{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=1&state=debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=1&state=debated","next":null,"prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=1&state=debated"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":116762,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/116762.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"STOP CAMERON spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets","background":"Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum - without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government.","additional_details":"We, the petitioners, demand the Government STOPS spending our money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union. \r\n\r\nThe Great British Public have waited since 1975 for a vote on our relationship with Brussels. No taxpayers’ money should be spent on campaign literature to keep Britain inside the EU.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221866,"created_at":"2015-12-21T13:31:03.996Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:09:35.198Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-22T16:34:06.166Z","closed_at":"2016-06-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-21T14:01:51.201Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-27T17:00:47.398Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-07T21:32:40.753Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-04-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-05-09","debate_outcome_at":"2016-05-10T12:58:24.960Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-20","summary":"The EU Referendum Act 2015 commits the Government to provide information to the public on EU membership ahead of the vote, and that is what we will do.","details":"We are fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. Throughout we are driven by one consideration – what is best for our economic and national security. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 means there will be a referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017.  This is a big decision for the country.  The Government is determined that the public should be clear on what reforms have been agreed, and what EU membership means for the UK.  \n\nThe Referendum Act requires the Government to publish reports that set out the outcome of the negotiation of our EU membership and the Government’s opinion on that outcome and provide information on rights and obligations in EU law and on examples of countries that do not have EU membership but do have other arrangements with the EU. \n\nIn the last 28 days of the referendum period, Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will apply.  This restricts publications about the referendum by bodies or persons that are wholly or mainly publicly funded.  It is fully expected that the voices of the two official designated campaigns will lead the debate.\n\nIn the end, the British people will decide whether we are stronger and better off with our European neighbours as part of the European Union, or on our own.  That is because we made a promise and kept it – to deliver an in-out referendum.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z","updated_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-05-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-05-09/debates/1605098000001/EUReferendumLeaflet","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/93a979e7-4c8a-4d3f-89b1-529df4b4cad4","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":108072,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/108072.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give the Meningitis B vaccine to ALL children, not just newborn babies.","background":"All children are at risk from this terrible infection, yet the Government plan to only vaccinate 2-5 month olds. There needs to be a rollout programme to vaccinate all children, at least up to age 11. Meningococcal infections can be very serious, causing MENINGITIS, SEPTICAEMIA & DEATH.","additional_details":"NHS.UK","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":823349,"created_at":"2015-09-09T17:27:00.200Z","updated_at":"2021-02-09T23:31:26.844Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-14T12:26:36.871Z","closed_at":"2016-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-11T07:08:33.793Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T00:05:29.066Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.676Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T21:32:14.741Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-03-22","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-04-25","debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-26T16:16:07.671Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-01","summary":"MenB vaccine is offered to infants, free on the NHS, at 2 months with further doses at 4 and 12 months. The programme, as advised by independent experts, offers protection to those at highest risk. ","details":"As the UK, we are proud to have been the first– and to date the only - country in the world to introduce a national, publicly-funded MenB immunisation programme for infants using the Bexsero vaccine. We are leading the world in offering children protection from this devastating disease.\n\nNational immunisation programmes are introduced on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the independent expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation\n\nJCVI reviewed all available evidence before it advised on eligibility for the Bexsero vaccine. It recommended that MenB immunisation should be routinely offered to the group of children at the highest risk - infants at two months of age with a further dose at four months and a booster at 12 months, provided that the vaccine could be procured at a cost-effective price.  There is a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of the JCVI, are implemented.\n\nThe programme started on 1st September 2015 for those babies due to receive their primary immunisations starting at 2 months of age on or after 1 September 2015 (i.e. those born on or after 1 July 2015). A one off catch-up programme was recommended by JCVI for infants born from 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2015 (aged 3 or 4 months of age when the programme launched) when they attended for their primary immunisation appointments. This ensured that those infants were offered the vaccine before the winter peak of the disease. By May 2017, all children under the age of two years will have been offered the vaccine. The vaccine is also available for a small number of older children and adults who are at increased risk of infection, such as those with no spleen. Early indications are that the vaccine has been very well accepted by parents and coverage is likely to be high. \n\nWith this programme, our priority is to protect those children most at risk of MenB, in line with JCVI’s recommendation.  The NHS budget is a finite resource.  It is therefore essential that JCVI’s recommendations are underpinned by evidence of cost-effectiveness. Offering the vaccine outside of JCVI’s advice would not be cost effective, and would not therefore represent a good use of NHS resources which should be used to benefit the health and care of the most people possible. \n\nWhen any new immunisation programme is introduced, there has to be a cut-off date to determine eligibility. While this is extremely difficult for parents whose children aren’t eligible there is no other way of establishing new programmes to target those at highest risk without introducing inequalities. This approach is supported by the best evidence and by independent recommendations. JCVI considered older age groups (1-4 year olds) but did not advise a catch-up programme in view of the marginal cost-effectiveness of even the infant programme. JCVI considered that the priority should be the implementation of the primary immunisation programme for infants. They also considered a programme for adolescents but advised that further research was needed Preparatory research has been commissioned and is underway.\n\nThere are many bacterial, viral and other causes of meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain and surrounding tissues) and septicaemia (blood poisoning). Successful vaccination programmes have already reduced the risk of these serious diseases. Current rates of group B meningococcal disease are low. In the early 2000s there were more than 1,600 cases in England, compared to around 400 cases in 2014. \n\nThe vaccine should provide direct protection against MenB for infants and those who are at increased risk of meningococcal disease. However, not all strains of the group B meningococcal bacteria are covered by this vaccine and cases can still occur in vaccinated infants and children. There are also other strains of meningococcal disease for which there is currently no vaccine. It therefore remains important for parents to be alert to the symptoms of meningococcal disease such as fever, blotchy skin, refusal to feed, irritability, cold hands and feet, rash, muscle pain, and a stiff body with jerky movements or else floppy and lifeless.  They should trust their instincts and seek urgent medical attention if they have concerns. \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z","updated_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-04-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-25/debates/16042524000001/MeningitisBVaccine","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/184bc220-e082-4f5f-9ffa-35d817220b83","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":105560,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105560.