{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&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=9&parliament=2&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=2&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":40413,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/40413.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 should reflect public sector workers, minimum 35 yrs service for a full pension.","background":null,"additional_details":"MP's pensions should reflect other public sector workers, minimum requirements being:\r\n(1) 35 years service in parliament ( minimum service )\r\n(2) 13.9 % contribution rate for pension in line with other public sector workers\r\n(3) average slaary calculations\r\n(4) no pension if comvicted of criminal offence\r\n( 5) if opt out, no pension payable until 67 yrs of age","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11433,"created_at":"2012-10-17T14:03:15.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:41.962Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-18T09:08:12.000Z","closed_at":"2013-10-18T09:08:12.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-17T14:03:15.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-27T00:09:07.733Z","government_response_at":"2013-04-26T23:09:07.733Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-04-27","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 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).  It 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. IPSA plans to publish further details in Autumn 2013, with changes taking place after the 2015 General Election.\n\nMore information can be found at www.parliamentarystandsards.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":"2017-06-21T15:11:41.955Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:41.955Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":57585,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/57585.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":"Create a new offence to protect Police Dogs from criminal acts & violence","background":null,"additional_details":"There are no laws in place to specifically protect against attacks on Police Dogs & we are seeking to extend the cover a Police Officer receives in law.\r\n\r\nJust as Assistance Dogs have been recognised as \"representing an extension of the assisted person\" - we wish for Police Dogs to be recognised as \"representing an extension of their handler as a Police Officer\"\r\n\r\nWe are therefore seeking for the law to recognise a Police Dog as a serving member of the Police Force & in turn treat any crime against a Police Dog as if they were a regular Police Officer.\r\n\r\nCurrently an assault against a Police Dog is merely treated as Criminal Damage.\r\n\r\nWe are campaigning to protect those Police Dogs who risk their lives to serve their communities.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11393,"created_at":"2013-11-26T20:26:49.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:17.508Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-11-28T09:14:39.000Z","closed_at":"2014-11-28T09:14:39.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-11-26T20:26:49.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-05-07T13:42:36.240Z","government_response_at":"2014-06-07T13:42:36.240Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-06-07","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 agrees that attacks of any sort on police dogs, horses or any other police animal should be dealt with severely under the criminal law. However, it is not necessary to create a new offence in order to do this.\n\nAn attack on a police dog can be treated as animal cruelty under s4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty for this is six months imprisonment, or a fine of up to £20,000, or both. Under some circumstances, it may be possible for the offence to be treated as criminal damage, where as the petitioner implies, a much higher maximum sentence will then apply.\n\nTherefore, an additional offence dealing with attacks on police dogs is unnecessary. The behaviour is already criminal. An additional and separate offence would not be likely to lead to more prosecutions, or higher penalties. Nor would it serve as a more effective deterrent for future or potential offenders\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:17.501Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:17.501Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":67907,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67907.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":"Terminology used when making an Edwards Syndrome / T18 diagnosis","background":null,"additional_details":"To change the terminology used when giving a Edwards Syndrome / Trisomy18 diagnosis.\r\n\r\nCurrently medical professionals advise a baby with T18 is incompatible with life, we want this changed to life limiting. Many children are surviving with T18 & they all write their own stories, putting a label of incompatible with life on then in incorrect.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11331,"created_at":"2014-07-23T14:50:38.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.630Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-24T08:14:03.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-23T14:50:38.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-11T11:45:47.615Z","government_response_at":"2014-12-11T11:45:47.615Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-12-11","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe screening of trisomy of chromosome 18 (Edwards Syndrome) is part of a routine NHS ultrasound screening at 18 to 20 weeks of pregnancy.  Parents receiving a diagnosis of Trisomy 18 are faced with the very difficult decision of whether they should continue with the pregnancy.  Despite medical advances, babies born with Trisomy 18 face a bleak outlook with most dying soon after birth.  Although some survive longer, they often require a range of invasive medical procedures to stay alive.\n\nNeither the Department of Health, nor the NHS, is responsible for defining medical terminology applied for conditions and have no jurisdiction to influence on the use of this terminology so it would be for clinicians to use the wording they felt to be appropriate in each circumstance.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.623Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:52.623Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":56694,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/56694.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Keep naval shipbuilding fully operational in Portsmouth","background":null,"additional_details":"Ships have been built in Portsmouth for the country's navy for 500 hundred years. It seems that, due to a coming reduction in orders for new ships for the Royal Navy, there needs to be a reduction in activity over the three shipyards which have been engaged in surface shipbuilding for the RN - two on the Clyde and one in Portsmouth. The Government does not own the shipyards but through its power as the major customer has in effect control over their operations.\r\nApart from any considerations regarding the welfare of the workforce in Portsmouth, it would be utterly  unacceptable to put the facilties there in jeopardy just when the alternatives are located in Scotland where there will shortly be a referendum to decide whether to leave our country. The continuation of shipbuilding in Portsmouth must be protected and  guaranteed. Indeed in these circumstances the facilities should be. enhanced.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11188,"created_at":"2013-11-06T10:15:14.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:09.155Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-11-07T10:25:28.000Z","closed_at":"2014-05-07T09:25:28.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-11-06T10:15:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-01-27T07:20:35.829Z","government_response_at":"2014-02-27T07:20:35.829Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-02-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nRationalisation of BAE Systems’ (BAES) industrial footprint was a key requirement of the 15 year, Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA), signed between the company and the previous Government in 2009.  This agreement made provision for a reduction in UK warship building demand, following completion of the build work on the Type 45 Destroyers and the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers.  This volume of work represented an artificial high which was always going to tail off.  BAES therefore needed to explore options for transforming and rationalising their UK shipbuilding capability to retain the key skills needed to build the next generation of complex warships at the best value for defence and the public. As a result BAES decided to close their Portsmouth facility and focus their shipbuilding activity on the Clyde.\n\nThe MOD did not stipulate how BAES should rationalise its shipbuilding business.  This was BAES’ decision, based on a considered review of their maritime business and was not related to political considerations. Portsmouth will maintain its proud maritime heritage as the home of much of the Royal Navy's surface fleet and the centre of BAES' ship support and maintenance business.