{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=19&parliament=3&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=19&parliament=3&state=with_response","next":null,"prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=18&parliament=3&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":230192,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/230192.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reject Remote Pharmacist Proposals. Keep Pharmacists Present for Patients.","background":"Whilst a pharmacy is open it is a fundamental patient right that a qualified pharmacist is available on site at all times to consult in person, without the need for an appointment. Patient safety would be jeopardised if a pharmacist wasn't present in a pharmacy.","additional_details":"The government has proposed that pharmacists could end up signed in as the Responsible Pharmacist for more than one pharmacy at a time and therefore not physically available to patients. The government's proposals will ultimately lead to medicines dispensing & supply taking place without the supervision of a pharmacist. This will be detrimental to patient care and safety and the legislative changes must not go ahead. More information can be found on this website: the-pda.org/patientpetition2018","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10423,"created_at":"2018-10-11T06:25:16.521Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:04.806Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-18T11:25:29.979Z","closed_at":"2019-04-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-11T07:12:38.369Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-24T11:48:26.555Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-19T13:11:16.501Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-19","summary":"The Government has no current proposals to remove the requirement that a pharmacist must supervise the sale or supply of Pharmacy or Prescription Only Medicines at or from a registered pharmacy.","details":"This is a misunderstanding of the proposals that this Government consulted upon between June and September of 2018. \n\nNeither the Government nor the Rebalancing Medicines Legislation and Pharmacy Regulation Programme Board - the Board overseeing this area of work – have formulated proposals in relation to “remote supervision” or the supervision of the sale or supply of medicines by someone other than a registered pharmacist. If formal proposals were to be made in this area, they would be subject to a full public consultation and Ministerial approval. \n\nThe Government consulted on two draft Section 60 Orders in 2018. The first draft Order seeks to extend existing defences for inadvertent preparation and dispensing errors to pharmacy professionals working in hospitals and other relevant pharmacy services. The second draft Order seeks to strengthen and clarify the organisational governance requirements of registered pharmacies in primary legislation specifically in respect of the roles and responsibilities of Responsible Pharmacists and Superintendent Pharmacists. Concerns raised via this e-petition appear to be in relation to Responsible Pharmacist proposals made in respect of the second draft Order.\n\nThe role of the Responsible Pharmacist, as in statute, is a distinct and different role from that of the supervising pharmacist, albeit both roles may be undertaken by the same pharmacist at the same time. The Responsible Pharmacist role is concerned with the organisational governance of a particular pharmacy when it is open for business, whereas supervision by a pharmacist concerns the preparation, dispensing, selling and supplying of individual products - a role that is sometimes referred to as transactional governance. These two roles are distinct and separate, and should not be conflated. \n\nA general principle that guides the work of the Rebalancing Medicines Legislation and Pharmacy Regulation Programme Board, in fulfilling its remit, is to utilise professional regulation rather than criminal law. As such, the draft legislation proposes to empower the pharmacy regulators to set the detail requirements for Responsible Pharmacists, while maintaining the statutory function in primary legislation. One of the specific proposals in the public consultation was to move the powers to make an exception to the general rule that a Responsible Pharmacist can only be in charge of one pharmacy at a time from Ministerial regulations to the rules or regulations of the pharmacy regulators – the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) in Great Britain and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI).\n\nThe power to create an exception to the general rule that a Responsible Pharmacist must hold the role for only one registered pharmacy at a time already exists in legislation. All the draft Order does is to move the use of the power to make an exception from Ministers to the pharmacy regulators, in keeping with the ethos of the Rebalancing Programme. The pharmacy regulators are responsible for protecting the public and giving assurance to patients that they will receive safe and effective care when using pharmacy services. They are therefore well placed to hold the exception-making powers, and to safeguard public interest. \n\nIf in the future the pharmacy regulators sought to make an exception in this area, this would need to be set out in “black and white” rules or regulations. The pharmacy regulators must consult on any proposed rules or regulations, offering the opportunity for scrutiny and comment. For the GPhC, they must publish draft rules and invite representations from Ministers and other appropriate persons to consult on the draft rules, and in Great Britain, the resultant rules cannot enter into force until approved by the Privy Council. They will then be subject to the “negative resolution” scrutiny procedure in the UK Parliament. Separately, any regulations by the PSNI would require consultation of appropriate persons and consultation of and approval by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.