{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=2&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=9&parliament=2&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=2&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=2&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":40707,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/40707.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":"Remove the subsidy  from the House of Commons Catering and Bars","background":null,"additional_details":"Remove the subsidy currently approx £5.8 million from the House of Commons Catering outlets and Bars.\r\n In times of austerity everyone should make the same sacrifie. When children are going hungry and people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes, it is inappropriate that the Honourable Members of the House are having their meals and drinks subsidised in this way","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13635,"created_at":"2012-10-23T13:50:12.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.779Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-24T09:10:05.000Z","closed_at":"2013-10-24T09:10:05.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-23T13:50:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-07T05:29:21.435Z","government_response_at":"2013-04-07T04:29:21.435Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-04-07","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nResponsibility for this policy area is a matter for the House of Commons Service.\n\nThe costs of catering in the House have been reduced since 2003 and in 2012/13 were a quarter less than five years before; figures are published here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/transparency-reporting-catering-services/ ).  The House of Commons Service is working to further reduce these cost.\n\nThe customers for the catering services include around 13,000 pass-holders (Members of both Houses, their staff, House staff, civil servants, contractors’ staff, members of the Press Gallery etc.) as well as members of the public and non pass holding visitors to Parliament. Many of the restaurants and dining room facilities, and their staff, are extensively used to cater for private events at times when they are not required by the House. Much of the net cost to the House arises because of the irregular hours and unpredictability of Parliamentary business. Food and drink prices are regularly reviewed and set at levels benchmarked against similar outlets outside the House.\n\nDecisions relating to the budget for, and charges within, the House Catering Services are matters for the House of Commons Commission, not for the Government.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.771Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.771Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":45882,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/45882.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":"Pet Theft - Tougher Penalites to Deter.","background":null,"additional_details":"To introduce a Pet Theft Law.\r\n\r\nWe want stronger and tougher pet theft legislation to increase the punishment to those involved in the theft of a dog, cat, rabbit, aviary-bird or horse.\r\nWe want pets and horses to be legally regarded as living members of the family and not as objects or property.\r\n\r\nWe want to see pet theft punishment set somewhere between kidnapping and the theft of property or an object. The personal value of a pet is much higher than its saleable value and the law needs to reflect this.\r\n\r\nWe want a mandatory prison sentence punishment for anyone who steals pets with the purpose of extracting a ransom, or seeking reward for the safe return of those animals, or with the intention of harming it or with the intention of not returning it to its rightful owner (unless they can prove that the animal was removed for good reason).\r\n\r\nWe want police and courts to have tougher and stronger powers and to prioritise the theft of pets over the theft of objects.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13634,"created_at":"2013-02-12T14:16:18.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.109Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-13T14:41:50.000Z","closed_at":"2014-02-13T14:41:50.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-12T14:16:18.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-27T11:15:14.635Z","government_response_at":"2013-07-27T11:15:14.635Z","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 takes all crime, including the theft of a pet, very seriously, recognising that it can cause a great deal of distress to those owners whose pets are stolen. However, the Government does not believe it is necessary to create a new offence in order to do this, as such behaviour is already criminal. The theft of a dog constitutes a criminal offence under section 1 of the Theft Act, 1968 and asking for money for its return could constitute blackmail under section 21 of that Act.\n\nWhen sentencing, the court would take into account the particular harm caused to the owner, in addition to all the other relevant circumstances of the offence. Furthermore, anyone who steals and mistreats a pet could be in breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 of which the maximum penalty is a fine of £20,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. For those reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce separate offences of dog theft or dog kidnapping.\n\nAs part of its reforms for promoting more responsible dog ownership, Government has introduced plans for the microchipping of all dogs in England by April 2016, which may help to deter such thefts from occurring in the first place. Microchipping of all dogs will help owners recover lost or stray dogs, including, potentially, dogs that are stolen.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.070Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:28.070Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":67893,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67893.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":"British citizens who fight in the Israeli army to face criminal prosecution on their return to UK","background":null,"additional_details":"\r\nBritish citizen are going Israel to fight in the IDF(Israeli defence force) on occupied territories. Anybody who has broken the fourth protocol of the Geneva Convention deserves to face justice in court for their crimes.\r\n\r\nIt is also a crime under British law for a British nationals to serve in a foreign army under the 'Foreign Enlistment Act 1870' making it a criminal offence.\r\n\r\nThese individuals need to be arrested and face prosecution in British courts on their return to the UK\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13617,"created_at":"2014-07-23T10:55:34.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.496Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-08-01T08:52:42.000Z","closed_at":"2014-11-01T09:52:42.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-23T10:55:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-09-04T03:59:48.437Z","government_response_at":"2014-10-04T03:59:48.437Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-10-04","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe UK government is extremely concerned about the conflict in Gaza, and is doing everything possible to support a lasting negotiated ceasefire. The Middle East Peace Process continues to be one of our principal foreign policy priorities.\n\nSection 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combating terrorism or internal uprisings. The Occupied Palestinian Territories are not currently recognised as a state by the UK.  Israel has taken military action against individuals and groups within Gaza but has not made a declaration of war. In these circumstances the 1870 Act would not apply.\n\nIt is the UK government’s longstanding position that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that Israel is an occupying power under that convention. The UK has urged both sides of the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict.\n\nIf the military personnel of any country violate the laws of armed conflict, we would expect that State to investigate their conduct and hold them to account.  British nationals who have committed crimes abroad may also be prosecuted before our UK courts. An investigation would be required and any prosecution in England and Wales would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, who will determine whether there is sufficient evidence available to mount a prosecution and whether such a prosecution is in the public interest, and will require the consent of the Attorney General.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.490Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.490Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":55362,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/55362.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":"Sir Tom Windsor should NOT wear any ceremonial Police uniform","background":null,"additional_details":"Police officers are sworn into office and officers of all ranks are entitled to wear official uniform, ceremonial or otherwise, because they have been so sworn and have served Her Majesty in their respective roles. Sir Tom Windsor, being politically appointed, has never served in such a capacity as a sworn officer and should not be permitted to wear any uniform at formal or public events, even a ceremonial one.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13582,"created_at":"2013-09-29T20:35:44.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.615Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-09-30T08:47:04.000Z","closed_at":"2014-09-30T08:47:04.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-29T20:35:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-02-11T17:38:27.139Z","government_response_at":"2014-03-11T17:38:27.139Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-03-11","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe post of HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMCIC) is a Crown appointment made on the recommendation of the Home Secretary and with the approval of the Prime Minister. There is a ceremonial uniform that is associated with the appointment. This is not a police uniform. It is for the HMCIC to decide the public engagements at which he wears the uniform.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.609Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.609Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":47554,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/47554.