{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=3&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=10&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":236874,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/236874.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":"Laws to be introduced on social networks on hate preaching against religion(s)","background":"In the recent years numerous far right groups have insulted prophets of faiths including Prophet Muhammad PBUH, using public YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms. I believe there needs to be a legal boundary set when discussing criticism against religions and their respective Prophets.","additional_details":"The open rallies and social media networks require moderators to stop hate speech. We have far-right preachers who are creating disunity, disharmony against law abiding citizens. Where such speech/expressions incite religious intolerance e.g. in the event of an improper or even abusive attack on an object of religious veneration, the government should consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":115999,"created_at":"2019-01-09T18:58:32.099Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:48:05.398Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-10T14:01:37.566Z","closed_at":"2019-07-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-09T19:32:20.328Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-02T09:33:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.346Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-09T22:29:42.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:47:50.510Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-15","summary":"The Government is committed to the principle of freedom of religion and belief.  But this needs to be balanced against other rights and freedoms, as set out in the Online Harms White Paper. ","details":"Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right and one which must be upheld and defended. Equally, freedom of speech is the foundation of a healthy society, allowing for debate and disagreement, underpinned by those values that bind people together - tolerance, equality and fairness. It is important that all have the right to speak freely, and that a strong legal framework provides the appropriate space to do so. The Government will continue to protect people’s legitimate rights and freedoms whilst also remaining committed to tackling hate crime, both online and offline. \r\n\r\nThe Online Harms White Paper, published in April sets out the Government’s plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. The internet and other new technologies have driven dramatic improvements to the economy and society. The benefits of technological innovation should rightly extend to all citizens, and harmful behaviours and content cannot be allowed to undermine these. People have strong and legitimate concerns about their safety and security online – the Government is clear that what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online. The challenge as a society is to help shape an internet that is open and vibrant but protects users and communities from harm.\r\n\r\nAs outlined in the Online Harms White Paper, the Government intend to establish in law a new duty of care on companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. This regulator will set clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and effective enforcement powers. Companies will be held to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms; these range from illegal activity and content to behaviours that may not be illegal but are nonetheless highly damaging to individuals and society.\r\n\r\nIn February 2018 the Prime Minister announced a review by the Law Commission of the law in relation to abusive and offensive online communications, to highlight any gaps in the criminal law which cause problems in tackling this abuse. In its scoping report published last year, the Law Commission concluded that behaviour is broadly criminalised to the same extent online as offline and recommended a clarification of existing communication offences. \r\n\r\nThe Government has now engaged the Law Commission in a Phase 2 of their Review of Abusive and Offensive Online Communications. The Law Commission will review the current communications offences to establish whether the law is fit for purpose, and whether co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law. A final report, setting out specific recommendations for legal reform, is due to be published in early 2021.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Hate Crime Action Plan refresh has improved the response to all forms of hate crime and ensures a renewed commitment that victims remain at the heart of the work. In this refresh the Government recognises the need to focus on high risk environments, such as online. That is why, the Government committed additional funding to continue to protect places of worship alongside just over £1.5 million for projects to tackle racially and religiously motivated hatred.  This includes support for support for Working Groups to Tackle Antisemitism and Anti-Muslim Hatred, among other important initiatives. The Government also launched a wide-ranging national hate crime public awareness campaign to publicly address hate crime in 2018, including online hate, which was re-run in 2019. Police also now record the faith when a religious-based hate crime has taken place to increase understanding and help target police resources.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. ","created_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.343Z","updated_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.343Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition at this stage as it will be considering the issues it raises as part of ongoing work into tackling online abuse.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":233926,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/233926.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":"People found with a knife to get 10 years and using a knife 25 years in prison.","background":"People are scared of the amount of knife crime with apparently very little deterent to stop people carrying knifes.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":115723,"created_at":"2018-11-26T19:42:52.146Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:12.719Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-03T11:13:14.938Z","closed_at":"2019-06-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-26T20:49:46.815Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-28T01:21:25.389Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.458Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-13T13:20:55.518Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-25","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-26T17:05:56.694Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-14","summary":"Conviction of a knife or offensive weapon offence – threatening or possession - is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence, and for longer than at any point in the last ten years.","details":"The Government takes the possession of knives extremely seriously. We understand the devastating impact knife crime has on victims and their families, and are determined to put a stop to violent crimes that involve knives. \r\n\r\nParliament has provided a sentencing framework which give courts the powers they need to effectively deal with the range of offences and offenders which come before them. Where someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that the person may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences up to life imprisonment. In England and Wales in fact, all murder convictions must result in a life sentence. For offenders aged 18 and over who bring a knife or another weapon to the scene of a murder with the intention of using it, courts will consider a minimum term spent in custody of at least 25 years.\r\n\r\nIn 2015, we introduced minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months’ imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a minimum 4 month Detention and Training Order. Since the introduction of the minimum custodial term people caught carrying a knife or offensive weapon for a second time are now more likely than ever before to go to prison – in the year ending September 2018, 82% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat possession offences. These offences carry maximum terms of 4 years’ imprisonment.\r\n\r\nWhen sentencing, the courts consider the full circumstances of the offence and offender and must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines produced by the independent Sentencing Council. The guidelines are clear that for any offence the use of weapon will be treated as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence. \r\n\r\nIt is clear tackling serious violence requires a response on several fronts. This Government is taking significant action to both prevent and respond to crimes involving weapons through the Serious Violence Strategy, published on 9 April 2018. The Strategy sets out 61 commitments the Government will be taking forward to tackle violent crime. For example, the Offensive Weapons Bill, currently before Parliament includes provision for new offences related to knives, such as preventing the delivery of knives to home addresses when bought online. The Strategy also commits to strengthen police capability to act against violent crime, and to secure better partnership working to support young people and encourage them to take up positive activities rather than get involved in crime.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice.","created_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.455Z","updated_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.455Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-25/debates/D6B4D711-F983-439F-A598-670CFE4D36B2/KnifeCrime","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c063c476-5ff9-42b2-8970-73107838f3bf","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00330","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":232220,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232220.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":"Increase funding for schools","background":"Schools are having to make difficult choices on how to spend their limited funding as their income has not kept pace with the rise in costs since 2010. All schools are working very hard to “make ends meet” but this is becoming increasingly difficult and verging on almost impossible.","additional_details":"As funding has become tighter, schools have had to cut back on: \r\n• Teaching and non-teaching staff \r\n• Support for more vulnerable pupils \r\n• Small group work for children who are not thriving in school \r\n• Teaching resources (parents being asked to pay for books and materials) \r\n• Subject choices in secondary schools \r\n• Range of activities for primary pupils \r\n• Extra curricula activities provided free or subsidised \r\n• Repairs to buildings \r\n• Renewal of equipment","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113825,"created_at":"2018-11-07T14:36:22.821Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:42.278Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-19T13:31:45.997Z","closed_at":"2019-05-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-08T11:30:45.495Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-29T21:26:55.551Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-11T15:46:34.689Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T08:23:05.052Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-04","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-05T11:07:59.600Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-05","summary":"We recognise schools are facing budgeting challenges and we are asking them to do more. We have increased funding by an extra £1.3bn across this year and next, over and above previous spending plans.","details":"While there is more money going into our schools than ever before, we recognise the budgeting challenges schools face and that we are asking them to do more. The total core schools and high needs budget will rise from almost £41bn in 2017-18 to £43.5bn by 2019-20.  \r\n\r\nFigures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that in 2020, per pupil funding for five to sixteen year olds, adjusted for inflation, will be 50% higher than in 2000, and 70% higher than in 1990. We can also compare ourselves favourably to other countries – we spend as much per pupil on state school education as any major economy in the world, with the single exception of the United States of America.  \r\n\r\nWe are also distributing that funding more fairly, through the national funding formula which directs money to where it is most needed, based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics – not accidents of geography or past arrangements. Since 2017, the national funding formula has allocated every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the largest increases to the schools that have been most underfunded. \r\n\r\nWe recently confirmed funding allocations for local authorities through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2019-20. More information on the DSG and a detailed breakdown of funding allocations for each local authority is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2019-to-2020 \r\n\r\nWe also announced that we will provide £250m additional funding for high needs over this financial year and the next. This brings the total allocated for high needs, within the overall core schools budget, to £6.1 billion in 2018-19 and £6.3 billion in 2019-20. We recognise that the high needs budget faces significant pressures and this additional expenditure will help to manage those pressures. \r\n\r\nSpending plans beyond 2019-20 will be set at the next Spending Review and naturally we cannot pre-empt these decisions – but we are of course committed to securing the right deal for education. \r\n\r\nDespite all of this, we do recognise that budgets remain tight. That is why we are supporting schools and head teachers to make the most of their budgets and reduce costs on things like energy, water bills and materials.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-12-11T15:46:34.687Z","updated_at":"2019-02-06T18:14:43.801Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-04/debates/2EB33517-190D-4882-8682-4953D09C5CB0/SchoolFunding","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/198bdfcd-f451-4891-a8b5-c8a888c4c2a0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8419","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205169,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205169.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament's vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the EU.","background":"A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice, and our MPs should be allowed to vote with their conscience to deliver what they believe is best for the country.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113612,"created_at":"2017-11-14T05:48:02.188Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:39.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-17T17:26:40.136Z","closed_at":"2018-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-14T06:54:05.845Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-20T00:40:16.732Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.481Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T13:14:30.071Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-11","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-12T16:29:27.436Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-12-19","summary":"The British people voted to leave and the Government will implement their decision.The vote on the final deal will give Parliament the choice to accept the agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.","details":"The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a clear majority of people vote to leave the European Union. Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum, on 8 February, by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Government is clear that it is its duty to deliver on the instruction of the British people and implement the result of the referendum.\r\n\r\nThe Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. The terms of this vote are clear; Parliament will have the choice to accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal. \r\n\r\nWe are confident that we will get the best possible agreement and one which Parliament will want to support.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.478Z","updated_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.478Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-11/debates/04C5BC76-CDD7-4D13-8A5C-2DB164C1E588/LeavingTheEUParliamentaryVote","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fe58525f-7513-4230-9c87-6bf0cd034db0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0097","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":201947,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/201947.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 laws governing the use of fireworks to include a ban on public use","background":"Fireworks cause alarm, distress and anxiety to many people and animals. We call on the Secretary of State  to make appropriate provision to secure that the risk of public use is the MINIMUM that is compatible with fireworks being used, as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 2.","additional_details":"Noted in debate of firework petition 109702 statistics are not recorded. We ask government to collect statistics. We ask the Sec. of State to issue a full regulatory impact assessment in accordance with section 2(4) Act; 2004, consider statistics gathered by FireworkABatement (FAB) as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 3b., ‘as an organisation which appears to the Sec. of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal’, Shown by this petition and past petitions.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113284,"created_at":"2017-10-01T20:59:57.046Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:49.980Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-06T13:02:12.776Z","closed_at":"2018-04-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-01T21:10:31.019Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-18T18:33:39.028Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.020Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-09T17:41:14.793Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-29","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-30T12:17:06.595Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-27","summary":"Government takes the issue of firework safety very seriously. There is legislation in place that controls the sale, use and misuse of fireworks; we have no plans to extend this further.","details":"The Government takes the issue of firework safety very seriously. There is legislation in place relating to the supply, storage, possession and use and misuse of fireworks. This includes legislation which regulates the supply and use of fireworks, both for the general public and professional display operators. Restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks are set out under the 2003 Fireworks Act, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015. These contain provisions to minimise the risk of fireworks harming people, property and animals. Although a small minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate or anti-social manner, we believe that the majority use them sensibly and responsibly.\r\n\r\nThe Government is aware of concerns about the distress noisy fireworks can cause to individuals, as well as to livestock, pets and wildlife. Therefore, the Government urges those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly to those who are vulnerable such as older people, children, those with mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and those with pets and livestock. We have worked with the fireworks industry to encourage users of fireworks to give notice of their displays so that those who are vulnerable or keep animals can make arrangements for their safety.  \r\n\r\nThe Blue Cross animal charity has also produced information on animals and fireworks, which gives advice on how to avoid or reduce stress to animals when fireworks are being set off.  The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Kennel Club provide similar advice on their websites concerning how to minimise the impact of fireworks use on animals.\r\nThere is already a ban on the general public from purchasing fireworks with higher levels of risk and noise and seasonal limitations on their sale. The Fireworks Regulations 2004 restrict their sale to the traditional fireworks periods around 5th November, Diwali, New Year’s Eve and the Chinese New Year. These are an important part of British tradition reflecting our history and multi-culturalism. While it is possible to buy fireworks at other times of the year, a ‘licence to sell fireworks’ is required and strict conditions are imposed outside the traditional periods. \r\n\r\nAt present any firework that exceeds 120 decibels must not be supplied to consumers. There are also low noise fireworks available that consumers can choose to buy, but we do not propose to bring in regulations to require all fireworks to be low noise. \r\n\r\nGovernment acknowledges that many people have genuine concerns about the use and, the misuse, of fireworks and the risks of firework-related injury. However, the number of injuries is low and the total number of hospital admissions caused by firework injuries has remained below 200 a year for the last 10 years. \r\n\r\nThe Government does not plan to make any changes to the way statistics relating to enforcement actions are collected. The Government believes the focus of enforcement should be on delivering necessary protections and on working with businesses, citizens and others to ensure safety.\r\n\r\nThe Government believes that the current regulations strike the right balance between the enjoyment of fireworks by the public and restricting the sale and use of fireworks for public safety reasons. \r\n\r\nThe best way to continue to reduce the distress caused by fireworks is to work with industry, retailers and others to promote the safe and responsible use of fireworks through guidance and public education and to ensure that appropriate action is taken against those that break the rules. \r\n\r\nThe obligations for the Secretary of State referred to in the e-petition, to publish a regulatory Impact Assessment and to consult interested organisations, only apply when making new regulations and we have no plans to change the legislation relating to fireworks.\r\n\r\nAs set out above, given there is already legislation in place which controls the sale and use and misuse of fireworks; we have no plans to extend this further.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy\r\n","created_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.017Z","updated_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.017Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-29/debates/913A2227-7B51-44CD-870A-56C0A5ACAC73/Fireworks","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2a1e3167-13f1-4dcc-9297-6a51f3854ac3","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0018","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":226509,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/226509.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 BREXIT","background":"It's so desperately simple. The Government's standard response to these kinds of petitions is \"The British people voted to leave the EU and the government respect that decision\". BUT, the government themselves DO NOT KNOW the outcome of that decision, so how can they possibly respect it???","additional_details":"Quote Theresa May: \"We don't know what the outcome will be\". The referendum was advisory, not conclusive. The result of the referendum has now been proven to be illegally biased (something \"our\" government is choosing to ignore). Hence, the \"vote\" (actually an opinion poll) is now null and void. The referendum was voted for with no indication of any actual facts. 2yrs ago there was no detail about what \"brexit\" actually entailed. Today, still no detail. For all these reasons:  STOP BREXIT.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112578,"created_at":"2018-08-03T00:12:28.596Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:02.789Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-10T13:51:55.381Z","closed_at":"2019-02-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-07T10:23:14.432Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T19:05:52.038Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.256Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-20T21:09:28.855Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:45:23.072Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-22","summary":"The people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction to leave the\r\nEuropean Union. The Government respects that decision.","details":"The British public voted to leave the European Union and the\r\nGovernment will deliver this instruction. As a matter of firm policy our\r\nnotification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn.\r\n\r\nThe referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British\r\nhistory. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the\r\nreferendum, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European\r\nUnion. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK\r\nelectoral history. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a\r\ncourse of action ever directed at any UK Government.\r\n\r\nParliament also overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum\r\nby voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for\r\nthe European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. At the last general\r\nelection over 80% of British people voted for parties committed to\r\nrespecting the Leave result.\r\n\r\nThe Government will honour the referendum result and get the best\r\ndeal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of\r\nthe British people.\r\n\r\nThe full legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement has now been agreed in\r\nprinciple. This agreement marks a decisive step forward towards a\r\nsmooth and orderly exit from the EU. We have also agreed the draft text\r\nof our future relationship as set out in the Political Declaration.