{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=1&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=20&parliament=1&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=1&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=1&state=with_response"},"data":[{"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":105446,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105446.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":"Benjamin Netanyahu to be arrested for war crimes when he arrives in London","background":"Benjamin Netanyahu is to hold talks in London this September. Under international law he should be arrested for war crimes upon arrival in the U.K for the massacre of over 2000 civilians in 2014","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114122,"created_at":"2015-07-30T17:21:46.899Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:15.237Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-07T12:15:02.729Z","closed_at":"2016-02-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-30T18:24:11.318Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-09T20:02:34.067Z","government_response_at":"2015-08-21T12:56:03.381Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T05:40:02.520Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-20T11:29:57.060Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-08-21","summary":"Under UK and international law, visiting heads of foreign governments, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have immunity from legal process, and cannot be arrested or detained.","details":"The British Government has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as head of the Israeli Government, to visit the UK in September. Under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, including Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction.\n\nWe recognise that the conflict in Gaza last year took a terrible toll.  As the Prime Minister said, we were all deeply saddened by the violence and the UK has been at the forefront of international reconstruction efforts.  However the Prime Minister was clear on the UK’s recognition of Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. We condemn the terrorist tactics of Hamas who fired rockets on Israel, built extensive tunnels to kidnap and murder, and repeatedly refused to accept ceasefires.  Israel, like any state, has the right to ensure its own security, as its citizens also have the right to live without fear of attack.  \n\nThe UK consistently urged Israel to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, to exercise restraint, and to help find ways to bring the situation to an end.  The UK continues to urge the parties to give priority to reaching a durable solution for Gaza which addresses the underlying drivers of conflict, and to take the necessary practical steps to ensure Gaza’s reconstruction and economic recovery.\n\nWe welcome the fact that Israel is conducting internal investigations into specific incidents during Operation Protective Edge.  Where there is evidence of wrongdoing those responsible must be held accountable whatever their position in society.  Both parties must also demonstrate robust and credible internal investigations which are in line with international standards.  We have also encouraged the Israeli authorities, as we do all countries, to cooperate with the independent Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the preliminary examination into the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 13 June, 2014, whilst noting that Israel is not a State Party to the ICC.\n\nThe UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship, built on decades of cooperation between our two countries across a range of fields. Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the achievement of a two-state solution, based on 1967 borders.  We continue to believe that negotiations will be necessary in order to achieve this, and that both parties need to focus on steps that are conducive to peace.  The UK Government will reinforce this message to Mr Netanyahu during his visit.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2015-08-21T12:56:03.377Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:53:42.065Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee noted that the request made by this petition was something that the UK Government said it was not able to do under UK and international law.\r\n\r\nThe Committee agreed that, as this was not something the UK Government could do, it would not take any further action on the petition.\r\n\r\nIt would still be open to MPs who wanted a debate on this issue to find other opportunities, such as an application to the Backbench Business Committee.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":172405,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/172405.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":"Authorise open book examinations for GCSE English Literature 2017","background":"The introduction of closed book examinations,for GCSE English Literature,requires students to learn and memorise quotes for this exam.There are 2 literature papers which include the content of:15 poems,2 plays and 1 novella.Exams shouldn't be a test on the student's memory,but how we interpret texts","additional_details":"Students are expected to remember:quotes from each character & themes and context that are incorporated within these texts- it is estimated that 250+ quotes could be potentially memorised for this exam. On top of 20+ exams,students are experiencing high levels of stress- due to the paper being more demanding for a higher grade.English is a subject that all employers & universities look at, therefore if students are unable to realistically achieve high grades- there will be lower employment rates","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110876,"created_at":"2016-11-13T18:25:54.150Z","updated_at":"2018-01-26T14:24:14.461Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-12-05T13:54:51.638Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-13T18:52:42.096Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-13T20:01:21.343Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-27T17:53:19.078Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-20T21:33:44.537Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-03-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-04-24","debate_outcome_at":"2017-04-24T16:57:13.192Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-27","summary":"GCSE English literature content requires students to read the full texts of the books and poems they study. Students will not need to remember the exact words of poems by heart in order to succeed.  ","details":"The GCSE English literature content requires students to read the full texts of the books, drama and poems they study. It requires students to study a range of intellectually challenging and substantial whole texts in detail including Shakespeare, 19th-century novels, Romantic poetry, and fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards. The content requires students to study no fewer than 15 poems by at least five different poets, and a minimum of 300 lines of poetry. The assessment arrangements must reflect those requirements and is designed to reward students who have gained a deep understanding of literature and who have read widely throughout the course. \n\nThe content also requires that students are examined on texts which they have not read previously (‘unseen’ texts).  Students will need to read widely during their studies to prepare them for the ‘unseen’ text in the exam and to be able to critically compare and contrast a range of texts using ‘relevant quotation and detailed textual references’ to demonstrate the breadth of their understanding of literature. These ‘unseen’ texts might, but do not have to be, by authors whose works students have studied as set texts. \n\nWe do not expect awarding organisations to give or allow students to have access during their exams to copies of the whole texts they have studied. Exam boards can, however, provide students with relevant extracts. The exam boards have each chosen in their sample assessment materials to provide students with extracts of the texts they have studied. \n\nStudents should not be misled into believing that they will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied.  Students will not need to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart. \nTo gain good marks, students will need to be able to show that they are familiar with the texts - that they have studied them – and that their understanding is sufficiently developed to be able to compare them with other texts that might have been given to them in the exam. The student will need to write about a poem they have studied and that is not given to them in the exam, but that does not require them to reproduce the text in full.   Rather it requires students to recollect details from the poem so as to compare it with one provided in the exam. \n\nThe former Chief Regulator’s blog written in 2015 made it clear that GCSE English literature is about understanding not memory https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2015/03/18/gcse-english-literature-learning-and-understanding-not-memory/     \nOfqual’s Regulatory Conditions and Guidance documents for GCSE English are available here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/44868 0/2015-07-27-gcse-subject-level-conditions-and-requirements-for-english-literatureversion\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-02-27T17:53:19.076Z","updated_at":"2017-02-27T17:53:19.076Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-04-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-04-24/debates/B77CF11D-3A96-4C85-A5FD-EC65DC732736/GCSEEnglishLiteratureExams","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/aa213464-1a8e-449f-9e5f-ecdc7da641de","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":108782,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/108782.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":"The DDRB's proposals to change Junior Doctor's contracts  CANNOT go ahead.","background":"The DDRB have proposed to remove banding of junior doctors pay, increase their hours and only pay reduced enhanced rates on Sundays and between 10 pm and 7am each day.This is an atrocious proposition that puts the safety of patients at risk as well as doctors. IT MUST BE OPPOSED.","additional_details":"https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445742/50576_DDRB_report_2015_WEB_book.pdf","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110065,"created_at":"2015-09-17T13:00:31.278Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:36.204Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-22T13:54:45.499Z","closed_at":"2016-03-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-17T13:28:41.274Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-23T10:43:02.889Z","government_response_at":"2015-10-16T09:45:19.670Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-12T07:49:49.318Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-11-02T18:02:50.098Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-10-16","summary":"The Government wants a fairer contract with stronger safeguards. Patient safety is our paramount concern. Average earnings will be maintained and doctors won’t be required to work longer. ","details":"Junior doctors deserve a professional and fair contract that supports patient care. We also want to work with NHS staff to better support a seven day NHS. This is why the government wants to reduce the number of hours worked by juniors and has guaranteed that average earnings will be maintained. \n\nFollowing an independent report by the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) the Government asked NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) to return to negotiations. The BMA has so far refused to do that and has misinformed its members and the public about the proposals, including publishing a pay calculator incorrectly suggesting pay cuts of 30% and saying that working hours would increase. \n\nThe government firmly believes that agreement between the parties is the best way forward. This is a view shared by the medical Royal Colleges, NHS Providers and others and we sincerely hope that the BMA will return to the table. To this end, the government has provided the BMA and junior doctors with four cast iron reassurances about its approach to a new contract. These are summarised below:\n\n1. This is not a cost cutting exercise.\n•         We are categorically not seeking to save any money from the junior doctors’ pay bill.\n\n•         Juniors’ pay compares well with comparator professions such as solicitors, and their future earnings potential is attractive - consultants’ earnings are currently in the top 2% of society. We want to continue to support our brightest and best medical graduates by maintaining average earnings, and introducing a fairer and more predictable pay system overall. Notably by:\n\n o Treating all doctors equally by ensuring that pay is linked to progression             through training and responsibility rather than time alone. This is the standard approach elsewhere. There will also be flexibility for exceptions, such as for academic experience and switching to a different specialty. \n\n o Replacing the complex and unfair banding system with increased basic salary and proportionate payments for additional hours with higher rates for hours worked at the most unsocial times. \n1. The new contract will improve patient safety, better supporting a seven day NHS.  \n•         We want to work with staff to ensure the NHS can allocate its staff resource effectively and afford the expanding workforce it needs to improve patient safety across the week. For juniors this means some increase in plain time working, balanced by an increase in basic pay (and associated increased pension accrual). Nights and Sundays will still attract unsocial hours payments and we want to discuss how far plain time working extends to Saturdays.\n\n2. The department’s ambition for the NHS to be the safest health care system in the world is underpinned by reducing, not increasing, the number of hours junior doctors work.\n•         The existing contract created unethical financial incentives for doctors to work excessive and unsafe hours, but new safeguards will go further than legislation to protect doctors and patients. For example:\n\n o   We have guaranteed that a new contract will not impose longer hours.\n o   No junior will be contractually required to work more than an average of 48 hours a week;  \n o   Even those who choose to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations (legally  allowing them to work longer) will be limited to an average of 56 hours a week;\n o   The maximum number of hours in any week will be 72, less than the 91 currently possible under legislation;\n o   There will be limits of no more than four consecutive night shifts and no more than five consecutive long days; \n o   Employers will be contractually required to take action where a junior is concerned about hours as part of a new system of agreed work scheduling ‘with teeth’ that ensures juniors are not overworked. In exceptional approved circumstances doctors would be compensated for hours worked outside their work schedule.\n\n•         We also want Health Education England and the Royal Colleges to work with the BMA and NHS Employers to look at how the training experience can be improved.  \n\n1. We have asked NHS Employers to develop the details of a new contract to ensure that the great majority of junior doctors are at least as well paid as they would be now. \n•         The government has already provided assurances that GP trainees will not be disadvantaged compared to the existing contract. Pay protection would be available for doctors who change to shortage specialities.\n\n•         Flexible Pay Premia would be used to support recruitment in shortage specialities such as emergency medicine, psychiatry and general practice. They could be applied to those who follow a training path that includes academic work. \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-10-16T09:45:19.667Z","updated_at":"2015-10-16T09:45:19.667Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-28/debates/15102840000001/JuniorDoctors%E2%80%99Contracts","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/b8aee046-33ff-402d-9e03-31bff8e29ff0?in=16:21:49&out=19:14:30","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":165905,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/165905.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":"Shut down the domestic ivory market in the UK.","background":"The Conservatives pledged to shut down the UK’s domestic ivory market in their manifesto for the past two elections. 30,000 African Elephants are slaughtered a year for their tusks yet, the government has still not outlawed the trade. From 2009 to 2014, 40% of UK customs seizures were ivory items.","additional_details":"Many African nations, the US, France and even China have committed to outlawing the markets. There are only around 450,000 African Elephants left, in another six years there will be almost half this amount if governments continue to turn a blind eye; the UK are putting Elephants at risk from extinction. If there were not a market, then the elephants would no longer be in danger. The UK needs to set an example that the only tusks of value are those on a live Elephant, before they cease to exist.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":108530,"created_at":"2016-08-29T16:24:48.811Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:00.224Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-08-30T14:22:53.066Z","closed_at":"2017-02-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-30T14:13:03.572Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-02T20:20:20.373Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-17T16:00:52.907Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-14T23:24:34.941Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-06","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-07T13:44:04.329Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-17","summary":"The Government shares concerns about the crisis facing African elephants from poaching and illegal trafficking and has proposed a ban on trade in modern day ivory as a step towards a total ban. ","details":"The Government is deeply concerned by the continued poaching of elephants for their ivory, which is why we are committed to maintaining the current global ban on any international trade in new ivory.\n\nWe have been actively exploring options to implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to press for a total ban on ivory sales. On 21 September the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a ban on sales of items containing ivory dated between 1947 and the present day, making UK rules on ivory sales among the world’s toughest. The Government will consult on the ban early next year as a first step in meeting the manifesto commitment. This will complement our existing approach of not permitting sales of raw ivory tusks of any age.\n\nDr Thérèse Coffey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, attended the recent 17th Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) during September 2016. The UK was pleased that at the CITES Conference, Parties voted against a resumption of trading in modern day ivory, in line with recent domestic UK action. There was also a clear direction to close national ivory markets where these fuel poaching and illegal trade and decisive action to strengthen National Ivory Action Plans, which help combat ivory trafficking in key markets.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-11-17T16:00:52.905Z","updated_at":"2016-11-17T16:00:52.905Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-06/debates/04A0F6F6-C215-49E0-BF6B-87C55BE1AFE9/DomesticIvoryMarket","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/81fef046-e287-4dac-b504-fab2b161a552","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":165672,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/165672.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":"End the badger cull instead of expanding to new areas","background":"Since 2013, thousands of badgers have been killed in a Government cull attempting to control bovine TB. Against scientific advice & before a 4 year trial has completed, the government is now expanding the cull to new counties - tens of thousands of healthy badgers could be killed. ","additional_details":"Experts in disease control and animal welfare agree that pilot badger culls have proven both ineffective and inhumane. Shooting badgers is also expensive, costing tax-payers some £5,000 per animal. Bovine TB is a serious problem but killing badgers is not the solution, and could actually make the situation worse. It is a costly distraction from an effective solution incorporating vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures and improved testing.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":108320,"created_at":"2016-08-25T12:12:07.185Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:19:54.939Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-08-25T16:25:31.192Z","closed_at":"2017-02-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-25T16:22:38.003Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-30T22:25:55.358Z","government_response_at":"2016-09-21T14:25:14.649Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-04T15:10:28.181Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-02-22","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-03-27","debate_outcome_at":"2017-03-28T11:55:56.885Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-09-21","summary":"The Government is pursuing a comprehensive bovine TB eradication strategy including tighter cattle controls, biosecurity, and badger control in areas where the disease is widespread.  ","details":"Bovine TB is the greatest animal health threat to the UK. Dealing with this dreadful disease is costing taxpayers over £100 million each year and last year alone more than 28,000 cattle had to be slaughtered in England, causing devastation and distress for farmers and rural communities, where often herds have often been built up over many generations.   \n\nThat is why it is essential that we eradicate bovine TB.  \n\nWe are taking strong action to deliver a long-term plan to eradicate the disease and protect the future of the UK’s dairy and beef industries, with a comprehensive strategy including tighter cattle testing and movement controls, improving biosecurity on farm and when trading, and badger control in areas where badgers are an important factor in spreading disease to cattle.   \n\nThis approach is backed up by the evidence and experience of other countries. This approach has successfully eradicated bovine TB in Australia and is working in Ireland and New Zealand.  \n\nThere is still a long way to go. While cattle controls can have a significant impact, the Government’s Chief Veterinary Officer and the British Veterinary Association agree that we won’t eradicate the disease without dealing with the spread of TB from infected wildlife too.   \n\nThere is broad scientific consensus that badgers are implicated in the spread of TB in cattle in parts of England. \n\nTB was first found in English badgers in 1971. In 1974 badgers were removed from a severely infected cattle farm with the result that there were no herd TB outbreaks there for five years. Between 1975 and 1978 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funded work that demonstrated conclusively that there is a link between TB in badgers and cattle. Subsequent work in Ireland has reaffirmed that finding.\n\nThe Krebs Review observed that between 1975 and 1979 when gassing was used to remove badgers, cattle TB incidence in the South-West fell from 1.65% to 0.4%, a 75% reduction. Subsequently, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, more widespread badger removal was carried out in three areas. In Thornbury, Gloucestershire, cattle TB incidence fell from 5.6% in the ten years before badger removal to 0.45% in the fifteen years afterwards, a reduction of 90%. In Steeple Leaze, Dorset, there were no herd TB outbreaks for seven years after badgers were removed. In Hartland, Devon, cattle TB incidence dropped from 15% in 1984 to just 4% in 1985, a reduction of more than two thirds.\n\nFollowing concerns that those exercises lacked rigorous scientific ‘controls’ the government commissioned the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Despite the challenge of the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak, the RBCT showed that in the four years after proactive badger removal there was a significant reduction in cattle TB incidence relative to control areas. The greatest relative reduction seen was 54% in the eighteen months after proactive badger removal operations, when the full benefits began to appear. The RBCT confirmed what the previous exercises had shown.\n\nLicensed badger control operations led by local farmers and landowners in parts of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Dorset have shown that it is safe, humane and effective in reducing the number of badgers needed to bring down disease levels in cattle.  \n\nBased on the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer, we are extending this approach over a wider area to bring greater disease control benefits to hard-pressed farmers in the South West. \n\nWe have also funded licensed private badger vaccination projects to help create a buffer zone around the South-West where TB is most widespread. However TB vaccination does not provide complete protection and it has no impact on infected badgers so it cannot replace culling and a shortage of the vaccine means it’s not an option right now.  \n\nTo ensure we have a successful and resilient industry, we are determined to use all available measures necessary to eradicate this devastating disease as quickly as possible.   \n\nWe will continue to deliver on our 25-year strategy for a TB-free England. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-09-21T14:25:14.646Z","updated_at":"2016-09-21T14:25:14.646Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-03-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-27/debates/7EE168FA-D5CD-41B5-9563-E801D4777EE3/BadgerCulling","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/94880530-c845-4ce1-99df-b464223f225e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":168127,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168127.