{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=not_debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=not_debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=not_debated","next":null,"prev":null},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":169835,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/169835.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Call on the Government to urge Whirlpool UK to recall all faulty tumble dryers","background":"Following hundreds of fires caused by Whirlpool tumble dryers, we are concerned that Whirlpool have not recalled the approximately 5 million faulty dryers and have not changed their safety advice to customers, as recommended by the London Fire Brigade, who advise consumers to stop using the dryers.","additional_details":"There have been several hundred fires caused by Whirlpool tumble dryers, including on 19 August 2016, in a block of flats in Shepherds Bush, which left 26 homes uninhabitable. \r\n\r\nWe are concerned that manufacturers Whirlpool UK have failed to recall the faulty dryers, of which there are around 5 million in Britain, and have not changed their safety advice to consumers, despite the London Fire Brigade advising consumers to stop using the machines with immediate effect.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101980,"created_at":"2016-10-19T16:18:00.418Z","updated_at":"2017-09-13T17:04:58.161Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-01T10:15:42.551Z","closed_at":"2017-05-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-21T16:12:01.173Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-10T19:24:04.794Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.872Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-24T14:38:23.527Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-09-13T17:04:58.158Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-27","summary":"Government has set up a Working Group to look at options to improve Product Recalls and Safety, and is in close contact with the enforcing authority working with Whirlpool to rectify this issue.   ","details":"The Government places significant importance on the issue of product safety and considers that the safety of consumers should be the number one priority for manufacturers. Consumers can reasonably expect clear advice on how to safely use products in their home, and prompt and effective action should be taken if a safety issue is identified.  \n\n• The Government recognises the efforts Whirlpool has made to rectify the problem with its affected tumble dryers.  Of the 1.5 million affected appliances that consumers have registered with the manufacturer, 1.3m appliances have been modified or replaced and Whirlpool are resolving approximately 100,000 cases a month. However, the Government recognises that there remain many unregistered appliances in use across the UK.  \n\nMargot James, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility has written to Whirlpool and met representatives of the company, urging them to progress their programme of replacement and repair, and to improve communications with consumers on this issue.  The Minister has, in particular, raised concerns about reaching out to those consumers with an affected machine who have not yet signed up for a repair or replacement.   \n\nProduct safety legislation in the UK is enforced by Local Authority Trading Standards departments.  The Government is in close contact with Peterborough City Council Trading Standards department who, as the lead regulator in this matter, have access to the most relevant information to provide a full assessment of the risk posed by the affected machines.  Peterborough Trading Standards have taken enforcement action, issuing Whirlpool with a ‘notice to warn’ that requires the company to warn consumers not to use the affected appliances until they have been modified.  The two organisations are currently working together to ensure compliance.\n\nMore generally, in October last year, the Government announced the establishment of a new Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety to look at further options to improve the safety of white goods and the recalls system. The Working Group aims to build on the good work of the Recall Review Steering Group, which was established following the Lynne Faulds-Wood review into product recalls.  \n\nThe Working Group brings together key stakeholders from a range of trade associations, product safety experts, the fire service and trading standards professionals.  The Chair is Neil Gibbins – former Deputy Chief Fire Officer for Devon and Somerset - who has a long and proven track record in fire safety and has worked with the Government and other stakeholders on the Regulators Excellence Forum.  \n\nThe Group has been tasked to develop credible recommendations to ensure that the system works well for everyone.  In particular, the Minister has asked the Group to consider and develop options around:\n• the causes of fire in white goods and the steps we can take to reduce them;\n• ways to improve the capture and use of data relating to faulty electrical goods;\n• the value of marking white goods to preserve their identification through fire;\n• registration of electrical products at the point of sale;\n• a code of practice for product recalls including the peer review of risk assessments; \n• improving the information available to consumers and the role of consumer education.\n\nThe Working Group passed its initial recommendations for propriety action for the Government to the Minister in December 2016.  The five recommendations are:\n• greater co-ordination of product safety recalls and enforcement at the national level;\n• developing Primary Authority Partnerships as a means of increasing access to helpful, practical advice for businesses and ensuring effective relationships between businesses and their lead regulating body;\n• developing a Code of Practice on managing effective correction action including recalls;\n• government support for AMDEA’s ‘Register my Appliance’ as a means to ensure consumers are informed of relevant safety issues for products they have bought;\n• undertaking research into consumer behaviour to understand how best to encourage consumers to engage with a corrective action when a problem is identified with a product.\n\nThe Group is continuing to develop an action plan and will provide a final report to the Minister in March.  \n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.870Z","updated_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.870Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated in Parliament. \r\n \r\nThere was a debate on 13 September 2016 on the fire risk from faulty tumble dryers.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-13/debates/BC9CE4E0-44BD-489F-ACA1-3784C3042190/FaultyTumbleDryers(FireRisk) \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5ad0cd3c-06cd-4e3f-b6a2-0a9c6d62b6f0?in=18:38:53 \r\n \r\nThere was also a debate on Whirlpool and the product safety system on 26 April 2017.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here:  https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-04-26/debates/36405B15-798E-4CF6-9C27-3EC0D3BC7D87/WhirlpoolProductSafetySystem \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/17a8cdd3-f391-49c2-83a1-4e4dd1f3c363 \r\n \r\n \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":170686,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/170686.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Replace the unelected House of Lords with a publicly elected body","background":"The House of Lords is being abused by our elected officials by filling it with cronies. It costs our taxpayers around £100 million a year (probably much more) The House of Lords is the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy. It is surpassed in size only by China’s National People’s Congress.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":128210,"created_at":"2016-10-30T11:32:10.760Z","updated_at":"2017-09-13T17:03:49.987Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-02T18:49:40.766Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-30T13:07:55.795Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-01T11:52:54.113Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-08T16:57:49.211Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-04T15:55:37.770Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-09-13T17:03:49.985Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-08","summary":"The Government is clear that comprehensive reform of the Lords is not a priority in this Parliament. However, we believe that its size should be addressed.","details":"The House of Lords is a revising chamber, which plays an important role in scrutinising, checking and challenging the work of the House of Commons. \n\nMembers are appointed from a wide range of backgrounds in order to carry out its work effectively.   Nominations for membership of the House, are vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), an independent advisory public body.\n\nThe majority of the Members of the House of Lords do not receive a salary and may elect to claim a daily or reduced daily allowance for each day that they attend.   Since 2010, the cost of the House of Lords to has fallen in real terms by 14%. The details of the cost of running the House of Lords are published in their annual reports which can be found at:  \nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/house-lords-administration/how-the-lords-is-run/business-and-financial-information/business-plans-annual-reports-and-accounts/\n\nWhile comprehensive reform is not a priority in this Parliament, the Government recognises the importance of addressing the size of the House of Lords.  In the last Parliament, the House showed it could take forward incremental measures - such as allowing peers to retire and enabling peers to be expelled for non-attendance or serious misconduct. More than 50 peers have retired since the facility was introduced. Where there are further measures that can command consensus from across the House, the Government would welcome working with peers to look at how to take them forward. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2017-02-08T16:57:49.209Z","updated_at":"2017-02-08T16:57:49.209Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated in Parliament. \r\n \r\nThere was a debate in the House of Commons on House of Lords Reform and the size of the House of Commons on 19 October 2016.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-19/debates/CA0685E2-6A97-43EE-8524-94C27A53AB25/HouseOfLordsReformAndSizeOfTheHouseOfCommons \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/449d3e9a-1610-423f-8501-a72e4e9bc214?in=16:37:00 \r\n \r\nThere was also a debate on House of Lords Reform on 14 January 2016.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-14/debates/16011449000002/HouseOfLordsReform \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/40685492-62b9-4b9b-893c-b0d3d1be401d?in=14:34:39 \r\n  \r\nThere was a debate on 3 February 2017 in the House of Lords on the House of Lords Reform Bill 2016-17.