{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=3&state=debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=debated","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=debated","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=3&state=debated"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":228572,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/228572.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make TV election debates happen - establish an Independent Debates Commission","background":"Genuine leaders' debates took place in 2010, but in the next two elections didn't happen. Amend election law to make party leaders take part in a televised debate. ","additional_details":"An Independent Debates Commission would take decision making out of the politicians and broadcasters' hands and ensure TV debates become a regular fixture of UK elections.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":143390,"created_at":"2018-09-11T16:07:00.226Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:38.567Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-21T14:21:06.885Z","closed_at":"2019-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-14T13:57:12.779Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-30T20:32:02.730Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.225Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-29T06:33:04.031Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-12-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-07","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-08T14:33:23.117Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-23","summary":"Televised election debates are a matter for political parties. The Government has no plans to change electoral law to make the debates mandatory.","details":"The proposals for a Debates Commission are something to be considered in due course by political parties, closer to any general election in 2022.\n\nTelevised election debates took place in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 UK Parliamentary general elections. They form one of many mediums that enable political parties to convey their message to members of the public and address key challenges. \n\nTelevised election debates are not mandatory under electoral law. Participating in a televised election debate is down to the discretion of the political party invited to debate. The Government has no plans to change electoral law to make televised elections debates mandatory. \n\nThere are many mediums used by political parties to convey their message to members of the public. These include candidate hustings and political canvassing, which enables electoral candidates to debate policies and directly address members of the public in the run up to an election. These are also not mandatory under electoral law.\n\nAny televised material, including televised election debates, is regulated by Ofcom, the independent media regulator, and is subject to the provisions in the Broadcasting Code. Ofcom does not obligate broadcasters to transmit election debates, nor does it have any decision-making role over the editorial format of any programme.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.222Z","updated_at":"2018-10-23T08:59:06.222Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-07/debates/744E78D3-C664-4543-A078-2EC99D19F5C2/TelevisedElectionDebates","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/066feaf6-a73e-4884-a9ac-6c0ee733ffac","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0286","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219758,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219758.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of products containing unsustainably sourced palm oil in the UK","background":"Global production of and demand for palm oil is increasing rapidly. But this is at the expense of tropical rain-forests which form critical habitats for many endangered species and a lifeline for some human communities. Palm oil can be found in many foods and other household items. We can all help.","additional_details":"Did anyone see the Orangutan Diary on BBC 2? The destruction of this species as well as many others is well underway and their already declining population will decrease by a further 1/3 by 2020 unless action is taken. Thousands upon thousands of orangutans have been killed and the destruction of the rain-forests is increasing at an exponential rate. We cannot control what happens in these countries but we can refuse to accept palm oil sourced via an unsustainable method in the UK.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":89802,"created_at":"2018-05-11T10:02:27.586Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:02.416Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-16T13:15:42.927Z","closed_at":"2018-11-16T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-11T11:48:51.504Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T20:23:33.242Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-23T12:06:55.092Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-11-27","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-12-10","debate_outcome_at":"2018-12-11T15:07:19.624Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-22","summary":"Government and signatories of the UK Statement on Sustainable Production of Palm Oil have achieved a high level of success in working towards 100% sourcing of credibly certified sustainable palm oil.","details":"In October 2012, Defra published the UK Statement on Sustainable Production of Palm Oil. The statement set out that the UK would work towards 100% sourcing of credibly certified sustainable palm oil by the end of 2015. The statement pulled together new and existing commitments on the sourcing of sustainable palm oil which have been made by key organisations representing businesses within the palm oil supply chain in the UK.\n\nThe market for sustainable palm oil is dominated by the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and so ’sustainable’ in this context is commonly understood to mean products certified to RSPO standards and criteria. \n\nConsumption analysis figures in 2015 demonstrated the substantial progress that UK signatories had made since the launch of the UK Statement in October 2012, getting them close to their ambition of sourcing 100% sustainable palm oil. \n\nHowever, palm oil is often embedded as an ingredient in refined goods, making it very difficult to trace how it is sourced and processed. The UK Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil convened by the UK government is working to improve reporting, traceability and understanding of supply chains to ensure continuous improvement and increased use of certified palm oil.    \n\nThe UK has also recognised that more remains to be done at the international level. We are a member of the Amsterdam Declarations Partnership that aims to eliminate deforestation from agricultural commodity chains with European countries and support a 100% sustainable palm oil supply chain in Europe.  As part of this initiative the UK is supporting the development of a strategy which focuses on shared learning across signatory countries and different commodity user groups in those countries, as well as encouraging further action on eliminating deforestation. The UK is also a signatory of the New York Declaration on Forests, a voluntary declaration pledging to halve the rate of deforestation by 2020, to end it by 2030, and to restore hundreds of millions of acres of degraded land.\n\nAt the programming level, the UK supports the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), a public-private initiative with over 90 member organisations, which is taking deforestation out of supply chains for palm oil, pulp and paper, beef and soya. The TFA Africa Palm Oil Initiative recently secured the Marrakesh Declaration on palm oil, under which seven countries and major companies have agreed principles for responsible palm oil in the region. These include respect for human and community rights and no deforestation.\n\nThrough the Partnership for Forests Programme (DFID, BEIS), the UK is supporting public-private partnerships focused on sustainable agricultural production.  Relevant initiatives under P4F included support to the TFA Africa Palm Oil Initiatives, which is working with ten governments in the region, companies and NGOs to encourage the development of a sustainable African palm oil industry, as well as support to the High Carbon Stock approach, which has developed operational guidelines which allow companies to implement zero deforestation commitments. \n\nThrough BEIS’ investment in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund, we are providing results-based finance to countries which put in place large-scale programmes to address deforestation and forest degradation and deliver emission reductions against an agreed base-line.  The Republic of Congo’s programme is largely focussed on sustainable palm oil production. Programmes in Indonesia and Ghana also, to some extent, include activities related to palm oil production. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)","created_at":"2018-11-23T12:06:55.089Z","updated_at":"2018-11-23T12:07:55.255Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-12-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-12-10/debates/552BC0C6-3EBB-4F5E-BCE9-FAB0E2401267/PalmOil","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/eb1ba053-2d8e-4cc6-a4f4-4089ecb75d7e","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0272","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":226071,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/226071.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop possible second referendum on E.U. membership","background":"There is a growing band of people that want to reverse the result of the democratic vote of this country to leave the European Union and are calling for a second referendum. This is mainly by the people that lost the vote two years ago and cannot accept the democratic vote of the majority decision.","additional_details":"Although not legally binding the referendum on whether we stay or leave the EU carried out on the 23rd June 2016 was the clearest indication of the will of the electorate. At that time our Prime Minister David Cameron assured us that the result of the referendum would be carried out. We must ensure the democracy rules","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":135936,"created_at":"2018-07-27T09:09:37.857Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:55.651Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-01T08:55:38.286Z","closed_at":"2019-02-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-27T14:35:34.016Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-22T21:39:46.092Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.050Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-31T12:58:15.160Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-11-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-12-03","debate_outcome_at":"2018-12-04T12:56:40.725Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-06","summary":"A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union. We must respect both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered this result.","details":"The Government is clear that we will respect the result of the 2016 referendum, and that we will not hold a second referendum.\n\nA clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.\n\nParliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\n\nIn last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then also voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum - it was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will expressed by the electorate in the referendum - respecting both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.\n\nThe British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, and to disrespect the powerful democratic values of this country and this government.\n\nThe Government therefore continues to be committed to delivering on the instruction given to us by the British people: working to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities this brings to deliver an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain. \n\nThe people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction and the Government is committed to seeing that through. We will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.047Z","updated_at":"2018-11-06T08:42:03.047Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-12-03","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-12-03/debates/C98FB021-9FF0-459F-AF03-672BD765E14C/EUMembershipSecondReferendum","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4330475e-b1fd-4878-903c-700c4ea4eb81","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0267#fullreport","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231147,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231147.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of fireworks to the public. Displays for licenced venues only.","background":"Every year fireworks are set off unnecessarily.\r\nFireworks are a nuisance to the public. They scare animals, young children and people with a phobia.\r\nThey injure thousands of people every year.\r\nThey cause damage to buildings, vehicles,emergancy vehicles etc.\r\nLastly Kids are STILL being sold them.