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"PROVIDE EVERY ESA PIP CLAIMANT WITH A SHORT FORM FOR THEIR GP/CONSULTANT ASKING IF DWP RULES 29 & 35 APPLY TO SAFEGUARD VULNERABLE CLAIMANTS","background":null,"additional_details":"All Vulnerable Groups in society including: ALL MENTALLY ILL, LEARNING DISABLED, AUTISTIC, BLIND, EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE PERSONALITY DISORDERS, DISABLED & ALL others deemed 'VULNERABLE'.\r\nInstead of sending vulnerable people to ATOS for Assessments for WCA, PIP, send all claimants a simple form for the person to give to their own GP/Consultant to fill in asking if DWP Rules 29 & 35 apply to that person. This would then safeguard & exclude our most vulnerable from the stress & anxiety of needless assessments & the long appeal process, it would protect them. This is a simple & effective safeguard for all vulnerable members of society to stop them falling through the very safety net that should be there to protect them! DWP/ATOS are failing our most vulnerable time & time again the way the system works now, the safety net doesn't work it's dangerous! David Cameron promised before being elected he would look after our most sick & disabled, Government are letting people most at risk down!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13414,"created_at":"2013-03-23T22:03:59.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:42.950Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-03-25T14:44:06.000Z","closed_at":"2014-03-25T14:44:06.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-23T22:03:59.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-08-08T15:58:48.958Z","government_response_at":"2013-09-08T15:58:48.958Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-09-08","summary":"","details":"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people, and is determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. We want to enable disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people.  We continue to spend around £50bn a year of taxpayer support to disabled people, and our reforms will make sure this is targeted as well as it can be to those who need it most.\n\nAs part of this commitment, the Government has been reforming the welfare system in order to create and deliver a twenty-first century benefits system which is responsive to the needs of our claimants. For example, Incapacity Benefit (IB) lacked proper checks and reviews that are integral to most other State-funded support. As a result many people found themselves parked on out of work benefits for many years and forgotten about because they had a health condition or impairment.\n\nWe know that work is good for you and that many people with the right support can and do work. By replacing IB with Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), we are able to ensure that claimants who are able to work are given the support to do so. By replacing Disability Living Allowance for those of working age with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) we are supporting those people that face the greatest barriers to living an independent life due to their health condition or impairment, whilst ensuring that it is delivered in a fair and consistent manner. This Government is committed to supporting those who can work to do so, whilst ensuring that those who cannot work can live fully independent lives.\n\nKey to ESA and PIP are objective assessments of what individuals can or cannot do. The assessments looks at claimants’ ability to carry out a series of key activities, such as dressing and undressing, communicating with others, planning and following journeys and moving around. By focusing on claimants’ ability to carry out these activities the assessment criteria reflect a more complete consideration of the impact of individuals’ health conditions or impairments, whether physical, sensory, mental or cognitive. This ensures that fair account is taken of the impact of all impairment types, that the benefit is fairer, and that money is targeted at those who need it most.\n\nThe assessments make use of all the available evidence, including that provided by the claimant and from being seen face-to-face by a healthcare professional. We also ask claimants to tell us who the most appropriate additional sources of information are, particularly professionals who support them on a regular basis. Evidence can come from a variety of sources, including GPs, hospitals, social workers and community nurses, as well as family members and carers.\n\nIn some claims it is possible to determine eligibility for ESA or PIP through a solely paper-based process, but for most claimants being seen face-to-face by a trained healthcare professional is an integral part of the process. The face-to-face assessment allows claimants to further explain the impact of their impairment or health condition on their everyday life. We recognise that for some individuals this can be stressful. Therefore, individuals are encouraged to bring with them a relation, friend or possibly a professional who supports them, to help them manage any anxiety they may feel. In some cases claimants can also be seen in their home.\n\nRegulations 29 and 35, which consider exceptional circumstances, exist only within ESA legislation and therefore have no relevance to PIP. Their application must be considered on a case-by-case basis by those with a detailed understanding of the ESA assessment and which, by law, can only be done once a claimant has been found not to meet the functional descriptors for the given ESA group.\n\nIn addition, providing claimants with a form to be completed would essentially require medical practitioners, such as GPs, to decide on entitlement to ESA. It would not be right to require GPs or consultants to make such decisions, and the British Medical Association have previously advised the DWP of possible unintended negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship were GPs to be put in such a position. The DWP must also remain mindful of the workloads of GPs when considering any additional changes to processes that would require more involvement on their part.\n\nThis Government is committed to continually reviewing and improving the assessments that it undertakes to help determine entitlement to either ESA or PIP. So far we have undertaken four independent reviews of the WCA, the most recent of which reported to Parliament on 12 December 2013. We welcome the latest report to make the WCA fairer, more accurate and more transparent and are considering the recommendations before responding. The Government has also committed to two independent reviews of the PIP assessment, the first of which will report by the end of 2014, and we will carefully consider any recommendations made.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:42.943Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:42.943Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":52656,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/52656.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":"Boycott 2014 Winter Olympics","background":null,"additional_details":"With the increasingly homophobic stance being taken by the Russian government and parliament, including calls to arrest LGBT tourists.  I call upon the UK Government to strongly advise the British Olympic Association to boycott the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13405,"created_at":"2013-07-12T10:34:17.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:31.698Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-15T09:27:31.000Z","closed_at":"2014-01-15T10:27:31.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-12T10:34:17.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-22T00:58:41.496Z","government_response_at":"2013-10-22T00:58:41.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-10-22","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 wants to see an open and inclusive games at the 2014 Russian Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, but we do not support a boycott.  The Prime Minister believes we have a better chance of influencing Russia by engaging and challenging prejudices than by boycotting.\n\nWe share concerns about changes to the law in Russia prohibiting the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relations” to minors.  In effect, the law could prevent the LGBT community in Russia from fully enjoying the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.  The Prime Minister set out these concerns with President Putin in a meeting in St Petersburg on 6 September, making clear the strength of feeling in the UK and that it was in Russia’s interests to tackle discrimination.\n\nBritish officials at all levels have been lobbying on the LGBT law since the first regional “homosexual propaganda” law was tabled.  As well as raising the subject in bilateral meetings, we have actively supported LGBT issues in Russia for some years, including through involvement in the annual Queerfest in St Petersburg and funding for the Side-by-Side LGBT film festival held across Russia.\n\nMore broadly, we regularly make clear to Russia that human rights are universal and should apply equally to all people, as part of our overall engagement on human rights with the Russian authorities, including at the 2013 UK-Russia Human Rights dialogue in May and in the Foreign Secretary and Minister for Europe’s regular discussions with their Russian counterparts.\n\nWe have updated our travel advice for Russia to inform British Nationals of the new LGBT law.  We review this advice regularly and will update further as necessary.  We are committed to providing a modern and efficient consular service for visitors to Sochi.\n\nHuman rights will continue to be a central part of the UK-Russia relationship and we will continue to raise our concerns and encourage Russia to tackle discrimination and homophobia.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:31.693Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:31.693Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":43313,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/43313.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban The Burqa","background":null,"additional_details":"Join other EU countries such as Belgium, Italy & France in banning the burqa.\r\nIt is not a religious requirement. As humans, part of our understanding & communicating is being able to 'read' the emotions of another persons facial features.\r\nDavid Cameron himself has declared Britain as a Christian country and therefor we should respect that view.\r\nWhen British women travel to a Muslim country, they respect the countries beliefs and wear head scarfs, why should they no respect our beliefs?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13284,"created_at":"2012-12-16T19:54:11.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:06.310Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-12-20T11:22:55.000Z","closed_at":"2013-12-20T11:22:55.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-16T19:54:11.