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-02-03/debates/5C2A9531-295E-4622-B066-6B0ED5E3857E/HouseOfLordsReformBill(HL) \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/9ce057aa-7e26-4524-a143-92de268f68ef?in=11:48:19 \r\n \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":173574,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/173574.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Air-drop life saving aid into the starving cities in Syria.","background":"As you may be aware, the situation in Syria has become critical this week. Aid is being blocked from reaching major cities, Russian and Assad forces have heavily increased their air strikes, targeting and destroying the only remaining hospital in Eastern Aleppo. The time to act is now. ","additional_details":"After attending an APPG friends of Syria discussion in the Houses of Parliament today, Raed Saleh, Head of Syrian Civil Defense informed us that within 20 days, a quarter of the people trapped in Aleppo will have starved to death, 100,00 of them are children. Aid has been blocked and bombing has increased. British planes use the airspace above these cities on their coalition operations. Use this advantage to drop vital aid to the people below. There is no excuse not to act immediately. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":146452,"created_at":"2016-11-22T20:38:56.656Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:22:34.572Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-25T18:50:59.037Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-22T21:44:11.206Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-30T18:07:28.926Z","government_response_at":"2017-01-05T12:07:55.195Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-14T20:40:33.772Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-01-11T17:52:24.922Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-01-05","summary":"What is happening in Aleppo is a tragedy caused by the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran.   We will continue to work with key international partners and the UN to help the people of Syria. ","details":"The UK Government is deeply concerned about the appalling humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding in eastern Aleppo.  We are painfully aware through our many contacts on the ground of how dire and desperate the situation is there, as well as for the 587,000 people besieged by the regime in other towns in Syria.  \n\nThat is why this Government has considered the option of airdrops very carefully.  However, as the Foreign Secretary, told the House of Commons on 13 December, we came reluctantly to the conclusion that airdrops over Syria would pose too great a risk in current circumstances.  The Syrian regime has a Russian-provided comprehensive integrated air defence system designed to deny unauthorised use of Syria air space.  Russia has deployed its most advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles in Syria.  There is also a very significant risk of attack by some groups on the ground, including Daesh and al-Qaeda, who may see benefit in shooting down an aid flight. Other aerial options for delivering aid, including by drones, would also run up against these challenges.\n\nBy far the best way of delivering the large amount of humanitarian assistance that is required would be by road, by trusted and neutral humanitarian partners who can ensure it gets to those who need it most. The UN has humanitarian supplies ready to reach besieged areas.   The regime and its allies could decide in a moment to allow aid in. \n\nAll International Syria Support Group (ISSG) members committed to use their influence with parties on the ground to secure access for aid convoys across Syria, including Russia and Iran.  They are uniquely placed to use their influence to ensure the regime meets its obligations and we are lobbying both governments to fulfil their ISSG commitments.  The Foreign Secretary raised our concerns when he spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on 22 November.  On 7 December, the Prime Minister, along with five of our closest partners, issued a statement making clear that there must be no impunity for those found to be committing war crimes and calling for Russia and Iran to use their influence with the Syrian regime to protect people and allow aid in.\n\nWe are clear that the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the wider international community need to do everything they can to make protection of civilians the highest priority, and to do everything in their power to enable aid access to besieged areas across Syria.  We therefore continue to exert multilateral diplomatic pressure for humanitarian access to be opened up across Syria.  Emergency sessions of the Security Council were held at the UK and France’s request on 30 November and 13 December to discuss Aleppo.  In his most recent intervention our Ambassador to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, pressed for the regime’s pitiless assault to stop and for the UN to be allowed access to help civilians on the ground.  Russia has blocked meaningful action in the UN Security Council, vetoing six UN Security Council resolutions, including one on 6 December calling for a seven day ceasefire to allow the UN to get desperately needed aid to the civilians of besieged eastern Aleppo.  \n\nOver the five years of the Syrian conflict one of our priorities has been to address the humanitarian situation through our support to international humanitarian agencies and Syrian civil society organisations.  We have pledged £2.3 billion in response to the Syria crisis, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  This makes the UK the second largest bilateral humanitarian donor after the US.  We have also given £32.5 million of support since 2013 to Syrian Civil Defence, which has done so much to save lives and to put a spotlight on the plight of civilians caught up in this conflict.\n\nWe will continue to do all in our power to help the people of Syria.  We continue to work closely with international partners to increase pressure on those involved in this abhorrent conflict. We will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to get humanitarian assistance to besieged and hard to reach communities in Syria.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-01-05T12:07:55.192Z","updated_at":"2017-01-05T12:07:55.192Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons. \r\n\r\nThere was an emergency debate on 13 December about international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria. You can find out more about this debate, and watch the video or read a transcript, here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/december/emergency-debate-international-action-to-protect-civilians-in-aleppo-and-syria/\r\n\r\nThere was also an emergency debate on 11 October about the humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo and Syria. You can find out more about this debate, and watch the video or read a transcript, here:\r\n\r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/october/emergency-debate-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-aleppo-and-syria/\r\n\r\nIn making its decision, the Committee has also taken into account the current situation in Syria. The Government response to the petition says that the Government has reluctantly concluded that airdrops over Syria would pose too great a risk in the current circumstances. The Government explains that: “the Syrian regime has a Russian-provided comprehensive integrated air defence system designed to deny unauthorised use of Syria air space. Russia has deployed its most advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles in Syria. There is also a very significant risk of attack by some groups on the ground, including Daesh and al-Qaeda, who may see benefit in shooting down an aid flight.” In the light of this, the Committee believes that the time for a debate on airdrops of aid has passed. \r\n\r\nFor these reasons, the Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. The Committee would, however, look favourably on future petitions calling for action to address the humanitarian crisis in Syria, if they have substantial public support.\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":173199,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/173199.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)","background":"A bill allowing UK intelligence agencies and police unprecedented levels of power regarding the surveillance of UK citizens has recently passed and is awaiting royal assent, making it law. \r\n\r\nThis means it's not too late!\r\nThis is an absolute disgrace to both privacy and freedom and needs to stop!","additional_details":"With this bill, they will be able to hack, read and store any information from any citizen's computer or phone, without even the requirement of proof that the citizen is up to no good. \r\n\r\nThis essentially entitles them to free reign of your files, whether you're a law-abiding citizen or not!\r\n\r\nThis is sickening. It has only made it this far due to it being snuck past the population in relative secrecy. It isn't too late. We can fix this before the UK is turned into a dystopian surveillance state.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":212743,"created_at":"2016-11-20T00:52:32.484Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:22:25.831Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-23T11:56:18.361Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-20T01:32:34.242Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-24T22:22:03.669Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.559Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-26T16:44:33.030Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-12-06T16:47:34.931Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-29","summary":"The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.","details":"The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.\n\nThe Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.\n\nThe Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.\n\nSecond, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.\n\nThird, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.\n\nPublic scrutiny\n\nThe Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.\nThe Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.\n\nThe Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.\n\nA revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time. \n\nThe Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes. \n\nPrivacy and Oversight\n\nThe Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy. \n\nA new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.\nThe safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.557Z","updated_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.557Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons.  \r\n\r\nThe Investigatory Powers Bill was debated on many occasions in Parliament before it became law. You can read all the debates here: \r\nhttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html \r\n\r\nBefore it was introduced into Parliament, the Bill was investigated by a Committee of MPs and Members of the House of Lords, who heard evidence and produced a report with recommendations about the Bill. You can find out about the work of that Committee here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-investigatory-powers-bill/\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":168663,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168663.