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":"Demand an end to the pay restraint imposed on agenda for change NHS staff.","background":"Agenda for change staff including nursing, midwifery, healthcare assistants and associated healthcare professionals have suffered a pay restraint since 2010. Losing approximately 14% in real terms of their pay, staff are struggling nationwide and many have been pushed into poverty.  ","additional_details":"The impact of the pay restraint is harsh. Many are sadly leaving the professions they love. There is an NHS staff crisis. In London we lack 10,000 nurses. Yet two fifths of nurses living in the capital plan to leave as they are unable to pay their rent. Staff reporting using food banks and hardship funds is increasing. The pay restraint must end. \r\nhttps://www.nursingtimes.net/news/workforce/london-nurses-priced-out-of-capital-by-housing-costs/7004379.article\r\nhttps://www.rcn.org.uk/nursingcounts","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":106409,"created_at":"2016-09-29T18:08:16.227Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:42.654Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-03T16:42:35.321Z","closed_at":"2017-04-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-29T18:31:09.096Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-05T07:01:54.062Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-11T13:59:50.758Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-17T03:20:53.569Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-01-30","debate_outcome_at":"2017-01-31T10:18:21.666Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-11","summary":"Agenda for Change staff are vital. They work incredibly hard for patients and deserve to be fairly rewarded. We are committed to ensuring trusts can afford to employ the staff the NHS needs. ","details":"NHS staff are our greatest asset. Despite the pressures on the NHS driven by an increasingly aged and frail population, nurses, and all our hard working NHS staff continue to put patients first, keeping them safe whilst providing the high quality care patients and their families expect.\n\nThe Government has protected NHS front line funding whilst increasing staffing levels with over 3,500 more nurses and midwives employed since May 2010 and over 51,000 nurses currently in training.\n\nHealth Education England, NHS England and the Department have taken a range of actions to boost the supply of domestically trained staff and to increase the efficiency and productivity of the existing workforce.  The NHS is already recruiting more home-grown nurses, promoting return to practice programmes and improving retention of existing staff. For example, an additional £5 million will support the Return to Practice scheme, aimed at encouraging and supporting experienced nurses who have left the profession to return. More than 2,300 returners have been on the programme, with over 700 now back in employment. Reforms to the funding of pre-registration nurse education will enable universities to significantly expand training places by the end of the parliament.\n\nThe Government greatly values the important work that Agenda for Change (AfC) staff do in delivering essential public services and it is crucial that the public sector continues to recruit, retain and motivate the highest quality staff. In responding to the 2013 Francis Enquiry into the appalling events at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, it was right that trusts wanted to ensure they had the right number of nurses to provide safe quality care. The demand for nurses was much higher than planned, but nearly three years on,  trusts cannot either provide safe quality care or balance their books; they must do both.\n\nThere is a trade-off between pay and jobs in many public services, and pay restraint is one of the many difficult choices the Government has had to make.  At Summer Budget 2015, the Government announced that it will fund public sector workforces for an average pay award of 1 percent for four years from 2016/2017.  The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that this policy will protect 200,000 public sector jobs. Whilst pay restraint is challenging, CPI inflation has been at historic low levels, currently 0.6%. Overall earnings for nurses and other non-medical staff have increased year-on-year since 2010/11, in total by 4.0% or 0.8% a year. Average basic pay per full time equivalent has increased by more than the impact of annual pay awards.\n\nAverage earnings for qualified nurses were £31,214 in the 12 months to June 2016, a slight increase from the same time last year and above the £31,189 figure for the NHS as a whole, which remains well above the national average salary for 2015 of £27,500 a year.\nFor nurses and midwives employed in the NHS between March 2010 and March 2015, average total earnings (adjusted for changes in contracted hours) increased by 2.2% a year.\n\nThe NHS is one of few public sector workforces that receive incremental pay. Around half of AfC staff receive incremental pay of around 3% on average.  A typical qualified nurse (Band 5) can expect seven years of pay progression averaging around 3.8% a year, in addition to annual pay awards.\n\nWe know pay is not the only reason nurses and other health workers choose a career in the NHS. The reward package also includes a valued pension scheme and other non-pay benefits. Members of the pension scheme can generally expect to receive around £3 to £6 in pension benefits value for every £1 they contribute, while flexible working patterns help staff better manage their personal commitments.\n\nWe appreciate that housing and travel costs in London can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining the nurses and other key workers the NHS needs.  The reward package for AfC staff that work in and around London includes High Cost Area Supplements:\n• 20% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £4,158 and a maximum payment of £6,405 for staff that work in ‘inner’ London;\n• 15% of basic salary subject to a minimum payment of £3,518 and a maximum payment of £4,483 for ‘outer’ London; and\n• 5% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £961and a maximum payment of £1,665 for the London ‘fringe’.\n\nThe Department is also considering how best to take account of the housing requirements for NHS staff, particularly in high-cost areas to support permanent staffing.\n\nThe 2015 NHS Staff Survey shows that for nurses and midwives morale and motivation has improved since 2014. It is critical that the NHS continues to work hard on its staff engagement strategies. We want the NHS to be a place where nurses want to work, where poor care, poor behaviour, bullying and harassment is not tolerated. We know there is a strong link between the reduction in patient standardised mortality rates and organisations with high staff engagement.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-11-11T13:59:50.754Z","updated_at":"2016-11-11T13:59:50.754Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-01-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-01-30/debates/86C7A0AE-7CA2-4142-9B4A-A03DA115C397/AgendaForChangeNHSPayRestraint","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b18b254b-2450-4a4d-86d0-947792490a6c","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125475,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125475.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":"Debate in the House the Local Government Pension Scheme Investment Regulations","background":"5 million people rely on the LGPS to pay their pensions. Government wants powers over LGPS investment funds, but they could gamble away members’ money on infrastructure projects. This is not allowed in any other UK scheme, including the MPs'. The LGPS must be invested in members’ best interests.","additional_details":"Parliament must debate this issue and make the government accountable for these powers of intervention as any such direction may breach the law. Specifically Article 18 paragraph 3 of the EU Directive 41/2003 Institutions for Occupational Retire Provision: “Member States shall not require institutions located in their territory to invest in particular categories of assets.”","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105772,"created_at":"2016-03-22T15:03:30.283Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:57.008Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-24T12:23:05.111Z","closed_at":"2016-09-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-22T15:25:36.046Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-04T11:57:09.382Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-19T13:36:04.033Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-19T18:07:18.224Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-10-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-10-24","debate_outcome_at":"2016-10-25T09:30:15.905Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-19","summary":"LGPS investment decisions will remain matters for local authorities, but councils should compare their investments in infrastructure against the example set by leading global pension fund investors.  ","details":"Councils must invest local government pension scheme funds in the best interests of scheme members.  \n\nThe Government has no intention of setting targets for infrastructure investment or removing the right of individual pension fund authorities to make their own decisions about strategic asset allocation. However, the pooling scheme assets announced at the July 2015 Budget will improve their capacity to invest in infrastructure, as well as achieving significant cost savings, while maintaining returns. \n\nWe have recently consulted on proposals to grant the Secretary of State a power of intervention which would further protect members’ and taxpayers’ interests. We expect that the power to intervene would be used exceptionally when there was clear evidence that a pension fund authority was not acting reasonably and lawfully, The Government is currently considering the responses to the consultation. \n\nDepartment for Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2016-04-19T13:36:04.029Z","updated_at":"2016-04-19T13:36:04.029Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-24/debates/A7FADB91-3C81-4C9D-A6C9-791C57EEC3B2/LocalGovernmentPensionScheme","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/18de8731-47af-4d8b-8a0f-0c279c55d131","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":109702,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/109702.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":"Restrict the use of fireworks to reduce stress and fear in animals and pets","background":"Fireworks now occur at all times of the day and evening for many weeks during the autumn and winter. Pet and animal owners struggle to keep their companion animals safe during this extended period. We call for fireworks use by the general public to be permitted on traditional celebration dates only.","additional_details":"The need for reform of the Firework Regulations (2004) has been recognized by a number of organizations and charities. Current regulations are outdated and largely ineffective and we are calling for the improved regulation of fireworks use in the UK. The main need is to restrict fireworks use by the general public to the traditional dates around the Guy Fawkes, New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year celebrations. Further discussion is at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FireworkABatement/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":104038,"created_at":"2015-10-01T21:38:23.760Z","updated_at":"2017-11-23T17:10:32.907Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-02T14:40:03.194Z","closed_at":"2016-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-01T21:59:24.108Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-27T10:44:48.165Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-05T10:04:18.740Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-21T11:52:53.642Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-04-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-06-06","debate_outcome_at":"2016-06-07T12:50:31.955Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-05","summary":"We are aware that fireworks can cause distress to animals.  Restrictions on the general public’s use of fireworks, and permitted noise levels, already exist and we have no plans to extend them.","details":"Current firework regulations allow fireworks for home use to be sold during the traditional firework periods of Bonfire Night (15 October – 10 November), New Year’s Eve (26 December – 31 December), Chinese New Year (the day of the Chinese New Year and three days immediately before), and Diwali (the day of Diwali and three days immediately before).\n\nSuppliers who wish to sell fireworks outside the traditional periods must comply with stringent conditions before being granted a licence by their local licensing authority.  This means the availability and use of fireworks outside the traditional periods has been greatly reduced.\n\nThe regulations also created a curfew preventing the use of fireworks between 11.00pm and 7.00am all year round with the exception of 5 November, when the curfew starts at 12 midnight, and New Year’s Eve, Chinese New Year and Diwali, when the curfew starts at 1.00 am on the night of celebration.