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Fund more research into brain tumours, the biggest cancer killer of under-40s","background":"Brain tumours kill more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer. One of those young lives lost was my brother Stephen, who was diagnosed at just 19 and died aged 26. More funding for research is urgently needed - read on for some shocking statistics from the charity Brain Tumour Research:","additional_details":"• Unlike most cancers, brain cancer incidence is rising.\r\n• Less than 20% of those diagnosed with brain cancer survive beyond 5 years.\r\n• In 2014, brain tumours received 1.5% (£7.7 million) of the £498 million national spend on research into cancer. At this rate, it could take 100 years to catch up with developments in other diseases.\r\nThe charity is calling on the Government and larger cancer charities to raise investment to £30-£35 million a year, and this petition aims to support its campaign.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":120129,"created_at":"2015-08-01T17:03:21.474Z","updated_at":"2020-01-17T09:57:28.633Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-03T14:10:43.735Z","closed_at":"2016-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-01T19:04:51.574Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-22T21:12:21.527Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.306Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-29T08:51:40.770Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-03-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-04-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T09:46:24.323Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-07","summary":"Government funders, charities and industry are working together to turn world-leading research into vital new treatments for brain tumour patients.","details":"The Government and charities work closely together in brain tumour research and other fields of cancer research through the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI). Factors influencing the level of research funding are discussed in Strategic Analysis 2002: An overview of Cancer Research in the UK directly funded by the NCRI Partner Organisations:\n\nThere are a number of factors that dictate the level of research funding into a particular issue. These include:\n• scientific opportunity – this can be a very important factor. In particular, developments in fundamental research and the introduction of new technologies often stimulate new approaches; \n• the burden of disease – the incidence and severity of a type of cancer will influence both researchers and funders;\n• researchability – some tumour types are easier to work on than others but can often provide a model system for other cancers, and many researchers are attracted to areas or diseases where there is real evidence or potential for progress; \n• fundraising – certain types of cancer may attract more public donations than others; and \n• the quality and size of the research workforce – because of the issues listed above some areas attract more high quality researchers than other areas. This will undoubtedly affect the number of quality proposals received by funding bodies.\n\nNCRI partner organisations take these factors into account when making funding decisions. However, the relative importance of each of these in the decision-making process varies for each organisation depending on its corporate aims, culture and procedures.\n\nThe NCRI Cancer Research Database includes expenditure on cancer research by NCRI partner organisations. This includes only direct spend on cancer research, or spend which directly supports cancer research. The proportion of cancer research funding directly supporting brain tumour research was 1.5% in 2014. This analysis includes fundamental research (28.8%) and funding relevant to all cancer sites (25.1%). If these elements are excluded, brain tumour research received 3.3% of site-specific cancer research funding. This is a greater proportion than for 40 of the 49 site-specific categories.\n\nThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including brain tumours. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and the NHS, value for money and scientific quality. NIHR funding is not ring-fenced for cancer research or for research on brain tumours or other types of cancer. In all disease areas, the amount of NIHR funding depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity.\n\nThe Government welcomes the commitment by Cancer Research UK to increase spend in research on brain tumours. This will drive further investment by the NIHR. This happens in two ways. Firstly, as scientific breakthroughs are translated into interventions benefitting patients through infrastructure for experimental medicine. Secondly, investment is driven as emerging interventions are investigated in studies and trials through the NIHR Clinical Research Network.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.303Z","updated_at":"2015-09-07T16:05:23.303Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-04-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-18/debates/16041811000001/BrainTumours","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3211c3a4-ea0c-425e-8277-43c7a512f54d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121262,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121262.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Jeremy Hunt to resume meaningful contract negotiations with the BMA.","background":"J.Hunt is to impose a new contract. As incoming junior doctors, with GMC registration, starting work as an FY1 in August 2016 and junior doctors working within the NHS we will refuse to sign the imposed contract and will continue strike action on behalf of the medical profession and greater public.","additional_details":"Jeremy Hunt has announced that new contracts will be imposed on Junior doctors in his endeavour to destroy the NHS and privatise healthcare in the UK. It is in our interest as future and working Junior Doctors and in the interest of the general public that we continue to oppose these new contracts. We will refuse to sign these new contracts and will continue strike action until a negotiated resolution has been reached. \r\n  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":120680,"created_at":"2016-02-11T09:52:29.229Z","updated_at":"2018-02-23T16:19:25.752Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-11T14:23:26.196Z","closed_at":"2016-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T12:48:11.650Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T20:43:34.067Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-18T12:21:48.384Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-13T19:03:13.883Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-03-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-03-21","debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-24T17:52:56.782Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-18","summary":"There will be no imposition. NHS Improvement expects employers to introduce a fairer, safer contract, which they can do for new staff and as contracts expire as juniors move through training. ","details":"Junior doctors work incredibly hard across seven days.  They make a huge contribution to the NHS and deserve a fair, professional contract that supports patient care and proper training. As NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed some years ago, the current contract does not do this and needs to be replaced. Regrettably, despite negotiations over three years and agreement on 90% of the content, a settlement could not be reached and a new contract now needs to be introduced. The new deal is one which NHS leaders are clear is safe, fair and reasonable for junior doctors. Patient safety is the absolute priority for the Government and NHS Employers.  We want to ensure we have the safest healthcare system in the world by introducing stronger limits on junior doctors’ hours and by ensuring that consultants are available to make vital decisions about patient care across seven days. This requires changes to contracts.\n\nTogether, consultants and junior doctors are crucial to ensuring patients receive the high-quality care they need every day of the week. The BMA called for reform of the junior doctors’ contract in 2008. The proposals put forward for reforming the junior doctors’ contract and the consultants’ contract are designed to protect the safety of junior doctors and patients as well as rewarding junior doctors more fairly and ensuring more consultant availability over weekends to support training and deliver the key clinical standards. We have been making every effort, in good faith, to work with the BMA to introduce a new contract for junior doctors that supports these principles while maintaining average pay and ensuring no doctor is required to work longer or unsafe hours.  After the BMA walked away from negotiations with NHS Employers in 2014, we and NHS Employers accepted the recommendations of the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration in July 2015 and sought a return to negotiations. The BMA refused to negotiate, rejected an offer published and sent to junior doctors on 4 November 2015, and balloted for industrial action. \n\nThe BMA, NHS Employers and the Department agreed, in November, to talks under the auspices of ACAS and this led to negotiations during December. Initial talks led to a revised offer on 4 January, which the BMA refused to discuss, instead announcing that industrial action would commence on 12 January.. The Secretary of State appointed Sir David Dalton, a respected trust chief executive, to lead further talks behalf of the NHS and the Department. At the request of the management side, ACAS were asked to oversee those talks that continued during January with the BMA suspending further action that had been planned for 26-28 January\n\nOn 1 February Sir David Dalton wrote to the Secretary of State to advise him of the progress of negotiations. At the same time, the BMA announced industrial action for 10 February – with junior doctors providing emergency cover only, rather than the full withdrawal of labour that had previously been announced. This action was regrettable and unnecessary, given that Sir David’s letter showed that the parties had reached agreement on many issues, most notably on safety and on education and training, and on many elements of a new pay structure. \n\nUnfortunately, despite agreeing to discuss Saturday pay rates, the BMA reneged and refused to contemplate any compromise on this issue. Sir David advised that a negotiated solution to the outstanding contractual issues was impossible. He also advised that the health service now needs certainty, and as such the Government decided that the only plausible option was to press ahead with the introduction of new contracts.