{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=1&parliament=1&state=all","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?state=all","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=635&state=all","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&state=all","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":131215,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131215.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":"EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum","background":"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":4150262,"created_at":"2016-05-23T23:39:38.957Z","updated_at":"2020-02-07T11:13:34.091Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-25T11:19:56.925Z","closed_at":"2016-11-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-24T15:58:22.999Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T06:54:57.319Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.365Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T10:48:23.281Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-09-05","debate_outcome_at":"2016-09-06T09:02:15.389Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-08","summary":"The European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015, receiving overwhelming support from Parliament.  The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.","details":"The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015.  The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper.  The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.\r\n\r\nAs the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.  The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected.  We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.363Z","updated_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.363Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-09-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cb2f33f6-f9fe-463e-a6d5-40eca4b614c0","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":171928,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/171928.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":"Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom.","background":"Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.","additional_details":"Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales. Therefore during the term of his presidency Donald Trump should not be invited to the United Kingdom for an official State Visit.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":1863708,"created_at":"2016-11-09T13:13:40.310Z","updated_at":"2018-01-26T15:29:28.385Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-29T16:32:44.442Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-09T20:28:21.805Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T10:50:27.498Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.504Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T12:40:56.821Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-21T09:46:31.016Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-13","summary":"HM Government believes the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit. We look forward to welcoming President Trump once dates and arrangements are finalised.","details":"HM Government recognises the strong views expressed by the many signatories of this petition, but does not support this petition.\r\n\r\nDuring her visit to the United States on 27 January 2017, the Prime Minister, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, invited President Trump for a State Visit to the UK later this year. The invitation was accepted. This invitation reflects the importance of the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. At this stage, final dates have not yet been agreed for the State Visit.  \r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.502Z","updated_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.502Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20/debates/34847E5C-8B14-46E6-8251-AE99526CC011/PresidentTrumpStateVisit","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85c7c283-d353-4863-8628-3a012a80b2f5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":108072,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/108072.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":"Give the Meningitis B vaccine to ALL children, not just newborn babies.","background":"All children are at risk from this terrible infection, yet the Government plan to only vaccinate 2-5 month olds. There needs to be a rollout programme to vaccinate all children, at least up to age 11. Meningococcal infections can be very serious, causing MENINGITIS, SEPTICAEMIA & DEATH.","additional_details":"NHS.UK","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":823349,"created_at":"2015-09-09T17:27:00.200Z","updated_at":"2021-02-09T23:31:26.844Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-14T12:26:36.871Z","closed_at":"2016-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-11T07:08:33.793Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T00:05:29.066Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.676Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T21:32:14.741Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-04-25","debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-26T16:16:07.671Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-01","summary":"MenB vaccine is offered to infants, free on the NHS, at 2 months with further doses at 4 and 12 months. The programme, as advised by independent experts, offers protection to those at highest risk. ","details":"As the UK, we are proud to have been the first– and to date the only - country in the world to introduce a national, publicly-funded MenB immunisation programme for infants using the Bexsero vaccine. We are leading the world in offering children protection from this devastating disease.\r\n\r\nNational immunisation programmes are introduced on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the independent expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation\r\n\r\nJCVI reviewed all available evidence before it advised on eligibility for the Bexsero vaccine. It recommended that MenB immunisation should be routinely offered to the group of children at the highest risk - infants at two months of age with a further dose at four months and a booster at 12 months, provided that the vaccine could be procured at a cost-effective price.  There is a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of the JCVI, are implemented.\r\n\r\nThe programme started on 1st September 2015 for those babies due to receive their primary immunisations starting at 2 months of age on or after 1 September 2015 (i.e. those born on or after 1 July 2015). A one off catch-up programme was recommended by JCVI for infants born from 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2015 (aged 3 or 4 months of age when the programme launched) when they attended for their primary immunisation appointments. This ensured that those infants were offered the vaccine before the winter peak of the disease. By May 2017, all children under the age of two years will have been offered the vaccine. The vaccine is also available for a small number of older children and adults who are at increased risk of infection, such as those with no spleen. Early indications are that the vaccine has been very well accepted by parents and coverage is likely to be high. \r\n\r\nWith this programme, our priority is to protect those children most at risk of MenB, in line with JCVI’s recommendation.  The NHS budget is a finite resource.  It is therefore essential that JCVI’s recommendations are underpinned by evidence of cost-effectiveness. Offering the vaccine outside of JCVI’s advice would not be cost effective, and would not therefore represent a good use of NHS resources which should be used to benefit the health and care of the most people possible. \r\n\r\nWhen any new immunisation programme is introduced, there has to be a cut-off date to determine eligibility. While this is extremely difficult for parents whose children aren’t eligible there is no other way of establishing new programmes to target those at highest risk without introducing inequalities. This approach is supported by the best evidence and by independent recommendations. JCVI considered older age groups (1-4 year olds) but did not advise a catch-up programme in view of the marginal cost-effectiveness of even the infant programme. JCVI considered that the priority should be the implementation of the primary immunisation programme for infants. They also considered a programme for adolescents but advised that further research was needed Preparatory research has been commissioned and is underway.\r\n\r\nThere are many bacterial, viral and other causes of meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain and surrounding tissues) and septicaemia (blood poisoning). Successful vaccination programmes have already reduced the risk of these serious diseases. Current rates of group B meningococcal disease are low. In the early 2000s there were more than 1,600 cases in England, compared to around 400 cases in 2014. \r\n\r\nThe vaccine should provide direct protection against MenB for infants and those who are at increased risk of meningococcal disease. However, not all strains of the group B meningococcal bacteria are covered by this vaccine and cases can still occur in vaccinated infants and children. There are also other strains of meningococcal disease for which there is currently no vaccine. It therefore remains important for parents to be alert to the symptoms of meningococcal disease such as fever, blotchy skin, refusal to feed, irritability, cold hands and feet, rash, muscle pain, and a stiff body with jerky movements or else floppy and lifeless.  They should trust their instincts and seek urgent medical attention if they have concerns. \r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z","updated_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-04-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-25/debates/16042524000001/MeningitisBVaccine","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/184bc220-e082-4f5f-9ffa-35d817220b83","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":114003,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/114003.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":"Block Donald J Trump from UK entry","background":"The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry.","additional_details":"The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.  \r\n  \r\nIf the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful. \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":586930,"created_at":"2015-11-28T17:55:11.248Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:37.097Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-08T16:39:59.718Z","closed_at":"2016-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-28T18:01:29.777Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-08T21:53:38.265Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.472Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-09T12:04:03.028Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-19T12:31:02.419Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-29","summary":"The Government has a policy of not routinely commenting on individual immigration or exclusion cases. ","details":"For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.\r\n\r\nThe Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good. \r\n\r\nThe Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. \r\n\r\nExclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence. \r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong. \r\n\t\r\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.\r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.469Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:25:58.285Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-18/debates/1601186000001/DonaldTrump","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/83208344-218d-4c43-9300-ca78c374b875","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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.\r\n\r\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":105991,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105991.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":"Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK.","background":"There is a global refugee crisis. The UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts. We can't allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe. We must help.","additional_details":"With an estimated 173,100 asylum applications, Germany was the largest recipient of new asylum claims in 2014. The USA was 2nd with 121,200 asylum applications, followed by Turkey (87,800), Sweden (75,100), and Italy (63,700). By comparison, the UK received 31,300 new applications for asylum by the end of 2014.\r\n(Source: UNHCR 2014 Asylum Trends Report)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.amnesty.org.uk/calais-migrants-dangerous-rhetoric\r\nhttp://tracks.unhcr.org/2014/12/welcome-to-calais/\r\n\r\nThese people need help.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":450287,"created_at":"2015-08-10T14:33:57.667Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:30.842Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-13T16:25:55.670Z","closed_at":"2016-02-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-13T09:16:50.209Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-31T19:50:16.135Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.568Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-03T09:13:52.439Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-27T18:20:29.770Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-09","summary":"The UK has a proud history of providing refuge to those in genuine need of protection.  We will continue to play our full part at the forefront of the international response to the crisis. ","details":"The Government is committed to remaining at the forefront of the international response to the situation in the Mediterranean.  To support this commitment, the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will expand the existing Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) scheme to resettle around 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. \r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister’s announcement to expand the VPR scheme is part of our comprehensive approach designed as far as possible to help refugees in the region but recognising that for some vulnerable people the only solution is to bring them to countries like the UK. \r\n\r\nThe UK already has some of the largest and longest running resettlement schemes in the EU, providing sanctuary to around 1,000 refugees a year. We see targeted resettlement as part of a sustainable plan to tackle the root causes of these crises and reduce the need to make dangerous journeys, often in the hands of ruthless criminals. Our response must adapt to the changing situation.\r\n\r\nAccording to the UNHCR, by the end of 2014, Syria was the world’s top source country of refugees and one out of every four refugees is Syrian. So it is right that our resettlement efforts are concentrated here. \r\n\r\nBut the UK already runs other resettlement programmes which focus on a wider set of nationalities. The Gateway Protection Programme resettles 750 refugees each year from a small number of targeted locations. In recent years, the majority of these refugees have been Congolese, Ethiopians, Iraqis and Somalis from, predominantly, Kenya, Burundi and Syria. \r\n\r\nThe Mandate resettlement scheme resettles individuals recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and resettles individual refugees from anywhere in the world who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR, and judged by them to be in need of resettlement; and who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them.  \r\n\r\nWe already have significant experience of resettling vulnerable people and our existing domestic resettlement mechanisms provide a basis for a relatively quick   increase in numbers. We are already working with existing partners to ensure that we can begin to increase numbers as quickly as possible. Over the coming weeks and months, we will work with local authorities, the UNHCR and others to put in place the full structures to ensure we can scale up the current arrangements to ensure we can meet the aim of bringing up to 20,000 Syrians over the lifetime of this Parliament and deliver on the expansion that has been announced.\r\n\r\nAlongside the expansion of the VPR scheme, we have already committed £900 million in humanitarian aid to the humanitarian crisis. The Prime Minister announced a further £100 million in the past few days, bringing our commitment to £1billion – more than any other country in the world except the United States. The UK is the only EU country to fulfil its pledge to provide 0.7% of GDP to international aid and we should be proud of this. By the end of March 2015, UK support had delivered over 18 million food rations, each of which feeds one person for one month, provided access to clean water for 1.6 million people (peak month), and over 2.4 million medical consultations in Syria and the region.\r\n\r\nThe Government takes seriously its obligation to do what must be done to provide support to Syrians in need of protection as a result of events in the Middle East, and as such our priorities are on continuing to provide humanitarian aid to those most in need in the region and actively seeking an end to the crisis.  We believe this approach is the best way to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for the majority of refugees who remain in the region and their host countries.\r\n\r\nThose who have already reached Europe are no longer in immediate danger and the European countries in which they arrive have a duty to provide adequate protection and support to refugees within their territory. The UK stands ready to provide practical support to those frontline Member States who are experiencing particularly serious pressures. However, those that remain in the immediate region around Syria are more likely to be particularly vulnerable. It is right that we should focus our efforts on helping the most vulnerable which is why we are expanding the VPR scheme.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.565Z","updated_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.565Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-09-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-09-08/debates/15090846000002/RefugeeCrisisInEurope","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/85646ce6-0ade-44cc-834a-6d4ea7e61e09?in=13:47:45","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons has debated this topic on several occasions, including:\r\n\r\n- The Prime Minister made a statement on Monday 7 September and was questioned by MPs about it:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/statement-on-syria-refugees-and-counter-terrorism-7-september-2015/\r\n\r\n- On Tuesday 8 September there was an emergency debate on the refugee crisis in Europe:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/emergency-debate-the-refugee-crisis-in-europe/\r\n\r\n- There was a further debate on Wednesday 9 September on the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/mps-debate-humanitarian-crisis-in-the-mediterranean-and-europe/\r\n\r\nThe Home Affairs Committee is looking into the migration crisis. You can find out more about the inquiry here:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/mediterranean-migration/\r\n\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","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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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":178844,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/178844.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":"Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom.","background":"Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because he is the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":317542,"created_at":"2017-01-29T11:40:35.005Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:25:15.288Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-01-30T16:56:19.950Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T12:09:44.050Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-30T20:25:04.250Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.989Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-31T13:01:24.786Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-21T09:47:22.026Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-13","summary":"HM Government believes the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit. We look forward to welcoming President Trump once dates and arrangements are finalised.","details":"HM Government supports this petition.\r\n\r\nDuring her visit to the United States on 27 January 2017, the Prime Minister, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, invited President Trump for a State Visit to the UK later this year. The invitation was accepted. This invitation reflects the importance of the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. At this stage, final dates have not yet been agreed for the State Visit.  \r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.987Z","updated_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.987Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20/debates/34847E5C-8B14-46E6-8251-AE99526CC011/PresidentTrumpStateVisit","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85c7c283-d353-4863-8628-3a012a80b2f5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104349,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104349.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":"Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.","background":"Legalising cannabis could bring in £900m in taxes every year, save £400m on policing cannabis and create over 10,000 new jobs. \r\n\r\nA substance that is safer than alcohol, and has many uses. It is believed to have been used by humans for over 4000 years, being made illegal in the UK in 1925. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":236995,"created_at":"2015-07-20T15:36:33.017Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:04:40.827Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T08:29:48.141Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T17:39:58.248Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-22T16:01:34.636Z","government_response_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.706Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-25T08:49:55.926Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-12","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-13T10:40:27.705Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-08-25","summary":"Substantial scientific evidence shows cannabis is a harmful drug that can damage human health. There are no plans to legalise cannabis as it would not address the harm to individuals and communities.","details":"The latest evidence from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is that the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue (‘Cannabis Classification and Public Health’, 2008).