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-06T20:34:53.699Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-06T20:34:53.699Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-06","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nSince this petition was published responsibility for this policy area has transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS).\n\nThe Government does not support a general ban on the wearing of the niqab or other face coverings in public. Such a proscriptive approach would be out of keeping with our nation's longstanding record of tolerance and freedom of expression. Women should have the freedom to choose what to wear. However, there clearly will be circumstances in which covering the face will be inappropriate, and institutions such as hospitals, schools, courts and the border force, as well as employers, should be free to set their own policies accordingly. There needs to be a common-sense balance between cultural practices and the limits imposed by other legitimate interests.\n\nEqually, the Government wants to see greater integration between communities and is strongly committed to encouraging dialogue and co-operation between people of different cultural backgrounds.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:06.304Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:06.304Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":56314,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/56314.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":"Brian Hampton Appeal should be rejected and sentence increased","background":null,"additional_details":"BRIAN Hampton will appeal the six-year sentence handed to him following his conviction over the crash that killed Jade Clark\r\nHampton, 58, a former paramedic, was found guilty by a jury following just 51 minutes of deliberations at Bourne-mouth Crown Court.\r\n\r\nHe was sent to prison for causing the crash and then attempting to evade justice.\r\n\r\nHairdresser Jade, who was just 16, was struck by Hampton’s Volvo XC90 as she travelled along the A31 near Ringwood on the evening of February 24 this year.\r\n\r\nCruel Hampton, himself a father-of-two, briefly stopped at the scene before driving off, which left the youngster exposed to fast-moving traffic.\r\n\r\nShe was struck by one or more vehicles and died at the scene from her injuries.\r\n\r\nThis man has shown no remorse, no acceptance of his crime, and has proven he cares little about the victims family.\r\n\r\nThe fact that this man was given the lesser part of his sentence for causing a death needs redress.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13182,"created_at":"2013-10-25T17:53:35.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.402Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-11-20T11:41:45.000Z","closed_at":"2014-11-20T11:41:45.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-10-25T17:53:35.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-07T22:24:31.044Z","government_response_at":"2014-05-07T22:24:31.044Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-05-07","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe cannot comment on the individual circumstances of Jade Clark’s tragic death or the details of the sentence imposed on Brain Hampton.  This is not through any lack of concern or interest but because Government Ministers cannot get involved in a matter which is a preserve of the judiciary.  Sentences are decided by the courts and they do this independently of Government, having taken into account all the circumstances of the offence including the harm caused and the culpability of the offender as well as any sentencing guidelines.\n\nParliament has made sure that significant penalties are available for those who cause death on the roads; of up to 14 years for the most serious offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs and 5 years for causing death by careless driving. As well as death by careless driving, Brian Hampton was convicted of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment,\n\nDangerous driving can have devastating consequences and the Government is keen to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep our roads safe. That is why last year the Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council to ask them to review the death by driving guideline and they have agreed to include this in their programme of work.   That is also why we created a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.  This ensures that dangerous drivers will be punished appropriately when their actions have serious consequences, short of death.  The new offence specifically targets those cases where dangerous driving results in serious injury.\n\nSentencing for road traffic offences is particularly difficult, because the harm caused may often outweigh the offender’s culpability.  However the law seeks to punish those who cause death or injury on our roads in a way that is proportionate to the blameworthiness of the driver.\n\nIt is open to anyone who feels that the sentence imposed on them is excessive or inappropriate, to appeal against it. It is an important principle of our criminal justice system that those convicted of an offence may seek leave to appeal to a higher court against their conviction or sentence. The Appeal Court judges will only substitute another sentence if the sentence is wrong in law; where sentence has been passed on the wrong factual basis; where some matter has been improperly taken into account or there is some fresh matter to be taken into account; or where the sentence was wrong in principle or is manifestly excessive.  In this case, the appeal entered by Brian Hampton was dismissed\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.396Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.396Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":31475,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/31475.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":"Ring fence money for people with learning disabilties","background":null,"additional_details":"Ring fence funds allocated for people with learning disabilities and review the way in which funds are allocated to ensure cradle to grave care.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13143,"created_at":"2012-03-16T19:57:57.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:25.102Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-03-20T13:10:00.000Z","closed_at":"2013-03-20T13:10:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-03-16T19:57:57.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-06T09:44:20.899Z","government_response_at":"2012-09-06T09:44:20.899Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-09-06","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIn line with their accountability to their local population, it is for local authorities to choose how best to use their available funding, not for central government to prescribe how their funding should be used.  Ministers have listened to local government and removed the ring-fencing of grants, which will allow local authorities greater freedom to direct funding in the most effective way and give local people the best service possible.  Removal of ring-fenced funding is designed to increase local flexibility by enabling authorities to respond to local needs and priorities.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:25.096Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:25.096Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":58850,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/58850.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"BAN prong/pinch collars, spray collars, choke chains, shock collars and anything barbaric for animals UK","background":null,"additional_details":"e wish the government to ban the use of any product as mentioned below. We need an outright ban on using these products and not allowed to be sold in shops, classifieds or online in the UK or destined for the UK so the above is all illegal and a law can be passed:\r\n\r\nProng/pinch collars, spray collars, choke chains, shock collars and anything barbaric not to be used on animals in the UK.\r\n\r\n. The metal spikes pinch the skin around dogs’ necks when they pull and can scratch or puncture them.\r\n\r\nProng collars are a quick fix and will not teach the dog not to pull or lunge on the lead.\r\n\r\nDogs may well interpret the tightening of a prong collar around their neck as a stranglehold (which it is, after all!) and become fearful or even aggressive.\r\n\r\n\r\nWE WISH AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON USE, SELLING IN ANY WAY ON THE ABOVE ITEMS.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":13136,"created_at":"2014-01-04T19:06:19.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:28.622Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-01-06T08:54:03.000Z","closed_at":"2014-10-06T07:54:03.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-04T19:06:19.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-20T06:25:48.237Z","government_response_at":"2014-05-20T06:25:48.237Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-05-20","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nDog owners should only use such devices after seeking professional advice.  They should also ensure that they fully understand how these devices should be used and that they are used appropriately.\n\nWe would advise dog owners to adopt positive training methods in the first instance and seek professional advice, for example from their vet, for any dog behavioural issues.\n\nAnyone using collars to inflict unnecessary suffering may be prosecuted under existing animal welfare laws.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:28.615Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:28.615Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":56344,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/56344.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":"Only allow registered organised firework displays, ban sales to the public","background":null,"additional_details":"Stop the sale of all fireworks to the public and only allow registered displays run by credited organisers","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12895,"created_at":"2013-10-26T20:16:39.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.726Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-10-29T11:15:51.000Z","closed_at":"2014-10-29T11:15:51.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-10-26T20:16:39.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-19T23:55:46.347Z","government_response_at":"2014-04-19T22:55:46.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-04-19","summary":"","details":"Current regulations about fireworks (The Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles Regulations 2010) permit the purchase and use of fireworks by the general public and they do not prohibit private individuals from having their own private firework displays.