\r\n\r\nThis puts us close to a Brexit deal. A deal that takes back control of our\r\nborders, our laws and our money while protecting jobs, security and the\r\nintegrity of our United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.253Z","updated_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.253Z"},"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":207040,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/207040.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing","background":"Safe Standing offers a much safer alternative to fans who wish to stand, rather than sit at football matches. After the highly successful introduction to rail seating at Celtic Park, as well as numerous Bundesliga clubs, many football fans feel that laws preventing standing areas should be relaxed.","additional_details":"Some football clubs that already have successfully installed rail seating are: Celtic, Werder Bremen, Hamburg SV, Vfl Wolfsburg, Hannover 96 and the famous “yellow wall” at Borussia Dortmund. \r\n\r\nIn conclusion, there is a clear demand for safe standing with 92% of respondents saying fans should be given the choice to stand in safe standing areas, in a poll by the Football Fans Census, and it would only promote English football further by improving the overall matchday experience.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112025,"created_at":"2017-12-04T13:00:50.405Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:14.708Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-08T14:39:55.168Z","closed_at":"2018-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T15:10:41.027Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-11T19:54:00.553Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.925Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T15:57:20.341Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-25","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-26T11:09:06.930Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-03","summary":"We are looking at the current all-seater policy and any changes that may be needed. We are keen to carefully review all the evidence on the matter and are grateful for the engagement from fans.","details":"The Government thanks all the football supporters who made their views known about this issue through correspondence or through the recent online petition. Many of those were concerned that the proposal from West Bromwich Albion FC made earlier this year to install a standing section was rejected. The law governing all licensed stadia would need to be changed for that proposal to go ahead.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s current policy is that all-seater stadia are the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales. However the time is now right for us to reexamine that policy in light of the technological changes in stadium and seating design as well as the representations from both clubs and supporters on this issue.\r\n\r\nWe continue to work closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to consider advances in technology and data on the issue.\r\n\r\nThe safety of spectators at sports grounds has always been of paramount importance for the Government. The all-seater policy was introduced in the top two divisions in the early 1990s, following a recommendation in Lord Justice Taylor’s Final Report into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster.\r\n\r\nAll-seater stadiums have been a success. Benefits include: \r\n●\timproved crowd management and crowd behaviour;\r\n●\tmodern, comfortable, and inviting facilities for spectators;\r\n●\tincreased inclusivity and diversity amongst those attending matches \r\n- Premier League research has shown that the percentage of crowds attending Premier League matches from a Black and Minority Ethnic background continues to increase season-on-season, and is now at a record 16% (2014/2015 season); more women and children attending games helps to nurture the next generation of supporters - Premier League research has shown that a record 26% of match attendees are female, and that children's season ticket sales now make up 12% of all Premier League season ticket sales (2014/2015 season);\r\n●\tenhanced security and policing to keep spectators safe;\r\n●\tthere have been fewer reported incidents and injuries to spectators, and\r\n●\tIncreased spectator attendances - by 60% - contributing to the future health of the game.\r\n\r\nGiven the success of all seater stadiums, the safety reasons for introducing the policy, and the enhancements that seated spectators have enjoyed, the Government would need strong evidence and rationale to change that policy.\r\nThe Government is aware of the calls from a wide range of interest groups including some football clubs and supporters’ groups to introduce standing areas for spectators at football matches in the top two divisions of English football.\r\nWe will continue to listen to supporters’ groups and other stakeholders who would like to see the reintroduction of standing at football in the top two tiers. The introduction of rail seating at Celtic Park and more recently at Shrewsbury Town FC informs the debate about the future of spectator accommodation at football matches. It is important that we have this debate and that it is informed by the evidence.\r\n\r\nThe Government is not complacent about spectator safety, nor are we complacent about the safety policies that have served spectators well for many years. But we acknowledge that policies must remain relevant and effective. Technology and stadium design have evolved since the all-seater policy was introduced. It is important that all the evidence and viewpoints are considered extremely carefully.\r\n\r\nThe Sports Minister looks forward to discussing at length the nuances and complexities of sports ground safety in Parliament later this month.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.923Z","updated_at":"2018-06-12T15:06:48.160Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-25/debates/8A09C8B2-14D5-4E2D-8F3E-1D7FF3838818/FootballSafeStanding","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7860c4f1-7b1e-49da-84c8-5ffe5917515f","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0147","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":266770,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/266770.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 Driven Grouse Shooting\r\nWilful blindness is no longer an option","background":"Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery (Wild Justice) believe that intensive grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife. People; grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s uplands.","additional_details":"Environment; muirburn impacts negatively upon climate change and drainage leads to flooding and erosion. Wildlife; the wholesale culling of all predators and Mountain Hares has a disastrous effect on the ecology of these areas and the industry is underpinned by a criminal tradition of raptor persecution which shows no signs of abating. It’s time to provide an opportunity to implement immediate , legislative and meaningful measures to address this abhorrently destructive practice.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111965,"created_at":"2019-07-04T21:22:54.456Z","updated_at":"2021-06-22T10:11:16.939Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-13T15:24:03.152Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-05T03:23:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-13T21:47:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.936Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-01T18:32:22.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-21","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-22T10:11:16.939Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-02","summary":"Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity providing benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation and investment in remote areas. Defra is working on the sustainable management of English uplands.","details":"This is a devolved matter. Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of the uplands, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable grouse shooting. \r\n\r\nThe Government appreciates that many people hold strong views on the issue of driven grouse shooting. The Government considers that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and can in many cases be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected and the law is respected. We will continue work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. The Government has no plans to ban grouse shooting. \r\n \r\nWild birds and other wild animals are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have identified raptor persecution as a wildlife crime priority. Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white-tailed eagle. The group is working on developing tools to help tackle raptor persecution crimes.\r\n\r\nThe National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting raptors and assists police forces when required. Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine falcon, red kite and buzzard have increased. We are concerned that with respect to eliminating illegal bird of prey persecution, there are still individuals who continue to commit these crimes. We will work with all stakeholders to try to eradicate these crimes. Any evidence of crime should be presented to the local police force for their consideration. \r\n\r\nGrouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable ecosystem services, including food, fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities. UK uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog. \r\n\r\nSeventy per cent of the UK’s drinking water is provided from upland catchments. The Government is committed to delivering positive environmental and economic benefits and creating a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including preserving and restoring peatlands through development of the UK Peatland Code; there is also funding of peatland restoration through Government-funded grants and private sector sponsorship.  We will publish an England Peat Strategy later this year, setting out our vision for how our precious peatlands will be restored and protected.\r\n\r\nHealthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits and ecosystem services. Natural England is working with landowners of grouse moors to develop management agreements, which include vegetation management principles for the various habitats on grouse moors. These agreements aim to reverse habitat degradation and help landowners sustainably manage and restore upland peatland habitats. The Government encourages land managers to work closely with Natural England to put agreements in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment. The Government is working with moor owners and stakeholders to improve management practices and peat condition further through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.\r\n\r\nA report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall impact of game bird shooting is positive; the industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation. The Moorland Association highlights that estates in England and Wales spent £52.5 million on managing 149 grouse moors for shooting in 2010. The industry supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £97.7 million across Great Britain. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.934Z","updated_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.934Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-06-21/debates/7654E8FA-2E19-4E39-985E-DD8DB066B065/GrouseShooting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjE7qw8Bis&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0098/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":241848,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241848.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":"Halt Brexit For A Public Inquiry","background":"The UK's departure from the EU looms but questions remain about the legitimacy of the Referendum. The Electoral Commission said illegal overspending occurred during the Referendum. Were the vote/any subsequent political acts affected? Article 50 was triggered. Was the overspend known about then?","additional_details":"A transparent Public Inquiry is required, now.\r\n\r\nThis Inquiry must determine urgently whether any decision-maker knew about the EU Referendum irregularities before Article 50 was triggered. \r\n\r\nWhat assessment (before Article 50 was triggered or subsequently) was made, and by whom, of any impacts illegal spending had on the outcome of the EU Referendum?\r\n\r\nThese are matters vital to the democratic process and public confidence in British politics. Until they are resolved Brexit must be deferred.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111918,"created_at":"2019-02-15T17:24:05.639Z","updated_at":"2020-10-06T12:22:07.235Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-05T10:48:12.754Z","closed_at":"2019-09-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-16T10:28:39.058Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-19T19:48:10.882Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.959Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-14T12:44:45.060Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-10-05","debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-06T12:15:27.418Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-15","summary":"Investigations are conducted by the independent Electoral Commission. There are no plans to establish a Public Inquiry. The Government is committed to delivering the result of the EU referendum.","details":"The EU referendum was carried out in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament. There was a six week period in which the result of the EU Referendum could be challenged by judicial review.\r\n\r\nWe treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. The Government is committed to making sure the rules work, now and in the future.\r\n\r\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures – and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaigns.\r\n\r\nPro-Remain groups outspent pro-Leave groups by £4 million in the referendum campaign.\r\n\r\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. If offences are alleged, it is right that they are investigated thoroughly by the appropriate agencies. Those agencies and any investigations are rightly independent of government.\r\n\r\nClose to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at the UK Government. Following the referendum, Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\r\n\r\nThe British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office.\r\n","created_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.957Z","updated_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.957Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-05/debates/915A231C-FE1E-4E7D-A512-060DB8C10F94/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3dd8e43f-bc93-45ad-8efd-dd5b6d61502c","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0050/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219905,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219905.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":"If there is no agreement to leave the EU then brexit must be stopped","background":"If there is no agreement by the deadline for reaching agreement with the EU during the talks then brexit should be stopped as leaving with no deal will be very bad for businesses and for the Irish border issue and for EU citizens living here.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110136,"created_at":"2018-05-13T01:48:34.993Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:05.001Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-18T16:22:27.971Z","closed_at":"2018-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-13T03:33:45.914Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-17T10:00:14.076Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-29T10:43:19.109Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-19","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-20T13:02:35.025Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-01","summary":"Whilst striking a deal with our EU partners remains the outcome we expect, ‘no deal’ plans are well-developed and we stand ready to make a success of Brexit, whatever the outcome of our negotiations.","details":"We are leaving the EU. That’s what the British public voted for and that is what we will deliver. \r\n\r\nNegotiations are progressing well and we are confident of a deal this autumn. We have been having regular discussions with the EU on the future framework, outlining our positions on a wide range of topics covering the future security partnership and the future economic partnership, and we remain confident of reaching agreement on the Withdrawal Agreement and Future Framework. \r\n\r\nWe have now locked down the text on the majority of other separation issues. Taken with the agreement reached in March on the implementation period, on citizens’ rights and on the financial settlement - we have now reached agreement on around 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement. This provides important certainty for businesses and individuals.\r\n \r\nThe Government has also published its White Paper on the future relationship, which is our vision for a bold, ambitious and innovative new partnership with the EU. Principled and practical, faithful to the referendum, it delivers a deal that is good for the UK, and good for our EU friends.\r\n\r\nNow that the White Paper has been published, our negotiations with the EU are accelerating and intensifying. We have already seen an increase in pace with Michel Barnier now pledging ‘continuous negotiations’. We expect the EU to engage seriously with the proposals and both negotiating teams to work at pace to reach a substantive agreement on the Future Framework in the autumn. \r\n\r\nWe firmly believe it is in the interests of both the EU and the UK to strike a deal. That remains the goal on both sides and we are confident that this will be achieved. But it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely event that we reach March 2019 without agreeing a deal. \r\n\r\nWe have already carried out very significant ‘no deal’ preparations and have been publishing a series of notices so that businesses and citizens have time to prepare. This does not reflect an increased likelihood of ‘no deal;’ an acceleration at this point was long-planned to ensure plans are in place by March 2019 in the unlikely scenario they are needed.\r\n\r\nOur objective in our preparations is to minimise disruption and to prioritise continuity and stability, including for businesses, at the border, as well as for EU citizens in the UK.\r\n\r\nOver the past year we have spent time talking to businesses across different industries about how they could be preparing for exit. The notices published on gov.uk over the last few weeks provide further information in order to guide businesses on how they can best prepare for our exit from the EU. We will continue working closely with industries that are most affected by ‘no deal’ plans and implementation, particularly to understand how we can support businesses in making the transition outside of the European Union.\r\n\r\nAt the border, we will continue to apply highly automated, risk based and intelligence targeted customs controls when the UK leaves the EU. As they do today, HMRC will work closely with industry to ensure its interventions are conducted in a way which minimises delays and additional burdens for legitimate trade, while robustly ensuring compliance.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister has been clear from the beginning of this process that she wants EU Citizens and their families in the UK to be able to stay. She gave a clear commitment to EU citizens in October, when she said “I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay.” The UK will move swiftly to safeguard the future of EU citizens, regardless of the outcome of negotiations.\r\n\r\nWhilst striking a deal with our EU partners remains our top priority, we are supporting businesses and citizens to prepare for all scenarios and stepping up preparations to ensure that ‘no deal’ plans are well-developed. Over the coming months more of these preparations will become clear, while our focus and discussions with the EU remain on achieving the ambitious and positive deal we hope for and expect.\r\n\r\nWhatever the outcome of our negotiations, we stand ready to make a success of Brexit.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.219Z","updated_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.219Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-19/debates/B6518376-A785-49E2-B699-08BEE94ACFDF/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9b982590-297d-4d8b-af6e-de558796c4f9","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0248","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200888,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200888.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 animal fur in the UK.","background":"Fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, followed by Scotland in 2002. However fur products can still be legally imported from other countries and sold here in the UK. Much of this fur comes from countries that have very weak or no animal welfare laws at all.","additional_details":"Fur sold in the UK comes from the following countries:\r\n(Main suppliers) China, North America, South America, Russia and Europe.\r\n(Other suppliers) Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Greenland, Hungary, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Maldovia, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Slovenia, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Turkey.\r\n\r\nWest Hollywood is the first city in the world that decided to ban the sales of fur in 2011. In 2015 Sao Paolo adopted an import and sales ban on fur products. In January 2017 India adopted an import ban on mink, fox and chinchilla fur skins. The 'International Anti-Fur Coalition' leads the bill to ban the sale of fur in Israel.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109553,"created_at":"2017-09-20T10:14:56.740Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:38.603Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-23T11:42:19.327Z","closed_at":"2018-03-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-20T17:45:16.864Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-28T19:57:41.837Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.935Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-13T15:49:52.610Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-04","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-05T11:27:06.222Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-28","summary":"While some fur products may never be legally imported into the UK the Government’s view is that national bans are less effective than working at an international level on animal welfare standards.","details":"The UK Government is a world leader in animal welfare standards and takes animal cruelty very seriously. We are at the forefront of international efforts to protect the interests of animals, for example we recently announced proposals to ban UK sales of ivory to help bring an end to elephant poaching. We also work closely with and strongly support the efforts undertaken by several non-governmental organisations.\r\n \r\nRegarding the fur industry specifically, we are working at an international level to agree global animal welfare standards and phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices. We believe this is the best way to prevent animal cruelty and that this approach will lead to a much higher level of animal welfare standards.\r\n\r\nOur international efforts to bring about higher standards are supported by strict EU rules and regulations around fur imports, regulations that apply to both the UK and wider EU. \r\n\r\nFirstly, these regulations include a blanket ban of the importing of furs from a number of animals, including cats and dogs as well as most seal skins and products. Secondly, there are regulations that ensure any fur that can be imported into the UK comes from animals that have kept been treated, trapped and killed humanely.\r\n \r\nIn addition to these EU regulations, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) controls the fur from an endangered species. For example, there are export permits and commercial use certificates that strictly control the imports of furs from endangered species. These controls are implemented in the UK by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.  \r\n\r\nThe Government will ensure that these controls are not removed once we leave the EU.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.932Z","updated_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.932Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-04/debates/8F9B6212-E631-4151-ABA7-AED8560CBBEB/FurTrade","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85d414cf-22ab-4ab1-ab5d-79a34a4651dc","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0137","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":250178,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/250178.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":"To establish a Public Inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU Referendum.","background":"There is now strong evidence of serious misconduct during the 2016 EU Referendum, including intereference by foreign actors and governments. This must be investigated under the Inquiries Act (2005).","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109430,"created_at":"2019-03-24T11:04:25.702Z","updated_at":"2020-10-06T12:21:42.665Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-02T15:43:16.968Z","closed_at":"2019-10-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T11:58:03.553Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T11:13:13.330Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.790Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-01T10:34:02.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-10-05","debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-06T12:17:07.186Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-24","summary":"There are no plans to establish a public inquiry on the conduct during the 2016 EU Referendum. The Government has not seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes.","details":"The EU referendum was carried out in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament. There was a six week period in which the result of the EU Referendum could be challenged by judicial review.\r\n\r\nWe treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. The Government is committed to making sure the rules work, now and in the future.