{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=3&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=19&parliament=3&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=3&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":236874,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/236874.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Laws to be introduced on social networks on hate preaching against religion(s)","background":"In the recent years numerous far right groups have insulted prophets of faiths including Prophet Muhammad PBUH, using public YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms. I believe there needs to be a legal boundary set when discussing criticism against religions and their respective Prophets.","additional_details":"The open rallies and social media networks require moderators to stop hate speech. We have far-right preachers who are creating disunity, disharmony against law abiding citizens. Where such speech/expressions incite religious intolerance e.g. in the event of an improper or even abusive attack on an object of religious veneration, the government should consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":115999,"created_at":"2019-01-09T18:58:32.099Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:48:05.398Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-10T14:01:37.566Z","closed_at":"2019-07-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-09T19:32:20.328Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-02T09:33:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.346Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-09T22:29:42.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:47:50.510Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-15","summary":"The Government is committed to the principle of freedom of religion and belief.  But this needs to be balanced against other rights and freedoms, as set out in the Online Harms White Paper. ","details":"Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right and one which must be upheld and defended. Equally, freedom of speech is the foundation of a healthy society, allowing for debate and disagreement, underpinned by those values that bind people together - tolerance, equality and fairness. It is important that all have the right to speak freely, and that a strong legal framework provides the appropriate space to do so. The Government will continue to protect people’s legitimate rights and freedoms whilst also remaining committed to tackling hate crime, both online and offline. \n\nThe Online Harms White Paper, published in April sets out the Government’s plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. The internet and other new technologies have driven dramatic improvements to the economy and society. The benefits of technological innovation should rightly extend to all citizens, and harmful behaviours and content cannot be allowed to undermine these. People have strong and legitimate concerns about their safety and security online – the Government is clear that what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online. The challenge as a society is to help shape an internet that is open and vibrant but protects users and communities from harm.\n\nAs outlined in the Online Harms White Paper, the Government intend to establish in law a new duty of care on companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. This regulator will set clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and effective enforcement powers. Companies will be held to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms; these range from illegal activity and content to behaviours that may not be illegal but are nonetheless highly damaging to individuals and society.\n\nIn February 2018 the Prime Minister announced a review by the Law Commission of the law in relation to abusive and offensive online communications, to highlight any gaps in the criminal law which cause problems in tackling this abuse. In its scoping report published last year, the Law Commission concluded that behaviour is broadly criminalised to the same extent online as offline and recommended a clarification of existing communication offences. \n\nThe Government has now engaged the Law Commission in a Phase 2 of their Review of Abusive and Offensive Online Communications. The Law Commission will review the current communications offences to establish whether the law is fit for purpose, and whether co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law. A final report, setting out specific recommendations for legal reform, is due to be published in early 2021.\n\nFinally, the Hate Crime Action Plan refresh has improved the response to all forms of hate crime and ensures a renewed commitment that victims remain at the heart of the work. In this refresh the Government recognises the need to focus on high risk environments, such as online. That is why, the Government committed additional funding to continue to protect places of worship alongside just over £1.5 million for projects to tackle racially and religiously motivated hatred.  This includes support for support for Working Groups to Tackle Antisemitism and Anti-Muslim Hatred, among other important initiatives. The Government also launched a wide-ranging national hate crime public awareness campaign to publicly address hate crime in 2018, including online hate, which was re-run in 2019. Police also now record the faith when a religious-based hate crime has taken place to increase understanding and help target police resources.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.","created_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.343Z","updated_at":"2019-07-15T11:46:10.343Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition at this stage as it will be considering the issues it raises as part of ongoing work into tackling online abuse.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":233926,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/233926.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"People found with a knife to get 10 years and using a knife 25 years in prison.","background":"People are scared of the amount of knife crime with apparently very little deterent to stop people carrying knifes.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":115723,"created_at":"2018-11-26T19:42:52.146Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:12.719Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-03T11:13:14.938Z","closed_at":"2019-06-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-26T20:49:46.815Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-28T01:21:25.389Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.458Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-13T13:20:55.518Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-25","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-26T17:05:56.694Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-14","summary":"Conviction of a knife or offensive weapon offence – threatening or possession - is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence, and for longer than at any point in the last ten years.","details":"The Government takes the possession of knives extremely seriously. We understand the devastating impact knife crime has on victims and their families, and are determined to put a stop to violent crimes that involve knives. \n\nParliament has provided a sentencing framework which give courts the powers they need to effectively deal with the range of offences and offenders which come before them. Where someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that the person may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences up to life imprisonment. In England and Wales in fact, all murder convictions must result in a life sentence. For offenders aged 18 and over who bring a knife or another weapon to the scene of a murder with the intention of using it, courts will consider a minimum term spent in custody of at least 25 years.\n\nIn 2015, we introduced minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months’ imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a minimum 4 month Detention and Training Order. Since the introduction of the minimum custodial term people caught carrying a knife or offensive weapon for a second time are now more likely than ever before to go to prison – in the year ending September 2018, 82% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat possession offences. These offences carry maximum terms of 4 years’ imprisonment.