\n\nMost of the correspondence which the Government has received on this topic has been about the disturbance and noise nuisance caused by fireworks, usually arising from anti-social use of fireworks.\n\nThere is legislation in place which deals with noise, safety and anti-social issues. For example, the Firework Regulations (2004) provides for a comprehensive package of measures designed to tackle the anti-social use of fireworks through the regulation of both use and supply. These include a number of limited prohibitions on the importation, sale, possession and use of fireworks late at night. In addition, in the interests of consumer safety the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations (2010) prohibit the sale of certain fireworks, place restrictions on those fireworks permitted to be sold and restrict their sale to persons over the age of 18.\n\nThe Fireworks Regulations 2004 also limit the supply of fireworks available to the consumer to a maximum noise level of 120 decibels. Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 prohibits anyone from throwing fireworks in or into roads or public places.  The police have the powers to enforce this section of the Act and anyone found guilty is currently liable to of a fine not exceeding £5000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.\n\nWe have considered closely the matter of a ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public and do not propose to change the legislation to limit firework displays to professionally organised ones and ban the sales of fireworks to the public.  There are concerns that a ban could lead to an unregulated ‘black market’ in illegal fireworks and could encourage people to produce their own dangerous homemade devices which could far outweigh any potential safety benefits from limiting sales to consumers.\n\nWe currently think that other issues, such as distress to pets and animals or property damage, are best addressed by guidance and advice. There is such guidance available on websites. The booklet on ‘Safe Use of Fireworks’ (www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52752.pdf) advises the public to inform their neighbours when having a home display and to address their concerns, for example not having displays close to vehicles, fences, cars and buildings.  The animal charity ‘Blue Cross’ have produced a leaflet, on ‘Fireworks and Pets’, which gives simple guidelines to help avoid or reduce stress to animals (http://www.bluecross.org.uk/files/PA_FIREWORKS.pdf)\n\nThe large majority of people use and enjoy fireworks responsibly and safely and for specific occasions.\n\nConsequently, the Government does not plan to review the regulations to limit the sale of fireworks to the general public further in the short term.  However, the Department For Business, Innovation and Skills will continue to monitor the situation.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.720Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:05.720Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":49086,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/49086.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a code of practice for the welfare of domestic rabbits.","background":null,"additional_details":"We urge the government to introduce a code of practice for the welfare of domestic rabbits (as currently exists for dogs and cats).\r\n\r\nRabbits are the UK’s third most popular pet. An estimated 1.6 million are kept as pets. However, research has identified them to be the MOST neglected and cruelly treated of all pets:  http://www.pdsa.org.uk/about-us/media-pr-centre/news/1032_unhappy-bunnies\r\n\r\nSOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE! We must take action to reduce the widespread suffering of domestic rabbits. This must begin with changing the public perception of rabbits as ‘cheap’, ‘easy’ and even ‘disposable’ pets. In reality rabbits are sensitive, intelligent animals with complex needs. They can live in excess of ten years and deserve similar status/protection as the UK’s dogs and cats.\r\n\r\nWe need to challenge the unacceptable common place attitude of ‘it’s only a rabbit’. We believe that this should start by the government introducing a code of practice for the welfare of domestic rabbits.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12375,"created_at":"2013-04-20T12:10:07.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:57.640Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-22T09:11:22.000Z","closed_at":"2014-04-22T09:11:22.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-20T12:10:07.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-16T20:35:00.181Z","government_response_at":"2013-10-16T20:35:00.181Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-10-16","summary":"","details":"As this has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThere are already a number of publications that provide guidance for owners, or potential owners, on how to keep rabbits in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 2006.  In addition, the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG – a group of animal welfare, veterinary groups and animal keeping interests) have produced standards for internet and classified publications that advertise pets for sale which will help to make more people aware of how to purchase and keep rabbits as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:57.634Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:57.634Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":32400,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/32400.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 to Monitor all Emails and Web Usage","background":null,"additional_details":"Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.\r\n\r\nThe Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism. They have no right to attack our privacy, if the legislation goes through, Britain will be no different from regimes it criticises such as China and Iran.\r\n\r\nIt would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited.\r\n\r\nGovernment should scrap plans immediately.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12184,"created_at":"2012-04-01T16:50:17.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:32.848Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-04-02T06:30:08.000Z","closed_at":"2013-04-02T06:30:08.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-01T16:50:17.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-30T01:22:50.705Z","government_response_at":"2012-09-30T01:22:50.705Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-09-30","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 taking forward legislation to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can maintain access to communications records as technology changes. This is vital to help tackle crime and terrorism. Communications data is only the information about a communication – not the communication itself, and the proposed legislation will not enable the police and others to obtain the content of communications.\n\nCommunications technology and communication services are changing fast. New technologies are generating communications data in many different ways, and not all of this data is currently kept by communications service providers.\n\nAccess to communications data has a direct impact on the investigation of crime in this country and on our ability to prosecute criminals and terrorists. Providers already retain some of this information (relating to the who, when and where of a communication, but not its content) and disclose it to the police and others when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.\n\nHowever, the fact that some communications data is not available is already impacting on police investigations. We need this legislation to ensure that communications data continues to be available in the future as communications technologies and services develop.\n\nWe published the draft Communications Data Bill on 14 June 2012. The Bill was then subject to scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and a separate inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The conclusions of both Committees were published on 11 December 2012. Both recognised the need for legislation, with the Joint Committee stating that “Our overall conclusion is that there is a case for legislation which will provide the law enforcement authorities with some further access to communications data.”\n\nThe Committees made a number of recommendations to increase the safeguards in the legislation. The Home Secretary has made clear that we will accept the substance of all of these recommendations, and bring forward a new Bill to reflect them.\n\nLegislation will not:\n\n* provide the police and others with new powers or capabilities to intercept and read emails and phone calls.\n\n* create a single Government database containing emails and phone calls to which the police and agencies can get unlimited and unregulated access.\n\n* weaken current safeguards or checks in place to protect communications data.\n\n* allow local authorities greater powers. In fact we have restricted local authority access to data through the Protection of Freedoms Act – which means authorities will have to apply to magistrates for the first time for approval to obtain certain types of data – a change which is new under this Government.  We will also ensure that they do not have access to new data collected or generated under this Bill\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:32.842Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:32.842Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":35092,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/35092.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":"Exclude Vulnerable Severe & Enduring Mental Health Sufferers from DLA Assessments in 2013","background":null,"additional_details":"Exclude ALL Severe and Enduring Mental Health Sufferers from the DLA Assessments in 2013 for the following Mental Health conditions. This vulnerable group will be hugely disadvantaged and won't have a voice to represent themselves at the assessment, yet they can come across as well to a person who does not know them, many believe they are not ill, which disadvantages them further! Being forced to work when they can't cope will increase homelessness and suicides amongst our most vulnerable mentally ill due to loss of housing benefits and other benefits, it will push many over the edge!\r\n\r\nPlease exclude Complex Mental Health Conditions,(many suffer from a combination of all of these conditions below), including my own son!\r\n\r\nParanoid Schizophrenia\r\nDual Diagnosis\r\nPersonality Disorder\r\n\r\nPlease protect this extremely vulnerable client group who suffer from a lifelong unpredictable condition that will not get better as there is no cure, and even with ongoing treatment do relapse.