\n\nWe understand concerns about the distress noisy fireworks can cause to pets, livestock and wildlife.   This is one of the reasons that there is a noise level limit of 120 decibels on fireworks for home use.   We realise, however, that even at this level fireworks noise can be distressing to some animals and refer owners to advice on keeping animals safe during fireworks periods.  This is freely available from animal charities, such as the Blue Cross which gives both general and species-specific advice on its website.\n\nIn addition there is Government-sponsored advice and guidance on the safe and considerate use of fireworks on the Safer Fireworks website.\n\nExcessive noise from fireworks, or noise during the curfew period, can be considered a statutory nuisance and local authority environmental health officers have the power to investigate complaints of fireworks noise and act to prevent it where appropriate.\n\nAlthough there is some use of fireworks outside the traditional periods, we believe that the majority of people who use fireworks do so at the appropriate times of year and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them.  There are no plans at the moment to place further limitations on their use.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2015-11-05T10:04:18.737Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T10:04:18.737Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-06-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-06-06/debates/16060612000001/Fireworks","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/be872a6a-721c-4dec-9a5b-0c136d4d1501","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":176555,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/176555.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 mental health education compulsory in primary and secondary schools.","background":"Mental health education is still not part of the UK curriculum despite consistently high rates of child and adolescent mental health issues. By educating young people about mental health in schools, we can increase awareness and hope to encourage open and honest discussion among young people. ","additional_details":"1 in 10 children and young people aged 5 - 16 suffer from a diagnosable mental health disorder - that is around three children in every class. \r\n\r\nThere has been a big increase in the number of young people being admitted to hospital because of self harm. Over the last ten years this figure has increased by 68%. \r\n\r\nMore than half of all adults with mental health problems were diagnosed in childhood. Less than half were treated appropriately at the time. \r\n\r\nSource: YoungMinds \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103554,"created_at":"2017-01-02T10:34:38.056Z","updated_at":"2018-07-27T14:51:01.426Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-01-06T12:56:50.936Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-02T11:33:23.735Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-02T09:54:03.004Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-23T15:06:51.293Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-05-01T18:59:06.450Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-06","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-07T09:59:31.378Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-23","summary":"We want mental health to be an everyday concern in all institutions. Schools should decide how to teach pupils about mental health developing their own curriculum to reflect the needs of their pupils.","details":"Good mental health and wellbeing is a priority for the Department. We want all our children to fulfil their potential and we want to tackle the burning injustice of mental health problems, so that future generations can develop into resilient, confident adults, equipped to go as far as their talents will take them. \n\nWe need to make mental illness an everyday concern for all of us and in every one of our institutions – schools have an important role to play. We want schools to be able to decide themselves how to teach their pupils about mental health- developing their own local PSHE programme to reflect the needs of their pupils, drawing on resources and evidence provided by expert organisations.  \n\nTo support schools in developing their PSHE curriculum, we have funded the PSHE Association to produce guidance and age-appropriate lesson plans to teach about mental health. (https://www.pshe-association.org.uk/curriculum-and-resources?ResourceTypeID=3). \n\nAll schools should teach PSHE, drawing on good practice, and we have outlined this expectation in the introduction to the new national curriculum.\n\nWe are committed to exploring all the options to improve the delivery of PSHE, and the case for further action is actively under review, with particular consideration to improving quality and accessibility. We have also committed to update Parliament further on the Government’s plans during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill.\n\nWe have also announced we will be developing a new green paper on children and young people’s mental health to be published later in the year with new proposals for both improving services and increasing focus on preventative activity.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-02-23T15:06:51.291Z","updated_at":"2017-02-23T15:06:51.291Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-06/debates/C0BDFB2D-549E-4881-9EFB-F7BFF023888A/MentalHealthEducationInSchools","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c7b16ac8-e642-49cb-99ad-a11319df4b4d","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0200","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":168657,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168657.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 make votes matter, adopt Proportional Representation for UK General Elections","background":"The vast majority wants PR. Our FPTP voting system makes Parliament unrepresentative. One party got 37% of the vote and 51% of seats, while 3 parties got 24% of the vote but share 1.5% of seats. FPTP violates the democratic principle of majority rule and causes problems like costly policy reversals.","additional_details":"The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV Referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR. In fact, so few voters wanted either system on offer that the turnout was just 42%.\r\n\r\nThere are tried and tested PR systems that keep the constituency link. They would make every vote matter equally, rather than allowing a minority of swing voters in a few marginal seats to pick the government.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103495,"created_at":"2016-10-06T13:08:12.580Z","updated_at":"2017-10-31T09:50:04.538Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-06T14:11:12.051Z","closed_at":"2017-04-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-06T14:06:15.313Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-12T15:47:29.279Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-24T12:55:42.961Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-14T19:39:49.363Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-09-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-10-30","debate_outcome_at":"2017-10-31T09:44:48.270Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-24","summary":"First Past The Post (FPTP) is a robust method of electing MPs. A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system.","details":"The Government’s manifesto made a commitment to respect the will of the British people as expressed in the 2011 UK Parliamentary elections voting system referendum and keep the First Past the Post system for elections to the House of Commons. The Government, therefore, has no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons.\n\nThe Government is concerned that proportional voting systems would weaken the direct constituency link which is a key feature of our Parliamentary system, and under a proportional system the voting process is more complicated for the voter. \n\nThe Government’s view is that the First Past the Post voting system is the best system for elections to the House of Commons. The system is well established and understood by voters and provides a clear link between constituents and their representatives in Parliament. More often than not, it results in a government with a working majority in Parliament making decisive government possible. \n\nAt the voting system referendum in May 2011, electors were asked whether the Alternative Vote system (AV) should be used instead of the First Past the Post system for electing members of the House of Commons. The referendum produced a clear result with over 13 million voters rejecting the option for change to move away from the First Past the Post system, compared to over 6 million voters who voted for change. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-10-24T12:55:42.959Z","updated_at":"2016-10-24T12:55:42.959Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-10-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-30/debates/9D7C1DE6-0EA9-45D2-AD7E-D0EEB3ECCB92/ProportionalRepresentation","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c52f8c49-55ac-44c8-bf23-b1705afadaf8","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0207","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":111731,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/111731.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":"Include expressive arts subjects in the Ebacc","background":"The English Baccalaureate, or Ebacc, is a standard which maintains that English, maths, science, a language and a humanity define a good education. The exclusion of art, music, drama and other expressive subjects is limiting, short sighted and cruel. Creativity must be at the heart of our schools.","additional_details":"Sec of State for Education, Nicky Morgan, states that she wants 90% of sixteen year olds to have The Ebacc. Numeracy and literacy are certainly key to future success in life, but it is wrong to say that the arts are not worthy of inclusion in a measure used to grade a school's success. Our children deserve a broad, creative education, but the Ebacc is giving rise to massive declines in numbers of students able to choose arts subjects, at a time when the CBI demands more creative people.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102499,"created_at":"2015-11-04T21:57:25.298Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:07:44.799Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-09T15:23:27.747Z","closed_at":"2016-05-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-04T22:27:10.420Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-15T12:22:22.102Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-11T14:32:35.175Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-14T06:46:32.301Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-04-26","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-07-04","debate_outcome_at":"2016-07-05T09:28:46.628Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-11","summary":"The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) is part of the government’s drive for educational excellence everywhere and a consultation on the plans for implementation ran from 3 November to 29 January. ","details":"The government is committed to improving the life chances of young people and believes all young people should study the core academic subjects that give them the skills to succeed. The EBacc subjects provide a rigorous academic education and help to prepare young people for adult life. The EBacc forms only part of the school curriculum and all schools must deliver a curriculum that is balanced and broadly based.\n\nLast summer’s results showed that both the proportion of young people studying EBacc subjects and the proportion studying arts GCSEs increased. Thousands more students took GCSEs in arts subjects in 2015 compared to the previous year. \n\nThe Government believes that arts subjects are important. That is why art and design and music are compulsory subjects within the national curriculum for 5 – 14 year olds.  Pupils also have to study drama, as part of the English curriculum, and dance, as part of the PE curriculum.   At key stage 4, the Government does not believe it is right that every student should have to study an arts subject, but all pupils in maintained schools have a statutory entitlement to be able to study an arts subject if they wish (comprising art and design, music, dance, drama and media arts) as well as design and technology.  \n\nThe government has recently consulted on how best to implement the EBacc commitment and a response to the consultation will be issued in the spring. \n\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2016-02-11T14:32:35.171Z","updated_at":"2016-02-11T14:32:35.171Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-07-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-04/debates/16070422000001/EbaccExpressiveArtsSubjects","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ca06ebdb-0a8e-4867-a9ea-4cc82c94ff54","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":120702,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/120702.