{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=9&parliament=2&state=published","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=2&state=published","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=1315&parliament=2&state=published","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=10&parliament=2&state=published","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=2&state=published"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":630,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/630.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":"Re Nationalise Railways","background":null,"additional_details":"Sign this petition if you would like the railways across Britain to be re nationalised and merged into a single organisation.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12211,"created_at":"2011-07-30T20:01:56.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:05:51.934Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-04T13:38:53.000Z","closed_at":"2012-08-04T13:38:53.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-07-30T20:01:56.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-01-01T10:24:18.280Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":51012,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/51012.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":"National defence Medal","background":null,"additional_details":"It is totally unfair that the British Government and the British Crown has awarded the National Defence Medal to the Australian and New Zealand military and ignored the British Military. The recent medal survey conducted by Sir John Holmes was in favour of the medal award to all past and present British Military and yet the Government have failed to act. They have acknowledged and issued medals to  Bomber Command and the North Atlantic veterans. Where is the British justice that does not recognise those past and present military personnel that wore the Kings/Queens uniform with pride and were prepare to die for our freedoms. I ask the Government to act NOW and treat the British exactly the same as the Australians and New Zealanders by awarding the National Defence Medal to the British Military past and present","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12045,"created_at":"2013-05-29T21:50:17.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:13:16.684Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-05-31T15:31:21.000Z","closed_at":"2014-05-31T15:31:21.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-05-29T21:50:17.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-10-30T03:53:10.090Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":14243,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/14243.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":"Identity cards for Military Veterans","background":null,"additional_details":"Other nations award service in the armed Forces with various rights, concessions and discounts. Entitlement is proved by a Veteran's ID card. Some nations will expand some of these to veterans from other countries.\r\nUK Veterans with an ID card will be able to take advantage.\r\nA Veteran's ID card has been talked about. It is time for action.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":12038,"created_at":"2011-08-23T06:19:31.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:07:55.987Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-31T14:53:23.000Z","closed_at":"2012-08-31T14:53:23.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-08-23T06:19:31.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-01-30T15:20:10.708Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":31519,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/31519.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":"Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana","background":null,"additional_details":"Codemn India for hanging Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana on 31st March 2012 at 9 am in Patiala Punjab jail. Bhai Bhai  Balwant Singh refuses to plea for clemency from the killers of the Sikh Nation. There has been no justice for the Sikh Genocide in 1984 by the Indian State. Bhai Balwant Singh has lost all faith in the Indian judiciary. India is not a democratic state has it crushes the voice of its minority citizens.`","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11584,"created_at":"2012-03-18T00:10:23.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:10:25.369Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2012-03-19T10:01:53.000Z","closed_at":"2012-06-19T09:01:53.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2012-03-18T00:10:23.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-04-28T02:38:18.359Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":5911,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/5911.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":"withdraw NHS Reform Bill","background":null,"additional_details":"The Secretary of State should keep the duty to “secure and provide comprehensive health care for all”.\r\n\r\nGP commissioning consortiums-clusters will  introduce charges, insurance fees, and contract commercial companies. These reforms are based on the privatised U.S. system: the most expensive and highly inequitable healthcare system. The  existing NHS is  almost the least costly healthcare system, with one of the best levels of access to care. (US Commonwealth Fund 2010 survey of 11 industrialised countries). The NHS should remain a Public Service.\r\nCompetition law should not apply to the NHS: healthcare is a collective public good.\r\nPeople created NHS free health care for all,in 1948. to replace private medicine only for those who could pay. Britain was then officially bankrupt.  Scotland and Wales have retained  publicly funded NHS and improved them. Proposals by RCN and BMA members would save money and improve care, without drastic cuts or privatisation.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11552,"created_at":"2011-08-06T13:56:09.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:06:39.014Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-08-15T11:39:10.000Z","closed_at":"2011-11-15T12:39:10.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-08-06T13:56:09.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-24T07:45:51.385Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":47102,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/47102.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":"Exempt the NHS from the US/EU Free Trade Agreement","background":null,"additional_details":"The NHS changes have been both promoted and fought as a national issue. However, they are actually part of the preparation for a corporate-interest US/EU Free Trade Agreement.\r\n\r\nHealthcare has been specifically mentioned as a form of trade to be included in the “harmonising regulation” of the Agreement, which aims to prevent “future trade barriers” in keeping with the demands of transnational corporations.\r\n\r\nIncluding the NHS in such a deal will effectively turn a globally-respected universal health service into a cash cow for transnational investors. Once such a trade deal has been agreed, the resulting privatisation will be irreversible.\r\n\r\nWe call on the government to ensure the NHS is exempted from the US/EU Free Trade Agreement as a condition of the UK’s agreeing to participate.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11459,"created_at":"2013-03-13T23:54:57.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:12:39.201Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-03-15T14:00:16.000Z","closed_at":"2013-09-15T13:00:16.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2013-03-13T23:54:57.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2013-06-03T20:26:16.136Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":[]}},{"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":17419,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/17419.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":"Raise Awareness & Funding for those affected by Brain Tumours.","background":null,"additional_details":"The government must take action, NOW, to IMPROVE AWARENESS AND FUNDING IN THE UK: Brain Tumour research is approximately 12 YEARS behind other types of cancer research.\r\n65% more women die from a brain tumour than from cervical cancer.\r\nBrain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of UK children .\r\n16,000 people each year in the UK are diagnosed with a brain tumour.\r\nMore people under 40 die of a brain tumour than from any other cancer.\r\nOnly 14% of those diagnosed with a brain tumour survive beyond 5 years (compared with 50% for all cancers)\r\n25% of all cancers spread to the brain •65% more women die from a brain tumour than from cervical cancer.\r\nEvery year there is a 4% increase in incidence.\r\nTHESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE FACTS:\r\nTHE GOVERNMENT MUST TAKE ACTION NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THOSE DIAGNOSED WITH A BRAIN TUMOUR.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11275,"created_at":"2011-09-18T12:46:58.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:08:24.106Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-09-19T09:21:05.000Z","closed_at":"2012-06-19T09:21:05.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-09-18T12:46:58.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-01-18T21:32:15.509Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":22631,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/22631.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":"Call on coalition government to deliver effective solutions to irresponsible dog ownership","background":null,"additional_details":"We call on the coalition government to bring forward a government Bill in the Queen’s Speech in 2012 that: consolidates and updates legislation concerning dog control; gives greater flexibility and discretion to enforcers and the courts; improves public safety and animal welfare; includes a genuine preventative effect; updates some offences; and reduces the costs of enforcement.  In particular we believe: the scope of legislation must be extended to cover all places, both public and private; all dogs should be permanently identified; legislation must focus on the owner’s actions or omissions rather than the type of dog; amendments must be made to ensure better canine welfare with a clear strategy to regularly review and ultimately phase out breed specific legislation; sufficient funding streams are essential for effective enforcement at a local level; and education and engagement should go hand in hand with any changes in the law to encourage more responsible dog ownership.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11232,"created_at":"2011-11-14T17:24:44.000Z","updated_at":"2017-06-21T15:09:10.635Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2011-11-17T15:13:16.000Z","closed_at":"2012-05-17T14:13:16.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2011-11-14T17:24:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2012-02-06T15:13:13.435Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":[]}}]}