\r\n\r\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures – and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaigns.\r\n\r\nPro-Remain groups outspent pro-Leave groups by £4 million in the referendum campaign.\r\n\r\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. If offences are alleged, it is right that they are investigated thoroughly by the appropriate agencies. Those agencies and any investigations are rightly independent of government.\r\n\r\nClose to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at the UK Government. Following the referendum, Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\r\n\r\nThe British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.788Z","updated_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.788Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-05/debates/915A231C-FE1E-4E7D-A512-060DB8C10F94/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3dd8e43f-bc93-45ad-8efd-dd5b6d61502c","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0050/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":254607,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/254607.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":"Restore nature on a massive scale to help stop climate breakdown","background":"To avoid a climate emergency we need to act fast. Rewilding and other natural climate solutions can draw millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the air through restoring and protecting our living systems. We call on the UK government to make a bold financial and political commitment to nature's recovery.","additional_details":"We need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate breakdown. To do this we need both to reduce carbon emissions and to remove carbon from the atmosphere. By drawing down carbon, nature's recovery can help us reach net carbon zero. \r\n\r\nWe have a chance for the UK to become a world leader in natural climate solutions. Those who manage our land and sea play a pivotal role and should be supported to come together to deliver carbon reductions.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109076,"created_at":"2019-04-02T13:19:48.922Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:49:09.443Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-17T11:27:40.121Z","closed_at":"2019-10-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-02T13:40:04.186Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-18T11:23:28.024Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.973Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-02T10:00:42.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-10-28","debate_outcome_at":"2019-11-05T16:01:19.593Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-02","summary":"Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges we face. Nature-based solutions are key to tackling climate change. The Government is deploying such solutions to improve our natural environment.","details":"Climate change is one of the most urgent and pressing challenges we face today. The UK is acting to tackle it, including taking action to restore nature.\r\n\r\nThe 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP) signals a step-change in ambition for the natural environment in England. It commits the Government to improving the condition of our protected sites network and to creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat in England, as part of a Nature Recovery Network to protect and restore wildlife. Within our draft Environment Bill, we have committed to place the 25YEP on a statutory footing. The Bill will include ambitious legislative measures to take direct action to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age, many of which are linked directly to climate change: air quality, nature recovery, waste and resource efficiency, and water resource management. \r\n\r\nOur woodlands and wetlands provide vital services, such as carbon sequestration and flood prevention that can help to mitigate climate change and help us adapt to its impacts. Tree planting is one of the main contributors to nature-based carbon sequestration and the Government supports this in a number of ways. Our manifesto committed to planting 11 million trees by 2022, and in addition a further 1 million trees in our towns and cities, and we also have a long term aspiration to increase woodland cover from 10% to 12% by 2060. To achieve these goals, in the Autumn Budget the Chancellor announced £10 million for an Urban Trees Challenge Fund and £50 million to help plant new woodlands through the Woodland Carbon Guarantee.\r\n\r\nPeatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store. Drained peatlands release their carbon, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Organic or peat soils make up 11% of England’s total land area, over 70% of which are drained or in poor condition.  We have committed to publishing an England Peatland Strategy. The strategy will set out our vision to reverse decline in peatlands and restore them, which is in line with the Government's commitment to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than we found it. Work is underway on four large-scale peatland restoration projects across England, to which we have allocated £10 million, and will restore 5,851 ha of degraded peatlands. \r\n\r\nNatural England have an ongoing uplands programme working with landowners to put in place Long Term Management Plans to reverse degradation and help them sustainably manage and restore upland peatland habitats. We will also be setting up a Lowland Agricultural Peatland Taskforce to assess how best to restore and sustainably manage England's peatland, which provides essential food and fibre for the UK in lowland settings. Once restored, our healthy functioning peatlands will provide a range of public benefits in addition to carbon storage, including flood mitigation and biodiversity rich habitats.\r\n\r\nUnder the new Environmental Land Management Scheme we will pay land managers public money for public goods, including mitigation of climate change. Land managers could deliver this by sequestering carbon through, for example, peatland restoration and tree planting.\r\n\r\nInternationally, the UK is also supporting ambitious action by countries and companies to combat deforestation and promote the sustainable management of the world’s forests through our international climate finance (ICF). The Department for International Development (DFID), the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) all contribute to the UK’s £5.8 billion overall climate finance commitment from 2016 until 2020/21. ICF programming aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and land use change and help forest communities adapt to climate change through sustainable farming and land use practices.\r\n\r\nFor example, Defra’s current ICF investments aim to protect and restore more than 500,000 hectares of forests, delivering 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions savings. In Madagascar, our Blue carbon project will protect and restore 20,000 hectares of mangrove forest through community forest management, benefiting over 100,000 people with the development of sustainable livelihoods. Our project in Brazil will protect 100,000ha of forest in the Amazon, Atlantic Forest and Cerrado regions and support over 5,000 small and medium sized farmers by helping them to transition into low carbon sustainable agriculture.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.970Z","updated_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.970Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-10-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-28/debates/B12362DC-0F6A-481B-A1E6-973776F0F9F9/RestoringNatureAndClimateChange","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVfFJeyLius","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0537?utm_source=directory&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=PN537","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231602,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231602.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":"NHS supply new lifesaving drugs for Cystic Fibrosis like 11 other EU countries","background":"Children & young adults with CF endure lifelong suffering & early death. They need Orkambi and other precision medicines as they are developed. Sufferers in the EU, US & Australia can access the drugs, but not the UK. Hundreds have died in the 3yrs since these drugs were licensed.","additional_details":"All MPs who debated the petition in March were passionately in favour of supplying the drugs. Despite an ever-increasing abundance of evidence as to the drugs’ effectiveness, CF sufferers still do not have access. Case studies report miraculous improvements in health. Consultants nationwide have asked the NHS to make the drugs available. Doctors have expressed distress at seeing children die whilst the drug they need is on the shelf.  After 3 yrs, conclude negotiations and fund these drugs.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":108144,"created_at":"2018-10-31T17:50:02.682Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:29.771Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-16T17:32:51.166Z","closed_at":"2019-05-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T09:59:39.310Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-21T18:35:42.239Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.702Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-03T21:59:46.702Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-06-10","debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-11T12:26:04.205Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-07","summary":"The Government urges Vertex Pharmaceuticals to fully re-engage with the NICE appraisal process and to accept the offer the NHS made in July.","details":"NICE and NHS England are leading the dialogue with Vertex Pharmaceuticals around access to their portfolio of cystic fibrosis medicines.  The Government fully supports the approach that NICE and NHS England are adopting.\r\n\r\nNICE was established nearly two decades ago to act as the authoritative, independent, expert body for assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of new drug treatments in this country. It is internationally respected and central to decisions about which treatments can be reimbursed on the NHS. \r\n\r\nWhilst the Government understands the high level of interest in Orkambi, there is no justification for treating Vertex differently from the numerous other companies that engage with NICE, and the NICE appraisal process is both suitable and appropriate for evaluating the evidence Vertex have provided for their products.\r\n\r\nWe were disappointed by Vertex’s decision not to price Orkambi fairly following the guidance published by NICE two years ago, and by their more recent decision to unilaterally withdraw entirely from the NICE appraisal of Symkevi.   \r\n\r\nThe final offer NHS England made to Vertex in July this year provided significant commercial flexibilities designed to assist the company in obtaining positive NICE recommendations across all existing licensed treatments and future pipeline products, with the intention of making them rapidly available to patients and in advance of any NICE appraisals concluding. These flexibilities were to complement the NICE appraisal process, not act as a substitute for it.\r\n\r\nWe understand the frustration of the cystic fibrosis community, however, it has been made clear to Vertex that its drugs need to be priced responsibly and that any re-assessment of Orkambi's effectiveness must be carried out via NICE's established processes.  Vertex must now re-engage with the NICE appraisal process.  I am encouraged that they attended a meeting with NICE on 4th October and again on 30th November to discuss next steps and that there is a continuing dialogue between all parties.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.700Z","updated_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.700Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-10/debates/15AB9280-DBE7-413D-98AA-8079206FB93B/CysticFibrosisDrugsOrkambi","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9_2DpzNCxY","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0145","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":212174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/212174.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":"Reclassify the theft of a pet to a specific crime in its own right.","background":"Review the sentencing guidelines for theft offences, so that where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant for the categorisation of the crime for sentencing purposes. \r\n\r\nEnsure Police Forces are given appropriate guidance and training to record and investigate cases.","additional_details":"More than 60 dogs are stolen every week in England and Wales.  Less than 5% of cases lead to convictions.\r\n\r\nPet theft is currently seen as no different to the theft of an inanimate object - despite pets being sentient beings. The theft of pets is generally categorised as robbery or burglary, but lead to minimal sentences. Enforcement of existing laws do not currently act as a deterrent or fit the crime itself. \r\n\r\nFor more information, please see: http://www.stolenandmissingpetsalliance.co.uk/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107352,"created_at":"2018-02-07T20:20:17.274Z","updated_at":"2020-07-30T14:33:30.926Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-08T11:52:02.817Z","closed_at":"2018-08-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-07T20:35:31.249Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T23:21:25.999Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.693Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-09T18:06:22.577Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-02","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-03T10:38:27.708Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-27","summary":"We understand the distress caused by the theft of a much loved family pet and laws are in place to deal firmly with offenders who commit such crimes.","details":"Theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968. The maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment. The Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft offences in February 2016. The guidelines take account of the emotional distress and therefore harm that theft of personal items such as a pet can have on the victim and accordingly recommends higher penalties for such offences. Compulsory microchipping introduced in 2016 makes it easier for lost or stolen dogs to be reunited with their owners.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.691Z","updated_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.691Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-02/debates/05B60093-01C7-43ED-B469-55E8164A0D2B/PetTheft","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2569c482-6964-479b-9563-a58a831cc78b","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/pet-theft-debate-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":243448,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/243448.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":"End the Cage Age: ban cages for all farmed animals.","background":"Across the UK, millions of farmed animals are kept in cages, unable to express their natural behaviours. This causes huge suffering.\r\n\r\nWe call on the UK government to end this inhumane practice by banning all cages for farmed animals. Cages are cruel.","additional_details":"This cannot be the future of British farming.\r\n\r\nWe, the undersigned, call on the Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs to bring forward legislation that amends the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 to prohibit the use of:\r\n\r\na)           barren and enriched cages for farmed animals including cages for laying hens, rabbits, pullets, broiler breeders, layer breeders, quail, pheasants, partridges, guinea fowl;\r\nb)          farrowing crates for sows;\r\nc)           individual calf pens","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107187,"created_at":"2019-02-27T09:58:45.312Z","updated_at":"2020-03-18T12:02:23.308Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-08T15:35:58.834Z","closed_at":"2019-09-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T10:33:15.015Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-11T18:32:23.252Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.171Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-23T11:31:22.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-18T11:59:59.024Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-22","summary":"We have already banned cages where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal health and welfare. Our comprehensive laws protect the welfare of livestock in all systems.","details":"The Government shares the public’s high regard for animal welfare and the welfare of our farmed livestock is protected by comprehensive and robust legislation. This is backed up by statutory species specific welfare codes, which encourage high standards of husbandry and which keepers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with.  Defra’s Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that the animal welfare standards are being met. \r\n\r\nWe have already banned cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal health and welfare. For example, the keeping of sows in close confinement stalls was banned in the UK in 1999, whereas it was not until 2013 that a partial ban on sow stalls was introduced across the rest of the EU. Whatever the system of production, the most important factor in determining animal welfare is good stockmanship and the correct application of husbandry standards. This reflects the advice of our expert body, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. \r\n\r\nSince the 2012 EU ban on the use of conventional (“battery”) cages for laying hens, hens are kept in either free range, enriched cages, barn or organic systems. Over half of UK egg production is free range, higher than any other country in the EU.  Enriched cages provide more space for the birds to move around than conventional cages and are legally required to provide nest boxes, litter, perches, and claw shortening devices which allow the birds to carry out a greater range of natural behaviours. Pullets (young hens) which will be housed in an enriched cage system as adults are reared in enriched cages, to ensure that the two environments are matched as far as possible to reduce stress and the likelihood of injurious pecking. In the UK, the use of cages to house both layer breeders and broiler (meat chicken) breeders is prohibited under the UK’s farm assurance scheme standards. \r\n\r\nThe UK has a very small industry producing rabbits commercially for meat which uses free range systems, not cages. \r\n\r\nThe statutory welfare code for gamebirds states that barren raised cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used. Guinea fowl are not kept in cages. \r\n\r\nThe UK is ahead of most other EU pig producing countries in terms of non-confinement farrowing, with approximately 60% of UK sows in farrowing crates to give birth, and the remaining 40% housed outside and free farrowed (crate-free). Research is on-going to develop and test indoor free farrowing systems under commercial conditions which protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets. \r\n\r\nThe UK unilaterally banned the keeping of calves in veal crates in 1990, sixteen years before the rest of the EU. However, as young calves are highly susceptible to disease, up to 8 weeks of age, they are permitted to be kept in individual hutches of a specified size with bedding provided, as long as they have visual and tactile contact with other calves.\r\n\r\nThe Government will maintain its high regulatory baseline and look to raise standards sustainably over time as new research and evidence emerges. We have been very clear that EU Exit will not lead to a lowering of our high animal welfare standards. Our regulatory system will offer the same level of assurance of animal welfare following EU Exit as it does now and we are actively exploring options for strengthening the UK system moving forward. This includes plans to increase maximum penalties for animal cruelty from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment.  \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.\r\n","created_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.118Z","updated_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.118Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-16/debates/F202C256-6D35-44DE-A059-90999F045572/CagingOfFarmAnimals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2YlZuoeJM","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0057/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":208776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/208776.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":"Abolish the subsidy on food and drink in the Palace of Westminster restaurants.","background":"In 2016, the food subsidy in Parliament cost taxpayers around £3.7 million. This use of taxpayers’ money must stop and the funds diverted to public services where it is needed. MPs earn significant wages and citizens who themselves struggle to buy food should not be forced to help feed MPs as well.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107176,"created_at":"2018-01-03T11:27:05.960Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:47.147Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-12T11:15:39.279Z","closed_at":"2018-08-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-03T14:15:55.109Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-15T15:52:48.521Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.101Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-02T15:46:13.666Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-18T13:04:52.370Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-04-06","summary":"Responsibility for catering in the House of Commons is a\r\nmatter for the House of Commons Commission, not for the Government. The House of Commons Commission is working to reduce catering costs.","details":"Decisions relating to the budget for, and charges within, the House of Commons Catering Services are matters for which the House of Commons have overall responsibility, and not the Government. \r\n\r\nThe House of Commons Authorities have outlined that catering services for the House of Commons are provided by an in-house team who do not provide a subsidised service, though the cost of running the service means that it runs at a loss. It is important to note that while in some venues the cost of providing the service exceeds the income received in sales, other venues in the Commons make a profit which contributes to reducing overall costs. As shown in their transparency publication\r\n( https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/) these costs have fallen considerably over the last two Parliaments and have halved since 2010.\r\n\r\nCustomers of the House of Commons Catering Services include some of the 650 MPs but also around 14,500 other pass-holders, many of whom are staff on lower wages that work irregular hours. In addition, members of the public and non pass\r\nholding visitors to Parliament also have access to these services. The irregular hours and the unpredictability of Parliamentary business contribute to increasing the net\r\ncost of providing a catering service. To offset this many of the restaurants, dining room facilities and their staff, are used to cater for private events at times when they are not required by the House. This is one of a number of measures used to reduce\r\ncosts.\r\n\r\nAlthough the responsibility for the catering service is that of the House of Commons, and not the Government, the Leader of the House of Commons is personally committed to keeping these costs as low as possible.\r\n\r\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z","updated_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee has made the following statement on its decision:\r\n\r\n“The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. \r\n \r\nThis is because the petition is based on a misunderstanding. It argues that the cost of food and drink in Parliament should be higher, because MPs are well paid.  \r\n \r\nIt’s not only MPs who can buy food and drink in the House of Commons. Catering services are also available to everyone else who works in the House of Commons, including staff who earn lower wages and work irregular hours. Some outlets are also available to visitors and members of the public. MPs make up only a very small proportion of the people who can buy food and drink in Parliament. \r\n \r\nYou can find out more about the cost of catering in the House of Commons here:\r\n \r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/”\r\n\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229004.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":"NEW LAW THAT CATS KILLED/INJURED BY A VEHICLE ARE CHECKED FOR A CHIP: ROUND 3","background":"Thousands of cats are just disposed of every year without being scanned for a chip after being involved in RTAs. Owners search for months and years and never get closure. Scanning takes two minutes. Cats are a part of a family and deserve to be returned home, not thrown into landfill.","additional_details":"Why do councils not have the same respect for cats as they do for dogs? They are someone's family pet. The law must be changed so all cats are scanned and returned to their owners.\r\nA scanner is not expensive and all councils need providing with one and need to use it.\r\nMany councils who say they scan, often don't. There is NO excuse. It takes two minutes. How dare they throw our beloved pets away.\r\nEVERYONE needs to sign the petition to get this law passed for the cats.\r\nThank you\r\nGizmos Legacy","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107062,"created_at":"2018-09-20T10:03:07.487Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:47.529Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-01T12:01:05.668Z","closed_at":"2019-04-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-20T14:06:26.114Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-09T12:19:14.720Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-30T14:45:59.638Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:38:40.886Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-06-17","debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-20T13:43:48.478Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-15","summary":"We encourage microchipping of cats and it is established good practice for local authorities and the Highways Agency to scan domestic pets found on our streets so that the owner can be informed.  ","details":"We do not consider that it is necessary to introduce a new law requiring cats involved in road traffic accidents to be checked for a microchip because it is already good practice for local authorities to do so. Cats and dogs become members of the family and it is a great source of worry and uncertainty when they are injured or lost. The Government encourages veterinary practices and rehoming centres to scan cats and dogs brought to their premises so that their owners can be identified. In cases of road traffic accidents, we encourage local authorities to identify the owners where possible. \r\n\r\nWe welcome the move by many local authorities to include a requirement in street cleaning contracts to scan pets found on the road for a microchip. All local authorities should already be in possession of handheld microchip scanners as they are required to enforce dog microchipping controls. In addition, Rule 286 of The Highway Code advises drivers to report any accident involving an animal to the police, which we hope would lead to their owners being made aware of the incident. \r\n\r\nIt is compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped in Great Britain and this enables stray dogs to be quickly reunited with their owners. Compulsory microchipping for dogs was introduced because of the particular public safety risk posed by stray dogs. The same risk is not associated with stray cats. Local authorities have powers to enforce the dog microchipping controls and in relation to stray dogs which means that all local authorities should already be in possession of handheld microchip scanners. \r\n\r\nThe Government strongly recommends cat owners get their cat microchipped and keep their records up to date. We support cat charities’ microchipping campaigns and the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats, made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, contains advice about identifying cats including by use of a microchip. \r\n\r\nWhilst microchipping cats is good for their welfare, and it is important to publicise those benefits, lost and stray cats do not pose the same public safety risk as dogs, and therefore making cat microchipping compulsory is not considered necessary at this time.  We will continue to work, therefore, with the relevant stakeholders to stress the importance of cat microchipping, and the scanning of stray or lost pets. \r\n\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-10-30T14:45:59.633Z","updated_at":"2019-03-01T15:05:54.328Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-17/debates/9F8830E2-10DC-4F14-B991-BE911EA0546F/PetIdentification","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPut2XMQrQ","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0153","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":255823,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/255823.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":"I  request a full public inquiry into death of my son, Matthew Leahy. (20 yrs.)","background":"Matthew was taken to, ‘a place of safety’, and died 7 days later. \r\n24 others died by the same means, dating back to the year 2000. An indicator that little was done to address the growing problems. \r\nSomething went terribly wrong with the NHS Mental Health Services provided to my son. ","additional_details":"There really is no way that public concern can be allayed, short of an Inquiry.\r\n\r\nAll investigations to date, including  police and inquest proceedings, have been based on a Trust Serious Incident Investigation. A four and half year Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman Report has now concluded that this investigation was not adequate and lacks credibility. \r\n\r\nThere has been an inadequacy of investigation. A human rights violation. New evidence has been uncovered and I request a statutory inquiry, that compels witnesses to give evidence on oath. \r\n\r\nMatthew is not alone. Many others have died, whilst, ‘ In The Care Of The State’.\r\nhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/suicide-mental-health-nhs-police-charges-health-care-matthew-leahy-melanie-a8634056.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105580,"created_at":"2019-04-05T21:25:48.182Z","updated_at":"2020-12-01T11:57:43.112Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-23T15:41:29.430Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-05T21:51:20.404Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-16T21:51:52.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.047Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-11-05T20:50:12.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-30","debate_outcome_at":"2020-12-01T11:57:29.029Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-08-02","summary":"The Government sincerely regrets Matthew’s death. NHS Improvement will review the care that he and others received and will provide advice in due course on whether a public inquiry should be held.","details":"The Government apologises for the quality of care that Matthew and others have received. We are committed to improving the quality of care in mental health wards for anyone with a mental health issue, learning disability or autism.  We know the problems that exist in the system and we are working to address them.\r\n\r\nOn 12 June 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), published its report, Missed opportunities: What lessons can be learned from failings at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which called for a national review of potential failings to ensure patient safety at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust.  This report considered the care provided to Matthew Leahy. The report can be access here: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/Missed_opportunities_What_lessons_can_be_learned_from_failings_at_the_North_Essex_Partnership_University_NHS_Foundation.pdf \r\n\r\nIn line with the PHSO’s recommendations, NHS Improvement has agreed to conduct a review of the cases detailed in the report once the Health and Safety Executive’s investigation and any related activity has been completed. NHS Improvement will make recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care once its review has been completed, including on whether a public inquiry is necessary. The review will also ensure that the learning from these tragic incidents is shared with mental health providers across the country.\r\n\r\nThe Trust has also recently undergone a Care Quality Commission inspection and NHS Improvement await the feedback from that. \r\n\r\nNHS Improvement is leading work to develop a new national patient safety strategy to support the NHS to be the safest healthcare system in the world, this and this includes mental health. \r\n\r\nWe are introducing a new Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme to address important safety challenges in the mental health sector as well as implementing our ambition for eliminating suicides in mental health inpatient services. Every NHS mental health provider is required to have a zero suicide policy in place.  There has been significant progress made by trusts in developing these plans, with regional suicide prevention leads supporting trusts to finalise them.\r\n\r\nCases like Matthew’s have called into question whether these types of institutions and in-patient settings are appropriate places in which to care for vulnerable people for any extended length of time.  We are committed to improving the quality of care in mental health wards for anyone with a mental health issue, learning disability or autism.  We know the problems that exist in the system and we are working hard to address them.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.045Z","updated_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.045Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-30/debates/20113050000001/DeathsInMentalHealthCare","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdN9jkswXc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0143/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":234797,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/234797.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":"Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC","background":"The impartiality of the BBC is in question and needs addressing so as to protect its charter","additional_details":"The impartiality of the BBC is in question and needs addressing so as to protect its charter","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105421,"created_at":"2018-12-08T21:06:16.311Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:27.162Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-17T14:30:31.238Z","closed_at":"2019-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-08T22:01:16.505Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-31T12:04:13.072Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-14T15:32:30.668Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-27T08:07:23.207Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-15","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-16T10:56:21.784Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-14","summary":"The BBC has a duty to deliver impartial, accurate news coverage and content under its Charter. Perceived editorial bias at the BBC is a matter for Ofcom as the independent regulator, not government.","details":"Impartiality is a key part of the BBC’s mission set out in the BBC Charter. The BBC’s mission is ‘to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain’.One of the BBC’s public purposes is to ensure that news and current affairs content is impartial, provided to the highest editorial standards, and offers a range and depth of analysis and content not available elsewhere.\r\n\r\nIt is for the BBC Board, not government, to set editorial standards and ensure the quality and impartiality of all BBC’s content. BBC Editorial Guidelines sets out that impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to audiences. The BBC Director-General is the editor-in-chief with final responsibility for BBC editorial matters of the BBC.\r\n\r\nThe BBC is independent of government and regulated by Ofcom. It is for Ofcom to hold the BBC to account on a range of areas, including perceived BBC bias. The BBC must comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which contains rules for broadcasters on due impartiality and due accuracy and undue prominence of views and opinions. Ofcom sets the BBC operating licence which contains conditions it considers necessary for requiring the BBC to meet its mission and public purposes.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2019-01-14T15:32:30.665Z","updated_at":"2019-01-22T17:15:21.049Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAu4gz2VWeo","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8101","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":211950,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/211950.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":"Create a new independent welfare body to protect racehorses from abuse and death","background":"The British Horseracing Authority is responsible for race horse welfare. But around 200 horses die each year due to racing in Britain. We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.","additional_details":"For more information visit http://www.horsedeathwatch.com","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105362,"created_at":"2018-02-05T15:14:52.159Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:36:44.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-13T17:50:13.036Z","closed_at":"2018-08-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-06T10:38:53.537Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T22:14:57.946Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.961Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-11T19:27:11.919Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-15","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-18T11:23:28.975Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-03-19","summary":"The Government does not consider that it is necessary to create a new body to protect racehorse welfare. ","details":"The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) is responsible for the safety of jockeys and horses at races in this country. The BHA works with animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare to keep racecourses as safe as possible for horses.  \r\n\r\nAccording to the BHA the overall equine fatality rate in British racing has reduced by one-third in the last twenty years, from 0.3% to less than 0.2% of runners in 2017, the lowest figure on record.\r\n\r\nGiven that overall racehorse welfare is improving and fatalities at racecourses are falling, we do not see a need to set up another body responsible for racehorse welfare.\r\nRacehorses, like all domestic and captive animals, are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.  Under this legislation, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or for an owner, or keeper, to fail to provide for its welfare needs.  Any person or organisation may initiate criminal proceedings where there is reason to believe that unnecessary suffering has been caused, or may report the matter to the police, local authority or RSPCA who will decide whether or not to institute a prosecution.  The maximum penalty for an offence under the 2006 Act is a fine of £20,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.  \r\n\r\nIf anyone has any concerns about the welfare of an animal or considers that its welfare has not been provided, then they should report the matter to the local authority who have powers under the 2006 Act to investigate such matters or to the RSPCA who can also investigate.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z","updated_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-15/debates/85DEF768-1145-4E15-96A8-9663815EF93F/RacehorseProtection","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9fdb8105-0eb6-4a43-9a57-16fd94fcc6f4","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0214","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":242239,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/242239.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":"Recognise animal sentience & require that animal welfare has full regard in law","background":"EU law recognises animals as sentient beings, aware of their feelings and emotions. Animals are at risk of losing these vital legal protections, post-Brexit. We want a BetterDealForAnimals: a law that creates a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy making.","additional_details":"Diminishing their legal protection would make animals vulnerable to new laws, policies and trade deals that don't take into account their welfare needs. We call for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level, including through animal welfare impact assessments. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103918,"created_at":"2019-02-18T17:28:41.704Z","updated_at":"2020-03-18T11:56:30.474Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-27T11:27:15.367Z","closed_at":"2019-08-27T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-18T17:50:38.773Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-01T16:07:42.170Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.021Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-09T10:59:33.346Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-18T11:52:41.749Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-13","summary":"The Government is committed to making any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after the UK leaves the EU.","details":"The Government is committed to the very highest standards of animal welfare as we leave the EU. There has never been any question that this Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by the fact that animals are sentient beings. We will make any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s view is that the current protections provided by Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have not delivered the progress we want to see and that once we have left the EU we can do better. Article 13 only applies to a limited number of EU policy areas, provides some wide-ranging exemptions and most importantly, there is little scope for the duty to be enforced. As such, it has not prevented some practices in EU member states, which we would consider cruel and painful to animals.  \r\n\r\nIn contrast, the Government will ensure that animal sentience is not only recognised in domestic law, but that we will have an effective and proportionate means of taking animal sentience into account in policy making. \r\n\r\nHere in the UK, we are already improving animal welfare standards without EU input and beyond the scope of Article 13. The Government is committed to taking action to improve animal welfare at home and abroad, including by increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty, banning third party sales of puppies, and introducing one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales. We have also made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses and we are planning other reforms. These steps show how seriously this Government gives regard to animal welfare. \r\n\r\nAs we move towards a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to shape future animal welfare policy in the UK to ensure our already high animal welfare standards are maintained and enhanced.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.019Z","updated_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.019Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-16/debates/034943BF-81AC-45EB-806A-E166F0AF291B/SentienceAndWelfareOfAnimals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_e5FSsVM4","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":244402,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/244402.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":"British National (Overseas) Citizens should be given full British Citizenship.","background":"People in Hong Kong who hold the British National (Overseas) passport are British; however, the British government is refusing and avoiding giving these Hong Kongers the","additional_details":"The Chinese government is ignoring the Sino Anglo Agreements signed in 1981. It could be a disaster if we keep ignoring this is happening. Hong Kongers will come in as political refugees. We will need a lot of effort to house them and bad for the British reputations to the International community then.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101954,"created_at":"2019-03-06T17:01:45.100Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:47:25.075Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-20T13:50:58.515Z","closed_at":"2019-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-06T17:37:54.151Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-15T04:02:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-24T09:04:21.588Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-08T02:43:32.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:45:28.503Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-24","summary":"There are no plans to amend the law in this respect.","details":"Only British citizens and certain Commonwealth citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)s) are eligible to travel to the United Kingdom visa-free, for a visit of up to six months. In regard to any extended stay, BN(O)s are not treated any differently to those of any other nationality when it comes to entry to the United Kingdom through study, economic or family routes. BN(O)s can settle in the United Kingdom, if they qualify under the Immigration Rules. They can hold a British passport and are entitled to consular protection when living or travelling outside of the UK, China, Hong Kong or the Macao Special Administrative Regions. \r\n\r\nThe only way that we could give a right of abode to BN(O)s would be by granting British citizenship.  Ministers do not have discretion to do that outside of legislation, and there are no plans to amend the law to that effect.\r\n\r\nIn his 2007 Review of Citizenship, Lord Goldsmith recognised that to automatically give BN(O)s full British citizenship would be a breach of the commitments made between China and the UK in the 1984 Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong, and that to secure Chinese agreement to vary the terms of that treaty would not be possible.\r\n \r\nHowever, BN(O)s can be registered as British citizens in certain circumstances:\r\n\r\na) If a person lives in the United Kingdom for a period of five years, and meets the specified residence requirements, they can apply for registration under section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Those applying under this section are not required to demonstrate the knowledge of English and knowledge of life in the United Kingdom requirements, and so are not required to pass the Life in the UK test or have an English language qualification in the same way as those applying for naturalisation. \r\n\r\nb) The British Nationality Hong Kong Act 1997 also provides for the registration of British nationals who would otherwise be stateless and are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong. \r\n\r\nc) BN(O)s can also apply for registration under section 4B of the 1981 Act if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.\r\n\r\nFurther information can be found on the Gov.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-nationality.\r\n\r\nThe UK has a proud record of providing protection for people who need it, for as long as it is needed, in accordance with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.  However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum or temporary refuge.  \r\n\r\nHome Office.","created_at":"2019-09-24T09:04:21.585Z","updated_at":"2019-09-24T09:05:32.660Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because it has recently been the subject of a separate debate in the House of Commons.  \r\n\r\nYou can read the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-01-29/debates/AC02FF56-64CB-4E14-92FD-D2EF59859782/BritishOverseasPassportHoldersInHongKong\r\n\r\nor watch it here: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/eaec7d44-5e95-4bba-a751-9620502bcd1e?in=11:00:00","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":253647,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/253647.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":"Without a Deal make \"Revoke Article 50\" the default action.","background":"There is now a grave danger that No Deal will happen simply through inaction. To avoid this catastrophic outcome, the default position must become not No Deal but a revocation of Article 50.","additional_details":"Despite Parliamentarians having voted strongly against exiting the EU with No Deal, it remains in law the default option should the Government fail to get a  deal by the close of 12th April.\r\n\r\nWe must avoid this outcome at all costs. A revocation of Article 50 is not a vote for No Brexit. It is a return to the status quo for the present, giving the UK time to rethink their Brexit strategy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101782,"created_at":"2019-03-30T13:52:45.614Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:38:49.120Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-04T11:34:54.881Z","closed_at":"2019-10-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-30T16:57:34.547Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-06T12:54:44.418Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.713Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-15T12:55:32.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:38:49.120Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-17","summary":"It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We continue to seek a consensus across the House, which will allow the UK to leave the EU with a deal in place.","details":"This Government will not revoke the Article 50 notice. During the 2016 referendum campaign, this Government wrote to every UK household to promise that it would implement the result of the referendum. \r\n\r\nWith that commitment in mind, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at a UK Government. We are committed to leaving the European Union and upholding the result of the 2016 referendum. \r\n\r\nTo revoke Article 50, and thereby remain in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government. The Prime Minister has said that failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust” and this Government maintains that leaving with a deal remains the best outcome for the UK. The Government will therefore press on at pace with efforts to reach a consensus on a deal that is in the national interest.\r\n\r\nAs the Prime Minister said at the April European Council, we have agreed a flexible extension with the EU until the end of October. However, it should be clear that this Government will not revoke Article 50. The 2016 referendum gave a clear instruction to the Government to deliver the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. This Government is committed to implementing this instruction.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.\r\n","created_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.711Z","updated_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.711Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UK has now left the European Union.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200205,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200205.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":"End the export of live farm animals after Brexit.","background":"The transport of live animals exported from the UK causes immense suffering. This trade is governed by EU law, not the UK Government.