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":"Urge the South Korean Government to end the brutal dog meat trade","background":"In South Korea, an estimated 5 million dogs are slaughtered every year for their meat. During the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the South Korean government hid all the dog meat restaurants from the sight of international media to avoid criticism, yet the dog meat industry is still thriving today.","additional_details":"Without any investigation, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) authorised South Korea to hold the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. 30 years have passed but the situation remains the same, if not worse. \r\n\r\nOur government should speak out and urge the IOC and South Korean government to respond to the dog meat issue and make the dog meat trade illegal.\r\n\r\nThe World Dog Alliance have produced an important documentary in response to the brutal trade across Asia.\r\n\r\nhttp://youtu.be/9YcxNXPKtLc ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102131,"created_at":"2016-02-04T13:24:34.308Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:05.790Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-09T15:27:11.523Z","closed_at":"2016-08-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-04T14:14:40.195Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-18T19:27:12.626Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-06T14:32:18.519Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-11T19:45:35.552Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-07-20","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-09-12","debate_outcome_at":"2016-09-13T13:26:23.999Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-06","summary":"The United Kingdom continues to raise the issue of the ongoing consumption of dog meat in the Republic of Korea and most recently debated the issue in Parliament on 5 November 2015.  ","details":"The British Embassy in Seoul has raised the issue of cruelty towards animals on numerous occasions with the South Korean authorities and explained that the UK public and parliamentarians would like to see Korean regulation that would bring the practice to an end.  We will continue to seek further opportunities to raise the issue, in particular as we approach the Winter Olympics in 2018, and will monitor developments in the practice in the Republic of Korea. \n\nWe believe that it is necessary to work with governments around the world to build agreement on animal welfare standards and to phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices.  \n\nWe welcome the work that non-governmental organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Change for Animals Foundation and the Humane Society International undertake with authorities of other countries to improve standards of animal welfare.\n\nParliament debated the ongoing consumption of dog meat on 5 November 2015.  The debate covered three main themes: the treatment of animals, the health risks associated with eating dog meat; and the UK’s role in reducing the trade and tackling animal welfare issues.  As we noted at that debate, while we cannot intervene directly in the protection of wildlife abroad, we will continue to raise our concerns on specific animal welfare issues with the relevant authorities.\n\nIn a number of countries, including the Republic of Korea, the sale and consumption of dog meat is legal. In the absence of international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of cat and dog meat, the United Kingdom has no legal grounds to intervene or take trade measures against those countries where consumption of this meat is regarded as normal practice.\n\nThe practice of eating dog soup (posintang) during Boknal (three days throughout the summer) in the Republic of Korea is declining rapidly as attitudes change and the vast majority of Koreans eat samgaetang instead (chicken and ginseng soup).   The trend is such that dogmeat eating is likely to die out of its own accord, though that day could still be some years off.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-04-06T14:32:18.517Z","updated_at":"2016-04-06T14:32:18.517Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-09-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-12/debates/B2C64442-0447-45BE-8A4D-CEE3E038FF53/DogMeat(SouthKorea)","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e5c0e472-edfa-421d-ad27-5b04760cdd5e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":169835,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/169835.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Call on the Government to urge Whirlpool UK to recall all faulty tumble dryers","background":"Following hundreds of fires caused by Whirlpool tumble dryers, we are concerned that Whirlpool have not recalled the approximately 5 million faulty dryers and have not changed their safety advice to customers, as recommended by the London Fire Brigade, who advise consumers to stop using the dryers.","additional_details":"There have been several hundred fires caused by Whirlpool tumble dryers, including on 19 August 2016, in a block of flats in Shepherds Bush, which left 26 homes uninhabitable. \r\n\r\nWe are concerned that manufacturers Whirlpool UK have failed to recall the faulty dryers, of which there are around 5 million in Britain, and have not changed their safety advice to consumers, despite the London Fire Brigade advising consumers to stop using the machines with immediate effect.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101980,"created_at":"2016-10-19T16:18:00.418Z","updated_at":"2017-09-13T17:04:58.161Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-01T10:15:42.551Z","closed_at":"2017-05-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-21T16:12:01.173Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-10T19:24:04.794Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.872Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-24T14:38:23.527Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-09-13T17:04:58.158Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-27","summary":"Government has set up a Working Group to look at options to improve Product Recalls and Safety, and is in close contact with the enforcing authority working with Whirlpool to rectify this issue.   ","details":"The Government places significant importance on the issue of product safety and considers that the safety of consumers should be the number one priority for manufacturers. Consumers can reasonably expect clear advice on how to safely use products in their home, and prompt and effective action should be taken if a safety issue is identified.  \n\n• The Government recognises the efforts Whirlpool has made to rectify the problem with its affected tumble dryers.  Of the 1.5 million affected appliances that consumers have registered with the manufacturer, 1.3m appliances have been modified or replaced and Whirlpool are resolving approximately 100,000 cases a month. However, the Government recognises that there remain many unregistered appliances in use across the UK.  \n\nMargot James, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility has written to Whirlpool and met representatives of the company, urging them to progress their programme of replacement and repair, and to improve communications with consumers on this issue.  The Minister has, in particular, raised concerns about reaching out to those consumers with an affected machine who have not yet signed up for a repair or replacement.   \n\nProduct safety legislation in the UK is enforced by Local Authority Trading Standards departments.  The Government is in close contact with Peterborough City Council Trading Standards department who, as the lead regulator in this matter, have access to the most relevant information to provide a full assessment of the risk posed by the affected machines.  Peterborough Trading Standards have taken enforcement action, issuing Whirlpool with a ‘notice to warn’ that requires the company to warn consumers not to use the affected appliances until they have been modified.  The two organisations are currently working together to ensure compliance.\n\nMore generally, in October last year, the Government announced the establishment of a new Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety to look at further options to improve the safety of white goods and the recalls system. The Working Group aims to build on the good work of the Recall Review Steering Group, which was established following the Lynne Faulds-Wood review into product recalls.  \n\nThe Working Group brings together key stakeholders from a range of trade associations, product safety experts, the fire service and trading standards professionals.  The Chair is Neil Gibbins – former Deputy Chief Fire Officer for Devon and Somerset - who has a long and proven track record in fire safety and has worked with the Government and other stakeholders on the Regulators Excellence Forum.  \n\nThe Group has been tasked to develop credible recommendations to ensure that the system works well for everyone.  In particular, the Minister has asked the Group to consider and develop options around:\n• the causes of fire in white goods and the steps we can take to reduce them;\n• ways to improve the capture and use of data relating to faulty electrical goods;\n• the value of marking white goods to preserve their identification through fire;\n• registration of electrical products at the point of sale;\n• a code of practice for product recalls including the peer review of risk assessments; \n• improving the information available to consumers and the role of consumer education.\n\nThe Working Group passed its initial recommendations for propriety action for the Government to the Minister in December 2016.  The five recommendations are:\n• greater co-ordination of product safety recalls and enforcement at the national level;\n• developing Primary Authority Partnerships as a means of increasing access to helpful, practical advice for businesses and ensuring effective relationships between businesses and their lead regulating body;\n• developing a Code of Practice on managing effective correction action including recalls;\n• government support for AMDEA’s ‘Register my Appliance’ as a means to ensure consumers are informed of relevant safety issues for products they have bought;\n• undertaking research into consumer behaviour to understand how best to encourage consumers to engage with a corrective action when a problem is identified with a product.\n\nThe Group is continuing to develop an action plan and will provide a final report to the Minister in March.  \n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.870Z","updated_at":"2017-02-27T17:16:00.870Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated in Parliament. \r\n \r\nThere was a debate on 13 September 2016 on the fire risk from faulty tumble dryers.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-13/debates/BC9CE4E0-44BD-489F-ACA1-3784C3042190/FaultyTumbleDryers(FireRisk) \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5ad0cd3c-06cd-4e3f-b6a2-0a9c6d62b6f0?in=18:38:53 \r\n \r\nThere was also a debate on Whirlpool and the product safety system on 26 April 2017.  \r\n \r\nYou can read the transcript of the debate here:  https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-04-26/debates/36405B15-798E-4CF6-9C27-3EC0D3BC7D87/WhirlpoolProductSafetySystem \r\n \r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/17a8cdd3-f391-49c2-83a1-4e4dd1f3c363 \r\n \r\n \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":167596,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/167596.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban all non-recyclable/non-compostable packaging in the UK","background":"The UK fails to recycle over 1.5 million tonnes of plastic packaging waste each year, which ends up in landfill & waterways instead. \r\n\r\nCreating packaging that our society cannot deal with is blatantly unsustainable. We urgently need 100% recyclable/compostable packaging on every product in the UK.","additional_details":"The UK currently recycles 64% of all packaging waste, but only about 32% of plastic packaging waste.\r\n\r\nThis is unacceptable. We cannot let big business create more packaging that our society cannot deal with - it may be good for profits but it is irresponsible and unsustainable.\r\n\r\nWe call upon our leaders to take action: to ban all non-sustainable packaging on all products, with a grace period of 5 years to allow manufacturers to integrate viable, sustainable alternatives into their supply chains.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101941,"created_at":"2016-09-21T10:56:18.861Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:31.495Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-09-21T15:44:26.051Z","closed_at":"2017-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-21T11:47:43.001Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-03T09:32:08.782Z","government_response_at":"2017-01-17T15:20:45.209Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-01T00:06:06.328Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-01-23","debate_outcome_at":"2017-01-24T12:25:24.430Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-01-17","summary":"The Government is committed to increasing recycling rates and recognises more needs to be done. We will continue to encourage the use of recycled materials in products and recycling by consumers. ","details":"Almost all packaging materials are technically recyclable. However, not all may actually be recycled for a number of reasons: it may not be economically viable for a local council to collect and recycle some formats; local reprocessing infrastructure may be limited, and there may be a lack of end markets for some types of recycled materials.