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of fireworks to the public and only approve organised displays.","background":"Every year 1000's of people are hurt, burnt, maimed and even lose their lives through accidents involving fireworks.\r\nEvery year people are terrorised by the misuse of fireworks.\r\nEvery year animals are hurt and traumatised by fireworks.\r\nBan them please.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":168160,"created_at":"2016-10-06T14:50:30.633Z","updated_at":"2018-11-28T20:15:16.977Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-10T15:10:40.242Z","closed_at":"2017-04-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-06T15:09:03.033Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-29T07:22:04.779Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.090Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-06T17:56:26.632Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-17T16:39:53.052Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-14","summary":"Government acknowledges genuine concerns about the use and, the misuse, of fireworks. Legislation restricts the sale of fireworks and controls their use, and we have no plans to extend this further.","details":"The government recognises the concerns raised about the use of fireworks by the public, particularly the potential distress caused by the use of noisy fireworks to pets, livestock and the public, and injuries caused by accidents and the misuse of fireworks.\n\nMany individuals enjoy being able to hold private fireworks displays at home, and have a sensible and responsible attitude to their use.  Indeed, the majority of the public who use fireworks do so in a safe and considerate way; it is only an anti-social minority that uses them dangerously and inconsiderately. \n\nWhile members of the public can hold private firework displays at any time of the year, they are subject to strict curfews which prevent fireworks being used after 11pm, except on a limited number of specific nights of the year around the traditional celebrations of 5th November, New Year, Chinese New Year and Diwali when they can be used up to midnight (5th November) or 1am (New Year, Chinese New Year and Diwali). \n\nRetailers are restricted to selling fireworks for limited periods around these four traditional occasions, unless they have a valid licence specifically allowing all year round sales.\n\nThere is maximum noise level of 120 decibels on fireworks sold to the public, and local authorities have powers to deal with excessive firework noise.  There is also a prohibition on setting off fireworks in a public place, enforceable by the police with tough sanctions for non-compliance.\n\nThere is government-sponsored advice and guidance to support the responsible and considerate use of fireworks on the Safer Fireworks website.  \n\nWhile any firework-related injury is a cause for concern, the number of injuries are significantly lower than suggested.  Furthermore, the latest official statistics, demonstrate that there is a downward trend in hospital admissions in England (arising from the discharge of fireworks) with 28% decrease between 2010 and 2014/15, when there were 114 admissions.\n\nThe government will continue to focus on reducing accidents and nuisance by encouraging industry, retailers and others to promote responsible use through guidance and public education.  We urge those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly where they are proposing to let off fireworks in the vicinity of animals, especially livestock, where they should notify owners of livestock nearby of their plans.\n\nThe government considers these controls effectively manage and reduce the level of risk posed by the public use of fireworks, and that to bring in further restrictions would be detrimental to an important British tradition reflecting our history and multi-culturalism.  There are no plans at the moment to place further limitations on their use.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.088Z","updated_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.088Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons.\r\n \r\nThere was a debate on Monday 6 June on a petition that called for restrictions on the use of fireworks. The Committee has therefore decided not to schedule a debate on this subject again, because it is only a few months since the last debate. \r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here:\r\nhttp://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/be872a6a-721c-4dec-9a5b-0c136d4d1501\r\n\r\nYou can read a transcript of the debate here:\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-06-06/debates/16060612000001/Fireworks\r\n\r\nYou can read the petition here:\r\nhttps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109702","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":120753,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/120753.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament to sit on Saturdays which should be a \"normal working day\" for MPs.","background":"Doctors have been told that Saturdays are part of the \"normal working\" week so that the Government can avoid paying them extra to do so. MPs should lead by example and meet on a Saturday too. With their new 6 day week MPs would get more Parliamentary work done. There should be no extra pay for this.","additional_details":"I am a GP and although not a junior Dr, believe that Politicians are at least as important if not more important than the people they lead and who they set policies for. As \"we are all in it together\", The policies and rules they set should apply to them as equally as for any members of the workforce.\r\n\r\nAs there is never enough time for Parliament to sit and weigh up all the pressing and important matters of Government, I think Parliament should sit 6 days/week with Saturday being part of their normal working week as it is proposed for other workers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":100353,"created_at":"2016-02-04T23:01:25.777Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:05.590Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-05T12:19:37.126Z","closed_at":"2016-08-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-05T09:57:34.138Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-07T22:11:35.297Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.510Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-19T08:52:31.676Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-09-06T16:41:47.192Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-22","summary":"MPs routinely work at weekends and are directly accountable to their electorate on how they perform their role.","details":"Attendance at the House of Commons is only one part of a Member of Parliament’s work. MPs spend time in their constituencies meeting residents, local businesses and organisations, listening to their concerns and helping them with issues. They are held to account by their electorate. \n\nThe rate of MPs’ pay, pensions and expenses, which is not linked to the numbers of hours they work, is set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). \n\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.508Z","updated_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.508Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. In making decisions about which petitions should be debated, the Committee takes into account whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons. \r\n \r\nThe subject of junior doctors’ contracts, including weekend working, was covered in a debate on e-petition 121262, relating to contract negotiations with the BMA. This debate was scheduled by the Petitions Committee on 21 March 2016.\r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/641c6fb7-a2a0-47e0-8b10-e3c99e765c2b\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here: http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-21/debates/16032112000001/BMA(ContractNegotiations)\r\n\r\nThere have also been several debates and statements in the House of Commons about junior doctors’ contracts in recent months. Most recently, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement on 5 September 2016 about proposed industrial action by junior doctors, during which the issue of doctors’ pay for Saturday working was raised. \r\n\r\nYou can watch the statement here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/1aabe153-edf0-49eb-b986-35b025570b4d?in=18:26:22\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here:  http://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-09-05/debates/16090515000001/JuniorDoctorsIndustrialAction \r\n\r\nThe Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website: http://www.parliament.uk/petitions-committee/role\r\n\r\nYou can follow the Petitions Committee on Twitter: @HoCpetitions ","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":109473,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/109473.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"SAVE OUR NHS STOP PRIVATISATION\r\nSAVE EALING HOSPITAL Publicly Funded & Provided","background":"Save Ealing Hospital Community Action Group will create community awareness against closure of vital public services. Look after our NHS \"Publicly Funded\" & \"Publicly Provided\" where everyone matters. Don't put profit before nation health stop \"practice-based commissioning\". ","additional_details":"The NHS is being privatised bit by bit, and patients are already suffering. Community in Ealing Southall is deeply angered by the decision to close the Maternity Wing, followed by Children’s Ward & A&E. Community has protested through all possible means. The protests and petitions have now culminated in a peaceful occupation at the Maternity Wing Area as well as other forms of protests. Protests are growing and the anger is reaching boiling point amongst thousands of members of the community.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":4408,"created_at":"2015-09-27T11:18:42.951Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:52.283Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-12T21:14:28.492Z","closed_at":"2016-04-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-27T21:10:21.872Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-23T21:02:26.641Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-22T10:28:41.784Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-07T12:37:06.395Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T16:41:53.771Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-22","summary":"The changes that are taking place to NHS services in Ealing are designed to improve the quality of care, including maternity and paediatric care, for local people and are being led by clinicians.  ","details":"The changes that are taking place to NHS services across north-west London, including those at Ealing Hospital, are being implemented by the local NHS under the reconfiguration programme Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF). Reconfiguration will only take place when it is clear that patients will benefit.