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12119,"created_at":"2012-06-19T10:29:38.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:54.561Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-06-20T11:28:02.000Z","closed_at":"2013-03-20T12:28:02.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-06-19T10:29:38.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-11T03:04:23.269Z","government_response_at":"2012-11-11T04:04:23.269Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-11-11","summary":"","details":"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people, and is determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. We want to enable disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people.\n\nPersonal Independence Payment (PIP) started to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for people aged 16 to 64 from April 2013. PIP maintains the key principles of DLA: it is a non-means-tested cash benefit available to people in and out of work, but is delivered in a fairer and more consistent manner. Key to the benefit is a more objective assessment of individual need, which looks at the claimant’s ability to carry out a range of activities which are fundamental to living an independent life, such as planning and following journeys and communicating with others.\n\nWe now have a better understanding of the needs of individuals with mental health conditions, autism, learning difficulties, and sensory impairments, and have designed PIP to reflect a modern understanding of disability, treating all conditions fairly. By focusing on claimants’ ability to carry out a series of key everyday activities the assessment criteria reflect a more complete consideration of the impact of an individual’s health condition or impairment, whether physical, sensory, mental or cognitive. This ensures that fair account is taken of the impact of all impairment types, that the benefit is fairer, and that money is targeted at those who need it most – those who face the greatest barriers to leading full, active and independent lives.\n\nThe assessment makes use of evidence provided by the claimant and from the face-to-face consultation that most individuals will attend. We also ask claimants to tell us who the most appropriate additional sources of information are, particularly professionals who support them on a regular basis. Evidence can come from a variety of sources, including GPs, psychiatrists, social workers and community mental health nurses, as well as family members and carers.\n\nFace-to-face consultations are an important part of the assessment, allowing claimants to further explain the impact of their impairment or health condition on their everyday life. However, we are clear that they may not be appropriate for everyone, particularly people with the most severe impairments or degenerative conditions. Where there is enough evidence on which to make an assessment, individuals will not be required to attend a consultation, and their claim will be reviewed on a paper basis. These decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, as impairments can affect people in very different ways.\n\nWe recognise that for some individuals, for example those with mental, intellectual, cognitive or developmental impairments, attending a consultation at an unfamiliar location could be stressful. We have made it very clear that when attending face-to-face consultation, individuals are able to bring with them a relation, friend or possibly a professional who supports them, to help them manage any anxiety they may feel. Furthermore, we recognise that information given by the companion could be useful, particularly in cases where the claimant may lack insight into their condition, understate the challenges they face or have difficulty communicating. In some cases claimants will be offered a consultation in their home.\n\nThe health professionals carrying out the assessments are trained in mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments, in addition to which the assessment providers have in place Mental Function Champions. These Champions can provide expert support to the assessors when they are reviewing evidence, in order for them to provide the most appropriate advice to the Departmental decision maker.\n\nFinally, the Government has committed to two independent reviews of the PIP assessment, the first of which will report by the end of 2014, and we will carefully consider any recommendations made.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:54.554Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:54.554Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":64191,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/64191.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":"Fund research into T3 and/or natural desiccated thyroid treatment for hypothyroidism","background":null,"additional_details":"Many patients with hypothyroidism continue to have symptoms on levothyroxine (T4) but find that their symptoms are often greatly reduced when they take liothyronine (T3) or natural desiccated thyroid.\r\n\r\nNatural desiccated thyroid is only manufactured in the US and Canada but can be prescribed in the UK on a “named patient” basis. Many doctors will not prescribe it because there are no randomised controlled trials as it was manufactured before licensing of medicines came into being.\r\n\r\nResearch has shown that some patients have benefited from natural desiccated thyroid but there needs to be more research done to investigate whether this would be a better treatment for patients.\r\n\r\nMore research also needs to be done on the addition of T3 to T4 because previous research has been inconclusive. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12114,"created_at":"2014-04-22T11:14:18.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:18.570Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-04-23T13:07:18.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-04-22T11:14:18.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-09-11T11:06:31.128Z","government_response_at":"2014-10-11T11:06:31.128Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-10-11","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including treatment for hypothyroidism.  These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality.\n\nThe NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula has partly supported a review of treatment for primary hypothyroidism published in 2012 in the journal Drug Design, Development and Therapy.  The review considered approaches including triiodothyronine (liothyronine) therapy, triiodothyronine-levothyroxine combination therapy, and the use of natural desiccated thyroid.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:18.563Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:18.563Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":48526,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48526.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Please make cycling helmets a legal requirement","background":null,"additional_details":"Please sign this petition. The intention is to make cycling helmets a legal requirement. What cost would you put on a life compared to the cost of a helmet?\r\n\r\nDont lose any of those loved ones for the sake of wearing a helmet","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12063,"created_at":"2013-04-09T05:50:40.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:51.962Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-09T08:09:48.000Z","closed_at":"2014-04-09T08:09:48.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-04-09T05:50:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-07T15:06:03.279Z","government_response_at":"2013-10-07T15:06:03.279Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-10-07","summary":"","details":"Cycle helmets offer a degree of protection for cyclists in the event of a fall from a cycle and some types of collisions. In line with the Highway Code rule 59, the Government encourages their use by all cyclists and in particular by children. However people and parents are free to choose whether to follow this advice and we have no plans to legislate to introduce mandatory enforcement of cycle helmet wearing.\n\nThe Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) was commissioned to review the evidence on helmet wearing and their safety benefit and they produced a report in 2009 (TRL report 446 “The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury”) which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-safety-research-and-statistical-reports\n\nThe main focus of the TRL report was on the effectiveness of cycle helmets in the event of an accident. The report concluded that cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in many cycle accidents based on biomechanical principles, but the effectiveness would depend on a range of factors such as whether it was a fall or in collision with a vehicle and what object was struck by the head.\n\nThe report also undertook a literature review for its real life outcomes, i.e. whether it affects the casualty outcomes in real accidents. Because of the limitations and contradictions of research, the report concluded that it was not possible to quantify the scale, if any, of real life benefit from the literature review.\n\nThe report also looked in depth at 113 fatal cycle casualties (2001-2006). The analysis concluded that 9 cyclist fatalities involving head injury from hitting the ground and 3 to 9 cyclist fatalities from hitting a vehicle could potentially have been prevented by helmet wearing, equating to 10-16% of all cyclist fatalities.\n\nRegular Department for Transport surveys have shown that the wearing rate for children has remained at around 18% i.e. the majority of children cyclists do not wear helmets. Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws.\n\nThe Government believes the introduction of improved training and infrastructure for cyclist and improving the education and awareness of all road users to the vulnerability of cyclists will improve cycle safety. To this end, in the life of this Parliament £278m of Government funds has been committed to cycling. This includes £94 million Cycling Ambition Grants for cities and National Parks (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, Cambridge, Oxford, Norwich, New Forest, Peak District, South Downs and Dartmoor). Investment in the eight cities is now in excess of £10 per head per year, as recommended by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s recent report.\n\nAs announced by the Prime Minister in August, we are also taking steps to cycle proof roads so that all new trunk roads and improvement schemes will be designed with cyclists as well as motorists in mind. We also expect local authorities to up their game to deliver infrastructure that takes cycling into account from the design stage.