\n\nWe are aware of the interest in compostable packaging, but the composition of packaging remains a decision for individual businesses and their customers and consumers. It is worth noting that biodegradable materials must be properly disposed of if the benefits of such technologies are to be fully realised.  While biodegradable material may be able to reduce the impact of waste, it can also be more environmentally damaging than non-biodegradable plastic packaging if disposed of incorrectly.  If biodegradable packaging is put in the domestic waste bin it is likely to end up in landfill and break down to release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.  Furthermore, if biodegradable packaging is mistakenly recycled with other plastics, it has the potential (when it biodegrades at a later date) to damage the quality of the new products – such as damp-proof courses for houses – made from the recycled plastic. However, the Government does support the development of sustainable biodegradable plastics and works with industry and trade organisations on this issue.\n\nIt is ultimately for businesses to decide what packaging materials they use to supply products to customers. However, retailers and their suppliers are encouraged to use materials that are widely collected for recycling wherever possible. For example, the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations place a legal obligation on UK businesses that make or use packaging to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they place on the market is recovered and recycled. This creates an incentive for companies to use less packaging and to ensure that their packaging can be recycled at end of life as it will reduce their costs in complying with the Regulations. The targets for plastic packaging are set to increase until 2020 and we are currently consulting on possible increases for other materials. \n\nBusinesses are also encouraged to reduce waste arising in the first place by using appropriately sized packaging. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations require businesses to ensure that all packaging does not exceed what is needed to make sure that the products are safe, hygienic and acceptable for both the packed product and for the consumer.  These Regulations apply to those responsible for the packing or filling of products into packaging and those importing packed or filled packaging into the UK from elsewhere.\n\nWorking through the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the Government is developing and delivering activities in support of the use of recycled materials in new products and activities to stimulate its demand. For example, the Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan has identified key actions that need to take place across the whole supply chain to ensure that recycling plastics packaging can be done sustainably. This includes design for recyclability, collections and sorting, reprocessing and development of sustainable end markets. In September last year, WRAP and an industry advisory group published a framework for greater consistency in recycling. Actions from this framework aim to identify opportunities to rationalise packaging formats (in particular plastic packaging) to those that are recyclable and for which there is a steady market, and to help local authorities to recycle a greater variety of plastics.\n\nThe Government is committed to increasing recycling rates. Current policies and regulations have resulted in a significant increase in recycling over the last decade, with recycling of packaging rising from around 46% in 2005 to 59% in 2014, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We will continue to work with businesses, local authorities and waste managers to encourage the use of recycled materials where possible in products and activities to stimulate demand.   \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-01-17T15:20:45.206Z","updated_at":"2017-01-17T15:20:45.206Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-01-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-01-23/debates/590623BD-398C-4586-A693-FCC1DB5EA444/Non-RecyclableAndNon-CompostablePackaging","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/84903098-e7b6-40af-b1f7-f07e415d5a9f","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":120753,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/120753.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":"Parliament to sit on Saturdays which should be a \"normal working day\" for MPs.","background":"Doctors have been told that Saturdays are part of the \"normal working\" week so that the Government can avoid paying them extra to do so. MPs should lead by example and meet on a Saturday too. With their new 6 day week MPs would get more Parliamentary work done. There should be no extra pay for this.","additional_details":"I am a GP and although not a junior Dr, believe that Politicians are at least as important if not more important than the people they lead and who they set policies for. As \"we are all in it together\", The policies and rules they set should apply to them as equally as for any members of the workforce.\r\n\r\nAs there is never enough time for Parliament to sit and weigh up all the pressing and important matters of Government, I think Parliament should sit 6 days/week with Saturday being part of their normal working week as it is proposed for other workers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":100353,"created_at":"2016-02-04T23:01:25.777Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:05.590Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-05T12:19:37.126Z","closed_at":"2016-08-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-05T09:57:34.138Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-07T22:11:35.297Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.510Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-19T08:52:31.676Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-09-06T16:41:47.192Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-22","summary":"MPs routinely work at weekends and are directly accountable to their electorate on how they perform their role.","details":"Attendance at the House of Commons is only one part of a Member of Parliament’s work. MPs spend time in their constituencies meeting residents, local businesses and organisations, listening to their concerns and helping them with issues. They are held to account by their electorate. \n\nThe rate of MPs’ pay, pensions and expenses, which is not linked to the numbers of hours they work, is set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). \n\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.508Z","updated_at":"2016-02-22T14:58:49.508Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. In making decisions about which petitions should be debated, the Committee takes into account whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons. \r\n \r\nThe subject of junior doctors’ contracts, including weekend working, was covered in a debate on e-petition 121262, relating to contract negotiations with the BMA. This debate was scheduled by the Petitions Committee on 21 March 2016.\r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/641c6fb7-a2a0-47e0-8b10-e3c99e765c2b\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here: http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-03-21/debates/16032112000001/BMA(ContractNegotiations)\r\n\r\nThere have also been several debates and statements in the House of Commons about junior doctors’ contracts in recent months. Most recently, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement on 5 September 2016 about proposed industrial action by junior doctors, during which the issue of doctors’ pay for Saturday working was raised. \r\n\r\nYou can watch the statement here: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/1aabe153-edf0-49eb-b986-35b025570b4d?in=18:26:22\r\n\r\nYou can read the transcript here:  http://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-09-05/debates/16090515000001/JuniorDoctorsIndustrialAction \r\n\r\nThe Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website: http://www.parliament.uk/petitions-committee/role\r\n\r\nYou can follow the Petitions Committee on Twitter: @HoCpetitions ","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":128833,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/128833.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":"Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe","background":"The Government should accept the call to give sanctuary to child refugees who are alone and at risk in Europe.\r\n","additional_details":"95,000 child refugees are on their own in Europe as a result of the refugee crisis. They are sleeping rough and in makeshift camps, desperately vulnerable to abuse and to trafficking into modern slavery.\r\n\r\nWe rightly look back with pride at the leadership our nation showed in rescuing 10,000 children from Europe through the Kindertransport. \r\n\r\nBritain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe today.\r\n\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":93905,"created_at":"2016-04-26T13:21:11.972Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:34.771Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-04-26T13:56:19.838Z","closed_at":"2016-10-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-26T13:28:37.137Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-26T21:47:55.313Z","government_response_at":"2016-05-12T15:44:39.490Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-05-12","summary":"As announced on 4 May, the Government will work with local authorities on plans to resettle unaccompanied refugee children from Europe.","details":"On 4 May it was announced that the Government will work with local authorities on plans to resettle unaccompanied children from Europe.  We are looking to transfer children who were already registered in Europe before the EU-Turkey deal came into force on 20 March, where it is in their best interests.\n\nWe must put the best interests of children first, and avoid any policy that places children at additional risk or encourages them to place their lives in the hands of the people traffickers and criminal gangs.  In any response, we need to be very careful not to inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in sending children ahead, putting their lives at risk by attempting perilous sea crossings to Europe.\n\nWe will work closely with local authorities. We must ensure we fulfil our obligations to children who are already in UK, as well ensuring we have the right support for those who may be brought to the UK from Europe.\n\nWe will consult relevant NGOs, UNHCR, UNICEF and Member States on how best we implement this legislation.  The very nature of this amendment means we must take the time to consult others before bringing final proposals on how to implement.\n\nIn addition to the above, the UK continues to take a comprehensive approach to the Syria conflict and migration crisis by providing significant aid and assistance; including our resettlement programmes.  On 4 February 2016, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will more than double our total pledge to the Syria crisis from £1.12 billion to over £2.3 billion.  This is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  The Syrian Resettlement Scheme has already provided safe haven to more than 1000 vulnerable Syrians – around half of them children - and overall we expect children to make up a significant proportion of the 20,000 resettlement places we are providing to this group.\n\nAs announced on 21 April, we have worked closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to design a resettlement scheme that will protect the most vulnerable children. The new scheme has been designed with the UNHCR to resettle ‘children at risk’ from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.  The Government has committed to resettling several hundred individuals in the first year with a view to resettling up to 3000 individuals over the lifetime of this Parliament, the majority of which will be children, where the UNHCR deem it to be in their best interests. Children who are identified as at risk will be resettled with their family members or carers where appropriate.  There will be a review of the scheme at the two year mark.\n\nThis unique initiative will be the largest resettlement effort that focuses on children at risk from the MENA region.  The new scheme will be in addition to the Prime Minister’s commitment to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees. It is also in addition to our other existing resettlement schemes. \n\nIn regards to Europe, we are providing significant assistance to Member States facing particular pressures to ensure that all refugees can have effective access to protection, wherever they are.   