\n\nThe local NHS, which has been the driver for change, is clear that the changes taking place under SaHF are about improving healthcare for the residents of north-west London.  The benefits include:  \n• improved consultant cover in A&Es; \n• better access to GPs; and \n• increased community services so more people can be treated closer to their homes.\n\nFollowing the closure of Ealing Hospital’s maternity birthing unit on 1 July 2015, care of all women booked at Ealing was safely transferred, with the majority of women being rebooked to their first preferred alternative hospital.  \n\nThe changes to maternity services will enable all hospital trusts in north-west London to provide significantly more consultant-led care than was previously the case, working closer towards the London quality standard for obstetric units to provide 24/7 consultant cover, 365 days a year. \n\nThese changes have enabled the NHS to improve maternity care for women across north-west London by improving the midwife to birth ratio and increasing continuity of midwife care. \n\nIt is proposed that inpatient paediatric services will move from Ealing Hospital on 30 June 2016 into five other hospital sites in north-west London, all of which will significantly expand their capacity by either increasing their number of inpatient beds or increasing the size of their paediatric A&E units.  There will also be more senior doctors on site for longer hours, seven days a week, and/or more paediatric nurses.\n\nHowever, nearly three quarters of existing children’s services will continue on the Ealing Hospital site and elsewhere in the borough. \n\nThese changes will ensure that children receive consistently high quality seven-day care, with more specialist senior doctors available to treat children for longer times.  This will improve the quality of clinical care and patient experience, and help get children back to health more quickly.\n\nEaling Hospital is being developed as a local hospital designed for the future health needs of the local population and will retain an A&E Department appropriate to a local hospital.\n\nThe Government is clear that the reconfiguration of front line health services is a matter for the local NHS.  Services should be tailored to meet the needs of the local population.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-02-22T10:28:41.778Z","updated_at":"2016-02-22T10:28:41.778Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall as the number of dates available for debates is limited, and there are other ways in which MPs could seek a debate on this local issue. \r\n \r\nThe Petitions Committee is not the only way of getting a House of Commons debate on the subject of a petition. MPs could still try to get time for a debate on this subject, if they wish to do so. There are many ways in which MPs can seek time for debates: individual MPs can apply for debates at the end of the day in the main Chamber, or for debates in Westminster Hall (the second debating Chamber of the House of Commons).   Backbenchers can ask the Backbench Business Committee for time for a debate, either in the main Chamber of the House of Commons or in Westminster Hall. The Government and the Opposition parties also have the power to schedule debates.  \r\n \r\nIf you want a debate on this subject, you could write to your local MP about it. You can use this page to find out how to contact your MP: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":126128,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/126128.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Call on David Cameron to act to protect our steel industry & recall Parliament","background":"David Cameron must take immediate action to act to protect the steel industry and the core of manufacturing in Britain. Join me in calling for Parliament to be recalled to hold the Government to account as an urgent priority","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":153679,"created_at":"2016-03-30T10:28:11.992Z","updated_at":"2017-11-01T10:02:38.902Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-30T13:32:45.618Z","closed_at":"2016-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-30T11:29:20.066Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-30T15:49:06.688Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-08T10:24:32.899Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-31T09:15:12.201Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T13:11:33.539Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-08","summary":"Global economic conditions mean this is a very difficult time for the steel industry and the workforce and communities affected. Government is doing all it can to ensure UK steel has a viable future.","details":"The UK steel sector is facing unparalleled global economic conditions.  Around the world, production of steel is 30 per cent higher than demand.  In China alone, excess steel capacity is 25 times the UK’s entire annual production.  India, Indonesia and other emerging economies are ramping up production with ready supplies of raw materials and low-paid labour.  In Europe, demand has yet to return to pre-crash levels.  When unprecedented supply is met with sluggish demand, prices inevitably fall - the international price of steel has halved over the past 18 months.\n\nThese conditions have led to many companies having to take difficult commercial decisions including redundancies across the sector and the closure of the SSI steel plant in Teesside last year.  This issue is not just a UK issue.  Since 2008 there have been many plant closures across Europe, and the number of workers in European steel manufacturing has fallen by about 70,000.\n\nThe Government has been working hard with the industry to provide all the support we can. Back in October last year Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills convened a special Steel Summit in Rotherham, alongside industry, Scottish and Welsh governments and unions.  Through three Minister-led Working Groups we have been working with the sector to tackle key industry asks.  This is now being taken forward through the Steel Council which had its first meeting on 2 March and will be meeting again soon to discuss recent developments.\n\nTo date we have paid over £160 million to steel companies and other Energy Intensive Industries (EIIs) to compensate for the cost of climate change-related energy costs, including more than £50 million to Tata.  Following state aid clearance in December we have made the first payments under the latest scheme.  We are also going further, as announced at Autumn Statement, we plan to exempt EIIs from renewable energy costs.  This will save the steel industry over £400m by the end of this Parliament.  We have also secured flexibility over the implementation of EU emissions regulations; this will save the steel industry millions of pounds.\n\nLast year we published new procurement guidance for central Government Departments, this ensures that social and economic issues are taken into account when Government procures steel.  We are the first Government in the EU to take advantage of this flexibility. We have now gone further and extended this guidance across the entire public sector and will setting up a list of approved steel suppliers.  We also continue to work with all UK steel companies to ensure that they have maximum visibility of the public procurement pipeline.\n\nWe must remember that many of the issues facing the UK steel industry are international and therefore require an international response.  This is why Sajid Javid asked for and secured an extraordinary meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council to coordinate a continent-wide approach.  We voted in favour of anti-dumping measures on wire rod and on steel pipes in July and October last year.  We have lobbied successfully for an EU investigation into cheap imports of Reinforcing Steel Bar (‘rebar’) and in February we voted in favour of measures on rebar and cold-rolled products.  We also continue to press for the speeding up of trade defence investigations.  Although it is too early to tell what the impact of the duties will be, signs are promising for measures imposed in January; imports of rebar in January 2016 were 99% down on January 2015.\n\nThe Government recognises that this is a difficult time for the workers and communities affected by the current crisis, including in many areas where the steel sector makes up a substantial part of local employment.  Our immediate focus is to help those who have lost their jobs back into work as quickly as possible.  We have set aside up to £90m of support packages, and are working with Taskforces in Scunthorpe, Rotherham, Scotland and Wales to ensure we are offering all possible support to those affected.\n\nWhilst we are looking at all viable options and are not ruling anything out, we don't believe nationalisation is the right answer.  The world’s best steel companies all operate in the private sector and public ownership of steel operations has all but disappeared in the EU.  We will support the steel industry where we reasonably can but Government ownership of the steel industry, or any part of it, will not raise prices or increase demand for steel.\n\nThe Government is doing all it can to ensure a sustainable future for UK steel.  Ministers wrote to MPs to update them during recess and will continue to hold briefings to update representatives of other parties on the situation.  Our focus is on finding a long-term sustainable future for steel-making at Port Talbot and across the UK.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-04-08T10:24:32.894Z","updated_at":"2016-04-08T10:25:52.380Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the House of Commons debated the UK steel industry on 12 April, following an application from Angela Eagle MP for an emergency debate. \r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d1cd4828-eacb-4afe-b313-9e9c4d63d2e8?in=12:51:40\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here: https://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2016-04-12/debates/16041234000002/UKSteelIndustry","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":124747,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/124747.