\n\nWe have also set up a taskforce with Transport for London to raise awareness of safety among HGV drivers and to take targeted enforcement action against the small minority of potentially dangerous operators, drivers and vehicles.\n\nIn October we launched a new THINK! cyclist campaign, targeting five cities across England; this builds on last year’s launch of the ‘THINK CYCLIST’ “Let’s Look Out For Each Other” campaign. We also continue to support Bikeability cycle training for children. Last year the funding is estimated to help more than 293,000 school children to access training. The Government has extended its commitment to Bikeability to 2015/16.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:51.954Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:51.954Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":22456,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/22456.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":"MP's Pensions","background":null,"additional_details":"Have terms and conditions of the Final Salary Pensions of MP's changed in line with the changes being made to the rest of the Public Sector Pensions. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12043,"created_at":"2011-11-12T08:32:30.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:09.057Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-14T09:46:33.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-14T09:46:33.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-12T08:32:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-14T08:42:27.579Z","government_response_at":"2012-05-14T08:42:27.579Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-05-14","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government transferred responsibility for MPs’ pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in October 2011, after the House of Commons resolved unanimously that it supported the approach to public service pension reform, set out in the final report of the Independent Public Service Pension Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness (the Hutton Report).  The House also resolved that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission's findings and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes. On 22nd October 2012, the IPSA announced a consultation aimed at arriving at a long-term settlement for MPs pay and pensions. The first stage of the consultation is open until 7th December 2012.\n\nMore information, and the opportunity to respond, can be found at www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:09.051Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:09.051Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":53083,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/53083.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":"Block Passage of Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill","background":null,"additional_details":"Organisations such as the Manifesto Club and the human rights group Liberty have expressed serious concerns regarding the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. Provisions within the bill criminalise any behaviour which can potentially cause 'nuisance or annoyance' from the age of 10. It also grants local authorities, police and even private security firms sweeping powers to bar citizens from assembling lawfully in public spaces, which seriously curtails the rights to protest and freedom of assembly. Those who defy orders under the new rules will face arrest, fines and even prison time. This is a threat to human rights and effectively renders the United Kingdom a police state. It is absolutely essential that the bill is stopped unless it is amended to address current concerns.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11811,"created_at":"2013-07-24T23:49:56.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:35.372Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-25T08:33:30.000Z","closed_at":"2014-07-25T08:33:30.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-24T23:49:56.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-12-26T20:57:56.700Z","government_response_at":"2014-01-26T20:57:56.700Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-01-26","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAnti-social behaviour blights communities, causes misery to victims and is often targeted at the most vulnerable members of our society.  Even comparatively minor incidents can have a devastating impact on victims’ quality of life when part of a persistent, targeted campaign of abuse.  As a result, it is the impact on the victim, rather than just the behaviour, which makes ‘anti-social behaviour’ anti-social.\n\nIt is wrong to suggest that anyone over the age of 10 could be ‘criminalised’ as a result of the new injunction. On the contrary, unlike the ASBO which it is intended to replace, the new injunction is a civil power which does not result in a criminal conviction when it is issued or breached. Instead, it is designed to be preventative, nipping problem behaviours in the bud quickly and stopping them escalating. In addition, the inclusion of positive requirements means that a perpetrator can be helped to address the underlying causes of their behaviour, helping to turn them away from more serious criminality. Although the Government does not accept that the wording in Clause 1 to which the E-petition refers could have the effects attributed to them, we have in the light of concerns expressed in the House of Lords amended the text in question to one of “harassment, alarm or distress” The test of “nuisance or annoyance” will remain for housing and will be considered by the court alongside the test of whether it is “just and convenient” to grant an injunction. This dual test, used for a decade by social landlords to deal with anti-social behaviour, means that no court in the land would issue an injunction to deal with perfectly reasonable behaviours.\n\nThe Coalition Government has always maintained that none of the powers in the Bill could be used to curtail rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. However, concerns have been raised that some of the new powers will be used to restrict individuals’ ability to peacefully protest or assemble.  To make this completely clear, we have made a clear reference to the importance of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention within the Bill.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:35.366Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:35.366Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":43712,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/43712.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":"Routinely Test For Strep B in pregnancy","background":null,"additional_details":"Every year, thousands of babies die because it is not routinely tested for. I, and many other feel that this should be tested for with every pregnancy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11785,"created_at":"2012-12-28T19:30:19.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:09.572Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-12-31T10:57:47.000Z","closed_at":"2013-12-31T10:57:47.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-28T19:30:19.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-04T07:33:06.983Z","government_response_at":"2013-07-04T07:33:06.983Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-07-04","summary":"","details":"Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of many bacteria that can be present in the human body.  It is estimated that about one in five pregnant women in the UK carries GBS.  Around the time of labour and birth, many babies come into contact with GBS – most are unaffected but a small number can become infected.  It is estimated that about one in 2,000 babies born in the UK develops early-onset GBS infection.  This is around 400 babies a year, most of whom will make a full recovery.\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 its implementation.  At its meeting on 13 November 2012, the UK National Screening Committee recommended that antenatal screening for GBS carriage at 35-37 weeks should not be offered.  This is because:\n\n·         the screening tests currently available cannot distinguish between women whose babies would be affected and those which would not.  As a result, about 140,000 low-risk pregnant women would be offered antibiotics in labour following a positive screening test result.  The overwhelming majority of these women would have a healthy baby without screening and treatment;\n\n·         there are concerns about resistance to some antibiotics used to prevent early onset GBS, the long term effects on the baby and the potential for anaphylactic reactions in labour.  The Chief Medical Officer for England is particularly concerned about the risks posed by antibiotic resistance due to over-use;\n\n·         the majority of babies who die from early-onset GBS are premature and sadly are born too early to be helped by screening;\n\n·         it has been estimated that up to 49,000 women carrying GBS at 35-37 weeks of pregnancy may no longer be GBS carriers during labour.  Studies of the test suggest that between 13 per cent and 40 per cent of women who are screened as positive will no longer be carriers when they deliver the baby; and\n\n·         increasing the medical aspects of labour would lead to an increase in hospital births and a decrease in home births and births in midwife-led units, with a resulting impact on the provision of maternity services.\n\nThe advice from the UK NSC is consistent with that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).\n\nThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme is currently seeking to commission a study to provide evidence on whether testing high risk women for GBS colonisation during childbirth enables more timely identification of women with GBS carriage and potentially better targeted antibiotic use.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:09.565Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:09.565Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":40685,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/40685.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":"Safe & Sustainable Paediatric Cardiology Review","background":null,"additional_details":"That the Secretary of State for Health should prevent the delay in implementing the recomendations of the Safe & Sustainable review of Paediatric Cardiac Services, by accepting that the review was lawful, detailed, fair and is essential to improve the service. Furthermore, that any delay for further reviews will result in unnecessary suffering and deaths in children with Congenital Heart Defects.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11754,"created_at":"2012-10-23T08:33:41.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.477Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-23T10:10:24.000Z","closed_at":"2013-04-23T10:10:24.