\n\nThe Health Secretary announced on 11 February that the new contract will be introduced. NHS Improvement has made clear that it expects all employers to work with their junior doctors to implement the new contract. Changes will not be imposed on staff who currently have a contract of employment, but new terms will be offered as juniors enter training or as they move through training and onto new contracts of employment as current contracts expire. This is simply exercising a right that employers have when unable to reach agreement on changes with Trade Unions. Sir David has made clear his view that a negotiated settlement is not possible and that the proposed contract will be both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. Junior doctors should consider the detail that has been sent to them and published. What will be introduced is a fairer, safer contract that: includes lower limits on working hours and stronger safeguards to enforce these; better supports training; preserves average earnings, including for new trainees; includes a 13.5% increase in basic pensionable pay for all; means an increase in earnings for 75% of those moving onto new terms; and includes an offer that protects the pay of all trainees during transition.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-18T12:21:48.381Z","updated_at":"2017-01-13T14:25:56.057Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-03-21","transcript_url":"http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-21/debates/16032112000001/BMA(ContractNegotiations)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/641c6fb7-a2a0-47e0-8b10-e3c99e765c2b","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":118060,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/118060.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap the £35k threshold for non-EU citizens settling in the UK","background":"In April (2016) the Home Office and Theresa May are introducing a pay threshold for people to remain here, after already working here for 5 years. This only affects non-EU citizens that earn under £35,000 a year, which unfairly discriminates against charity workers, nurses, students and others. ","additional_details":"This ridiculous measure is only going to affect 40,000 people who have already been living and working in the UK for 5 years, contributing to our culture and economy. It will drive more workers from the NHS and people from their families. This empty gesture will barely affect the immigration statistics. It's a waste of time, money and lives.\r\n\r\nThis is the first time the UK has discriminated against low-earners. £35k is an unreasonably high threshold. The UK will lose thousands of skilled workers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114636,"created_at":"2016-01-09T12:17:48.287Z","updated_at":"2017-12-04T13:09:01.250Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-01-12T16:51:52.790Z","closed_at":"2016-07-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-09T12:41:24.090Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-16T16:41:33.228Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.726Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-12T11:25:50.773Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-02-24","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-03-07","debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-08T12:16:53.461Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-02","summary":"The £35,000 threshold was announced in 2012 following public consultation. It applies only to workers in graduate occupations. Exemptions exist for workers at PhD-level or in a recognised shortage.","details":"The Government believes that the UK can benefit from migration but not uncontrolled migration.  We are delivering a more selective immigration system that works in the national interest.\n\nUncontrolled, mass immigration makes it difficult to maintain social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes.  In the past it has been too easy for employers to bring in workers from overseas, rather than to take the long-term decision to train our workforce here at home.\n\nAs part of our reforms, we consulted in 2011 on being more selective about those workers who are allowed to settle in the UK.  We do not believe there should be an automatic link between coming to work in the UK temporarily and staying permanently.\n\nThe £35,000 threshold for settlement applications forms part of our overall strategy and is intended to make a modest contribution to the Government’s target of reducing net migration to sustainable levels.  It applies to those holding leave  under Tier 2, the skilled work category.  This category is reserved for those working in graduate level jobs only.\n\nThe threshold was set following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), an independent advisory body consisting of expert labour market economists.  The MAC carried out a further public consultation, in addition to that carried out by the Government, before arriving at its recommendations.\n\nThe purpose of the Tier 2 category is to support the UK economy.  The MAC advised that the strongest indicator of economic value is salary, and therefore those migrants earning more than a given amount at the end of their temporary leave in the UK should be eligible for settlement.  \n\n£35,000 was equivalent to the median pay of the UK population in skilled jobs which qualified for Tier 2 at the time of the MAC’s consultation.  The MAC’s most recent research shows that the equivalent figure today would be £39,000.\n\nWithin Tier 2, there are exemptions for migrants who are working in a PhD-level occupation (such as university researchers), or in a recognised shortage occupation.  Nurses, several other healthcare professionals and some teachers are among the jobs which are included on the Shortage Occupation List, and who will be exempt from the threshold.\n\nThis exemption also covers jobs which have been on the Shortage Occupation List at any time in the preceding six years while the settlement applicant has been sponsored to do it.  This guards against jobs being returned to shortage because migrant workers who have helped fill skills gaps are required to leave.  \n\nInternational students enter the UK under Tier 4, the student route.  There is a category in Tier 5, the temporary work route, for charity workers.  The £35,000 threshold does not apply to these categories, which have never led to settlement in the UK.  We have an excellent offer for international graduates who wish to undertake skilled work in the UK after their studies.\n\nThose workers who are affected by the threshold were aware when they entered that new settlement rules would apply to them.  We were clear that the new rules would apply to migrants who entered Tier 2 from 6 April 2011.  Employers have also had this time to prepare for the possibility their migrant workers may not meet the required salary threshold to remain in the UK permanently.\n\nThose workers who cannot meet the threshold can extend their stay in Tier 2 up to a maximum of six years, and can apply to switch into any other immigration routes for which they are eligible.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.722Z","updated_at":"2016-02-02T14:36:40.722Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-03-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-07/debates/16030714000001/Non-EUCitizensIncomeThreshold","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/da0f4829-4c94-4ca9-93e1-a0897850ce01","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":110776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/110776.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women","background":"The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with a lack of appropriate notification","additional_details":"The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA to 65, the same as men’s.  Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), agree with equalisation,  but don’t agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little/no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans.  Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":193185,"created_at":"2015-10-20T16:09:34.695Z","updated_at":"2017-09-14T08:24:39.524Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-20T16:47:03.447Z","closed_at":"2016-04-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-20T16:37:14.912Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-21T22:14:12.328Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.103Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-02T14:20:26.972Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-02-01","debate_outcome_at":"2016-02-02T17:34:08.156Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-05","summary":"State Pension age changes were first made in 1995. All women affected have been directly contacted following the changes. There are no plans to alter State Pension age arrangements for this group. ","details":"Firstly, to clarify, State Pension age (SPa) changes affect individuals in the following way:\n• Women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953 have an SPa set by the 1995 Pensions Act, of between 60 and 63. This group will reach SPa by March 2016, and will therefore receive a State Pension under the current system.