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a public inquiry and a referendum over turning all schools into academies","background":"The government has announced that every school in England will become an academy. This was not in their manifesto and is therefore a completely undemocratic move. ","additional_details":"There is growing evidence that academies underperform & serious questions about their financial oversight. Buildings & land are being handed over to unaccountable orgs. Once they are transferred there is no legal mechanism to get them back. Before all schools become academies we demand the government holds a full public inquiry - that takes into account educational research and the views of teachers, parents and students - followed by a referendum in order to show that they have a mandate. \r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":156599,"created_at":"2016-03-16T00:11:25.398Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:39.383Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-16T16:13:34.334Z","closed_at":"2016-09-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-16T00:40:06.302Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-16T23:25:19.194Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-06T13:24:31.336Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-20T14:00:59.985Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T13:07:47.674Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-06","summary":"We have listened to feedback, and revised our plans; we will not be introducing blanket legislation but will continue to reaffirm our determination to see all schools become academies. ","details":"Since the launch of this petition, the Government has listened to feedback from teachers, school leaders and parents, as well as MPs. It is clear from those conversations that the impact academies have in transforming young people’s life chances is widely accepted and that more schools are keen to embrace academy status. As a result of these conversations the Government has decided, while reaffirming our continued determination to see all schools become academies in the next six years, that it is not necessary to bring legislation to bring about blanket conversion of all schools to achieve this goal.  \n\nThe Government will continue to require underperforming schools to convert to academy status, and to support good schools to convert and take the lead in supporting other schools as part of multi-academy trusts (MATs), In addition the Government will bring forward legislation to convert schools in the worst performing local authority areas, and where local authorities do not have the capacity to continue maintaining their schools\n\nAs part of the Government’s commitment to deliver real social justice, our reforms have made a remarkable difference to education in this country, with record numbers of children now being taught in good or outstanding schools. However, there is still more to do.\n\nThousands of schools have already chosen to become academies and we will continue to encourage high-performing maintained schools to put forward applications. We believe that good leaders are best placed to raise standards and improve outcomes for children – by running schools and groups of schools, recruiting and retaining high quality teachers, sharing their expertise to support other schools, and working together in MATs, while being held to account for rigorous, well-measured outcomes. \n\nSchools that have chosen to convert to academy status are obtaining better GCSE results and are more likely to be rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. 2015 results show primary, sponsored academies open for two years have improved their results, on average, by 10 percentage points since opening - double the rate of improvement in LA maintained schools over the last two years.\n\nAs Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) set out in the latest Ofsted annual report, academisation can lead to rapid improvements. In his letter of 10th March to the Secretary of State, HMCI confirmed his belief that it is right to give more autonomy to the front line and that there are some excellent MATs that have made remarkable progress in some of the toughest areas of the country.\n\nWe expect the majority of schools to join trusts or small local clusters, pupils. MATs are a stronger form of school body than those available to maintained schools, with a single point of accountability. There are many benefits for schools in joining a MAT, including that they can spend less on administration and so invest more in teachers; there are better options for staff development, recruitment and retention; and they can be more responsive to the individual needs of pupils.\n\nAcademy trusts are free from local and central government intervention so long as performance across education, finance and governance is above certain thresholds. Schools won’t be allowed to linger on, under-performing for many years. Where evidence is found that the school is coasting or failing, government will intervene promptly; however, trusts performing well will be left to run their schools as they see fit.  \n\nThe vast majority of schools which have become academies are now thriving. In the minority of academies that underperform, swift action has been taken to secure improvements. In total, we have issued 159 formal notices to underperforming academies and free schools and have moved to change the sponsor in 144 cases of particular concern (as at 4 July).\n\nThe Education and Adoption Act ensures we have powers to hold all academies to account where they do not meet the high standards we expect and create a more consistent framework for tackling underperformance.\n\nAcademy trusts have statutory responsibilities under company and charity law and also explicit accountabilities to Parliament. They must prepare financial statements each year which are audited by an independent external auditor. This means they receive greater scrutiny than most other types of schools.  These statements are published, allowing the wider public the chance to hold academy trusts to account.\n\nNo school acquires the freehold of its land as a result of becoming an academy. Most academies will continue to occupy their land on a lease which gives the individual school no powers to sell the land or change its use. Some schools already own their own land before they become academies, and they will continue to hold it. However no-one can sell or change the use of publicly funded education land or buildings without the Secretary of State’s permission.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-07-06T13:24:31.334Z","updated_at":"2016-07-06T13:24:31.334Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the House of Commons debated the Education White Paper, which includes the Government's policy on academies, on Wednesday 13 April. The subject for the debate was chosen by the Official Opposition (Labour). \r\n \r\nThis petition was “tagged” as relevant to the debate. This means that it was listed on the order paper (the agenda of the House of Commons) as being relevant to the debate.  \r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/c1a5c42c-9f3d-4458-83b5-d10063c3a731?in=16:15:10 \r\n\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here: https://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2016-04-13/debates/16041341000001/SchoolsWhitePaper","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":124702,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/124702.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap plans to force state schools to become academies.","background":"State schools are accountable to parents, the local community and to local authorities. By forcing schools to become academies the accountability will be to a trust and to accountants.  Her Majesty Chief Inspector of schools has concerns over education provided in academies and so should you. ","additional_details":"Government is choosing to ignore the evidence from the HMCI, the Education Select Committee and the Sutton Trust’s own Chain Effects report, which clearly demonstrates that academy status not only does not result in higher attainment but that many chains are badly failing their pupils, particularly their disadvantaged pupils.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":151403,"created_at":"2016-03-15T17:59:34.128Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:38.341Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-16T16:04:53.937Z","closed_at":"2016-09-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-15T19:17:02.638Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-16T22:00:32.703Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-06T13:22:02.646Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-21T10:06:18.864Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T13:07:15.984Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-06","summary":"We have listened to feedback, and revised our plans; we will not be introducing blanket legislation but will continue to reaffirm our determination to see all schools become academies. ","details":"Since the launch of this petition, the Government has listened to feedback from teachers, school leaders and parents, as well as MPs. It is clear from those conversations that the impact academies have in transforming young people’s life chances is widely accepted and that more and more schools are keen to embrace academy status. As a result of these conversations the Government has decided, while reaffirming our continued determination to see all schools to become academies in the next six years, that it is not necessary to bring legislation to bring about blanket conversion of all schools to achieve this goal. \n\nThe Government will continue to require underperforming schools to convert to academy status, and to support good schools to convert and take the lead in supporting other schools as part of multi-academy trusts. In addition, the Government will bring forward legislation to convert schools in the worst performing local authority areas, and where local authorities do not have the capacity to continue maintaining their schools\n\nAs part of the Government’s commitment to deliver real social justice, our reforms have already made a remarkable difference to education in this country, with over 1.4 million more young people in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. However, there is still more to do.\n\nIn academies, the best school leaders are free to innovate and run their schools how they choose. Schools don’t have to follow a single ‘right’ way of doing things determined elsewhere; each can develop different approaches that improve outcomes for their children and scale what works. Strong schools and leaders are able to spread their influence, and those which are struggling get the help they need. For example, sponsored academies have turned around some of the most challenging schools in some of the most deprived areas of the country to improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. \n\nWe expect the majority of schools to join trusts or small local clusters, pupils. Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) are a stronger form of school  body than those available to maintained schools, with a single point of accountability. There are many benefits for schools in joining a MAT, including that they can spend less on administration and so invest more in teachers; there are better options for staff development, recruitment and retention; and they can be more responsive to the individual needs of pupils.\n\nAll schools becoming academies presents a fundamental shift of power from local and central government, giving responsibility to our best school leaders. It assumes they know better than government what works for their own pupils. The most successful local heads running the oversubscribed schools to which every parent wants to send their child will be able to lead the education of more children. We want to build on this success so that every school can benefit from the autonomy and strong accountability of academy status. \n\nLike all schools, academy performance is completely transparent on Ofsted’s website and DfE’s performance tables – which have been re-designed to be easier to navigate and compare performance. We will go further and publish data on how well MATs are performing to show the value added by a MAT.  