\r\n\r\nCannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society. Legalisation of cannabis would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery that this can cause to families.\r\n\r\nLegalisation would also send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.\r\n \r\nDespite the potential opportunity offered by legalisation to raise revenue through taxation, there would be costs in relation to administrative, compliance and law enforcement activities, as well as the wider costs of drug prevention and health services.\r\n\r\nThe UK's approach on drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities; help dependent individuals through treatment and wider recovery support; while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping the supply and tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade. The Government will build on the Drugs Strategy by continuing to take a balanced and coherent approach to address the evolving challenges posed.\r\n\r\nThere are positive signs that the Government’s approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10. The number of adults aged 16-59 using cannabis in the last year in England and Wales has declined over the last decade from 9.6% to 6.7%, with cannabis use amongst young adults aged 16-24 and young people aged 11-15 following a similar pattern. \r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.704Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:51:57.078Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-12/debates/15101213000001/Cannabis","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c277985b-3edb-4f13-93f2-902bf81ea208","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125692,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125692.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 spending a fixed 0.7 per cent slice of our national wealth on Foreign Aid","background":"Despite spending cuts at home the Government is committed to hand over 0.7% of national income in overseas aid, regardless of need. The Mail on Sunday believes voters do not want this and instead, we should provide money only for truly deserving causes, on a case-by-case basis.\r\n","additional_details":"Read articles at: www.mailonsunday.co.uk/foreignaid\r\n\r\nA bill passed in 2015 required the Government to spend a fixed 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid. UK handouts will rise from current £12bn to £16bn by 2020. This is by far the highest rate of any G20 nation and is leading to huge waste and corruption. We believe this is the wrong approach because it fuels waste by focussing on targets, not outcomes. Foreign aid should provide money for the job, not jobs for the money.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":235979,"created_at":"2016-03-24T15:02:14.691Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:02.946Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-24T16:44:36.177Z","closed_at":"2016-09-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-24T16:41:34.182Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-27T01:20:18.080Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-12T13:40:11.645Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-27T19:33:04.436Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-06-13","debate_outcome_at":"2016-06-14T09:29:56.420Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-12","summary":"The UK’s aid commitment means we can be proud to be a country that not only meets its responsibilities to the world’s poorest, but in doing so best serves and protects its own security and interests.","details":"The UK’s commitments on overseas aid were part of the 2015 manifesto on which the government was elected. The government is keeping its promise to the electorate, tackling global challenges in the national interest.\r\n\r\nBritain faces a simple choice: either we wait for the problems of the world to arrive on our doorstep, or we take action to tackle them at source.\r\n\r\nUK aid, whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, is about creating a more stable and secure world.\r\n\r\nOver the last five years, UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. We have supported 11 million children through school. We have helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. We are leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation.\r\n\r\nUK aid is spent where it is most needed and is subject to rigorous internal and external checks and scrutiny at all stages. The UK’s aid programmes are scrutinised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the International Development Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee in Parliament, and the National Audit Office. This is in addition to internal monitoring and evaluation to ensure projects stay on track and deliver value for taxpayers’ money.\r\n\r\nThe government has realigned the UK’s aid strategy, cutting wasteful programmes and making sure spending is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Alongside an increased defence budget and the UK’s world class diplomatic service, our aid programme is helping to create a more prosperous and stable world in which the UK can stand tall and flourish.\r\n\r\nBritain’s aid strategy recognises that tackling poverty overseas means tackling the root causes of global problems that affect all of us, such as disease, migration, and terrorism. The Department for International Development is the UK’s primary channel for aid, but to respond to the changing world, more aid will be administered by other government departments, such as the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department of Health, and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, drawing on their complementary skills.\r\n\r\nThe government will invest more through its aid programme to tackle the causes of instability, insecurity and conflict, and to tackle crime and corruption. DFID is already working with the Metropolitan Police, National Crime Agency, and HMRC to recover funds stolen from developing countries, and help countries build proper tax systems and robust institutions so they can stand on their own two feet.\r\n\r\nThis is an approach that works; as well as delivering humanitarian aid to crisis zones and targeting the root causes of the migration crisis, it is increasing economic prospects in fragile states to help counter extremism, and helping build our future trading partners.\r\n\r\nYou can the read the full UK aid strategy here:\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478834/ODA_strategy_final_web_0905.pdf\r\n\r\nDepartment for International Development","created_at":"2016-04-12T13:40:11.636Z","updated_at":"2016-04-12T13:57:14.659Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-06-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-06-13/debates/16061315000001/ForeignAidExpenditure","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d3ed341d-af80-4b35-aee4-f1e20d8f40c4","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104334,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104334.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":"To debate a vote of no confidence in Health Secretary the Right Hon Jeremy Hunt","background":"Jeremy Hunt has alienated the entire workforce of the NHS by threatening to impose a harsh contract and conditions on first consultants and soon the rest of the NHS staff. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":231136,"created_at":"2015-07-20T13:02:14.720Z","updated_at":"2017-12-18T17:39:44.469Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-20T14:12:50.460Z","closed_at":"2016-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T13:56:15.383Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T18:57:24.174Z","government_response_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.250Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-21T15:54:26.382Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-09-14","debate_outcome_at":"2015-09-15T14:42:56.281Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-07-24","summary":"The Government is committed to delivering seven day services to make sure that patients get the same high quality, safe care on a Saturday and Sunday as they do on a week day.","details":"Many people do not realise that if you are admitted to hospital on a weekend, you have a 16% greater chance of dying. The Government wants to change this so that everyone can be confident that they will receive the same level of care whatever day of the week they are admitted to an NHS hospital.\r\n \r\nNHS consultants already provide an outstanding service and show great dedication to ensuring patients get the best outcomes. But the Government has a duty to make sure the system is set up in a way which makes it as easy as possible for hospitals to organise their resources to maximise patient safety across every day of the week.\r\n\r\nTo understand more about the possible issues for staff contracts, last year the government asked the independent pay review bodies for NHS staff - The Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) and the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB) for their observations and recommendations about how the reform of employment contracts could help support the delivery of seven day services in England. \r\n\r\nThe reports were published this month. They identified that a major barrier to seven day services is a decade old contractual right in the consultants’ contract negotiated by their union representatives in 2003 that allows senior doctors to refuse to work non-emergency work in the evenings, at nights and at weekends. No junior doctor, nurse or other clinical group has any such right. Other senior public sector professionals who work in services required to keep the public safe, such as police officers, firemen and prison governors, do not have this opt out either.\r\n\r\nWhilst the vast majority of consultants work tirelessly for their patients, the opt out allows individuals to charge employers hugely expensive payments which are much higher than national contract rates (up to £200 an hour). The average earnings for a hospital consultant are already in the top 2% in the country at £118,000, and these inflated payments can make it difficult for hospitals to provide the weekend cover they know patients need.\r\n \r\nThe report endorsed  the removal of the opt out, as well as broadly supporting other changes to the consultant contract that would ensure the right level of cover is available every day of the week; not just Monday to Friday.\r\n\r\nUnder the new plans, doctors will still continue to receive a significantly higher rate for working unsocial hours and there will be a contractual limit (not an expectation) of working a maximum of 13 weekends a year.\r\n\r\nBy the end of the Parliament, the Government hopes that the majority of consultants, in line with existing practice for nurses, midwives and junior doctors, will be on reformed contracts, working across seven days, to deliver a better service to patients. Hospitals like Salford Royal and Northumbria that have instituted seven day services have already seen improvements in patient care and staff morale. \r\n\r\nThese new plans will mean that doctors working in some of the toughest areas in the NHS, such as A&E and obstetrics, will at last be properly rewarded and there will be faster pay progression for all consultants early on in their career. Under the new proposals, the highest performing consultants could be able to receive up to £30,000 a year in bonus payments, on top of their base salary.\r\n\r\nOf course, improving weekend care requires more than just ensuring greater consultant presence.  That's why the government is also addressing issues such as access to weekend diagnostic services, provision of out of hospital care to facilitate weekend discharges, and adequate staffing cover amongst other clinical groups,. But NHS leaders and the independent pay review bodies are clear that increasing the presence of senior clinical decision makers at weekends is vital, and that the consultant opt out remains a barrier to organising broader support services and staff rotas.\r\n\r\nThe Government feels it is under an obligation to the public to do all it can to make NHS care at the weekend as safe as during the week through the delivery of seven day services this Parliament and that is what it will continue to do.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Health  \r\n","created_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.247Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:59:43.805Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-09-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-09-14/debates/15091415000001/NHS(ContractsAndConditions)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d6fbba1f-282d-4027-82b7-754baad69ce6","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113064,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113064.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 on military action in Syria against IS in response to the Paris attacks","background":"In response to the tragedy of the Paris attacks, the British government is considering military action; air strikes against ISIS targets. However, this is the response that ISIS is wanting and hopes to gain recruits and increase its numbers from the fear and radicalise more people against the West.","additional_details":"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457\r\n\r\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33851482\r\n\r\nThere are other avenues to solve ISIS that should be considered such as freezing their assets, shutting down ISIS related social media accounts and restricting access to arms from selling weapons to the Middle East. There is no one solution that should be considered, but murdering people will just make things worse.\r\n\r\nhttp://stopwar.org.uk/resources/petitions/stop-the-bombing-of-syria-now-lobby-your-mp-now\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":227745,"created_at":"2015-11-17T23:16:23.248Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:15.318Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-20T16:51:17.688Z","closed_at":"2016-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-17T23:33:57.970Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-24T21:31:00.277Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.304Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-29T23:31:16.979Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-03T18:46:24.990Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-13","summary":"Following a lengthy debate, MPs voted for the UK to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. Military action is only one element of the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh.   ","details":"One week after the tragic attacks in Paris, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249; a clear call for action against Daesh, using all necessary measures. \r\n\r\nThe UK has always been committed to defeating Daesh.  Parliament’s approval of airstrikes in Syria on 2 December has allowed the UK to join our allies in the Global Coalition in striking Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq, where we have been active since the start of the Coalition’s campaign.\r\n\r\nThe UK Government supported extending British airstrikes against Daesh into Syria as an integral part of a much broader strategy to degrade Daesh and reduce the threat it poses to us.\r\n\r\nOur comprehensive overall strategy to tackle Daesh globally includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action, as well as military.  The UK is a leading part of a Global Coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united to defeat Daesh on all fronts.  We are attacking Daesh militarily, but we are also squeezing its finances, disrupting the flow of fighters, challenging its poisonous ideology and working to stabilise areas liberated from Daesh.  We must pursue all these tracks in parallel.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that tackling Daesh financing is a key element of our comprehensive strategy. Daesh gains most of its funding from the territory it controls – by selling oil, by taxing and exhorting local populations, and by seizing and selling prized antiquities.  The UK has led UN efforts on sanctions, making it illegal to sell oil and oil products to Daesh. We are also expanding existing work with regional partners to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside formal financial system, by cutting access to black market and international money flows and to stop smuggling.   However, the military campaign is also crucial; through targeted military actions, the Global Coalition has already damaged or destroyed 260 oil infrastructure targets.\r\n\r\nWe must tackle Daesh in Syria, as we are doing with some success in Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that Daesh poses to the region and to our security in the UK.  As the threat from Daesh grows, we must take action - recognising that no course of action is without risk, but that inaction – not dealing with Daesh at source – also carries grave risk.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has also been clear that the UK will continue to support the diplomatic and political process.  The UK’s priority in Syria has always been to achieve a political settlement which is the only way to stop this terrible war and give Syrians hope for the future.\r\n  \r\nAs members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) we are working with a host of countries including Russia, the US, France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN, towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional government, a new constitution and free and fair elections.   All those countries have accepted the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué – the need for Syrian-led and Syrian owned political transition.  The composition of the transitional government will be negotiated by Syrians through the peace process, with the support of the UN and the ISSG.  We welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2254 on 18 December requesting UN-convened peace negotiations and formally endorsing the ISSG Vienna process.  As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN on 18 December “This has given new international momentum towards the resumption of Syrian-led talks”.\r\n\r\nWe remain committed to supporting international efforts to alleviate the terrible humanitarian suffering.  The UK is playing its part.  We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  But more is needed. The Supporting Syria and the Region London 2016 Conference in February will aim to raise significant new funding from a wider range of partners to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis within Syria and to support neighbouring countries.\r\n\r\nWhile military operations are inherently risky, we take the protection of civilians very seriously.  We employ rigorous targeting protocols.  In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations.  The UK has the most advanced forms of targeting and precision weaponry, possessed by only a small number of countries, which enables us to strike accurately, with minimal collateral damage.  These same high standards are being applied in Syria.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.301Z","updated_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.301Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-12-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-12-02/debates/15120254000002/ISILInSyria","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":190627,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/190627.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":"Make online abuse a specific criminal offence and create a register of offenders","background":"Trolling is a major problem in this day and age. People of all ages and background suffer every day, including my family - especially my son Harvey. I have tried my best to expose people and even had two arrested but nothing was done and there were no repercussions or penalties for this behaviour.\r\n","additional_details":"This does not affect just high profile people it affects everyone from every walk of life from young children, teenagers, people at work, husbands and wives. This abuse includes racism, homophobia, body shaming and a whole range of other hate speech.\r\n\r\nThis petition is an important topical issue and I want it to help bring justice to everyone who has ever suffered at the hands of trolls. Help me to hammer home worldwide that bullying is unacceptable whether it's face to face or in an online space. \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221914,"created_at":"2017-03-14T21:02:21.868Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T15:13:49.637Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-28T14:02:01.409Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-14T21:12:28.633Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-28T19:45:02.569Z","government_response_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.321Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-29T15:22:56.003Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-04-29","debate_outcome_at":"2019-05-01T11:20:38.202Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-04-18","summary":"We recognise that behaviour that is not tolerated offline is now common online. DCMS is working on an Internet Safety Strategy which aims to make the UK a safer place for young people to be online.","details":"The internet has provided everyone with some amazing opportunities. It can help isolated individuals find safe communities and can be an amazing resource for people to develop their creativity. However, government recognises that behaviour that would never be tolerated in the real world has become increasingly common online with potentially devastating impacts.\r\n\r\nThe law does not differentiate between criminal offences committed on social media or anywhere else. Where something is illegal offline it is also illegal online and there is already legislation which applies in relation to online abuse. A variety of different offences already exist covering communications which are grossly offensive, obscene, indecent or false. It is also an offence to send certain articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety.\r\n\r\nWhile we will continue to monitor the situation, we believe that our current legal approach is the right one. The House of Lords Communications Select Committee stated in their report into Social Media and Criminal Offences in July 2014 that the criminal law in this area, almost entirely enacted before the invention of social media, is generally appropriate for the prosecution of offences committed using social media.