\n\nThe current legislation and the Medicines (Pharmacies) (Responsible Pharmacist) Regulations 2008 already enable the Responsible Pharmacist to be absent from the pharmacy, albeit for a limited period. The proposals upon which the Government consulted maintain the principle of Responsible Pharmacist absence, in keeping with their organisational governance role. \n\nThe proposals consulted upon in respect of the Responsible Pharmacist make no impact upon the requirement for there to be a pharmacist, or someone working under their supervision, to carry out the sale or supply of a medicine not subject to general sale in a registered pharmacy – as outlined in regulation 220 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. As outlined above, any changes to legislation in respect of this would be publicly consulted upon and subject to agreement from Ministers and Parliament.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2019-03-19T13:11:16.498Z","updated_at":"2019-03-19T13:11:16.498Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":262986,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/262986.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament should stop a 'no-deal' Brexit","background":"Legislation to hold the EU referendum and the decision to trigger Article 50 were made in the previous Parliament. No Parliament can bind the hands of its successor, therefore this Parliament can, in effect, do as it believes appropriate, given the circumstances, and prevent a 'no deal' Brexit.”","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10397,"created_at":"2019-05-29T16:47:18.624Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:51:23.742Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-06-10T16:34:32.304Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-29T20:28:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-02T18:39:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-11-05T16:56:11.042Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-05","summary":"While legislation cannot “bind” Parliament, we must respect the referendum, our largest ever popular vote. The Government wants to get Brexit done with its deal. An election is the only way forward.","details":"On 29 March 2017, the UK formally notified the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the European Union (EU), which started the negotiations to implement the result of the 2016 referendum. 17.4 million people voted for Brexit in 2016, making it our greatest ever popular vote. We must respect the referendum.\n\nThis decision to invoke Article 50 was approved by the UK Parliament when it passed the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.\n\nThe Prime Minister was compelled by the UK Parliament to write to the President of the European Council to confirm the UK’s formal agreement to the European Council Decision for an extension to 31 January 2020. On 28 October 2019, the Prime Minister complied with the law. In this letter, the Prime Minister made clear that the Government would have preferred to “ratify the deal we reached between us”, and his view that in granting the extension requested by Parliament there was a risk of endangering the interests of the UK and EU, and in particular the relationship between us.\n\nIn order to secure parliamentary approval for the deal, the Government believes that a General Election in December is required to break this Parliamentary deadlock and honour the result of the referendum.\n\nIt is for this reason that the Government introduced the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill 2019 which makes provision for a parliamentary general election. This Bill was approved by both Houses and received Royal Assent on 31 October and an election will now be held on 12 December 2019.\n\nThe Government wants to get Brexit done with its new deal. Unfortunately, the UK Parliament would not agree a timetable for passing the deal and so we now face further uncertainty about when Brexit will occur. That is why an election is the only way forward.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2019-11-05T16:56:11.040Z","updated_at":"2019-11-05T16:56:11.040Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":245716,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/245716.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Fund an NHS Lyme Disease Centre of Excellence","background":"NICE guidelines (2018) suggest to refer complicated Lyme Disease sufferers to a Specialist. Referral is often made to other specialties who do not have the knowledge or experience to manage this debilitating disease of multi-systemic symptoms .","additional_details":"Endemic in the UK, with an est. 3,000 new cases a year, Lyme disease can cause tremendous suffering to some patients, each requiring an individualised holistic plan of care which no other specialty can give. Sufferers with ongoing symptoms see multiple inexperienced Doctors, costing the NHS thousands in various wasted appointments/investigations. Many are unable to work fulltime. Referral to a Specialist in the Centre, experienced and trained in Lyme would have the ability to manage all aspects of the disease.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10397,"created_at":"2019-03-16T22:50:19.946Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:46:33.569Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-04T10:39:11.727Z","closed_at":"2019-10-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-18T20:53:25.376Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-11T19:51:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-27T13:23:39.969Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-27","summary":"There are no plans to establish a Centre of Excellence for Lyme disease. NICE has issued a clinical guideline (2018) and a quality standard (2019) to support diagnosis and treatment of this disease.","details":"Lyme disease is a common infection acquired through the bite of an infected tick. Most cases are diagnosed and treated by GPs and recover uneventfully, but a few cases which present late or are not treated adequately may develop complicated Lyme disease with neurological or other symptoms that can be difficult to treat.  \n\nAt the Department of Health and Social Care’s request, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed evidence-based clinical guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. This was published in April 2018 [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng95]. This guidance identified when referrals to specialists should be considered and noted that the specialist referred to should be appropriate for the person's history or symptoms, for example, an adult or paediatric infection specialist, rheumatologist or neurologist. This guidance did not recommend the establishment of an NHS Lyme Disease Centre of Excellence and there are no plans to establish such a centre.\n\nMore recently (July 2019) NICE has published a quality standard on Lyme disease [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs186] which sets out expectations on diagnosis and treatment in certain scenarios as well as health promotion activities to raise public awareness about how to prevent Lyme disease. \n\nAll NICE guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed through extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. It represents best practice and health and care professionals should take it fully into account in the care and treatment of individual patients. This guidance does not, however, replace the judgement of health and care professionals to determine the best treatment for individual patients.\n\nIt is recognised that Lyme disease can be a difficult condition to diagnose. We expect GPs to use their professional judgement in diagnosing and treating this condition. All medical training includes elements on infectious diseases and the way they are transmitted. In addition, Public Health England (PHE) has a helpline for doctors as well as running GP training days. In the UK the medical revalidation programme ensures that specialists are up to date in their field. Several infectious disease clinics across the UK see cases of Lyme disease, as do neurology and rheumatology specialist centres. Specialist doctors have access to the literature on Lyme disease and are trained in the recognition and management of the disease within their higher professional training and continuing professional development.  \n\nServices for the treatment of Lyme disease are commissioned locally and are the responsibility of Clinical Commissioning Groups. NHS England expects commissioners to provide services based on clinical insight and local population needs. All treatment for Lyme or other conditions should be evidence-based and targeted at the disease mechanisms underlying those symptoms. Each patient should be treated according to the pathological process giving rise to those symptoms.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2019-09-27T13:23:39.967Z","updated_at":"2019-09-27T13:23:39.967Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":236246,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/236246.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Tier 2 (Intra-Company) individuals and their dependants to settle.","background":"We have lived in the UK for 5 years and are not allowed to settle equally to colleagues on Tier 2 (general). Our parents are paying the same amounts of taxes, and not receiving any government services. It is not currently possible to apply for leave to remain with this visa made after April 2010.","additional_details":"We have a private education and health insurance and aren't incurring expenses from the government. Our employment situation made UK our home, we grew up here and are about to enroll to universities; it is unreasonable to look elsewhere. Our parents are committed to careers in an international company; they will bring back their international earnings to UK to finance our education and settlement. As such, it is a win-win situation that merits consideration","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10359,"created_at":"2018-12-30T20:24:26.551Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:52.262Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-17T13:51:17.728Z","closed_at":"2019-07-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-30T23:28:51.601Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-02T15:36:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-11T09:12:16.549Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-11","summary":"The Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category facilitates the mobility of key company personnel on a temporary basis only, in line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation.","details":"The Government recognises the valuable contribution migrants make to our society and welcome those with the skills and expertise to make our nation better still. Migrant workers fill skill gaps in our labour market and help to boost our economy. We must also ensure that the immigration system supports UK businesses and employers so that they are able to attract highly skilled, talented and hardworking individuals to work or study in the United Kingdom and manage the process properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest.\n\nTier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) is a category for existing employees of multinational businesses that need to be transferred to an existing branch in the United Kingdom to fill a specific vacancy that cannot be filled by a settled worker. It is designed to be a temporary route enabling people to come to the United Kingdom for a maximum period of five years.\n\nThe Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category ceased to be a route that led to settlement for main applicants and dependants following changes to the Immigration Rules made in March 2010. These changes reflected recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee in its August 2009 report, ‘Analysis of the Points Based System: Tier 2 and Dependants’. People initially applying for Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) on or after 6 April 2010 no longer qualified for settlement and those affected would therefore have been aware when they applied to enter the United Kingdom that they were entering in a category that did not lead to settlement and would need to return to their country of origin at the end of the main applicant’s posting.