\n\nThe UK Government’s position remains that it is not planning for Scottish independence and cannot pre-negotiate the details of independence ahead of the referendum. Until people in Scotland have voted in the referendum, the UK Government will continue to plan on the basis that it represents all parts of the United Kingdom.\n\nWe understand the shipbuilding decision was disappointing.  It was not an easy decision for BAES, but it is our joint responsibility to ensure that we have a sustainable shipbuilding industry for the future.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:09.147Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:09.147Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":52370,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/52370.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":"THINK HORSE TV Advert Campaign","background":null,"additional_details":"Tv advert promoting safety for horses and drivers on the road\r\n\r\nHRSA (Horses & Road Safety Awareness) are campaigning to raise awareness for the safety of horse and rider on Britain's roads. In order to educate drivers and other road users, we need a new THINK HORSE TV Advert. We feel it should be a compulsory section in the UK Driving Test and the TV Advert should be shown at times when it will impact other road users the most. For example during soaps and sports programmes. Other road users need to be aware of how a horse can react and the damage it can do to people, cars, the rider and itself through careless driving. Too many riders are being injured and even killed on the roads through the ignorance of other road users, we need to educate to save lives. Please sign and share. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11076,"created_at":"2013-07-04T14:07:53.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:28.992Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-05T07:11:22.000Z","closed_at":"2014-07-05T07:11:22.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-04T14:07:53.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-12-17T01:41:08.348Z","government_response_at":"2014-01-17T01:41:08.348Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-01-17","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe are aware of the dangers irresponsible motorists can cause if they do not drive appropriately around horses; however It is unlikely that practical driving test candidates will encounter a horse during their driving test. Obviously inner-city areas are much less likely to have significant numbers of horses on the road; even in rural areas there is no guarantee that a candidate would encounter a horse during their driving test, which is typically of 35–40 minutes long.\n\nAll practical driving test candidates must pass a theory test before being eligible to take a practical test. The theory test is divided into two sections; the first comprising multiple choice questions, the second a moving image hazard perception test. The multiple choice part of the test includes material about vulnerable road users such as children, cyclists, and horse riders. The test includes six questions on vulnerable road users, but owing to the random nature of the question bank we cannot guarantee that every candidate will be asked a question relating to horses.\n\nThe hazard perception test (HPT) is a moving image assessment that measures candidates’ awareness and response to potential hazards. The current HPT features clips, involving horses, and gauges the candidates response to them. We are also developing a new version of HPT, with more realistic graphics, that will feature horses in a wider range of scenarios than the current HPT\n\nWe also produce Standards for Safe Drivers and Riders. We recommend approved driving instructors (ADI) should use these standards as a basis from which to form their training regimes. Horses are included in the standards along with other vulnerable road users and we include a reference specifically that trainees should not to startle any nearby horse when starting the engine of their car. The Highway Code also features significant content on road safety whist riding a horse. The content related to horses in the highway code can be found here; https://www.gov.uk/rules-about-animals-47-to-58/horse-riders-49-to-55\n\nWe have found that the use of social media is an effective way to raise motorists’ awareness of the dangers both to them and to horse riders of not following the rules and official guidance when approaching, passing or overtaking a horse. We have issued updates through our Facebook, with one posting receiving over 250,000 hits. We have also set up an account on Twitter in collaboration with Horse and Hound magazine, and various horse rider groups and stables to promote the ways to follow the Highway Code.\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":"2017-06-21T15:13:28.985Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:28.985Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":42117,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/42117.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"No women Bishops, no automatic seats in the House of Lords","background":null,"additional_details":"The Church of England on 20th Nov 2012 voted not to allow women to be Bishops. Though that is within its rights to do, this should worry the Government as Church of England Bishops are awarded legislative power through seats in the House of Lords.\r\n\r\nThe Church has chosen to be a sexist organisation by refusing women the right to hold highest leadership positions and therefore should not be allowed automatic seats in the House of Lords, as this clearly does not comply with the spirit of UK Equality law.\r\n\r\nWe call on the Govt to remove the right of the Church of England to have automatic seats in the House of Lords,  in line with its commitments to equality and non-discrimination, set out in the Equality Act (2010) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)\"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11025,"created_at":"2012-11-20T21:10:05.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.094Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-21T10:03:47.000Z","closed_at":"2013-08-21T09:03:47.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-20T21:10:05.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-25T05:02:17.204Z","government_response_at":"2013-04-25T04:02:17.204Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-04-25","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government is committed to the Church of England as the Established Church in England, with the Sovereign as its Supreme Governor.  We consider that the relationship between Church and State in England is an important part of the constitutional framework that has evolved over centuries.\n\nThe Government believes that the second chamber should be more representative of the British people, which is why we introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill; however, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that it could not make progress without consuming an unacceptable amount of parliamentary time.   While there continues to be an appointed element to the membership of the House of Lords, the Government believes there should continue to be a role for the Established Church.\n\nIt is for the Church itself to decide whether it will appoint women Bishops and, if so, what arrangements are necessary to support those who cannot accept this change, but it is obviously disappointing that the Synod was unable to agree how to take this forward. The Government believes that the time is right for women Bishops – indeed it is long overdue.\n\nThis e-petition will remain open to signatures until the published closing date and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.088Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:56.088Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":44971,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/44971.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 MPs from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest","background":null,"additional_details":"We call on HM Government for new legislation to ensure that:\r\n\r\ni. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest; and\r\n\r\nii. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation which has made - or currently makes - donations to themselves personally or their political party.\r\n\r\nWe believe this is necessary to prevent corruption. It is also in accord with the spirit of political reform supported by the government.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10940,"created_at":"2013-01-26T12:19:27.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:20.755Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-01-30T12:00:41.000Z","closed_at":"2014-01-30T12:00:41.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-01-26T12:19:27.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-07-16T07:40:03.705Z","government_response_at":"2013-08-16T07:40:03.705Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-08-16","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe participation of Members of Parliament in debates and votes are a matter for the rules of each House rather than for legislation. The rules are based upon the principle of transparency: the registration and the declaration of any financial interests.  