\n\nWhen sentencing, the courts consider the full circumstances of the offence and offender and must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines produced by the independent Sentencing Council. The guidelines are clear that for any offence the use of weapon will be treated as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence. \n\nIt is clear tackling serious violence requires a response on several fronts. This Government is taking significant action to both prevent and respond to crimes involving weapons through the Serious Violence Strategy, published on 9 April 2018. The Strategy sets out 61 commitments the Government will be taking forward to tackle violent crime. For example, the Offensive Weapons Bill, currently before Parliament includes provision for new offences related to knives, such as preventing the delivery of knives to home addresses when bought online. The Strategy also commits to strengthen police capability to act against violent crime, and to secure better partnership working to support young people and encourage them to take up positive activities rather than get involved in crime.\n\nMinistry of Justice.","created_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.455Z","updated_at":"2019-03-14T16:47:38.455Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-25/debates/D6B4D711-F983-439F-A598-670CFE4D36B2/KnifeCrime","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c063c476-5ff9-42b2-8970-73107838f3bf","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00330","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":232220,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232220.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Increase funding for schools","background":"Schools are having to make difficult choices on how to spend their limited funding as their income has not kept pace with the rise in costs since 2010. All schools are working very hard to “make ends meet” but this is becoming increasingly difficult and verging on almost impossible.","additional_details":"As funding has become tighter, schools have had to cut back on: \r\n• Teaching and non-teaching staff \r\n• Support for more vulnerable pupils \r\n• Small group work for children who are not thriving in school \r\n• Teaching resources (parents being asked to pay for books and materials) \r\n• Subject choices in secondary schools \r\n• Range of activities for primary pupils \r\n• Extra curricula activities provided free or subsidised \r\n• Repairs to buildings \r\n• Renewal of equipment","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113825,"created_at":"2018-11-07T14:36:22.821Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:42.278Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-19T13:31:45.997Z","closed_at":"2019-05-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-08T11:30:45.495Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-29T21:26:55.551Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-11T15:46:34.689Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T08:23:05.052Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-02-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-04","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-05T11:07:59.600Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-05","summary":"We recognise schools are facing budgeting challenges and we are asking them to do more. We have increased funding by an extra £1.3bn across this year and next, over and above previous spending plans.","details":"While there is more money going into our schools than ever before, we recognise the budgeting challenges schools face and that we are asking them to do more. The total core schools and high needs budget will rise from almost £41bn in 2017-18 to £43.5bn by 2019-20.  \n\nFigures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that in 2020, per pupil funding for five to sixteen year olds, adjusted for inflation, will be 50% higher than in 2000, and 70% higher than in 1990. We can also compare ourselves favourably to other countries – we spend as much per pupil on state school education as any major economy in the world, with the single exception of the United States of America.  \n\nWe are also distributing that funding more fairly, through the national funding formula which directs money to where it is most needed, based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics – not accidents of geography or past arrangements. Since 2017, the national funding formula has allocated every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the largest increases to the schools that have been most underfunded. \n\nWe recently confirmed funding allocations for local authorities through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2019-20. More information on the DSG and a detailed breakdown of funding allocations for each local authority is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2019-to-2020 \n\nWe also announced that we will provide £250m additional funding for high needs over this financial year and the next. This brings the total allocated for high needs, within the overall core schools budget, to £6.1 billion in 2018-19 and £6.3 billion in 2019-20. We recognise that the high needs budget faces significant pressures and this additional expenditure will help to manage those pressures. \n\nSpending plans beyond 2019-20 will be set at the next Spending Review and naturally we cannot pre-empt these decisions – but we are of course committed to securing the right deal for education. \n\nDespite all of this, we do recognise that budgets remain tight. That is why we are supporting schools and head teachers to make the most of their budgets and reduce costs on things like energy, water bills and materials.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-12-11T15:46:34.687Z","updated_at":"2019-02-06T18:14:43.801Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-04/debates/2EB33517-190D-4882-8682-4953D09C5CB0/SchoolFunding","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/198bdfcd-f451-4891-a8b5-c8a888c4c2a0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8419","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205169,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205169.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament's vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the EU.","background":"A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice, and our MPs should be allowed to vote with their conscience to deliver what they believe is best for the country.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113612,"created_at":"2017-11-14T05:48:02.188Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:39.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-17T17:26:40.136Z","closed_at":"2018-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-14T06:54:05.845Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-20T00:40:16.732Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-19T17:33:50.481Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T13:14:30.071Z","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":201947,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/201947.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Change the laws governing the use of fireworks to include a ban on public use","background":"Fireworks cause alarm, distress and anxiety to many people and animals. We call on the Secretary of State  to make appropriate provision to secure that the risk of public use is the MINIMUM that is compatible with fireworks being used, as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 2.","additional_details":"Noted in debate of firework petition 109702 statistics are not recorded. We ask government to collect statistics. We ask the Sec. of State to issue a full regulatory impact assessment in accordance with section 2(4) Act; 2004, consider statistics gathered by FireworkABatement (FAB) as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 3b., ‘as an organisation which appears to the Sec. of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal’, Shown by this petition and past petitions.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113284,"created_at":"2017-10-01T20:59:57.046Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:49.980Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-06T13:02:12.776Z","closed_at":"2018-04-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-01T21:10:31.019Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-18T18:33:39.028Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.020Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-09T17:41:14.793Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-11-15","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-29","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-30T12:17:06.595Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-27","summary":"Government takes the issue of firework safety very seriously. There is legislation in place that controls the sale, use and misuse of fireworks; we have no plans to extend this further.","details":"The Government takes the issue of firework safety very seriously. There is legislation in place relating to the supply, storage, possession and use and misuse of fireworks. This includes legislation which regulates the supply and use of fireworks, both for the general public and professional display operators. Restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks are set out under the 2003 Fireworks Act, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015. These contain provisions to minimise the risk of fireworks harming people, property and animals. Although a small minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate or anti-social manner, we believe that the majority use them sensibly and responsibly.