\n\nIt was the Migration Advisory Committee’s view that the purpose of arrangements for the admission under Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) should be to facilitate the temporary mobility of key company personnel, and time spent in the United Kingdom under Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) should not therefore count towards settlement or citizenship. The United Kingdom’s international commitments in relation to the admission of migrants under Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) do not require that such workers should qualify for permanent residence.\nThe reforms made to the category were designed to align it more closely with the original intention of permitting senior managers and specialists to transfer to the United Kingdom for a temporary period.\n\nThe United Kingdom also operates employment migration arrangements – the Tier 2 (General) category - which do lead to settlement. These arrangements are designed to cater for the direct recruitment of non-EEA workers to fill permanent vacancies.\n\nThe partners and children of migrants with leave under Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) are considered in line with the main applicant and they therefore also do not qualify for settlement on the basis of being a dependant of a person in the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category.\n\nFor the dependants of Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) migrants wanting to enrol or continue studying at a university in the United Kingdom once their existing dependant visa expires, it is open to them to apply for a Tier 4 General Student visa. Please see the following website for further details on the eligibility criteria for this: gov.uk/tier-4-general-visa.\n\nWe keep our immigration system under constant review to ensure that it serves the national interest.\n\nHome Office.","created_at":"2019-07-11T09:12:16.546Z","updated_at":"2019-07-11T09:13:04.736Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200005,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200005.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give all British citizens living abroad the right to vote and dedicated MPs","background":"About 1 million British citizens living abroad do not have the right to vote due to their overseas residency exceeding 15 years. They therefore lack representation in Parliament. And, British Citizens living abroad for under 15 years may only vote in a constituency they no longer live in.","additional_details":"We believe that all British citizens deserve genuine representation in Parliament. British citizens living abroad must be able to vote for an MP to represent their interests in the House of Commons. Having their own dedicated MPs would more efficiently address their concerns which are often different to UK residents’. This petition proposes to introduce votes for life and to add overseas constituencies with a dedicated MP for each constituency to better represent British Citizens living abroad.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10314,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:19:27.628Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:21.791Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-13T13:30:32.274Z","closed_at":"2018-03-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T18:00:28.718Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-22T00:15:43.912Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.301Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-03-15","summary":"The Government remains committed to introducing ‘votes for life’ ahead of the next scheduled General Election in 2022 but has no plans to create overseas constituencies.","details":"The Government’s principle is clear: participation in our democracy is a fundamental part of being British, no matter how far you have travelled. The Government remains committed to scrapping the 15 year limit on the voting rights of overseas electors ahead of the next scheduled General Election in 2022, subject to securing the necessary Parliamentary approval.\n\nGlyn Davies’ Private Member’s Bill on Overseas Electors successfully passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 23 February 2018 and will now be moving on to the next stage of legislative passage. The Government spoke in favour of the bill during the debate. If it becomes law, this bill would implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver ‘votes for life’. We encourage all eligible British citizens to register to vote, wherever they live.\n\nThe Government agrees that all British citizens who move to another country should be able to vote for a Member of Parliament to represent their interests. This would be the Member of Parliament representing the area in which an overseas elector previously lived.\n\nThe Government does not support the creation of parliamentary constituencies for overseas electors. We believe it is the right principle that overseas electors continue to have some form of connection to the area of the country where they were last resident. This is the approach taken generally in other democracies with overseas voting. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.298Z","updated_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.298Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":228534,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/228534.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a public inquiry into the decision to incentivise diesel cars & its effects","background":"In 2001 the government decided to link car tax (VED) to CO2 emissions. In 2002 company car tax also became emissions-based. People were encouraged by such incentives to buy diesel cars, yet owners of even relatively new diesels now face draconian extra taxes, parking surcharges, even effective bans.","additional_details":"Millions of car owners who chose diesels encouraged by government now face harsh surcharges for parking, road tax, company tax and 'low emissions zones' effectively banning their use entirely, even for cars purchased as recently as 2015. Local surcharges and restricted zones are expanding across the UK. Such an extreme u-turn in policy is unacceptable abuse of public authority and must stop, pending an inquiry to examine how past errors can be prevented and those affected instead treated fairly.