In the House of Commons, the Code of Conduct requires Members to fulfil the requirements of the House relating to the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to be open in drawing attention to any financial interest in proceedings of the House. The application of these rules are explained in The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, which is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcode.htm\n\nSimilar rules apply in the House of Lords. These make clear that it is for Peers themselves to declare a financial interest if a reasonable person might think that their actions could be influenced by a relevant interest. The rules and guidance are available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcond/code.pdf . In both Houses the respective Registers of Interests are publically available and updated regularly.\n\nIt would not be practicable to prevent Members speaking or voting in debates on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest or which has made donations to themselves of their party. A significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations. The requirement proposed would impose a duty on all Members to ascertain whether a general legislative provision might be of financial benefit to particular operations in which they had an interest. There are questions as to how such a complex requirement could be policed effectively and what sanctions would apply.  The rules of the House of Commons already prohibit paid advocacy, so Members cannot advocate measures which are for the exclusive benefit of a body from which they receive a financial benefit. In other cases, where legislation or debate affects a body from which a Member receives a financial benefit, that interest must be properly registered and declared.\n\nIn relation to political donations and election expenditure, the Government is committed to further improving transparency and accountability, so as to   prevent a situation where opaque and unaccountable groups spend large sums of money attempting to influence the political system. Measures to achieve this objective are included in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill which is currently before the Parliament.\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":"2017-06-21T15:12:20.748Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:20.748Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":23089,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/23089.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":"Introduction of offence of vicarious liability for raptor persecution in England","background":null,"additional_details":"Scotland, recognising that those who persecute birds of prey frequently do so at the direction of their employers or others with vested interests, has introduced an offence of vicarious liability, the purpose of which is to bring those parties to justice.\r\nThis petition calls on the government to introduce an offence of vicarious liability to bring to justice those who direct or turn a blind eye to raptor persecution in England.\r\n\r\nAs an indication of how bad thing are, in the last year only four pairs of hen harriers successfully reared chicks in England, fourteen peregrine falcon territories failed on grouse moors in Lancs forest of Bowland, and only one successful goshawk nest was recorded in the Derwent Valley, Derbyshire.\r\n\r\nCurrent legislation is not enough to deter those who break the law and destroy our heritage; the introduction of vicarious liability would hit those directing the slaughter.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10908,"created_at":"2011-11-17T14:21:04.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:14.690Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-17T16:38:01.000Z","closed_at":"2012-11-17T16:38:01.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-17T14:21:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-03T11:02:10.504Z","government_response_at":"2012-06-03T11:02:10.504Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-06-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nDefra is aware of the Scottish Government's decision to introduce a vicarious liability offence under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Scotland) 2011, which came in to force on 1 January 2012.  The new offence is targeted principally at addressing the persecution of raptors.  The new offence will mean employers or agents may be prosecuted where an employee is found to have illegally killed a bird of prey (or other wild bird) - in effect they may be prosecuted for the same offence.  There is, however, a defence that an employer or agent can rely on, this being that they did not know an offence was being committed and that they took all reasonable steps to prevent an offence being committed.\n\nIt is unclear whether in practice the new offence will result in successful prosecutions of employers or agents. There are no immediate plans therefore to introduce a similar offence in England but Defra will look carefully at how the offence works in practice in Scotland.  The development of our future wildlife crime policy will include consideration of how effective the new offence in Scotland has been in helping to address raptor persecution.\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":"2017-06-21T15:09:14.684Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:14.684Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":67527,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67527.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":"Hen Harrier Joint Recovery Plan - publish it","background":null,"additional_details":"There are thousands of square miles of suitable habitat, but very few breeding pairs of hen harriers in England. If the remaining chicks die, the hen harrier will effectively be extinct as a breeding species in England. Defra said it would stop extinctions like this.\r\n\r\nIn August 2012 Defra asked moor owners, gamekeepers and conservation groups, including the RSPB, to work together and write a single plan to restore England’s precious hen harrier. They reviewed the evidence and scientific literature to prepare their joint plan. Since January 2014 Defra could have published the plan; but has not.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of the hen harrier, Defra must resist external pressure to meddle with the plan. England’s hen harrier population is too fragile to wait any longer.\r\n\r\nYou have it in your gift to save the English hen harrier and return it across our skies. Do it.\r\n\r\nBe brave and publish the hen harrier recovery plan today – the clock is ticking.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10683,"created_at":"2014-07-13T22:52:55.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:49.062Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-07-14T09:26:35.000Z","closed_at":"2015-03-30T22:59:59.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-07-13T22:52:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-11-12T21:04:59.408Z","government_response_at":"2014-12-12T21:04:59.408Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-12-12","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department has provided the following response:\n\nThe Government is concerned about the hen harrier population in England and acknowledges the need to take urgent action.\n\nThe latest survey undertaken in 2010 found only 12 pairs in England.  In 2013 no young fledged for the first time in over 50 years and although we are encouraged that there are four nests this year with good numbers of young, hen harrier populations are so low that recovery across their former range is unlikely to occur unaided.\n\nIn its document “Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services”, the Government set out priority actions. One of these is to “Take targeted action for the recovery of priority species, whose conservation is not delivered through wider habitat-based and ecosystem measures”. The Government considers that hen harriers merit additional action to reverse the decline in their population numbers.\n\nIn 2012 Defra established the Uplands Stakeholder Forum Hen Harrier Sub-Group to seek shared solutions for hen harrier recovery. The Sub-Group comprises senior representatives from Natural England, the RSPB, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, National Parks UK and the Moorland Association.\n\nSince the establishment of the Sub-Group, the members have developed a draft Joint Action Plan which contains a suite of complementary actions intended to contribute to the recovery of the hen harrier population in England.  The e-petition suggests that the Joint Action Plan could have been published in January 2014, but final agreement is still being negotiated. Since the Sub-Group members all have a role to play in delivering the suite of actions, it is important to secure as much agreement as possible before publication so that it can be implemented in the co-operative and pragmatic way needed to help the recovery of the hen harrier in England.\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":"2017-06-21T15:15:49.055Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:15:49.055Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":46252,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/46252.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":"Health Ministers to approve funding  for a National Specialised Service  and the use of Eculizumab for aHUS patients without delay","background":null,"additional_details":"We welcome the  advice from the independent body AGNSS that people with aHUS in England should be treated with Eculizumab if they need it. \r\n\r\nWe deplore the Health Minister's decision to delay  implementation of the recommendation by asking NICE to complete a duplicate assessment, thus  prolonging the wait for patients whose lives could be saved or transformed by this drug. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10662,"created_at":"2013-02-22T11:33:08.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:31.415Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-25T10:27:50.000Z","closed_at":"2013-08-25T09:27:50.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-22T11:33:08.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-21T07:08:10.258Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-21T07:08:10.258Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-21","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Advisory Group for National Specialised Services (AGNSS) considered the application for eculizumab (Soliris) for the treatment of atypical haemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) to be included as part of national commissioning arrangements.  Whilst AGNSS members were convinced of the clinical effectiveness of the drug, they noted its very high cost and the increasing cost profile for the NHS, which is predicted to rise significantly.\n\nIn considering the recommendation from the AGNSS, the Department took advice on AGNSS’s assessment of the cost impact and affordability of eculizumab.  The Department of Health accepted AGNSS’s advice concerning the clinical effectiveness of the drug, but felt further advice was needed on its suitability for direct commissioning taking account of its costs, benefits and affordability.  As the AGNSS no longer exists as a Ministerial advisory group, the Department of Health has asked the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to undertake this further work as part of its new highly specialised technologies programme.  NICE assumed responsibility for this work on 1 April.\n\nNHS England is developing an interim policy to enable patients to receive eculizumab while NICE undertakes its evaluation.  This will mean that patients who were previously receiving eculizumab through arrangements with their primary care trust will continue to receive the drug and any newly diagnosed patients will also be funded.  NHS England has assured the Department that patients who are critically ill and who need eculizumab urgently will receive it.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:31.408Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:31.408Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":60561,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/60561.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":"Corporal Stewart McLaughlin – campaign for formal recognition of outstanding gallantry and leadership in the Falklands War.","background":null,"additional_details":"Corporal Stewart McLaughlin served in B Company, Third Battalion, The Parachute Regiment and was killed during the battle for Mount Longdon in the Falklands War. He was a key figure in the Company’s attack, leading and supporting numerous assaults on the enemy. His supreme personal bravery and exemplary leadership was noticed by many during the battle and has consistently been acknowledged by senior military officers since. Despite this, he has never been formally recognized for his actions which contributed significantly to the victory achieved by the battalion. His case has been described as “extraordinary” by one very senior officer and the legend of his actions as “being in the DNA of the Regiment” by another. Other senior officers have commented that his actions merited award but rules governing retrospective awards prevent this. We call on the government to amend the awards system to permit retrospective awards for such exceptional cases and to formally recognize Cpl McLaughlin.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10546,"created_at":"2014-02-09T08:51:09.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:44.889Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-02-11T12:24:58.000Z","closed_at":"2015-02-11T12:24:58.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2014-02-09T08:51:09.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-08-03T13:38:58.432Z","government_response_at":"2014-09-03T13:38:58.432Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-09-03","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Ministry of Defence is aware of the importance of this issue to members of Cpl. McLaughlin’s family, and many others who have supported their cause. Following a debate on this issue in November 2014, Ministers agreed that while a formal investigation was not an option, the facts surrounding recognition in this case should be re-examined, including identifying any material not previously available.\n\nRecords were examined at a number of locations, including the National Archive, MOD Medals Office and the Parachute Regiment Regimental Archives. Our examination found no contemporaneous evidence that Cpl. McLaughlin was treated differently from the other servicemen who were considered for an award. He was one of many servicemen whose bravery was singled out by commanding officers but did not result in a gallantry medal.\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":"2017-06-21T15:14:44.883Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:14:44.883Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":34551,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/34551.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop British taxpayers’ money supporting World Bank loans to Argentina","background":null,"additional_details":"Despite repeated attacks on Britain and the right of Falkland Islanders to remain British, Argentina receives substantial loans from the World Bank, an organisation in which Britain is a major shareholder. But the Government does not use our votes to oppose those loans.\r\n\r\nThe Government has told Parliament that, as of March 2012, total outstanding loans to Argentina from the World Bank were $16.2 billion. That means Britain’s share of the outstanding loans is over £200 million, based on our shareholding in the two World Bank institutions lending to the country.\r\n\r\nThe Obama Administration in the United States has already announced a policy of voting no to any new loans thanks to Argentina’s failure to respect its obligations to earlier lenders. We call upon the British Government to - at the very least - support that and vote against any new World Bank loans to Argentina.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10531,"created_at":"2012-05-31T11:05:55.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.882Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-06-07T08:33:18.000Z","closed_at":"2013-06-07T08:33:18.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-05-31T11:05:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-27T15:42:15.043Z","government_response_at":"2012-12-27T15:42:15.043Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-12-27","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nIn February 2013, the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, confirmed in an answer to a House of Commons Written Parliamentary Question that she has instructed her representatives at the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank to vote against all new proposals for financial support to the Government of the Republic of Argentina presented by these institutions, while reserving the right to support proposals that can demonstrate exceptional benefits to the poorest people of Argentina. These are the only Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), in which the UK is a shareholder, from which the Government of Argentina borrows.\n\nShe has also made public that this is because in her view, the UK must ensure that the scarce resources of the MDBs are used as effectively as possible to foster development and economic growth. In light of recent actions by the Argentine government she is no longer confident that further investments in Argentina would be consistent with these objectives. The actions include the failure to comply with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes rulings; failure to agree to standard IMF Article IV surveillance since 2006; and the recent IMF censure, the first of its kind, as a result of continued failure to remedy breach of data obligations under the IMF Articles of Agreement, seriously undermining our ability to properly assess proposed future loans by the MDBs.   She has also advised that this position will be kept under review, subject to the future actions of the Government of the Republic of Argentina and its compliance with its international obligations.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.876Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:49.876Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":46473,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/46473.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":"Licencing of upland grouse moors and gamekeepers.","background":null,"additional_details":"Given the continuing levels of illegal persecution of birds of prey the Government is called upon to introduce a system of operating licences for upland grouse shoots.Following any proven offence of persecution on the shoot concerned, i.e. illegal trapping, use of poisons, shooting or the interference with or destruction of nests, the licence would be revoked for a period of not less than two years and commercial shooting activity cease.