\r\n\r\nThe Government should plan legislation to ban the export of live farm animals in favour of a carcass only trade and introduce this as soon as we leave the EU.","additional_details":"Long distance travel causes enormous suffering: overcrowding; pain and stress; compromised immunity; inhumane slaughter on arrival; loss of legal safeguards. SOURCE CIWF\r\n\r\nDuring live transport there is a high risk of animal suffering: handling during loading and unloading; strange sights and sounds and animals; heat stress and lack of water and rest. SOURCE RSPCA\r\n\r\nAnimals are crammed into unsuitable transport and endure gruelling journeys heading for conditions illegal in this country. RSPCA","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":100752,"created_at":"2017-09-13T20:18:55.852Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.807Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-19T09:53:11.235Z","closed_at":"2018-03-19T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T07:36:21.674Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-29T11:51:32.240Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.082Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-17T18:48:12.009Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-02-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-02-27T11:33:34.344Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-16","summary":"Government has a Manifesto commitment “as we leave the European Union, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter” and will be considering options in this context","details":"The Government is committed to improving the welfare of animals. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare.  We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.\r\n \r\nThe Government believes animals should be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production. A trade in meat and meat products is preferable to the long distance transport of animals to slaughter. Once we leave the European Union, and in line with our manifesto commitment, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. We will be considering the options further in the context of our departure from the EU. \r\n\r\nUntil negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. \r\n\r\nWe have made clear in Brussels that we support improvements being made to enforcement across the EU of existing rules on the long distance transport of livestock. We have also supported calls for the European Commission to make improvements to the existing EU Regulation on protecting animal welfare in transport.  \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.079Z","updated_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.079Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-02-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-26/debates/39AF207E-7235-4D57-8723-54F6F87CC17B/LeavingTheEULiveFarmAnimalExports","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b22ff481-91ef-4c91-affc-008cf49aa434","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0042","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":237487,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/237487.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 Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament.","background":"The Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament suspending the current parliamentary session until 2nd April 2019 to prevent any attempts by parliamentarians to thwart Brexit on 29th March 2019. Preparations for no-deal/WTO will continue.","additional_details":"The Prime Minister's deal has been rejected. No further deal is available from the EU. Remaining in the EU is not an option. Extension or revocation of Article 50 is not an option. I believe the British people voted to leave with no mention of a deal and that WTO rules, to which Britain will default on 29th March 2019, are in Britain's best interests. We may get a better deal after, but not until, we have left.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":100718,"created_at":"2019-01-16T22:58:40.382Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:44:14.069Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-31T11:32:45.937Z","closed_at":"2019-07-31T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-17T12:17:53.560Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-04T19:33:08.150Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-18T11:27:34.806Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-02T07:32:20.116Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-09-09","debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-18","summary":"The Government has no plans to prorogue parliament and remains committed to delivering an orderly exit from the EU in line with its pledge to deliver on the outcome of the referendum.","details":"The Government remains committed to delivering on the outcome of the referendum and leaving the EU in line with its pledge to deliver on the outcome of the referendum. We will continue to work towards that end in a way that is compatible with our constitutional principles, including giving Parliament its say. As the Prime Minister has set out, there will be further votes to ensure that Parliament's voice is heard.\r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nIt is a priority of the Government to make sure businesses and citizens are ready for Brexit, including no deal. This includes consulting closely with stakeholders to develop no deal contingency plans and minimise disruption. We have engaged with businesses and other sectors to understand their needs and to make sure we are prepared to address the effects of no deal.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-03-18T11:27:34.803Z","updated_at":"2019-03-18T11:27:54.108Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219758,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219758.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 products containing unsustainably sourced palm oil in the UK","background":"Global production of and demand for palm oil is increasing rapidly. But this is at the expense of tropical rain-forests which form critical habitats for many endangered species and a lifeline for some human communities. Palm oil can be found in many foods and other household items. We can all help.","additional_details":"Did anyone see the Orangutan Diary on BBC 2? The destruction of this species as well as many others is well underway and their already declining population will decrease by a further 1/3 by 2020 unless action is taken. Thousands upon thousands of orangutans have been killed and the destruction of the rain-forests is increasing at an exponential rate. We cannot control what happens in these countries but we can refuse to accept palm oil sourced via an unsustainable method in the UK.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":89802,"created_at":"2018-05-11T10:02:27.586Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:02.416Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-16T13:15:42.927Z","closed_at":"2018-11-16T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-11T11:48:51.504Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T20:23:33.242Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-23T12:06:55.092Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-12-10","debate_outcome_at":"2018-12-11T15:07:19.624Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-22","summary":"Government and signatories of the UK Statement on Sustainable Production of Palm Oil have achieved a high level of success in working towards 100% sourcing of credibly certified sustainable palm oil.","details":"In October 2012, Defra published the UK Statement on Sustainable Production of Palm Oil. The statement set out that the UK would work towards 100% sourcing of credibly certified sustainable palm oil by the end of 2015. The statement pulled together new and existing commitments on the sourcing of sustainable palm oil which have been made by key organisations representing businesses within the palm oil supply chain in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe market for sustainable palm oil is dominated by the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and so ’sustainable’ in this context is commonly understood to mean products certified to RSPO standards and criteria. \r\n\r\nConsumption analysis figures in 2015 demonstrated the substantial progress that UK signatories had made since the launch of the UK Statement in October 2012, getting them close to their ambition of sourcing 100% sustainable palm oil. \r\n\r\nHowever, palm oil is often embedded as an ingredient in refined goods, making it very difficult to trace how it is sourced and processed. The UK Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil convened by the UK government is working to improve reporting, traceability and understanding of supply chains to ensure continuous improvement and increased use of certified palm oil.    \r\n\r\nThe UK has also recognised that more remains to be done at the international level. We are a member of the Amsterdam Declarations Partnership that aims to eliminate deforestation from agricultural commodity chains with European countries and support a 100% sustainable palm oil supply chain in Europe.  As part of this initiative the UK is supporting the development of a strategy which focuses on shared learning across signatory countries and different commodity user groups in those countries, as well as encouraging further action on eliminating deforestation. The UK is also a signatory of the New York Declaration on Forests, a voluntary declaration pledging to halve the rate of deforestation by 2020, to end it by 2030, and to restore hundreds of millions of acres of degraded land.\r\n\r\nAt the programming level, the UK supports the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), a public-private initiative with over 90 member organisations, which is taking deforestation out of supply chains for palm oil, pulp and paper, beef and soya. The TFA Africa Palm Oil Initiative recently secured the Marrakesh Declaration on palm oil, under which seven countries and major companies have agreed principles for responsible palm oil in the region. These include respect for human and community rights and no deforestation.\r\n\r\nThrough the Partnership for Forests Programme (DFID, BEIS), the UK is supporting public-private partnerships focused on sustainable agricultural production.  Relevant initiatives under P4F included support to the TFA Africa Palm Oil Initiatives, which is working with ten governments in the region, companies and NGOs to encourage the development of a sustainable African palm oil industry, as well as support to the High Carbon Stock approach, which has developed operational guidelines which allow companies to implement zero deforestation commitments. \r\n\r\nThrough BEIS’ investment in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund, we are providing results-based finance to countries which put in place large-scale programmes to address deforestation and forest degradation and deliver emission reductions against an agreed base-line.  The Republic of Congo’s programme is largely focussed on sustainable palm oil production. Programmes in Indonesia and Ghana also, to some extent, include activities related to palm oil production. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)\r\n","created_at":"2018-11-23T12:06:55.089Z","updated_at":"2018-11-23T12:07:55.255Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-12-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-12-10/debates/552BC0C6-3EBB-4F5E-BCE9-FAB0E2401267/PalmOil","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/eb1ba053-2d8e-4cc6-a4f4-4089ecb75d7e","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0272","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":251142,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/251142.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 for an end to LGBT human rights violations in Brunei.","background":"Brunei currently punishes homosexuality by imprisonment of up to a decade, and will soon make it punishable by death. As a fellow Commonwealth country, the UK Government must urgently call for an end to human rights violations against the LGBT community in Brunei.","additional_details":"https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/25/brunei-stoning-death-under-anti-lgbt-laws/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":87670,"created_at":"2019-03-25T20:07:47.531Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:48:05.291Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-01T16:51:14.648Z","closed_at":"2019-10-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:45:08.724Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T11:55:12.834Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-23T15:27:11.845Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-23","summary":"The UK has repeatedly expressed concern to Brunei about the discriminatory impact of its laws on the LGBT community. We call on Brunei to uphold its human rights commitments.","details":"The UK strongly supports, defends and champions the rights of LGBT people in the UK and around the world. We oppose discrimination in all its forms, and this includes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is our belief that LGBT people are not asking for special rights, merely to be accorded the same dignity, respect and rights as all other citizens.\r\n\r\nWe are committed to the ‘Leave No One Behind’ promise made at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015. Every person should have a fair opportunity in life no matter who or where they are.\r\n\r\nThe UK is deeply concerned about the introduction of the Sharia Penal Code and hudud punishments, including the discriminatory impact on LGBT people in Brunei. \r\n\r\nThe UK has expressed our concerns to Brunei candidly and openly at both government and diplomatic levels. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Asia and the Pacific met Brunei’s Foreign Minister and Finance Minister in London on 11 April. This followed a call between the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Minister on 4 April. The Foreign Secretary expressed the UK’s deep concern following the implementation of the final phases of the Sharia Penal Code and was clear that the UK strongly opposes corporal and capital punishment. He also made clear that no one should face persecution or discrimination. Every person should have a fair opportunity in life no matter who or where they are. We remain deeply troubled by the potential impact of the Sharia Penal Code, and encourage all Commonwealth partners to protect and promote the values in the Commonwealth Charter. \r\n\r\nAs a fellow Commonwealth member, The UK will continue to express our deep concern to Brunei, and urge Brunei to protect LGBT people from all forms of discrimination and punishment. The Sultan of Brunei attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in 2018. As host of CHOGM 2018, we ensured that equality issues were raised throughout the week. In her speech to Commonwealth Forums, the Prime Minister made clear that nobody should face persecution or discrimination because of whom they are or who they love. She set out the UK’s readiness to support any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that makes such discrimination possible.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office.","created_at":"2019-04-23T15:27:11.843Z","updated_at":"2019-04-23T16:23:56.452Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":220162,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/220162.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 working mums support to pay child care for children between birth - 3yrs","background":"I am a new working mum and I can not believe how expensive child care is, working on the national minimal wage how are mums able to work to cover child care costs when it takes over 3/4 of their wage. Why penalise the people who WANT to work","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":81327,"created_at":"2018-05-16T17:01:44.036Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:08.925Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-22T15:26:00.599Z","closed_at":"2018-11-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-16T17:39:55.600Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-22T06:20:54.538Z","government_response_at":"2018-08-03T15:58:16.207Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-08-03","summary":"More childcare support is available to families than ever before – backed by the highest level of spending on childcare than any government.","details":"The Government believes that helping parents with their childcare costs is one of the best ways to help people into work, support families with the cost of living, and ensure every child has the opportunity of a high quality early education. The current childcare offer is comprehensive, it is broad ranging and reflects different family circumstances, covering children over a range of ages - including birth to 3.\r\n\r\nThis government has done more than any other to help parents with childcare costs, spending more than ever before: around £6 billion per year by 2020. We are fully focused on embedding three significant childcare measures: Tax Free Childcare, available to parents with children 0-16; Universal Credit (UC), providing up to 85% of childcare costs for children 0-12 and extending our free educational entitlements by offering 30 hours free childcare for 3 and 4-year-olds for working parents earning up to £100,000.\r\n\r\nUC is rolling out now. We know the best way to help families improve their lives is by supporting parents into employment and UC offers parents tailored support to move into work that fits around their caring responsibilities. Working parents can claim back up to 85% of eligible childcare costs under UC, which is worth up to £646 per month for one child or £1,108 per month for someone with two or more children. If someone has accepted an offer of paid work, they are eligible to be paid these costs for the month prior to starting work. For an existing UC claimant unable to pay for upfront childcare costs in the month that they start work or increase their working hours, budgeting advances are also available. By March 2023 UC will have replaced Working Tax Credits under which, currently, working families on lower incomes can get up to 70% of their childcare costs paid.\r\n\r\nAdditional support is available for disadvantaged children. For 2-year-olds, 15 hours per week of free childcare is available for families receiving UC with an annual net earned income up to £15,400 and for families receiving other benefits currently qualifying them for free school meals. Also eligible are those receiving working tax credits (with an annual gross household income of no more than £16,190). Children entitled to certain benefits or support for a disability or special educational need, looked after children and certain children who have been in care, including those who’ve been adopted, can also receive this offer.\r\n\r\nUniversally free early education is available to all 3 and 4-year-old children in England. The Government introduced 15 hours universal free childcare, which provides 570 hours per year free childcare from the term starting after a child’s 3rd birthday. Worth around £2,500 on average per year, it helps children to develop social skills and prepares them for school.\r\n\r\nThe 30 hours free childcare offer for 3 and 4-year-olds supports parents working at least 16 hours per week, earning at least the national minimum wage(NMW;  this can be a sole parent in a single parent family who only has to earn £125 per week – or the equivalent of 16 hours at the NMW – to be able to access the 30 hours offer) and up to a maximum of £100,000 per year. 30 Hours provides an additional 570 hours per year above the universal 15 hours entitlement, saving families and estimated £5,000 per year in total.\r\n\r\nSharing the same eligibility criteria as 30 hours, Tax-Free Childcare (TFC), broadens access to childcare, enabling more parents to work. Parents can receive up to £2,000 per year per child under 12 (or £4,000 per year per disabled child under 17). TFC is not available to those in receipt of Universal Credit, Tax Credits or Childcare Vouchers.\r\n\r\nSome employers offer the Childcare Voucher Scheme (CVS), which can save parents of under 16s (17s if disabled) who are basic rate taxpayers up to £933 per parent per year in tax relief. CVS is being replaced by TFC and will close to new entrants from 4 October 2018. Shared Parental Leave, another employment-related scheme, allows parents to share up to 50 weeks’ leave and up to 37 weeks’ pay in the first year following their child’s birth or adoption. This has particular value in supporting working mothers back to work.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Government is committed to ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. A cross-government working group has been set up to review the support available for families from conception to age 2. The group will seek to identify gaps in the support currently available and make recommendations on how co-ordination across departments can be improved. \r\n\r\nFurther information:\r\n\r\nOn current benefits: \r\nhttps://www.childcarechoices.gov.uk/\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay \r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/childcare-grant).\r\n\r\nOn the working group: \r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/leader-of-the-commons-to-chair-ministerial-group-on-family-support-from-conception-to-the-age-of-two\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-08-03T15:58:16.204Z","updated_at":"2018-10-12T12:02:26.019Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":213782,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/213782.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":"Ensure that the U.K. leaves the EU Single Market & Customs Union.","background":"On 23rd June 2016, the U.K. voted by majority to leave the EU. In the 2017 General Election, the two main parties promised to leave the single market & customs union and subsequently they received an 80% vote share. Therefore the government must be able to withdraw the U.K. from the Customs Union.","additional_details":"If certain MP’s & political parties continue to frustrate Brexit then they will be rejecting the will of the people. When voters voted for Brexit, they voted to control Britain’s borders; control our laws and have the ability to strike free trade deals around the world. The government must be allowed to deliver upon the wishes of the people.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":81192,"created_at":"2018-02-25T15:15:08.895Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:17.848Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-02T13:39:48.893Z","closed_at":"2018-09-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-25T18:39:22.169Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-24T20:17:38.393Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.454Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-09","summary":"The UK is leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union. We are seeking to establish a deep and special partnership with the EU and a new customs arrangement outside the EU’s Customs Union. ","details":"As the Prime Minister has made clear, when we leave the European Union, we will also be leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union.\r\n \r\nThe UK is seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership – covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any Free Trade Agreement anywhere in the world today. We want to have the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours. \r\n\r\nWe have listened to EU leaders and we understand and respect the position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no cherry-picking. We do not seek membership of the Single Market after we leave the EU, but a bold and ambitious Economic Partnership as part of a new special partnership. \r\n\r\nRemaining a member of the Single Market would mean accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the EU. It would mean still not having control over immigration. It would therefore fail the first test for our future economic partnership with the EU the Prime Minister set out at Mansion House. \r\n\r\nBy leaving the Customs Union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world, and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and the EU. In doing so, we will be providing a positive and powerful voice for free trade.\r\n\r\nTo ensure UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible, the Government has considered two broad approaches to a future customs relationship with the EU that would facilitate the UK’s objectives.\r\n\r\nBoth of these options for our future customs arrangement would leave the UK free to determine its own tariffs with third countries - which would simply not be possible while part of the Customs Union.\r\n\r\nAs the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending. It marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. However, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the result of the referendum which was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money.\r\nWe are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as this would be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We therefore approach the negotiations in this spirit.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.451Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.451Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219512,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219512.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 Government should end experiments on dogs.","background":"The evidence that using dogs in regulatory testing advances scientific knowledge or human safety is limited, yet it causes immense suffering to thousands of dogs every year. [Cruelty Free International]\nIn 2016, 4,932 tests were carried out on dogs, a 6% rise on 2015. [UK Home Office Annual Stats]","additional_details":"Dogs are used as the ‘second species’ in drugs tests. They are force fed, made to inhale or injected with drugs to see what dose will sicken or kill them. They have no pain relief. Even agricultural products can be tested. In the UK, 6 million of us share our homes with dogs. Only 18% of adults feel it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research. [MORI 2016] Dogs are not substitutes for humans. 90% of drugs that pass preclinical tests fail in human trials. [Biotech Innovation Organization]","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":80691,"created_at":"2018-05-07T16:36:22.329Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:59.116Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-14T09:48:01.296Z","closed_at":"2018-11-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-08T09:21:36.232Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-05T14:51:27.616Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-15T15:53:32.645Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-15","summary":"The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 gives dogs special status whereby they can only be used in experiments if there is no alternative research model and if their use can be fully justified.","details":"In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the responsible authority for the assessment and licensing of medicinal products. EU pharmaceutical legislation, delivered by the MHRA, requires that before a new medicine is granted a licence, a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests are conducted to establish the toxicity profiles for the medicine. The legislation requires that new medicines are generally tested in a rodent and a non-rodent species before human clinical trials can begin. As a result of adverse findings from animal studies, a large number of drug candidates do not progress to being tested in humans.