{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=3&state=published","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=published","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=327&parliament=3&state=published","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=3&state=published","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=published"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":236952,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/236952.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":"Violet-Grace’s Law - Life sentences for Death by Dangerous Driving","background":"The men who killed our daughter drove a stolen a car at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone. They killed our 4-year-old daughter Violet-Grace and severely injured her nan, who has life-changing injuries. They will serve less time in prison than Violet was alive. I don’t want other families to suffer like this.","additional_details":"In October 2017, the Government promised life sentences for death by dangerous driving. It’s now 2019. Innocent people have been killed, but nothing has changed. The law is out of date.\r\n\r\nAnyone convicted of death by dangerous driving should receive life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 15 years. If more than one person is killed or injured, the sentences must run separately.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4522390/Driver-killed-girl-four-80mph-smash-sentenced.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":167506,"created_at":"2019-01-10T12:26:44.819Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:44:04.634Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-15T17:15:40.746Z","closed_at":"2019-08-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-10T13:04:40.961Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-18T00:11:02.491Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-25T16:23:54.437Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T02:08:27.955Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-05-24","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-08","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-09T16:09:46.625Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-25","summary":"Driving offences can have devastating consequences for victims and their loved ones. Sentencing in individual cases is always a matter for the courts, which are independent.","details":"This was a deeply tragic case and our sympathies remain with Violet-Grace’s family. No sentence can make up for the loss of a loved one but we are focused on getting the law right, to ensure the changes we make are comprehensive, proportionate and, we hope, might help avoid some further unnecessary deaths on our roads.\n\nIn October 2017 we published the government response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury and confirmed proposals to: increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years’ imprisonment to life; increase the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years’ imprisonment to life; and create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. Increasing the maximum penalty to life will enable the courts to impose a life sentence or any lesser sentence, including a determinate sentence of any length.\n\nMinimum sentences are rarely used in criminal law in England and Wales. To allow judges to take into account all circumstances of the case, the normal practice is for Parliament to set maximum penalties and for the courts to determine the appropriate sentence, having regard to the facts of an individual case.  This is why our sentencing framework generally sets maximum penalties but not minimum penalties, and even where a minimum sentence is introduced the court retains a discretion not to impose the sentence where it would be unjust to do so in a particular case. \n\nWhile we recognise the very great harm caused by dangerous drivers who are responsible for multiple deaths or injury, it is a general principle of law that sentences are imposed to be served concurrently when they relate to the same course of events and consecutively when they relate to separate incidents.  However, the death of more than one victim as a result of the offence is an aggravating factor the courts take into account in determining the length of sentence to impose.\n\nWe will bring forward proposals for reform of the law as soon as parliamentary time allows.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2019-02-25T16:23:54.433Z","updated_at":"2019-02-25T16:23:54.433Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-08/debates/3E072E44-2D93-4105-93A2-92B2F380E481/DangerousDriving","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWozwXn-eKw","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0155#fullreport","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200299,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200299.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":"Change the GCSE English Literature exam from closed book to open book.","background":"Last year, lots of students struggled with GCSE English Literature as it was a closed book exam. Because of this many failed. How can they expect us to remember quotes from 15 poems, plus how to analyse them, plus remembering the whole plot, themes, characters and quotes from another book.","additional_details":"Is it really fair that students have to remember so much, whilst also doing revision for other exams. It is important to know how to do all that is asked in the exams, but when in life will you ever have to remember lots of information about lots of texts, then be expected to recall it perfectly under pressured conditions, on top of loads of other stresses, then write about it for strangers to judge whether or not you are worthy of a good grade or not.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":165932,"created_at":"2017-09-14T15:45:14.180Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:30.969Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-18T10:34:56.904Z","closed_at":"2018-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T16:03:46.699Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-21T18:34:13.105Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-21T23:53:25.743Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-02-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-27T09:19:54.483Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-06","summary":"Exam boards do not allow access to copies of whole texts in exams, but provide relevant extracts as exam materials. Pupils should be able to understand and analyse the texts, not memorise them. ","details":"We have reformed English GCSEs so that they are more rigorous. The new English literature GCSE encourages pupils to read a wide range of classic literature, including 19th century novels, Shakespeare and the Romantic poets. The poetry selection has to include no fewer than 15 poems by at least five different poets, including the Romantic poets, and a minimum of 300 lines of poetry.\n\nWe were pleased to see the rise in English literature GCSE entries in 2017. It is important that as many pupils as possible have the opportunity to study a range of high quality, intellectually challenging, and substantial texts from our literary heritage. When a wider range of pupils enters a subject this can change the nature of the cohort. Ofqual’s statistical approach to awarding means that, if the cohort’s ability remains broadly the same, the same proportion of pupils would get a grade 4 (standard pass) and above compared to the previous year. Ofqual, the independent qualifications regulator in England, found overall results for 16 year old students in English literature to have remained stable at grade 4/C. Therefore any change in the proportion of top grades (grade 7/A) was likely due to a change in the profile of the candidates rather than difficulty of the exam. \n\nOfqual’s regulatory requirements[1], which reflect DfE’s content requirements, are designed to reward students who have gained a deep understanding of literature and who have read widely throughout the course. Ofqual does not prohibit access to all textual material during an exam. Rather it requires that where an exam board provides students taking the exam with, for example, an extract from a novel, a scene from a play or a poem, this forms part of the exam materials. Ofqual therefore sets out an expectation that pupils will be given extracts of texts during their exams and are clear in their guidance that they do not expect students to be given a complete novel, play or anthology of poems. \n\nPupils are not required to memorise texts and will not be awarded good marks simply by memorising and writing out sections of the poems or texts they have studied. The mark schemes for the reformed qualification reflect the fact that students will not have access to all the texts, and do not expect extensive quotes from memory. Pupils may gain extra marks through the intelligent use of quotations, but the requirement is about pupils’ illustrating their interpretations of the text, and so demonstrating their understanding of the question, and quotations can be part of this.  \n\nThe changes we have made are designed to reward pupils for reading and understanding important literature and appreciating it at a deeper level. For those engaging at this level, this will be a good preparation for A level for those choosing to study English post-16.\n\n[1] Subject level Conditions and Requirements: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-9-to-1-subject-level-conditions-and-requirements-for-english-literature  \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.264Z","updated_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.264Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-26/debates/8A4FD9EF-3C98-48D5-B268-3F611B6FE1A3/GCSEEnglishLiteratureExams","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f0649091-91ca-4f92-accf-950702087c8b","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0067","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":206722,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/206722.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":"Call on PM to take action to build public trust in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry","background":"Bereaved families & survivors call on PM to exercise her powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional panel members with decision making power to sit alongside Chair in Grenfell Tower Inquiry: to ensure those affected have confidence in & are willing to fully participate in the Inquiry","additional_details":"To secure trust in an establishment we feel has been distant & unresponsive, & to avoid a collapse of confidence in the Inquiry's ability to discover the truth, it is fundamental that;\r\n\r\n1. The Inquiry is not led by a judge alone. Panel members must be appointed with relevant background, expertise, experience, & a real understanding of the issues facing those affected\r\n\r\n2. Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":156835,"created_at":"2017-11-30T09:25:01.772Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:09.305Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-30T17:07:15.249Z","closed_at":"2018-05-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-30T13:59:43.441Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T22:01:51.333Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-05T10:15:21.005Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-23T23:50:21.855Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-05-14","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-15T14:06:16.955Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-05","summary":"This is the Government’s response to the e-petition “Call on PM to take action to build public trust in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry”, started by family members and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.","details":"The Grenfell Tower fire was a truly unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened.\n\nThe Government’s highest priority remains making sure that survivors, bereaved families and the wider Grenfell community receive all the support they need.\n\nThe independent public Inquiry into the fire is an important part of the process and will help those affected get the answers they need to get to the truth of what happened.\n\nThe Prime Minister committed to considering the issue of panel members once the Chair had confirmed who had been appointed as assessors to assist the Inquiry. Section 7 of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the Minister responsible for an inquiry to appoint further panel members during the course of an inquiry with the agreement of the Chair.\n\nIn October 2017, the Chair announced the appointment of 7 expert witnesses with backgrounds in fire safety, forensic fire analysis, fire engineering, disaster resilience and also anatomy and human identification. The expert witnesses will provide a range of technical advice and expert reports to assist the work of the Inquiry in delivering its terms of reference.\n\nIn addition, in November 2017, the Chair announced the appointment of 3 assessors with backgrounds in community engagement and social housing, local authority administration and structural engineering.  The Chair also confirmed at the Inquiry’s preliminary hearing in September that he would expect the assessors to see all the evidence and sit with him when taking oral evidence. The Chair has also confirmed that he may make further appointments if needed.\nFollowing the announcement of these appointments, the Prime Minister carefully considered the composition of the Inquiry panel in light of the diversity and expertise of advice now available to the Inquiry.