\r\n\r\nLinked to the above the Government is called upon to introduce an accreditation scheme or licencing system for all gamekeepers, be they employed in a full time or part time capacity. If an individual then has any proven involvement with raptor persecution, the licence would be withdrawn for a period of three years along with the right to hold a gun licence. Any repetition of an offence would result in the licences being withdrawn for life. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10429,"created_at":"2013-02-27T09:47:43.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.271Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-02-27T10:36:32.000Z","closed_at":"2014-02-27T10:36:32.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-27T09:47:43.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-08-21T10:26:10.655Z","government_response_at":"2013-09-21T10:26:10.655Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-09-21","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government is aware of incidences of illegal killing of birds of prey and Ministers take the issue very seriously.  To address this, senior Government and enforcement officers in the UK identified raptor persecution as a national wildlife crime priority.  Raptor persecution is subject to a prevention, intelligence, enforcement and reassurance plan led by a senior police officer through the Raptor Persecution Delivery group.  The National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is funded by the Government, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting birds of prey and provides assistance to police forces when required.\n\nShooting makes an important contribution to wildlife control and conservation, biodiversity and to the social, economic and environmental well-being of rural areas, where it can provide a supplement to incomes and jobs.  The overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is therefore a positive one and it has been estimated by the industry that £250 million per year is spent on management activities that provide benefits for conservation.\n\nWhen carried out in accordance with the law, shooting for sport is a legitimate activity and our position is that people should be free to undertake lawful activities. There are no current plans to restrict sport shooting in England.  This Government encourages all shoot managers and owners to ensure they and their staff are following recommended guidelines and best practice to reduce the chances of a conflict of interest with birds of prey.\n\nWe acknowledge that crimes against birds of prey are abhorrent but it should be noted though that, despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine falcon, red kite and buzzard have increased.  While a small minority is prepared to kill birds of prey, and where possible these people are brought to justice, this demonstrates that the policies in place to conserve these species are working.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.264Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:33.264Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":39775,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/39775.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":"Postpone Norman Bettison's retirement","background":null,"additional_details":"On 4th September 2012, Sir Norman Bettison announced his decision to retire from  his position as Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. He took this decision just days after he was referred to the IPCC for an investigation into his conduct in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster.\r\n\r\nThe Hillsborough Independent Panel's report into the disaster finally laid bare the truth about the events of 15th April 1989 and vindicated the families who have been fighting 23 years for justice. Allowing Mr Bettison to retire on full pension before a full investigation into his actions is completed and before any disciplinary proceedings can be considered would undermine the Government's public commitment to secure the justice that the victim's deserve.\r\n\r\nTherefore we call on the Home Secretary to use whatever powers she has at her disposal to postpone the retirement of Mr Bettison until the outcome of the IPCC investigation and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10409,"created_at":"2012-10-04T23:27:07.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.969Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-10-11T10:16:39.000Z","closed_at":"2013-01-11T11:16:39.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-10-04T23:27:07.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-24T15:22:42.493Z","government_response_at":"2012-12-24T15:22:42.493Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-12-24","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe take the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s Report extremely seriously and welcome the IPCC’s announcement of a wide-ranging investigation into the referrals that they have received in relation to former and serving officers involved in events surrounding the Hillsborough disaster.\n\nThose referrals for investigation, for both criminality and misconduct, include referrals in relation to Norman Bettison. We have already said that we will ensure that the IPCC has both the resource and powers that it requires to undertake the investigations necessary. We now need to let the IPCC undertake the investigation and must await their findings\n\n\u2028This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.963Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:35.963Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":54991,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/54991.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of cot bumpers save our babies lives","background":null,"additional_details":"Baby Preston died aged 9 mths as a result of his cot bumper. Many babies and infants die each year because of strangulation or suffocation. These cot bumpers the cause. They have no purpose yet they cause such fatal harm. Please fill in your details check your email to confirm your signiture is added to the petition. Help Prestons parents get justice for their son and give them a purpose to fight on for. Share the dangers with everyone remove your childs today and help us get bumpers banned from sale. Thank you xxx","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10408,"created_at":"2013-09-17T21:27:55.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.884Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-09-19T08:36:27.000Z","closed_at":"2014-09-19T08:36:27.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-17T21:27:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-13T16:54:31.704Z","government_response_at":"2014-04-13T15:54:31.704Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-04-13","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nFirstly, we would like to offer our sincere condolences to Preston’s family.\n\nThe Government takes the safety of consumers and especially the safety of children very seriously.  We are aware of concerns about the safety of cot bumpers and we already have a number of measures in place to tackle this issue.\n\nFirstly, with respect to legislation, all products intended for use by consumers are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations (GPSR) 2005 which implements the EU’s General Product Safety Directive (GPSD). This requires products to be safe when placed on the market, and is underpinned by a range of national and European Standards.\n\nAlthough there has been a British Standard covering cot bumpers since 1977 (BS 1877-10:2011), some time ago there was recognition that a European wide safety standard was needed to address such products sold throughout the EU. The resulting draft European Standard (EN 16780:2014) aims to identify the hazards and requirements necessary to minimise risks for cot bumpers. This Standard is currently under review by the British Standards Institute (BSI) and open to public comments.\n\nIn addition to legislation and Standards, the Government is continuing to support and work with a range of organisations on this issue to provide advice and help raise awareness.  For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents currently does not recommend the use of cot bumpers because:\n\n·        Babies are most at risk from suffocation when they are sleeping. Cot bumpers can pose a risk of suffocation, overheating and asphyxiation\n\n·        Once your baby can move around the cot and potentially pull themselves up on the bumper, there is an increased risk of a fall from the cot.\n\nIf parents are worried they can find more information at The Lullaby Trust, which provides specialist support for bereaved families, promotes expert advice on safer baby sleep and raises awareness on sudden infant death:\n\nhttp://www.lullabytrust.org.uk/mattresses-and-bedding\n\nOn balance, and in view of the action already being taken by Government and others, we feel we do not currently have enough evidence to support a ban on the sale and use of cot bumpers. However, BIS will continue to collate statistical data on any injuries and fatalities and engage with stakeholders to ensure that any future action taken in relation to cot bumpers is proportionate and effective.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.878Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:52.878Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":35724,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/35724.