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-23T08:33:41.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-01-08T20:15:51.105Z","government_response_at":"2013-02-08T20:15:51.105Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-02-08","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Department of Health understands this is a very important subject and a matter of real concern for all those involved. We also recognise that it is now many years since it was established that fewer, more specialised, children’s heart surgery units were needed to provide the very best and most sustainable services to babies and children.\n\nIn July 2012 the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts (JCPCT) made a decision on which hospitals will continue to carry out children’s heart surgery. The JCPCT’s decision followed the Safe and Sustainable review of children's congenital heart services, which was an NHS review, independent of government.\n\nTwo local Overview and Scrutiny Committees then referred the JCPCT’s decision to the Secretary of State for Health, who asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) to undertake an initial assessment of the case.  He subsequently accepted the IRP’s initial advice for a full review of the Safe and Sustainable programme and the JCPCT’s decision.\n\nThe Secretary of State has asked the IRP to report to him by the end of February 2013, although this date may change depending on the outcome of legal proceedings brought against the JCPCT by a Leeds-based charity. The Secretary of State will then decide on what is in the best interests in relation to the service for children.\n\nImplementation of the review’s recommendations is a matter for the NHS. Safe and Sustainable has published an initial implementation plan on its website which proposes that implementation of the changes will take place during 2014. However, it is important to note that until the IRP review and judicial review processes have concluded, no irreversible changes will be made to the configuration of children’s heart services.\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":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.468Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:44.468Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":38599,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/38599.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":"Give cash Isa savers a better deal","background":null,"additional_details":"Financial Mail on Sunday is calling on the Government to revamp Individual Savings Accounts in the Autumn Statement (December 5) so that cash savers get an improved offer. We want cash savers to be able to use the full annual Isa allowance (£11,280) as opposed to the current limit of £5,640. We also want Isa holders to be able to transfer stocks and shares held within their Isas into cash - a key tool for people approaching retirement. The proposals would revitalise the savings habit and give young and old savers a much needed income boost.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11729,"created_at":"2012-09-13T10:30:15.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:25.255Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-09-13T10:37:44.000Z","closed_at":"2012-12-13T11:37:44.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-09-13T10:30:15.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-22T06:04:51.044Z","government_response_at":"2012-11-22T07:04:51.044Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-11-22","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of saving, and understands the difficulties people face as they see the income they receive from their assets reduced as a result of low interest rates.\n\nGrowth and stability provide the best environment in which to save and invest, so savers will benefit in the longer term from the Government’s action to tackle the deficit and secure a stronger economy.\n\nThe tax relief that the Government already provides on saving in ISAs was worth around £1.7 billion in 2011-12 alone, and this figure is predicted to rise over the coming years.  The Government ensures that the amount people can save annually tax-free in ISAs is not eroded by inflation by indexing the ISA annual subscription limits.  This means that from April 2013 the overall ISA limit will rise by £240 to £11,520 and the cash ISA limit by £120 to £5,760.\n\nBecause the Government is committed to deficit reduction, savings policy must be focused on effectiveness and affordability.  The Government has to make difficult choices, and increasing the cash ISA limit to equal the stocks and shares ISA limit would have a significant cost to the Exchequer that grows over time.  It would therefore be difficult given the current fiscal position.\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":"2017-06-21T15:11:25.248Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:25.248Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":66572,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/66572.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 our Pubs, change the Planning Laws.","background":null,"additional_details":"That the Government help protect community pubs in England by ensuring that full planning permission and community consultation are required before community pubs are allowed to be converted to betting shops, supermarkets and pay-day loan stores or other uses, or are allowed to be demolished.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11667,"created_at":"2014-06-19T10:49:28.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:40.338Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-06-20T09:02:29.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-06-19T10:49:28.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-10-19T21:47:50.419Z","government_response_at":"2014-11-19T22:47:50.419Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-11-19","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10,000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nPubs play an important role in our local communities. They provide valuable local hubs that strengthen community relationships and encourage wider social interaction, with each pub also being estimated to contribute £80,000 to the economy annually.\n\nWe have demonstrated our continued commitment to community pubs through the introduction of a broad range of financial and wider support including scrapping the beer and alcohol duty escalators; cutting beer duty; funding business partners to help deliver more community-owned pubs and pubs which provide community-focused services; removing red tape that hindered pubs holding live music; doubling small business rate relief, and increasing the temporary business rate discount for pubs with rateable values below £50,000 from £1,000 to £1,500 for 2015-16; cutting corporation tax and National Insurance for employers; giving pubs greater flexibility over weights and measures, allowing beer and wine to be served in different sizes, and giving publicans tied to pub companies new rights under a new statutory code of practice.\n\nWe recognise that community pubs are important assets, making a significant contribution to the economy and providing local hubs that strengthen community relationships and encourage wider social interaction. The fact that significant numbers of community pubs are listed as Assets of Community Value highlights the need to enable local communities to consider planning applications for the change of use of a pub of particular local value.\n\nThat is why we announced on 26 January our intention to bring forward secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity so that in England, the listing of a pub as an Asset of Community Value will trigger a removal of the national permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of those pubs that communities have identified as providing the most community benefit. This will mean that in future, where a pub is listed as an Asset of Community Value, a planning application will be required for it’s change of use or demolition, thus providing an opportunity for local people to comment on any proposals, and enabling the local planning authority to determine the application in accordance with its local plan, any neighborhood plan, and national policy. The local planning authority may take the listing as an Asset of Community Value into account as a material consideration when determining any planning application.\n\nLocal and neighborhood plans should be consistent with and reflect the strong support for pubs in the National Planning Policy Framework. This encourages local planning authorities to plan positively to support the sustainability of communities. This includes plans to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, and to promote strong rural economies through the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, including pubs.\n\nIf there remain concerns about other viable pubs being lost, then communities and local authorities should work together to develop a clear, proactive strategy to protect those pubs. This may include the removal of national permitted development rights through the local authority making an Article 4 direction, which also ensures that a planning application will need to be submitted for the change of use or demolition of the pub.  The local planning authority can then determine any such application in accordance with national policy and its local plan, in consultation with the local community.\n\nThese changes mark the next step in our ongoing support for those pubs that are so very important to local communities. We believe it will provide greater protections for pubs, and give communities a say in their preservation. But the planning system can only do so much: planning rules cannot keep open pubs which are not making money. Our broader strategy of lower taxes, less regulation and a growing economy are the best way to support a thriving and diverse pub sector.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:40.332Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:40.332Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":47845,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/47845.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":"justice for jade","background":null,"additional_details":"We want to get the law changed to make dog owners accountable for their dogs at the moment the police have no powers to prosecute dog owners if their dog attacks somebody on private property we want that changed as well as regulating certain breads of dogs so they have a license and have the dog registered and micro chipped . this would give police the power to confiscate viscous dogs that are unlicensed and hopefully we can save other family's suffering like we have gone through","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11585,"created_at":"2013-03-29T22:45:55.