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":307897,"created_at":"2018-10-24T21:11:57.328Z","updated_at":"2020-03-20T17:46:19.311Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-30T12:37:35.196Z","closed_at":"2019-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-24T23:01:36.654Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-03T17:55:35.038Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.008Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-05T12:12:38.688Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-11-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-27T11:21:48.075Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-21","summary":"Government takes the issue of safety of fireworks very seriously. Legislation is in place to control their sale, use and misuse. We have no plans to change legislation.","details":"Fireworks have played a part in the UK’s history, and have been used for celebrations by many of our cultures – Christian, Hindu, Muslim - for many years. We recognise the enjoyment they bring to many people and the important role that they play in bringing communities together in celebration or remembrance.  Private displays allow families and friends to hold their own displays and create their own traditions, celebrating events throughout the year such as weddings and birthdays. However, there is a limit on when fireworks can be set off, with a nightly curfew after 11pm every day apart from the four traditional dates, when that curfew is extended.  \n\nThe Government understands the strong feelings that many people have about fireworks. But we would like to reassure you that there is already strict legislation in place to regulate the supply, storage, possession, use and misuse of fireworks to ensure public safety. This includes powers to prosecute those who use them in a dangerous or antisocial manner.\n\nTogether, the restrictions set out in the 2003 Fireworks Act, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, provide a regulatory framework that allows for the safe enjoyment of fireworks by the public while minimising the risk of fireworks harming individuals, property or animals. \n\nIn addition, the availability of fireworks to the public is restricted by a licensing scheme for retailers which only allows for their sale without a license during the traditional firework periods of November 5th, New Year’s Eve, Diwali and the Chinese New Year.  There are also age restrictions in place which prevent the sale of fireworks to those under the age of 16 or 18 dependent on the classification of firework.  There are further restrictions on the public possession of most fireworks by those under 18.\n\nLocal Authority Trading Standards have powers to take action against those who sell fireworks illegally, including those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence, or outside the normal selling period, or to underage people. This also includes the sale of illegally imported fireworks and internet sales.\nWe recognise that the noise from fireworks can be distressing to some people and so there is in place a noise level limit of 120 decibels on fireworks that are available for consumer use.  Consumers can also choose to buy from the wide range of low noise fireworks now available. \n\nThe Government is also aware of concerns about the risks of firework-related injury. Measures have already been taken to ban certain dangerous items from sale in the UK including bangers and jumping jacks.  This removes from sale higher risk fireworks which could lead to injury. Also, the most powerful category of display fireworks must not be sold to members of the public. \n\nHaving said that legislation is in place, we have listened to the concerns around the potential for distress to be caused by fireworks to individuals, as well as to livestock, pets and wildlife. \n\nWe believe that the best way to continue to reduce any distress caused by fireworks is to work with industry, retailers and others to promote their safe and responsible use through guidance and public education and to ensure that appropriate action is taken against those that break the rules.\n\nThat is why the new Office for Product Safety and Standards is working with industry, retailers, charities and others, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and Netmums, to promote their safe and responsible use and to raise consumer awareness on firework safety. \n\nThe Government urges those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and to give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly to those who are vulnerable such as the elderly, children, those with mental health issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and those with pets and livestock. Government-sponsored guidance on safe and considerate use of fireworks is available via the GOV.UK website.  This includes a link to the Fireworks Code hosted by RoSPA containing guidance on respecting neighbours, especially those with pets and informing them of planned displays.  In addition, the Government supports the Blue Cross animal charity guidance which advises how to avoid or reduce stress to animals when fireworks are being set off. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust provide similar advice on their websites concerning how to minimise the impact of fireworks use on animals.\n\nThe Government believes the legislation and guidance already in place is appropriate to allow for the safe use of fireworks by the public; therefore, we have no plans to ban private sales.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.006Z","updated_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.006Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-26/debates/C95047CD-F24E-44DA-BE73-FC571B014CEF/FireworksPublicSales","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/11ebe695-5f06-4aea-8424-7ab9dbc1c465","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05704","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219905,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219905.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"If there is no agreement to leave the EU then brexit must be stopped","background":"If there is no agreement by the deadline for reaching agreement with the EU during the talks then brexit should be stopped as leaving with no deal will be very bad for businesses and for the Irish border issue and for EU citizens living here.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110136,"created_at":"2018-05-13T01:48:34.993Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:05.001Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-18T16:22:27.971Z","closed_at":"2018-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-13T03:33:45.914Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-17T10:00:14.076Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-29T10:43:19.109Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-19","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-20T13:02:35.025Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-01","summary":"Whilst striking a deal with our EU partners remains the outcome we expect, ‘no deal’ plans are well-developed and we stand ready to make a success of Brexit, whatever the outcome of our negotiations.","details":"We are leaving the EU. That’s what the British public voted for and that is what we will deliver. \n\nNegotiations are progressing well and we are confident of a deal this autumn. We have been having regular discussions with the EU on the future framework, outlining our positions on a wide range of topics covering the future security partnership and the future economic partnership, and we remain confident of reaching agreement on the Withdrawal Agreement and Future Framework. \n\nWe have now locked down the text on the majority of other separation issues. Taken with the agreement reached in March on the implementation period, on citizens’ rights and on the financial settlement - we have now reached agreement on around 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement. This provides important certainty for businesses and individuals.\n\nThe Government has also published its White Paper on the future relationship, which is our vision for a bold, ambitious and innovative new partnership with the EU. Principled and practical, faithful to the referendum, it delivers a deal that is good for the UK, and good for our EU friends.\n\nNow that the White Paper has been published, our negotiations with the EU are accelerating and intensifying. We have already seen an increase in pace with Michel Barnier now pledging ‘continuous negotiations’. We expect the EU to engage seriously with the proposals and both negotiating teams to work at pace to reach a substantive agreement on the Future Framework in the autumn. \n\nWe firmly believe it is in the interests of both the EU and the UK to strike a deal. That remains the goal on both sides and we are confident that this will be achieved. But it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely event that we reach March 2019 without agreeing a deal. \n\nWe have already carried out very significant ‘no deal’ preparations and have been publishing a series of notices so that businesses and citizens have time to prepare. This does not reflect an increased likelihood of ‘no deal;’ an acceleration at this point was long-planned to ensure plans are in place by March 2019 in the unlikely scenario they are needed.\n\nOur objective in our preparations is to minimise disruption and to prioritise continuity and stability, including for businesses, at the border, as well as for EU citizens in the UK.\n\nOver the past year we have spent time talking to businesses across different industries about how they could be preparing for exit. The notices published on gov.uk over the last few weeks provide further information in order to guide businesses on how they can best prepare for our exit from the EU. We will continue working closely with industries that are most affected by ‘no deal’ plans and implementation, particularly to understand how we can support businesses in making the transition outside of the European Union.\n\nAt the border, we will continue to apply highly automated, risk based and intelligence targeted customs controls when the UK leaves the EU. As they do today, HMRC will work closely with industry to ensure its interventions are conducted in a way which minimises delays and additional burdens for legitimate trade, while robustly ensuring compliance.\n\nThe Prime Minister has been clear from the beginning of this process that she wants EU Citizens and their families in the UK to be able to stay. She gave a clear commitment to EU citizens in October, when she said “I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay.” The UK will move swiftly to safeguard the future of EU citizens, regardless of the outcome of negotiations.\n\nWhilst striking a deal with our EU partners remains our top priority, we are supporting businesses and citizens to prepare for all scenarios and stepping up preparations to ensure that ‘no deal’ plans are well-developed. Over the coming months more of these preparations will become clear, while our focus and discussions with the EU remain on achieving the ambitious and positive deal we hope for and expect.\n\nWhatever the outcome of our negotiations, we stand ready to make a success of Brexit.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.219Z","updated_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.219Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-19/debates/B6518376-A785-49E2-B699-08BEE94ACFDF/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9b982590-297d-4d8b-af6e-de558796c4f9","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0248","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":222715,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/222715.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Require supermarkets to offer a plastic-free option for all their fruit & veg.","background":"In response to the problem of an ever-increasing amount of plastic waste polluting our environment, we need to make supermarkets offer an option of no packaging or eco-friendly packaging for each item of fresh fruit and vegetables they sell.","additional_details":"Currently there is evidence of an intolerable level of plastic loose in the ocean. In order to back up the work being done to reduce this waste, it is necessary to reduce our use of packaging in an individual level, and among the most difficult to avoid is the packaging of fresh fruit and vegetables in supermarkets. Forcing supermarkets to provide us with the choice of buying cucumbers, cabbages, broccoli etc in eco-friendly packaging will enable people on their journey to zero waste.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":128001,"created_at":"2018-06-20T16:01:37.856Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:55.123Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-21T17:17:10.374Z","closed_at":"2018-12-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-20T16:51:19.162Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-10T21:56:44.955Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.921Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-17T07:02:05.215Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-23","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-12","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-13T11:11:27.839Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-07","summary":"We are working with retailers and the Waste and Resources Action Programme to explore the potential for the introduction of plastic-free initiatives in supermarkets in which fresh food is sold loose.","details":"The Government shares concerns about plastic waste polluting our environment.