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Do not disband 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers","background":null,"additional_details":"Ministry of Defence plans to axe historic battalions is unfair on troops, undermines the Army and could threaten future military operations, Brigadier David Paterson, the commander of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, has warned.\r\n\r\n2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, one of the best manned Battalions in the Army was chosen by CGS (Chief of the General Staff) to be disbanded meaning loyal, well trained Fusiliers from this fully manned Battalion are likely to be posted to less successful Battalions that cannot recruit or retain their own troops.\r\n\r\nFull details of this letter form Brigadier Paterson can be found at http://bit.ly/Na5vFY\r\n\r\nWe call on the MoD and the Chief of the General Staff to reconsider these plans and instead support the success and leadership shown by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in recruiting, training and retaining loyal soldiers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10394,"created_at":"2012-07-05T07:57:10.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:59.979Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-07-05T12:34:33.000Z","closed_at":"2013-07-05T12:34:33.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-07-05T07:57:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-28T02:32:43.552Z","government_response_at":"2013-01-28T02:32:43.552Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-01-28","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has recieved more than 10, 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Ministry of Defence can assure you that none of the decisions surrounding the withdrawals and mergers included in the Defence Secretary's Army 2020 announcement of 5 July 2012 were taken lightly but these decisions were made in the face of dire financial circumstances which this Government inherited from the last.\n\nThere was a Backbench Business debate on this matter on 18 October 2012 and during this debate the rationale behind the decision to withdraw 2 RRF was covered extensively. The transcript of the debate is in the Official Report for 18 October 2012: Column 516. We will continue to implement Army 2020 as announced on 5 July 2012.\n\nWe understand that this decision was very disappointing to members of the RRF, past and present, and those with connections to it, however, it was simply not possible to save every unit.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:59.973Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:59.973Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":37945,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/37945.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"STOP THE FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE WITHDRAWING GRATIS VISAS FOR CHERNOBYL CHILDREN COMING TO UK FOR RECUPERATIVE HOLIDAYS FROM BELARUS & UKRAINE","background":null,"additional_details":"The future of vital recuperative holidays for children living with the after effects of the Chernobyl disaster is threatened because the FCO has announced that gratis visas for Chernobyl Children will end in March 2013.\r\nThe UK will be only government in the EU to start charging. All others grant gratis visas as they acknowledge the important work done helping children living with the after effects of radiation by boosting their immune systems & improving their health.\r\nThis would add £86 per child to the cost of bringing them to the UK, placing a heavy burden on charities already struggling to raise funds. Consequently this will result in either less children coming to the UK for recuperative breaks or the closure of smaller charities.\r\nMany MPs support us, having met these children in their constituencies. Government departments also support our work as does the PM. Now they must prove it by withdrawing plans to charge for these vital visas.\r\nVictor Mizzi MBE & Linda Walker MBE","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10387,"created_at":"2012-08-30T00:13:57.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:19.681Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-08-31T12:52:37.000Z","closed_at":"2013-08-31T12:52:37.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-30T00:13:57.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-02-23T05:41:11.104Z","government_response_at":"2013-03-23T05:41:11.104Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-03-23","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 provided gratis visas to Chernobyl children in Belarus from 1995 to 2013.  In 2011-12, the cost of these visas was around £130,000.  In previous years it had been more – up to and above £200,000 per annum.  In November 2010, we made the decision to end the scheme.\n\nThe decision to end the gratis visas for Chernobyl Children was not taken lightly. It was one of a number of difficult spending decisions made across Government.  We judged continued support to be unsustainable; the annual cost was equivalent to running a small overseas Embassy.\n\nWe informed the charities immediately following our decision, giving them more than two years to seek alternative non-Government sources of funding before the scheme ended on 31 March 2013. As a goodwill gesture, in the final year of the scheme we also covered the cost of Chernobyl children visas issued in Ukraine.  In addition, we have offered, and continue to offer, our help to the charities in their fundraising efforts. Our Embassy in Minsk is also active in providing non-financial support, such as hosting fundraising charity dinners and similar events.\n\nThis e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:19.674Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:19.674Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":43807,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/43807.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2010-2015","government":"Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition","dissolution_at":"2015-03-30T23:59:59.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl  or legal rights.","background":null,"additional_details":"The RSPCA use \"bully boy\" tactics against innocent members of the public to bring prosecutions. They often infringe on citizens civil and legal rights.\r\nThey misuse funds which have been donated by members of the public specifically for animal welfare for their own political gain in bringing these often vexatious prosecutions. This petition asks that the government investigate fully the actions of the RSPCA, ensure that they are unable to prosecute anyone as that is the remit of the CPS and ensure tighter rules are in place from the charities commission to prevent registered charities from using funds for political lobbying or bringing private prosecutions. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10323,"created_at":"2012-12-31T11:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:10.479Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-01-03T07:37:06.000Z","closed_at":"2014-01-03T07:37:06.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-12-31T11:04:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-29T02:34:15.468Z","government_response_at":"2013-07-29T02:34:15.468Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-07-29","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has reached more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nAs a charity, the RSPCA must comply with the legal framework that applies to all charities as well, in the context of its prosecutions in relation to animal welfare, the rules which govern the bringing of prosecutions. The Government welcomes the RSPCA’s decision to ask Stephen Wooler, a former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, to review its prosecution policy.\n\nConcerns that the RSPCA have substantially failed to manage the charity in line with the law, should first be raised with the Charity Commission. Any evidence of any criminal concerns about any individual or organisation must be shared with the police","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:10.473Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:10.473Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":31069,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/31069.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":"Free meals for College students","background":null,"additional_details":"16-18 year olds from a disadvantaged background who study at a Further Education or Sixth Form College do not receive free meals at lunchtime whereas their counterparts in school sixth forms do.\r\n\r\nThis is clearly unfair and needs to change. Eligibility for free meals should be based on need, not on where you choose to study.\r\n\r\nWe call on the Government to extend free meals to all 16-18 year olds from a disadvantaged background.\r\n\r\nSign the petition to make free meals available to College students.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10321,"created_at":"2012-03-08T12:55:26.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:21.400Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-03-09T11:59:48.000Z","closed_at":"2013-03-09T11:59:48.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-03-08T12:55:26.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-09-02T07:46:17.380Z","government_response_at":"2012-10-02T07:46:17.380Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-10-02","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nMinisters are currently considering the issue of free school meals (FSM) for students aged 16-18 in FE colleges and other Post 16 settings.  