\n• Women born between 6th April 1953 and 5th December 1953 have an SPa set by the 2011 Pensions Act, of between 63 and 65. The maximum increase in SPa that anybody will experience relative to the 1995 timetable is 16 months. This group will reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. \n• Men and women born between 6th December 1953 and 5th April 1960 have an SPa set by the 2011 Act, of between 65 and 66. Of the approximately five million individuals affected by the 2011 change, two point four million are men. For women, the maximum increase in SPa relative to the previous timetable is 18 months and for men it is 12 months. This group will also reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension.\n\nBoth the 1995 and 2011 changes followed on from public calls for evidence. The Government has notified the women affected by the State Pension age changes. Following the 2011 changes, DWP wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their State Pension age - using the address details recorded by HMRC at the time. Mailing to these individuals, due to reach State Pension age between 2016 and 2026, was completed between January 2012 and November 2013, subject to the accuracy of their address details with HMRC. Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011. The DWP also has information on State Pension age changes and who they affect on gov.uk. This includes State Pension age timetables, impact assessments (including an impact assessment for the 2011 Pensions Act) and a State Pension age calculator. In addition, the State Pension age equalisation changes were built into the State Pension statement IT system; introduced in 2001. Therefore, statements produced on request using this system would have included women’s new State Pension ages as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act. \n\nThe Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 1995 or 2011 Acts. The Government carried out extensive analysis of the impacts of bringing forward the rise to 66 when legislating for the change (impact assessment available at Gov.uk). The decision to amend the timetable originally set out in the bill, to cap the maximum increase at 18 months rather than 2 years, was informed by this analysis. \n\nAll women affected by faster equalisation will reach State Pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. The new State Pension will be more generous for many women who have historically done poorly under the current, two-tier system - largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. Around 650,000 women reaching State Pension age in the first ten years will receive an average of £8 per week (in 2014/15 earnings terms) more due to the new State Pension valuation of their National Insurance record.\n\nRegular consideration of State Pension age is necessary to ensure the pensions system remains sustainable as life expectancy grows. The 2014 Act provides for a 6-yearly review, to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently-led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, amongst a number of other factors, the impact of State Pension age change on women.\n\nThe policy decision to increase women’s State Pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove this inequality. The decision was approved by Parliament in 2011 and there is no new evidence to consider.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-02-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-02-01/debates/16020126000001/TransitionalStatePensionArrangementsForWomen","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf878aac-b8e6-40a2-bc03-9bbe5254fc92","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee scheduled a debate on this petition in Westminster Hall.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":115895,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/115895.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap plans forcing self employed & small business to do 4 tax returns yearly","background":"George Osborne announced in his Autumn statement the plan for self employed and small businesses to have to file four tax returns a year rather than one as currently is done ","additional_details":"Each self employed individual and small business will have the added burden of additional red tape, accountancy fees and potential for fines. As a small business owner myself I already spend quite some time to get things in order once s year. There will be greater chance of errors as well. At the moment we pay £1200 a year in accountancy fees this figure will greatly increase. The conservatives are not working for small businesses in brining such legislation but adding burden. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114504,"created_at":"2015-12-12T01:48:20.201Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:09:16.925Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-16T11:22:23.937Z","closed_at":"2016-06-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-12T20:24:49.324Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-17T16:57:24.888Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-04T13:15:14.179Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-03T15:43:31.930Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-25","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-26T10:16:36.892Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-04","summary":"Making Tax Digital will not mean ‘four tax returns a year’. Quarterly updates will largely be a matter of checking data generated from record keeping software or apps and clicking ‘send’.","details":"These reforms will not mean that businesses have to provide the equivalent of four tax returns every year. Updating HMRC through software or apps will deliver a light-touch process, much less burdensome and time-consuming than it is today. \n\nAt the March 2015 Budget the government committed to transform the tax system by introducing simple, secure and personalised digital tax accounts, removing the need for annual tax returns. \n\nAt the 2015 Spending Review the government announced it would invest £1.3bn in HMRC to make this vision a reality, transforming HMRC into one of the most digitally advanced tax administrations in the world. \n\nOne element of this vision will be asking most businesses, self-employed people and landlords to keep track of their tax affairs digitally and update HMRC at least quarterly via their digital tax account. \n\nMany taxpayers have told HMRC that they want more certainty over their tax bill, and don’t want to wait until the end of the year, or even longer, before knowing where they stand with their taxes. \n\nWe also estimate that £6.5bn in tax goes unpaid every year because of mistakes made when filling in tax returns. These reforms will make it easier for taxpayers to maintain accurate and up-to-date tax affairs, reducing the scope for error. \n\nWith businesses keeping track of their tax affairs digitally, quarterly updates will be fundamentally different from filling out an annual tax return in a number of crucial respects:\n\n• Quarterly updates will not involve all the complexity of a full tax return. The updates will be generated from existing digital business records. In most cases, little or no further entry of information will be needed. It will be much quicker to complete than the current tax return.\n• As part of the process the business owner or individual will receive a developing in-year picture of their tax position, helping people have greater certainty about what they owe, allowing them to plan their finances more effectively. This differs from the current system where many taxpayers are caught out by their tax bill when it finally arrives.\n• In-year updates will not be subject to the same sanctions for lateness or inaccuracies as apply now to the year-end position. HMRC will consult during 2016 on what sanctions might be appropriate for a more digital tax administration.  \n\nThe government has already announced that these measures will not apply to individuals in employment or pensioners, unless they have secondary incomes of more than £10,000 per year from self-employment or property.\n\nThe reforms will rely on businesses, self-employed people and landlords using software or apps that can connect securely to their digital tax account. The government will ensure that free products are available. The Gov.UK service will signpost taxpayers to the right product, with clear HMRC guidance about how to choose software.\n\nHMRC will ensure support is available for people to get online if they need it. We will also provide alternatives for those who genuinely cannot use digital tools, like telephone filing. This will build on our Needs Extra Support service, which has gone from strength to strength in helping more vulnerable customers. \n\nWe’re introducing these reforms gradually. We’ve been in discussion with stakeholders since March 2015 and will be consulting on the details of the proposals throughout 2016.  \n\nWe will use volunteers to test the new tools and processes and give us feedback. Quarterly updates will be introduced for some from 2018, and will be phased in fully by 2020, giving taxpayers time to adapt.  \n\nWe want to work with all stakeholders to ensure these changes work for them. For more information about the proposed reforms please search for ‘Making Tax Digital’ on Gov.UK or use the following link:\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-tax-digital \n\nHMRC","created_at":"2016-01-04T13:15:14.174Z","updated_at":"2016-01-04T13:15:14.174Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-25/debates/1601256000001/SmallBusinessesTaxReporting","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/33734d0f-5461-4fa4-9c1c-3d0db3798d55","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":114003,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/114003.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Block Donald J Trump from UK entry","background":"The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry.","additional_details":"The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.  \r\n  \r\nIf the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful. \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":586930,"created_at":"2015-11-28T17:55:11.248Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:37.097Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-08T16:39:59.718Z","closed_at":"2016-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-28T18:01:29.777Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-08T21:53:38.265Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.472Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-09T12:04:03.028Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-19T12:31:02.419Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-29","summary":"The Government has a policy of not routinely commenting on individual immigration or exclusion cases. ","details":"For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.\n\nThe Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good. \n\nThe Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. \n\nExclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence. \n\nThe Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong. \n\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.469Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:25:58.285Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-18/debates/1601186000001/DonaldTrump","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/83208344-218d-4c43-9300-ca78c374b875","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":114907,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/114907.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Don't ban Trump from the United Kingdom","background":"There are proposals to ban Donald Trump from the United Kingdom. At least, there's a petition on the topic. This is totally illogical. ","additional_details":"For starters we shouldn't be banning people for their opinions on domestic actions in a US political race that doesn't concern us. But more importantly if he does actually win the nomination, and then goes on to win the presidency. We then have to work with a man who we banned from our country in the first place - which totally offsets and upsets relations between two closely bonded countries. Leave the decision making on appropriate responses to the Americans. Lets mind our own business.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":46622,"created_at":"2015-12-09T09:38:02.876Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:57.070Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-09T15:20:58.189Z","closed_at":"2016-06-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-09T14:44:19.738Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-10T08:35:38.326Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-29T11:21:54.513Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-19T12:26:47.017Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-29","summary":"The Government has a policy of not routinely commenting on individual immigration or exclusion cases. ","details":"For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.\n\nThe Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good. \n\nThe Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. \n\nExclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence. \n\nThe Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong.\n\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-12-29T11:21:54.511Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:24:44.885Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-18/debates/1601186000001/DonaldTrump","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/83208344-218d-4c43-9300-ca78c374b875","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113491,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113491.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the NHS Bursary","background":"At the moment, student nurses do not pay tuition fees, and receive a means tested bursary during their training. We are required, by the NMC, to have done at least 4,600 hours whilst studying, at least half of which are in practice. \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"Student nurses often work alongside our studies, like most students. But unlike most students, we work full time hours in placement for around half the year, and spend the rest of the time in lectures, without a summer holiday, or an Easter break, as well as completing our assignments. Taking away the NHS Bursary will force more student nurses into working 70 hour weeks, as many already do, it will compromise our studies and most of all, our patient care.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":162568,"created_at":"2015-11-22T08:52:27.708Z","updated_at":"2017-10-27T14:06:03.131Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-24T12:34:15.040Z","closed_at":"2016-05-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-22T09:37:58.334Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-25T16:10:40.725Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.373Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-26T21:45:28.731Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-12-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-11","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-12T13:10:31.486Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-17","summary":"From 1 August 2017, new nursing, midwifery and allied health students will access student loans providing more money to them while studying. Universities will also provide more training places.","details":"To deliver more nurses, midwives and allied health professionals for the NHS, a better funding system for health students, and a sustainable model for universities, we need to move new nursing, midwifery and allied health students from grants and bursaries onto the standard student loans system.  This will be done for new students from 1 August 2017 and will bring them into line with the arrangements for students undertaking other university degrees. Existing students will continue on the current system of bursaries.\n\nAs a result, we expect this to enable up to 10,000 additional nursing, midwifery and allied health training places over this parliament. Rather than denying thousands of UK applicants a place to study nursing, midwifery and the allied health subjects at university, we will be boosting participation and securing the future supply of these professions to the NHS. This will mean more applicants will get the chance to become a health professional.\n\nUnder the loans system, students on nursing, midwifery and allied health courses will receive around a 25% increase in the financial support available to them for living costs. The precise change for individuals will be dependent on their circumstances – for example, where they study, the length of the course, income and residency.\n\nWe will run a consultation in early 2016 which will consider how to ensure the reforms are successfully delivered.  We intend that students studying nursing, midwifery and the allied health subjects as a second degree will also be able to get student loans. We will also consider how we can support aspirant students from all backgrounds to ensure they can continue to pursue health careers. \n\nAlongside we have also announced plans to create a new nursing support role, to work alongside healthcare support workers and fully qualified nurses, focusing on patient care – provisionally to be called Nursing Associates. \n\nThe new addition to the care workforce will help bridge the gap between healthcare support workers, who have a care certificate, and registered nurses. Proposals will see staff trained through this route learning on the job via an apprenticeship leading to a foundation degree. The Government will also look at what opportunities there are for staff in this role to progress to become a registered nurse through either a degree level nurse apprenticeship or a shortened nursing degree at university. \n\nThe new nursing support role is expected to work alongside healthcare support workers and fully qualified nurses to deliver hands on care, focusing on ensuring patients continue to get the compassionate care they deserve. Nursing Associates will support nurses to spend more time using their specialist training to focus on clinical duties and take more of a lead in decisions about patient care.\n\nThere will be a consultation on all the specifics of the scope of this role, including the title, with representatives from the nursing profession including the royal colleges and representative unions in the New Year.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.369Z","updated_at":"2015-12-17T16:09:17.369Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-11/debates/16011119000001/NHSBursary","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8c4bdf09-567f-41b4-af9c-46d5cf2b7c49","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104796,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104796.