\r\n\r\nThe Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published revised guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media on 10 October 2016. The guidelines provide prosecutors with a clear framework for a consistent approach to all cases involving social media and are available to the public on the CPS website.\r\n\r\nThe revised guidelines contain a number of new sections, including on:\r\n●\tHate Crime, which makes it more likely that a prosecution is required\r\n●\tViolence against Women and Girls (VAWG), including potential cyber-enabled VAWG offences, such as “baiting”, humiliating peers online by labelling them sexually promiscuous\r\n●\tFalse or offensive social media profiles\r\n●\tVulnerable and intimidated witnesses\r\n●\tReporting and preventing abuse on social media\r\nThis update also includes types of offences that may be committed, such as hacking into social media accounts in order to monitor and control them or potentially menacing or threatening actions such as posting pictures of the complainant’s workplace or children on social media sites, even if no reference is made to the complainant.\r\n\r\nThe issue of keeping people safe online is a top priority for this Government. DCMS is leading a new cross-Government drive on online safety, on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will involve ministers and officials from departments across Government as part of a coordinated effort to make the UK the safest place in the world for children and young people to go online.\r\n\r\nWe want to know more about the scale of the problems that young people face online, identify where the gaps are and start to think about solutions, which we will develop in a Green Paper to be published before the summer. The work is expected to centre on four main priorities: how to help young people help themselves; helping parents face up to the online risks and discuss them with children; how technology can help provide solutions; and importantly, industry’s responsibilities to society.\r\n\r\nWhile the initial focus will be on children and young people, the Strategy will consider how to make the online world a safer place more generally, including by examining concerns around issues like trolling and other aggressive behaviour. The Strategy will draw out relevant links between solutions that will protect children online that will also help in the fight against online violence against women and girls.\r\n\r\nThe Strategy will build on the good work that has already been done in this area by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) which brings together government, industry, law enforcement, academia, charities and parenting groups to work in partnership to help to keep children and young people safe online.\r\nIn December 2015, UKCCIS published a practical guide for providers of social media and interactive services. The guide has examples of good practice from leading technology companies (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube), and advice from NGOs and other online child safety experts. Its purpose is to encourage businesses to think about “safety by design” to help make their platforms safer for children and young people under 18.\r\n\r\nWe already expect industry to improve online safety provisions at the same speed and with the same determination with which they bring out new products and innovations. We expect social media companies to have relevant safeguards in place, including access restrictions, particularly for children and young people who use their services. Social media companies should have reporting tools that are easy to access and act promptly when abuse is reported, removing content which does not comply with acceptable use policies or terms and conditions, and, where appropriate, suspend or terminate the accounts of those breaching the rules in place.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.318Z","updated_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.318Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-04-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-29/debates/65420802-6952-4830-9CF3-1B4001FFE0EA/OnlineAbuse","video_url":"https://youtu.be/S00UaiQAcQU","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0098","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":116762,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/116762.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 CAMERON spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets","background":"Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum - without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government.","additional_details":"We, the petitioners, demand the Government STOPS spending our money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union. \r\n\r\nThe Great British Public have waited since 1975 for a vote on our relationship with Brussels. No taxpayers’ money should be spent on campaign literature to keep Britain inside the EU.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221866,"created_at":"2015-12-21T13:31:03.996Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:09:35.198Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-22T16:34:06.166Z","closed_at":"2016-06-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-21T14:01:51.201Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-27T17:00:47.398Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-07T21:32:40.753Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-05-09","debate_outcome_at":"2016-05-10T12:58:24.960Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-20","summary":"The EU Referendum Act 2015 commits the Government to provide information to the public on EU membership ahead of the vote, and that is what we will do.","details":"We are fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. Throughout we are driven by one consideration – what is best for our economic and national security. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 means there will be a referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017.  This is a big decision for the country.  The Government is determined that the public should be clear on what reforms have been agreed, and what EU membership means for the UK.  \r\n\r\nThe Referendum Act requires the Government to publish reports that set out the outcome of the negotiation of our EU membership and the Government’s opinion on that outcome and provide information on rights and obligations in EU law and on examples of countries that do not have EU membership but do have other arrangements with the EU. \r\n\r\nIn the last 28 days of the referendum period, Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will apply.  This restricts publications about the referendum by bodies or persons that are wholly or mainly publicly funded.  It is fully expected that the voices of the two official designated campaigns will lead the debate.\r\n\r\nIn the end, the British people will decide whether we are stronger and better off with our European neighbours as part of the European Union, or on our own.  That is because we made a promise and kept it – to deliver an in-out referendum.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z","updated_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-05-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-05-09/debates/1605098000001/EUReferendumLeaflet","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/93a979e7-4c8a-4d3f-89b1-529df4b4cad4","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":180642,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/180642.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":"Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen","background":"We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221514,"created_at":"2017-01-30T20:30:18.662Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T14:43:36.154Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-06T18:14:20.373Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-31T11:02:33.952Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-13T20:45:06.723Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.717Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-15T08:17:03.173Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-13","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-14T09:42:50.262Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-30","summary":"The UK Government is clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum. ","details":"The UK needs to work together, putting all our energies into ensuring we get the right deal for the UK and for Scotland in our negotiations with the EU. \r\n\r\nIn 2014, the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish Governments to respecting the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Calling for a second referendum is creating damaging uncertainty for the economy, and most people in Scotland do not want the country to be plunged into another divisive campaign. All our focus should be on our negotiations with the EU and  working together to get the right deal for Scotland and the right deal for the UK. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like. \r\n\t\r\nAs the Prime Minister has set out, we will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the Devolved Administrations. \r\n\r\nThis will be an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process.\r\n\r\nScotland Office","created_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.714Z","updated_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.714Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-13/debates/42449346-E2BE-4429-921B-3F72D50E27B9/ReferendumOnScottishIndependence","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4f1a9acc-4b0a-4142-b89a-d623b580f839","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.intranet.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0219","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106477,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106477.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 allowing immigrants into the UK.","background":"The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country! ","additional_details":"If the Government does not do anything, then Britain may take in 12 million more immigrants by 2060. There is footage of foreigners destroying British soldiers graves,  which is a huge disrespect to us. Sign this petition to show the government what they need to do!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":216949,"created_at":"2015-08-21T22:58:36.240Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:43.486Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-25T13:23:52.756Z","closed_at":"2016-02-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-21T23:05:13.292Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-04T04:28:03.060Z","government_response_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.436Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-07T20:14:13.386Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-19","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-20T09:13:18.018Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-10-26","summary":"We are building an immigration system that works in the public interest. We welcome the brightest and the best who come here legally to work and study, but believe net migration should be lower(contd)","details":"and are clamping down on illegal migration, including through the Immigration Bill. We will also introduce a new approach to asylum - with strict new rules for people who abuse the system, and greater generosity for people who need our help.\r\n\r\nThe UK has a proud history of protecting those most in need.  As the Prime Minister announced to Parliament at the beginning of last month, the UK will accept a further 20,000 migrants dislocated from their homes following the Syrian crisis.  The UK can be proud that since the start of that conflict we have been at the forefront of the humanitarian response. We are providing more than £1 billion in aid – making us the second biggest bilateral donor in the world. Our contribution is almost as much as the rest of the EU put together. We can be proud of our contribution and our history of valuing diversity in the UK. \r\n\r\nUncontrolled immigration, however, places pressure on public services, the labour market and wages. \r\n\r\nTo control legal migration we have changed the profile of migrants coming here to work and study from outside the EU, to ensure that we are genuinely welcoming the brightest and the best.  The figures show this strategy is working, with a 17% increase in the number of sponsored student visas applications for universities since 2010, and a rise of 33% for the elite Russell Group universities.  We have toughened access to welfare and housing and non-EU immigration remains 10% lower than in September 2010.  Going forward, our long term economic plan will see many more young Britons given the training and skills they need to fill the jobs our booming economy is creating. \r\n\r\nIn terms of illegal migration one of the most visible pressure points has been at Calais.  Over the summer the migrant population in this area increased to around 5,000 and there was an associated increase in the number of illegal attempts to breach the border.  \r\n\r\nThe Government has made good progress with the French Government to address this situation.  The declaration the Home Secretary signed with the French Interior Minister, on 20th August, cements a comprehensive programme of work between France and the UK including additional French police, and extra fencing, search dogs and other security measures provided by the UK.  \r\n\r\nThe Government is also taking action through a new Immigration Bill that was introduced to Parliament on 17th September.\r\n \r\nThe Government is introducing new powers to build an immigration system that works in the best interests of the UK and those who play by the rules. Illegal workers will face having their earnings seized, while rogue employers could have their businesses closed.\r\n\r\nThe Bill will make it harder for people to settle in the UK when they have no right to do so, building on the Immigration Act 2014 to further restrict access to services for illegal migrants. Landlords will be able to evict illegal migrants more quickly and access to driving licences and bank accounts will be further protected as services for only the lawfully resident population.\r\n\r\nThe Bill will close existing loopholes that allow certain illegal migrants to claim asylum support even though they do not have a pending asylum application or appeal. We will continue to meet all of our international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, but equally we expect other illegal migrants to depart from the UK rather than providing access to support.\r\n\r\nThe Bill will make it easier to remove people who should not be in the UK by introducing new powers to tag foreign national offenders released on bail, and extending “deport now, appeal later” certification powers to more immigration cases. We will also be equipping immigration officers with additional search and seizure powers to better enforce our immigration laws. \r\n\r\nFinally, as the Home Secretary set out earlier this month, we will introduce a new approach to asylum with strict new rules for people who abuse the system in Britain, and greater generosity for people in parts of the world where we know they need our help.  For example, we will take a tougher approach to those who claim asylum after abusing the visa system or having travelled to get here through safe countries but we will establish a register of people and organisations that can provide houses for the settlement of genuine refugees.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z","updated_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-19/debates/15101914000001/Immigration","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2e5038-cbf0-4a43-bfc3-6a6deb279c4d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nPublic scrutiny\r\n\r\nThe Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.\r\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.\r\n \r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\nPrivacy and Oversight\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\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.\r\n \r\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":129698,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/129698.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":"No more school penalty fines and bring back the 10 day authorised absence","background":"Back in 2013 the government changed the law on taking your children out of school in term time so that now you receive a penalty fine of £60 per child per parent. This can increase . The law prevents families from taking term time holidays forcing families to pay extra during school holidays.  ","additional_details":"Myself and my wife received a fine for our two eldest children (two fines each parent) for taking our children on holiday for 5 days in term time which was the only week free from surgery and radiotherapy (school knew of cancer diagnosis) This apparently is not an exceptional circumstance. The council quote is S.444 A or 1 of the Education act 1996 which in its own term indicates truancy and not a one off family holiday. Councils are too ready to fine and wont consider exceptional circumstances","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":204790,"created_at":"2016-05-07T15:42:05.203Z","updated_at":"2018-09-07T08:52:21.914Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-09T14:55:37.872Z","closed_at":"2016-11-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-08T12:07:26.922Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-10T07:59:25.978Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.399Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-11T09:57:07.851Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-07-11","debate_outcome_at":"2016-07-12T12:11:56.836Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-08","summary":"Evidence shows that every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chance of gaining good GCSEs. The Government is committed to reducing all school absence unless there are unavoidable reasons.","details":"The Government has focused on reducing absence in schools so that every pupil receives an education that allows them to reach their full potential. \r\n\r\nResearch shows that the amount of time missed from school is linked with a pupil’s academic success. The most recent research ‘The link between absence and attainment at key stage 2 and key stage 4: 2013 to 2014 academic year’(1)  was published by the Department for Education on 24 March 2016, and shows that every extra day of school missed can affect a child’s attainment at the end of key stage 2 and key stage 4. Missing school unnecessarily is unfair to children as it can damage their life chances.\r\n\r\nThe Government acknowledges that family holidays can be enriching experiences. The school year is designed to give families multiple opportunities to enjoy holidays without disrupting their children’s education. Parents should plan their holidays around school breaks and avoid taking their children out of school during term-time, except in exceptional circumstances. Head teachers know their pupils best and are best placed to make these decisions by considering the merits of each request and deciding whether or not it qualifies as an exceptional circumstance. \r\n\r\nIn 2013, the Government clarified the law that enables head teachers to authorise a leave of absence, allowing for term-time holidays in exceptional circumstances only. There was previously a widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term-time. No such entitlement has ever existed in law. The misconception had been created by the previous allowance for head teachers to grant up to 10 days of leave for ‘special circumstances’. \r\n\r\nTo address unauthorised absence the Government increased the financial penalty parents must pay for their child’s unauthorised absence, shortened the time permitted to pay a penalty notice from 42 days to 28 days and placed a greater emphasis on school attendance levels in inspection outcomes. \r\n\r\nAs a consequence, the number of persistent absentees in England’s schools has dropped by over 40%, from 433,000 in 2009/10 to 246,000 in 2014/15. Some 6 million fewer days were lost due to authorised absences in the first six half terms in 2014/15 compared to the equivalent period in 2012/13, a drop from a total of 47.9 million days missed to 41.8 million days missed. Overall absence rates have followed a significant downward trend from 6.5% in the academic year ending in 2007 to 4.6% in the academic year ending in 2015. In 2012/13, 7.0% of all absences were accounted for by authorised term-time holiday. This figure dropped to 2.6% of all absences in 2013/14 and 1.6% of all absences in 2014/15. Overall, this means that, on average, pupils miss fewer days at school than they did in 2010, and therefore are receiving less interruption to their education.\r\n\r\nThe recent High Court judgment (Isle of Wight Council vs. Platt, 13 May 2016), ruling that the magistrates who heard the case did not err in law when determining the attendance of the child, was disappointing. The Government is clear that school attendance is non-negotiable. The Department for Education is therefore providing support to the Isle of Wight Council in their application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Minister of State for Schools has written to all schools and local authorities, setting out the importance of good school attendance for raising standards. In his letter, the Minister reminded head teachers of their duty to determine whether or not a request for absence is granted. He also made clear that the High Court’s judgment did not establish that a pupil’s attendance above 90% is regarded as ‘regular’ attendance.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to ensure that pupils attend every school day possible. When children take unauthorised absence, they miss vital stepping stones towards understanding curriculum content. The Government’s measures will ensure that pupils receive the maximum amount of schooling possible, helping to ensure that all pupils reach their potential, irrespective of background, ability or aptitude. Improving school attendance will continue to play a central role in our commitment to create a world-class education system in this country.  \r\n\r\n(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/absence-and-attainment-at-key-stages-2-and-4-2013-to-2014\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.397Z","updated_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.397Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-07-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-11/debates/1607115000001/SchoolPenaltyFinesAndAuthorisedAbsence","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e487aaf6-6065-4c01-93f8-faffaa2fa33d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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. \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.  \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions\r\n","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":110776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/110776.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":"Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women","background":"The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with a lack of appropriate notification","additional_details":"The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA to 65, the same as men’s.  Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), agree with equalisation,  but don’t agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little/no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans.  Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":193185,"created_at":"2015-10-20T16:09:34.695Z","updated_at":"2017-09-14T08:24:39.524Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-20T16:47:03.447Z","closed_at":"2016-04-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-20T16:37:14.912Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-21T22:14:12.328Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.103Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-02T14:20:26.972Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-02-01","debate_outcome_at":"2016-02-02T17:34:08.156Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-05","summary":"State Pension age changes were first made in 1995. All women affected have been directly contacted following the changes. There are no plans to alter State Pension age arrangements for this group. ","details":"Firstly, to clarify, State Pension age (SPa) changes affect individuals in the following way:\r\n•\tWomen born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953 have an SPa set by the 1995 Pensions Act, of between 60 and 63. This group will reach SPa by March 2016, and will therefore receive a State Pension under the current system.\r\n•\tWomen born between 6th April 1953 and 5th December 1953 have an SPa set by the 2011 Pensions Act, of between 63 and 65. The maximum increase in SPa that anybody will experience relative to the 1995 timetable is 16 months. This group will reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. \r\n•\tMen and women born between 6th December 1953 and 5th April 1960 have an SPa set by the 2011 Act, of between 65 and 66. Of the approximately five million individuals affected by the 2011 change, two point four million are men. For women, the maximum increase in SPa relative to the previous timetable is 18 months and for men it is 12 months. This group will also reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension.\r\n\r\nBoth the 1995 and 2011 changes followed on from public calls for evidence. The Government has notified the women affected by the State Pension age changes. Following the 2011 changes, DWP wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their State Pension age - using the address details recorded by HMRC at the time. Mailing to these individuals, due to reach State Pension age between 2016 and 2026, was completed between January 2012 and November 2013, subject to the accuracy of their address details with HMRC. Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011. The DWP also has information on State Pension age changes and who they affect on gov.uk. This includes State Pension age timetables, impact assessments (including an impact assessment for the 2011 Pensions Act) and a State Pension age calculator. In addition, the State Pension age equalisation changes were built into the State Pension statement IT system; introduced in 2001. Therefore, statements produced on request using this system would have included women’s new State Pension ages as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act. \r\n\r\nThe Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 1995 or 2011 Acts. The Government carried out extensive analysis of the impacts of bringing forward the rise to 66 when legislating for the change (impact assessment available at Gov.uk). The decision to amend the timetable originally set out in the bill, to cap the maximum increase at 18 months rather than 2 years, was informed by this analysis. \r\n\r\nAll women affected by faster equalisation will reach State Pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. The new State Pension will be more generous for many women who have historically done poorly under the current, two-tier system - largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. Around 650,000 women reaching State Pension age in the first ten years will receive an average of £8 per week (in 2014/15 earnings terms) more due to the new State Pension valuation of their National Insurance record.\r\n\r\nRegular consideration of State Pension age is necessary to ensure the pensions system remains sustainable as life expectancy grows. The 2014 Act provides for a 6-yearly review, to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently-led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, amongst a number of other factors, the impact of State Pension age change on women.\r\n\r\nThe policy decision to increase women’s State Pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove this inequality. The decision was approved by Parliament in 2011 and there is no new evidence to consider.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-02-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-02-01/debates/16020126000001/TransitionalStatePensionArrangementsForWomen","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf878aac-b8e6-40a2-bc03-9bbe5254fc92","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee scheduled a debate on this petition in Westminster Hall.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113231,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113231.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":"No UK airstrikes on Syria.","background":"Emergency petition: In the light of the actions of ISIS in Paris, this government may want to launch air strikes on Syria. We, the petitioners want this government NOT to do so, as it will make a terrible situation, much worse.","additional_details":"The effects of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the continued destabilisation of the government in Syria has caused an immense amount of suffering to the innocent, increased terrorism action in the west, increased recruitment to radical factions claiming to be a form of Islam, dividing society along secular, Islamic, Christian lines, imposing draconian surveillance and policing laws, as well as directing much-needed social funds, into the surveillance and military budget.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":190223,"created_at":"2015-11-19T12:07:34.490Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:19.016Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-22T16:20:06.205Z","closed_at":"2016-05-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-19T12:41:29.224Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-29T09:58:51.771Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-13T11:45:11.780Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-02T18:58:02.567Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-03T18:48:51.625Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-13","summary":"Following a lengthy debate, MPs voted for the UK to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. Military action is only one element of the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh.","details":"One week after the tragic attacks in Paris, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249; a clear call for action against Daesh, using all necessary measures.\r\n\r\nThe UK Government supported extending British airstrikes against Daesh into Syria as an integral part of a much broader strategy to degrade Daesh and reduce the threat it poses to us.\r\n\r\nWe must tackle Daesh in Syria, as we are doing with some success in Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that Daesh poses to the region and to our security in the UK.  As the threat from Daesh grows, we must take action whilst recognising that no course of action is without risk but that inaction – not dealing with Daesh at source – also carries grave risk.\r\n\r\nThe UK is a leading part of a Global Coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united to defeat Daesh on all fronts.  We are attacking Daesh militarily but we are also squeezing its finances, disrupting the flow of fighters, challenging its poisonous ideology and working to stabilise areas liberated from it.  We must pursue all these tracks in parallel.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that tackling Daesh financing is a key element of our comprehensive strategy. Daesh gains most of its funding from the territory it controls – by selling oil and by taxing and exhorting local populations.  The UK has led UN efforts on sanctions, making it illegal to sell oil and oil products to Daesh. We co-sponsored UN Security Resolution 2253 which was adopted in December and sets out clear measures which States should take to counter Daesh financing. We are also expanding existing work with regional partners to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside formal financial systems and to stop smuggling.  However, the military campaign is also crucial; the Global Coalition has already damaged or destroyed 949 oil infrastructure targets.\r\n\r\nWe are also working to prevent the flow of Foreign Terrorist Fighters from Britain by seeking to tackle extremism through counter-radicalisation programs, challenging Daesh propaganda online and, where necessary, stopping travel. The Prime Minister announced in New York, in September, the formation of an anti-Daesh Coalition Communications Cell based in London. The cell, with an initial UK contribution of £10 million, deploys the full-range of strategic communications to attack and undermine the Daesh brand proposition. This will degrade the group’s ability to spread fear and to attract foreign terrorist fighters to its cause.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has also been clear that the UK will continue to support the diplomatic and political process.  The UK’s priority in Syria has always been to achieve a political settlement which is the only way to stop this terrible war and give Syrians hope for the future.\r\n   \r\nAs members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) we are working with a host of countries, including Russia, the US, France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN, towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional government, a new constitution and free and fair elections.   All those countries have accepted the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué – the need for Syrian-led and Syrian owned political transition.  The composition of the transitional government will be negotiated by Syrians through the peace process, with the support of the UN and the ISSG.  We welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2254 on 18 December requesting UN-convened peace negotiations and formally endorsing the ISSG Vienna process.  As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN on 18 December, “This has given new international momentum towards the resumption of Syrian-led talks”.\r\n\r\nWe remain committed to supporting international efforts to alleviate the terrible humanitarian suffering.  The UK is playing its part.  We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  But more is needed. The Supporting Syria and the Region London 2016 Conference in February will aim to raise significant new funding from a wider range of partners to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis within Syria, and to support neighbouring countries.\r\n\r\nWhile military operations are inherently risky, we take the protection of civilians very seriously.  We employ rigorous targeting protocols.  In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations.  The UK has the most advanced forms of targeting and precision weaponry, possessed by only a small number of countries, which enables us to strike accurately with minimal collateral damage.  These same high standards are being applied in Syria.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-13T11:45:11.773Z","updated_at":"2016-01-13T15:59:56.489Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-12-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-12-02/debates/15120254000002/ISILInSyria","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":166847,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/166847.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":"Put a max of £1200 on car insurance for 18-25 year olds","background":"Insurance companies are making it harder and harder for people aged 18-25 years of age to start driving. I myself am looking at a £2500 insurance for my first year driving which is completely unaffordable as i am earning minimum wage £5.30 per hour and am also having to pay bill for my property.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":185175,"created_at":"2016-09-10T22:30:39.947Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:17.377Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-09-14T10:18:56.752Z","closed_at":"2017-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-11T07:12:56.500Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-26T13:42:40.306Z","government_response_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.038Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-30T15:45:14.744Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-03-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-03-21T10:45:51.061Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-12-13","summary":"By strengthening the way that people learn to drive and are tested and by tackling insurance fraud this Government is helping bear down on the cost of insurance for new and inexperienced drivers.  ","details":"The Government is aware that the cost of motor insurance can be high for new and inexperienced drivers. We have taken forward a programme of measures to strengthen the way that people learn to drive and are tested.  We have engaged insurers in this process, so that they can have confidence that additional measures will make a real difference that can be rewarded with lower premiums.  \r\n\r\nMotor insurance premiums can vary according to the risks associated with different types of driver, vehicle and other factors such as age and driving experience.   Motor insurance is a very competitive market and shopping around for the best possible option before making any decisions is likely to benefit customers.  The British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) run a not for profit ‘find a broker’ service where there are many broker products for young drivers. Further information can be found on their website: www.biba.org.uk. New rules coming into force next year will require motor insurers to disclose last year’s premium at renewal and prompt customers to shop around for the best deal.\r\n\r\nSome insurers have introduced the use of telematics or in-car black boxes to allow better risk-based pricing for new drivers. It means insurers now have a real time data feed, which allows them to see an individual’s driving behaviour, which had not previously been possible in the past. There is some evidence that suggests new drivers could see their annual premiums fall by 20% or more if they show good driving behaviour with a black box installed in their cars. \r\n\r\nThe Government recently announced reforms aimed at tackling the continuing high number and costly whiplash injury claims that were having a negative impact on the price of motor insurance premiums.  These reforms will end the cycle in which motorists pay higher insurance premiums due to minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims by others.   The government fully expects insurers to pass on the savings from these reforms to consumers through lower premiums and leading insurers have already committed to do this. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.035Z","updated_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.035Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-03-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-20/debates/E796B9EB-F7DB-4376-A615-AF50A04E69E2/CarInsuranceYoungPeople","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1fa5009d-4d61-43eb-adef-6358bc73622e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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.\r\n \r\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.\r\n\r\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":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","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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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). \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nThere is government-sponsored advice and guidance to support the responsible and considerate use of fireworks on the Safer Fireworks website.  \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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":182953,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/182953.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":"Change the University fees from £9250 back to the £3000 fee for the UK.","background":"University fees are rising more and more. £9000 for university fees is too high and the stress of being in debt is what puts individuals off applying for degrees.Now that grants have been removed it makes it difficult for family's who need financial support but can't get that anymore.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":164166,"created_at":"2017-02-04T21:06:57.271Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T14:41:50.150Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-09T13:26:42.171Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-05T09:36:09.585Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-11T21:17:45.559Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.952Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-13T13:06:58.589Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-27","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-28T09:56:45.506Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-01","summary":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so.  All eligible students can apply for an upfront loan to meet the full cost of tuition fees.","details":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from Higher Education should have the opportunity to do so, irrespective of their background.  That is why all eligible students can apply for an upfront tuition fee loan to meet the full cost of their tuition fees, as well as loans for living costs. \r\n\r\nBy replacing maintenance grants with loans we have been able to increase the funding for living costs that the most disadvantaged students receive by over 10% in the current academic year with a further 2.8% increase for 2017/18.\r\n\r\nUniversities, too, are spending even more to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education. In 2017/18, institutions are expected to spend £833.5 million on measures to improve the access and success of disadvantaged students. This is more than double what was spent in 2009/10.\r\n\r\nOur repayments system is based on income and not the amount borrowed. Graduates with post-2012 undergraduate loans pay back only when they are earning more than £21,000, and then only 9% of earnings above that threshold. After 30 years any outstanding debt will be written off with no detriment to the borrower. This is entirely different to a commercial loan.\r\n\r\nRecent evidence indicates that recent reforms to higher education have not deterred students from disadvantaged backgrounds from going to university. The steps we have taken to ensure higher education remains sustainably financed has enabled us to lift student number controls, so that more people have the opportunity to secure a university place. The proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education increased from 13.6% in 2009 to 19.5% in 2016 and the application rate for disadvantaged English 18 year olds in 2017 has increased to a record high at the January 15th application deadline. \r\n\r\nLowering tuition fees would carry a number of possible consequences, including a cut to universities and additional demands on public spending, which would be met through higher taxation, including on those who have not themselves benefited from University.  This could also mean the re-imposition of student number controls, leading to fewer university places being available to students.\r\n\r\nReinstating the system of maintenance grants would reduce the upfront support available for students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, while costing the taxpayer over £2.5bn per year.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s approach has struck the right balance between delivering a sustainable system and ensuring higher education remains open and accessible. This has been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which said we are “one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to student finance”.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.950Z","updated_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.950Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-27/debates/FF85BF9A-C7BC-4150-954F-2415DA1427D3/UniversityTuitionFees","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cd9c975f-aa58-4b84-ad2e-95ff25815477","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0218/CDP-2017-0218.pdf","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113491,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113491.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":"Keep the NHS Bursary","background":"At the moment, student nurses do not pay tuition fees, and receive a means tested bursary during their training. We are required, by the NMC, to have done at least 4,600 hours whilst studying, at least half of which are in practice. \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"Student nurses often work alongside our studies, like most students. But unlike most students, we work full time hours in placement for around half the year, and spend the rest of the time in lectures, without a summer holiday, or an Easter break, as well as completing our assignments. Taking away the NHS Bursary will force more student nurses into working 70 hour weeks, as many already do, it will compromise our studies and most of all, our patient care.