This is an issue that has been raised a number of times including by the Association of Colleges, which is currently running a campaign – ‘No Free Lunch?’ -  for FSM to be extended to all pupils in FE colleges.\n\nThe Education Act 1996 requires free school meals (FSM) to be provided to eligible registered pupils, including those aged 16-18, at maintained schools, which includes students attending school sixth forms.  Academies are required to comply with this legislation via their Funding Agreements.  The Act does not extend entitlement to students in 6th Form Colleges or FE Colleges, although colleges may choose to make provision.  Local authorities and schools do not receive additional specific funding for meals for their 16-18 year-old students other than as a deprivation factor in the funding formulae for schools’ overall budgets.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:21.394Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:21.394Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":29356,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/29356.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":"Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK","background":null,"additional_details":"We want to abolish work for your benefit/workfare schemes in the UK.\r\n\r\nPeople selling their labour should be fairly remunerated for their work at the normal level paid for the tasks they perform and treated in the same way as a standard employee with full rights and representation if requested.\r\n\r\nThese are the basic rights of any worker in a modern democratic society.\r\n\r\nWorkfare is effectively forced labour and is therefore illegal in the UK.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10313,"created_at":"2012-02-09T19:23:14.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.277Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-02-14T09:46:28.000Z","closed_at":"2013-02-14T09:46:28.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-09T19:23:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-08-09T20:28:37.390Z","government_response_at":"2012-09-09T20:28:37.390Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-09-09","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nWe do not have Work for Your Benefit or Workfare schemes in this country. Workfare is an American term used to describe employment programmes which force all jobseekers to work at a certain point of their claim in order to continue to receive benefit.\n\nWe do offer claimants a range of initiatives at various stages of their unemployment to help them overcome the barriers they face in returning to the workplace, or indeed finding work for the first time, such as a short period of voluntary work experience for young people aged 18-24 who have little or no experience of work to help them gain vital work-related skills, and referral to the Work Programme for a period of intensive support for those who have been out of work for nine months or more.\n\nMandatory Work Activity gives extra support to a small number of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who would benefit from a short period of activity. It is a work placement of up to 30 hours a week for four weeks that must be of community benefit.\n\nMandatory Work Activity helps participants re-engage with the system, refocus their job search and gain valuable work-related disciplines, such as attending on time and regularly, carrying out specific tasks and working under supervision. Whilst participating in Mandatory Work Activity, claimants continue to receive Jobseeker’s Allowance and are expected to continue to seek work.\n\nThe Government is clear that it will do all it can to support unemployed people, but it also clear that in return they must do all they can to help themselves back to work.\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":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.271Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.271Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":51469,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/51469.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 Halal Slaughter houses In the UK and sale of Halal Meat","background":null,"additional_details":"We the undersigned Insist all Halal slaughter houses are shut down and the sale of Halal meat banned from the UK.\r\nThis Is a barbaric 7th century practice that has no place In the UK.\r\nIt breaches animal cruelty and slaughter house regulations and laws In the UK.\r\nThe animal Is blessed In the name of Allah as It dies and we are a Christian country.\r\nThis Is pandering to appease a religion that Is diverse to our own.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10228,"created_at":"2013-06-10T11:04:13.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:21.100Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-06-11T06:42:31.000Z","closed_at":"2014-06-11T06:42:31.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-10T11:04:13.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-12-06T17:04:14.715Z","government_response_at":"2014-01-06T17:04:14.715Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-01-06","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government encourages the highest standards of welfare at slaughter and would prefer to see all animals stunned before they are slaughtered for food.  However, we also respect the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. Recently, the Prime Minister has confirmed that there would be no ban on religious slaughter in the UK.\n\nBoth EU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, and the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK), as amended, permit slaughter without stunning to be carried out in accordance with religious rites.  Within both regulations there are strict requirements on where, how and who can slaughter animals in accordance with religious rites.  These requirements are monitored and enforced by Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency to ensure that animals are spared unnecessary suffering, distress or pain during the slaughter process.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:21.093Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:21.093Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":55067,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/55067.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 looped blind cords in the UK","background":null,"additional_details":"Looped blind cords are dangerous and pose an extremely high risk of strangulation and entanglement of young children. Too many young toddlers have died from strangling themselves on these cord loops. There have been 28 known deaths since 1999 in the UK alone, my beautiful 17 month old little girl Sophia was the 28th victim to this silent killer. There have also been many near misses which haven't been documented. Safety devices are sold with most blinds BUT it is up to the fitter whether they are used or not. The government needs to BAN these dangerous blinds. Please sign. Thank you. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10179,"created_at":"2013-09-19T19:15:15.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.681Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-09-23T08:48:47.000Z","closed_at":"2014-09-23T08:48:47.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-09-19T19:15:15.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2014-03-21T15:47:23.180Z","government_response_at":"2014-04-21T14:47:23.180Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2014-04-21","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Department for Business, Innovation & Skills is aware of the tragic death of Sophia Parslow by accidental strangulation by an internal blind cord at her home in Tirley, near Gloucester on 27 June 2013.  We would again like to offer our condolences to Amanda O’Halloran and her family.\n\nThe UK has the largest market for internal blinds in Europe, and also, as Ms O’Halloran pointed out, the largest number of known deaths.  It was for this reason that the UK was instrumental in adapting the European Standard EN 13120:2009 which sets out the performance and safety requirements for internal blinds, particularly the sections dealing with child safety, as it was felt by the department, industry and safety organisations that the safety requirements were not as robust as they should be.\n\nOn 28 February 2014, the British Standards Institution (BSI) published BS EN 13120:2009:+A1:2014 ‘Internal blinds – performance requirements including safety’, which addresses child safety, suitability and functionality and which applies to all those involved in the manufacture, supply and installation of internal window blinds operated by cords or chains.   The revised standard amends the previous European standard published in 2009. The amendment considerably extends the standard scope so that it covers not only venetian blinds, roller blinds, vertical blinds and pleated blinds, but also honeycomb blinds, Roman shades, Austrian/Festoon blinds, panel blinds, plantation shutters and roll-up blinds.\n\nThe new standard requires that new blinds must be \"safe by design\" or be supplied with the appropriate child safety devices installed. This means that where there is a loop that is present, or could be created, a safety device must be installed at the point of the manufacture. These safety devices either break under pressure or tension of the cord or chain or provide the facility to store cords/chains out of reach. Professional installers must fit these devices. Supply-only blinds must include these devices along with appropriate warnings and instructions to the consumer.