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Don't kill our bees! Immediately halt the use of Neonicotinoids on crops","background":"Neonicotinoids are pesticides in agricultural use that control pests such as aphids and grubs. The poison gets into the pollen and renders it deadly to bees and other pollinators. Neonicotinoids are banned in several countries due to links with bee deaths. Please ban the use of neonics on crops.","additional_details":"Neonicotinoids, especially seed treatments of imidacloprid and clothianidin on arable crops, have become of increasing concern to beekeepers and bee researchers in recent years with many of them suspecting that they may be connected to current bee declines.  These concerns have led to partial bans on the use of some neonicotinoids for specific crops in several European countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. Bees are already facing sharp declines in their numbers and need help","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":99909,"created_at":"2015-07-23T19:12:08.029Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:04:59.193Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-24T14:09:22.592Z","closed_at":"2016-01-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-23T20:04:20.829Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-26T21:06:01.686Z","government_response_at":"2015-10-26T11:08:24.970Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2015-11-26","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-12-07","debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-08T11:15:33.684Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-10-26","summary":"We are committed to protecting bees and maintaining a range of pollinators. Government decisions on pesticides are based on recommendations from independent experts who have studied the evidence.","details":"The health of our pollinators is very important in itself and to the wider environment. That is why, in November 2014, the Government launched a 10-year National Pollinators Strategy which will ensure pollinator needs are addressed as an integral part of land and habitat management as well as further investigating how we can help pollinators to thrive.\n\nWe use the best available scientific evidence to inform decisions on pesticides and have a committee of scientists, called the Expert Committee on Pesticides, to advise ministers. When the Committee provides its advice it takes into account wider environmental factors, such as increasing resistance to alternative pesticides, risks to biodiversity, and the availability of other pesticides and agronomic techniques to control pests. \n\nResponsible pesticide use contributes towards our innovative and productive farming industry, and so unnecessary requirements need to be avoided to ensure that pesticides are permitted when they can be used safely to protect UK crops from pests and diseases.  \n\nFollowing concerns about some kinds of neonicotinoid pesticides, in 2013 the EU introduced a precautionary ban on three neonicotinoids. These apply to a wide range of crops that are ‘attractive to bees’, and have been fully implemented by the UK. A number of other uses of neonicotinoids continue to remain permitted under the EU approval.  The restrictions are not time limited and will remain until and unless the EU Commission decides to change them. The EU Commission has begun a review of the science relating to neonicotinoids and bees and the Government will contribute fully to this review.\n\nEU legislation allows Member States to consider applications for the authorisation of products to deal with emergency situations that are temporary, limited in scale and controlled to address “a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means”.  Authorisations are only granted after an assessment of the evidence provided by the applicant demonstrates that all the legal requirements are met.\n\nThe Government received applications for emergency authorisation of neonicotinoid seed treatments for use on oilseed rape. Based on the legal requirements and the evidence, the Government has followed the advice of the independent UK Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) and Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser that a limited emergency authorisation of two neonicotinoids requested by farmers should be granted where oilseed rape crops are at greatest risk of pest damage, representing just 5% of the UK oilseed rape crop area. The authorisations are time-limited and only cover seed sown in 2015.  Also following the advice received by the ECP, the Government rejected the National Farmers Union’s two earlier applications which requested authorisation for the same products to be used on 79% of the UK crop area.\n\nGovernment is taking a number of actions to improve the state of our bees and other pollinating insects and to build up our understanding of current populations and of the causes of decline. \n\nWe are already providing £2 billion to farmers to implement environmental schemes and we will provide £900 million more through the new Countryside Stewardship scheme. This new scheme includes a dedicated Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package.\n\nThe National Pollinator Strategy will ensure pollinators’ needs are addressed as an integral part of land management to provide food, shelter, and nesting sites. This is a collaborative approach working with voluntary organisations, businesses, local authorities and the public. We will shortly be publishing the Implementation Plan for the Strategy, which we have worked closely with our partners to develop. \n\nWe launched the Call to Action message, ‘Bees’ Needs: Food and a Home’, in July 2014.  It is a simple message for all land managers on the needs of pollinators and how to fulfil them. It includes five actions, such as planting more bee-friendly flowers and cutting grass after flowering.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs","created_at":"2015-10-26T11:08:24.968Z","updated_at":"2015-10-26T11:08:24.968Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-12-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-12-07/debates/15120714000001/NeonicotinoidsOnCrops","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1868e6f1-38ca-4597-a58c-ed0f98f6bb7b","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106651,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106651.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a tax on sugary drinks in the UK to improve our children's health.","background":"Experts believe a tax of just 7p per regular-sized can of soft drink with added sugar could generate £1 billion per year. We believe this crucial revenue should be ring-fenced to support much needed preventative strategies in the NHS and schools around childhood obesity and diet-related disease. \r\n","additional_details":"Studies show that soft drinks with added sugar are the largest single source of sugar in the diet's of UK school children & teenagers\r\n\r\nMany health experts are increasingly concerned about sugars contribution to weight gain & type-2 diabetes. \r\n\r\nTooth decay caused by sugar is the most common reason that children aged 5-9 years are admitted to hospital & type-2 diabetes is costing the NHS around £9 billion a year.  It's clear action is needed.\r\n\r\nPlease show your support.\r\n\r\nJamie Oliver and Sustain","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":155516,"created_at":"2015-08-25T20:43:15.258Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:47.840Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-26T12:48:04.628Z","closed_at":"2016-02-26T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-25T21:33:47.161Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-03T21:17:11.065Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.359Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T12:53:22.195Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-11-18","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-11-30","debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-01T11:21:52.003Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-18","summary":"The Government has no plans to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.  The Government will announce its plans for tackling childhood obesity by the end of the year.  ","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. \n\nThe Government has committed to a tax lock to avoid raising the cost of living and to promote UK productivity and economic growth, however, the Government keeps all taxes under review, with decisions being a matter for the Chancellor as part of the Budget process. \n\nThe causes of obesity are complex, caused by a number of dietary, lifestyle, environmental and genetic factors, and tackling it will require a comprehensive and broad approach.  As such, the Government is considering a range of options for tackling childhood obesity, and the contribution that Government, alongside industry, families and communities can make, and will announce its plans for tackling childhood obesity by the end of the year.  \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.357Z","updated_at":"2015-09-18T14:58:38.357Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-11-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-11-30/debates/15113012000001/SugaryDrinksTax","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5b01a86a-2b13-43f1-b6c2-715877623438","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106133,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106133.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make an allowance for up to 2 weeks term time leave from school for holiday.","background":"Allow parents to take children out of school at a time convenient with them for up to 2 weeks per year during term time, so that the children can learn other cultures and experience this vital social experience, at the moment the current system discriminates against poorer households.