\n\nThe Government is aware of concerns about the distress noisy fireworks can cause to individuals, as well as to livestock, pets and wildlife. Therefore, the Government urges those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly to those who are vulnerable such as older people, children, those with mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and those with pets and livestock. We have worked with the fireworks industry to encourage users of fireworks to give notice of their displays so that those who are vulnerable or keep animals can make arrangements for their safety.  \n\nThe Blue Cross animal charity has also produced information on animals and fireworks, which gives advice on how to avoid or reduce stress to animals when fireworks are being set off.  The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Kennel Club provide similar advice on their websites concerning how to minimise the impact of fireworks use on animals.\nThere is already a ban on the general public from purchasing fireworks with higher levels of risk and noise and seasonal limitations on their sale. The Fireworks Regulations 2004 restrict their sale to the traditional fireworks periods around 5th November, Diwali, New Year’s Eve and the Chinese New Year. These are an important part of British tradition reflecting our history and multi-culturalism. While it is possible to buy fireworks at other times of the year, a ‘licence to sell fireworks’ is required and strict conditions are imposed outside the traditional periods. \n\nAt present any firework that exceeds 120 decibels must not be supplied to consumers. There are also low noise fireworks available that consumers can choose to buy, but we do not propose to bring in regulations to require all fireworks to be low noise. \n\nGovernment acknowledges that many people have genuine concerns about the use and, the misuse, of fireworks and the risks of firework-related injury. However, the number of injuries is low and the total number of hospital admissions caused by firework injuries has remained below 200 a year for the last 10 years. \n\nThe Government does not plan to make any changes to the way statistics relating to enforcement actions are collected. The Government believes the focus of enforcement should be on delivering necessary protections and on working with businesses, citizens and others to ensure safety.\n\nThe Government believes that the current regulations strike the right balance between the enjoyment of fireworks by the public and restricting the sale and use of fireworks for public safety reasons. \n\nThe best way to continue to reduce the distress caused by fireworks is to work with industry, retailers and others to promote the safe and responsible use of fireworks through guidance and public education and to ensure that appropriate action is taken against those that break the rules. \n\nThe obligations for the Secretary of State referred to in the e-petition, to publish a regulatory Impact Assessment and to consult interested organisations, only apply when making new regulations and we have no plans to change the legislation relating to fireworks.\n\nAs set out above, given there is already legislation in place which controls the sale and use and misuse of fireworks; we have no plans to extend this further.\n\nDepartment of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.017Z","updated_at":"2017-10-27T14:39:35.017Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-29/debates/913A2227-7B51-44CD-870A-56C0A5ACAC73/Fireworks","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2a1e3167-13f1-4dcc-9297-6a51f3854ac3","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0018","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":226509,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/226509.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"STOP BREXIT","background":"It's so desperately simple. The Government's standard response to these kinds of petitions is \"The British people voted to leave the EU and the government respect that decision\". BUT, the government themselves DO NOT KNOW the outcome of that decision, so how can they possibly respect it???","additional_details":"Quote Theresa May: \"We don't know what the outcome will be\". The referendum was advisory, not conclusive. The result of the referendum has now been proven to be illegally biased (something \"our\" government is choosing to ignore). Hence, the \"vote\" (actually an opinion poll) is now null and void. The referendum was voted for with no indication of any actual facts. 2yrs ago there was no detail about what \"brexit\" actually entailed. Today, still no detail. For all these reasons:  STOP BREXIT.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112578,"created_at":"2018-08-03T00:12:28.596Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:02.789Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-10T13:51:55.381Z","closed_at":"2019-02-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-07T10:23:14.432Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T19:05:52.038Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.256Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-20T21:09:28.855Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:45:23.072Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-22","summary":"The people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction to leave the\r\nEuropean Union. The Government respects that decision.","details":"The British public voted to leave the European Union and the\nGovernment will deliver this instruction. As a matter of firm policy our\nnotification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn.\n\nThe referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British\nhistory. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the\nreferendum, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European\nUnion. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK\nelectoral history. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a\ncourse of action ever directed at any UK Government.\n\nParliament also overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum\nby voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for\nthe European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. At the last general\nelection over 80% of British people voted for parties committed to\nrespecting the Leave result.\n\nThe Government will honour the referendum result and get the best\ndeal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of\nthe British people.\n\nThe full legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement has now been agreed in\nprinciple. This agreement marks a decisive step forward towards a\nsmooth and orderly exit from the EU. We have also agreed the draft text\nof our future relationship as set out in the Political Declaration.\n\nThis puts us close to a Brexit deal. A deal that takes back control of our\nborders, our laws and our money while protecting jobs, security and the\nintegrity of our United Kingdom.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.253Z","updated_at":"2018-11-23T12:27:10.253Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-14/debates/694BA27D-566E-4F52-BC4B-8FC1ACA3F109/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/64100b1a-6f58-46b5-a84e-d0b2416896b3","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0002","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":207040,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/207040.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing","background":"Safe Standing offers a much safer alternative to fans who wish to stand, rather than sit at football matches. After the highly successful introduction to rail seating at Celtic Park, as well as numerous Bundesliga clubs, many football fans feel that laws preventing standing areas should be relaxed.","additional_details":"Some football clubs that already have successfully installed rail seating are: Celtic, Werder Bremen, Hamburg SV, Vfl Wolfsburg, Hannover 96 and the famous “yellow wall” at Borussia Dortmund. \r\n\r\nIn conclusion, there is a clear demand for safe standing with 92% of respondents saying fans should be given the choice to stand in safe standing areas, in a poll by the Football Fans Census, and it would only promote English football further by improving the overall matchday experience.