\n\nThe new standard is also supported by two new additional standards relating to the testing requirements.  The Standard also imposes a maximum cord and chain length where there is a likelihood of young children 0-42 months present which includes homes and  public places like hotels, hospitals, schools, shops,  places of worship and nurseries.  Manufacturers and retailers that do not comply with the standard can be prosecuted under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 as well as the Health & Safety at Work Act.\n\nWith an estimated 200 million blinds already in people’s homes, introducing a ban on all blinds with looped cords would be ineffective.  The revised standard makes provision for the retrofitting of safety devices and industry is encouraging fitters and suppliers of blinds to make these available to homeowners. Guidance produced by the British Blind and Shutter Association (BBSA) and Trading Standards (aimed at enforcement bodies and industry) clearly states that if a non-integral device is required it must be installed by the professional installer. Such advice should be given to the consumer before they make their purchase decision.\n\nThere have been blinds on the market without looped cords for over 15 years and industry continues to develop new and innovative blinds that are cordless or have concealed systems; these are considered to be made safe by design. When selling or fitting new blinds, retailers and fitters should be promoting safety messages and ensuring the consumer has the most appropriate blind for their particular circumstance.\n\nSignificant work to raise awareness of the dangers of blind cords/chains has been and continues to take place across the UK.  Awareness-raising work has been led primarily by BBSA and The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and includes widespread distribution of Make It Safe literature, press releases, TV and radio programmes and interviews and use of social networking.\n\nWe support the BBSA’s \"Make It Safe” Campaign in raising awareness of the potential dangers blind cords may pose to babies and young children and in ensuring that safety advice is supplied with the blinds.  We also work with stakeholders such as the RoSPA, the Child Accident Prevention Trust (Capt) and Trading Standards to raise public awareness.\n\nConsumers who are concerned can in the first instance find advice on –\n\nBBSA http://www.bbsa.org.uk/domestic/child-safety/26\n\nOr\n\nRoSPA http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/detail/?id=1285","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.675Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:53.675Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":41206,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/41206.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":"Urge the South Korean Government to Respect Global Animal Protection Laws and Oppose Legalization of the Dog Meat Trade","background":null,"additional_details":"The unprecedented, unnecessary cruelty towards animals can no longer be tolerated and it is the moral duty of the British Government to intervene on behalf of animal welfare organizations and the British Public to urge South Korea to respect and enforce not just its own but Global Animal Welfare Laws.This petition also formally opposes the move to legalize the dog and cat meat trade in South Korea on ethical, health and moral grounds.The issue concerns the UK because in 2018 we will attend the Seoul Winter Olympics and it is  unconscionable for the Government to ignore the huge growing shock and outcryon social media sites. Close  Moran Meat Market Dogs electrocuted,boiled alive in public-illegal Slaughter houses. Sanctions for International Breach of   waste disposal-  2011 foot &mouth crisis, 8 million livestock were buried alive .2012 Declaration of Consciousness has confirmed animals are not just commodities.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10164,"created_at":"2012-11-04T16:58:28.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:49.163Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-11-06T17:38:46.000Z","closed_at":"2013-11-06T17:38:46.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-11-04T16:58:28.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-05T06:58:23.331Z","government_response_at":"2013-06-05T06:58:23.331Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2013-06-05","summary":"","details":"As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:\n\nThe Government remains committed to the promotion and protection of animal welfare.\n\nThe British Ambassador in Seoul has raised the issue of the dog meat trade with the Republic of Korea authorities.\n\nIt is a matter for the authorities in each country to introduce and enforce the necessary legislation to end the ill treatment of animals.\n\nIn the absence of international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of dog meat, the UK has no legal grounds to intervene or take trade measures against those countries where consumption of dog meat is regarded as normal practice.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:49.157Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:11:49.157Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":29410,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/29410.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":"Return Shaker Aamer to the UK","background":null,"additional_details":"Shaker Aamer is a British resident with a British wife and children who has been imprisoned without trial by the US in Bagram Airforce Base and Guantanamo Bay for over ten years.  The Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office must undertake urgent new initiatives to achieve the immediate transfer of Shaker Aamer to the UK from continuing indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay. ","committee_note":null,"state":"rejected","signature_count":8916,"created_at":"2012-02-10T12:44:49.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.813Z","rejected_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.810Z","opened_at":"2012-02-14T17:35:00.000Z","closed_at":"2012-05-14T16:35:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-10T12:44:49.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":"2012-06-14T16:35:00.000Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":{"code":"duplicate","details":null},"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-06-14","summary":"","details":"The creator of this e-petition has requested that, due to an error made when starting the petition, it be closed for signatures and replaced with a new e-petition with a corrected closing date.\n\nWe are not able to transfer existing signatures to the new e-petition.   If you wish to add your signature to the replacement e-petition, it is available at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/33133","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.798Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:06.798Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":17967,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/17967.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 VAT On The Bomber Command Memorial","background":null,"additional_details":"This is a petition to remove the VAT on the bomber command memorial currently payable on professional fees and services, a £500,000 VAT bill has been charged for professional services on the building of this one of a kind memorial, the memorial has been entirely funded by public donations receiving no government aid and no lottery funding, previous governments waived the tax for charities such as the Princess Diana Memorial and the Band Aid single Do They Know It’s Christmas? Sir Elton John’s 1997 charity ­single Candle In The Wind was given a £2.5million exemption, Under the Labour Government charities could claim back VAT for monuments once they had got ­planning permission, in January the Coalition stopped charities reclaiming VAT, which was then hiked to 20 per cent. The Memorial has been running for five years now, with the government constantly moving the goal posts, I believe this to be unfair, do you? If you do please sign.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":6961,"created_at":"2011-09-25T18:35:54.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:28.553Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-10-10T10:35:09.000Z","closed_at":"2012-10-10T10:35:09.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-25T18:35:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":"2012-11-10T11:35:09.000Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2012-11-10","summary":"","details":"The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have provided the following response to this e-petition:\n\nIn 2011/12, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport awarded grants totalling £1m in support of meeting the VAT costs of the construction of the Bomber Command Memorial in Green Park. £204,000 of this was awarded through the DCMS Memorial Grant Scheme and £796,000 as a separate grant. In 2012/13, DCMS also awarded a grant of £200,000 to the Bomber Command Association to support the costs of the memorial’s unveiling ceremony.","created_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:28.546Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:28.546Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}