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":127199,"created_at":"2015-08-13T16:39:37.920Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:34.261Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-14T17:05:05.718Z","closed_at":"2016-02-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-13T19:01:02.566Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-13T16:12:59.200Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.715Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-29T23:24:02.165Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-10-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-26","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-27T07:53:19.715Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-28","summary":"The Government wants every child to attend school regularly, and to confine absences to unavoidable causes. There is clear evidence that absence from school is linked to lower levels of attainment. ","details":"The Government acknowledges that family holidays can be enriching experiences and we are not preventing parents from taking their children on holiday. This is not about discriminating against any group; it is about all pupils of compulsory school age being in school when they are required to be and confining absence from school to unavoidable causes.\n\nThere is clear evidence that absence from school is linked to lower levels of attainment. According to attainment data for the 2012/13 academic year and absence data for that and preceding years:\n\n• Pupils with no absence from school during Key Stage 4 were nearly three times more likely to achieve five A* to C GCSEs, including English and maths, and around 10 times more likely to achieve the English Baccalaureate, than pupils missing 15-20 per cent of school across Key Stage 4; and  \n\n• Primary school pupils with no absence during Key Stage 2 were around 1.5 times more likely to achieve the expected level (level 4 or above); and more than 4.5 times more likely to achieve above the expected level (level 5 or above) at the end of Key Stage 2, than pupils that missed 15-20 per cent of sessions in Key Stage 2.\n\n• Missing even a short amount of time from school can reduce a pupil’s chances of succeeding at school by as much as a quarter.\n\n• 44 per cent of pupils with no absence in key stage 4 achieve the English Baccalaureate - the gold standard package of GCSE qualifications that includes English, maths, science, history or geography and a language. But this figure falls by a quarter to just 31.7 per cent for pupils who miss up to just 14 days of lessons over the 2 years that pupils study for their GCSEs, which equates to around 1 week per year.\n\n• A similar pattern is also seen at primary school level, where pupils missing up to just 31 days of school in key stage 2 (i.e. around 1 week per year) are a quarter less likely to achieve level 5 or above in reading and maths tests than those with no absence across the key stage.\n\nThe law places a duty on parents of every school-registered child of compulsory school age to ensure their regular attendance at school. The school year is designed to give families various opportunities to enjoy holidays without having to disrupt children’s education. Parents should plan their holidays around school breaks and avoid seeking permission from schools to take their children out of school during term time unless it is absolutely unavoidable. \n\nHead teachers have the power to authorise leave of absence, but only in exceptional circumstances. The government has not specified what constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is for schools to consider the specific details and relevant context behind each request. Schools know their pupils best and are well placed to make those judgements.\n\nWe clarified the law in 2013 to address the widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term-time. No such entitlement existed in law previously, and the change in law has made this clearer. \n\nThe government is confident that the law strikes the right balance between the needs of individual families to take children out of school in exceptional circumstances and the need to provide the best possible education for all pupils.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.712Z","updated_at":"2015-09-28T16:46:04.712Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-26/debates/15102614000001/Term-TimeLeave","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/27de12c5-a246-4aa0-87c3-ec208c5f7b8e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106477,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106477.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop allowing immigrants into the UK.","background":"The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country! ","additional_details":"If the Government does not do anything, then Britain may take in 12 million more immigrants by 2060. There is footage of foreigners destroying British soldiers graves,  which is a huge disrespect to us. Sign this petition to show the government what they need to do!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":216949,"created_at":"2015-08-21T22:58:36.240Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:43.486Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-25T13:23:52.756Z","closed_at":"2016-02-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-21T23:05:13.292Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-04T04:28:03.060Z","government_response_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.436Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-07T20:14:13.386Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-15","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-19","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-20T09:13:18.018Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-10-26","summary":"We are building an immigration system that works in the public interest. We welcome the brightest and the best who come here legally to work and study, but believe net migration should be lower(contd)","details":"and are clamping down on illegal migration, including through the Immigration Bill. We will also introduce a new approach to asylum - with strict new rules for people who abuse the system, and greater generosity for people who need our help.\n\nThe UK has a proud history of protecting those most in need.  As the Prime Minister announced to Parliament at the beginning of last month, the UK will accept a further 20,000 migrants dislocated from their homes following the Syrian crisis.  The UK can be proud that since the start of that conflict we have been at the forefront of the humanitarian response. We are providing more than £1 billion in aid – making us the second biggest bilateral donor in the world. Our contribution is almost as much as the rest of the EU put together. We can be proud of our contribution and our history of valuing diversity in the UK. \n\nUncontrolled immigration, however, places pressure on public services, the labour market and wages. \n\nTo control legal migration we have changed the profile of migrants coming here to work and study from outside the EU, to ensure that we are genuinely welcoming the brightest and the best.  The figures show this strategy is working, with a 17% increase in the number of sponsored student visas applications for universities since 2010, and a rise of 33% for the elite Russell Group universities.  We have toughened access to welfare and housing and non-EU immigration remains 10% lower than in September 2010.  Going forward, our long term economic plan will see many more young Britons given the training and skills they need to fill the jobs our booming economy is creating. \n\nIn terms of illegal migration one of the most visible pressure points has been at Calais.  Over the summer the migrant population in this area increased to around 5,000 and there was an associated increase in the number of illegal attempts to breach the border.  \n\nThe Government has made good progress with the French Government to address this situation.  The declaration the Home Secretary signed with the French Interior Minister, on 20th August, cements a comprehensive programme of work between France and the UK including additional French police, and extra fencing, search dogs and other security measures provided by the UK.  \n\nThe Government is also taking action through a new Immigration Bill that was introduced to Parliament on 17th September.\n\nThe Government is introducing new powers to build an immigration system that works in the best interests of the UK and those who play by the rules. Illegal workers will face having their earnings seized, while rogue employers could have their businesses closed.\n\nThe Bill will make it harder for people to settle in the UK when they have no right to do so, building on the Immigration Act 2014 to further restrict access to services for illegal migrants. Landlords will be able to evict illegal migrants more quickly and access to driving licences and bank accounts will be further protected as services for only the lawfully resident population.\n\nThe Bill will close existing loopholes that allow certain illegal migrants to claim asylum support even though they do not have a pending asylum application or appeal. We will continue to meet all of our international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, but equally we expect other illegal migrants to depart from the UK rather than providing access to support.\n\nThe Bill will make it easier to remove people who should not be in the UK by introducing new powers to tag foreign national offenders released on bail, and extending “deport now, appeal later” certification powers to more immigration cases. We will also be equipping immigration officers with additional search and seizure powers to better enforce our immigration laws. \n\nFinally, as the Home Secretary set out earlier this month, we will introduce a new approach to asylum with strict new rules for people who abuse the system in Britain, and greater generosity for people in parts of the world where we know they need our help.  