\n\nOur 25 Year Environment Plan published in January sets out measures to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. We will do this through a four-point plan that takes action at each stage of the product lifecycle – production, consumption and end of life. At the production stage, this includes encouraging producers to take more responsibility for the environmental impact of their products and making sure plastic items are more carefully designed. At the consumer stage we want to reduce demand for single-use plastic. At the end of life stage, we will make it easier for people to recycle and increase the amount of plastic being recycled.\n\nThe Government is currently working with retailers to encourage their efforts to reduce waste and to explore the introduction of plastic-free supermarket initiatives in which fresh food is sold loose, giving consumers the choice. Packaging has an important and positive role to play in reducing product damage, increasing shelf-life, and reducing food waste. Keeping food fresher for longer through innovations such as vacuum packing and re-sealable packs has a significant impact on extending the life of products and reducing waste. If a product is wasted due to insufficient packaging then its disposal can have a greater environmental impact than the packaging itself.\n\nThere are opportunities where offering food loose may help to reduce plastic waste whilst not impacting on shelf life. We are currently working with retailers and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) exploring the potential for the introduction of plastic-free initiatives in supermarkets in which all food is loose.\n\nFurther to this work, WRAP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation have published their Plastics Pact with support from the government and 80 businesses, NGOs, government organisations and service providers. The Pact aims to make all plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. Participants will also work together to recycle or compost 70% of plastic packaging by 2025 while striving to eliminate single-use plastics in that timeframe.\n\nIndustry has also committed to implementing solutions that will enable the sustainable recycling of all black plastic packaging - bottles, pots, tubs and trays – by the end of 2018.\n\nThe government is also looking at further ways to reduce avoidable waste and recycle more as part of its Resources and Waste Strategy to be published later this year.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.917Z","updated_at":"2018-11-07T18:10:39.917Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-12/debates/0BFE8BD9-929D-4305-BE7A-D4EB11D64C0F/Plastic-FreePackaging(FruitAndVegetables)","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7ca44780-942c-41ba-909e-0f5a91c58175","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0245","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":221860,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/221860.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"PublicHoliday on Hindus special two religious occasions in a year:Diwali&Dussera","background":"This will give an opportunity for Hindu families to get together and share happiness with other religious communities. It is very important for Hindus to celebrate Diwali and also Diwali — Festival of Lights is a major holiday that is also celebrated by Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.","additional_details":"Hinduism in England is the third largest religion in the country, with over 806,000 followers as of the 2011 Census. This represents over 1.5% of the English population, up from 1.1% the previous decade. Hindus are predominantly in the cities of London and Leicester, where they make up greater proportions of the population(Hindu Enclaves, also known as Hindu Hotspots).\r\nHindus don't get a lawful Public Holiday on their two special religious occasions in a year 1. Diwali and 2. Dussera","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":11853,"created_at":"2018-06-10T11:19:46.970Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:42.340Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-15T08:48:29.675Z","closed_at":"2018-12-15T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-10T11:47:34.705Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-25T06:27:39.840Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-03T12:07:27.199Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-29","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-30T13:32:15.619Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-03","summary":"The Government has no plans to create a public holiday to commemorate religious festivals such as Diwali. The costs are considerable. The cost of the 2012 Diamond Jubilee holiday was around £1.2bn.","details":"The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences. Festivals such as Diwali and Dussehra contribute towards this objective. We regret however that we cannot agree to create new bank or public holiday to mark these festivals.\n\nThe Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions including religious festivals.  However the current pattern is well established and accepted. \n\nWhilst an additional bank holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday remains considerable.  The most recent estimate following an impact assessment  for the additional holiday for the Diamond Jubilee is that a bank holiday (across the UK as a whole) costs employers around £1.2bn. \n\nWorkers in the UK are entitled to 28 days holiday each year.  Employers are under no legal obligation to grant a religious-based request for time off.  However Government's policy is to encourage employers to respond flexibly and sympathetically to any requests for leave, including requests for religious holidays, bearing in mind business needs.  ACAS provides detailed guidance for employers about religious festivals and holy days on its website.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-07-03T12:07:27.196Z","updated_at":"2018-07-03T12:07:27.196Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-29/debates/6EF118AA-489B-4ADC-B915-FFE29C922C4E/PublicHolidaysOnReligiousOccasions","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c6b5effc-168a-495e-a680-e425ec2ce00b","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/religious-holidays-29-10/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":220501,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/220501.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Public Holiday on Muslims religious occasions in the UK(Eid ul Fitr&Eid ul Adha)","background":"Public Holiday on Muslims special two religious occasions in a year: 1. Eid ul-Fitr and 2. Eid ul-Adha. This will give an opportunity for Muslim families to get together and share happiness with other religious communities. It is very important for Muslims to celebrate EID.","additional_details":"Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635, (2.7 million ) 4.8% of the total population. The vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom live in England: 2,660,116 (5.02% of the population). \r\nMuslims don't get a lawful Public Holiday on their two special religious occasions in a year 1. Eid ul-Fitr and 2. Eid ul-Adha.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":52451,"created_at":"2018-05-22T21:54:07.926Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:15.256Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-29T18:00:30.722Z","closed_at":"2018-11-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-23T12:04:56.994Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-10T17:50:11.391Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.638Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-29","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-30T13:31:20.950Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-26","summary":"The Government has no plans to create a public holiday to commemorate religious festivals such as Eid. The costs would be considerable. The cost of the 2012 Diamond Jubilee holiday was around £1.2bn.","details":"The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences. Festivals such as Eid contribute towards this objective. We regret however that we cannot agree to create new bank or public holidays to mark this festival.\n\nThe Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions including religious festivals.  However the current pattern is well established and accepted, \n\nWhilst an additional bank holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday remains considerable.  The most recent estimate following an Impact Assessment (IA) for the additional holiday for the Diamond Jubilee is that a bank holiday (across the UK as a whole) costs employers around £1.2bn. \n\nWorkers in the UK are entitled to 28 days holiday each year.  Workers are under no legal obligation to grant a religious-based request for time off.  However Government's policy is to encourage employers to respond flexibly and sympathetically to any requests for leave, including requests for religious holidays, bearing in mind business needs.  Acas provides detailed guidance for employers about religious festivals and holy days on its website.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.636Z","updated_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.636Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-29/debates/6EF118AA-489B-4ADC-B915-FFE29C922C4E/PublicHolidaysOnReligiousOccasions","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c6b5effc-168a-495e-a680-e425ec2ce00b","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/religious-holidays-29-10/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":221033,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/221033.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Prevent avoidable deaths by making autism/learning disability training mandatory","background":"My son Oliver was only 18 when he died in hospital on 11 Nov 2016. I believe his death could have been prevented if his doctors and nurses had received mandatory training. He had autism and a mild learning disability, and they weren't trained to understand how to make reasonable adjustments for him.","additional_details":"1 in 4 healthcare professionals has never had training on learning disability or autism. This is unacceptable. Two thirds want more training, and 1 in 3 think a lack of government leadership is contributing to the problem of avoidable deaths. The Government must ensure all healthcare professionals get mandatory training to address the huge health inequalities facing people with autism and a learning disability. For more information search for: LeDeR report 2018; CIPOLD 2013; Treat me well 2018.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":52148,"created_at":"2018-05-30T06:51:09.316Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:23.880Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-07T11:06:27.477Z","closed_at":"2018-12-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-30T08:00:10.002Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-14T13:53:36.992Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.009Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-10","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-22","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-23T10:19:01.450Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-25","summary":"We want all staff to receive the support, training and professional development they need to support people with learning disabilities and autism, in line with employers’ existing responsibilities.","details":"Our deepest sympathies are with Oliver’s family for their loss. \n\nEveryone has the right to high quality, safe health care so it is crucial that all health workers are given the skills and education to confidently deliver care that meets the needs of all their patients. This is a priority for the Government. \n\nAll employers have a clear legal responsibility to make sure that staff are competent to perform their role as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014; regulation 18.\n\nTo support a consistent approach to learning disability education and training, the Department for Health and Social Care commissioned Skills for Health and Health Education England to develop a Core Skills Education and Training Framework. Published in July 2016, the Framework, which sets out the essential skills and knowledge needed for all staff working with people with a learning disability in health and social care settings, is structured in three tiers, or levels of training, to reflect the different levels of knowledge specific roles would require. \n\nTier one, which is relevant to the entire health and care workforce including ancillary staff, concerns general awareness skills and attitudes.  \n\nTier two is aimed at developing the knowledge and skills of staff that are likely to have regular contact with people with a learning disability. \n\nTier three is aimed at enhancing the knowledge, skills and attitudes of key staff and is relevant to those who are managing care and support services for people with a learning disability. \n\nEmployers and/or commissioners of education should use the Framework as guidance for the development and delivery of appropriate and consistent education and training, as well as for identifying the skills needed for particular roles in line with their legal responsibilities. By doing so, this will result in safer and more effective practice. \n\nTo ensure that health and care staff also have appropriate knowledge and awareness of autism, the Department of Health and Social Care has commissioned the development of a Core Skills and Competency Framework for Autism, which will be in line with the tiered approach adopted by other core skills frameworks. The development of this framework is expected to improve the availability of general awareness training to all staff across the health and care system and wider public services to equip them to offer appropriate support to autistic people (Tier 1), as well as developing and enhancing the knowledge, skills and attitudes for roles that have regular contact with autistic people (Tiers 2 and 3).\n\nThe recent annual report of the Learning Disability Mortality Review (LeDeR) Programme highlighted that people with a learning disability are still dying prematurely due to avoidable factors. We recognise that more is needed to address this profound inequality. \n\nAs outlined by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister of State for Care, on 23 July, the Department is working with NHS England and other system partners to agree actions for each of the nine recommendations; the Government’s response will be published after summer recess  (House of Commons Written Statement 906, https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-07-23/HCWS906/). \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.006Z","updated_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.006Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-22/debates/F8EBB4E2-C858-4B5B-B2E0-39D0C25EAA4C/AutismAndLearningDisabilityTrainingHealthcareProfessionals","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b10b5496-54a6-4262-bb54-5c74ec58eedf","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0216","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":211950,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/211950.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Create a new independent welfare body to protect racehorses from abuse and death","background":"The British Horseracing Authority is responsible for race horse welfare. But around 200 horses die each year due to racing in Britain. We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.","additional_details":"For more information visit http://www.horsedeathwatch.com","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105362,"created_at":"2018-02-05T15:14:52.159Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:36:44.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-13T17:50:13.036Z","closed_at":"2018-08-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-06T10:38:53.537Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T22:14:57.946Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.961Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-11T19:27:11.919Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-09-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-15","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-18T11:23:28.975Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-03-19","summary":"The Government does not consider that it is necessary to create a new body to protect racehorse welfare. ","details":"The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) is responsible for the safety of jockeys and horses at races in this country. The BHA works with animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare to keep racecourses as safe as possible for horses.  \n\nAccording to the BHA the overall equine fatality rate in British racing has reduced by one-third in the last twenty years, from 0.3% to less than 0.2% of runners in 2017, the lowest figure on record.\n\nGiven that overall racehorse welfare is improving and fatalities at racecourses are falling, we do not see a need to set up another body responsible for racehorse welfare.\nRacehorses, like all domestic and captive animals, are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.  Under this legislation, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or for an owner, or keeper, to fail to provide for its welfare needs.  Any person or organisation may initiate criminal proceedings where there is reason to believe that unnecessary suffering has been caused, or may report the matter to the police, local authority or RSPCA who will decide whether or not to institute a prosecution.  The maximum penalty for an offence under the 2006 Act is a fine of £20,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.  \n\nIf anyone has any concerns about the welfare of an animal or considers that its welfare has not been provided, then they should report the matter to the local authority who have powers under the 2006 Act to investigate such matters or to the RSPCA who can also investigate.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z","updated_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-15/debates/85DEF768-1145-4E15-96A8-9663815EF93F/RacehorseProtection","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9fdb8105-0eb6-4a43-9a57-16fd94fcc6f4","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0214","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":223729,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/223729.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum","background":"If Vote Leave has broken any laws regarding overspending in 2016 EU referendum then Art.50 should be immediately withdrawn and full EU membership continued.","additional_details":"Article 50.1 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out that a member can leave by \" Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.\"\r\n \r\nAlso, Article 10.3 of the Lisbon Treaty, \"Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.\"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":203235,"created_at":"2018-07-04T20:41:19.252Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:14.477Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-12T16:39:52.003Z","closed_at":"2019-01-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-04T21:38:27.352Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-17T10:13:51.444Z","government_response_at":"2018-08-01T12:20:25.372Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-18T20:33:54.233Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-09-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-09-10","debate_outcome_at":"2018-09-12T14:47:51.684Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-09","summary":"It is regrettable that fines were levied on multiple groups, but it is firm policy the Article 50 notification will not be withdrawn. Britain voted to leave and Government respects that decision.","details":"It is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaign. However, the Government is clear that there can be no attempt to rescind Article 50. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction.\n\nThe result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.\n\nIn last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then voted for parties committing to respecting the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the electorate.\n\nThis was not a decision made after just a few weeks of campaigning, but one that came after a debate that had taken place both in Parliament and across the country for decades.\n\nThe Government is determined to make a success of the British people’s decision to leave the European Union. And that is how we have always approached the negotiations - anticipating success, not failure. It is vital that we try to reach an agreement that builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners. Not just for those who voted to leave, but for every citizen of the United Kingdom. We were given a national mandate and this Government is determined to deliver a deal in the national interest.\n\nAs the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people. The premise that the people can trust their politicians to deliver on the promises they make and will deliver them in Parliament is fundamental to our democracy.\n\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaigns. The Electoral Commission is an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament, not the Government, and the use of its sanctioning powers show that it is doing its job. \n\nHowever, almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in the highest ever number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, to leave the European Union. This instruction was then reinforced both in Parliament, and in the subsequent General Election. The British people therefore gave a clear directive to Government to leave the EU, and we are committed to respecting that directive. Our focus now is on making a success of Brexit, and delivering an outcome which will better the lives of British people, whether they voted to leave or to remain. \n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-08-01T12:20:25.369Z","updated_at":"2019-01-09T17:17:34.790Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-09-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-09-10/debates/765648D6-5872-49B6-AA13-4E9AC0DA923C/VoteLeaveCampaignElectoralLaw","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f5d8b613-0156-4925-a54f-958105fd7bb5","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0202","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":222419,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/222419.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reject calls to add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the Dangerous Dogs Act","background":"PETA, an organisation that is meant to be dedicated to protecting animals, has proposed to the UK government that it should add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the dangerous dogs act, effectively banning them outright. Breed Specific Legislation is not the solution to the problem of dog attacks.","additional_details":"Many people in the UK today have the pleasure of owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As one of these people I can recommend them as being loving, loyal and caring, far from dangerous they are great companions. It would be a terrible tragedy for the dog lovers of the UK to lose the right to own one of these great companions. We are calling on Parliament to save our staffies and not have them banned as dangerous dogs, because they are not. People create dangerous dogs, people are the problem.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":186226,"created_at":"2018-06-16T22:06:32.900Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:50.385Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-22T16:56:01.988Z","closed_at":"2018-12-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-17T16:42:06.826Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-23T20:56:16.987Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.481Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-26T17:51:52.292Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-07-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-16","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-17T15:48:19.819Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-05","summary":"The Government has no intention of prohibiting the keeping of Staffordshire Bull Terriers.","details":"Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits the keeping of certain types of dog identified as either bred for fighting or that share the characteristics of dogs bred for fighting. There are four types of dog to which the prohibition applies: (i) pitbull terrier; (ii) Japanese tosa; (iii) dogo Argentino; and (iv) fila Braziliero. However, although it is an offence to keep one of these types of dog there are exemptions for individual dogs where it has been shown to a court that they do not pose a safety risk to others.  The exemptions are subject to conditions (i.e. neutered, insured against injuring third parties, muzzled and on a lead when in public).\n\nThe Government considers that the prohibition on certain types of dogs forms an important part of the measures needed to tackle irresponsible ownership of dogs. Other important measures already in place include: an offence to allow a dog, of any type or breed, to be dangerously out of control; allowing police and local authorities to issue community protection notices to irresponsible owners whose dogs are causing low level problems; and civil law allowing courts to impose restrictions on individual dogs that are found to be dangerous.\n\nThe Parliamentary Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) (not Government) are currently reviewing the law on the prohibition on certain types of dogs.  EFRA invited any written evidence to be submitted to them by 6 June 2018. Once EFRA’s review is complete they will then publish a report with recommendations and submit it to the Government.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.479Z","updated_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.479Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-16/debates/51B3E06E-CDFE-45DD-BD6B-D9B304DA4298/DangerousDogsActStaffordshireBullTerriers","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/62d17595-483a-4445-bb0b-7ffc90f511a5","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-staffordshire-bull-terriers-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":201416,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/201416.