\r\n\r\nThis testing is undertaken to provide assurance of the safety of medicines before they are given to humans. Removing this testing could compromise human safety, which this Government would consider to be unacceptable.\r\n\r\nDogs are still important in the development and safety testing of new medicines where there are no validated alternative models available. Whenever possible, dogs are replaced by other suitable animal species. For example, mini-pigs may be used in the place of dogs for some general toxicity studies.\r\n\r\nThe Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 gives dogs a special status whereby they can only be used if there is no alternative research model and if their use can be justified. This Government welcomes the ongoing work to develop validated alternative models for second species testing. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-06-15T15:53:32.642Z","updated_at":"2018-06-15T15:53:32.642Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":242330,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/242330.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":"Lower the recommended age for a cervical smear test to 18.","background":"The recommended age to conduct a smear test to prevent cervical cancer is currently 25 years old. In some tragic cases, this is too late in life and the cancer may have already spread. My aim is to get as many signatures in, and get the age lowered. ","additional_details":"18 is a good age as the body has almost finished growing.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":77736,"created_at":"2019-02-19T05:59:57.843Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:45:38.343Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-05T10:45:04.514Z","closed_at":"2019-09-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-19T12:25:46.875Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-07T20:16:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-24T14:35:26.000Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-24","summary":"Whilst the Government acknowledges those tragic cases where cervical cancer progresses before age 25, UK National Screening Committee advice is to offer screening from 25, based on research evidence.","details":"We would like to thank you for taking the time out to raise this important issue by starting your petition.\r\n\r\nThe UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises ministers and the NHS in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy and supports implementation.  Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria.  In 2012 the UK NSC recommended that the age of the first invitation for cervical screening should be 25.  This was based on evidence that a large number of women below this age received relatively little benefit from being screened and treated.  It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. This UK NSC recommendation also concurred with a major review by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening in 2009.\r\n\r\nThe NHS offers cervical screening to all eligible women aged 25 to 49 every three years and those aged 50 to 64 every five years and saves an estimated 5,000 lives a year by detecting abnormalities of the cervix early and referring women for effective treatment.  The purpose of this screening is to reduce mortality and morbidity from cancer and other conditions in the population who appear healthy and have no symptoms, by detecting conditions at an earlier, more treatable stage. Women of any age, with symptoms, should contact their GP for referral for diagnosis.\r\n\r\nHowever, cervical cancer in women under the age of 25 is very rare with 2.6 cases per 100,000 women. Importantly, younger women often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix that screening could identify as cervical abnormalities, and in most cases these abnormalities resolve themselves without any need for intervention.\r\n\r\nCervical cancer is caused by sexually acquired infection with certain types of human papilloma virus (HPV), with two HPV serotypes (16 and 18) causing 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions.  The vaccination against HPV, introduced in 2008, is now routinely recommended for all girls aged 12 to 13 years and the first cohort of teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccination in year 8 (those born since September 1996) will turn 23 this year and become eligible for routine screening in two years’ time.  The impact the vaccination will have on the number of abnormalities detected through routine cervical screening will be carefully monitored. \r\n\r\nFurther to the vaccination, in November 2015, the UK NSC recommended that HPV screening should replace the currently used liquid-based cytology test as the primary screening for cervical disease.  Evidence shows that using HPV screening as a primary test will be a more effective way of letting women know whether they have any risk of developing cervical cancer. It also means that if the woman tested does not have any evidence of high-risk HPV infection (high-risk HPV is found in 99.7% of cervical cancers), her chances of developing a cancer within five years are very small.  This change will be implemented into the NHS Cervical Cancer Screening programme in December 2019.\r\n\r\nDespite being vaccinated against HPV, work is ongoing to ensure that uptake of cervical screening remains high with Public Health England running a ‘Be Clear on Cancer’ campaign earlier this year.  The campaign was designed to raise the public’s awareness of cervical cancer symptoms; encourage people with those symptoms to go to the doctor; and diagnose cancer at an earlier stage, and therefore make it more treatable, and thereby improve cancer survival rates.  \r\n\r\nWomen with symptoms are encouraged to contact their general practitioner as soon as possible and work is ongoing to ensure that GPs are aware of the symptoms and the need to refer for further investigation. Guidance is available specifically for the primary care of young women who present with gynaecological symptoms and was developed and published in March 2010.  The guidance ‘Clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of young women aged 20-24 with abnormal vaginal bleeding’ was produced by a multi-disciplinary group, including professionals, patients and the voluntary sector, and was endorsed by the relevant Royal Colleges.  This can be found at this link:\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436924/doh-guidelines-young-women.pdf\r\n\r\nCancer prevention, public health and early diagnosis remain key priorities for this Government. The House debated this issue on 28 January 2019, and during that debate the previous Health Minister, Steve Brine MP, gave reassurance that this Government is not complacent in the fight against cancer.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care. \r\n","created_at":"2019-06-24T14:35:25.998Z","updated_at":"2019-06-24T14:35:25.998Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":268766,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/268766.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":"Introduce a minimum sentence for carrying a knife, equal to carrying a firearm  ","background":"There should be a statutory minimum sentence for those found carrying a knife, the same as if carrying a firearm. With the reported 33% increase in knife crime since 2011 it is clear that there needs to be serious consideration for the punishment for those carrying offensive weapons. ","additional_details":"The cycle needs to stop and the only way positive results will become evident and we will see a reduction in young murders is if we tighten up on sentencing for those carrying a knife. \r\nIf a young person is caught with a knife and it is their first offence they potentially have no further punishment with the current policy’s around knife crime in place. Unlike those caught with a firearm. How many of those have been let off lightly for knife crimes have then gone on to re offend and use a knife?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":75163,"created_at":"2019-07-31T09:01:55.611Z","updated_at":"2020-04-21T14:43:55.231Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-08T09:16:05.754Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-31T09:26:42.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-13T11:59:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-01T16:54:18.995Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-21","summary":"We have no plans to increase the minimum sentence for carrying a knife, equal to carrying a firearm.","details":"The Government’s priority is to keep people safe, and is clear that the courts must have the powers they need to effectively sentence offenders. Sentencing should always match the severity of the crime. We understand the devastating impact knife crime has on victims and their families, and are determined to put a stop to violent crimes that involve knives. \r\n\r\nParliament has provided sentencing rules to give courts powers they need to effectively deal with the range of offences and offenders which come before them. Where someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that the person may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences, including life imprisonment. For offenders aged 18 and over who bring a knife or another weapon to the scene of a murder with the intention of using it, courts will consider a minimum term spent in custody of at least 25 years. \r\n\r\nIn 2015, we introduced minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months’ imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a minimum 4-month Detention and Training Order. Since the introduction of the minimum custodial term people caught carrying a knife or offensive weapon for a second time are now more likely than ever before to go to receive a custodial sentence – in 2019, 86% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat possession offences. We have no plans to increase the minimum sentence for carrying a knife. \r\n\r\nWhere adult offenders were cautioned or convicted of possessing a knife or offensive weapon for the first time in 2019, over half (57%) received some form of custodial sentence (compared to the 13% of all first time adult offenders convicted or cautioned who received some form of custodial sentence in the year ending September 2019). \r\n\r\nWhen sentencing, the courts consider the full circumstances of the offence and offender and must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines produced by the independent Sentencing Council. The guidelines are clear that for any offence the use of a weapon will be treated as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence. \r\n\r\nThis Government is clear knife crime must be tackled and 20,000 new police officers are being recruited as part of ongoing work to tackle serious violence. \r\n\r\nKnife Crime Prevention Orders (KCPOs) have been introduced through the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. These new laws are an additional tool police will be able to use to work with young people and adults to help steer them away from knife crime and serious violence. Breaching an order can result in up to two years in prison. KCPOs will be piloted by the London Metropolitan Police from April. We are also taking forward work on the detailed design of Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs) which will give the police more power to stop and search those who have been convicted of knife crime. A person who is subject to an order will know that if they persist in carrying a weapon, there is a greater chance they will be searched, detected and arrested.\r\n \r\nThe Government has launched a national campaign to begin to recruit 20,000 new police officers over the next three years – the biggest recruitment drive in decades, and we are making it easier for the police to use stop and search powers. We are also investing in Violence Reduction Units to tackle the root causes of crime, and are changing the law so police and other bodies are legally required to work together to stop serious violence.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice\r\n\r\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/268766) ","created_at":"2019-10-01T16:54:18.993Z","updated_at":"2020-04-21T14:42:55.798Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":250845,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/250845.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 legal protection to Swallow, Swift and Martin nest sites not just nests.","background":"Live bird nests have legal protection, but nest sites do not.  Swallows, Swifts and Martins return to the same nesting site year after year.  If these nesting sites are destroyed, with few alternatives available, local extinctions are likely.","additional_details":"Swallows, Swifts and Martins are already in severe decline, in part because of fewer insects, reduced habitat when they live abroad, and because their nesting sites are being destroyed.  Addressing habitat loss and insect declines are very important, but require long-term resolution.  This makes it all the more vital to prevent existing nest sites being destroyed - something which can be legislated on straight away.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":73866,"created_at":"2019-03-25T09:58:04.754Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:47:59.697Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-29T15:31:47.887Z","closed_at":"2019-09-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:44:56.037Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-08T22:24:51.261Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-25T13:55:51.353Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-25","summary":"Birds that habitually use the same nests have their nests protected year round. Swallows, swifts and martins may return to sites but nest elsewhere. It is practical to protect nests while in use.","details":"We appreciate the concern around protecting our precious wild birds, and the government is looking carefully at how the issue can be addressed. \r\n\r\nThe primary legislation protecting wild birds and their nests in England and Wales is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. All wild birds’ nests, with some limited exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, are fully protected and it is an offence to destroy them while they are in use or being built.  \r\n\r\nBirds which habitually use the same nests, white-tailed eagles, ospreys and golden eagles, have their nests protected year round, even when not in use.  \r\n\r\nIn the case of swallows, swifts and martins, nests will remain in use throughout the summer until the birds leave on their autumn migration. They may return to the same sites for nesting, but these birds can and will, nest elsewhere. That is why the priority is to protect the nests while they are in use.  \r\n\r\nAll local authorities have a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of their policy or decision making. As well as this duty, national planning policy states that the planning system should minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Specific biodiversity features, such as swift bricks, would normally be required of developments through either the relevant local plan or through the local authority’s development control team. \r\n\r\nWe want developments to enhance our natural environment, which is why we have announced plans to require developers to deliver a ‘biodiversity net gain’. This means that habitats for wildlife must be left in a measurably better state than they were before any development. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-04-25T13:55:51.351Z","updated_at":"2019-04-25T13:55:51.351Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229744,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229744.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":"Increase college funding to sustainable levels - all students deserve equality!","background":"We call on the Government to urgently increase college funding to sustainable levels, including immediate parity with recently announced increases to schools funding. This will give all students a fair chance, give college staff fair pay and provide the high-quality skills the country needs.","additional_details":"Funding for colleges has been cut by almost 30% from 2009 to 2019. A decade of almost continuous cuts and constant reforms have led to a significant reduction in the resources available for teaching and support for sixth formers in schools and colleges; potentially restricted course choice; fewer adults in learning; pressures on staff pay and workload, a growing population that is not able to acquire the skills the UK needs to secure prosperity post-Brexit.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":72241,"created_at":"2018-10-03T12:00:04.120Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:57.960Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-10T10:03:55.340Z","closed_at":"2019-04-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-03T12:08:17.236Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-12T11:09:51.403Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-01T10:23:21.998Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-21","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-22T15:57:16.691Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-25","summary":"A sustainable plan for further education funding needs to be determined through the Spending Review, informed by the review of post-18 education, and consideration of the needs of the FE sector.","details":"This government is aware of the funding pressures in Further Education and is currently assessing the funding and sustainability of colleges.  \r\n\r\nHowever, we think it would be premature to make a short-term increase in further education funding without a sustainable plan for future funding via the next Spending Review. In order to inform any requests we make via the Spending Review, we are looking closely at how we fund providers to ensure the system supports sustainable, high quality education, and it will also be important to take account of the Review of Post -18 Education and Funding. \r\n\r\nAlthough we are not making an immediate increase in college funding levels we are planning to invest nearly £7 billion this academic year to make sure there is a place in education or training, including for apprenticeships, for every 16- to 19-year-old. We have also protected the base rate of funding for 16-19 year olds until 2020. We will introduce our new gold standard T Levels from 2020, and will provide an additional £500m every year once they are fully rolled out.\r\n\r\nIn addition, we have announced extra support for key priorities. We will provide additional funding to support institutions to grow participation in level 3 maths - an extra £600 for every additional student - with two payments of £600 if, for example, they are studying A level maths over two years. The first of these payments will be made in 2019/20. We have also approved £470m of Restructuring Facility Funding for colleges, of which £150m has been spent so far.\r\n\r\nAlongside our investment in 16-19 education and training, the Department for Education was allocated £1.5 billion for the Adult Education Budget (AEB) for each year of the Spending Review period up to 2020, as set out in the 2015 Spending Review.\r\n\r\nWe recently announced a pay settlement for school teachers and a specific grant to support this. However, FE colleges and sixth form colleges have a different status when compared with schools and academies, as private sector institutions independent of the government.  Therefore, we are considering the needs of FE providers separately.\r\n\r\nWe will continue to look carefully at funding for Further Education in preparation for the next Spending Review.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-11-01T10:23:21.995Z","updated_at":"2019-02-25T15:22:00.471Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-21/debates/105E82C9-81FC-4C3B-BD6B-B9D99F1D07DF/CollegeFunding","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9849a439-5523-41c7-b78c-c0ec71f4ebac","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0009","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":206568,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/206568.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":"Introduce automatic approval of visit visas for families of British Citizens","background":"Family members of UK Citizens shouldn’t have to meet the same criteria as other applicants for a visit visa. Not being a citizen doesn’t make our parent, siblings, children or grandchildren any less a part of our family. The only requirement should be that a British relative sponsors them.","additional_details":"If we can support them, there is no reason to reject an application. The same restrictions would still apply: no public funds; no ability to work, and checks to ensure no threat to national security. My sister has visited four times. She’s never overstayed or worked but is now refused a visa to visit me with my mother. A lot of families are heartbroken because relatives cannot visit. Let’s bring families together and recognise the right to a family life for British citizens and their families.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":71178,"created_at":"2017-11-29T13:21:41.316Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:05.861Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-06T17:00:03.965Z","closed_at":"2018-06-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T18:41:55.979Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-13T10:06:54.738Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.274Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-09","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-12T09:07:00.977Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-22","summary":"The Government has no plans to change the Immigration Rules for visitors to introduce automatic approval of visit visas for families of British Citizens. ","details":"The UK welcomes genuine visitors to the UK. The visitor route offers a huge range of activities that can be undertaken whilst a person is in the UK, including spending time with family. \r\n\r\nEvery visitor is assessed against the same Immigration Rules regardless of nationality. The only difference is where that assessment is made. Some individuals are assessed overseas by an entry clearance officer, while others are assessed at the UK border. All visitors to the UK are assessed against the Immigration Rules on a case by case basis.\r\n\r\nNationals of some non-EEA countries need a visa to visit the UK. Visas are an important part of securing the UK’s border and are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. \r\n\r\nAppendix V to the Immigration Rules sets out the requirements that a person seeking entry to the UK as a visitor must meet. This includes that a visitor must satisfy the decision maker that they are a genuine visitor who intends to leave the UK at the end of their visit and will not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK their own home. They must be able to show that they are able to accommodate, support and maintain themselves during their visit without working or accessing public funds. There is flexibility in the rules for visitors to be maintained and accommodated by friends or relatives. \r\n\r\nAutomatically approving visas for a select group of people would mean that important considerations against the Immigration Rules would not be applied consistently and could raise equality concerns. It could lead to discrimination against those who do not have family members in the UK but have just as valid a reason for wishing to visit the UK.\r\n\r\nThere is also a danger of additional complexity in the assessment process around how an individual would prove that they are the family member of a British citizen. There could be unintended consequences that make the application process longer, more difficult and costly.\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the importance of family ties. In 2015 we simplified the immigration system for people visiting the UK by consolidating the number of visitor routes from fifteen to four and providing shortened, user-friendly Immigration Rules and guidance to make the requirements easier to understand. The changes created an easier-to-use, streamlined system with more flexibility for those visiting the UK over what they can do when they are in the UK. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.272Z","updated_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.272Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/276864D0-6324-4C48-AEE6-AA007C9CB666/FamilyVisitorVisas","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/611ecf08-e58d-4b1d-9eae-2ab756560e9f","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-family-visitor-visas-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":204098,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/204098.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 the Common Fisheries Policy being adopted into UK law post-Brexit.","background":"We call on the Government to make the fishing industry a stand-alone entity, outside of the 'Great Repeal Bill,' after revelations that 'technical measures' of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) will be adopted into UK law on our leaving the EU.","additional_details":"On the UK's withdrawal from the EU, Britain can leave the CFP and reclaim its 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under international law (UNCLOS).\r\n\r\nAdopting UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) would allow total UK control over access; the setting of quota; fisheries management, and fishing systems; rather than blindly following the terms dictated to us by Brussels. \r\n\r\nHowever, adopting the CFP into UK law for transitional purposes not only allows continued access for EU vessels into UK waters but also opens the possibility for the EU taking legal action, claiming, 'continuity of rights.'\r\n\r\nTherefore, if we are to have a fishing industry post-Brexit, keeping the terms of the CFP in place is not an option!