The UK is the largest bilateral contributor to the humanitarian response to the crisis in Europe and the Balkans with a total contribution of £65m.  This includes nearly £46 million to provide life-saving aid to migrants and refugees including food, water, hygiene kits and infant packs, and protection for the most vulnerable, as well as support to organisations helping governments build their capacity to manage arrivals in Greece and the Balkans. The efforts of the partners we fund are targeted to reach the most vulnerable - including children.\n\nIt also includes the £10m Refugee Children Fund the Department for International Development (DFID) has created to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children specifically in Europe. The fund will support three specialist and mandated organisations UNHCR, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children in Europe and the Balkans. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-05-12T15:44:39.484Z","updated_at":"2016-05-12T15:44:39.484Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":179617,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/179617.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":"Allow GCSE Students to have a formula sheet in their tests","background":"The past GCSE students had a formula sheet during their gcse tests and the new GCSE students don't. If the government can recite them back to us then of course we can use a sheet but for now it's unfair ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":91913,"created_at":"2017-01-30T10:04:53.259Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:25:41.363Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-03T10:14:14.006Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-30T11:24:27.133Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-12T20:27:29.735Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-27T17:59:45.104Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-27","summary":"The government made changes to GCSE mathematics, including the use of formulae, to ensure rigour and to match expectations in the highest performing education jurisdictions internationally.","details":"The purpose of the new GCSE is to provide a strong mathematical foundation for every student and a sound basis for those students wanting to progress to study mathematics at a higher level after age 16. \n\nInternational studies such as PISA, the Programme for International Student Assessment have found that England’s performance in mathematics at age 15 lags significantly behind that of leading education systems, particularly those in the Far East. The government is determined to address this issue by improving the rigour and challenge of GCSE mathematics qualifications and by offering support to schools to improve mathematics teaching. \n\nMathematics is a formal discipline that is central to all sciences and technical fields, and is increasingly crucial to a range of other academic, professional and employment sectors. It is essential that we improve our performance in mathematics to ensure that our young people gain the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a modern economy.\n\nThe government consulted extensively on revised GCSE content, including the use of formulae. Subject content and assessment objectives for the new mathematics GCSE were published on 1 November 2013 and can be found here: \nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-mathematics-subject-content-and-assessment-objectives \nThe aims of the GCSE are to enable students to:\n• develop fluent knowledge, skills and understanding of mathematical methods and concepts; \n• acquire, select and apply mathematical techniques to solve problems;\n• reason mathematically, make deduction and inferences and draw conclusions; and\n• comprehend, interpret and communicate mathematical information in a variety of forms appropriate to the information and context.\nThe GCSE introduces more challenging topics at both higher and foundation tiers. Total examination time is increased, and there is a greater emphasis on problem-solving and mathematical reasoning, with more exam marks allocated to higher-order mathematics. \nStudents will need to memorise some previously given formulae to ensure they have grasped essential formal aspects of mathematics. Other formulae will, however, be still provided in the examination, including the surface area of a cone and a sphere, the volume of a sphere and a cone, and formulae relating to velocity, distance, acceleration and time. \n\nThe government provides over £7m annually to a network of 35 Maths Hubs – school-led centres of excellence in the teaching of mathematics. Maths Hubs support schools to deliver excellent mathematics teaching, including GCSE teaching. We also fund the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) and the Further Maths Support Programme (FMSP), both of which provide expertise and support to schools in the teaching of mathematics. This includes professional development courses to help teachers and schools introduce the new GCSE. Further information about these can be found here:\nhttp://furthermaths.org.uk/cpd\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-02-27T17:59:45.101Z","updated_at":"2017-02-27T17:59:45.101Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":128969,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/128969.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":"Enforce the Consumer Rights Act to protect music, arts and sport fans from touts","background":"Fans are being ripped-off by ticket resales. The Consumer Rights Act has not changed this. We demand that Parliament enact last year’s ticket resale amendment, which provides tougher sanctions for resale websites, and also require ticket resellers to reveal their identities. \r\n","additional_details":"On a commercial scale, touting deprives the Treasury of VAT, and performance copyright holders of royalties that should be paid on the mark-ups. It also denies artistes the ability to ensure their events are priced so anyone can attend.\r\n\r\nAmendment text, beginning page 3: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0134/15134.1-7.html ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":83220,"created_at":"2016-04-27T16:57:17.991Z","updated_at":"2017-10-17T08:57:33.658Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-04-29T14:07:58.504Z","closed_at":"2016-10-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":null,"response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-07T06:53:35.759Z","government_response_at":"2016-06-08T14:41:07.054Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-06-08","summary":"Professor Waterson’s independent review of consumer protection measures concerning online secondary ticketing facilities was published on 26 May 2016. ","details":"The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced new requirements in relation to the re-sale of tickets through online secondary ticketing facilities for recreational, sporting or cultural events in the UK.  These came into force on 27 May 2015.\n\nThe Act placed new obligations to provide information about tickets on both ticket re-sellers and the secondary ticketing facilities and are aimed at providing transparency and protection for consumers.  The measures include the duty to provide information about certain connections the seller might have with either the online facility on which they are selling, or the organiser of the event for which the ticket is being sold.  Other consumer legislation requires the identification of the seller, where they are acting as a ‘trader’.\n\nThe secondary ticketing provisions were introduced in recognition of concerns raised in Parliament that the ticket re-sale secondary market was not functioning correctly and that consumers risked not being sufficiently protected.  \n\nLocal authority trading standards services have a duty to enforce the secondary\nticketing provisions of the 2015 Act in Great Britain (the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is the relevant enforcer for Northern Ireland).  They also enforce other consumer protection legislation, which may be relevant to ticketing.  Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action. The Government expects all sellers, secondary ticketing facilities and event organisers to comply with the Act’s secondary ticketing provisions that apply to them, as well as with any other relevant law, including consumer protection, copyright and taxation.    \n\nIn addition to the obligations described above, the Act required that a review of consumer protection measures should be undertaken. In October 2015, Professor Michael Waterson was appointed to carry out an independent review and his report was published on 26 May 2016:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-protection-measures-applying-to-ticket-resale-waterson-review\n\nProfessor Waterson considers how tickets come to the secondary market and how pricing, ticketing and venue control are intimately linked. He has recommended a number of practical actions that companies in both the primary and secondary ticket markets could take to increase transparency on ticketing for the consumer.  He believes that the primary ticketing market should do more to protect itself from ‘bots’ that mass purchase tickets, including reporting 'bot' attacks to the Police. And he says the secondary sites should do more to ensure sellers using them comply with the provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For reasons he sets out in his Report, Professor Waterson is not convinced that price capping is an appropriate solution to issues in the market at this time.\n\nThe Government will consider Professor Waterson’s Report and respond to it in due course.  \n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-06-08T14:41:07.050Z","updated_at":"2016-10-27T08:19:25.571Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125604,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125604.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":"Save the Human Rights Act","background":"The Human Rights Act is an important act designed to protect each and every individual from inequality and injustice be it from another individual, corporations or our own government. As such the decision to remove or change that protection should, ultimately lie with the people of the UK. ","additional_details":"In the past we've been rightly proud of our tough stance around the world on human rights. \r\nThe UK will not extradite to a country where the death penalty is used. UK politicians have called for Guantanamo to be closed and laws criminalising homosexuality in Africa and elsewhere to be overturned. \r\nWe accept that the Conservative party won the 2015 General Election with a majority, however a decision on something as important as this has to have the backing of the majority of the electorate, not just the 36% that voted Conservative. We are therefore asking you to do the right democratic thing and bring your proposal for a 'British Bill of Rights' before the electorate in a referendum and let them decide if they wish to opt for this, or keep the existing Human Rights legislation.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":81148,"created_at":"2016-03-23T16:12:33.789Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:59.561Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-24T17:39:27.885Z","closed_at":"2016-09-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-23T16:36:53.649Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-26T06:34:37.560Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-19T10:10:10.884Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-19","summary":"We will set out our proposals for a British Bill of Rights in due course. We will consult fully on those proposals.","details":"Fundamental human rights are essential in a modern, civilised democracy such as the United Kingdom. This Government was elected with a mandate to reform and modernise the UK human rights framework. We will set out our proposals to fulfil that commitment in due course and we will consult fully on those proposals.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2016-10-19T10:10:10.882Z","updated_at":"2016-10-19T10:10:10.882Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":119416,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/119416.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make it illegal for any UK political figure to knowingly lie or mislead.","background":"The general population of the UK are tired of listening to outright lies and misrepresentation from the political elite in order to gain votes. \r\nWith a more honest representation of facts our democracy would hand power back to the people it governs. \r\n","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":78468,"created_at":"2016-01-21T16:36:48.445Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:10:34.197Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-01-24T16:30:01.479Z","closed_at":"2016-07-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-22T08:52:18.664Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-26T16:29:17.576Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-21T14:29:01.279Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-21","summary":"The 7 principles of public life apply to those who hold public office. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally. ","details":"The principles also form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office as set out in their respective Codes of Conduct.\n\nThe principles were first set out in 1995 by Lord Nolan, the founding Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) and are as relevant today as they were in 1995.\n\nThe Seven Principles of Public life are: \n\nSelflessness\nHolders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.\n\nIntegrity\nHolders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other  material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.\n\nObjectivity\nHolders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. \n\nAccountability\nHolders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny necessary to ensure this. \n\nOpenness\nHolders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so. .\n\nHonesty\nHolders of public office should be truthful. \n\nLeadership\nHolders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-07-21T14:29:01.276Z","updated_at":"2016-07-21T14:29:01.276Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":128710,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/128710.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":"Lower university fees down to £3,000","background":"The tuition fees at their current prices, are too high. They penalise students. Some can't go to university because they feel as if the current fees are too expensive, and will get themselves in debt for the rest of their lives. We need tuition fees lowered back down to their previous amount.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":72096,"created_at":"2016-04-24T19:53:17.790Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:34.092Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-04-26T11:25:48.041Z","closed_at":"2016-10-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-25T18:21:43.084Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-20T09:42:17.310Z","government_response_at":"2016-06-14T09:10:01.737Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-06-14","summary":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so. All eligible students can apply for an upfront loan to meet the full cost of tuition fees","details":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so, irrespective of their background. That is why all eligible students can apply for an upfront tuition fee loan to meet the full costs of their tuition fees, as well as loans for living costs. \n\nLoans are only repaid once students are earning over £21,000 a year. Students earning below £21,000 will not have to make repayments. Deductions are taken at 9% of any income over that threshold and any outstanding balance will be written off after 30 years.\n\nEligible full-time students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds will also receive 10.3% more living cost support in 2016/17 than under previous student support arrangements.\n\nIn order to charge tuition fees above the basic amount of £6,000 and up to the £9,000 fee cap, higher education institutions are required to agree an access agreement with the Director for Fair Access. Higher education institutions are expected to spend £745 million through these access agreements in 2016/17, this has risen from £395 in 2009/10.  This will be invested in measures to improve the access to university and successful outcomes of disadvantaged students.\n\nThe steps we have taken to ensure higher education remains sustainably financed has enabled us to lift student number controls, so that more people have the opportunity to secure a university place. The proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education is up from 13.6% in 2009 to 18.5% in 2015. \n\nLowering tuition fees would carry a number of possible consequences, including a cut to funding for universities and additional demands on public spending, which would be met through higher taxation, including on those who have not themselves benefited from university. This could also mean the re-imposition of student number controls, leading to fewer university places being available for students.]\n\nThe Government’s approach has struck the right balance between delivering a sustainable system and ensuring higher education remains open and accessible. This has been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which said we are “one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to student finance”. \n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-06-14T09:10:01.724Z","updated_at":"2016-06-14T09:10:01.724Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":170740,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/170740.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":"Suspend the Myanmar Ambassador for Genocide of Rohingya Muslims.","background":"\r\nYale's Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic analysed research conducted by Fortify Rights and Al Jazeera, to see if genocide had been committed as defined by the 1948 U.N. \r\n\r\nClear evidence that four acts of the 1948 U.N. convention on genocide had been committed","additional_details":"- Killing members of the group: The Rohingya, who have a distinctive language, culture, history and traditions, have been killed by security forces, or by the local Rakhine population as security forces stood by without intervening;\r\n\r\n- Serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: They are subjected to rape, torture, arbitrary detention and other crimes;\r\n\r\n- Inflicting conditions to destroy the group: \r\n\r\n- Preventing births within the group: Marriage and birth restrictions. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":71317,"created_at":"2016-10-31T03:05:27.095Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:21:34.852Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-11T11:28:01.615Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-31T10:22:19.162Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-20T10:26:46.272Z","government_response_at":"2016-12-01T11:31:31.227Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-12-01","summary":"The UK is deeply concerned by Rohingya persecution, including recent violence. We have called for restraint, humanitarian access and an investigation. Allegations of genocide are for courts to decide.","details":"The British Government remains deeply concerned by the situation in Rakhine and the persecution of the Muslim minority Rohingya community. It is clear that the Muslim Rohingya minority are being persecuted and denied fundamental rights. The policy of the British Government is that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies.\n\nWe are particularly concerned by the recent flare-up of violence. This was triggered on 9 October, when three Burmese Border Guard Police posts were attacked by Rohingya militants. We condemn this attack in which nine police and eight attackers were killed.  Since then, media, humanitarian and diplomatic access to North Rakhine has been limited by the imposition of a curfew while the military carry out security operations to root out the perpetrators and retrieve the weapons taken during the attacks.  \n\nAlthough the lack of access makes facts difficult to verify, we are deeply concerned about a growing body of anecdotal evidence suggesting human rights violations in the security response.  Reports suggest there could be a serious humanitarian impact if aid is not resumed quickly, particularly impacting those already affected by malnutrition.\n\nIn response to the latest outbreak of violence, our Ambassador visited northern Rakhine together with a number of international counterparts and the UN Resident Coordinator on 2-3 November. He has also lobbied five Ministers (most recently on 21 November), urging a restrained security response, an independent investigation and for the immediate resumption of humanitarian access. \n\nThese same messages were repeated by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for human rights, Baroness Anelay, who visited Burma from 9-12 November. She called on Burmese Ministers to launch an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses, and called for an immediate resumption of humanitarian aid.\n\nThe UK also discussed the issue at the UN Security Council on 17 November, where we raised our concerns about the lack of humanitarian access.\n\nThe Government of Burma has now committed to investigating both the 9 October attacks and allegations of human rights abuses carried out during the military operations in the wake of the initial attack on 9 October. It has also given a further commitment to restore humanitarian access to northern Rakhine State. We believe our efforts are best focused on monitoring implementation of these commitments and pressing privately if they do not move forward.  We further believe the best approach to finding a long-term solution to the underlying inter-communal tensions in Rakhine State is to work with the democratically elected Government to de-escalate tensions. We do not believe expelling the Government’s representative in the UK would assist this process.\n\nSince coming into power in April, Burma’s Government has taken some encouraging steps to begin tackling the issue of Rakhine and the treatment of the Rohingya community. In August State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi announced the establishment of a new hybrid Burmese/international Rakhine Advisory Commission headed by Kofi Annan to provide advice and recommendations for a durable solution to the problems of Rakhine State. We take this announcement as a sign of the seriousness with which the NLD-led Government views the situation there.\n\nNevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.  Our priority remains the resumption of humanitarian aid.  The UK has long been one of the biggest bilateral humanitarian donors to Burma and to Rakhine State. Since 2012, we have provided over £18m in humanitarian assistance, supporting work, including on sanitation and nutrition for over 126,000 people.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-12-01T11:31:31.225Z","updated_at":"2016-12-01T11:31:31.225Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104379,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104379.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 Compulsory Scanning for microchips by vets, rescues and authorities.","background":"The new compulsory microchipping regulations don't go far enough and have only been put into place to save money on the management of stray dogs. Nothing is mentioned about the need to scan microchips and check registration to help find missing and stolen pets.    \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"It's no good giving all dogs microchips if all vets, agencies and other establishments do not scan for microchips as standard procedure every and any time an animal is dealt with whether dead or alive.   \r\n\r\nCompulsory microchipping does not work without compulsory scanning and responsible owners are being let down as we have to rely on a 'Duty of Care' which doesn't work now! ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":70800,"created_at":"2015-07-20T18:24:37.997Z","updated_at":"2017-10-18T08:53:51.730Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T10:28:09.294Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T20:28:19.304Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-01T08:50:10.541Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-11T11:36:14.288Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-11","summary":"On 6 April 2016, it will be a requirement for all dogs to be identified with a microchip.","details":"The Government considers that requiring all dogs to be microchipped will help promote dog welfare and more responsible dog ownership. Microchipped dogs that stray will be more quickly reunited with their owner and spend less time in kennels, which is good for the dog and good for the owner. Microchipping also  reduces burdens on local authorities and dog re-homing centres by cutting the amount of time they spend trying to re-unite displaced dogs with their owners.  \n\nLocal authorities and re-homing centres already scan dogs when they are received into their care.  To help with this process, local authorities have been provided with free scanners by The Kennel Club.\n\nWe do not expect vets to enforce the microchipping requirements.  However, in cases where vets do come across an unmicrochipped dog they can advise the owner about the requirement.      \n\nThere are organisations and agencies who unfortunately may come across dogs that have been killed on the roads or rail network.  The Government have reminded the relevant authorities that as a matter of good practice they should routinely scan such dogs so that owners can be informed.\n\nThe Government does not consider it necessary therefore to require everyone who comes into contact with a dog to scan it in order to check compliance with the microchipping requirements or to establish whether the dog is lost or stolen. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-01-11T11:36:14.285Z","updated_at":"2016-01-11T11:36:14.285Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}