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":112025,"created_at":"2017-12-04T13:00:50.405Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:14.708Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-08T14:39:55.168Z","closed_at":"2018-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T15:10:41.027Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-11T19:54:00.553Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.925Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T15:57:20.341Z","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":266770,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/266770.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban Driven Grouse Shooting\r\nWilful blindness is no longer an option","background":"Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery (Wild Justice) believe that intensive grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife. People; grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s uplands.","additional_details":"Environment; muirburn impacts negatively upon climate change and drainage leads to flooding and erosion. Wildlife; the wholesale culling of all predators and Mountain Hares has a disastrous effect on the ecology of these areas and the industry is underpinned by a criminal tradition of raptor persecution which shows no signs of abating. It’s time to provide an opportunity to implement immediate , legislative and meaningful measures to address this abhorrently destructive practice.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111965,"created_at":"2019-07-04T21:22:54.456Z","updated_at":"2021-06-22T10:11:16.939Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-13T15:24:03.152Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-05T03:23:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-13T21:47:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.936Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-01T18:32:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-19","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-21","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-22T10:11:16.939Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-02","summary":"Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity providing benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation and investment in remote areas. Defra is working on the sustainable management of English uplands.","details":"This is a devolved matter. Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of the uplands, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable grouse shooting. \n\nThe Government appreciates that many people hold strong views on the issue of driven grouse shooting. The Government considers that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and can in many cases be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected and the law is respected. We will continue work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. The Government has no plans to ban grouse shooting. \n\nWild birds and other wild animals are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have identified raptor persecution as a wildlife crime priority. Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white-tailed eagle. The group is working on developing tools to help tackle raptor persecution crimes.\n\nThe National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting raptors and assists police forces when required. Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine falcon, red kite and buzzard have increased. We are concerned that with respect to eliminating illegal bird of prey persecution, there are still individuals who continue to commit these crimes. We will work with all stakeholders to try to eradicate these crimes. Any evidence of crime should be presented to the local police force for their consideration. \n\nGrouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable ecosystem services, including food, fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities. UK uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog. \n\nSeventy per cent of the UK’s drinking water is provided from upland catchments. The Government is committed to delivering positive environmental and economic benefits and creating a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including preserving and restoring peatlands through development of the UK Peatland Code; there is also funding of peatland restoration through Government-funded grants and private sector sponsorship.  We will publish an England Peat Strategy later this year, setting out our vision for how our precious peatlands will be restored and protected.\n\nHealthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits and ecosystem services. Natural England is working with landowners of grouse moors to develop management agreements, which include vegetation management principles for the various habitats on grouse moors. These agreements aim to reverse habitat degradation and help landowners sustainably manage and restore upland peatland habitats. The Government encourages land managers to work closely with Natural England to put agreements in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment. The Government is working with moor owners and stakeholders to improve management practices and peat condition further through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.\n\nA report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall impact of game bird shooting is positive; the industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation. The Moorland Association highlights that estates in England and Wales spent £52.5 million on managing 149 grouse moors for shooting in 2010. The industry supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £97.7 million across Great Britain. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.934Z","updated_at":"2019-09-02T15:06:57.934Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-06-21/debates/7654E8FA-2E19-4E39-985E-DD8DB066B065/GrouseShooting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjE7qw8Bis&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0098/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":241848,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241848.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Halt Brexit For A Public Inquiry","background":"The UK's departure from the EU looms but questions remain about the legitimacy of the Referendum. The Electoral Commission said illegal overspending occurred during the Referendum. Were the vote/any subsequent political acts affected? Article 50 was triggered. Was the overspend known about then?","additional_details":"A transparent Public Inquiry is required, now.\r\n\r\nThis Inquiry must determine urgently whether any decision-maker knew about the EU Referendum irregularities before Article 50 was triggered. \r\n\r\nWhat assessment (before Article 50 was triggered or subsequently) was made, and by whom, of any impacts illegal spending had on the outcome of the EU Referendum?\r\n\r\nThese are matters vital to the democratic process and public confidence in British politics. Until they are resolved Brexit must be deferred.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111918,"created_at":"2019-02-15T17:24:05.639Z","updated_at":"2020-10-06T12:22:07.235Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-05T10:48:12.754Z","closed_at":"2019-09-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-16T10:28:39.058Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-19T19:48:10.882Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.959Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-14T12:44:45.060Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-09-29","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-10-05","debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-06T12:15:27.418Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-15","summary":"Investigations are conducted by the independent Electoral Commission. There are no plans to establish a Public Inquiry. The Government is committed to delivering the result of the EU referendum.","details":"The EU referendum was carried out in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament. There was a six week period in which the result of the EU Referendum could be challenged by judicial review.\n\nWe treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. The Government is committed to making sure the rules work, now and in the future.\n\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures – and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaigns.\n\nPro-Remain groups outspent pro-Leave groups by £4 million in the referendum campaign.\n\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. If offences are alleged, it is right that they are investigated thoroughly by the appropriate agencies. Those agencies and any investigations are rightly independent of government.