\n\nThe Prime Minister wrote to the representatives of the survivors and bereaved families on 21 December 2017 and informed them of her decision not to appoint additional panel members. The Prime Minister’s decision was similarly communicated to the Inquiry on the same date.\n\nHaving regard to the terms of reference and the assistance to be provided by the assessors, and the expert witnesses, it is the Prime Minister’s view that the Inquiry panel has the necessary expertise to undertake the Inquiry as it is currently constituted. The Prime Minister is also conscious of the need for the Inquiry to complete its initial report as quickly as reasonably possible. The Prime Minister therefore considers that additional panel members should not be appointed at this stage.\n\nIn reaching this conclusion, the Prime Minister fully took into account her duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Public Sector Equality Duty – PSED).\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of ensuring that those most affected by the tragedy are able to contribute fully to the Inquiry and that is why the Prime Minister welcomes the consideration being given by Sir Martin Moore-Bick to the establishment of a community advisory panel, as proposed at the December procedural hearing.\n\nSuch a panel, similar to that which has worked well for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, could play a very beneficial role in putting those most affected at the heart of the Inquiry and enabling them to ensure that their views and experiences are heard. It is for Sir Martin, as Chair of the independent Inquiry, to take this forward, in consultation with the Grenfell Tower community, and the Government hopes that he will be able to do this as soon as possible.\n\nIn line with the Inquiry Rules 2006, legal representatives of the Grenfell community core participants will receive in advance of hearings disclosure of relevant evidence; will be able to make opening and closing statements at certain hearings and can suggest lines of questioning to be pursued by Counsel to the Inquiry. They can also apply to the Chair to ask questions of a witness.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-01-05T10:15:21.002Z","updated_at":"2018-02-08T09:53:33.016Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-05-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-14/debates/AA42BB9C-5130-4DB1-814A-569FE1E4CD74/GrenfellTowerInquiry","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/143ec7e0-1ba0-480b-a5cd-126536e7bfd7","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8305","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":239444,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/239444.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":"Make online homophobia a specific criminal offence","background":"As a gay man I find it devastating how members of the LGBT community are still subjected to homophobic abuse online.","additional_details":"Just because I am on TV I don’t think that makes it acceptable to be sent homophobic messages/ comments on social media platforms.\r\n \r\nNobody should have to receive these comments.\r\n \r\nI won’t go into detail as to the various names I have been called, but this should not be acceptable and can have an impact on people’s mental health and has certainly helped in making my anxiety and low self esteem worse by receiving them.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":153506,"created_at":"2019-01-27T23:14:05.488Z","updated_at":"2020-05-20T16:49:10.452Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-12T12:05:13.415Z","closed_at":"2019-08-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-28T00:11:01.846Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-13T22:24:52.147Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-28T16:20:26.489Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-21T07:15:42.218Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-05-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-01","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-02T15:55:42.920Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-28","summary":"The Government recognises the harm that homophobic online messages can cause. We are working cross-Government to challenge inequality and make the UK’s online environment a safer place for everyone.","details":"The Government has asked the independent Law Commission to review current hate crime legislation to ensure it is effective and consistent. This would include within its scope the issue of protections offered against hostility towards someone’s sexual orientation whether that hostility manifests online or offline. We look forward to seeing the results of the review.\n\nThe internet provides a wealth of opportunities for people globally. It is a platform for everyone to share experiences and creativity, and it encourages rich discussion. It has allowed people to create communities and interact in ways that were not previously possible. The Government recognises, however, that some people exploit these opportunities to spread harmful messages which would not be tolerated offline. Protecting people online is a top priority for Government.\n\nAs part of our efforts to make the UK the safest place online in the world, the Prime Minister announced in February 2018 that the Law Commission was to review the current law around abusive and offensive online communications and highlight any gaps in the criminal law which cause problems in tackling this abuse. The Commission was asked specifically to consider the applicable criminal law, identifying any deficiencies, focusing on whether the criminal law provides equivalent protection both online and offline. The Law Commission produced a scoping report in November 2018, Chapter 9 of which is devoted to hate crime online. You may wish to read the report at https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2018/10/6_5039_LC_Online_Comms_Report_FINAL_291018_WEB.pdf.\n\nAs the Law Commission sets out, a range of offences are already available to prosecute hate crime, including crime which is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards a victim based on sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. There are specific offences, such as stirring up hatred on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as enhanced sentencing when an offence is aggravated by hostility on the grounds of sexual orientation. The offences and enhanced sentencing will apply to online abuse as well as other abuse.\n\nThe Law Commission recommended reform and consolidation of existing criminal laws dealing with offensive and abusive communications online; a specific review considering how the law can more effectively protect victims who are subject to a campaign of online harassment; and a review of how effectively the criminal law protects personal privacy online.\n\nThe Government has asked the Law Commission for a specific review looking at hate crime legislation and whether it is working effectively and consistently. It will include whether the hate crime occurs online or offline. We look forward to seeing the results of the review.\n\nIn addition, the Government is taking significant steps to tackle hateful activity online:\n• We are funding a National Online Hate Crime Hub which uses specially trained police officers and staff to investigate reports.\n• We supported the European Commission Code of Conduct for Countering Illegal Hate Speech which has been signed by key companies including Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft, Twitter and Instagram. A key aim is to ensure that requests to remove content are reviewed in less than 24 hours, and content is removed if necessary.\n• More widely, a joint Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS)-Home Office White Paper will be published this year, setting out a range of legislative and non-legislative measures detailing how we will tackle online harms and set clear responsibilities for tech companies to keep UK citizens safe.\n\nHomophobic abuse can have potentially devastating impacts on victims and we are working to challenge inequality beyond a law enforcement approach alone. In July 2018, the Government Equalities Office (GEO) launched the National LGBT Survey to understand LGBT people’s experiences of accessing services. Over 108,000 people completed the survey. In response to the findings, GEO launched an LGBT Action Plan setting out 75 commitments to improve outcomes for LGBT people. The Action Plan includes a £4.5 million fund to address inequality and support the delivery of commitments cross-sector.\n\nThe LGBT Action Plan includes commitments to ensure LGBT people feel safe online beyond the actions above:\n\n• The Home Office is supporting the police to improve how they respond to hate crime and raise awareness of local support agencies for LGBT victims. The 2018 refresh of the Hate Crime Action Plan is supporting police training that is tailored to the needs of victims, such as those of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crimes.\n• The National Crime Agency (NCA) will ensure LGBT people can access educational online safety interventions that are informed by their experiences. The NCA will develop effective and appropriate education interventions to ensure LGBT people can be full, equal and safe participants in online activity.\n\nHome Office.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239444)","created_at":"2019-02-28T16:20:26.485Z","updated_at":"2019-04-23T16:42:56.297Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-01/debates/FE62A216-74F7-4499-952C-A1555802953D/OnlineHomophobia","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Z505GkXw8","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0171#fullreport","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":239706,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/239706.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":"Revoke Art.50 if there is no Brexit plan by the 25 of February","background":"On the 25th of November both the UK Government and the European Union came to an agreement on the proposed departure from the EU. After an historic defeat in the House of Commons on the 15th of January, 2019 by a majority of 230 votes the PM has now decided to go back to the EU over the backstop.","additional_details":"Under section 5 (ii) of the Belfast argeement, 1998, there is agreement to \" to use best endeavours to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies, in areas where there is a mutual cross-border and allisland benefit\"\r\nThe Government's own economic analysis published in November 2018, shows that a no deal scenario will have roughly a 10% decrease in GDP.  \r\nThe issue is that EU have firmly stated that they will not re-open negotiations with the UK over the agreement and remove the backstop.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":150531,"created_at":"2019-01-29T13:53:56.492Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:44:53.721Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-11T17:08:20.928Z","closed_at":"2019-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-29T16:19:13.966Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-12T07:46:09.405Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-19T12:09:14.922Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-16T15:17:14.708Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-02-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-11","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-12T11:17:21.791Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-19","summary":"The Government’s policy is not to revoke Article 50. Instead, we continue to work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union, as planned, on March 29th.","details":"Revoking Article 50 would not respect the vote of the British people in the 2016 referendum. \n\nAlmost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum and 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. This result was then overwhelmingly confirmed by Parliament, who voted with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. Then, in the 2017 General Election, over 80% of people then also voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum and it was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected.\n\nThis Government has therefore been given a clear mandate to implement the will expressed by the electorate in the referendum, and to revoke Article 50 would undermine that mandate. \n\nAs it is the responsibility of this Government to deliver the exit that people voted for, and as Parliament is clear that it does not wish to deliver a ‘no deal’, we must secure a deal. However, the Government recognises the views expressed by the House that it cannot support the deal as it currently is, and we are now confident that a deal with changes to the backstop, combined with measures to address concerns over Parliament’s role in the negotiation of the future relationship and commitments on workers’ rights will secure the majority needed in the House to leave the EU with a deal. \n\nThe Prime Minister has therefore continued to work with Members across the House to deliver on the decision that the British people took in June 2016 and she will go back to Brussels to secure a deal this House can support.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-02-19T12:09:14.919Z","updated_at":"2019-02-19T12:09:14.919Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-11/debates/4B98720A-8618-4312-84AE-E994485AC99F/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ea9b610b-e4c5-4f08-8ed6-686830628a7a","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0061","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":243947,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/243947.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":"Immunity for soldiers who worked in Northern Ireland.