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10292,"created_at":"2018-09-10T13:05:33.400Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:37.287Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-24T11:34:15.370Z","closed_at":"2019-03-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-18T12:42:39.010Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-11T13:17:11.393Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-04T12:13:47.029Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-04","summary":"The design of vehicle taxes helps the UK meet its CO2 targets. On air quality, diesel supplements incentivise bringing forward new cleaner technology rather than penalising drivers who can’t upgrade.","details":"The vehicle tax system is designed to encourage the take-up of cars with low CO2 emissions. Through Vehicle Excise Duty and company car tax, motorists benefit from lower tax rates if they choose a new car with low CO2 emissions. As transport is the largest contributing sector to greenhouse gas emissions, the design of vehicle taxes helps the government to meet its legally binding targets.\n\nCleaner diesel cars and vans can play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions from road transport during the transition to ultra low and zero emission vehicles. For example, diesel can be suitable for vehicles, including cars, that regularly drive long distances or carry heavy loads particularly outside of urban areas. \n\nHowever, the air quality impact of diesels must continue to be reduced. The Department of Health and Social Care’s advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) have recently estimated that long-term exposure to man-made air pollution in the UK has an annual impact on shortening lifespans, equivalent to 28,000 to 36,000 deaths. As such, it is right that tax should play a part in efforts to tackle the harmful effects of NOx emissions. \n\nFrom April 2018, the government introduced a supplement on new diesel cars which do not meet the Real World Driving Emissions Step 2 (RDE2) standard. The RDE2 standard involves attaching a portable emissions-testing kit to cars which are then driven on public roads under a variety of normal driving conditions. New diesel models which do not meet this standard have gone up by one VED band in their First Year Rate and the company car tax diesel supplement has increased from 3% to 4%. These changes are specifically designed to help improve air quality and to encourage manufacturers to bring forward cleaner, RDE2 compliant diesels to market sooner. \n\nThe VED supplement only impacts individuals choosing a new car from 1 April 2018. No existing diesel car registered before this date has been liable to pay any additional VED. \n\nRegarding the company car tax diesel supplement, the purpose to incentivise car manufacturers to bring forward new, cleaner technology sooner. A company car is typically driven for 3-4 years before being replaced, so within a few years affected drivers and their employers will have an opportunity to choose new cars which are not subject to the supplement.\n\nDiesel cars which meet the standard of 120mg/km of NOx, when measured under real world driving conditions are exempt from both diesel supplements. A diesel car that meets the RDE2 standard will emit a comparable amount of NOx to the average petrol car. Manufacturers are beginning to bring RDE2 compliant models to market which means that motorists may now choose diesels with the latest technology that are not liable to pay the supplement. As the RDE2 standard becomes mandatory for all new registrations in January 2021, we hope the tax system will continue to encourage manufacturers to bring these models to market sooner.\n\nHM Treasury.","created_at":"2019-03-04T12:13:47.025Z","updated_at":"2019-03-04T12:13:47.025Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":274768,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/274768.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"No to a \"People's Vote\" !","background":"Despite the Referendum result being one of the biggest democratic votes in our history, there are still people who refuse to accept the result.\r\nThe choice on the ballot paper was clear:\r\nRemain or Leave.\r\nThe British people knew what they were voting for.","additional_details":"We do not need a further referendum as it would undermine the democratic will of the people.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10280,"created_at":"2019-09-21T20:48:11.021Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:54:31.876Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-09-27T08:28:33.917Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-21T21:13:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-28T17:52:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-11-05T16:36:03.744Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-05","summary":"This Government is determined to get Brexit done, and we will not support any legislation that seeks to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum.","details":"This Government is determined to get Brexit done, with no more delays so the country can move forward and focus on the cost of living, the NHS and other domestic priorities.\n\nWe have secured a great new deal with the EU that will allow us to leave in an orderly and friendly way. This new deal ensures that we take back control of our laws, trade, borders and money without disruption, and provides the basis of a new relationship with the EU based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We introduced the necessary legislation, which passed its Second Reading.\nUnfortunately Parliament then again voted for delay, rather than a timetable that would have guaranteed that the UK would be in a position to leave the EU on October 31 with a deal.\n\nThroughout this process the Government has been clear; we will not support any legislation that seeks to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum. 17.4 million voters deciding to leave the EU is the largest mandate that has ever been given for any UK Government to deliver.\n\nNow we must deliver on that pledge.