\n\nClose to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at the UK Government. Following the referendum, Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\n\nThe British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment.\n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.957Z","updated_at":"2019-04-15T15:07:58.957Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-05/debates/915A231C-FE1E-4E7D-A512-060DB8C10F94/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3dd8e43f-bc93-45ad-8efd-dd5b6d61502c","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0050/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219905,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219905.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"If there is no agreement to leave the EU then brexit must be stopped","background":"If there is no agreement by the deadline for reaching agreement with the EU during the talks then brexit should be stopped as leaving with no deal will be very bad for businesses and for the Irish border issue and for EU citizens living here.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":110136,"created_at":"2018-05-13T01:48:34.993Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:05.001Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-18T16:22:27.971Z","closed_at":"2018-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-13T03:33:45.914Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-17T10:00:14.076Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-03T09:06:32.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-29T10:43:19.109Z","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":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":250178,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/250178.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"To establish a Public Inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU Referendum.","background":"There is now strong evidence of serious misconduct during the 2016 EU Referendum, including intereference by foreign actors and governments. This must be investigated under the Inquiries Act (2005).","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109430,"created_at":"2019-03-24T11:04:25.702Z","updated_at":"2020-10-06T12:21:42.665Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-02T15:43:16.968Z","closed_at":"2019-10-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T11:58:03.553Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T11:13:13.330Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.790Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-01T10:34:02.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-09-29","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-10-05","debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-06T12:17:07.186Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-24","summary":"There are no plans to establish a public inquiry on the conduct during the 2016 EU Referendum. The Government has not seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes.","details":"The EU referendum was carried out in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament. There was a six week period in which the result of the EU Referendum could be challenged by judicial review.\n\nWe treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. The Government is committed to making sure the rules work, now and in the future.\n\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures – and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaigns.\n\nPro-Remain groups outspent pro-Leave groups by £4 million in the referendum campaign.\n\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. If offences are alleged, it is right that they are investigated thoroughly by the appropriate agencies. Those agencies and any investigations are rightly independent of government.\n\nClose to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at the UK Government. Following the referendum, Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.\n\nThe British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment.\n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.788Z","updated_at":"2019-04-24T11:45:53.788Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-05/debates/915A231C-FE1E-4E7D-A512-060DB8C10F94/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3dd8e43f-bc93-45ad-8efd-dd5b6d61502c","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0050/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":254607,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/254607.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Restore nature on a massive scale to help stop climate breakdown","background":"To avoid a climate emergency we need to act fast. Rewilding and other natural climate solutions can draw millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the air through restoring and protecting our living systems. We call on the UK government to make a bold financial and political commitment to nature's recovery.","additional_details":"We need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate breakdown. To do this we need both to reduce carbon emissions and to remove carbon from the atmosphere. By drawing down carbon, nature's recovery can help us reach net carbon zero. \r\n\r\nWe have a chance for the UK to become a world leader in natural climate solutions. Those who manage our land and sea play a pivotal role and should be supported to come together to deliver carbon reductions.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":109076,"created_at":"2019-04-02T13:19:48.922Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:49:09.443Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-17T11:27:40.121Z","closed_at":"2019-10-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-02T13:40:04.186Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-18T11:23:28.024Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.973Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-02T10:00:42.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-10-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-10-28","debate_outcome_at":"2019-11-05T16:01:19.593Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-02","summary":"Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges we face. Nature-based solutions are key to tackling climate change. The Government is deploying such solutions to improve our natural environment.","details":"Climate change is one of the most urgent and pressing challenges we face today. The UK is acting to tackle it, including taking action to restore nature.\n\nThe 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP) signals a step-change in ambition for the natural environment in England. It commits the Government to improving the condition of our protected sites network and to creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat in England, as part of a Nature Recovery Network to protect and restore wildlife. Within our draft Environment Bill, we have committed to place the 25YEP on a statutory footing. The Bill will include ambitious legislative measures to take direct action to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age, many of which are linked directly to climate change: air quality, nature recovery, waste and resource efficiency, and water resource management. \n\nOur woodlands and wetlands provide vital services, such as carbon sequestration and flood prevention that can help to mitigate climate change and help us adapt to its impacts. Tree planting is one of the main contributors to nature-based carbon sequestration and the Government supports this in a number of ways. Our manifesto committed to planting 11 million trees by 2022, and in addition a further 1 million trees in our towns and cities, and we also have a long term aspiration to increase woodland cover from 10% to 12% by 2060. To achieve these goals, in the Autumn Budget the Chancellor announced £10 million for an Urban Trees Challenge Fund and £50 million to help plant new woodlands through the Woodland Carbon Guarantee.\n\nPeatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store. Drained peatlands release their carbon, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Organic or peat soils make up 11% of England’s total land area, over 70% of which are drained or in poor condition.  We have committed to publishing an England Peatland Strategy. The strategy will set out our vision to reverse decline in peatlands and restore them, which is in line with the Government's commitment to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than we found it. Work is underway on four large-scale peatland restoration projects across England, to which we have allocated £10 million, and will restore 5,851 ha of degraded peatlands. \n\nNatural England have an ongoing uplands programme working with landowners to put in place Long Term Management Plans to reverse degradation and help them sustainably manage and restore upland peatland habitats. We will also be setting up a Lowland Agricultural Peatland Taskforce to assess how best to restore and sustainably manage England's peatland, which provides essential food and fibre for the UK in lowland settings. Once restored, our healthy functioning peatlands will provide a range of public benefits in addition to carbon storage, including flood mitigation and biodiversity rich habitats.