COMMONS

Decisions of the Petitions Committee Tuesday 12 September 2017

14 September 2017

This week’s decisions included scheduling debates on e-petitions about the TV licence fee, eligibility for mortgages and proportional representation.

The Committee considered all e-petitions which had reached over 100,000 signatures, and those over 10,000 signatures which had received a government response, by Friday 8 September 2017.

Petitions which met these criteria after this date will be considered at the Committee’s next meeting on Tuesday 10 October 2017.

Petitions with over 100,000 signatures considered by the previous Committee

The Committee decided to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall on the motion “That this House has considered e-petition 170931 relating to the TV Licence fee” on Monday 20 November at 4.30pm.  Helen Jones MP, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, will lead the debate.

The Committee decided to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall on the motion “That this House has considered e-petition 186565 relating to eligibility for mortgages” on Monday 23 October at 4.30pm.  Paul Scully MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, will lead the debate.

The Committee decided to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall on the motion “That this House has considered e-petition 168657 relating to proportional representation” on Monday 30 October at 4.30pm.  Steve Double MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, will lead the debate.

The Committee 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.

There 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. 

There was also a debate on House of Lords Reform on 14 January 2016. 

There was a debate on 3 February 2017 in the House of Lords on the House of Lords Reform Bill 2016-17. 

Petitions with over 100,000 signatures which were not considered by the previous Committee

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.

There was a debate on 13 September 2016 on the fire risk from faulty tumble dryers.

There was also a debate on Whirlpool and the product safety system on 26 April 2017.

Petitions with over 10,000 signatures which have received a government response

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask if they can let us know when the results of the consultation referred to in the petition response has been published. We will then inform petitioners.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask that it be informed when the consultation mentioned in the Government’s response is launched. We will then let petitioners know.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask for a clearer response to the request made by the petition. In particular, the Committee noted that the response did not clearly address the petitioner’s request to lower the threshold for all NHS professionals, not just nurses. 

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask for a clearer response to the request made by the petition.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask for an update on the progress of the working group established in response to the Committee’s inquiry into an earlier petition on this subject, and the debate on that petition.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask to be kept updated on its work to establish legal rights of visiting drivers and its work to establish a Code of Practice for the sector, so that we can keep petitioners informed.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask for a clearer response to the petitioners’ request to remove bullies from schools and fine parents.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask for a clearer response to the petitioners’ concerns about the rights and safety of women when applying for this exemption.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask that it be informed when the public consultation takes place, so that it can inform petitioners.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to ask the Government to let us know when the consultation conclusions are published, so that we can let petitioners know.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee agreed to write to the Government to ask that it let us know when the review is published, so that we can let petitioners know.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

The Committee noted the Government’s response.

Image: Parliamentary copyright.

Share this page