\r\n","background":"Do not prosecute the military for its work in Northern Ireland. Our military should be excused all criminal investigations after a period of time.","additional_details":"After the Good Friday Agreement prisoners were released. Our military should be excused criminal investigations after a certain period of time.\r\n \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":150324,"created_at":"2019-03-02T16:22:42.268Z","updated_at":"2020-03-09T12:11:36.158Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-13T17:55:52.720Z","closed_at":"2019-09-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-02T17:44:56.239Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-15T17:21:29.410Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-01T10:29:30.559Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-20T08:31:09.535Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-04-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-05-20","debate_outcome_at":"2019-05-21T10:25:39.654Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-01","summary":"This Government is unequivocal in our admiration for the Armed Forces whose sacrifices ensured terrorism would never succeed. However, our approach to the past must be consistent with the rule of law.","details":"Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities who act independently of government and politicians. \nThis Government believes in the rule of law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing it is right that this should be investigated and, where the evidence exists, for prosecutions to follow. We do not support amnesties or immunity from prosecution.\n\nThis Government will always salute the heroism and bravery of the soldiers and police officers who served to protect the people of Northern Ireland, and in too many cases paid the ultimate price. It is only due to the courageous efforts of our security forces that we have the relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today. Our security forces ensured that Northern Ireland’s future will only ever be decided by democracy and consent, and never by violence. Over 250,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, the longest continuous military deployment in our country’s history, the vast majority with courage, professionalism and great distinction. This Government will never forget the debt of gratitude we owe them.\n\nThe Government has been clear that the current system for dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is not working well and is in need of reform. The system to investigate the past needs to change to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles and to ensure that all, including members of the Armed Forces and police officers, are treated fairly.\n\nThat is why across Government we are working on proposals on how to best move forward, to address the legacy of the past. As part of this, we recently carried out a consultation a draft Stormont House Agreement Bill which set out how  improvements could be made. \n\nWe are carefully considering the large number of responses (over 17,000) to our consultation on this issue and aim to publish our next steps shortly.  No final decisions have yet been taken but we are committed to a way forward that works for everyone and is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.\n\nNorthern Ireland Office.","created_at":"2019-04-01T10:29:30.557Z","updated_at":"2019-04-10T11:48:17.024Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-05-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-20/debates/06752875-A995-4952-A1C8-89E342B72FA6/ImmunityForSoldiers","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNV5MWbkMoQ","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8352","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200032,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200032.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":"Pay Up Now! – Scrap the pay cap and give public servants a meaningful pay rise","background":"Every single person who works in public services needs and deserve a pay rise. It’s time for the pay cap to be scrapped, for the government to provide additional funding for public sector pay and for employers to put public sector workers pay up now.","additional_details":"For more than seven years, everyone who works in public services has seen their pay decline, thanks to the public sector pay cap. Inflation is currently at 2.9%, meaning that the cap is a significant annual pay cut for those public service champions – nurses, care workers, teaching assistants, social workers and so many others - who work for all of us. Public sector pay has risen by just 4.4% between 2010 and 2016 while the cost of living rose by 22%.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":149138,"created_at":"2017-09-12T11:32:17.940Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:24.162Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T14:36:29.582Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T11:46:53.292Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-15T17:23:31.475Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.758Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-02T19:25:15.709Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-04","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-05T10:04:52.545Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-09","summary":"Public sector workers deserve to have fulfilling jobs that are fairly rewarded. On 12 September we announced a move away from the 1% public sector pay policy, towards a more flexible approach on pay.","details":"We still need to deal with our country’s debts to ensure we have a strong economy to enable us to invest in our public services.  This means that we will continue to take a balanced approach to public spending.\n\nThe Government will consider each specific workforce to ensure pay is set so that we can continue to both attract and hold on to the excellent staff that support our world-leading public services.\n\nBefore we make final decisions on pay awards, we will seek the views of the eight independent Pay Review Bodies, which will consider the evidence on how we ensure we attract and retain the very best people within our public services, like giving people more flexibility over their working hours.\n\nThey will report in Spring 2018, at which point we will consider their recommendations and announce public sector pay awards for each of those workforces.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.756Z","updated_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.756Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-04/debates/B20D70FA-4B48-4680-B680-0528E9B42474/PublicSectorPay","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3665b48b-f2f5-413d-a9c0-d28b9129ac7e","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8037","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":213451,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/213451.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 puppies by pet shops & all commercial 3rd party dealers.","background":"Removing puppies for sale from litter & mum often creates sick, traumatised, dysfunctional dogs. Puppies should be seen with their mum & transporting them to a different place for sale harms welfare. Regulating commercial 3rd party sales is ineffective to prevent harm & a ban is therefore necessary.","additional_details":"A ban on 3rd party sales for profit has been named “Lucy's Law” & has huge public support. There are no welfare advantages in selling puppies through commercial dealers, which make sure breeding dogs are kept hidden from the public. As well as welfare concerns, 3rd party sales create additional risks for consumers & public health/safety. Puppy sales direct from breeder or rescue centre protects all parties. A ban on dealing in puppies for profit can only raise welfare standards & is needed now.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":148248,"created_at":"2018-02-21T08:50:22.988Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:12.598Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-01T12:06:51.546Z","closed_at":"2018-09-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-21T09:42:04.647Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T02:45:02.494Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.317Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-14T11:06:30.896Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-20","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-05-21","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-22T16:52:17.631Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-03-20","summary":"The Government has published wide reaching reforms of the controls on pet selling which includes a call for evidence on a ban on all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England.","details":"New controls on dog breeding and pet selling in England require all licensed dog breeders and licensed sellers of all pet animals, including sellers who are not also breeders, to adhere to enhanced strict statutory minimum welfare standards linked to the animals’ welfare needs set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. \nThe controls prohibit the sale of puppies, kittens, ferrets or rabbits below eight weeks of age.  This is also supported by changes to Defra’s statutory Dog Welfare Code which provides guidance aimed at dog owners.\nThe controls require any licensed pet seller advertising pets for sale to include their licence number in the advert as well as identifying the local authority that issued it, a photo of the pet, its age, country of residence and country of origin.  This will help people identify pets offered for sale from unlicensed sellers including those based abroad\nThey require the sale of a dog to be completed in the presence of the purchaser on the premises where the licensed seller or licensed breeder has been keeping the dog, thereby banning online sales by licensed sellers and breeders.\nThey also ensure licensed dog breeders must show puppies alongside their mother before a sale is made and only sell puppies they have bred themselves.\nIn addition to these controls, the Government has issued a call for evidence on banning all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England. Evidence has been requested by 2 May 2018.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.313Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T16:57:37.450Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-05-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-21/debates/42C1A4F1-0A43-46E6-B456-FAE873CC7F87/SaleOfPuppies","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf423510-4411-4597-a147-ca9d6ca8edd4","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0127","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":255237,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/255237.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":"Provide 15 hours free childcare to working parents for children over 9 months.","background":"After 9 months of maternity leave, most working mums do not receive any maternity pay and need to go back to work. I think all working parents should be entitled to 15 hours free childcare from the time a child is 9 months. It makes more sense to provide this funding from 9 months instead of 2 years","additional_details":"Many working families struggle week to week due to the cost of childcare. You are required to go back to work after a year of maternity pay however many go back after 9 months due to funds. Once you go back the majority of your wage goes to childcare and in some cases you are better of not working. This should not be the case.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":146397,"created_at":"2019-04-04T06:14:11.972Z","updated_at":"2020-03-10T16:55:19.776Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-18T16:54:16.352Z","closed_at":"2019-10-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T06:32:17.213Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-24T08:23:40.880Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-08T11:43:03.734Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-26T06:19:36.244Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-03-03","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-03-09","debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-10T16:35:11.761Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-08","summary":"The Government currently offers a broad range of childcare support and has no plans to extend the package of free childcare entitlement schemes to working parents of children over 9 months.","details":"This Government is committed to helping working families with accessible, affordable childcare. We plan to spend around £3.5 billion on early education childcare entitlements this year alone – more than any previous Government. \n\nSupporting parents who want to work with the cost of childcare is important.  The Government offers a package of schemes: this includes the entitlement to 15 hours of free childcare a week for disadvantaged 2-year olds; universal 15 hours for all 3-4 year olds, and an additional 15 hours for working parents of 3-4 year olds. Parents of 3 and 4 year olds can save up to £5000 per year in total if they use the full 30 hours of free childcare available. The Government currently has no plans to extend these schemes to working parents of children over 9 months.