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"British citizens should be able to appeal the refusal of a family 'visit visa'","background":"The appeals process for Family Visit Visa was removed on 25 June, 2013 to save costs. My recent personal experience confirmed that the UKBA seem to have cut the process of justice and accountability while cutting their costs. How can this be justified?\r\nIs UKBA now the Judge, Jury and Executioner?","additional_details":"In response to my query to UKBA I got back a ‘blank’ email with the request to fill out a satisfaction survey! My mother was rejected a visit visa recently and she was told not to apply within next 10 years. She is now 66. Which essentially means she may not possibly visit her grandchildren in UK for the rest of her lifetime. UKBA's rejection has no regards to how it affects me as a British Citizen. Why should UKBA be allowed to impose decisions without due and just care? \r\nStop this INJUSTICE!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":6730,"created_at":"2017-09-25T07:02:22.439Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:44.817Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-06T14:41:32.063Z","closed_at":"2018-04-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-25T08:31:55.313Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-09","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-12T09:10:05.082Z","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/276864D0-6324-4C48-AEE6-AA007C9CB666/FamilyVisitorVisas","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/611ecf08-e58d-4b1d-9eae-2ab756560e9f","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-family-visitor-visas-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":210497,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/210497.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce super visa category for parents of British citizens similar to Canada","background":"Parents for British citizens  are treated differently if they reside in countries outside the EU and are not EU citizens and government has made the settlement of parents under ADR practically impossible so we are looking for a middle ground as it is done in Canada with SUPER VISA","additional_details":"With the parent and grandparent super visa, eligible parents and grandparents can visit family in Canada for up to two years without the need to renew their status .The Super Visa is a multi-entry visa that provides multiple entries for a period up to 10 years. The key difference is that the Super Visa allows an individual to stay for up to two years on initial entry into Canada, while a 10-year multiple entry visa would only have a status period for each entry of six months only. Refer visa rules by Canada government and criteria as reference ,sponsor does most work","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":14297,"created_at":"2018-01-23T05:24:25.015Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:36:17.820Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-29T10:09:51.936Z","closed_at":"2018-07-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-23T07:50:10.061Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T08:41:37.031Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.189Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-09","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-12T09:08:27.116Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-03","summary":"The Government has no plans to change the Immigration Rules for visitors to introduce a super visa for parents of British citizens. ","details":"The UK welcomes genuine visitors to the UK. The visitor routes are for people who are coming to the UK for a temporary purpose, usually for up to six months. Visitors should not be living in the UK through frequent or successive visits or making the UK their main home. \n\nEvery visitor is assessed against the same Immigration Rules regardless of nationality. The only difference is where that assessment is made. Some individuals are assessed overseas by an entry clearance officer, while others are assessed at the UK border. All visitors to the UK are assessed against the Immigration Rules on a case by case basis.\n\nNationals of some non-EEA countries need a visa to visit the UK. Visas are an important part of securing the UK’s border and are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. \n\nAdopting a similar model to that of Canada and allowing a select group of people to remain in the UK for 2 years as visitors, would mean that important considerations against the Immigration Rules would not be applied consistently and could raise equality concerns. \n\nThe Government recognises the importance of family ties. Visit visas are available with validities of 6 months, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years, allowing individuals wishing to visit the UK regularly or at short notice to do so without having to apply for a new visa each time they wish to travel. \n\nThe family Immigration Rules were reformed in July 2012 to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse, and thereby ensure that family migration to the UK is on a properly sustainable basis that it is fair to migrants and the wider community. \n\nWe reformed the route for adult dependent relatives, given the significant NHS and social care costs which can be associated with these cases.  The Department of Health has estimated that a person living to the age of 85 costs the NHS on average around £150,000 in their lifetime, with more than 50% of this cost arising from the age of 65 onwards.  This figure does not take account of any social care costs met by local authorities. \n\nUnder the rules, adult dependants must demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided in the UK by their sponsor here and without recourse to public funds.  They must apply from overseas, not while in the UK as a visitor. \n\nAs well as the significant NHS and social care costs to which these cases can give rise, there are also broader issues of fairness.  Adult dependent relatives can continue to visit a family member in the UK (for up to six months) but must return home at the end of their visit: we do not allow visitors to switch into other immigration categories while in the UK and the adult dependent relative category should not be an exception.  There should also not be a routine expectation of settlement in the UK for parents and grandparents aged 65 or over.  Only those requiring long-term personal care that cannot be delivered in the country in which they are living should be eligible to settle in the UK.\n\nThe rules for adult dependent relatives seek to ensure that only those who need to be physically close to and cared for by a close relative in the UK are able to settle here.  Those who do not have such care needs can be supported financially in the country in which they live by their relative in the UK.  Those most in need of care remain most likely to qualify, compared with those who simply have a preference to come and live in the UK with a relative here.  The lawfulness of the rules was upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2017. \n\nThe rules do not provide a route for every parent to join their adult child in the UK and settle here and it is not intended that they should do so.  Overall, the rules represent a fairer deal for the taxpayer, given the significant NHS and social care costs which can arise when adult dependent relatives settle in the UK.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.186Z","updated_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.186Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/276864D0-6324-4C48-AEE6-AA007C9CB666/FamilyVisitorVisas","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/611ecf08-e58d-4b1d-9eae-2ab756560e9f","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-family-visitor-visas-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":206568,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/206568.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce automatic approval of visit visas for families of British Citizens","background":"Family members of UK Citizens shouldn’t have to meet the same criteria as other applicants for a visit visa. Not being a citizen doesn’t make our parent, siblings, children or grandchildren any less a part of our family. The only requirement should be that a British relative sponsors them.","additional_details":"If we can support them, there is no reason to reject an application. The same restrictions would still apply: no public funds; no ability to work, and checks to ensure no threat to national security. My sister has visited four times. She’s never overstayed or worked but is now refused a visa to visit me with my mother. A lot of families are heartbroken because relatives cannot visit. Let’s bring families together and recognise the right to a family life for British citizens and their families.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":71178,"created_at":"2017-11-29T13:21:41.316Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:05.861Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-06T17:00:03.965Z","closed_at":"2018-06-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T18:41:55.979Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-13T10:06:54.738Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.274Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-06-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-09","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-12T09:07:00.977Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-22","summary":"The Government has no plans to change the Immigration Rules for visitors to introduce automatic approval of visit visas for families of British Citizens. ","details":"The UK welcomes genuine visitors to the UK. The visitor route offers a huge range of activities that can be undertaken whilst a person is in the UK, including spending time with family. \n\nEvery visitor is assessed against the same Immigration Rules regardless of nationality. The only difference is where that assessment is made. Some individuals are assessed overseas by an entry clearance officer, while others are assessed at the UK border. All visitors to the UK are assessed against the Immigration Rules on a case by case basis.\n\nNationals of some non-EEA countries need a visa to visit the UK. Visas are an important part of securing the UK’s border and are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. \n\nAppendix V to the Immigration Rules sets out the requirements that a person seeking entry to the UK as a visitor must meet. This includes that a visitor must satisfy the decision maker that they are a genuine visitor who intends to leave the UK at the end of their visit and will not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK their own home. They must be able to show that they are able to accommodate, support and maintain themselves during their visit without working or accessing public funds. There is flexibility in the rules for visitors to be maintained and accommodated by friends or relatives. \n\nAutomatically approving visas for a select group of people would mean that important considerations against the Immigration Rules would not be applied consistently and could raise equality concerns. It could lead to discrimination against those who do not have family members in the UK but have just as valid a reason for wishing to visit the UK.\n\nThere is also a danger of additional complexity in the assessment process around how an individual would prove that they are the family member of a British citizen. There could be unintended consequences that make the application process longer, more difficult and costly.\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of family ties. In 2015 we simplified the immigration system for people visiting the UK by consolidating the number of visitor routes from fifteen to four and providing shortened, user-friendly Immigration Rules and guidance to make the requirements easier to understand. The changes created an easier-to-use, streamlined system with more flexibility for those visiting the UK over what they can do when they are in the UK. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.272Z","updated_at":"2018-01-22T16:46:53.272Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/276864D0-6324-4C48-AEE6-AA007C9CB666/FamilyVisitorVisas","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/611ecf08-e58d-4b1d-9eae-2ab756560e9f","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-family-visitor-visas-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":212174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/212174.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reclassify the theft of a pet to a specific crime in its own right.","background":"Review the sentencing guidelines for theft offences, so that where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant for the categorisation of the crime for sentencing purposes. \r\n\r\nEnsure Police Forces are given appropriate guidance and training to record and investigate cases.","additional_details":"More than 60 dogs are stolen every week in England and Wales.  Less than 5% of cases lead to convictions.