\n\nUnder the new Environmental Land Management Scheme we will pay land managers public money for public goods, including mitigation of climate change. Land managers could deliver this by sequestering carbon through, for example, peatland restoration and tree planting.\n\nInternationally, the UK is also supporting ambitious action by countries and companies to combat deforestation and promote the sustainable management of the world’s forests through our international climate finance (ICF). The Department for International Development (DFID), the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) all contribute to the UK’s £5.8 billion overall climate finance commitment from 2016 until 2020/21. ICF programming aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and land use change and help forest communities adapt to climate change through sustainable farming and land use practices.\n\nFor example, Defra’s current ICF investments aim to protect and restore more than 500,000 hectares of forests, delivering 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions savings. In Madagascar, our Blue carbon project will protect and restore 20,000 hectares of mangrove forest through community forest management, benefiting over 100,000 people with the development of sustainable livelihoods. Our project in Brazil will protect 100,000ha of forest in the Amazon, Atlantic Forest and Cerrado regions and support over 5,000 small and medium sized farmers by helping them to transition into low carbon sustainable agriculture.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.970Z","updated_at":"2019-05-02T14:36:07.970Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-10-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-28/debates/B12362DC-0F6A-481B-A1E6-973776F0F9F9/RestoringNatureAndClimateChange","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVfFJeyLius","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0537?utm_source=directory&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=PN537","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231602,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231602.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"NHS supply new lifesaving drugs for Cystic Fibrosis like 11 other EU countries","background":"Children & young adults with CF endure lifelong suffering & early death. They need Orkambi and other precision medicines as they are developed. Sufferers in the EU, US & Australia can access the drugs, but not the UK. Hundreds have died in the 3yrs since these drugs were licensed.","additional_details":"All MPs who debated the petition in March were passionately in favour of supplying the drugs. Despite an ever-increasing abundance of evidence as to the drugs’ effectiveness, CF sufferers still do not have access. Case studies report miraculous improvements in health. Consultants nationwide have asked the NHS to make the drugs available. Doctors have expressed distress at seeing children die whilst the drug they need is on the shelf.  After 3 yrs, conclude negotiations and fund these drugs.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":108144,"created_at":"2018-10-31T17:50:02.682Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:29.771Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-16T17:32:51.166Z","closed_at":"2019-05-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T09:59:39.310Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-21T18:35:42.239Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.702Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-03T21:59:46.702Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-05-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-06-10","debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-11T12:26:04.205Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-07","summary":"The Government urges Vertex Pharmaceuticals to fully re-engage with the NICE appraisal process and to accept the offer the NHS made in July.","details":"NICE and NHS England are leading the dialogue with Vertex Pharmaceuticals around access to their portfolio of cystic fibrosis medicines.  The Government fully supports the approach that NICE and NHS England are adopting.\n\nNICE was established nearly two decades ago to act as the authoritative, independent, expert body for assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of new drug treatments in this country. It is internationally respected and central to decisions about which treatments can be reimbursed on the NHS. \n\nWhilst the Government understands the high level of interest in Orkambi, there is no justification for treating Vertex differently from the numerous other companies that engage with NICE, and the NICE appraisal process is both suitable and appropriate for evaluating the evidence Vertex have provided for their products.\n\nWe were disappointed by Vertex’s decision not to price Orkambi fairly following the guidance published by NICE two years ago, and by their more recent decision to unilaterally withdraw entirely from the NICE appraisal of Symkevi.   \n\nThe final offer NHS England made to Vertex in July this year provided significant commercial flexibilities designed to assist the company in obtaining positive NICE recommendations across all existing licensed treatments and future pipeline products, with the intention of making them rapidly available to patients and in advance of any NICE appraisals concluding. These flexibilities were to complement the NICE appraisal process, not act as a substitute for it.\n\nWe understand the frustration of the cystic fibrosis community, however, it has been made clear to Vertex that its drugs need to be priced responsibly and that any re-assessment of Orkambi's effectiveness must be carried out via NICE's established processes.  Vertex must now re-engage with the NICE appraisal process.  I am encouraged that they attended a meeting with NICE on 4th October and again on 30th November to discuss next steps and that there is a continuing dialogue between all parties.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.700Z","updated_at":"2018-12-07T17:16:00.700Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-10/debates/15AB9280-DBE7-413D-98AA-8079206FB93B/CysticFibrosisDrugsOrkambi","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9_2DpzNCxY","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0145","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":212174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/212174.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reclassify the theft of a pet to a specific crime in its own right.","background":"Review the sentencing guidelines for theft offences, so that where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant for the categorisation of the crime for sentencing purposes. \r\n\r\nEnsure Police Forces are given appropriate guidance and training to record and investigate cases.","additional_details":"More than 60 dogs are stolen every week in England and Wales.  Less than 5% of cases lead to convictions.\r\n\r\nPet theft is currently seen as no different to the theft of an inanimate object - despite pets being sentient beings. The theft of pets is generally categorised as robbery or burglary, but lead to minimal sentences. Enforcement of existing laws do not currently act as a deterrent or fit the crime itself. \r\n\r\nFor more information, please see: http://www.stolenandmissingpetsalliance.co.uk/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107352,"created_at":"2018-02-07T20:20:17.274Z","updated_at":"2020-07-30T14:33:30.926Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-08T11:52:02.817Z","closed_at":"2018-08-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-07T20:35:31.249Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T23:21:25.999Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-27T17:28:30.693Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-09T18:06:22.577Z","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":243448,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/243448.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"End the Cage Age: ban cages for all farmed animals.","background":"Across the UK, millions of farmed animals are kept in cages, unable to express their natural behaviours. This causes huge suffering.