\n\nThe Government has also introduced Tax-Free Childcare, which will save parents up to £2,000 per child on their annual childcare bill for children aged 0-11 (or up to 17 for children with special educational needs or disabilities). Eligible families can also get help with up to 85% of their childcare costs through Universal Credit, subject to a monthly limit. For further information, please visit https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get. \n\nThe 2018 Office for National Statistics report on families and the labour market in England shows that many parents return to work and need childcare when their child turns three, hence the 30 hours free childcare entitlements scheme aims to support working families with the cost of childcare, and support parents back into work, or to work more hours should they wish to. \n\nEvidence from the Department for Education’s Study of Early Education and Development (SEED), and the Study of Effective Primary, Pre-school and Secondary Education (EPPSE) is clear that good-quality early education at the age of two has a variety of very positive benefits for children. The EPPSE also indicates that children who start pre-school below age 2 do not show more positive outcomes than those who started at ages between 24-36 months. \n\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2019-05-08T11:43:03.731Z","updated_at":"2019-05-08T11:43:31.869Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-03-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-09/debates/516775C8-77CB-4036-8BFE-188D5842F25F/FreeChildcare","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX0OC0Kf5UE","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2020-0053","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200004.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 referendum on the final Brexit deal","background":"We, the undersigned, call upon HM Government to give the people of this country the final say on the Brexit deal negotiated by the UK and EU. This would be done through a referendum that would take place prior to the April 2019 exit date.","additional_details":"The referendum would allow for three options: \r\n\r\n(1)\tTo revoke Article 50, thereby keeping Britain in the EU\r\n(2)\tTo reject the UK-EU deal and leave the EU\r\n(3)\tTo accept the UK-EU deal and leave the EU\r\n\r\nIf no agreement has been negotiated by the UK and EU before the date of the referendum, then the third option could be removed. If all three options remain, it may be necessary for the vote to take place using a Single Transferable Vote to ensure no option is disadvantaged. \r\n\r\nRegardless of whether individuals voted to remain or leave the EU in the June 2016 EU referendum, everyone should have a chance to decide their future based on the final agreement negotiated between the UK and EU.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":145118,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:16:45.410Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:22.251Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T09:42:01.831Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T09:36:25.152Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T15:46:25.014Z","government_response_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.064Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T21:09:12.682Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-11","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-12T10:16:34.426Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-09-28","summary":"On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum. ","details":"The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.\n\nThere must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.\n\nParliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.\n\nBoth Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement. \n\nThe people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. \n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.060Z","updated_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.060Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-11/debates/E3B1D9A4-5B9B-4337-8486-C4BE9A46F2BB/BrexitDealReferendum","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3e1dd847-9bcc-48fb-b141-5c8441b50ae9","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0253","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":232984,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232984.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":"Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement","background":"The Prime Minister has negotiated an EU withdrawal agreement. However, it is clear from resignations and interviews that the deal will not pass Parliament. As no credible alternative has been proposed, the public must be allowed to vote on whether to accept this deal or to remain in the EU.","additional_details":"Dominic Raab's resignation is perhaps the strongest indication that this withdrawal agreement will not be approved by Parliament. However, he is responsible for this deal as former Brexit Secretary, which suggests that a better deal is not possible. The only better deal is to remain in the EU on similar terms to what we have now - not in Schengen, not in the Euro, deciding on EU legislation.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":144523,"created_at":"2018-11-15T11:10:20.169Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:54.624Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-26T13:28:37.981Z","closed_at":"2019-05-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-15T14:28:44.407Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-27T18:42:14.458Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-13T13:05:37.016Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-04T22:34:20.535Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:43:26.996Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-05","summary":"The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.","details":"The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.  \n\nAlmost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.  \n\nParliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.  \n\nIn last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.  \n\nThe British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.  \n\nThe deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations. \n\nWe will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-12-13T13:05:37.013Z","updated_at":"2019-02-06T18:12:16.598Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-14/debates/694BA27D-566E-4F52-BC4B-8FC1ACA3F109/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/64100b1a-6f58-46b5-a84e-d0b2416896b3","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0002","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":228572,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/228572.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":"Make TV election debates happen - establish an Independent Debates Commission","background":"Genuine leaders' debates took place in 2010, but in the next two elections didn't happen. Amend election law to make party leaders take part in a televised debate. ","additional_details":"An Independent Debates Commission would take decision making out of the politicians and broadcasters' hands and ensure TV debates become a regular fixture of UK elections.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":143390,"created_at":"2018-09-11T16:07:00.226Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:38.567Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-21T14:21:06.885Z","closed_at":"2019-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-14T13:57:12.779Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-30T20:32:02.730Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.225Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-29T06:33:04.031Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-12-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-07","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-08T14:33:23.117Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-23","summary":"Televised election debates are a matter for political parties. The Government has no plans to change electoral law to make the debates mandatory.","details":"The proposals for a Debates Commission are something to be considered in due course by political parties, closer to any general election in 2022.\n\nTelevised election debates took place in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 UK Parliamentary general elections. They form one of many mediums that enable political parties to convey their message to members of the public and address key challenges. \n\nTelevised election debates are not mandatory under electoral law. Participating in a televised election debate is down to the discretion of the political party invited to debate. The Government has no plans to change electoral law to make televised elections debates mandatory. \n\nThere are many mediums used by political parties to convey their message to members of the public. These include candidate hustings and political canvassing, which enables electoral candidates to debate policies and directly address members of the public in the run up to an election. These are also not mandatory under electoral law.\n\nAny televised material, including televised election debates, is regulated by Ofcom, the independent media regulator, and is subject to the provisions in the Broadcasting Code. Ofcom does not obligate broadcasters to transmit election debates, nor does it have any decision-making role over the editorial format of any programme.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.222Z","updated_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.222Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-07/debates/744E78D3-C664-4543-A078-2EC99D19F5C2/TelevisedElectionDebates","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/066feaf6-a73e-4884-a9ac-6c0ee733ffac","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0286","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200165,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200165.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":"Leave the EU immediately","background":"The Government should walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal. The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite. Why wait another 18 months when we could leave right away and fully take back control of our country, lawmaking powers and borders?","additional_details":"The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite, insisting we pay tens of billions of pounds as part of a ‘settlement fee’ and continue to accept the jurisdiction of EU courts even after we’ve left. Meanwhile pro-EU MPs in Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, along with unelected Lords, are attempting to block Brexit, the longer we remain a member the more opportunity they have to interfere. Why wait almost another 2 years when we could just leave right away?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":141835,"created_at":"2017-09-13T16:02:45.914Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:28.655Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-14T10:38:55.122Z","closed_at":"2018-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T22:47:50.226Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T15:08:23.909Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.377Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-16T09:03:12.654Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-01-09","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-22","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-23T10:06:27.817Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-17","summary":"The country voted to leave the EU, and this Government respects that. A smooth and orderly exit is in the interest of both the UK and the EU. ","details":"The country voted to leave the EU, and the Government is clear that there must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum.\n\nIn leaving the EU the Government will seek the best deal for the UK  maximising the benefits from leaving the EU – control over our borders, laws and money – while maintaining the greatest possible access to EU markets and continuing to work with our European neighbours on common problems. After withdrawal, the UK will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the United Kingdom. \n\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end. The European Commission has set out the European Union’s position on the financial settlement, and the Government is undertaking a rigorous examination of the detail of this. \n\nThe Government has already introduced legislation to ensure the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control. A smooth and orderly exit is in the national interest and further legislation will be introduced to deliver that. \n\nBoth the UK and the EU should want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership for the future. The Government believes that a deep and special partnership between an independent  UK and the EU is in the interests of both sides.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.375Z","updated_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.375Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-22/debates/1BEAD2EE-F7CC-4732-A4CC-DC4D8E5D8B93/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2237e95c-62c3-498e-8174-619d61ef069b","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0007","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":226071,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/226071.