Schools should be primarily accountable to parents and governing boards; to make the accountability system more useful for parents and boards, as well as teachers and leaders, we will improve how we collect and disseminate data. Furthermore, all parents need a voice, and this Government is actually increasing academies’ engagement with parents - we will require every academy to put in place arrangements for meaningful engagement with all parents, and to listen to their views and feedback.\nIndeed, as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) set out in the latest Ofsted annual report, academisation can lead to rapid improvements. In his letter of 10th March to the Secretary of State about inspections of academies in MATs, HMCI confirmed his belief that it is right to give more autonomy to the front line and that there are some excellent MATs that have made remarkable progress in some of the toughest areas of the country.\n\nThe vast majority of schools which have become academies are now thriving. In the minority of academies that underperform, swift action has been taken– in total, we have issued 159 formal notices to underperforming academies and free schools and have moved to change the sponsor in 144 cases of particular concern (as at 4 July). \n\nThe Education and Adoption Act ensures we have powers to hold all academies to account where they do not meet the high standards we expect and create a more consistent framework for tackling underperformance.\n\nWe will ensure the continued growth of the academy programme, empowering frontline heads and school leads and transforming even more children’s education.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-07-06T13:22:02.644Z","updated_at":"2016-07-06T13:22:02.644Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the House of Commons debated the Education White Paper, which includes the Government's policy on academies, on Wednesday 13 April. The subject for the debate was chosen by the Official Opposition (Labour). \r\n \r\nThis petition was “tagged” as relevant to the debate. This means that it was listed on the order paper (the agenda of the House of Commons) as being relevant to the debate.  \r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/c1a5c42c-9f3d-4458-83b5-d10063c3a731?in=16:15:10 \r\n\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here: https://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2016-04-13/debates/16041341000001/SchoolsWhitePaper","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":122946,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/122946.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a General Election in 2016","background":"The General Public were purposefully misguided before the 2015 election.The lies David Cameron told before the election have now been widely acknowledged as such, and it is only reasonable that the public should be allowed to vote with full knowledge about his true agenda in 2016. ","additional_details":"Cameron has reneged on numerous promises he made before the 2015 election. It is evident that the education system and the NHS are being adversely affected by the ignorance of the government and Prime Minister. I should add that in proposing this petition I was informed that a similar petition already exists; however, it doesn't appear that this is actually the case: The one that came up as 'similar' has been rejected for reasons unknown to me. This is, therefore, a new petition.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":177014,"created_at":"2016-02-25T13:34:12.196Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:57.053Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-29T12:17:38.633Z","closed_at":"2016-08-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-27T17:53:13.201Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-05T19:34:11.242Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.710Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-09T17:00:25.545Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T10:48:22.406Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-14","summary":"The accusations made about the Government and Prime Minister in this petition are wrong, and the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act means no Government can call an early general election any more anyway.","details":"The Government and Prime Minister have never sought to mislead the public. Nonetheless, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which came into force in 2011 under the Coalition Government, removed the power to set the general election date, and therefore to call an early general election, from the Government and gave a power to the House of Commons to call an early general election in certain circumstances.\n\nAn early general election can only be called under the Act if either a motion (as worded in section 2(2) of the Act) that there shall be an early parliamentary general election is passed by the House of Commons with at least two thirds in favour of the motion; or if a motion of no confidence (as worded in section 2(4) of the Act) is passed by the House of Commons and the House does not pass a motion of confidence (as worded in section 2(5) of the Act) in the Government or an alternative Government within 14 days.  Aside from these triggers there is no way to replace the Government through an early General Election.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.706Z","updated_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.706Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because it doesn’t have the power to schedule a debate on the type of motion that could trigger a general election. \r\n \r\nThe Petitions Committee only has power to table general motions (using the form of words ‘That this House has considered e-petition [number] on [the subject of the petition]’). A debate on this petition, which asks for a debate to trigger a general election, cannot be started by a general motion. It needs a specific motion, as set out in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011.\r\n\r\nUnder this law, the House of Commons can trigger a general election only if it agrees to certain specific motions. Early elections can be held either:\r\n• if a motion saying that there should be an early general election is agreed either (a) by at least two-thirds of the whole House in a formal vote or (b) without division (a formal vote); or\r\n• if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.\r\nYou can find out more about how this law works here: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06111\r\n\r\nThis decision by the Committee doesn’t prevent MPs debating the type of motion that could trigger a general election, if they wish to do so, at another time, so long as they follow the steps set out in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.\r\n\r\nSince the Petitions Committee can only schedule general debates within which the House ‘considers’ a certain issue, it is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law.\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":124016,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/124016.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reverse the ESA disability benefit cut","background":"The House of Lords has been unable to stop a planned £30-a-week cut to disability benefits forced through by Government MPs. This will cripple those in receipt of these benefits, leaving many in literal poverty.\r\n\r\nThe government must reverse this decision. Lives are at risk.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":136890,"created_at":"2016-03-08T16:10:01.832Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:23.255Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-09T12:07:03.341Z","closed_at":"2016-09-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-08T18:26:24.247Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-09T20:53:21.494Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-22T13:06:30.119Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-16T00:04:06.377Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-22T18:37:39.142Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-22","summary":"We are committed to providing the right support to those with health conditions and disabilities. This change only affects new claims from April 2017 and no current claimants will be cash losers.","details":"In the Summer Budget 2015, we announced that, from April 2017, new Employment Support Allowance (ESA) claimants who are placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) will receive the same rate of benefit as those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). \n\nThis change only affects new claims made after that date and there will be no cash losers among those who are already in receipt of ESA. This reform affects those with limited capability for work. Those with the most severe work-limiting health conditions and disabilities, who are placed in the Support Group, will be completely unaffected by these changes.\n\nThe reason for implementing this reform is clear. The current system fails to provide the right support to help those with health conditions and disabilities towards and into work, and acts to trap people on welfare. We are committed to ensuring that people have the best support possible, and that is what these changes are about.\n\nThe recent record employment levels have benefitted many but have yet to reach those on ESA.  It is important to remember that whilst 1 in 5 JSA claimants move off benefit every month, only 1 in 100 of ESA WRAG claimants does so.  Those with health conditions and disabilities deserve better than this. \n\nIn addition to providing financial security for individuals, work often has a profound effect on people’s life chances and it is right that this Government does everything it can to provide better support to get people into work.  More than three-fifths (61 per cent) of those in the ESA WRAG say they want to work – and there is a large body of evidence showing that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing. \n\nThis change enables us to recycle money into providing practical support that will make a significant difference to the life chances of those in the WRAG. This new funding will be worth £60 million in 2017/18 rising to £100 million in 2020/21 and will support those with limited capability for work to move towards and into suitable employment. \n\nAs set out in the Budget 2016, the nature of this support is being influenced by a Taskforce of disability charities, employers, think tanks, provider representatives and local authorities. Furthermore, we are providing a further £15 million for the Jobcentre Plus Flexible Support Fund in 2017-18 to help claimants who have limited capability for work with the extra costs that can be involved in moving closer to the labour market and into work.