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":162568,"created_at":"2015-11-22T08:52:27.708Z","updated_at":"2017-10-27T14:06:03.131Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-24T12:34:15.040Z","closed_at":"2016-05-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-22T09:37:58.334Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-25T16:10:40.725Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.373Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-26T21:45:28.731Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-11","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-12T13:10:31.486Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-17","summary":"From 1 August 2017, new nursing, midwifery and allied health students will access student loans providing more money to them while studying. Universities will also provide more training places.","details":"To deliver more nurses, midwives and allied health professionals for the NHS, a better funding system for health students, and a sustainable model for universities, we need to move new nursing, midwifery and allied health students from grants and bursaries onto the standard student loans system.  This will be done for new students from 1 August 2017 and will bring them into line with the arrangements for students undertaking other university degrees. Existing students will continue on the current system of bursaries.\r\n\r\nAs a result, we expect this to enable up to 10,000 additional nursing, midwifery and allied health training places over this parliament. Rather than denying thousands of UK applicants a place to study nursing, midwifery and the allied health subjects at university, we will be boosting participation and securing the future supply of these professions to the NHS. This will mean more applicants will get the chance to become a health professional.\r\n\r\nUnder the loans system, students on nursing, midwifery and allied health courses will receive around a 25% increase in the financial support available to them for living costs. The precise change for individuals will be dependent on their circumstances – for example, where they study, the length of the course, income and residency.\r\n\r\nWe will run a consultation in early 2016 which will consider how to ensure the reforms are successfully delivered.  We intend that students studying nursing, midwifery and the allied health subjects as a second degree will also be able to get student loans. We will also consider how we can support aspirant students from all backgrounds to ensure they can continue to pursue health careers. \r\n\r\nAlongside we have also announced plans to create a new nursing support role, to work alongside healthcare support workers and fully qualified nurses, focusing on patient care – provisionally to be called Nursing Associates. \r\n\r\nThe new addition to the care workforce will help bridge the gap between healthcare support workers, who have a care certificate, and registered nurses. Proposals will see staff trained through this route learning on the job via an apprenticeship leading to a foundation degree. The Government will also look at what opportunities there are for staff in this role to progress to become a registered nurse through either a degree level nurse apprenticeship or a shortened nursing degree at university. \r\n \r\nThe new nursing support role is expected to work alongside healthcare support workers and fully qualified nurses to deliver hands on care, focusing on ensuring patients continue to get the compassionate care they deserve. Nursing Associates will support nurses to spend more time using their specialist training to focus on clinical duties and take more of a lead in decisions about patient care.\r\n \r\nThere will be a consultation on all the specifics of the scope of this role, including the title, with representatives from the nursing profession including the royal colleges and representative unions in the New Year.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.369Z","updated_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.369Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-11/debates/16011119000001/NHSBursary","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8c4bdf09-567f-41b4-af9c-46d5cf2b7c49","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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.  \r\n\r\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\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n \r\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.\r\n\r\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.  \r\n\r\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).\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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":106651,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106651.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":"Introduce a tax on sugary drinks in the UK to improve our children's health.","background":"Experts believe a tax of just 7p per regular-sized can of soft drink with added sugar could generate £1 billion per year. We believe this crucial revenue should be ring-fenced to support much needed preventative strategies in the NHS and schools around childhood obesity and diet-related disease. \r\n","additional_details":"Studies show that soft drinks with added sugar are the largest single source of sugar in the diet's of UK school children & teenagers\r\n\r\nMany health experts are increasingly concerned about sugars contribution to weight gain & type-2 diabetes. \r\n\r\nTooth decay caused by sugar is the most common reason that children aged 5-9 years are admitted to hospital & type-2 diabetes is costing the NHS around £9 billion a year.  It's clear action is needed.\r\n\r\nPlease show your support.\r\n\r\nJamie Oliver and Sustain","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":155516,"created_at":"2015-08-25T20:43:15.258Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:47.840Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-26T12:48:04.628Z","closed_at":"2016-02-26T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-25T21:33:47.161Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-03T21:17:11.065Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.359Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T12:53:22.195Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-11-30","debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-01T11:21:52.003Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-18","summary":"The Government has no plans to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.  The Government will announce its plans for tackling childhood obesity by the end of the year.  ","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. \r\n\r\nThe Government has committed to a tax lock to avoid raising the cost of living and to promote UK productivity and economic growth, however, the Government keeps all taxes under review, with decisions being a matter for the Chancellor as part of the Budget process. \r\n\r\nThe causes of obesity are complex, caused by a number of dietary, lifestyle, environmental and genetic factors, and tackling it will require a comprehensive and broad approach.  As such, the Government is considering a range of options for tackling childhood obesity, and the contribution that Government, alongside industry, families and communities can make, and will announce its plans for tackling childhood obesity by the end of the year.  \r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.357Z","updated_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.357Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-11-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-11-30/debates/15113012000001/SugaryDrinksTax","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5b01a86a-2b13-43f1-b6c2-715877623438","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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":129823,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/129823.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":"Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work","background":"It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff to wear high heels at work against their will. Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish. Current formal work dress codes are out-dated and sexist. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":152420,"created_at":"2016-05-09T15:47:16.488Z","updated_at":"2018-12-21T09:38:08.361Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-09T16:55:12.349Z","closed_at":"2016-11-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-09T16:08:47.477Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-11T11:36:24.024Z","government_response_at":"2016-06-24T09:47:24.840Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-12T13:14:54.471Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-03-06","debate_outcome_at":"2017-03-07T10:12:13.868Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-06-24","summary":"Company dress codes must be reasonable and must make equivalent requirements for men and women. This is the law and employers must abide by it.","details":"This Government is taking action to remove the barriers to equality for women at work, which is why we are tackling the gender pay gap, increasing the number of women on boards, increasing support for childcare costs and ensuring employers are aware of their obligations to pregnant women.\r\n \r\nEmployers are entitled to set dress codes for their workforce but the law is clear that these dress codes must be reasonable. That includes any differences between the nature of rules for male and female employees, otherwise the company may be breaking the law. Employers should not be discriminating against women in what they require them to wear. \r\n \r\nThe Government takes this issue very seriously and will continue to work hard to ensure women are not discriminated in the workplace by outdated attitudes and practices.  \r\n\r\nGovernment Equalities Office","created_at":"2016-06-24T09:47:24.795Z","updated_at":"2016-06-24T12:20:24.408Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-03-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-06/debates/58CDA5AC-D655-43F4-BDD8-3D1370BCB076/WorkplaceDressCodes(HighHeels)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/df6bf60a-ef73-42e9-88a2-73caddbcca11","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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. \r\n\r\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\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\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.\r\n\r\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). \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nWe will ensure the continued growth of the academy programme, empowering frontline heads and school leads and transforming even more children’s education.\r\n\r\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":168524,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168524.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":"Close all retail on boxing day, retail isn't needed on boxing day!","background":"Christmas is a family time, the one day is not enough time to see two sides of families, retail workers work extremely hard during the Christmas run up and only get the one day. If only everywhere could be closed boxing day! Some things are needed over the festive period, retail isn't one of them.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":148327,"created_at":"2016-10-04T19:23:13.100Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:51.913Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-14T15:40:00.876Z","closed_at":"2017-04-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-04T20:40:17.044Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-28T21:08:07.317Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-22T14:00:43.922Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-15T18:54:03.677Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-12-12","debate_outcome_at":"2016-12-13T10:03:33.624Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-22","summary":"We do not believe it is for central Government to tell businesses how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers. Therefore we are not proposing to ban shops from opening on Boxing Day. ","details":"The Importance of the Retail sector and its employees\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the importance of retail to national and local economies.  It employs 3 million people and the sector generated £90 billion of Gross Value Added in 2014, 5.6% of the UK economy and 4% higher than in 2013.\r\n\r\nThe Government also believes that all workers, including those in retail, should have access to employment rights and protections.  The Government’s website, GOV.UK, provides detailed and accessible advice on all aspects of employment, including what to do in case of a dispute.\r\n\r\nRetail opening hours\r\n\r\nThere are no controls on shops’ opening hours on Boxing Day, unless it falls on a Sunday. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 limits the opening hours of large stores in England and Wales (i.e. those with a trading area over 280 square metres / 3,000 square feet) to 6 continuous hours (between 10am and 6pm) on a Sunday and not at all on Easter Sunday. The Christmas Day Trading Act 2004 prohibits large shops from opening on Christmas Day whatever day of the week it falls. Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.\r\n\r\nThe arrival of the internet has changed consumers’ shopping habits radically and many have got used to the freedom to buy what they need at any time that suits them. Online businesses and smaller retailers already have the flexibility to respond to this demand. Billions of pounds are spent by millions of shoppers on Boxing Day and it is also a busy day for internet sales. The Government believes that all businesses should be allowed flexibility to meet their customers’ needs and offer consumers choice about when and how they want to shop. This will help drive competition, productivity and the local economy, as well as helping create jobs.\r\n\r\nIn this internet age, the Government aims to support local high streets to remain at the heart of our communities by being vibrant and viable places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, both during the day and evening. \r\n\r\nBoxing Day, Bank Holidays and Working Hours\r\n\r\nThe Government believes that the current regulatory situation represents a fair balance between the interests of employers and workers. \r\n\r\nUnder the relevant legislation (the Working Time Regulations or WTRs), workers do not have a statutory entitlement to time off on Bank Holidays.  However employers may allow workers to take time off on those days.\r\n\r\nWorkers have many protections under the WTR, including\r\n•\tA statutory annual leave entitlement of 5.6 weeks (subject to a limit of 28 days)\r\n•\tA maximum working week of 48 hours, normally averaged over 17 weeks (however workers can choose to opt-out of the 48 hour limit)\r\n•\tEntitlements to rest breaks, and daily and weekly rest periods\r\n\r\nYoung workers and night workers are entitled to additional protections.\r\n\r\nIf workers are unhappy with any aspects of their working conditions, they can contact the ACAS helpline for free and confidential advice on 0300 123 1100, or consult the ACAS website at www.acas.org.uk. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2016-11-22T14:00:43.918Z","updated_at":"2016-11-22T14:00:43.918Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-12-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-12-12/debates/11A5F923-B176-464D-8C10-6DAEBB4A3F30/RetailStoreClosureBoxingDay","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8ebf30b5-6d08-4c20-9978-836afc010c65","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":186565,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/186565.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":"Make paying rent enough proof that you are able meet mortgage repayments","background":"Since living on my own I have paid £70,000+ in rent on time yet still struggle to get a mortgage. Unless your getting handouts, wealthy or in receipt of inheritance it's almost impossible. I want paying rent on time to be recognized as evidence that mortgage re-payments can be met.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":147307,"created_at":"2017-02-20T10:00:35.640Z","updated_at":"2020-08-26T15:03:30.051Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-01T11:30:25.108Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-20T15:31:16.689Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-02T11:07:19.320Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-17T09:15:31.930Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-04T00:44:53.013Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-10-23","debate_outcome_at":"2017-10-24T09:16:27.849Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-17","summary":"Lenders must consider a range of factors when assessing a mortgage application. Meeting rental payments is not sufficient in itself to demonstrate affordability over the lifetime of the loan.","details":"In April 2014, the independent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) put in place new regulations for mortgage lending. These were aimed at addressing the problems previously caused by poor quality mortgage lending, such as borrowers falling into payment difficulty and, ultimately, losing their home.\r\n\r\nThe changes included the principle that mortgages should only be advanced where there is a reasonable expectation that borrowers can repay. All lenders must now conduct an affordability assessment which includes an income and expenditure analysis, and the lender must obtain evidence of that income to support this assessment. \r\n\r\nA record of meeting rental payments is not sufficient in itself to demonstrate the affordability of a mortgage over the lifetime of the loan. This is because the affordability assessment must take account of a much wider range of factors. These include:\r\n\r\n•\tthe borrower’s income;\r\n•\tthe borrower’s committed expenditure (for example – credit commitments on any secured and unsecured loans and credit cards);\r\n•\tthe borrower’s basic essential household expenditure (for example – utility bills, council tax and building insurance);\r\n•\tthe borrower’s basic quality-of-living costs (for example – clothing, other household goods, personal goods and basic recreation); and\r\n•\tthe ability of the borrower to meet payments in the event interest rates were to rise.\r\n\r\nIt is important to be aware that home ownership brings a number of additional expenses that may not be incurred when renting, including maintenance costs and buildings insurance. Before extending a loan, lenders must satisfy themselves that a borrower will be able to meet these additional on-going costs when considering a mortgage application.\r\n\r\nMany lenders also use information from Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs) when considering mortgage applications. This is because previous customer behaviour, in terms of paying back debts, tends to be a relatively good predictor of future behaviour. Therefore if prospective borrowers have a history of good financial management it can improve their chances of obtaining credit.\r\n\r\nBeyond the FCA’s requirements, decisions around the availability of individual mortgage loans remain commercial decisions for lenders, and the Government does not seek to intervene in these.\r\n\r\nWhilst one lender may be unable to offer a mortgage, being denied a mortgage from one provider does not preclude a customer from being offered credit elsewhere. There are a wide variety of mortgage products available in the UK and prospective borrowers may benefit from shopping around.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2017-03-17T09:15:31.928Z","updated_at":"2017-03-17T09:15:31.928Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-10-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-23/debates/1F09DBB9-ED76-4F19-A447-629AA55DE462/MortgagesEligibility","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6dfc8ce4-c3f1-49e7-aad8-21aadd81afb4","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.intranet.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0183","overview":"","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","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.  \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.  \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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":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","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). \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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":131167,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131167.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 retrospective changes to the student loans agreement","background":"In 2010, the Government promised that from April 2017 the Student Loans repayment threshold of £21,000 would be upped each year with average earnings.\r\n\r\nThe Government has now backtracked on this promise, freezing the threshold at £21,000.  Graduates will now pay more on their student loans.","additional_details":"According to moneysavingexpert two million graduates will end up paying £306 more each year by 2020-21 if they earn over £21,000\r\n\r\nBy introducing retrospective changes it threatens any trust had in the student finance system.\r\n\r\nA commercial company would not be permitted to alter the terms of a loan agreement, so why should our government?\r\n\r\nThe chancellor did not even mention these changes in his Autumn statement, underlining the underhand nature of these changes.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":134194,"created_at":"2016-05-23T11:27:50.996Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:47.672Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-23T12:48:36.257Z","closed_at":"2016-11-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-23T11:54:17.370Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-24T21:15:02.400Z","government_response_at":"2016-06-15T12:59:50.454Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-26T15:04:42.626Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-07-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-07-19T09:12:31.933Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-06-15","summary":"Freezing the repayment threshold ensures that the student support system remains affordable to the taxpayer and all students can access a university education, irrespective of their ability to pay.","details":"This Government is ensuring Higher Education is open to more people than ever before, and application rates from disadvantaged young people seeking to go university are currently at record levels. But Higher Education and Further Education must remain affordable to the taxpayer. Our approach is based on the fundamental principle that a borrower’s contribution to the cost of their education should be linked to their ability to pay. Graduates generally benefit from higher earnings than those who do not go to university, and we must maintain a fair balance between taxpayers and graduates in the costs of Higher Education. \r\n\r\nGraduates don’t have to repay their loans until they are earning above the annual threshold of £21,000. This threshold remains higher in real terms than that applicable to student loans taken out before 2012. Repayments are then made at a rate of 9% above this threshold. If a borrower earns less than the threshold then no repayments need to be made. Outstanding loans are written off 30 years after graduation.