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":"Stop possible second referendum on E.U. membership","background":"There is a growing band of people that want to reverse the result of the democratic vote of this country to leave the European Union and are calling for a second referendum. This is mainly by the people that lost the vote two years ago and cannot accept the democratic vote of the majority decision.","additional_details":"Although not legally binding the referendum on whether we stay or leave the EU carried out on the 23rd June 2016 was the clearest indication of the will of the electorate. At that time our Prime Minister David Cameron assured us that the result of the referendum would be carried out. We must ensure the democracy rules","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":135936,"created_at":"2018-07-27T09:09:37.857Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:55.651Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-01T08:55:38.286Z","closed_at":"2019-02-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-27T14:35:34.016Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-22T21:39:46.092Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.050Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-31T12:58:15.160Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-11-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-12-03","debate_outcome_at":"2018-12-04T12:56:40.725Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-06","summary":"A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union. We must respect both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered this result.","details":"The Government is clear that we will respect the result of the 2016 referendum, and that we will not hold a second referendum.\n\nA clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.\n\nParliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\n\nIn last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then also voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum - it was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will expressed by the electorate in the referendum - respecting both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.\n\nThe British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, and to disrespect the powerful democratic values of this country and this government.\n\nThe Government therefore continues to be committed to delivering on the instruction given to us by the British people: working to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities this brings to deliver an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain. \n\nThe people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction and the Government is committed to seeing that through. We will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.047Z","updated_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.047Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-12-03","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-12-03/debates/C98FB021-9FF0-459F-AF03-672BD765E14C/EUMembershipSecondReferendum","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4330475e-b1fd-4878-903c-700c4ea4eb81","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0267#fullreport","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":259892,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/259892.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":"The Air Ambulances to be government funded","background":"The air ambulances that operate around the UK cost around £12,000 per day to run and maintain, and are mainly funded through charity organisations. This petition is to ask the Government to fully fund the air ambulances through the emergency services.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":134143,"created_at":"2019-05-01T10:42:46.604Z","updated_at":"2021-04-27T13:17:07.513Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-06-04T17:46:01.722Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-01T10:49:57.814Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-12T20:25:22.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-03T09:46:53.887Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-14T17:19:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-04-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-04-26","debate_outcome_at":"2021-04-27T13:16:51.373Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-03","summary":"NHS ambulance services provide clinical staff and equipment to air ambulance charities. A charitable model gives charities independence to deliver specialised, specific services to each locality. ","details":"Air ambulance services are not NHS funded and are provided by 18 charitable organisations across England, with the majority of their resources supported by their own fundraising activities.\n\nWe recognise that Air Ambulances provide a valuable service, including to remote locations through both delivery of a specialist team to an incident, and patient transportation back to treatment centres. Air Ambulance crews treat people in critical conditions who rely on urgent treatment before they can reach a hospital. They support the wider NHS emergency response on the ground, ensuring patients get specialised care in both urban settings and hard-to-reach rural areas.   \n\nMany Ambulance Trusts across England currently work in partnership with Air Ambulance providers from the commercial and charity sectors to deliver services. NHS England works closely with Air Ambulance charities at a local level as part of their considerations of the urgent and emergency care mix in different areas of the country. The NHS Long Term Plan will improve emergency care for all patients, including those treated by Air Ambulances charities.\n\nSince April 2002, the NHS has been instructed to provide and fund the cost of some staff on a number of Air Ambulances. However, as decisions on the provision of services for the safe delivery of care are best made at a local level, the level of funding support varies from charity to charity; some charities fully fund their own medical staff on their ambulance, whilst others receive more NHS funding support. Both the type of service provided, and the level of funding support will be driven by local issues such as geography and demography. There are high capital and revenue costs associated with helicopter emergency medical services, including purchasing and maintaining helicopter provision. \n\nHowever, we have made provisions for substantial funding support in this and previous budgets to help ensure that Air Ambulance charities are equipped to provide lifesaving care to patients in need. This year, Air Ambulance charities across England have been invited to bid for a share of £10 million capital funding to invest in new equipment and upgrade facilities to support them in delivering services to patients across England.\n\nThe All-Party Parliamentary Group for Air Ambulances (APPGAA) is a group of MPs and peers dedicated to highlighting issues and opportunities around Air Ambulance services with policy makers. We will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure patients continue to benefit from these services. Essential public donations, combined with periodic funding contributions from the Government, will ensure these charities can have world-class facilities to match their reputation for world-class care, through a patient-centred approach which works for the population they serve.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2019-07-03T09:46:53.884Z","updated_at":"2019-07-03T09:46:53.884Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-04-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-04-26/debates/A565C4C9-CBD0-4E7D-BCEC-2CAA706DA4F5/AirAmbulanceFunding","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUis2znZ0pY","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0057/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":272087,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/272087.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 online trolls accountable for their online abuse via their IP address\r\n","background":"It’s far too easy for online trolls to just create another email address and another social media account if they have their accounts suspended. ","additional_details":"However if their internet service providers were required to block their access to social media, and social media companies blocked their IP addresses, it would be far harder for them to get another account and continue their abuse. \r\n \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":133680,"created_at":"2019-09-02T18:22:10.908Z","updated_at":"2023-01-25T18:02:59.682Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-09-10T16:19:49.877Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-02T21:16:52.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-11T17:21:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-24T10:42:39.895Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-13T14:25:12.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2022-02-28","debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-01T08:08:40.369Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-24","summary":"Unacceptable behaviour and content is far too prevalent online. The Online Harms White Paper sets out our plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online.","details":"Unacceptable behaviour and content is far too prevalent online. The Online Harms White Paper sets out our plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online.\n\nIn recent years there has been a worrying rise in the amount of abuse, harassment and intimidation online - particularly directed at those in public life. Much of this abuse happens on social media, and the Government is aware of too many stories of public figures closing social media accounts following online abuse. In many cases, the offender will be unknown to the victim, and in some instances, they will have taken technical steps to conceal their identity.\n\nThis abuse is unacceptable – it goes beyond free speech and free debate, dissuades good people from going into public life, and corrodes the values on which our democracy rests. \n\nThe Online Harms White Paper sets out our intent to establish in law a new duty of care on companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. Companies will be required to build an understanding of the risks associated with their services and take reasonable steps to guard against harm to their users, relative to their level of risk and resources. Companies need to take responsibility for tackling abusive behaviour on their services, because our society is built on democratic freedoms that allow different voices, views and opinions to freely and peacefully contribute to public discourse. \n\nDetails of the reasonable steps we expect companies to take will be set out in codes of practice which will be issued by the regulator. But specifying a particular technical solution risks that approach becoming outdated or defunct as technology and harms evolve. \n\nAhead of the implementation of the new regulatory framework, we will continue to encourage companies to take early action to address online harms.\n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.","created_at":"2019-09-24T10:42:39.893Z","updated_at":"2019-09-24T10:42:39.893Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-02-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-02-28/debates/1368BEBE-4B60-4247-B0E2-48D9B8A84472/OnlineAbuse","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_eyMIEc564","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8743/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":232698,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232698.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":"The UK should not agree the UN's Global Compact for Migration","background":"The UN's Intergovernmental Conference will be held in Marrakech, Morocco on 10 and 11 December 2018. Like Hungary, the UK should not sign.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":131617,"created_at":"2018-11-12T13:30:57.587Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:49.747Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-20T11:10:03.061Z","closed_at":"2019-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-12T20:02:35.389Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-24T18:24:49.116Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-07T17:27:21.192Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-05T16:47:17.114Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-09T16:51:10.134Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-07","summary":"The Global Compact for Migration will support global co-operation on migration without affecting the sovereignty of all countries to control their own borders.","details":"Uncontrolled migration erodes public confidence, damages economies, and places those on the move in situations of intense vulnerability. The UK is taking significant steps to tackle uncontrolled migration by:\n\n* Addressing the root causes of migration, through our targeted assistance for livelihoods, healthcare, education and economic development \n* Tackling modern slavery and organised immigration crime\n* Supporting enhanced border management\n* Providing critical humanitarian support and protection for vulnerable migrants, as well as offering voluntary return and vital reintegration support to those wishing to return home\n* Supporting refugees to stay in a first safe country through our humanitarian and development work in Africa, the Middle East and Asia\n\nThe Global Compact for Migration embeds these efforts within the global system, enhances cooperation between states, and sets out ways that countries may choose to deliver these objectives.\n\nThe Compact is not legally binding. It creates a framework to allow countries to work together to make global migration more beneficial for everyone.\n\nIt respects the sovereignty of all states to decide who enters their territory. It will not affect our ability to determine and implement our own migration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.\n\nIt does not establish a ‘human right to migrate’ or create any new legal categories of migrant. It explicitly stresses that migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights as any human being, and that these are different to the legal protections available to refugees.