\n\nThese changes are part of a wider reform to help support more disabled people and those with health conditions work and to remain in work. Over the coming year we will build the progress we have made in partnership with disabled people, their representatives, and healthcare professionals, using their insights to understand how the welfare system can work better with the health and social care systems.\n\nOur reforms are aimed at improving the quality of life of those in greatest need.  Again, it is worth noting that we spend around £50 billion every year on benefits to support people with disabilities or health conditions, which represents over 6 per cent of all Government spending. We are proud of that commitment and we are determined to ensure that those most in need continue to receive the support they require. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2016-03-22T13:06:30.114Z","updated_at":"2016-03-23T16:15:43.811Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because this subject has already been discussed and voted on in the House of Commons. \r\n \r\nThe changes to ESA were proposed in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which has been debated in both Houses of Parliament. In particular, on 2 March MPs debated and voted on House of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. This included an amendment on Employment Support Allowance, which was rejected. On 7 March the bill cleared its final parliamentary stage and it is now waiting to be signed into law.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the debates at every stage of the Bill here: \r\n \r\nhttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/welfarereformandwork.html \r\n \r\nYou can read the debate on 2 March here: \r\n \r\nhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160302/debtext/160302-0003.htm#16030293000001 \r\n \r\n \r\nThe Petitions Committee is not the only way of getting a House of Commons debate on the subject of a petition. MPs could still try to get time for a further debate on this subject, if they wish to do so. There are many ways in which MPs can seek time for debates: individual MPs can apply for debates at the end of the day in the main Chamber, or for debates in Westminster Hall (the second debating Chamber of the House of  \r\nCommons).   \r\n \r\nGroups of backbenchers can ask the Backbench Business Committee for time for debate, either in the main Chamber of the House of Commons or in Westminster Hall. The Government and the Opposition parties also have the power to schedule debates.  \r\n \r\nIf you want a debate on this subject, you could write to your local MP to let him or her know. You can use this page to find out how to contact your MP: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121152,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121152.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Consider a vote of No Confidence in Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary","background":"Mr Hunt recently gave totally inappropriate advice to Google conditions before seeking medical opinion. He referred to Paramedics as Ambulance Drivers and has caused the first Doctors strike in years of the NHS. Mr Hunt is destroying all staff morale in the NHS & will cause recruitment issues.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":339925,"created_at":"2016-02-10T04:45:28.735Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:15.438Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-11T16:56:37.583Z","closed_at":"2016-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-10T21:19:35.958Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T23:00:10.318Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-17T15:00:53.901Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-12T18:20:49.281Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-16T11:22:48.253Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-17","summary":"The latest staff survey showed  NHS staff engagement is at a 5 year high. We will continue to invest in and support NHS staff to help deliver safe, high quality patient care every day of the week.","details":"We know NHS staff work incredibly hard to provide outstanding patient care around the clock. Patient safety is the absolute priority for NHS staff and the Government.  That is why our manifesto committed to improve patient care across 7 days of the week, with a particular focus on emergency and urgent care at weekends. The current medical contracts were drawn up in the early 2000s, and there is widespread consensus that they now require reform, partly in order to support improvements in urgent and emergency weekend care through more modern and flexible contractual arrangements. We have been trying for 4 years to agree the necessary changes with the doctors’ trade union, the BMA. Sadly, despite undertaking 3 independent processes to try to reach a negotiated solution, it has not been possible. The contract we are therefore introducing was recommended by one of the NHS’ most successful and respected Chief Executives, Sir David Dalton. He was commissioned at the end of 2015 to lead negotiations on behalf of the NHS with authority to compromise on every issue under discussion. He successfully reached agreement with the BMA on approximately 90% of issues on the table, leaving the final unresolved issue of Saturday pay rates. The process Sir David undertook followed 2 previous independent processes. Last July the DDDRB published recommendations following representations from both sides. The BMA refused even to discuss their recommendations and balloted for strike action on the back of them. Last December the Government and NHS entered detailed discussions with the BMA through ACAS and agreed Heads of Terms to achieve a negotiated solution. Unfortunately, despite agreeing to discuss Saturday pay rates, the BMA reneged and refused to contemplate any compromise on this issue. Sir David advised that a negotiated solution to the outstanding contractual issues was impossible. He also advised that the health service now needs certainty, and as such the Government decided that the only plausible option was to press ahead with the introduction of new contracts. Changes will not be imposed on staff who currently have a contract of employment, but new terms will be offered as juniors enter or move through training and onto new contracts as current contracts expire. This is simply exercising a right that employers have when unable to reach agreement on changes with trade unions. It would not be practical or democratic to allow any trade union to exercise a veto over reforms that support the delivery of the elected Government’s manifesto commitments.The new contract is safer for patients and fairer for doctors. Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in one week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum consecutive nights will be reduced from 7 to 4; the maximum consecutive long days will be reduced from 7 to 5; and no doctor will ever be required to be rostered consecutive weekends. We will also introduce a new ‘Guardian’ role within every Trust with the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours.  These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.\n\nThe new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5pm, nights from 9pm to 7am, and all day on Sunday. Plain time hours will now be extended from 7am to 5pm on Saturdays. However the government was willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay and we have been: those working 1 in 4 or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%, higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff. It is also a higher premium than that available to fire officers, police officers or those in many other walks of life. None the less it does represent a reduction compared to current rates, necessary to ensure hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering. So because we do not want take home pay to go down for junior doctors, these changes will allow an increase of 13.5%. Three quarters of doctors will see a take home pay rise and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.\n\nWe recognise the negotiation process has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ wellbeing and quality of life that need to be addressed. These issues include inflexibility around leave, lack of notice about placements that can be a long way away from home, separation from spouses and families, and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. The Government has therefore asked Prof. Dame Sue Bailey, President of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to lead a review of measures outside the contract to improve morale of junior doctors. The Government has committed an extra £10billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services for patients across all 7 days of the week.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-17T15:00:53.898Z","updated_at":"2017-01-13T14:26:52.829Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because the Committee does not have the power to schedule debates on motions of no confidence, and the petition does not contain a specific request for action on policy. \r\n\r\nIt is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law, rather than a petition about an individual Minister. It is still open to MPs to seek time for a debate on this petition in the main House of Commons Chamber, if they wish to do so. However, debates on motions of no confidence are fairly rare.\r\n\r\nYou might be interested to know that the Petitions Committee has scheduled a debate on  21 March on an e-petition calling on Jeremy Hunt to resume contract negotiations with the BMA. You can read the petition and find out how to watch the debate here:\r\n\r\nhttps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121262","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":107516,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/107516.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated.","background":"In February 2015 Dr Shea, Nato’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, warned there would be IS jihadists on the refugee boats. IS also threatened to flood Europe with 500,000 jihadists.","additional_details":"Allowing uncontrolled immigration and taking in these refugees potentially endangers the entire UK population. At any other time in our history this would be tantamount to a declaration of war and borders would be closed.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571932/Islamic-State-jihadists-Middle-East-refugees-smuggle-Europe-Nato-chief\r\n\r\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":463501,"created_at":"2015-09-05T09:06:10.767Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:07.649Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-09T12:02:47.037Z","closed_at":"2016-03-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T09:37:36.590Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-14T13:26:37.536Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.858Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-14T16:06:05.759Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-02-17T18:22:58.647Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-24","summary":"The UK government will not close Britain’s borders. It will ensure access for legitimate travellers and trade whilst operating its borders securely to protect the public from the threat of terrorism.","details":"The UK government has no intention of closing Britain’s borders, as this would create more problems than it would solve. The UK remains ‘open for business’ for legitimate travellers and trade.  