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":67959,"created_at":"2017-10-31T13:10:26.433Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:19.947Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-03T17:05:35.694Z","closed_at":"2018-05-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-31T13:35:18.798Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-08T23:42:31.271Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-21T12:29:41.820Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-21","summary":"When the UK leaves the EU, we will no longer be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy.","details":"As an independent Coastal State, we will regain our rights to manage our fisheries in accordance with our rights under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and have control of our Exclusive Economic Zone (out to 200 nautical miles or the median line with other states). The UK will be responsible for the management of natural marine resources in this area and will be able to control and manage access to UK waters including fisheries.\r\n\r\nThe Government has always been clear that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before. This will provide the maximum possible certainty and continuity to businesses, workers and consumers across the UK – so that they can have confidence that they will not be subject to unexpected changes on the day we leave the EU.\r\n\r\nThe Bill delivers on our promise to end the supremacy of EU law in the UK. It is the mechanism by which the UK will leave the EU while taking back control.\r\n\r\nThe Fisheries Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech in June will demonstrate how we are taking back control of access to our waters and the allocation of fishing opportunities. \r\n\r\nThe remaining technical elements of current EU fisheries law will be incorporated in to UK law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, ensuring both certainty and that our fisheries are managed sustainably.\r\n \r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-11-21T12:29:41.818Z","updated_at":"2017-11-21T12:29:41.818Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":278293,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/278293.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":"All venues that hold firework displays to be licenced","background":"FIREWORKS SCARE ANIMALS TO DEATH\r\nThe Shetland Pony Welfare Trust is a small Registered Charity and has for a number of years been suffering from the effects of Fireworks being set off only a few yards from its sanctuary, of rescued horses and ponies. \r\nThousands of pet owners have similar issues","additional_details":"All animals can be effected by fireworks and in some cases these can be devastating for owners and there pets\r\nWe call upon the Secretary of  state to secure that the risk of public use of fireworks is minimal and that only licenced venues  can hold displays.\r\nA regulatory distance to be put in place for proximity of animals/buildings to the event \r\n\r\nThe Shetland Pony Welfare Trust. Registered Charity 1093364\r\nwww.theshetlandponywelfaretrust.co.uk\r\nhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/301565983934509/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":67185,"created_at":"2019-10-24T13:25:00.138Z","updated_at":"2020-06-01T08:47:37.443Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-25T11:20:37.920Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-24T14:05:42.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-11-03T14:37:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-06-01T08:47:20.700Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-29","summary":"Legislation aims to protect animals from the impact of fireworks by controlling their availability and use. Government is taking action to promote responsible use, to reduce the impact on communities.","details":"There is a comprehensive regulatory framework in place for fireworks that aims to reduce the disturbance to animals and risks to people. Existing legislation controls the sale, availability and use of fireworks, as well as setting a curfew and noise limit.\r\n\r\nThe Government believes that the majority of people who use fireworks do so sensibly and take a responsible approach to their use. The Government is aware that there are strongly held views by some individuals and groups, and has been listening to the concerns that have been raised about the impact fireworks have on animals and communities.\r\n\r\nThe Petitions Committee report of 5 November 2019 agreed with the Government’s position that it is not appropriate to ban the public from buying and using fireworks, as it would not be a proportionate measure at present. The Petitions Committee recommended that other action was more appropriate in the first instance. \r\n\r\nFor that reason, the Government has made a commitment to:\r\n•\tDevelop a public awareness campaign on the safe use of fireworks; \r\n•\tPublish the fact-based evidence base that the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has been developing; \r\n•\tEngage with animal charities to further discuss their work related to animal welfare issues; \r\n•\tEngage with Local Authorities to understand the issues they face with regard to fireworks; \r\n•\tEngage with the fireworks industry to discuss any additional action they might take to address the concerns raised around fireworks packaging appealing to underage individuals. \r\n\r\nThe Petitions Committee recommended that the Government work with Local Authorities to identify a best practice approach to a mandatory permit system for fireworks displays. The Government has made a commitment in its response to engage with Local Authorities on this issue, in order to understand their first-hand experiences and seek their views on whether this would be an appropriate and beneficial measure. \r\n\r\nThe Government has also committed to developing a public awareness campaign on fireworks. The aim of the campaign will be to educate people of the risks associated with fireworks, to promote law-abiding behaviour and to help individuals understand the impact of inconsiderate and irresponsible use of fireworks on communities, including on animals.\r\n\r\nOPSS has also been developing a fact-based evidence base on fireworks to ensure that its policy making is based on evidence. As part of this work, OPSS has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that a full range of evidence and data is collated. OPSS has engaged with animal charities, to seek information on the noise of fireworks and the impact it has on animals. This work will build a picture of the data around fireworks, to identify whether, and what, further action is appropriate. The evidence base work is an ongoing exercise and will be published in due course, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to inform our work.\r\n\r\nAs regards the welfare of animals, it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause an animal any unnecessary suffering, and this includes through the misuse of fireworks. The maximum penalty for such an offence is six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The Government has committed to increasing the maximum custodial penalty for this offence from six months to 5 years, and is supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, currently before Parliament, which will implement these changes.  Second Reading for the Bill is timetabled for 11 September 2020.\r\n\r\nWe would encourage any livestock owners, concerned about planned fireworks displays taking place near their premises, to contact the organisers to see if any compromises can be made, such as using less noisy fireworks.\r\nSome animal welfare organisations also provide advice for animal owners when fireworks are being let off. An example is one published by the Blue Cross which can be found on their website: https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/fireworks-and-pets.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2020-06-01T08:47:20.698Z","updated_at":"2020-06-01T08:47:20.698Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":221747,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/221747.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 now","background":"The Government is not going to achieve a satisfactory outcome from its negotiations with the EU. \r\nWe should walk away now. \r\nNo Deal is better than a bad deal.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":66971,"created_at":"2018-06-08T15:44:57.413Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:40.232Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-14T09:30:39.538Z","closed_at":"2018-12-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-08T18:24:01.086Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-14T19:50:22.923Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-27T11:37:56.886Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:40:59.736Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-27","summary":"The UK will be leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019. EU leaders have now endorsed the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU.","details":"The UK will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. \r\n\r\nEU leaders have now endorsed the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU. This Agreement secures the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU; sets out the terms of a time-limited implementation period; and ensures a fair financial settlement.\r\n\r\nOn Northern Ireland, the agreed Protocol guarantees that even in the unlikely event that the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not in place by the end of the implementation period, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and no customs border down the Irish Sea. \r\n\r\nThe agreement preserves the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, upholds the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, and ensures people and businesses that rely on an open border between the Northern Ireland and Ireland can continue living their lives and operating as they do now.\r\n\r\nThe full Political Declaration sets out a clear vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU.\r\n\r\nThis includes the creation of a free trade area for goods, combining deep regulatory and customs co-operation with zero tariffs, no fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all goods sectors; the first such agreement between an advanced economy and the EU.\r\n\r\nA bad deal would be one which did not deliver on the referendum result, or did not allow the UK to take back control of our laws, money and borders. The Withdrawal Agreement achieves all of this, while the political declaration sets out the basis for a prosperous future partnership on trade and security, ensuring a good deal for UK businesses and citizens.\r\n\r\nThis Government does not want or expect a no deal scenario. Delivering the settlement negotiated with the EU remains our top priority. However, until MPs have voted to approve the Withdrawal Agreement we will continue to do the responsible thing and prepare for every eventuality, including no deal.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-11-27T11:37:56.883Z","updated_at":"2019-01-22T15:06:10.692Z"},"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":236004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/236004.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":"Mandate schools to consult parents before teaching Relationships & Sex Education","background":"It must be mandatory for schools to consult parents before deciding on resources to teach children Relationships and Sex Education (RE & RSE). \r\nSchools should put parents at the heart of any decision making process concerning RE & RSE. Give parents the right to be actively involved in RE & RSE.","additional_details":"> Mandating schools to undergo a genuine consultation with parents will ensure parents' voice is heard by their child's school.\r\n> Parents play a vital role in the education of their children, therefore, schools must be mandated to include parents in the decision making process.\r\n> This factor has not been given the consideration it is due. Therefore, it gives certain lobby groups opportunities to push their own resources and agenda, at the exclusion of parents and at the risk of our children.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":65778,"created_at":"2018-12-26T12:57:05.412Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:47.943Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-07T18:16:03.499Z","closed_at":"2019-07-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-26T13:51:15.867Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T08:13:12.127Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-14T10:11:47.716Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-14","summary":"We have mandated that schools must consult parents in the development of their policies on Relationships Education and RSE. This will be a legal requirement on all schools.","details":"On 25 February 2019, the Secretary of State for Education laid the regulations in Parliament to make Relationships Education compulsory in all primary schools, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) compulsory in all secondary schools, and Health Education universally compulsory from September 2020. Schools will be required by law to consult parents as they develop their policies for these subjects. These policies must be published online and must be available to any individual free of charge. \r\n\r\nTaught together, these subjects will promote a respectful understanding in children of the world they live in, how to recognise and develop healthy relationships, and how to look after their physical and mental wellbeing. \r\n\r\nThese subjects are designed to complement and reinforce teaching that already takes place in the home – throughout the development process for these subjects, we have recognised parents’ central role in ensuring age-appropriate teaching. We held a public consultation between July and November 2018 on the draft regulations and guidance, which received over 11,000 responses from teachers, schools, expert organisations and parents themselves. These responses directly informed a number of improvements to the draft guidance; for example, we have clarified our intent in a number of areas to guarantee that the subjects support young people to be healthy, happy and safe, including online. \r\n\r\nPositive parental engagement is therefore in the very essence of the draft guidance, and is central to our expectations on schools as they prepare to deliver these subjects. This has also always been the case for Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), and this is set out in the current guidance (2000). SRE is compulsory in maintained secondary schools currently. \r\n\r\nSchools have been offering effective programmes that show the importance of involving families in delivering relevant and age-appropriate relationships education, at primary phase. For example, in some schools, staff and parents work together to look at the activities and resources contained in their programme, which allows them to identify the benefits and any potential challenges that delivering the content might present. Parents can discuss the programme with other parents and school staff in an open, supportive environment. In this context, schools are able to deliver a programme through which the good relationships between home and school are further strengthened. This is an example of how age-appropriate Relationships Education and RSE can be delivered in schools, and which involves parents from the outset. Schools can often support parents in carrying on conversations at home and in how to address specific issues with their children e.g. online safety or puberty.\r\n\r\nThere has been careful consideration given, in developing the draft regulations and guidance for Relationships Education, RSE and Health Education, to ensuring that the content is accessible and deliverable for all schools and communities. There is a requirement for schools to consider the religious background of their pupils when planning their teaching, to ensure that topics are appropriately handled, and schools with a religious character can build on the core content by reflecting their beliefs in their teaching. We continue to be clear that parents should understand the content and method of delivery for these subjects, and that schools should work to understand and allay parental concerns where possible. As stated in the draft statutory guidance, schools should share example resources with parents, and ensure they understand the age-appropriate content that their child will receive. If parents wish, they will have a right to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of RSE, which unless there are exceptional circumstances, should be granted up to three terms before their child turns 16. Sex education will not be compulsory in primary schools. \r\n\r\nThe Department for Education has committed to supporting schools and teachers to deliver these subjects to a high standard. We have an initial budget of £6 million for the 2019/20 financial year to develop a programme of support for schools, which will include supporting them to make appropriate choices regarding resources. We have been clear that schools should use resources that are age and developmentally appropriate, and sensitive to the needs of pupils. \r\n\r\nThe draft regulations will now be considered in Parliament and voted on in due course. You can view the updated draft regulations and guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/relationships-and-sex-education-and-health-education\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2019-03-14T10:11:47.713Z","updated_at":"2019-03-14T10:11:47.713Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":227419,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/227419.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":"Re-instate nursing bursaries","background":"Student nursing numbers have declined by 11% since nursing bursaries were removed. This petition calls on the government to reinstate those vital bursaries to tackle the desperate nursing shortage in our NHS in England. There are currently 40,000 vacancies for nurses.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":61101,"created_at":"2018-08-17T09:28:07.322Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:18.541Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-29T17:04:59.992Z","closed_at":"2019-02-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-17T10:00:25.591Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-29T17:56:02.260Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-15T09:49:44.272Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-15","summary":"The are no plans to reintroduce bursaries, which resulted in many students being turned away from a nursing career. We are supporting universities to fill extra places created through these reforms.","details":"We are committed to ensuring nursing remains an attractive career so the NHS builds on the record number of nurses currently on wards.\r\n\r\nReforms to healthcare education funding started to take effect from 1 August 2017, with students moving from a bursary-based funding model to loans-based.\r\n\r\nThe Education Funding Reforms have unlocked the cap which restricted the number of available pre-registration nursing training places allowing students to gain access to nurse degree training courses. This has provided flexibility and created a sustainable model for universities and healthcare workforce supply. \r\n\r\nTo underpin these reforms, we have made additional funding available to universities and trusts to fund up to 5,000 additional clinical training placements every year from September 2018. \r\n\r\nWe are working with Health Education England (HEE) and the university sector to ensure students continue to apply for courses up to the end of clearing in October 2018 and in future years. \r\n\r\nUCAS will publish the final application numbers on the 13 December 2018.  \r\nThere is still strong demand for nursing courses and we have opened extra routes into nursing for those who may not want to study a full-time degree. We expect that up to 5,000 Nursing Associates will train through the apprentice route in 2018 and up to 7,500 in 2019. We now have a complete apprentice pathway from entry level to postgraduate advanced clinical practice in nursing.\r\n\r\nWe have put in place several actions to increase nursing workforce supply, covering improving staff retention, return to practice, overseas recruitment, expanding nursing associates, improving sickness absence and review of language controls. \r\n\r\nSince 2014, HEE have delivered a Nurse Return to Practice Programme which has seen more than 4,800 nurses starting on the programme. \r\n\r\nUnder the loans system students will receive at least 25% more upfront living cost support whilst they study than they would have under the previous system.  In addition, many additional funding incentives have been put in place to support students whilst undertaking the mandatory clinical placement element of their courses. \r\n\r\nEligible healthcare students have access to additional non-repayable grants of £1,000 for childcare, funding for travel to clinical placements and an exceptional support fund of up to £3,000 per student per academic year. Typically, students on the loan system are at least 25% better off whilst they study than the previous funding system.\r\n\r\nIn May this year we announced that some nursing postgraduate students, including some who go on to be district nurses will be eligible to receive up to £10,000 as a 'golden hello’, and we are investing £10 million to support this. \r\n\r\nIn recognition of the valuable work which nurses from overseas perform for the NHS, in June the Government announced the removal of nurses from the ambit of the cap on Tier 2 migrants, giving health and social care employers the ability to recruit more international nurses to provide outstanding patient care whenever and wherever required.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-10-15T09:49:44.269Z","updated_at":"2018-10-15T09:49:44.269Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":276978,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/276978.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 whether to leave with the deal offered or remain in the EU","background":"Over 200 polls since July 2017 provide concrete evidence that the public supports remaining in the EU and it was wrong in hindsight to vote to leave.\r\n\r\nSaying the situation is People v Parliament doesn’t stand up when the public are split over Brexit - it is Half the Public v Half of Parliament.","additional_details":"A YouGov analysis has shown that of 226 polls since July 2017 asking if Brexit is right or wrong, or if they would now vote Remain or Leave, 204 put Remain ahead, with just 7 for Leave, and 15 ties. So far this year just 1 poll supports Leave compared to 74 for staying.\r\n\r\nIf our political masters are truly intent on delivering on ‘the will of the people’, what is stopping them from asking ‘the people’ to confirm what their will is today?\r\n\r\nAnother vote does not mean less democracy, it means more.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":60827,"created_at":"2019-10-11T16:03:09.291Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:55:03.874Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-14T14:54:00.368Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-11T16:28:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-20T20:45:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-29T14:00:40.489Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-29","summary":"The Government is committed to respecting the referendum result and delivering Brexit. The Government has secured a great new deal with the EU that will allow us to leave in an orderly way.","details":"In 2015, Parliament voted to put the choice of whether to leave or remain in the European Union into the hands of the British people in passing the European Union Referendum Act. The then Government wrote to every household, committing to implement the outcome of that vote.\r\n\r\nOn 23 June 2016 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for any single course of action in UK electoral history. In the 2017 General Election over 80% of those who voted backed parties whose manifestos committed to upholding the result of the referendum.\r\n\r\nThis Government has negotiated a deal with the EU that respects the result of the referendum and ensures that we take back control of our laws, trade, borders and money without disruption. This deal also provides the basis for a new relationship with the EU based on free trade and friendly cooperation.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-10-29T14:00:40.487Z","updated_at":"2019-10-29T14:00:40.487Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":207616,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/207616.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":"Insurance should be on the car itself instead of the individuals who drive it","background":"In some countries, such as America and Portugal, insurance is based on vehicle itself instead of being based on the individual who drives it. This is an effective method for families and friends as they are able to share a car without paying for multiple insurances.","additional_details":"Scenario: 3 friends go on a night out in the same car, they all have driving licenses, but only one of them is insured on the car. 2 of them are under the influence of alcohol and incapable of driving, including the car owner. If the car was insured on itself, the sober friend could drive it legally. However, because each individual is insured on the car, no one would  be able to drive it as it would be illegal.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":60448,"created_at":"2017-12-13T14:20:25.207Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:25.692Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-15T15:32:12.862Z","closed_at":"2018-06-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-13T19:56:54.260Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-24T18:21:11.633Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-09T13:59:01.680Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-05","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-06T12:04:50.511Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-09","summary":"The Government has no plans to change the motor insurance system to require vehicles themselves, rather than the use of a vehicle, to be insured.","details":"There are a variety of approaches to motor insurance taken around the world, and the UK Government is not alone in requiring the use of a vehicle to be insured. \r\n\r\nThe current motor insurance system of insuring individual drivers, rather than cars, does not prevent named drivers from being added to an insurance policy for shorter or longer periods of time. This allows for friends or relatives who share a car to be included on one insurance policy. \r\n\r\nThe price of insurance depends on a range of factors, including many which are specific to the person driving; for example, driving history (whether the driver has had previous claims or unspent convictions for drink driving, for example), the use they make of the vehicle (for example, for commuting or business use), and their years of driving experience.