\n\nToo many people, including vulnerable women and girls, are taking risky journeys to migrate through dangerous channels. The Compact will help us take important steps to keep migrants around the world safer and to protect the most vulnerable, by supporting international cooperation on the protection of migrants, in line with our obligations under international law. It outlines ways of preventing exploitation, and of combating the heinous crime of modern slavery.\n\nA key objective of the document is to support cooperation on reducing uncontrolled migration. It sets out the responsibility of countries of origin to ensure effective control of their borders, and to cooperate in accepting the return of their nationals when they no longer have the right to remain in another country. Furthermore, the text also calls on countries of origin to work with the international community to address the drivers of irregular migration, by creating economic opportunities for populations in source countries, and improving governance and respect for the rule of law.\n\nWhen migration is safe and regular, it can bring great prosperity. The Compact also sets out possible actions to harness the economic benefits of safer, regular migration, for example by reducing the costs of remittances that migrants send home. These can foster economic development in source countries, helping to address some of the causes of migration.\n\nThe Compact is the result of months of intergovernmental negotiations. Though it is legally non-binding and no country can be compelled to conform with its provisions, we are aware that a small number of countries have chosen not to endorse it. We respect this choice and note that countries will be able to endorse the Compact, or cooperate with other states on delivering its objectives, at any point in the future. \n\nDepartment for International Development","created_at":"2018-12-07T17:27:21.189Z","updated_at":"2018-12-07T17:27:21.189Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UN Global Compact on Migration has already been agreed by the UK Government. The final text of the Compact was agreed by the UK Government in July last year. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December. You can find more about how the Compact was agreed in this House of Commons Library research note:\r\n \r\nhttp://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8459/CBP-8459.pdf \r\n \r\nThe Government says that the Compact is not legally binding and cannot compel the UK Government to change its own immigration policies. On 19th December 2018 the Government made an announcement on its future immigration policy with a statement in the House of Commons and questions from MPs. 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/2018/december/home-secretary-gives-statement-on-immigration-white-paper/\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":222715,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/222715.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":"Require supermarkets to offer a plastic-free option for all their fruit & veg.","background":"In response to the problem of an ever-increasing amount of plastic waste polluting our environment, we need to make supermarkets offer an option of no packaging or eco-friendly packaging for each item of fresh fruit and vegetables they sell.","additional_details":"Currently there is evidence of an intolerable level of plastic loose in the ocean. In order to back up the work being done to reduce this waste, it is necessary to reduce our use of packaging in an individual level, and among the most difficult to avoid is the packaging of fresh fruit and vegetables in supermarkets. Forcing supermarkets to provide us with the choice of buying cucumbers, cabbages, broccoli etc in eco-friendly packaging will enable people on their journey to zero waste.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":128001,"created_at":"2018-06-20T16:01:37.856Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:55.123Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-21T17:17:10.374Z","closed_at":"2018-12-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-20T16:51:19.162Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-10T21:56:44.955Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.921Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-17T07:02:05.215Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-23","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-12","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-13T11:11:27.839Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-07","summary":"We are working with retailers and the Waste and Resources Action Programme to explore the potential for the introduction of plastic-free initiatives in supermarkets in which fresh food is sold loose.","details":"The Government shares concerns about plastic waste polluting our environment.\n\nOur 25 Year Environment Plan published in January sets out measures to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. We will do this through a four-point plan that takes action at each stage of the product lifecycle – production, consumption and end of life. At the production stage, this includes encouraging producers to take more responsibility for the environmental impact of their products and making sure plastic items are more carefully designed. At the consumer stage we want to reduce demand for single-use plastic. At the end of life stage, we will make it easier for people to recycle and increase the amount of plastic being recycled.\n\nThe Government is currently working with retailers to encourage their efforts to reduce waste and to explore the introduction of plastic-free supermarket initiatives in which fresh food is sold loose, giving consumers the choice. Packaging has an important and positive role to play in reducing product damage, increasing shelf-life, and reducing food waste. Keeping food fresher for longer through innovations such as vacuum packing and re-sealable packs has a significant impact on extending the life of products and reducing waste. If a product is wasted due to insufficient packaging then its disposal can have a greater environmental impact than the packaging itself.\n\nThere are opportunities where offering food loose may help to reduce plastic waste whilst not impacting on shelf life. We are currently working with retailers and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) exploring the potential for the introduction of plastic-free initiatives in supermarkets in which all food is loose.\n\nFurther to this work, WRAP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation have published their Plastics Pact with support from the government and 80 businesses, NGOs, government organisations and service providers. The Pact aims to make all plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. Participants will also work together to recycle or compost 70% of plastic packaging by 2025 while striving to eliminate single-use plastics in that timeframe.\n\nIndustry has also committed to implementing solutions that will enable the sustainable recycling of all black plastic packaging - bottles, pots, tubs and trays – by the end of 2018.\n\nThe government is also looking at further ways to reduce avoidable waste and recycle more as part of its Resources and Waste Strategy to be published later this year.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.917Z","updated_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.917Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-12/debates/0BFE8BD9-929D-4305-BE7A-D4EB11D64C0F/Plastic-FreePackaging(FruitAndVegetables)","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7ca44780-942c-41ba-909e-0f5a91c58175","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0245","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":266638,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/266638.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":"Demand the EU & UN sanction Brazil to halt increased deforestation of the Amazon","background":"The government of Brazil led by Bolsonaro favour the development of the Amazon rainforest over conservation, escalating deforestation.  Deforestation threatens indigenous populations who live in the forest, loss of a precious and complex ecosystem and a vital carbon store that slows global warming.","additional_details":"Indigenous people have called for the EU to impose trade sanctions on Brazil to halt the deforestation because they fear genocide. Also, the UK parliament has recognised a climate emergency. Since the Amazon rainforest is an important carbon store, absorbing huge volumes of CO2 each year, it's deforestation is of global significance. The intrinsic value of the rainforest should also be recognised.\r\nTrade sanctions are used elsewhere for important issues as an effective means to force action.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":123309,"created_at":"2019-07-03T07:11:16.257Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:52:24.002Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-07-24T11:55:58.628Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-03T09:46:32.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-22T11:55:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-30T12:09:34.844Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-25T09:12:52.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-10-03","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-10-07","debate_outcome_at":"2019-10-09T09:31:25.481Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-30","summary":"The United Kingdom shares concerns about deforestation in the Amazon. The Government believes these issues can be addressed most effectively through dialogue and our bilateral programmes.","details":"The United Kingdom shares concerns about deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, and the severe impact on the climate, biodiversity and livelihoods. However, key to tackling these issues is to work with Brazil to find solutions rather than imposing sanctions. \n\nDeforestation is an issue the United Kingdom has been dedicated to addressing in partnership with Brazil for a long time. Since 2012, the United Kingdom has invested nearly £120 million in a number of International Climate Finance programmes. These programmes help to tackle deforestation, and support Brazil’s rural communities, farmers and businesses to produce food and adopt sustainable agricultural practices that prevent forest fires, protect natural habitats and improve livelihoods.\n\nIn response to the recent forest fires, the Prime Minister pledged a further £10 million at the G7 summit on 25 August. This contribution is an expansion of an existing project: Partnerships for Forests. The funding will increase the programme’s support for the protection and restoration of Brazil’s rainforests, including areas impacted by the recent fires. Brazil, in response to international pressure, has launched an unprecedented operation to combat the fires, deploying 43,000 military staff. \n\nThe United Kingdom firmly believes climate change is one of the most important global issues and international cooperation is vital. Brazil is an important partner in this endeavour and has a critical role to play - we must work with them to find solutions.  We have an ongoing dialogue with Brazil on these issues at both ministerial and official level.  \n\nThe United Kingdom will continue to monitor the situation in the Amazon closely and raise these critical issues in our dialogue with Brazil. The Government remains committed to supporting efforts to tackle deforestation in the Amazon through our bilateral programmes.\n\nForeign & Commonwealth Office.","created_at":"2019-09-30T12:09:34.842Z","updated_at":"2019-09-30T12:09:34.842Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-10-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-07/debates/692C0869-3BD1-45D7-B2BC-ACD54B9573A8/AmazonDeforestation","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/72a7065f-659c-42e8-a89a-aa091ddae605","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0220","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200585,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200585.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":"Keep Childcare Vouchers open beyond April 2018","background":"Hundreds of thousands of parents will lose out under the new tax-free childcare. The voucher schemes should be kept open alongside tax-free childcare to give parents a genuine choice for the support that best suits their family.","additional_details":"Childcare Vouchers have been used by millions and are currently used by 780,000 parents. The new Tax-Free Childcare (TFC) regime will extend childcare support to some people that cannot access the current voucher scheme and this should be welcomed. \r\nGovernment plans to close Childcare Vouchers to new entrants so hundreds of thousands of parents could lose out by £100s or find themselves unable to claim any support at all! Including couples with one working parent who won’t be eligible under TFC.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":119587,"created_at":"2017-09-17T08:01:18.630Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:35.578Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-18T09:58:36.987Z","closed_at":"2018-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-17T22:18:32.508Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-26T17:25:01.081Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.793Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-08T20:43:49.590Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-11-15","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-15","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-16T09:42:25.270Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-12","summary":"The Government is investing more in childcare than ever before. Tax free childcare is one part of that childcare support and is fairer and better targeted than vouchers.","details":"The Government is committed to supporting working families and is investing more in childcare than ever before. Tax free childcare is one part of that increased childcare support, and everyone who earns at least £120 per week on average, but doesn’t exceed the upper income limit of £100,000 per annum can apply for the scheme, which is fairer and better targeted than vouchers.