\r\n\r\nPet theft is currently seen as no different to the theft of an inanimate object - despite pets being sentient beings. The theft of pets is generally categorised as robbery or burglary, but lead to minimal sentences. Enforcement of existing laws do not currently act as a deterrent or fit the crime itself. \r\n\r\nFor more information, please see: http://www.stolenandmissingpetsalliance.co.uk/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107352,"created_at":"2018-02-07T20:20:17.274Z","updated_at":"2020-07-30T14:33:30.926Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-08T11:52:02.817Z","closed_at":"2018-08-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-07T20:35:31.249Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T23:21:25.999Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.693Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-09T18:06:22.577Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-06-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-02","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-03T10:38:27.708Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-27","summary":"We understand the distress caused by the theft of a much loved family pet and laws are in place to deal firmly with offenders who commit such crimes.","details":"Theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968. The maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment. The Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft offences in February 2016. The guidelines take account of the emotional distress and therefore harm that theft of personal items such as a pet can have on the victim and accordingly recommends higher penalties for such offences. Compulsory microchipping introduced in 2016 makes it easier for lost or stolen dogs to be reunited with their owners.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.691Z","updated_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.691Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-02/debates/05B60093-01C7-43ED-B469-55E8164A0D2B/PetTheft","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2569c482-6964-479b-9563-a58a831cc78b","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/pet-theft-debate-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":207040,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/207040.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing","background":"Safe Standing offers a much safer alternative to fans who wish to stand, rather than sit at football matches. After the highly successful introduction to rail seating at Celtic Park, as well as numerous Bundesliga clubs, many football fans feel that laws preventing standing areas should be relaxed.","additional_details":"Some football clubs that already have successfully installed rail seating are: Celtic, Werder Bremen, Hamburg SV, Vfl Wolfsburg, Hannover 96 and the famous “yellow wall” at Borussia Dortmund. \r\n\r\nIn conclusion, there is a clear demand for safe standing with 92% of respondents saying fans should be given the choice to stand in safe standing areas, in a poll by the Football Fans Census, and it would only promote English football further by improving the overall matchday experience.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112025,"created_at":"2017-12-04T13:00:50.405Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:14.708Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-08T14:39:55.168Z","closed_at":"2018-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T15:10:41.027Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-11T19:54:00.553Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.925Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T15:57:20.341Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-05-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-25","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-26T11:09:06.930Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-03","summary":"We are looking at the current all-seater policy and any changes that may be needed. We are keen to carefully review all the evidence on the matter and are grateful for the engagement from fans.","details":"The Government thanks all the football supporters who made their views known about this issue through correspondence or through the recent online petition. Many of those were concerned that the proposal from West Bromwich Albion FC made earlier this year to install a standing section was rejected. The law governing all licensed stadia would need to be changed for that proposal to go ahead.\n\nThe Government’s current policy is that all-seater stadia are the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales. However the time is now right for us to reexamine that policy in light of the technological changes in stadium and seating design as well as the representations from both clubs and supporters on this issue.\n\nWe continue to work closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to consider advances in technology and data on the issue.\n\nThe safety of spectators at sports grounds has always been of paramount importance for the Government. The all-seater policy was introduced in the top two divisions in the early 1990s, following a recommendation in Lord Justice Taylor’s Final Report into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster.\n\nAll-seater stadiums have been a success. Benefits include: \n● improved crowd management and crowd behaviour;\n● modern, comfortable, and inviting facilities for spectators;\n● increased inclusivity and diversity amongst those attending matches \n- Premier League research has shown that the percentage of crowds attending Premier League matches from a Black and Minority Ethnic background continues to increase season-on-season, and is now at a record 16% (2014/2015 season); more women and children attending games helps to nurture the next generation of supporters - Premier League research has shown that a record 26% of match attendees are female, and that children's season ticket sales now make up 12% of all Premier League season ticket sales (2014/2015 season);\n● enhanced security and policing to keep spectators safe;\n● there have been fewer reported incidents and injuries to spectators, and\n● Increased spectator attendances - by 60% - contributing to the future health of the game.\n\nGiven the success of all seater stadiums, the safety reasons for introducing the policy, and the enhancements that seated spectators have enjoyed, the Government would need strong evidence and rationale to change that policy.\nThe Government is aware of the calls from a wide range of interest groups including some football clubs and supporters’ groups to introduce standing areas for spectators at football matches in the top two divisions of English football.\nWe will continue to listen to supporters’ groups and other stakeholders who would like to see the reintroduction of standing at football in the top two tiers. The introduction of rail seating at Celtic Park and more recently at Shrewsbury Town FC informs the debate about the future of spectator accommodation at football matches. It is important that we have this debate and that it is informed by the evidence.\n\nThe Government is not complacent about spectator safety, nor are we complacent about the safety policies that have served spectators well for many years. But we acknowledge that policies must remain relevant and effective. Technology and stadium design have evolved since the all-seater policy was introduced. It is important that all the evidence and viewpoints are considered extremely carefully.\n\nThe Sports Minister looks forward to discussing at length the nuances and complexities of sports ground safety in Parliament later this month.\n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.923Z","updated_at":"2018-06-12T15:06:48.160Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-25/debates/8A09C8B2-14D5-4E2D-8F3E-1D7FF3838818/FootballSafeStanding","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7860c4f1-7b1e-49da-84c8-5ffe5917515f","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0147","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":209433,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/209433.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords","background":"The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":170981,"created_at":"2018-01-12T13:08:04.466Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:58.776Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T18:36:38.185Z","closed_at":"2018-07-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-12T14:54:34.514Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T22:00:48.770Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-23T22:32:25.308Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-05-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-18","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-19T10:27:32.745Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-15","summary":"As stated in our manifesto, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for this parliament. ","details":"Therefore, the Government does not intend to hold a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords.\n\nAs set out in the manifesto, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority. Therefore, the Government does not intend to hold a referendum on the abolition of the House. \n\nThe Government is committed to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We will also continue to work to ensure that the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.\n\nThe Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Burns, made recommendations in October 2017 on ways of reducing the size of the House without requiring legislation. In response, The Prime Minister has written to the Lord Speaker and agreed to continue with the restraint she has shown so far when making appointments to the House. It is incumbent on all sides of the House to consider what they can do to further promote the culture of retirement. In light of the Prime Minister's letter, the Lord Speaker has reconvened the Committee to consider next steps. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.494Z","updated_at":"2018-06-19T16:34:22.911Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-18/debates/37FAA193-1A7C-4FD9-9F12-3275460784D4/HouseOfLordsAbolition","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8ac13ee0-369b-4313-a023-176fe9d370dc","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/referendum-abolition-house-lords-debate-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205169,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205169.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament's vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the EU.","background":"A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice, and our MPs should be allowed to vote with their conscience to deliver what they believe is best for the country.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113612,"created_at":"2017-11-14T05:48:02.188Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:39.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-17T17:26:40.136Z","closed_at":"2018-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-14T06:54:05.845Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-20T00:40:16.732Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.481Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T13:14:30.071Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-11","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-12T16:29:27.436Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-12-19","summary":"The British people voted to leave and the Government will implement their decision.The vote on the final deal will give Parliament the choice to accept the agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.","details":"The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a clear majority of people vote to leave the European Union. Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum, on 8 February, by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Government is clear that it is its duty to deliver on the instruction of the British people and implement the result of the referendum.\n\nThe Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. The terms of this vote are clear; Parliament will have the choice to accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal. \n\nWe are confident that we will get the best possible agreement and one which Parliament will want to support.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.478Z","updated_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.478Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-11/debates/04C5BC76-CDD7-4D13-8A5C-2DB164C1E588/LeavingTheEUParliamentaryVote","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fe58525f-7513-4230-9c87-6bf0cd034db0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0097","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200888,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200888.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of animal fur in the UK.","background":"Fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, followed by Scotland in 2002. However fur products can still be legally imported from other countries and sold here in the UK. Much of this fur comes from countries that have very weak or no animal welfare laws at all.","additional_details":"Fur sold in the UK comes from the following countries:\r\n(Main suppliers) China, North America, South America, Russia and Europe.\r\n(Other suppliers) Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Greenland, Hungary, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Maldovia, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Slovenia, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Turkey.