For example, we will take a tougher approach to those who claim asylum after abusing the visa system or having travelled to get here through safe countries but we will establish a register of people and organisations that can provide houses for the settlement of genuine refugees.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z","updated_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-19/debates/15101914000001/Immigration","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2e5038-cbf0-4a43-bfc3-6a6deb279c4d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104349,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104349.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.","background":"Legalising cannabis could bring in £900m in taxes every year, save £400m on policing cannabis and create over 10,000 new jobs. \r\n\r\nA substance that is safer than alcohol, and has many uses. It is believed to have been used by humans for over 4000 years, being made illegal in the UK in 1925. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":236995,"created_at":"2015-07-20T15:36:33.017Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:04:40.827Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T08:29:48.141Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T17:39:58.248Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-22T16:01:34.636Z","government_response_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.706Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-25T08:49:55.926Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-12","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-13T10:40:27.705Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-08-25","summary":"Substantial scientific evidence shows cannabis is a harmful drug that can damage human health. There are no plans to legalise cannabis as it would not address the harm to individuals and communities.","details":"The latest evidence from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is that the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue (‘Cannabis Classification and Public Health’, 2008).\n\nCannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society. Legalisation of cannabis would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery that this can cause to families.\n\nLegalisation would also send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.\n\nDespite the potential opportunity offered by legalisation to raise revenue through taxation, there would be costs in relation to administrative, compliance and law enforcement activities, as well as the wider costs of drug prevention and health services.\n\nThe UK's approach on drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities; help dependent individuals through treatment and wider recovery support; while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping the supply and tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade. The Government will build on the Drugs Strategy by continuing to take a balanced and coherent approach to address the evolving challenges posed.\n\nThere are positive signs that the Government’s approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10. The number of adults aged 16-59 using cannabis in the last year in England and Wales has declined over the last decade from 9.6% to 6.7%, with cannabis use amongst young adults aged 16-24 and young people aged 11-15 following a similar pattern. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.704Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:51:57.078Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-12/debates/15101213000001/Cannabis","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c277985b-3edb-4f13-93f2-902bf81ea208","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104334,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104334.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"To debate a vote of no confidence in Health Secretary the Right Hon Jeremy Hunt","background":"Jeremy Hunt has alienated the entire workforce of the NHS by threatening to impose a harsh contract and conditions on first consultants and soon the rest of the NHS staff. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":231136,"created_at":"2015-07-20T13:02:14.720Z","updated_at":"2017-12-18T17:39:44.469Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-20T14:12:50.460Z","closed_at":"2016-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T13:56:15.383Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T18:57:24.174Z","government_response_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.250Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-21T15:54:26.382Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-09-14","debate_outcome_at":"2015-09-15T14:42:56.281Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-07-24","summary":"The Government is committed to delivering seven day services to make sure that patients get the same high quality, safe care on a Saturday and Sunday as they do on a week day.","details":"Many people do not realise that if you are admitted to hospital on a weekend, you have a 16% greater chance of dying. The Government wants to change this so that everyone can be confident that they will receive the same level of care whatever day of the week they are admitted to an NHS hospital.\n\nNHS consultants already provide an outstanding service and show great dedication to ensuring patients get the best outcomes. But the Government has a duty to make sure the system is set up in a way which makes it as easy as possible for hospitals to organise their resources to maximise patient safety across every day of the week.\n\nTo understand more about the possible issues for staff contracts, last year the government asked the independent pay review bodies for NHS staff - The Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) and the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB) for their observations and recommendations about how the reform of employment contracts could help support the delivery of seven day services in England. \n\nThe reports were published this month. They identified that a major barrier to seven day services is a decade old contractual right in the consultants’ contract negotiated by their union representatives in 2003 that allows senior doctors to refuse to work non-emergency work in the evenings, at nights and at weekends. No junior doctor, nurse or other clinical group has any such right. Other senior public sector professionals who work in services required to keep the public safe, such as police officers, firemen and prison governors, do not have this opt out either.\n\nWhilst the vast majority of consultants work tirelessly for their patients, the opt out allows individuals to charge employers hugely expensive payments which are much higher than national contract rates (up to £200 an hour). The average earnings for a hospital consultant are already in the top 2% in the country at £118,000, and these inflated payments can make it difficult for hospitals to provide the weekend cover they know patients need.\n\nThe report endorsed  the removal of the opt out, as well as broadly supporting other changes to the consultant contract that would ensure the right level of cover is available every day of the week; not just Monday to Friday.\n\nUnder the new plans, doctors will still continue to receive a significantly higher rate for working unsocial hours and there will be a contractual limit (not an expectation) of working a maximum of 13 weekends a year.\n\nBy the end of the Parliament, the Government hopes that the majority of consultants, in line with existing practice for nurses, midwives and junior doctors, will be on reformed contracts, working across seven days, to deliver a better service to patients. Hospitals like Salford Royal and Northumbria that have instituted seven day services have already seen improvements in patient care and staff morale. \n\nThese new plans will mean that doctors working in some of the toughest areas in the NHS, such as A&E and obstetrics, will at last be properly rewarded and there will be faster pay progression for all consultants early on in their career. Under the new proposals, the highest performing consultants could be able to receive up to £30,000 a year in bonus payments, on top of their base salary.\n\nOf course, improving weekend care requires more than just ensuring greater consultant presence.  That's why the government is also addressing issues such as access to weekend diagnostic services, provision of out of hospital care to facilitate weekend discharges, and adequate staffing cover amongst other clinical groups,. But NHS leaders and the independent pay review bodies are clear that increasing the presence of senior clinical decision makers at weekends is vital, and that the consultant opt out remains a barrier to organising broader support services and staff rotas.\n\nThe Government feels it is under an obligation to the public to do all it can to make NHS care at the weekend as safe as during the week through the delivery of seven day services this Parliament and that is what it will continue to do.\n\nDepartment for Health","created_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.247Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:59:43.805Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-09-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-09-14/debates/15091415000001/NHS(ContractsAndConditions)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d6fbba1f-282d-4027-82b7-754baad69ce6","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}