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:45.281Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-04-05T13:01:04.000Z","closed_at":"2013-10-05T13:01:04.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-29T22:45:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-23T12:34:20.547Z","government_response_at":"2013-07-23T12:34:20.547Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-07-23","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and family of Jade Anderson in what has been a truly tragic incident.\n\nThe Government is committed to encouraging more responsible dog ownership. On 6 February 2013, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, announced a package of measures to tackle this issue.\n\nA key feature of the package was to extend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to all places, including private property so that owners may face prosecution where their dog has been dangerously out of control.  Defra introduced to the House in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013 clauses amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.\n\nThere are four types of dog banned in the UK under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. These are the pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro, all of which are fighting dogs.  A registration scheme currently exists for exempted prohibited type dogs, which requires microchipping and registration amongst other requirements such as insurance, neutering, and muzzling in public. Should an owner fail to abide by the conditions imposed by the court, the police may seize and destroy the dog whilst the owner is liable to prosecution.\n\nThere are no plans to extend the number of prohibited dogs in the UK, in recognition that any dog can become dangerous if not properly trained. Where a dog poses a risk to public safety, the police may apply to a magistrate’s court to have the dog destroyed under the Dogs Act 1871.\n\nThe Government takes a deed and breed approach in dealing with attacks by dogs and sees early intervention as a crucial way to prevent future attacks. The proposed anti-social behaviour measures will offer enforcement authorities a flexible range of measures that can include positive requirements, such as attending dog training classes, in order to maintain the focus on the owner and the right end of the lead in tackling irresponsible dog ownership. It is for local authorities, the police and communities to work together in bringing low level incidents to the attention of the appropriate agency so that emerging problems can be nipped in the bud before they escalate to more serious incidents.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:45.275Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:45.275Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":55378,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/55378.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":"Brain Tumour Research","background":null,"additional_details":"Almost ¾ of brain tumour deaths occur in those under 75. For cancer as a whole it is less than a half. Yet brain cancer continues to receive less than 1% of the national spend on cancer research. A report by Brain Tumour Research shows that treatments for brain tumours lag seriously behind other cancers. The consequence of brain tumours striking so young is the average tumour is responsible for over 20 years of life lost, making it the most lethal cancer by this measure.\r\nThis petition calls on the Government to take action to:\r\n• Prioritise deaths under 75 in the government’s cancer funding\r\n• Devote a consistent or growing absolute figure to brain cancer research\r\n• Introduce a national register of site-specific cancer research to track all research grants and research work, ensuring transparency of funding arrangements\r\n• Consider the question of curing brain tumours in terms of research spend necessary for other cancers:around £30-£35 million per annum over a ten year time-frame","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11458,"created_at":"2013-09-30T09:29:13.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.752Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-10-02T09:01:06.000Z","closed_at":"2014-10-02T09:01:06.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-30T09:29:13.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-10T15:40:29.972Z","government_response_at":"2014-04-10T14:40:29.972Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-04-10","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government and charities work closely together in brain tumour research and other fields of cancer research through the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI).  Factors influencing the level of research funding are discussed in Strategic Analysis 2002: An overview of Cancer Research in the UK directly funded by the NCRI Partner Organisations, which can be accessed by going to www.ncri.org.uk and searching for ‘Strategic Analysis 2002’.\n\nThere are a number of factors that dictate the level of research funding into a particular issue.  These include:\n\n·        scientific opportunity – this can be very important.  In particular, developments in fundamental research and the introduction of new technologies often stimulate new approaches;\n\n·        the burden of disease – the incidence and severity of a type of cancer will influence both researchers and funders;\n\n·        ‘researchability’ – some types of tumour are easier to work on than others but can often provide a model system for different cancers.  Many researchers are attracted to areas or diseases where there is real evidence or potential for progress;\n\n·        fundraising – certain types of cancer may attract more public donations than others; and\n\n·        the quality and size of the research workforce – because of the issues already mentioned, some areas attract more high-quality researchers than other areas.  This will undoubtedly affect the number of quality proposals received by funding bodies.\n\nNCRI partner organisations take all of these factors into account when making funding decisions.  However, the relative importance of each of these in the decision-making process varies for each organisation depending on its corporate aims, culture and procedures.\n\nThe NCRI Cancer Research Database includes expenditure on cancer research by NCRI partner organisations.  This only includes only direct spend on cancer research, or spend that directly supports cancer research.  The proportion of cancer research funding directly supporting brain tumour research was 1.0 per cent in 2012 and 1.4 per cent in 2013.  However, this analysis includes fundamental research (33.9 per cent in 2013) and funding relevant to all cancer sites (21.8 per cent in 2013).  If these elements are excluded, brain tumour research received 3.1 per cent of site-specific cancer research funding in 2013.  This is a greater proportion than for 39 of the 49 site-specific categories.  In fact, between 2002 and 2013, the proportion of site-specific funding spent on brain tumour research increased by a greater amount than for any other cancer site.\n\nThe Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including brain tumours.  These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and the NHS, value for money and scientific quality.  NIHR funding is not ring-fenced for cancer research or for research on brain tumours or other types of cancer.  In all disease areas, the amount of NIHR funding depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity.\n\nThe NCRI is a member of the International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP).  The ICRP database includes research awards from all member organisations, and therefore includes awards from NCRI partner organisations.  The database can be found at https://www.icrpartnership.org/database.cfm.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.745Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:56.745Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":32781,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/32781.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":"Drop the VAT hike on the sale of static caravans","background":null,"additional_details":"Calls on the government to drop their proposal to apply standard rate VAT (20 per cent) to static caravans. The government’s impact assessment states that these changes could lead to a 30% drop in sales. If introduced it will have a disastrous impact on the industry making hundreds of skilled workers redundant.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11450,"created_at":"2012-04-10T09:33:49.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:35.847Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-04-11T08:29:24.000Z","closed_at":"2013-04-11T08:29:24.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-10T09:33:49.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-09-17T17:49:03.039Z","government_response_at":"2012-10-17T17:49:03.039Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-10-17","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Budget announced a consultation on a change to VAT on static holiday caravans, designed to address the anomaly that the sale of a static holiday caravan, which is zero rated, does not contribute to the Exchequer, whereas the sale of a touring caravan, which is standard rated, does. In response to the consultation, the caravan industry suggested that, rather than being treated in the same way as touring caravans, static caravans should be more comparable to holiday homes for tax purposes. However, holiday homes are subject to council tax and static holiday caravans are not, and the Government continues to believe that static caravans should make some contribution to tax revenues.\n\nAs a pragmatic response, rather than have a single dividing line between a zero rate of VAT on permanent residences and 20 per cent on static holiday caravans, the Government announced on 28 May that it will introduce VAT on static holiday caravans at the reduced rate of 5 per cent. The Budget measure now forms part of the Finance Act 2012. However, to give the industry more time to adjust the implementation of the measure will be delayed to 6 April 2013.\n\nThis approach balances the need for consistency and fairness in the VAT system with the practical difficulty of defining static holiday caravans for VAT purposes and the different ways in which static caravans are used.\n\nIt was never the Government’s intention to change the VAT treatment of static residential caravans (those that meet the British Manufacturing Standard BS3632 or equivalent) and accordingly, these will remain zero rated.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:35.840Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:35.840Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}