\r\n\r\nWest Hollywood is the first city in the world that decided to ban the sales of fur in 2011. In 2015 Sao Paolo adopted an import and sales ban on fur products. In January 2017 India adopted an import ban on mink, fox and chinchilla fur skins. The 'International Anti-Fur Coalition' leads the bill to ban the sale of fur in Israel.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109553,"created_at":"2017-09-20T10:14:56.740Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:38.603Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-23T11:42:19.327Z","closed_at":"2018-03-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-20T17:45:16.864Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-28T19:57:41.837Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.935Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-13T15:49:52.610Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-04","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-05T11:27:06.222Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-28","summary":"While some fur products may never be legally imported into the UK the Government’s view is that national bans are less effective than working at an international level on animal welfare standards.","details":"The UK Government is a world leader in animal welfare standards and takes animal cruelty very seriously. We are at the forefront of international efforts to protect the interests of animals, for example we recently announced proposals to ban UK sales of ivory to help bring an end to elephant poaching. We also work closely with and strongly support the efforts undertaken by several non-governmental organisations.\n\nRegarding the fur industry specifically, we are working at an international level to agree global animal welfare standards and phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices. We believe this is the best way to prevent animal cruelty and that this approach will lead to a much higher level of animal welfare standards.\n\nOur international efforts to bring about higher standards are supported by strict EU rules and regulations around fur imports, regulations that apply to both the UK and wider EU. \n\nFirstly, these regulations include a blanket ban of the importing of furs from a number of animals, including cats and dogs as well as most seal skins and products. Secondly, there are regulations that ensure any fur that can be imported into the UK comes from animals that have kept been treated, trapped and killed humanely.\n\nIn addition to these EU regulations, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) controls the fur from an endangered species. For example, there are export permits and commercial use certificates that strictly control the imports of furs from endangered species. These controls are implemented in the UK by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.  \n\nThe Government will ensure that these controls are not removed once we leave the EU.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.932Z","updated_at":"2017-11-28T10:08:36.932Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-04/debates/8F9B6212-E631-4151-ABA7-AED8560CBBEB/FurTrade","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85d414cf-22ab-4ab1-ab5d-79a34a4651dc","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0137","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":213451,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/213451.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of puppies by pet shops & all commercial 3rd party dealers.","background":"Removing puppies for sale from litter & mum often creates sick, traumatised, dysfunctional dogs. Puppies should be seen with their mum & transporting them to a different place for sale harms welfare. Regulating commercial 3rd party sales is ineffective to prevent harm & a ban is therefore necessary.","additional_details":"A ban on 3rd party sales for profit has been named “Lucy's Law” & has huge public support. There are no welfare advantages in selling puppies through commercial dealers, which make sure breeding dogs are kept hidden from the public. As well as welfare concerns, 3rd party sales create additional risks for consumers & public health/safety. Puppy sales direct from breeder or rescue centre protects all parties. A ban on dealing in puppies for profit can only raise welfare standards & is needed now.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":148248,"created_at":"2018-02-21T08:50:22.988Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:12.598Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-01T12:06:51.546Z","closed_at":"2018-09-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-21T09:42:04.647Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T02:45:02.494Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.317Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-14T11:06:30.896Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-20","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-05-21","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-22T16:52:17.631Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-03-20","summary":"The Government has published wide reaching reforms of the controls on pet selling which includes a call for evidence on a ban on all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England.","details":"New controls on dog breeding and pet selling in England require all licensed dog breeders and licensed sellers of all pet animals, including sellers who are not also breeders, to adhere to enhanced strict statutory minimum welfare standards linked to the animals’ welfare needs set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. \nThe controls prohibit the sale of puppies, kittens, ferrets or rabbits below eight weeks of age.  This is also supported by changes to Defra’s statutory Dog Welfare Code which provides guidance aimed at dog owners.\nThe controls require any licensed pet seller advertising pets for sale to include their licence number in the advert as well as identifying the local authority that issued it, a photo of the pet, its age, country of residence and country of origin.  This will help people identify pets offered for sale from unlicensed sellers including those based abroad\nThey require the sale of a dog to be completed in the presence of the purchaser on the premises where the licensed seller or licensed breeder has been keeping the dog, thereby banning online sales by licensed sellers and breeders.\nThey also ensure licensed dog breeders must show puppies alongside their mother before a sale is made and only sell puppies they have bred themselves.\nIn addition to these controls, the Government has issued a call for evidence on banning all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England. Evidence has been requested by 2 May 2018.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.313Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T16:57:37.450Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-05-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-21/debates/42C1A4F1-0A43-46E6-B456-FAE873CC7F87/SaleOfPuppies","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf423510-4411-4597-a147-ca9d6ca8edd4","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0127","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":206722,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/206722.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Call on PM to take action to build public trust in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry","background":"Bereaved families & survivors call on PM to exercise her powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional panel members with decision making power to sit alongside Chair in Grenfell Tower Inquiry: to ensure those affected have confidence in & are willing to fully participate in the Inquiry","additional_details":"To secure trust in an establishment we feel has been distant & unresponsive, & to avoid a collapse of confidence in the Inquiry's ability to discover the truth, it is fundamental that;\r\n\r\n1. The Inquiry is not led by a judge alone. Panel members must be appointed with relevant background, expertise, experience, & a real understanding of the issues facing those affected\r\n\r\n2. Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":156835,"created_at":"2017-11-30T09:25:01.772Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:09.305Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-30T17:07:15.249Z","closed_at":"2018-05-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-30T13:59:43.441Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T22:01:51.333Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-05T10:15:21.005Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-23T23:50:21.855Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-05-14","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-15T14:06:16.955Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-05","summary":"This is the Government’s response to the e-petition “Call on PM to take action to build public trust in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry”, started by family members and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.","details":"The Grenfell Tower fire was a truly unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened.\n\nThe Government’s highest priority remains making sure that survivors, bereaved families and the wider Grenfell community receive all the support they need.\n\nThe independent public Inquiry into the fire is an important part of the process and will help those affected get the answers they need to get to the truth of what happened.\n\nThe Prime Minister committed to considering the issue of panel members once the Chair had confirmed who had been appointed as assessors to assist the Inquiry. Section 7 of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the Minister responsible for an inquiry to appoint further panel members during the course of an inquiry with the agreement of the Chair.\n\nIn October 2017, the Chair announced the appointment of 7 expert witnesses with backgrounds in fire safety, forensic fire analysis, fire engineering, disaster resilience and also anatomy and human identification. The expert witnesses will provide a range of technical advice and expert reports to assist the work of the Inquiry in delivering its terms of reference.\n\nIn addition, in November 2017, the Chair announced the appointment of 3 assessors with backgrounds in community engagement and social housing, local authority administration and structural engineering.  The Chair also confirmed at the Inquiry’s preliminary hearing in September that he would expect the assessors to see all the evidence and sit with him when taking oral evidence. The Chair has also confirmed that he may make further appointments if needed.\nFollowing the announcement of these appointments, the Prime Minister carefully considered the composition of the Inquiry panel in light of the diversity and expertise of advice now available to the Inquiry.\n\nThe Prime Minister wrote to the representatives of the survivors and bereaved families on 21 December 2017 and informed them of her decision not to appoint additional panel members. The Prime Minister’s decision was similarly communicated to the Inquiry on the same date.\n\nHaving regard to the terms of reference and the assistance to be provided by the assessors, and the expert witnesses, it is the Prime Minister’s view that the Inquiry panel has the necessary expertise to undertake the Inquiry as it is currently constituted. The Prime Minister is also conscious of the need for the Inquiry to complete its initial report as quickly as reasonably possible. The Prime Minister therefore considers that additional panel members should not be appointed at this stage.\n\nIn reaching this conclusion, the Prime Minister fully took into account her duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Public Sector Equality Duty – PSED).\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of ensuring that those most affected by the tragedy are able to contribute fully to the Inquiry and that is why the Prime Minister welcomes the consideration being given by Sir Martin Moore-Bick to the establishment of a community advisory panel, as proposed at the December procedural hearing.\n\nSuch a panel, similar to that which has worked well for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, could play a very beneficial role in putting those most affected at the heart of the Inquiry and enabling them to ensure that their views and experiences are heard. It is for Sir Martin, as Chair of the independent Inquiry, to take this forward, in consultation with the Grenfell Tower community, and the Government hopes that he will be able to do this as soon as possible.\n\nIn line with the Inquiry Rules 2006, legal representatives of the Grenfell community core participants will receive in advance of hearings disclosure of relevant evidence; will be able to make opening and closing statements at certain hearings and can suggest lines of questioning to be pursued by Counsel to the Inquiry. They can also apply to the Chair to ask questions of a witness.