\r\n\r\nThe Government consulted on the threshold freeze in July 2015. All responses to the consultation were considered carefully in the wider context of the detailed analysis of impacts, including on the public finances, and the Equality Analysis. The consultation document and the Government response are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/freezing-the-student-loan-repayment-threshold.\r\n\r\nThe decision to freeze the student loan repayment threshold for post-2012 (“Plan 2”) borrowers until April 2021, was then announced in the November 2015 Spending Review. The Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 documents are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-06-15T12:59:50.452Z","updated_at":"2016-06-15T12:59:50.452Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-07-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-18/debates/16071826000001/StudentLoansAgreement","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9bac2dbf-f634-4134-ab34-5e4aab8a6cb7","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":132140,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/132140.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":"Free childcare when both parents are working. Not just those who are on benefits","background":"Free childcare is in place for 2 year olds where the parents have low income and mostly on benefits and don't work. If the parents are not working then their children don't need childcare. My husband and I work very hard to provide for our family but have to pay huge amount of money for childcare.","additional_details":"When childcare is paid for when both parents are working it makes a huge dent in income, we could do with the help. All children deserve this, It seems as though I would be better off not working.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":133921,"created_at":"2016-06-06T20:18:34.361Z","updated_at":"2017-09-27T08:34:12.689Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-10T11:23:41.830Z","closed_at":"2016-12-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-07T07:54:03.337Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-09T13:18:30.152Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-01T09:34:37.646Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-10T19:18:38.332Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-11-21","debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-22T10:28:45.746Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-01","summary":"We give low-income 2-year-olds from working and nonworking households free early learning because they can arrive at school behind better-off children, and this helps to bridge that gap.","details":"The first few years of a child’s life are fundamentally important. Evidence tells us that they shape children’s future development; influence how well children do at school; their on-going health and wellbeing; and their achievements later in life. It helps to promote a child’s physical, emotional, cognitive and social development. \r\n \r\nThis Government believes that no child should be held back in life because of their background. We want to support everybody to go as far as their talents will take them. Participation in early education at age two delivers greater benefits to disadvantaged children than early education at age three or four, but this group are less likely to access formal early education than their more affluent peers. The early learning for two-year-olds programme is therefore intended to help close this unfair gap. The two-year-old entitlement is in place to close the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged and their better off peers, rather than to act as a work incentive. \r\n\r\nHowever we do clearly understand the impact the cost of childcare can have on parents, and that’s why we are supporting parents with high childcare costs and investing in childcare at record levels. Total government spend on childcare support will increase from £5 billion in 2015-16 to over £6 billion by 2019-20. We are spending this on the current free 15 hours a week for three and four-year-olds and the most disadvantaged two-year-olds; the early years pupil premium for disadvantaged three- and four-year-olds, as well as providing 30 hours of free childcare for working parents of three- and four-year-olds from September 2017. \r\n \r\nWe are also introducing Tax-Free Childcare, which, from early 2017, will save around 2 million families up to £2,000 per child on their annual childcare bill for children aged under 12 (or £4,000 for children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 17). In addition, the childcare element of Universal Credit provides up to 70% of eligible childcare costs (to a maximum limit of £532.29 for one child and £912.50 for two or more children). For parents in receipt of Universal Credit this rose to 85% of eligible costs from April 2016, with the maximum limits increasing to £646.35 for one child and £1108.04 for two or more children.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-11-01T09:34:37.643Z","updated_at":"2016-11-01T09:34:37.643Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-11-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-21/debates/D185C964-E8F2-48A8-ABF6-B14F8D44F25E/FreeChildcare","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/571e5cfd-4dc5-402e-ba6c-4ff4d0171889","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":109649,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/109649.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":"Prevent the scrapping of the maintenance grant.","background":"From 2016 onwards, the maintenance loan, which was originally put in place to provide assistance to low income families, will be withdrawn. This petition hopes not only to prevent this from occurring but additionally, to offer students a voice with which to be heard in Parliament. ","additional_details":"This affects all those attending University from next year onwards. Please share this petition on all forms of media so that we can hope to have the non- repayable maintenance grant reinstated.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":133069,"created_at":"2015-09-30T19:45:03.966Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:56.974Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-02T13:36:53.619Z","closed_at":"2016-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-30T22:40:21.903Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-15T15:49:06.903Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-26T15:33:21.891Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-16T21:56:43.953Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-20T10:04:57.613Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-26","summary":"Parliament has debated the replacement of maintenance grants by loans three times since the start of 2016.","details":"MPs first debated the removal of the maintenance grant on 14 January 2016. This was followed by a further debate in the House of Commons on 19 January 2016. A third debate took place in the House of Lords on 25 January 2016.\r\n\r\nBritain’s universities are world-leading, with three UK universities featuring in the world’s top ten. Since 2010 student participation has increased and there is now a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to and entering higher education than ever before. The Government has removed the cap on student numbers, more students to enjoy the benefits of higher education.\r\n\r\nThe continuing success of our higher education sector relies on it being funded sustainably. Our system means that students who earn the most contribute more towards the costs of their education. The returns to individuals of obtaining a degree are high: the average male graduate will earn £170,000 more over his lifetime, and a female graduate will earn £250,000 more, than someone with two A-levels.\r\n\r\nLoans are only repaid once students are earning over £21,000 a year. Students earning below £21,000 will not have to make repayments.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s position is supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which has praised the student loan system in England, as “one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to student finance”. \r\n\r\nTo ensure we continue this success, the Government has introduced further changes to the system of student finance. Eligible new full-time students who are starting a higher education course from 1 August 2016 will no longer qualify for a maintenance grant. They will instead qualify for increased loans for living costs which for eligible students from families with household incomes of £25,000 or less will be 10.3% higher than total maintenance grant and loan support available for low income students under the current student support system in 2015/16.\r\n\r\nFor students living away from home and studying outside London this will provide an additional £766 in support, the highest ever amount. All eligible new full-time students in 2016/17 regardless of income will qualify for more living costs support under the new arrangements than in 2015/16.  \r\n\r\nDepartment of Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-01-26T15:33:21.887Z","updated_at":"2016-01-26T15:33:21.887Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-19/debates/16011944000002/StudentMaintenanceGrants","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/64eb66a7-fd53-4bb6-bae8-a72e74ddb240?in=13:48:59","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"MPs debated a motion calling on the Government to abandon its policy on replacing maintenance grants with loans. MPs voted against the motion by 306 to 292.\r\n\r\nFollowing this debate there was a vote on a motion to annul the Education (Student Support) Regulations (the legislation which implements the Government's policy). MPs voted against this motion by 303 to 292.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":133618,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/133618.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":"Invoke Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty immediately.","background":"The British people have spoken. We have voted to leave the EU. We want article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to be invoked immediately. We still have two years to discuss our exit from the EU, but we do not wish to delay it any further. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":128238,"created_at":"2016-06-24T05:54:51.021Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:59.937Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-30T13:26:27.902Z","closed_at":"2016-12-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-25T09:16:16.336Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-01T22:02:35.508Z","government_response_at":"2016-08-11T14:58:40.547Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-15T21:14:44.771Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-10-17","debate_outcome_at":"2016-10-18T12:16:43.820Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-08-11","summary":"The British people have voted to leave the EU and their will must be respected and delivered. We should not trigger Article 50 until we have a UK approach and objectives.","details":"The British people have voted to leave the EU and their will must be respected and delivered. The process for leaving the EU and determining our future relationship will be a complex one, so we need to take time to think through our objectives and approach. We want to ensure the best possible outcome for Britain and the future UK-EU relationship. As part of this, the government will of course work closely with the devolved administrations to ensure we get the best deal for the UK as a whole. We should not trigger Article 50 until we have a UK approach and objectives, so Article 50 should not be invoked before the end of this year.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2016-08-11T14:58:40.545Z","updated_at":"2016-08-11T14:58:40.545Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7b53b5c2-1b12-474d-855e-a8bca88605e5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","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","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. \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\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:  \r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/house-lords-administration/how-the-lords-is-run/business-and-financial-information/business-plans-annual-reports-and-accounts/\r\n\r\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. \r\n\r\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":168678,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168678.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":"Give status to Police Dogs and Horses as 'Police Officers'","background":"I propose that UK Police Dogs and Horses be given protection that reflects their status if assaulted in the line of duty. This would be similar to the US Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection","additional_details":"PD Finn of Hertfordshire Police to name but one.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":127729,"created_at":"2016-10-06T17:30:58.590Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:56.761Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-10T14:54:41.680Z","closed_at":"2017-04-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-06T17:52:03.128Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-11T00:36:04.214Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-11T15:17:31.517Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-21T12:19:14.111Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-11-14","debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-15T09:48:56.402Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-11","summary":"Attacks on police support animals are unacceptable and should be dealt with under the criminal law which allows for penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for those who carry out such attacks.","details":"Police support animals make a valuable contribution in the detection and prevention of crime and in maintaining public safety.  We recognise and are grateful for the bravery and skills shown by police dogs and their handlers day in and day out.\r\n\r\nThe Government agrees that attacks of any sort on police dogs or horses are unacceptable and should be dealt with severely under the criminal law. The law already allows for significant penalties to be issued to those who attack animals that support the police. An attack on a police dog or other police support animal can be treated as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. The financial element of the penalty was raised only last year from a maximum fine of £20,000. An attack on a police animal could be considered by the court as an aggravating factor leading to a higher sentence within the available range. Under some circumstances assaults on support animals could be treated as criminal damage which would allow for penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.  \r\n\r\nWhilst police leaders and campaigners agree that these penalties are appropriate, I understand that it is unpalatable to think of police animals as ‘equipment’ as is inferred by the charges of criminal damage.  This does not seem to convey the respect and gratitude police and public feel for the animals involved and their contribution to law enforcement and public safety. The Government has therefore agreed to explore whether there is more that the law should do to offer the most appropriate protections to police animals and all working animals.  \r\n\r\nWhen sentencing for offences of cruelty to or neglect of animals it is for the courts to decide on an appropriate penalty based on the individual circumstances of each case. Magistrates are provided with guidelines by the Sentencing Council to help them impose appropriate sentences and penalties. The guidelines give examples of offences, aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the range of suggested sentences and penalties for various types of offences.  The Government has requested that the Sentencing Council considers assaults on police animals as an aggravating factor as a part of their current review on guidelines for sentencing in the Magistrates’ Courts, which includes animal cruelty offences.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to work with the police to understand the extent of this problem.  Officials will be meeting national policing leads for police animals to discuss this issue over the coming weeks.  Police safety is an area of great concern for me, and one where I want to make sure we are doing all we can to protect frontline police officers, police staff and the animals that support them in their duties.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-11-11T15:17:31.513Z","updated_at":"2016-11-29T16:02:02.811Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-11-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-11-14/debates/D856FCAE-9EF4-49CF-99A0-AF5F379BEF94/PoliceDogsAndHorses","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b5f5b55e-3d6c-45f8-94b9-4411c366e114","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":166711,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/166711.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":"April's Law","background":"We the undersigned call on the prime minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.","additional_details":"Five-year-old April Jones was murdered by paedophile Mark Bridger after being abducted from outside her home in Machynlleth October 2012.\r\nBefore April's abduction he was looking at child pornography. He had over 500 indecent imagines of children on his computer.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":127296,"created_at":"2016-09-09T10:54:34.169Z","updated_at":"2017-09-18T13:45:05.808Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-09-16T09:45:52.700Z","closed_at":"2017-03-16T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-09T11:09:10.642Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-18T19:25:02.686Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-09T13:23:12.646Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-31T06:49:19.745Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-03-13","debate_outcome_at":"2017-03-14T10:08:04.492Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-09","summary":"The UK has some of the toughest powers in the world to deal with sex offenders and those who continue to pose a risk will remain subject to notification for life. ","details":"Protecting the public from harm remains a priority for this Government, and we have been clear that those offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain subject to notification for life.  The public should rest assured that sex offenders will not automatically come off the register; the order only provides a mechanism by which a sex offender can apply for a review.   \r\n\r\nOn 30 July 2012 the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 to introduce a mechanism which will enable registered sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements for life to apply for those requirements to be reviewed.  \r\n\r\nThis was as a result of an earlier Supreme Court ruling that our then law on indefinite sex offender registration without the right for review was incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). \r\n\r\nThe Government fully acknowledged the ruling of the Supreme Court and took appropriate action as is its duty; to uphold the independence of the judiciary by complying with the judgement.\r\n\r\nUnder the previous Government, we made changes to the notification requirements introducing additional measures which sought to strengthen the existing mechanism by making it mandatory for all registered sex offenders to notify to the police:\r\n\r\n•\tall foreign travel;\r\n•\tweekly, where they are registered as having ‘no fixed abode’;\r\n•\twhere they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18; and;\r\n•\ttheir bank account and credit card details, and information about their passports or other identity documents.\r\n\r\nWe continue to work with the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that the right powers are available for the authorities to tackle sexual crimes and to bring perpetrators to justice. \r\n\r\n\r\nPolicing of child abuse images\r\n\r\nThe Government agrees that industry has a responsibility to work together with law enforcement and Government to prevent and inhibit the use of their services by those seeking to generate and share child abuse material. In 2015, Google announced that it had made changes to its search algorithm to prevent images and videos containing child abuse material from appearing in search results.  They have publicly stated there has been an eight-fold reduction in child sexual abuse image related search queries since. \r\n\r\nThe Internet Watch Foundation, which is funded by industry, has been active in facilitating the removal of indecent imagery of children from the internet. Their efforts have helped the UK see a reduction from the UK hosting 18% of web pages of child abuse imagery, to 0.2% by 2015.  Since April 2014 as permitted by Government, they have proactively sought out child sexual abuse material to take action to get this material removed.  \r\n\r\nAt the WePROTECT summit in December 2014, industry committed to taking digital hashes of known child abuse imagery in order to ensure these could be identified and referred to the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, and removed.  As of October 2016, over 34,750 image hashes have been shared among industry by the IWF. \r\n\r\nSentencing\r\n\r\nSentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts.   When deciding what sentence to impose the courts take into account the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating and aggravating factors, in line with the sentencing guidelines.  Maximum penalties are kept under review to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with offences effectively and proportionately.\r\n\r\nThe independent Sentencing Council are responsible for issuing guidelines to the courts.  In December 2013 the Sentencing Council issued a revised guideline on sentencing for sexual offences, which came into force in England and Wales in April 2014.  \r\n\r\nUnder the Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended), the UK prohibits the taking, making circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under 16.  Such offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.  Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 also makes the simple possession of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children an offence.  This carries a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.  This age was raised to 18 in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and there are defences for those aged over the age of consent (16) who produce sexual photographs for their own use within a marriage or civil partnership.  These defences are lost, however, if such images are distributed. \r\n\r\nThe Sexual Offences 2003 Act significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales to provide extra protection to children from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.  It was designed to meet 21st century challenges of protecting children, and addresses issues including internet pornography and ‘grooming’ children for sexual abuse.  \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-11-09T13:23:12.643Z","updated_at":"2016-11-09T13:23:12.643Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-03-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-13/debates/9CEF2396-BFAF-40BB-AC79-7E5087011744/ChildAbuseOffences(Sentencing)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f719ed61-5c41-423d-9217-b47257e79c57","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106133,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106133.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":"Make an allowance for up to 2 weeks term time leave from school for holiday.","background":"Allow parents to take children out of school at a time convenient with them for up to 2 weeks per year during term time, so that the children can learn other cultures and experience this vital social experience, at the moment the current system discriminates against poorer households.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":127199,"created_at":"2015-08-13T16:39:37.920Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:34.261Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-14T17:05:05.718Z","closed_at":"2016-02-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-13T19:01:02.566Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-13T16:12:59.200Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.715Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-29T23:24:02.165Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-26","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-27T07:53:19.715Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-28","summary":"The Government wants every child to attend school regularly, and to confine absences to unavoidable causes. There is clear evidence that absence from school is linked to lower levels of attainment. ","details":"The Government acknowledges that family holidays can be enriching experiences and we are not preventing parents from taking their children on holiday. This is not about discriminating against any group; it is about all pupils of compulsory school age being in school when they are required to be and confining absence from school to unavoidable causes.\r\n\r\nThere is clear evidence that absence from school is linked to lower levels of attainment. According to attainment data for the 2012/13 academic year and absence data for that and preceding years:\r\n \r\n•\tPupils with no absence from school during Key Stage 4 were nearly three times more likely to achieve five A* to C GCSEs, including English and maths, and around 10 times more likely to achieve the English Baccalaureate, than pupils missing 15-20 per cent of school across Key Stage 4; and  \r\n\r\n•\tPrimary school pupils with no absence during Key Stage 2 were around 1.5 times more likely to achieve the expected level (level 4 or above); and more than 4.5 times more likely to achieve above the expected level (level 5 or above) at the end of Key Stage 2, than pupils that missed 15-20 per cent of sessions in Key Stage 2.\r\n\r\n•\tMissing even a short amount of time from school can reduce a pupil’s chances of succeeding at school by as much as a quarter.\r\n\r\n•\t44 per cent of pupils with no absence in key stage 4 achieve the English Baccalaureate - the gold standard package of GCSE qualifications that includes English, maths, science, history or geography and a language. But this figure falls by a quarter to just 31.7 per cent for pupils who miss up to just 14 days of lessons over the 2 years that pupils study for their GCSEs, which equates to around 1 week per year.\r\n\r\n•\tA similar pattern is also seen at primary school level, where pupils missing up to just 31 days of school in key stage 2 (i.e. around 1 week per year) are a quarter less likely to achieve level 5 or above in reading and maths tests than those with no absence across the key stage.\r\n\r\nThe law places a duty on parents of every school-registered child of compulsory school age to ensure their regular attendance at school. The school year is designed to give families various opportunities to enjoy holidays without having to disrupt children’s education. Parents should plan their holidays around school breaks and avoid seeking permission from schools to take their children out of school during term time unless it is absolutely unavoidable. \r\n\r\nHead teachers have the power to authorise leave of absence, but only in exceptional circumstances. The government has not specified what constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is for schools to consider the specific details and relevant context behind each request. Schools know their pupils best and are well placed to make those judgements.\r\n\r\nWe clarified the law in 2013 to address the widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term-time. No such entitlement existed in law previously, and the change in law has made this clearer. \r\n\r\nThe government is confident that the law strikes the right balance between the needs of individual families to take children out of school in exceptional circumstances and the need to provide the best possible education for all pupils.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education\r\n","created_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.712Z","updated_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.712Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-26/debates/15102614000001/Term-TimeLeave","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/27de12c5-a246-4aa0-87c3-ec208c5f7b8e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":170931,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/170931.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":"Abolish the tv licence, it shouldn't be a legal requirement.","background":"I believe the TV licence should be abolished, removed and not a legal requirement. It should be included through your provider for free. Tv is expensive enough without the added extra worry of £130+ A year. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":125958,"created_at":"2016-11-01T19:12:19.281Z","updated_at":"2018-07-27T14:08:50.023Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-09T17:41:37.362Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-01T20:52:37.831Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-06T18:54:05.155Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-24T11:37:25.012Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-22T11:50:57.318Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-21T10:03:43.963Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-24","summary":"A licence is required in order to watch all live or nearly-live television content on any device in the UK or to stream or download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by the BBC","details":"The BBC Charter Review, which commenced in 2015, was one of the biggest consultation exercises the government has undertaken. We listened to views of the public and industry (including 192,000 consultation responses), set out detailed policy proposals in the White Paper in May 2016, and worked closely and collaboratively with the BBC and Ofcom to negotiate the new Charter and Framework Agreement.\r\n\r\nThroughout the Charter Review, the Government considered the question of funding the BBC’s services, and decided that the licence fee system will be maintained for the coming Charter period. \r\n\r\nIn maintaining the licence fee model, the government is clear that the licence fee remains a licence to watch or receive television programmes, and is not a fee for BBC services – although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC and other public service objectives. \r\n\r\nWhile no system of funding meets all the criteria of an ideal funding system, the current system provides the BBC with a sustainable core income paid by all households who watch or receive television, and it commands wider public support than any alternative model. As stated above, revenue from the TV licence fee is also used to fund other services such as Welsh broadcaster S4C and infrastructure projects such as the delivery of superfast broadband.  \r\n\r\nIn line with the recommendations of the TV Licence Fee Enforcement Review, while the current licence fee collection system is in operation, the current system of criminal deterrence and prosecution should be maintained. Whilst the government agrees with the review’s assessment that decriminalisation is not possible under the current system, we believe that it would be preferable in the long term to make changes which reduce the necessity of the criminal sanction, such as exploring the options for conditional access.\r\n\r\nThe TV licence fee has been frozen since 2010, and the government has agreed to increase the fee in line with inflation for the next five years. However, the government also intends to help those on lower incomes by making the licence fee easier to pay through proposals to provide more flexible payment plans. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2017-02-24T11:37:25.010Z","updated_at":"2017-02-24T11:37:25.010Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-20/debates/CF3F652E-0E66-4089-A30D-D9229792E31A/TVLicenceFee","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d25effd4-66ce-4997-af96-db4b83265051","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0172/CDP-2017-0172.pdf","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125003,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125003.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 driven grouse shooting","background":"Grouse shooting for 'sport' depends on intensive habitat management which increases flood risk and greenhouse gas emissions, relies on killing Foxes, Stoats, Mountain Hares etc in large numbers and often leads to the deliberate illegal killing of protected birds of prey including Hen Harriers.","additional_details":"Driven grouse shooting uses animals for live target practice, with thousands killed every day. Native predators are killed because they eat Red Grouse. Mountain Hares are killed because they carry ticks that can spread diseases to grouse. Heather is burned to increase Red Grouse numbers for shooting. Grouse shooting is economically, ecologically and socially unnecessary. This is 'canned hunting'.\r\n\r\nSupported by Eduardo Gonçalves, CEO of League Against Cruel Sports, Chris Packham and Bill Oddie.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":123077,"created_at":"2016-03-17T20:44:14.507Z","updated_at":"2018-03-23T16:18:23.626Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-20T12:36:30.109Z","closed_at":"2016-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-17T21:33:49.278Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-24T19:31:20.028Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-21T12:41:01.383Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-13T08:57:30.136Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-10-31","debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-01T09:57:57.769Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-21","summary":"Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of uplands, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable grouse shooting.","details":"When carried out according to the law, grouse shooting is a legitimate activity and in addition to its significant economic contribution, providing jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas, it can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government’s position is that people should be free to undertake any lawful activities. However, all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.\r\n\r\nA report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is positive, and industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation. For grouse shooting in particular, according to the Moorland Association, estates in England and Wales spend £52.5 million each year on managing 175 grouse moors. The industry also supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £67.7 million in England and Wales.  \r\n\r\nGrouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable “ecosystem services”, including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities for health and wellbeing. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including by protecting peatlands through measures such as the Peatland Code. \r\n\r\nWith regard to predator control, we welcome the proactive approach taken by game keeping organisations to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation, for example through the BASC green shoots initiative. Control of grouse predators such as foxes and stoats on shooting estates has a role to play in the recovery of rare or declining species, particularly ground nesting birds. Mountain hares and other tick carrying species such as deer are controlled to reduce disease mortality in infected red grouse chicks. We also recognize that controlling mountain hares and deer is a legitimate practice in other circumstances: for example, to protect young trees and vegetation or as quarry species. \r\n \r\nThe Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 affords protection to all wild birds; despite this, incidents of illegal killing of birds of prey continue, so we have identified raptor persecution as a national wildlife crime priority. Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The raptor persecution group, led by a senior police officer, focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white tailed eagle and is led by a senior police officer. \r\n\r\nThe National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting birds of prey and assists police forces when required. Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine, red kite and buzzard have increased.  \r\n\r\nWith regard to hen harriers, in January 2016 the Defra led Upland Stakeholder Forum hen harrier sub-group published the Joint action plan to increase the English hen harrier population. This sets out six complementary actions to increase hen harrier populations in England. These actions are individually beneficial, and when combined have the potential to deliver stronger outcomes and contribute to the recovery of the hen harrier population in England. These are:\r\n\r\n1: Monitoring of populations in England and UK\r\n\r\n2: Diversionary feeding\r\n\r\n3: Work with Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) to analyse monitoring information and build intelligence picture\r\n\r\n4: Nest and winter roost protection\r\n\r\n5: Southern reintroduction\r\n\r\n6: Trialling a Brood Management Scheme\r\n\r\nThe Action Plan sets out who leads on each action and the timescale and benefits of each. The plan was developed with senior representatives from organisations best placed to take action, including Natural England, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, National Parks England and the RSPB. These organisations will now take the plan forward led by Natural England. They will monitor all the activities carried out and report annually on progress to the Defra Uplands Stakeholder Forum and the UK Tasking and Co-ordinating group for Wildlife Crime.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-04-21T12:41:01.377Z","updated_at":"2016-04-21T12:41:01.377Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-31","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-31/debates/06472E95-10EC-49A0-BF93-84CAD2BE4191/DrivenGrouseShooting","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0b841a46-eb3d-44b3-83b7-9500482b6d92","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121262,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121262.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":"Jeremy Hunt to resume meaningful contract negotiations with the BMA.","background":"J.Hunt is to impose a new contract. As incoming junior doctors, with GMC registration, starting work as an FY1 in August 2016 and junior doctors working within the NHS we will refuse to sign the imposed contract and will continue strike action on behalf of the medical profession and greater public.","additional_details":"Jeremy Hunt has announced that new contracts will be imposed on Junior doctors in his endeavour to destroy the NHS and privatise healthcare in the UK. It is in our interest as future and working Junior Doctors and in the interest of the general public that we continue to oppose these new contracts. We will refuse to sign these new contracts and will continue strike action until a negotiated resolution has been reached. \r\n  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":120680,"created_at":"2016-02-11T09:52:29.229Z","updated_at":"2018-02-23T16:19:25.752Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-11T14:23:26.196Z","closed_at":"2016-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T12:48:11.650Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T20:43:34.067Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-18T12:21:48.384Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-13T19:03:13.883Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-03-21","debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-24T17:52:56.782Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-18","summary":"There will be no imposition. NHS Improvement expects employers to introduce a fairer, safer contract, which they can do for new staff and as contracts expire as juniors move through training. ","details":"Junior doctors work incredibly hard across seven days.  They make a huge contribution to the NHS and deserve a fair, professional contract that supports patient care and proper training. As NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed some years ago, the current contract does not do this and needs to be replaced. Regrettably, despite negotiations over three years and agreement on 90% of the content, a settlement could not be reached and a new contract now needs to be introduced. The new deal is one which NHS leaders are clear is safe, fair and reasonable for junior doctors. Patient safety is the absolute priority for the Government and NHS Employers.  We want to ensure we have the safest healthcare system in the world by introducing stronger limits on junior doctors’ hours and by ensuring that consultants are available to make vital decisions about patient care across seven days. This requires changes to contracts.\r\n \r\nTogether, consultants and junior doctors are crucial to ensuring patients receive the high-quality care they need every day of the week. The BMA called for reform of the junior doctors’ contract in 2008. The proposals put forward for reforming the junior doctors’ contract and the consultants’ contract are designed to protect the safety of junior doctors and patients as well as rewarding junior doctors more fairly and ensuring more consultant availability over weekends to support training and deliver the key clinical standards. We have been making every effort, in good faith, to work with the BMA to introduce a new contract for junior doctors that supports these principles while maintaining average pay and ensuring no doctor is required to work longer or unsafe hours.  After the BMA walked away from negotiations with NHS Employers in 2014, we and NHS Employers accepted the recommendations of the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration in July 2015 and sought a return to negotiations. The BMA refused to negotiate, rejected an offer published and sent to junior doctors on 4 November 2015, and balloted for industrial action. \r\n \r\nThe BMA, NHS Employers and the Department agreed, in November, to talks under the auspices of ACAS and this led to negotiations during December. Initial talks led to a revised offer on 4 January, which the BMA refused to discuss, instead announcing that industrial action would commence on 12 January.. The Secretary of State appointed Sir David Dalton, a respected trust chief executive, to lead further talks behalf of the NHS and the Department. At the request of the management side, ACAS were asked to oversee those talks that continued during January with the BMA suspending further action that had been planned for 26-28 January\r\n\r\nOn 1 February Sir David Dalton wrote to the Secretary of State to advise him of the progress of negotiations. At the same time, the BMA announced industrial action for 10 February – with junior doctors providing emergency cover only, rather than the full withdrawal of labour that had previously been announced. This action was regrettable and unnecessary, given that Sir David’s letter showed that the parties had reached agreement on many issues, most notably on safety and on education and training, and on many elements of a new pay structure. \r\n\r\nUnfortunately, 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.\r\n\r\nThe Health Secretary announced on 11 February that the new contract will be introduced. NHS Improvement has made clear that it expects all employers to work with their junior doctors to implement the new contract. Changes will not be imposed on staff who currently have a contract of employment, but new terms will be offered as juniors enter training or as they move through training and onto new contracts of employment as current contracts expire. This is simply exercising a right that employers have when unable to reach agreement on changes with Trade Unions. Sir David has made clear his view that a negotiated settlement is not possible and that the proposed contract will be both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. Junior doctors should consider the detail that has been sent to them and published. What will be introduced is a fairer, safer contract that: includes lower limits on working hours and stronger safeguards to enforce these; better supports training; preserves average earnings, including for new trainees; includes a 13.5% increase in basic pensionable pay for all; means an increase in earnings for 75% of those moving onto new terms; and includes an offer that protects the pay of all trainees during transition.