\r\n\r\nIf insurers had to cover the vehicle itself and were not able to take driver-specific factors into account in their pricing, then the cost of insurance would likely rise for those with a good driving record and history of driving safely. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport\r\n","created_at":"2018-01-09T13:59:01.678Z","updated_at":"2018-01-09T15:15:37.940Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-05/debates/8209EF41-487A-475C-9E6B-CB1A3B22FCA5/CarInsurance","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/8f71f255-6065-40d8-8de0-7524a2613d00?in=18:05:50","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8241","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235425,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235425.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 grey squirrel rescue exempt from Invasive Alien Species Order 2019","background":"As a wildlife rescue unit (Urban Squirrels), based in London and specializing in grey squirrels, we have just received an email from Natural England stating that licences for grey squirrels will not be renewed under the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019.","additional_details":"Rescue numbers are not significant statistically, but very significant for compassion. If we cannot freely take in injured or orphaned animals, then:\r\n- animals suffer unnecessarily,\r\n- members of the public who find them are stressed, \r\n- vet and rescue staff are traumatized and demoralized when they have to destroy animals, \r\n- public resources are wasted in the enforcement. \r\nThe need to control the species is best served by the development of oral contraception (Gonacon), currently under way.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":59354,"created_at":"2018-12-17T10:00:15.705Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:38.483Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-20T14:19:09.982Z","closed_at":"2019-06-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-17T10:37:53.879Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-23T16:44:06.671Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-18T13:13:53.551Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-26","summary":"Actions relating to grey squirrels will not be made exempt from the provisions of the planned Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019.","details":"The invasive alien species of grey squirrel has almost eradicated the native red squirrel. The Government is determined to protect the highly threatened red squirrel, with the control of grey squirrel being part of this strategy. Actions relating to grey squirrels will not be made exempt from the provisions of the planned Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019. We must ensure that the way we manage non-native species, such as the grey squirrel, is consistent with the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation 2014, to support our own government strategy to reduce the impact of such species on highly threatened species, like the red squirrel. The EU Regulation does not allow for a general exemption for grey squirrels.\r\n  \r\nLegally, there is no need to end the life of any grey squirrel that has been taken to a rescue centre. In fact, in some circumstances, grey squirrels taken to rescue centres may be kept until the end of their natural lives. Non-commercial owners (such as people keeping animals as pets) may continue to keep grey squirrels in captivity as companion animals, as long as they were kept as a companion animal prior to the species’ inclusion on list of species of Union concern (3 August 2016 for grey squirrel). \r\n\r\n In addition, there is a requirement, under Article 19 of the EU Regulation, to establish management measures for widespread species, aimed at their “eradication, population control or containment”. It is possible for some, otherwise prohibited, activities to be allowed as part of a species’ management measures, provided there is strict justification and provided that all appropriate controls are in place.\r\nThe Order puts in place a licensing regime to implement management measures. Grey squirrels, such as those taken to rescue centres may be able to be kept under a management measure licence until the end of their natural lives. In situations where animals are being kept, either as a companion animal or under licence, they must be kept in secure containment and prevented from breeding or escaping. \r\n\r\nRelease into the environment of grey squirrels is not permitted, except as part of a specific activity aimed at supporting the control of the species, such as part of field trials for population control activity.\r\n\r\nWe will be providing further advice. This will give guidance on situations which may be covered by a defence, permit or licence and the route for applying for permits and licences under the Order. \r\n\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs\r\n\r\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/235425","created_at":"2019-01-18T13:13:53.548Z","updated_at":"2019-03-27T14:33:02.605Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":255223,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/255223.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the Yvette Cooper/Oliver Letwin Act","background":"This Act was rushed through parliament with inadequate debate. It is contrary to Article 50 which was voted for by the majority of MPs who promised their constituents that they would honour the result of the referendum. The Bill damages our country through more delays and uncertainty","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":59319,"created_at":"2019-04-04T03:34:48.080Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:49:17.925Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-25T16:17:32.557Z","closed_at":"2019-10-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T16:39:23.021Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-05T14:49:34.133Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-31T12:08:36.366Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-31","summary":"The Government did not support this Act nor the manner in which it was passed. It remains Government policy that it is in the UK’s best interest to leave the EU with a deal as soon as possible.","details":"The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2019 was introduced to Parliament by Yvette Cooper as a Private Members’ Bill - the name provided to any Bill which is not introduced by the Government.\r\n\r\nDuring passage of the Bill through Parliament, the Government made it clear that it did not support the Bill nor the speed at which it was passing through Parliament.\r\n\r\nThe Government supported amendments which improved the legislation and ensure the Prime Minister was able to agree an extension with the EU. While the Government continued to disagree with the purpose of the Bill, it was imperative that if, and when, the Bill reached Royal Assent it would not frustrate the Prime Minister’s ability to negotiate.\r\n\r\nFollowing the passage of this legislation, on 11 April 2019, the European Council and the UK agreed a further extension to the Article 50 period until 31 October 2019. This extension will be terminated early if the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified and comes into force before this date. Following the conclusion of the European Council, a statutory instrument was made on 11 April amending the definition of “exit day” in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to 31 October 2019 at 11pm.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to honouring the result of the 2016 referendum and is continuing to work to leave the EU as soon as possible.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2019-05-31T12:08:36.364Z","updated_at":"2019-05-31T12:08:36.364Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":245488,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/245488.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 general election voting system to one of proportional representation","background":"Regardless of our views on Brexit, be we Remainers or Leavers, we the people note with dismay that the recent parliamentary deadlock has served only to magnify the ongoing democratic deficit caused by the will of parliament not being representative of the will of the people.","additional_details":"Parliament is hereby instructed that the voting system for all future UK general elections is to be amended from the current first passed the post system to a system of genuine proportional representation.\r\n\r\nWe the people, whom are the seat of parliamentary power in this United Kingdom deserve and demand a parliament that is genuinely representative of our will.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":56369,"created_at":"2019-03-15T10:48:02.871Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:46:30.719Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-26T13:26:20.823Z","closed_at":"2019-09-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-15T14:48:18.890Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-01T18:34:39.841Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-15T11:00:41.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-15","summary":"In line with the result of the Parliamentary Voting System referendum in 2011, the Government will not change the current First Past the Post voting system for elections to the House of Commons.","details":"The Government’s view is that the First Past the Post system is well-established here. In each constituency, candidates are elected to represent the views of their constituents and in each case a candidate for whom more people voted than for any of the alternatives is elected. The current system is well-understood by the electorate; it provides a clear and well-understood link between constituents and their representative in Parliament. As such, the First Past the Post system is a fundamental part of creating a democracy that works for everyone.\r\n\r\nIn addition, it is worth noting that the Government’s manifesto committed, to keep the First Past the Post system for elections to the House of Commons, in line with the result of the Parliamentary Voting System referendum in 2011, in which the overwhelming majority voted to retain the current system. The Government does not, therefore, have plans to change the voting system at the present time.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office.\r\n","created_at":"2019-04-15T11:00:41.221Z","updated_at":"2019-04-15T11:00:41.221Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":243337,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/243337.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":"Justice for Jodey Whiting. Independent inquiry into deaths linked to the DWP ","background":"We believe the death of Jodey Whiting in February 2017 was the latest avoidable tragedy to be caused by the failings of the Department for Work and Pensions. \r\nShe took her life 15 days after her disability benefits were stopped for missing a Work Capability Assessment when she was seriously ill.\r\n","additional_details":"This petition calls for:\r\n1. An independent inquiry to investigate DWP failings in relation to these deaths, including whether there has been misconduct by civil servants or Ministers.\r\n2. Any evidence of misconduct contributing to serious harm or deaths to be turned over to the police.\r\n3. Recognition that DWP is institutionally disablist and not fit for purpose.\r\n4. DWP to urgently change its policies and administration of social security benefits to make the safety of all claimants a priority.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":55784,"created_at":"2019-02-26T16:23:58.941Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:45:55.195Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-15T13:44:30.549Z","closed_at":"2019-09-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-05T16:49:48.888Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:48:38.999Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-09T10:25:28.723Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-08","summary":"DWP has apologised unreservedly for the failings in the case of Ms Whiting and recognises the importance of safeguarding. The Government has no plans to hold an inquiry into deaths of claimants.","details":"The case of Ms Whiting is undeniably tragic and complex. Her case has been looked at in detail by the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) who regrettably found several failings in the way her case was handled. We aim to maintain a very high level of customer service and one mistake is obviously one too many. Unfortunately, in this instance the expected standard of customer service was not achieved. The Department has apologised unreservedly for these failings and awarded the family compensation.\r\n\r\nWe currently have no plans to hold an independent inquiry into deaths relating to actions taken by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The ICE did not find any evidence of misconduct by Civil Servants or Ministers. The DWP supports people with a wide variety of needs and staff are trained to identify signs of vulnerability which may include offering extra help with people’s benefits should they need it. The safeguarding of claimants is a priority and the department has a number of processes in place, including a home visiting service to check on people’s well-being, or offering help with completing forms, as well as signposting to specialist support provided by other organisations we work closely with.\r\n\r\nClaimants of working age who wish to apply for Employment and Support Allowance because their health or disability impacts on their ability to work are usually required to attend a Work Capability Assessment. If a claimant fails to attend the assessment, our decision makers must check the claimant’s records for any history of mental health or other vulnerability. Where there are issues noted on the claimant’s record, decision makers are required to consider whether the claimant would benefit from a home visit.\r\n\r\nWe are committed to safeguarding vulnerable claimants and, in the tragic case where someone dies, ensuring that we respond swiftly and sensitively. In response to this case, we have changed guidance so that our staff update a claim where someone has sadly died within 48 hours, making sure we stop all unnecessary contact as quickly as possible. We keep our safeguarding guidance under constant review to ensure it provides the highest standard of protection to vulnerable people.\r\n\r\nWhilst the Department absolutely recognises that in this particular case errors were made and the appropriate level of service was not met, we would emphasise the thousands of decisions that our staff make every day which result in claimants receiving the health and disability benefits that they need, as well as the assistance they require.\r\n\r\nAs previously stated, the DWP has apologised unreservedly for the failings in the case of Ms Whiting. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2019-04-09T10:25:28.720Z","updated_at":"2019-04-09T10:25:28.720Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200292,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200292.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":"Abolish the 0.7% GDP target for Foreign Aid","background":"The Government currently spends 0.7% GDP on Foreign Aid. This means it will spend over £13bn of tax payers money on projects which could be better spent at home. By 2020 this figure will have risen to almost £16bn. We believe the Government should abolish the 0.7% GDP target for Foreign Aid.","additional_details":"The Government should abolish the 0.7% GDP target for Foreign Aid and spend the money on increasing our Defence and Armed Forces.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":55152,"created_at":"2017-09-14T14:54:42.027Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.845Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-14T18:36:56.941Z","closed_at":"2018-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T17:39:03.932Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-14T19:20:38.627Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-04T09:55:56.559Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-12-04","summary":"Our aid commitment – which is enshrined in law - increases Britain’s global influence and allows us to shape the world around us which is firmly in the UK’s national interest.\r\n\r\n","details":"Investing less than one percent of our national income in aid is creating a safer, healthier and more prosperous world. it is firmly in the UK’s and humanity’s interests.  \r\n\r\nGlobal challenges like mass migration, disease, terrorism and war have no respect for national borders. If we stand back from this fight we are not only abandoning our moral responsibilities, we are allowing other countries’ problems to come closer to our shores. Eradicating deadly diseases like Ebola protects us here at home, the provision of education and economic opportunities around the world can stem migration. And we have a moral obligation to help nations rife with poverty and poor health.　\r\n\r\nAdvancing economic development in the world’s poorest countries is a hallmark of a Global Britain. Investing in the growth of companies in Africa and South Asia creates the jobs and economic stability that lead to global security and help end aid dependency, as well as driving better value for money for UK taxpayers and rates of return on investment.\r\n\r\nLife-changing progress comes from growth that transforms economies; that creates productive jobs and private sector investment; and that spreads benefits and opportunities right across society.\r\n\r\nAs we leave the EU we will build on our strong record as a champion of trade and development. \r\n\r\nWe are securing existing duty-free access to UK markets for the world’s poorest and providing new opportunities to increase trade links and grow economies to help end poverty, while supporting jobs and businesses in the UK too. We are also working with a broader range of partners, including smaller charities in the UK, to get the best of British expertise.\r\n\r\nWe are harnessing the energy of the UK science and technology sectors, using cutting-edge technology to transform the way we do development and new vaccines to wipe out disease. We are leaving no-one behind, including by putting disability at the heart of our agenda.\r\n\r\nThe UK is using its leadership to challenge other nations to deliver on their commitments. \r\n\r\nDFID is committed to spending every single penny of its aid budget wisely and without waste. \r\n\r\nWe have introduced tough new reforms of its aid spending to deliver value for money, including clamping down on the risk of unethical practices by suppliers, holding aid organisations to account by tying funding to performance, closing programmes which fail to meet development objectives, and increasing efficiency savings.\r\n\r\nThe UK has also secured important progress at the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) meetings in Paris to change the international aid rules and ensure they remain relevant for the modern world. \r\n\r\nWe will continue to use our leadership to challenge other nations to deliver on their commitments.\r\n\r\nDepartment for International Development","created_at":"2017-12-04T09:55:56.556Z","updated_at":"2017-12-04T09:55:56.556Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219576,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219576.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":"British Soldiers who served in N. Ireland must have immunity from prosecution.","background":"Our soldiers are not currently immune from prosecution. This is wrong. All British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland should have legal immunity from prosecution.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":54116,"created_at":"2018-05-08T19:10:56.052Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:59.829Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-18T13:50:59.515Z","closed_at":"2018-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-09T19:10:58.728Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-21T13:26:36.079Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-11T16:05:07.633Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-11","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":"This 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.\r\n\r\nCriminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities who act independently of government and politicians. This 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. \r\n\r\nThis Government remains committed to the full implementation of the legacy institutions in the Stormont House Agreement of December 2014. The Agreement includes a commitment to establish new legacy institutions, among them a Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) to take forward outstanding investigations into Troubles-related deaths.\r\n\r\nOn 11 May 2018, the UK Government published a consultation paper entitled ‘Addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past’.  The consultation sets out how the institutions are designed to address different aspects of the legacy of the past. The general principles underpinning the proposed new institutions are set out, including the requirement to operate in ways that are balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.  The Government believes that these institutions, which represent the balance of a political agreement between all the parties to the Stormont House Agreement provide the best way to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. \r\n\r\nThe HIU will deal with deaths in chronological order. This will ensure terrorist murders, including 185 murders of soldiers, are investigated and any evidential leads pursued. These include the murders of 18 soldiers at Warrenpoint in 1979 and eight in the Ballygawley bus bombing.\r\n\r\nThe HIU would take on the outstanding work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI’s) Historical Enquiries Team and the outstanding legacy work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.  \r\n\r\nIn order to ensure expeditious investigations and to bring an end to investigations into the past, the HIU will be time-limited, with an objective to complete its work in 5 years and specific obligations governing the extent to which a case requires further investigation.\r\n\r\nIn contrast to the current investigatory mechanisms, the new institutions will be victim-centred but also include statutory controls on the way that they operate, such as time-limits, strictly defined remits and safeguards to protect national security. These measures aim to bring to a close investigations into the past and have the potential to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors who suffered most during the Troubles.\r\n\r\nNorthern Ireland Office","created_at":"2018-06-11T16:05:07.631Z","updated_at":"2018-06-11T16:05:07.631Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":269140,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/269140.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":"Recall Parliament immediately to urgently debate no-deal Brexit.","background":"Parliament is not due to convene again until early September. With the momentum behind HM Government's unscrutinised objective of leaving the EU on 31st October 2019 will make it effectively impossible for MPs to moderate this course of action.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":53754,"created_at":"2019-08-05T21:26:55.387Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:53:05.103Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-13T10:30:31.495Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-05T21:57:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-19T07:33:22.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-02T15:01:09.184Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-02","summary":"The Government has no plans to recall Parliament and it will meet again on 3 September, the date the House itself voted on and agreed to.","details":"On 24 June, the House of Commons voted on and agreed the date it would rise for summer recess as well as the date of its return on 3 September. This was passed by a majority of 198 MPs.\r\n\r\nWhen Parliament is in recess, it can only be recalled when Government Ministers make the case to the Speaker of the House of Commons, that it is in the public interest for the House of Commons to reconvene.\r\n\r\nOnce Ministers have made representations, it is for the Speaker of the House of Commons to determine whether it is in the public interest for the House to meet and it is for the Speaker to appoint a time for the House to meet.\r\n\r\nThe last time the House of Commons was recalled was on 20 June 2016 to pay tribute to Jo Cox MP. Prior to that, Parliament was recalled in 2014 for the purposes of a debate on “the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq”.\r\n\r\nThe Government would only initiate proceedings to recall Parliament when it is clearly in the public interest to do so. When considering whether to recall Parliament, the Government must take account of the urgency of the situation and the cost of reopening Parliament.\r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister believes strongly Parliament must have time to consider further the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and to hold the government to account. Parliament will return in good time before the European Council and will be sitting for three weeks prior to exit day.\r\n\r\nThere will be ample time to debate the UK leaving the EU in the coming weeks, on both sides of the summit on 17 October. Therefore, the Government has no plans to recall Parliament.\r\n\r\nThe UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October whatever the circumstances. We must respect the referendum result.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-09-02T15:01:09.182Z","updated_at":"2019-09-02T15:01:09.182Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}