\n\nTax-Free Childcare will be available to over 2 million households to help with the cost of childcare, enabling more parents to go out to work if they want to. Working parents will be able to apply via an online childcare account, and access up to £2,000 per child (or £4,000 for disabled children). \n\nThe system is fairer and better targeted than vouchers, which are only offered by a minority of employers and self-employed parents are unable to access them. Tax-free childcare benefits parents whose employer doesn’t offer vouchers and the self-employed. It’s also fairer: support will be paid per child rather than per parent, so lone parent households will get the same support as those with more than one parent.\n\nIn addition to Tax-Free Childcare, we are also supporting families by offering 30 hours free childcare for working parents of three and four year olds in England, and more generous support for parents on Universal Credit, who are able to claim up to 85% of childcare costs.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.790Z","updated_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.790Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-15/debates/F831B5C6-4C08-4F0C-B532-140F9E70B353/ChildcareVouchers","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1b35e4c7-860b-4f2b-ab68-99699601adf1","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0265","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235053,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235053.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 parents the right to opt their child out of Relationship and Sex Education","background":"We believe it is the parent’s fundamental right to teach their child RSE topics or to at least decide who teaches them and when and how they are taught. We want the right to opt our children out of RSE when it becomes mandatory in Sept 2020.","additional_details":"We have grave concerns about the physical, psychological and spiritual implications of teaching children about certain sexual and relational concepts proposed in RSE and believe that they have no place within a mandatory school curriculum. \r\n\r\nWe believe the above factors have not been given enough consideration and that many of the RSE resources being produced by lobby groups and external organisations will actually cause more harm than good, particularly when child development and psychological factors are considered.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":118050,"created_at":"2018-12-12T13:34:50.465Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:31.840Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-18T11:34:33.418Z","closed_at":"2019-06-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-12T14:57:28.932Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-18T16:59:06.473Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-09T11:09:25.411Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-05T15:09:54.710Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-02-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-02-25","debate_outcome_at":"2019-02-26T14:42:11.214Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-09","summary":"As primary educators, parents must be consulted on their school’s curriculum for Relationships, and Relationships and Sex Education and may request their child’s withdrawal from Sex Education.","details":"Today’s children and young people are growing up in an increasingly complex world, living their lives seamlessly on and offline. This presents many positive opportunities, but also challenges and risks. Pupils need to know how to be safe and healthy, and how to manage their academic, personal and social lives in a positive way. \n\nThis is why we are making Relationships Education compulsory in all primary schools in England, Relationships and Sex Education compulsory in all secondary schools, and Health Education compulsory in all state-funded schools.\n\nWe are clear that parents and carers are the prime teachers for children on many of these matters. Schools complement and reinforce this role, and have told us that they see building on what pupils learn at home as an important part of delivering a good education.\n\nWe are proposing that schools will be required (as set out in draft regulations) to consult with parents on their Relationships Education and RSE policy, which will help minimise any misconception about the subjects and enable parents to decide whether to request that their child is withdrawn from sex education.  Schools should engage proactively with parents, to set out how and when they plan to cover topics included in Relationships Education and RSE so that parents can understand clearly what is going to be taught.\n\nSchools are free to decide on teaching materials, as they do for other curriculum areas, but should assess each resource carefully to ensure that it is appropriate for the age and maturity of pupils, and sensitive to their needs. Schools should also ensure that, when they consult with parents, they provide examples of the resources that they plan to use as this can be reassuring for parents, and enables them to continue the conversations started in class at home as well as to communicate where they may have concerns.\n\nSchools will be required to take into account the religious backgrounds of their pupils, and schools with a religious character can build on the core content by reflecting on the teachings of their faith. All schools must comply with the relevant provisions of the Equality Act (2010).\n\nThe draft guidance advises head teachers that parents can request that their child be withdrawn from sex education as part of RSE and unless there are exceptional circumstances, they should agree the parents’ request until 3 terms before the child turns 16. At that point, if the child wishes to receive sex education, they should be provided with it in one of those three terms. In line with the current position, there will be no right to withdraw from sex education taught in the science national curriculum.\n\nGood practice is also likely to include the headteacher discussing with the parents any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have on the child, including any social and emotional effects of being excluded e.g. receiving information from peers or from the internet. We believe that the new framework is the best way to secure the proper balance between parents’ rights and the rights of young people once they are competent to make their own choices.\n\nIn primary schools, we want the subjects to put in place the key building blocks of healthy, respectful relationships, focusing on family and friendships, both on and offline. At secondary, teaching will introduce age-appropriate knowledge about intimate relationships, including marriage and other forms of committed relationships, and sex. \n\nPrimary schools are not required to teach sex education but where they do cover elements of sex education other than those taught within the science national curriculum, this must be included in the school’s policy, which is subject to consultation with parents. This will make clear that all requests from parents to withdraw their child from sex education at primary will be automatically granted.\n\nTeaching on mental wellbeing is central to Health Education, reflecting that a priority for parents is their children’s happiness. The new subject content will give pupils the knowledge and capability to take care of themselves and get support if problems arise. This also provides the opportunity to teach about physical health and activity, basic first aid and life-saving skills, and drugs and alcohol.\n\nOur guiding principles have been that the compulsory subject content must be age appropriate. It must be taught sensitively and inclusively, with respect for the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils and parents while always with the aim of providing pupils with the knowledge they need of the law.\n\nThese subjects represent a huge opportunity to help our children and young people develop, to treat each other with kindness, respect and integrity, in order to become successful and happy adults who make a meaningful contribution to our society.\n\nDraft guidance/regulations are still available here: https://consult.education.gov.uk/pshe/relationships-education-rse-health-education/\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2019-01-09T11:09:25.407Z","updated_at":"2019-01-09T11:09:25.407Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-02-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-25/debates/A071BEFC-6658-4276-B300-30B5ABC2E129/RelationshipsAndSexEducation","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2ded67ac-40e8-4c20-8e83-a0fcb0627577","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06103","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":209455,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/209455.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":"Make Orkambi available on the NHS for people with Cystic Fibrosis","background":"Conventional CF treatments target the symptoms of CF, precision medicines like Orkambi tackle the cause of the condition. Though Orkambi is not a cure, it has been found to slow decline in lung function, the most common cause of death for people with CF, by 42%","additional_details":"In July 2016, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recognised Orkambi as an ‘important treatment.’ They were, however, unable to recommend the drug for use within the NHS on grounds of cost effectiveness and a lack of long-term data.\r\nWe are calling on the British Government to call for a resolution to ongoinging negotiations between Vertex Pharmaceuticals, NHS England and NICE as a matter of the utmost urgency. It is essential that a fair and sustainable agreement is found.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":118034,"created_at":"2018-01-12T16:25:32.009Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:58.960Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T21:01:23.799Z","closed_at":"2018-07-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-12T16:42:33.646Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-18T21:30:44.740Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-07T13:05:22.413Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-28T15:53:32.788Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-02-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-19","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-20T12:12:21.648Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-07","summary":"We want patients to benefit from clinically and cost effective treatments. We welcome the dialogue between Vertex and NHS England to agree a deal that would make Orkambi available to NHS patients.","details":"The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 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. NICE’s guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed through wide consultation with stakeholders. NHS commissioners are required to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisals.\n\nNICE published its final guidance on the use of Orkambi in July 2016 and did not recommend it for use in treating Cystic Fibrosis.  NICE’s appraisal committee concluded that while Orkambi was clinically effective and important for managing cystic fibrosis, the benefits were not sufficient to justify its considerable cost. Officials from NHS England engaged with Vertex (the manufacturer) to explore proposals to secure a pricing structure that would enable a positive recommendation from NICE – however, Vertex was unable to come forward with a viable model that would enable the drug to be funded. \n\nNICE periodically reviews its guidance to determine whether there is significant new evidence that might affect its recommendations.  NICE’s guidance on Orkambi is scheduled to be reviewed in July 2019.  If significant new evidence comes to light before the scheduled date to review the drug, NICE has processes in place to bring forward a review.  NICE remains open to a further approach from the company, with new evidence or a revised price. Although there has been recent correspondence between NHS England and the company, NICE has not yet received any fresh proposals from the company.\n\nA number of meetings have been held with Vertex, and the Department welcomes any further negotiations between NICE, NHS England and Vertex. Ministers are continuing to engage with Vertex, NHS England, NICE and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to encourage the responsible parties to reach a deal.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-02-07T13:05:22.410Z","updated_at":"2018-02-07T13:08:37.551Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-03-19/debates/41D2017B-E026-49FC-B94E-BCDB566AF1D6/OrkambiAndCysticFibrosis","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b74bb8c9-5d04-4df7-9f19-1dbf498329e0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0075","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200088,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200088.