However, we continue to operate our borders securely and to enforce our immigration laws.  This includes carrying out 100% checks on arriving passengers in order to identify any criminal, security and immigration concerns.  Given recent events in Paris, Border Force has intensified checks on people, goods and vehicles entering the UK from the near continent and elsewhere, undertaking additional and targeted security checks against passengers and vehicles travelling to France via both maritime and rail ports and a number of airports across the country.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.855Z","updated_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.855Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided on 24 November 2015 not to schedule a debate on this petition, because there had already been a debate on 19 October (scheduled by the Petitions Committee) on a similar petition entitled “Stop allowing immigrants into the UK.”\r\n\r\nYou can watch the 19 October debate here: \r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2e5038-cbf0-4a43-bfc3-6a6deb279c4d\r\n\r\nYou can read a transcript here:\r\n\r\nhttps://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2015-10-19/debates/15101914000001/Immigration","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104471,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104471.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Vote no confidence in David Cameron","background":"The current Tory government has caused devastation for the poorest in society for the last 5 years. We cannot afford another 5 years of Tory rule, with the recent welfare reform that will cause nothing but immense poverty in the UK. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":199391,"created_at":"2015-07-21T10:34:08.042Z","updated_at":"2018-04-18T13:03:13.521Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T11:33:30.327Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-21T10:47:13.661Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-28T16:17:08.314Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-23T15:01:30.667Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-05T17:58:52.129Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-11-18T17:22:31.035Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-23","summary":"The Government’s reforms to welfare are focused on encouraging people to find and keep work, while developing a system that is fair, affordable and protects the most vulnerable in our society.","details":"The Government’s reforms to welfare are focused on encouraging people to find and keep work, while developing a system that is fair, affordable and protects the most vulnerable in our society. We know that work is the best route out of poverty and that is why we are building a strong economy and getting people into work. \n\nThe progress made over the past five years provides clear evidence that our approach is working. Since 2010, 2.25 million more people are in employment, the overall number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits has fallen by over 1 million, and we have the lowest number of workless households on record. \n\nWe are committed to driving real change and tackling the root causes of poverty - that’s why we are putting into law our new life chances measures on worklessness and educational attainment. These will ensure there is real action in the areas which will make the biggest difference to children in low income families, both now and in the future. \n\nThe Department for Work and Pensions offers a range of support in jobcentres across the UK, to help people into employment. This includes work placements, employer-led training, skills training, and help for promising entrepreneurs through the New Enterprise Allowance.\n\nThe introduction of Universal Credit marks a fundamental reform to welfare in this country. By combining six working-age benefits into one, Universal Credit simplifies the benefits system and ensures that work always pays. Compared to similar Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants, Universal Credit claimants spend twice as much time looking for a job, are 8 percentage points more likely to be in work, and earn more.  \n\nAs well as getting more people into work, the Government is also committed to helping those in work keep more of the money they earn. We have committed to increasing the Personal Allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in April 2016, and raising the higher rate threshold from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in April 2016. As a result of these changes, 29 million people will benefit and 570,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether. \n\nWe also increased the adult National Minimum Wage rate to £6.70 in October 2015 and from April 2016 workers over the age of 25 will be entitled to a National Living Wage of £7.20 per hour, which is forecast to rise to £9 by 2020.\n\nIn addition, the introduction of an improved childcare offer will help support parents into work. Working families will benefit from 30 hours of free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds from September 2017, and under Universal Credit from April 2016, claimants will get 85% of their childcare costs covered, up from 70% currently. \n\nTaken together, these reforms ensure that the right support and incentives are in place so that people are always better off in work rather than trapped on benefits. They will help the lowest paid workers to keep more of the money they earn, while ensuring we move towards a society of higher wages, lower taxes and lower welfare.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2015-12-23T15:01:30.664Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:27:10.037Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because the Committee does not have the power to schedule debates on motions of no confidence, and the petition does not contain a specific request for action on policy. \r\n\r\nIt is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law, rather than a petition about an individual Minister. \r\n\r\nIt is still open to MPs to seek time for a debate on this petition in the main House of Commons Chamber, if they wish to do so. However, debates on motions of no confidence are fairly rare. \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":105446,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105446.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Benjamin Netanyahu to be arrested for war crimes when he arrives in London","background":"Benjamin Netanyahu is to hold talks in London this September. Under international law he should be arrested for war crimes upon arrival in the U.K for the massacre of over 2000 civilians in 2014","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114122,"created_at":"2015-07-30T17:21:46.899Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:15.237Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-07T12:15:02.729Z","closed_at":"2016-02-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-30T18:24:11.318Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-09T20:02:34.067Z","government_response_at":"2015-08-21T12:56:03.381Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T05:40:02.520Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-20T11:29:57.060Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-08-21","summary":"Under UK and international law, visiting heads of foreign governments, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have immunity from legal process, and cannot be arrested or detained.","details":"The British Government has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as head of the Israeli Government, to visit the UK in September. Under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, including Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction.\n\nWe recognise that the conflict in Gaza last year took a terrible toll.  As the Prime Minister said, we were all deeply saddened by the violence and the UK has been at the forefront of international reconstruction efforts.  However the Prime Minister was clear on the UK’s recognition of Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. We condemn the terrorist tactics of Hamas who fired rockets on Israel, built extensive tunnels to kidnap and murder, and repeatedly refused to accept ceasefires.  Israel, like any state, has the right to ensure its own security, as its citizens also have the right to live without fear of attack.  \n\nThe UK consistently urged Israel to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, to exercise restraint, and to help find ways to bring the situation to an end.  The UK continues to urge the parties to give priority to reaching a durable solution for Gaza which addresses the underlying drivers of conflict, and to take the necessary practical steps to ensure Gaza’s reconstruction and economic recovery.\n\nWe welcome the fact that Israel is conducting internal investigations into specific incidents during Operation Protective Edge.  Where there is evidence of wrongdoing those responsible must be held accountable whatever their position in society.  Both parties must also demonstrate robust and credible internal investigations which are in line with international standards.  We have also encouraged the Israeli authorities, as we do all countries, to cooperate with the independent Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the preliminary examination into the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 13 June, 2014, whilst noting that Israel is not a State Party to the ICC.\n\nThe UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship, built on decades of cooperation between our two countries across a range of fields. Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the achievement of a two-state solution, based on 1967 borders.  We continue to believe that negotiations will be necessary in order to achieve this, and that both parties need to focus on steps that are conducive to peace.  The UK Government will reinforce this message to Mr Netanyahu during his visit.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2015-08-21T12:56:03.377Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:53:42.065Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee noted that the request made by this petition was something that the UK Government said it was not able to do under UK and international law.\r\n\r\nThe Committee agreed that, as this was not something the UK Government could do, it would not take any further action on the petition.\r\n\r\nIt would still be open to MPs who wanted a debate on this issue to find other opportunities, such as an application to the Backbench Business Committee.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}