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-01-05T10:15:21.002Z","updated_at":"2018-02-08T09:53:33.016Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-05-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-14/debates/AA42BB9C-5130-4DB1-814A-569FE1E4CD74/GrenfellTowerInquiry","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/143ec7e0-1ba0-480b-a5cd-126536e7bfd7","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8305","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":216539,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/216539.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Amnesty for anyone who was a minor that arrived In Britain between 1948 to 1971","background":"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay.We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor.The government should also provide compensation for loss & hurt.","additional_details":"With successive changes in immigration policy and legislation over the last 70 years along with the independence of countries which now form part of the Commonwealth this has created uncertainty and lack of clarity and justice for tens of thousands of individuals who have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised children and grandchildren and  who see Britain as their home. \r\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/30/antiguan-who-has-lived-59-years-in-britain-told-he-is-in-uk-illegally","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":180482,"created_at":"2018-03-30T16:36:00.632Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:07.280Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-06T16:51:31.292Z","closed_at":"2018-10-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-30T17:45:10.856Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-10T08:34:58.848Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.011Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-15T07:23:23.315Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-30","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-01T08:54:46.658Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-23","summary":"The Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.","details":"This petition was debated in Westminster Hall on 30 April 2018 and as part of that debate the Minister for Immigration said:\n\nLet us be in no doubt about the debt of gratitude that this country owes to the Windrush generation… they were invited to come to the United Kingdom immediately after the second world war and in the decades that followed to help us to build modern Britain…\n\n…We cannot fail to be moved and to be ashamed when confronted with the individual stories, but as a result, be determined to get the wrong righted, to sort the cases out and to make sure that the legal status is confirmed.\n\nThe Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.\nThe Immigration Act 1971 set out in law a provision that those here before it came into force should be treated as having been given indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK. It also retained a right of abode for certain Commonwealth citizens. Therefore, everyone that arrived in the UK and was settled before 1973 was given settlement rights by operation of law and was not required to have any specific documentation to prove those rights. \n\nSince 1973, many of the Windrush generation will have obtained documentation confirming their status or would have applied for citizenship and then a British passport. For those who have not, the former Home Secretary announced a series of measures on 16 and 23 April 2018 to ensure the Windrush generation could easily obtain documentation to demonstrate that right and could easily go on to apply for British Citizenship.\n\nOn 16 April, the previous Home Secretary announced a dedicated taskforce would be established to support the Windrush generation. The taskforce is taking calls and emails from those who are affected and guiding them through the application taskforce. Since its inception on 17 April the taskforce has documented hundreds of individuals who were affected.\n\nIn the Westminster Hall debate on this petition, the Minister for Immigration said of the taskforce:\n\nI was in Croydon and in Sheffield with caseworkers who are on the frontline, doing their best to help people through the process. \n\nI have to say that I was very impressed with the determination of those caseworkers to be sympathetic and understanding, and to talk people through the process as gently as they possibly could while at the same time enabling them to give their stories and to provide a picture of their life in the UK—helping them through a process with which we should have been helping them much earlier.\n\nOn 23 April, the previous Home Secretary announced four measures to assist those in the Windrush generation to become British Citizens:\n\nFirstly, that the Government will waive the citizenship fee for anyone in the Windrush generation who wishes to apply for citizenship. This applies to those who have no current documentation, and also to those who have it.\n\nSecondly, that the Government will waive the requirement to carry out a Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK test for British Citizenship.\n\nThirdly, that the children of the Windrush generation who are in the UK and need to apply for naturalisation will have their fee waived.  For those not born in the UK but now living here, provided they joined their parents as children (before the age of 18) they will also be covered by the scheme.\n\nFourthly, that those who made their lives here but have now retired to their country of origin, are able to come back to the UK, without fees. \n\nFinally, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have announced that a compensation scheme will be put in place for those who have suffered loss as a result of these difficulties, and that the Government will consult on the design of this scheme – such as the shape it should take, what it should cover, and how long it should be for. \n\nAccordingly, the Home Office have launched a call for evidence addressed to those who have been affected by this situation and their families.  This is an opportunity for those people to tell the Government what happened, how it has affected them and what they believe the compensation scheme needs to address.\n\nAs a first step the Government have asked Martin Forde QC to provide independent oversight and advise us on the design of the scheme. He will help us to understand the experience of people who have been affected and how this should be reflected in the scheme.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z","updated_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-30/debates/CEC6AAFF-E02D-41DA-B681-AF9713BE6F82/MinorsEnteringTheUK1948To1971","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f29d6e8b-ff66-4e9b-97a6-89dc46a9dbfd","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0109","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205106,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205106.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the privatisation of NHS services","background":"We call for a ban on the outsourcing (privatisation) of NHS services, and stop the renewal of any outsourcing contracts already signed. Companies should not be profiteering from NHS contracts, when every pound of NHS budgets is desperately needed for more doctors and nurses, and to pay them more.","additional_details":"Research by Bain & Company published by the Financial Times in January 2017, found that private-sector companies had been invited to bid for 14 per cent more NHS contracts in the 12 months to August 2016 than just a year previously. In March 2017 the Financial Times also reported of the extra £2bn given to the NHS in 2014 to try and bolster NHS services, according to data analysis carried out by the Health Foundation, an independent charity, only about half this extra money was spent in the NHS.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":238769,"created_at":"2017-11-13T11:18:15.151Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:38.478Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-17T14:21:10.458Z","closed_at":"2018-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-13T13:42:03.263Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-10T09:21:05.254Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.991Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-26T06:28:35.090Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-23","debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-24T09:20:07.119Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-20","summary":"The vast majority of NHS care has and will continue to be provided by public sector organisations. Patients should be able to access the best treatments based on quality of care not type of provider.","details":"We remain committed to a publicly funded NHS. However, the private sector has always played a vital supporting role in the NHS, for example in building hospitals, in providing facilities management services, in supplying medicines and equipment. Primary care contractors – GPs, dentists, pharmacists – have always been independent contractors and are not NHS employees.  The opportunity – not obligation – of NHS commissioners to use private sector healthcare providers in order to support existing NHS-delivered care has played a key role in improving patient choice, and in reducing waiting times. In such cases, private sector contractors have to adhere to the same standards of efficiency, safety and quality as NHS providers do, and for this reason the publicly funded NHS will always remain in the driving seat. We are clear that patients should be able to access the best possible treatments based on quality of care and value for money not the type of provider they receive this care from.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.988Z","updated_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.988Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-23/debates/A43878B7-E1E8-4205-A7D2-6624BCF0E403/PrivatisationOfNHSServices","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dd85df77-1e1d-4f1b-bb9f-30a6f5e06a98","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0091","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200224,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200224.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Impose Financial sanctions on the State of Myanmar (Burma).","background":"Impose harsh financial sanctions on the State of Myanmar due to the current ongoing ethnic cleansing being pursued by elements of its security forces.","additional_details":"Human rights watchdogs have voiced mounting concerns, over Myanmar’s systematic campaign aimed towards ethnic cleansing of its minority population.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41260767","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30349,"created_at":"2017-09-14T00:42:23.290Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.901Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-14T16:19:42.313Z","closed_at":"2018-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T01:50:05.060Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T21:10:24.248Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.816Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-16","debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-17T09:28:10.787Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-04","summary":"The UK is seriously concerned with recent events in Rakhine. We are working closely with partners on the international community’s response. \r\n\r\n","details":"The UK is seriously concerned about the situation in northern Rakhine and the linked refugee crisis across the border in Bangladesh.  We have been at the forefront of the international community's response, both humanitarian and political.\n\nAs a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, the UK has now raised Burma three times at the Council.  On 18 September, we secured agreement for a statement expressing concern about reports of excessive violence during the security operations in Rakhine, calling for immediate steps to end the violence  and ensure full access for humanitarian relief.  The Security Council discussed Burma in an open session on 28 September. The Foreign Secretary hosted a lunch during UNGA week to discuss the situation in Rakhine which included Burma and a range of international partners.\n\nAt the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the UK took part in an Interactive Dialogue led by Kofi Annan with the Burma Fact Finding Mission on 19 September. The UK co-sponsored a resolution to extend the mandate of the Mission. \n\nEU sanctions, other than the Arms Embargo, were removed in 2013 following progress made in Burma towards a democratic transition. .   Following recent events in Rakhine, we judge the Security Council would be unlikely to agree to sanctions at this stage. However, we are working with EU partners to consider possible measures by the EU and to follow the UK’s lead in suspending defence assistance and visits to EU countries by senior military figures such as the Commander in Chief and regional commanders responsible for the violence in Rakhine state.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.813Z","updated_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.813Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-04-16/debates/FB517E47-EA76-40A7-BA56-71279FFA1FF8/MyanmarRohingyaMinority","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0e341f8d-4bca-4583-b986-e455bf79a2f5","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0086","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}