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-11-05T16:36:03.741Z","updated_at":"2019-11-05T16:36:03.741Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":203708,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/203708.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the 1939 Cancer Act so that doctors can offer alternatives to chemo","background":"Doctors are not legally allowed to offer or advise on alternatives for fear of criminal prosecution and the loss of their license to practice.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10267,"created_at":"2017-10-25T18:57:57.543Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:11.885Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-06T16:13:29.088Z","closed_at":"2018-05-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-29T21:59:11.177Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T18:08:25.089Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.558Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-09","summary":"In prescribing treatments, a clinician should take account of an individual’s circumstances, medical history and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and available evidence.","details":"The 1939 Cancer Act does not prevent doctors offering any treatment option which is backed by robust evidence.  The only surviving operative provision of the Act is Section 4, which is essentially a prohibition on taking part in “the publication of advertisements containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy thereof, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof”.  It is not directly relevant to this petition, since the provision doesn’t prohibit doctors from offering or advising on alternatives to chemotherapy. There appears to have been an incorrect interpretation. This provision prohibits advertising to the general public (except in situations outlined in sections 4(4) and 4(5) of the Act).\n\nThe Department last consulted on changes to the Act in 2006, and subsequent to this a Legislative Reform Order came into force in October 2008.  This removed the need to consult the Attorney General before bringing a prosecution and made clear that there is discretion on whether or not to prosecute under the Act, rather than a duty to do so.\n\nIt is for local National Health Service commissioners to make decisions on whether to fund new treatments, taking into account National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, available evidence and individual patient’s clinical circumstances.  The future availability of any new or novel treatments would be subject to large scale clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the treatment approach and subsequent assessments of its cost effectiveness for routine use.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.555Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.555Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":224537,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/224537.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Fund life saving Immunotherapy for lung cancer patients to more than 2 years","background":"Currently Pembrolizumab (immunotherapy) is only an option for 24 months if you have lung cancer. If you have Melanoma it is given until it either stops working or the side effects become too much, no time limit.","additional_details":" Lung cancer is a bigger killer yet after 24 months they take the option away\r\n \r\nI believe I am possibly the 1st or one of the first to reach the 2 years on this. When I was given it, it was my last hope as chemotherapy did not work and I was not that well at all. I went on this as an early trial in June 2016 as a last hope! had my last treatment in June 2018. I was originally given 6 to 12 months to live. But this has given me brilliant results and extra time with my kids and family. Now it has been taken away with nothing else offered. More people will be in this situation very soon. We all need help, if you could sign and share this I would be so grateful.\r\n \r\nWe just want to be able to spend more time with our families. Thank you","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10263,"created_at":"2018-07-11T17:53:13.805Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:27.444Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-30T10:44:17.253Z","closed_at":"2019-01-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-11T19:07:07.440Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-06T22:32:34.080Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-08T17:03:57.922Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-05","summary":"It is a key Government priority that you and other patients have access to effective cancer treatments. Pembrolizumab is available to NHS patients with lung cancer in line with NICE’s guidance.","details":"This Government understands the devastating effect that lung cancer has on patients like the petitioner, Mr Cole, and indeed their family. It is vitally important for him and other patients to have access to the most effect cancer treatments. This is why we established the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The CDF works to ensure that patients in England have better access to effective cancer drugs not routinely funded by the NHS. \n\nSince October 2010, the Cancer Drugs Fund has enabled over 120,000 approvals for treating people in England with life-extending cancer drugs that would not otherwise have been available to them.  Since the introduction of the Fund we have spent more than £1.9 billion helping people with cancer get the treatments they need.  New arrangements for the appraisal and funding of cancer drugs in England which came into effect from July 2016 are also helping to provide faster access to the most promising new cancer drugs and ensure better value for patients, taxpayers and the NHS. \n\nNICE is the independent body that provides guidance on the prevention and treatment of ill health and the promotion of good health and social care. NICE produces a range of guidance products, including technology appraisals, clinical guidelines and quality standards. Decisions on which medicines should be routinely available on the NHS are very difficult to make and NICE only reaches its final decisions on the use of a technology after a careful and thorough consideration of the evidence and following extensive consultation with stakeholders.   \n\nNICE published technology appraisal guidance on pembrolizumab for untreated PD-L1-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (TA447) on 28 June 2017.  NICE recommended pembrolizumab as an option for certain people with untreated PD-L1-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF).  It was initially recommended for use within the CDF because there were clinical uncertainties that needed to be resolved using further data from an ongoing clinical trial.  When the guidance was reviewed in the light of the new data from the trial, NICE was able to confirm its effectiveness and recommend it for routine commissioning. On 28 July 2018 NICE therefore published updated recommendations which are available at Pembrolizumab for untreated PD-L1-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (TA531).  \n\nThe recommendation to stop treatment at 2 years, in both the original and updated guidance, was based on the best available clinical evidence, especially one particular trial (KEYNOTE024). This trial was designed to stop treatment at 2 years, on the expectation that patients would not need to continue treatment to achieve the long-term benefit.  NICE’s independent Appraisal Committee understood that no patients in the trial on pembrolizumab completed 2 years' therapy. The committee heard from clinical experts that while the best duration of treatment with pembrolizumab is unknown, patient and clinical experts agreed that stopping treatment at 2 years independent of disease status would be acceptable to patients.  \n\nWhen NICE publishes guidance, a review date is suggested. NICE does not have any current plans to review its recommendations, including that the treatment should be used for no more than two years. However, NICE’s guidance may be reviewed early if there is significant new evidence that is likely to change the recommendations. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2019-01-08T17:03:57.919Z","updated_at":"2019-02-06T18:14:07.136Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":214334,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/214334.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of high caffeine energy drinks to under 16s","background":"The label may state ‘not for children’ but 69% of teenagers / 24% of children under 10 are consuming high-caffeine energy drinks that lead to adverse health effects post consumption. With sales ever rising, we propose a ban on high-caffeine energy drinks containing over 150mg of caffeine per litre.","additional_details":"A 2015 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report found that a 'safe' caffeine intake level for children has not been established. They propose guidelines of 3mg/kg per day could be used as a safe amount for habitual caffeine consumption by children and adolescents. This means that while a single can of popular brands on the market can contain around 160mg of caffeine, the EFSA recommends an intake of no more than 105mg caffeine per day for children. These drinks are simply #NotforChildren.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":10218,"created_at":"2018-03-05T14:30:58.157Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:27.269Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-05T18:43:32.323Z","closed_at":"2018-09-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-05T15:34:22.192Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-09T15:11:18.807Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-11T16:46:18.528Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-11","summary":"In Chapter 2 of its Childhood Obesity Plan, published in June, the Government announced that it would consult before the end of 2018 on its intention to ban sales of energy drinks to children.","details":"We are hearing strong calls from parents, health professionals, teachers and some industry bodies and retailers for a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. Parents and those who work with children are concerned about the effects of energy drink consumption on children's health and behaviour. \n\nWe know that a significant proportion of children in this country are drinking these products. A 2013 study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found that 69% of UK 10-18 year olds had consumed energy drinks in the last year, and that adolescents who do consume energy drinks are drinking 50% more of them by volume than the EU average for their age group. But it’s not only teenagers who are drinking energy drinks; the same report found that 24% of 6-9-year-olds in the UK were doing so too. \n\nExcessive consumption of caffeinated energy drinks has been linked with adverse health outcomes for children such as headaches, sleeping problems, irritation and tiredness. It is therefore potentially concerning that EFSA research suggests that nearly a quarter (24%) of 10-17-year-olds who consume energy drinks drink 3 cans or more in one sitting, especially as some energy drinks are sold in larger cans (500ml) and can contain as much as 160mg of caffeine per serving. For reference, an average mug of instant coffee contains around 89mg of caffeine, a cup of black tea 44mg, and a 330ml can of cola 36mg.\n\nWe are aware that the research base for the effects of energy drinks on children is complex. It is important that we take into account all the available data and gather further views and evidence on the pros and cons of a ban, and on alternative options, before making a decision about the right path to take.\n\nThat is why we have announced our intention to consult on whether a ban should be imposed, and if so, what this should look like. This will give us the opportunity to gather a stronger sense of the concerns that exist, and the evidence that is available. We also welcome views through the consultation on alternative approaches to restricting children's access to energy drinks.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-07-11T16:46:18.524Z","updated_at":"2018-07-11T16:46:18.524Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}