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-18T12:21:48.381Z","updated_at":"2017-01-13T14:25:56.057Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-03-21","transcript_url":"http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-21/debates/16032112000001/BMA(ContractNegotiations)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/641c6fb7-a2a0-47e0-8b10-e3c99e765c2b","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":105560,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105560.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":"Fund more research into brain tumours, the biggest cancer killer of under-40s","background":"Brain tumours kill more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer. One of those young lives lost was my brother Stephen, who was diagnosed at just 19 and died aged 26. More funding for research is urgently needed - read on for some shocking statistics from the charity Brain Tumour Research:","additional_details":"• Unlike most cancers, brain cancer incidence is rising.\r\n• Less than 20% of those diagnosed with brain cancer survive beyond 5 years.\r\n• In 2014, brain tumours received 1.5% (£7.7 million) of the £498 million national spend on research into cancer. At this rate, it could take 100 years to catch up with developments in other diseases.\r\nThe charity is calling on the Government and larger cancer charities to raise investment to £30-£35 million a year, and this petition aims to support its campaign.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":120129,"created_at":"2015-08-01T17:03:21.474Z","updated_at":"2020-01-17T09:57:28.633Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-03T14:10:43.735Z","closed_at":"2016-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-01T19:04:51.574Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-22T21:12:21.527Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.306Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-29T08:51:40.770Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-04-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T09:46:24.323Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-07","summary":"Government funders, charities and industry are working together to turn world-leading research into vital new treatments for brain tumour patients.","details":"The Government and charities work closely together in brain tumour research and other fields of cancer research through the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI). Factors influencing the level of research funding are discussed in Strategic Analysis 2002: An overview of Cancer Research in the UK directly funded by the NCRI Partner Organisations:\r\n\r\nThere are a number of factors that dictate the level of research funding into a particular issue. These include:\r\n•\tscientific opportunity – this can be a very important factor. In particular, developments in fundamental research and the introduction of new technologies often stimulate new approaches; \r\n•\tthe burden of disease – the incidence and severity of a type of cancer will influence both researchers and funders;\r\n•\tresearchability – some tumour types are easier to work on than others but can often provide a model system for other cancers, and many researchers are attracted to areas or diseases where there is real evidence or potential for progress; \r\n•\tfundraising – certain types of cancer may attract more public donations than others; and \r\n•\tthe quality and size of the research workforce – because of the issues listed above some areas attract more high quality researchers than other areas. This will undoubtedly affect the number of quality proposals received by funding bodies.\r\n\r\nNCRI partner organisations take these factors into account when making funding decisions. However, the relative importance of each of these in the decision-making process varies for each organisation depending on its corporate aims, culture and procedures.\r\n\r\nThe NCRI Cancer Research Database includes expenditure on cancer research by NCRI partner organisations. This includes only direct spend on cancer research, or spend which directly supports cancer research. The proportion of cancer research funding directly supporting brain tumour research was 1.5% in 2014. This analysis includes fundamental research (28.8%) and funding relevant to all cancer sites (25.1%). If these elements are excluded, brain tumour research received 3.3% of site-specific cancer research funding. This is a greater proportion than for 40 of the 49 site-specific categories.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including brain tumours. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and the NHS, value for money and scientific quality. NIHR funding is not ring-fenced for cancer research or for research on brain tumours or other types of cancer. In all disease areas, the amount of NIHR funding depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity.\r\n\r\nThe Government welcomes the commitment by Cancer Research UK to increase spend in research on brain tumours. This will drive further investment by the NIHR. This happens in two ways. Firstly, as scientific breakthroughs are translated into interventions benefitting patients through infrastructure for experimental medicine. Secondly, investment is driven as emerging interventions are investigated in studies and trials through the NIHR Clinical Research Network.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.303Z","updated_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.303Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-04-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-18/debates/16041811000001/BrainTumours","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3211c3a4-ea0c-425e-8277-43c7a512f54d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":176138,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/176138.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":"Make it a specific criminal offence to attack any member of NHS Medical Staff.","background":"There are 193 attacks on NHS staff a day in England. LBC's Nick Ferrari thinks this is unacceptable. Support his 'Guard Our Emergency Medical Services' campaign to better protect our doctors and nurses by making it a specific legal offence to attack them. ","additional_details":"Figures show that attacks on NHS staff are rising. With stretched resources, higher demand and rising waiting times the NHS can ill afford this violence. \r\nFor twenty years it has been a specific offence to attack a Police officer conducting their duties. (Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996) \r\nWe the undersigned believe it is time to extend this higher legal provision and protection to NHS medical staff and make it a specific offence to assault them.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":118056,"created_at":"2016-12-22T15:45:24.285Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:23:31.033Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-12-22T15:50:23.169Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-22T15:49:20.308Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-10T18:09:34.885Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-20T17:03:36.075Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-19T13:01:44.342Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-27","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-28T10:30:00.682Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-20","summary":"Assaults against NHS staff are unacceptable, and already criminalised.  If the victim serves the public, an assault is treated more seriously.  A new offence would not provide additional protection.","details":"Assaults against NHS staff are completely unacceptable. The Government is determined to ensure that all public servants have a safe and secure working environment. Any assault on someone providing a service to the public (including NHS staff) is treated extremely seriously. The fact that the victim is providing a service to the public is listed as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines which courts have a statutory duty to follow. As such, offenders who assault someone providing a service to the public may face a higher sentence than that for other assaults.   \r\n\r\nIf NHS staff are attacked, there should be no hesitation in involving the police. \r\n\r\nA protocol to tackle violence and anti-social behaviour in the NHS by shared actions between the Police, Crown Prosecution Service and NHS Protect was signed in 2011.  It sets out steps to improve the protection of NHS staff, to strengthen the investigation and prosecution process by improving the quality of information exchanged, and to improve victim and witness support. This protocol is currently being updated: the revised version is due to be in place in the coming months. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Code for Crown Prosecutors states, when considering the Public Interest Stage, “a prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”. \r\n\r\n\r\nThere is already a range of offences which criminalise assault or violent behaviour. These start with common assault, the maximum sentence for which is 6 months imprisonment or a fine or both.  (This is the same maximum as for the specific offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty.)  Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) are more serious offences against the person, both with a maximum custodial sentence of 5 years. The most serious applicable offences, such as wounding or causing GBH with intent, have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. \r\n\r\nAll these offences apply whoever is the victim, including of course NHS staff. Employers in the NHS are responsible for assessing and addressing risks to staff, in accordance with detailed guidance.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2017-02-20T17:03:36.073Z","updated_at":"2017-02-20T17:03:36.073Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-27/debates/FE911759-410C-4322-A0D9-0D2B6E6661AB/AttacksOnNHSStaff","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/366cf329-dd6b-4b6b-83d6-7e13529f8b9d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":162934,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/162934.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":"Force child cancer to the forefront of the NHS and government funding schemes.","background":"We want the government to make more funding available in the fight against child cancer. Not enough is being done to spread awareness . We need more genetic testing and research. Child cancer needs to be at the forefront of our minds. These beautiful children need our help, Please, lets help them.","additional_details":"My wife and I recently lost our precious daughter Poppy-Mai to a very rare cancer, it was a progressive and aggressive malignant rhabdoid tumour which progressed into a metastatic brain tumour.  More funding should be made available in the fight against child cancer, these children are our future.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":117183,"created_at":"2016-07-24T21:37:01.502Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:19:04.004Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-07-29T14:07:58.443Z","closed_at":"2017-01-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-24T21:42:28.721Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-31T08:18:18.042Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-22T16:07:16.670Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-11T17:51:38.438Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-11-28","debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-29T10:28:45.038Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-22","summary":"The independent Cancer Taskforce’s five-year plan Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015-2020 (July 2015), includes recommendations on children and young people. ","details":"We want to lead the world in fighting cancer. Survival rates have never been higher, but we want to go further. The independent Cancer Taskforce’s five-year strategy for cancer, Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015-2020 (July 2015), recommends improvements across the cancer pathway with the aim of improving survival rates, awareness and the quality of care people receive. \r\n\r\nCancer services for children, teenagers and young adults (CTYA) have improved significantly and the NHS needs to consider the best structure for continued improved care and experience. The strategy has a number of recommendations with implications for CTYA as well as the following specific recommendations:\r\n\r\n•\t43: looks at a possible review of CTYA services to provide improved integrated care \r\n•\t44: consent from children and young people for their data and tissue collection for use in future research studies and development of services, and \r\n•\t45: that NHS England, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and cancer research charities to consider ways in which access to clinical trials for teenagers and young adults with cancer could be significantly increased. \r\n\r\nAn implementation plan Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: Taking the strategy forward, was published May 2016 and the Board published its first annual progress report in October 2016. \r\n\r\nNHS England already has the funds necessary to improve cancer services over the next five years as part of commitments in the Mandate and the additional £10 billion of funding.  The recommendations in the independent Cancer Taskforce’s report give direction as to where these funds should be targeted to achieve world-class cancer outcomes.\r\n\r\nInvestment in cancer research by the NIHR has increased substantially from £101 million in 2010/11 to £142 million in 2015/16 including research relating to childhood cancers. A new Department of Health Task and Finish Working Group on Brain Tumour Research is bringing together clinicians, charities and officials to discuss how, working together with research funding partners, we can increase the level and impact of research into brain tumours, including those in children. The Working Group, chaired by Professor Chris Whitty, the Department’s Chief Scientific Adviser first met October 2016 and the Government expects it will complete its tasks by September 2017.\r\n\r\n•\tThrough the establishment of the 100,000 Genomes Project, the UK continues to be world leader in using genomics to diagnose, treat and prevent rare disease and cancer.\r\n\r\n•\tThe project currently covers 193 rare disease categories including childhood cancers. \r\n\r\n•\tConsiderable investment has been made in the project to date including £350 million from DH via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) budget.\r\n\r\n•\tThe project is already providing answers and changing lives - the first children with a rare disease have received diagnoses through the project at Great Ormond Street Hospital.\r\n\r\n•\tThe UK Strategy for Rare Diseases, published in November 2013, sets out a strategic vision for improving the lives of all those affected by rare diseases. It contains 51 commitments to be implemented by 2020 and has been signed up to by the four countries of the UK.\r\n\r\n•\tThe UK has also been at the forefront of pan-EU action on rare diseases. The 2011 EU Cross-Border Healthcare Directive promotes European Reference Networks (ERNs) as centres of knowledge, skills and expertise.\r\n\r\nWe know that cancer can affect all areas of a person’s life, including relationships, work, and finances – 83% of people say they are financially impacted by cancer. People require holistic support from diagnosis onwards, encompassing their physical, financial, psychosocial, and information and support needs, throughout their entire cancer journey. \r\n\r\nAs can be seen in the case of Poppy-Mai, a cancer diagnosis can have devastating consequences for the lives of young people and their families, and we are working hard to improve services for patients in England within the constraints of the resources available to the NHS.  Care should be built around what matters to the young person and their family and carers so we are working closely with cancer charities to ensure patients get the support they need during and after their treatment. \r\n\r\nThe hospital travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to those patients who do not have a medical need for ambulance transport, but need assistance with travel costs. This is part of the well-established NHS Low Income Scheme, in which patients on low incomes or receiving specific qualifying benefits or allowances can be reimbursed in part or in full for travelling costs to receive treatment at hospitals including cancer treatment. It also can be claimed where the appointment has been made for a child. \r\n\r\nChildren and teenagers with serious or critical illnesses such as cancer are also entitled to apply for Disability Living Allowance or DLA (or a Personal Independence Payment if over 16).\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-11-22T16:07:16.666Z","updated_at":"2016-11-22T16:13:25.251Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-11-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-28/debates/712C7DA1-FBB4-4D7B-BB01-BDB78C66AB89/ChildCancer","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/eac0e840-b934-48c7-87d3-41432f643ae5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":118060,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/118060.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 the £35k threshold for non-EU citizens settling in the UK","background":"In April (2016) the Home Office and Theresa May are introducing a pay threshold for people to remain here, after already working here for 5 years. This only affects non-EU citizens that earn under £35,000 a year, which unfairly discriminates against charity workers, nurses, students and others. ","additional_details":"This ridiculous measure is only going to affect 40,000 people who have already been living and working in the UK for 5 years, contributing to our culture and economy. It will drive more workers from the NHS and people from their families. This empty gesture will barely affect the immigration statistics. It's a waste of time, money and lives.\r\n\r\nThis is the first time the UK has discriminated against low-earners. £35k is an unreasonably high threshold. The UK will lose thousands of skilled workers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114636,"created_at":"2016-01-09T12:17:48.287Z","updated_at":"2017-12-04T13:09:01.250Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-01-12T16:51:52.790Z","closed_at":"2016-07-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-09T12:41:24.090Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-16T16:41:33.228Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.726Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-12T11:25:50.773Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-03-07","debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-08T12:16:53.461Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-02","summary":"The £35,000 threshold was announced in 2012 following public consultation. It applies only to workers in graduate occupations. Exemptions exist for workers at PhD-level or in a recognised shortage.","details":"The Government believes that the UK can benefit from migration but not uncontrolled migration.  We are delivering a more selective immigration system that works in the national interest.\r\n\r\nUncontrolled, mass immigration makes it difficult to maintain social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes.  In the past it has been too easy for employers to bring in workers from overseas, rather than to take the long-term decision to train our workforce here at home.\r\n\r\nAs part of our reforms, we consulted in 2011 on being more selective about those workers who are allowed to settle in the UK.  We do not believe there should be an automatic link between coming to work in the UK temporarily and staying permanently.\r\n\r\nThe £35,000 threshold for settlement applications forms part of our overall strategy and is intended to make a modest contribution to the Government’s target of reducing net migration to sustainable levels.  It applies to those holding leave  under Tier 2, the skilled work category.  This category is reserved for those working in graduate level jobs only.\r\n\r\nThe threshold was set following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), an independent advisory body consisting of expert labour market economists.  The MAC carried out a further public consultation, in addition to that carried out by the Government, before arriving at its recommendations.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Tier 2 category is to support the UK economy.  The MAC advised that the strongest indicator of economic value is salary, and therefore those migrants earning more than a given amount at the end of their temporary leave in the UK should be eligible for settlement.  \r\n\r\n£35,000 was equivalent to the median pay of the UK population in skilled jobs which qualified for Tier 2 at the time of the MAC’s consultation.  The MAC’s most recent research shows that the equivalent figure today would be £39,000.\r\n\r\nWithin Tier 2, there are exemptions for migrants who are working in a PhD-level occupation (such as university researchers), or in a recognised shortage occupation.  Nurses, several other healthcare professionals and some teachers are among the jobs which are included on the Shortage Occupation List, and who will be exempt from the threshold.\r\n\r\nThis exemption also covers jobs which have been on the Shortage Occupation List at any time in the preceding six years while the settlement applicant has been sponsored to do it.  This guards against jobs being returned to shortage because migrant workers who have helped fill skills gaps are required to leave.  \r\n\r\nInternational students enter the UK under Tier 4, the student route.  There is a category in Tier 5, the temporary work route, for charity workers.  The £35,000 threshold does not apply to these categories, which have never led to settlement in the UK.  We have an excellent offer for international graduates who wish to undertake skilled work in the UK after their studies.\r\n\r\nThose workers who are affected by the threshold were aware when they entered that new settlement rules would apply to them.  We were clear that the new rules would apply to migrants who entered Tier 2 from 6 April 2011.  Employers have also had this time to prepare for the possibility their migrant workers may not meet the required salary threshold to remain in the UK permanently.\r\n\r\nThose workers who cannot meet the threshold can extend their stay in Tier 2 up to a maximum of six years, and can apply to switch into any other immigration routes for which they are eligible.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.722Z","updated_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.722Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-03-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-07/debates/16030714000001/Non-EUCitizensIncomeThreshold","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/da0f4829-4c94-4ca9-93e1-a0897850ce01","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}