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":"Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women","background":"That this Government without delay recognises the need for a non-means tested bridging pension for women born on or after 6/4/1950 who are affected by the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts and compensate those at risk of losing up to around £45,000, to also give proper notification for any future changes.","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":117716,"created_at":"2017-09-12T19:31:43.475Z","updated_at":"2020-03-03T11:30:35.844Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-13T15:41:18.712Z","closed_at":"2018-03-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T19:40:06.734Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T20:09:48.373Z","government_response_at":"2017-09-27T13:23:08.773Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-28T15:12:22.857Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-19T13:24:49.048Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-09-27","summary":"Since 1995 the Government has gone to significant lengths to communicate SPa changes. No changes will be made to SPa policy affecting 1950s women to avoid placing an unfair burden on working people. ","details":"In 1995, after 2 years of debate in Parliament and following public consultation, the Government brought in a law to equalise men and women’s State Pension age (SPa). This increased the earliest age when a woman could claim SP from 60 to 65. The Government planned for the original change to take place over 10 years between 2010 and 2020. \n\nHowever, life expectancy is rising. The Government recognised it needed to make further changes to keep the SP affordable. In 2011 it introduced another law to equalise men and women’s SPa more quickly. The 2011 law also brought forward the increase in everyone’s State Pension age from 65 to 66 by five and a half years. \n\nThe Government’s original plan was to increase women’s SPa by up to two years, so that men and women’s SPa would equalise in November 2018 rather than in October 2020. The Government listened to concerns, and looked to see if they could reduce the effect of the planned SPa increases. As a result they agreed to reduce the increase in women’s SPa to no more than 18 months, compared to the original 1995 timetable. This benefited almost a quarter of a million women who would otherwise have waited up to two extra years to claim their SP. This change cost £1.1 billion.\n\nThe Government has done lots to improve pensions for everyone, particularly women. Future women pensioners will benefit on average from a higher new SP payment, and from the expansion of Automatic Enrolment. A woman retiring today can still expect to receive the SP for almost three years longer than men. If SPa had not been equalised, women would spend on average over 40% of their adult life in retirement. \n\nOther possibilities have been considered. All would cost working people a significant amount. Reversing the 2011 SPa changes would cost over £30bn, whilst returning to a female SPa of 60 would cost over £70bn by 2020/21 (with £38bn needing to be found before April 2018 alone). Going back on these changes could also create a new inequality between men and women. \n\nFurther changes to SPa are not justified, given the need to use public money to help those most in need.\n\nThe Government is helping older people remain in and return to work. The number of older women in work is now at a record high. There are more than 900,000 more women aged over 50 in work than in 2010. The average age of exit for women is currently 63.6 – well above the previous women’s SPa of 60.\nOur ‘Fuller Working Lives Strategy: A Partnership Approach’, published in February 2017, aims to help older workers remain or return to employment, and to change employer’s attitudes.\n\nGovernment has changed the law to create the right support for our Fuller Working Lives strategy. For example it is now against the law to dismiss someone from their employment just because they reach the age of 65. Employees also have the right to request flexible working as long as they have worked continuously for the company for six months. This means people can agree a work pattern to suit their circumstances. \n\nHaving older people in work helps the economy, which in turn means more job opportunities for everybody - including young people. Evidence shows that younger and older workers are not in competition for the same jobs and a range of ages in the workforce is the best mix.\n\nThe Government also supports vulnerable people. It spends around £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. Whilst also providing support to carers through the payment of Carers Allowance.\n\nSince 1995 the Government has gone to significant lengths to communicate SPa changes.\n\nOver the last 17 years the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has provided over 19 million personalised State Pension estimates.  It has encouraged people to request these as part of their long-term financial planning – after all, retirement is a life changing financial decision and people are expected to plan for this.\n\nFollowing the 1995 SPa changes the equalisation of men and women’s SPa was often reported in the media and debated at length in Parliament. DWP notified people with leaflets and carried out a pension’s education campaign between 2001 and 2004. This included information on the future equalisation of SPa. Later DWP sent individual letters to those affected. The Government made further increases to SPa in 2011 after a public consultation exercise and extensive debates in Parliament.\n\nWith Government facing increasing financial pressures, it cannot unpick the changes to SPa, some of which have been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable, especially when we take into account that the average woman reaching SPa last year will get a higher SP income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching SPa at any point before. \n\nThere will be no further changes to the law on this issue. This would mean working-age people, especially younger people, bearing a greater share of the cost of the pensions system. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2017-09-27T13:23:08.770Z","updated_at":"2018-01-09T17:29:00.803Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-14/debates/94129EFF-1C16-4FA7-90A9-1B78B93E327A/PensionEqualityForWomen","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/74dac792-d57d-40c9-baab-d043ffd4cbb0?in=12:07:56","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7405","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":244530,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/244530.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":"Pet Theft Reform: Amend animal welfare law to make pet theft a specific offence.","background":"We propose to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to make pet theft a specific offence, distinct from that of inanimate objects; and in sentencing, the courts must consider the fear, alarm or distress to the pet and owners and not monetary value.","additional_details":"At least 5 dogs are stolen every day in England & Wales. Research by Allen et al (2019) reveals an increase in dog theft crimes, 1,294 in 2015, 1,525 in 2016, 1,678 in 2017; and decrease in court charges related to dog theft crimes, 62 in 2015, 48 in 2016, 37 in 2017. \r\n \r\nA strong deterrent is needed. This amendment would ensure on conviction, imprisonment for a term up to 2 years becomes available to courts.\r\n \r\nPlease Support Pet Theft Reform: \r\nhttp://www.stolenandmissingpetsalliance.co.uk/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":117453,"created_at":"2019-03-07T19:11:19.411Z","updated_at":"2020-10-21T10:59:42.064Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-13T17:59:18.207Z","closed_at":"2019-09-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-07T20:59:13.915Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-15T21:22:24.530Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-29T09:36:13.763Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-20T16:59:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-10-19","debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-21T10:36:14.433Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-16","summary":"Current sentencing guidelines takes account of the emotional distress that the theft of personal items such as a much loved pet can have on victims, and recommend higher penalties for such offences.","details":"We understand the emotional trauma which the theft of a much loved pet can cause. \n\nThe theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. An amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is not, therefore, necessary. \n\nThe investigation of any crime is an operational matter for Police. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether an individual should be prosecuted for a crime. If an individual is found guilty, the Courts determine what an appropriate sentence is. It is not clear how introducing a separate specific offence for theft of a pet animal would reduce the numbers of pets stolen.\n\nIn February 2016, the Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft offences. The guidelines take account of the emotional distress, and therefore harm, that the theft of a much beloved pet can have on the victim, and accordingly recommend higher penalties for such offences.\n\nSince 2016, it has been compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped in England and Wales. This means that there is a much better chance that dogs will be returned to their owners. Vets, rehoming centres, and local authority dog wardens, scan dogs as a matter of good practice.\n\nIn addition, we encourage owners to take precautions to deter the theft of their dog, such as, where possible, not letting their pet out of sight when it is being exercised; varying their routines when walking their dogs; and not leaving dogs unattended in public places. \n\nFor these reasons, with particular attention to the offence being covered by the Theft Act 1968, the Government does not consider it is necessary to introduce a separate, specific, offence of theft, of a pet animal.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/244530)","created_at":"2019-03-29T09:36:13.758Z","updated_at":"2019-07-16T14:43:16.937Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-19/debates/7DB00823-5B7F-452D-8F36-B857FEDE682B/PetTheft","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRtSMPH_zuc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0111/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":224908,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/224908.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":"Brexit re article 50 it must not be suspended/stopped under any circumstances","background":"the full details are well known to everyone the media has covered it fully","additional_details":"the british people MUST be given the Brexit they voted for anything else is not acceptable to the british public  ARTICLE 50 must not under any circumstances be hindered/suspended/stopped for any reason whatsoever  the time is here to take action as there has been excessive feet dragging/delaying tactics by those opposed to brexit","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":116485,"created_at":"2018-07-13T19:36:58.576Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:34.346Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-31T11:13:41.400Z","closed_at":"2019-01-31T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-23T20:48:23.211Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-11T19:39:59.402Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-29T15:44:49.011Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-24T17:31:55.334Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-01-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-02-04","debate_outcome_at":"2019-02-05T12:29:15.485Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-29","summary":"The Government’s policy is not to revoke the Article 50 notice. The British people gave a clear instruction to leave and we are delivering on that instruction.","details":"In 2016, almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum and 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. \n\nIn 2017’s General Election, over 80% of people then also voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum - it was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will expressed by the electorate in the referendum. \n\nThe British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, and to disrespect the powerful democratic values of this country and this Government.\n\nTo revoke the Article 50 notice would go against the referendum result and is not a course of action the Government feels we should take. The Government continues to be committed to delivering on the instruction given to us by the British people; working to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities this brings to deliver an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.\n\nIn doing so, we will honour the mandate of the British people and leave the European Union in a way which benefits every part of our United Kingdom and every citizen of our country.\n\nWhilst we note the judgment in the recent Wightman litigation, the Government's policy is not to revoke the Article 50 notice.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-01-29T15:44:49.009Z","updated_at":"2019-01-29T15:44:49.009Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-02-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-04/debates/0AEA559B-D3B8-4F04-BF61-380C01404B6B/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1736e63b-5fba-4445-837b-6ee041a81a0b","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0025","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}