planning permission and local residents’ support.","background":null,"additional_details":"In 2006 a couple bought a house close to Mildenhall Stadium where stock car racing and speedway have taken place since 1975, and began complaining about the noise. The case progressed to the Supreme Court where they won. The law says that them coming to the noise is no defence and planning permission makes no difference. This ruling affects all activities from motorsports to cricket and concerts to retail parks and even church bells.\r\nWe believe common sense says this ruling is wrong.\r\nWe call upon Parliament to change the law of ‘coming to a nuisance’ to protect established activities with planning permission and local support, and to put on a person arriving into the area full responsibility for accepting that this is part of the character of the area. We also ask Parliament to intervene in this case to reverse the Supreme Court ruling and save stock car racing and speedway at Mildenhall.\r\nPlease do not sign this petition if you have already signed the paper version, thank you.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14301,"created_at":"2014-03-24T12:23:11.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:06.105Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-03-26T10:14:07.000Z","closed_at":"2014-06-26T09:14:07.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-24T12:23:11.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-27T13:51:34.702Z","government_response_at":"2014-05-27T13:51:34.702Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-05-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government cannot comment on or intervene in cases which have been the subject of judicial consideration. The judiciary are constitutionally independent of the Government and to do so would be a breach of this fundamental principle.\n\nWe do not propose to make changes to the law of private nuisance as it already enables an appropriate balance to be struck between the protection of an individual’s private rights and the needs of business.\n\nPrivate nuisance is an age-old common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The wrong is committed where an act generally connected with the use or occupation of land causes damage to another person in connection with their use of land, or interference with the enjoyment of their land or of some right connected with that land.  This includes causing physical damage to property or injury to the occupier’s health and comfort.  A person whose rights are affected by a private nuisance can issue legal proceedings. A civil court will deal with the case and may grant relief such as an injunction or damages if the nuisance is proven.\n\nThe law of private nuisance recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the premises owned or occupied by them. The act of a person’s neighbour will be an actionable nuisance if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of that person’s existence when judged by a certain standard. This standard 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 complainant is living.\n\nSince the late 1800s, it has become well established in case law that once it is established that a particular act amounts to a nuisance it cannot be justified on the basis that the complainant ‘came to the nuisance’. In other words, legal proceedings can be taken in relation to issues that can constitute a nuisance, regardless of whether those circumstances arose before the complainant became the occupier of the affected premises. This principle applies equally between two business occupiers or two residential occupiers as between a resident and a business. However, as stated above, the standard for determining whether an interference with comfort amounts to a nuisance is an objective one and the nature of the locality will be taken into account by the court.\n\nThe planning regime has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances. Planning policies and decisions should 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. However, 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\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:06.098Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:06.098Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":61926,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/61926.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":"Increase the Maximum Sentence for Animal Cruelty","background":null,"additional_details":"The law is failing to adequately protect animals/pets and ensure that the punishment administered to those responsible for acts of cruelty towards them fits the crime.\r\n\r\nUnder the Animal Welfare Act, the term of imprisonment for even the most heinous does not exceed 51 weeks, and all too often abusers of family pets and domestic animals are “getting away with murder\". A lifetime ban and/or fine is insufficient. There is no excuse.\r\n\r\nWe would like to see the current law amended and the term of imprisonment increased to 2 years at the very least, bringing it in line with other serious criminal offences.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14188,"created_at":"2014-03-04T21:51:01.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:57.268Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-03-05T14:39:32.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-05T14:39:32.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-04T21:51:01.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-12T05:46:29.141Z","government_response_at":"2014-08-12T05:46:29.141Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-08-12","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government abhors animal cruelty.  Powers for local authorities and police to investigate and take action in cases of suspected cruelty are provided in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.  Under the 2006 Act, the maximum penalty for causing unnecessary suffering is a fine of £20,000 or six months imprisonment, or both.  In addition, the court can impose post-conviction penalties on anyone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal by disqualifying anyone from having any influence over the keeping of animals for as long as the court see fit.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:57.262Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:57.262Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}