\r\n\r\nWe call on the UK government to end this inhumane practice by banning all cages for farmed animals. Cages are cruel.","additional_details":"This cannot be the future of British farming.\r\n\r\nWe, the undersigned, call on the Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs to bring forward legislation that amends the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 to prohibit the use of:\r\n\r\na)           barren and enriched cages for farmed animals including cages for laying hens, rabbits, pullets, broiler breeders, layer breeders, quail, pheasants, partridges, guinea fowl;\r\nb)          farrowing crates for sows;\r\nc)           individual calf pens","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107187,"created_at":"2019-02-27T09:58:45.312Z","updated_at":"2020-03-18T12:02:23.308Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-08T15:35:58.834Z","closed_at":"2019-09-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T10:33:15.015Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-11T18:32:23.252Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.171Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-23T11:31:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-03-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-18T11:59:59.024Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-22","summary":"We have already banned cages where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal health and welfare. Our comprehensive laws protect the welfare of livestock in all systems.","details":"The Government shares the public’s high regard for animal welfare and the welfare of our farmed livestock is protected by comprehensive and robust legislation. This is backed up by statutory species specific welfare codes, which encourage high standards of husbandry and which keepers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with.  Defra’s Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that the animal welfare standards are being met. \n\nWe have already banned cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal health and welfare. For example, the keeping of sows in close confinement stalls was banned in the UK in 1999, whereas it was not until 2013 that a partial ban on sow stalls was introduced across the rest of the EU. Whatever the system of production, the most important factor in determining animal welfare is good stockmanship and the correct application of husbandry standards. This reflects the advice of our expert body, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. \n\nSince the 2012 EU ban on the use of conventional (“battery”) cages for laying hens, hens are kept in either free range, enriched cages, barn or organic systems. Over half of UK egg production is free range, higher than any other country in the EU.  Enriched cages provide more space for the birds to move around than conventional cages and are legally required to provide nest boxes, litter, perches, and claw shortening devices which allow the birds to carry out a greater range of natural behaviours. Pullets (young hens) which will be housed in an enriched cage system as adults are reared in enriched cages, to ensure that the two environments are matched as far as possible to reduce stress and the likelihood of injurious pecking. In the UK, the use of cages to house both layer breeders and broiler (meat chicken) breeders is prohibited under the UK’s farm assurance scheme standards. \n\nThe UK has a very small industry producing rabbits commercially for meat which uses free range systems, not cages. \n\nThe statutory welfare code for gamebirds states that barren raised cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used. Guinea fowl are not kept in cages. \n\nThe UK is ahead of most other EU pig producing countries in terms of non-confinement farrowing, with approximately 60% of UK sows in farrowing crates to give birth, and the remaining 40% housed outside and free farrowed (crate-free). Research is on-going to develop and test indoor free farrowing systems under commercial conditions which protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets. \n\nThe UK unilaterally banned the keeping of calves in veal crates in 1990, sixteen years before the rest of the EU. However, as young calves are highly susceptible to disease, up to 8 weeks of age, they are permitted to be kept in individual hutches of a specified size with bedding provided, as long as they have visual and tactile contact with other calves.\n\nThe Government will maintain its high regulatory baseline and look to raise standards sustainably over time as new research and evidence emerges. We have been very clear that EU Exit will not lead to a lowering of our high animal welfare standards. Our regulatory system will offer the same level of assurance of animal welfare following EU Exit as it does now and we are actively exploring options for strengthening the UK system moving forward. This includes plans to increase maximum penalties for animal cruelty from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment.  \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.118Z","updated_at":"2019-03-22T15:06:45.118Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-16/debates/F202C256-6D35-44DE-A059-90999F045572/CagingOfFarmAnimals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2YlZuoeJM","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0057/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":208776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/208776.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish the subsidy on food and drink in the Palace of Westminster restaurants.","background":"In 2016, the food subsidy in Parliament cost taxpayers around £3.7 million. This use of taxpayers’ money must stop and the funds diverted to public services where it is needed. MPs earn significant wages and citizens who themselves struggle to buy food should not be forced to help feed MPs as well.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107176,"created_at":"2018-01-03T11:27:05.960Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:47.147Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-12T11:15:39.279Z","closed_at":"2018-08-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-03T14:15:55.109Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-15T15:52:48.521Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.101Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-02T15:46:13.666Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-18T13:04:52.370Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-04-06","summary":"Responsibility for catering in the House of Commons is a\r\nmatter for the House of Commons Commission, not for the Government. The House of Commons Commission is working to reduce catering costs.","details":"Decisions relating to the budget for, and charges within, the House of Commons Catering Services are matters for which the House of Commons have overall responsibility, and not the Government. \n\nThe House of Commons Authorities have outlined that catering services for the House of Commons are provided by an in-house team who do not provide a subsidised service, though the cost of running the service means that it runs at a loss. It is important to note that while in some venues the cost of providing the service exceeds the income received in sales, other venues in the Commons make a profit which contributes to reducing overall costs. As shown in their transparency publication\n( https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/) these costs have fallen considerably over the last two Parliaments and have halved since 2010.\n\nCustomers of the House of Commons Catering Services include some of the 650 MPs but also around 14,500 other pass-holders, many of whom are staff on lower wages that work irregular hours. In addition, members of the public and non pass\nholding visitors to Parliament also have access to these services. The irregular hours and the unpredictability of Parliamentary business contribute to increasing the net\ncost of providing a catering service. To offset this many of the restaurants, dining room facilities and their staff, are used to cater for private events at times when they are not required by the House. This is one of a number of measures used to reduce\ncosts.\n\nAlthough the responsibility for the catering service is that of the House of Commons, and not the Government, the Leader of the House of Commons is personally committed to keeping these costs as low as possible.\n\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z","updated_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee has made the following statement on its decision:\r\n\r\n“The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. \r\n \r\nThis is because the petition is based on a misunderstanding. It argues that the cost of food and drink in Parliament should be higher, because MPs are well paid.  \r\n \r\nIt’s not only MPs who can buy food and drink in the House of Commons. Catering services are also available to everyone else who works in the House of Commons, including staff who earn lower wages and work irregular hours. Some outlets are also available to visitors and members of the public. MPs make up only a very small proportion of the people who can buy food and drink in Parliament. \r\n \r\nYou can find out more about the cost of catering in the House of Commons here:\r\n \r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/”\r\n\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229004.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"NEW LAW THAT CATS KILLED/INJURED BY A VEHICLE ARE CHECKED FOR A CHIP: ROUND 3","background":"Thousands of cats are just disposed of every year without being scanned for a chip after being involved in RTAs. Owners search for months and years and never get closure. Scanning takes two minutes. Cats are a part of a family and deserve to be returned home, not thrown into landfill.","additional_details":"Why do councils not have the same respect for cats as they do for dogs? They are someone's family pet. The law must be changed so all cats are scanned and returned to their owners.\r\nA scanner is not expensive and all councils need providing with one and need to use it.\r\nMany councils who say they scan, often don't. There is NO excuse. It takes two minutes. How dare they throw our beloved pets away.\r\nEVERYONE needs to sign the petition to get this law passed for the cats.\r\nThank you\r\nGizmos Legacy","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":107062,"created_at":"2018-09-20T10:03:07.487Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:47.529Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-01T12:01:05.668Z","closed_at":"2019-04-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-20T14:06:26.114Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-09T12:19:14.720Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-30T14:45:59.638Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:38:40.886Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-05-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-06-17","debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-20T13:43:48.478Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-15","summary":"We encourage microchipping of cats and it is established good practice for local authorities and the Highways Agency to scan domestic pets found on our streets so that the owner can be informed.  ","details":"We do not consider that it is necessary to introduce a new law requiring cats involved in road traffic accidents to be checked for a microchip because it is already good practice for local authorities to do so. Cats and dogs become members of the family and it is a great source of worry and uncertainty when they are injured or lost. The Government encourages veterinary practices and rehoming centres to scan cats and dogs brought to their premises so that their owners can be identified. In cases of road traffic accidents, we encourage local authorities to identify the owners where possible. \n\nWe welcome the move by many local authorities to include a requirement in street cleaning contracts to scan pets found on the road for a microchip. All local authorities should already be in possession of handheld microchip scanners as they are required to enforce dog microchipping controls. In addition, Rule 286 of The Highway Code advises drivers to report any accident involving an animal to the police, which we hope would lead to their owners being made aware of the incident. \n\nIt is compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped in Great Britain and this enables stray dogs to be quickly reunited with their owners. Compulsory microchipping for dogs was introduced because of the particular public safety risk posed by stray dogs. The same risk is not associated with stray cats. Local authorities have powers to enforce the dog microchipping controls and in relation to stray dogs which means that all local authorities should already be in possession of handheld microchip scanners. \n\nThe Government strongly recommends cat owners get their cat microchipped and keep their records up to date. We support cat charities’ microchipping campaigns and the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats, made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, contains advice about identifying cats including by use of a microchip. \n\nWhilst microchipping cats is good for their welfare, and it is important to publicise those benefits, lost and stray cats do not pose the same public safety risk as dogs, and therefore making cat microchipping compulsory is not considered necessary at this time.  We will continue to work, therefore, with the relevant stakeholders to stress the importance of cat microchipping, and the scanning of stray or lost pets. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-10-30T14:45:59.633Z","updated_at":"2019-03-01T15:05:54.328Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-17/debates/9F8830E2-10DC-4F14-B991-BE911EA0546F/PetIdentification","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPut2XMQrQ","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0153","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":255823,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/255823.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"I  request a full public inquiry into death of my son, Matthew Leahy. (20 yrs.)","background":"Matthew was taken to, ‘a place of safety’, and died 7 days later. \r\n24 others died by the same means, dating back to the year 2000. An indicator that little was done to address the growing problems. \r\nSomething went terribly wrong with the NHS Mental Health Services provided to my son. ","additional_details":"There really is no way that public concern can be allayed, short of an Inquiry.\r\n\r\nAll investigations to date, including  police and inquest proceedings, have been based on a Trust Serious Incident Investigation. A four and half year Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman Report has now concluded that this investigation was not adequate and lacks credibility. \r\n\r\nThere has been an inadequacy of investigation. A human rights violation. New evidence has been uncovered and I request a statutory inquiry, that compels witnesses to give evidence on oath. \r\n\r\nMatthew is not alone. Many others have died, whilst, ‘ In The Care Of The State’.\r\nhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/suicide-mental-health-nhs-police-charges-health-care-matthew-leahy-melanie-a8634056.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105580,"created_at":"2019-04-05T21:25:48.182Z","updated_at":"2020-12-01T11:57:43.112Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-23T15:41:29.430Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-05T21:51:20.404Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-16T21:51:52.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.047Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-11-05T20:50:12.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-30","debate_outcome_at":"2020-12-01T11:57:29.029Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-08-02","summary":"The Government sincerely regrets Matthew’s death. NHS Improvement will review the care that he and others received and will provide advice in due course on whether a public inquiry should be held.","details":"The Government apologises for the quality of care that Matthew and others have received. We are committed to improving the quality of care in mental health wards for anyone with a mental health issue, learning disability or autism.  We know the problems that exist in the system and we are working to address them.\n\nOn 12 June 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), published its report, Missed opportunities: What lessons can be learned from failings at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which called for a national review of potential failings to ensure patient safety at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust.  This report considered the care provided to Matthew Leahy. The report can be access here: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/Missed_opportunities_What_lessons_can_be_learned_from_failings_at_the_North_Essex_Partnership_University_NHS_Foundation.pdf \n\nIn line with the PHSO’s recommendations, NHS Improvement has agreed to conduct a review of the cases detailed in the report once the Health and Safety Executive’s investigation and any related activity has been completed. NHS Improvement will make recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care once its review has been completed, including on whether a public inquiry is necessary. The review will also ensure that the learning from these tragic incidents is shared with mental health providers across the country.\n\nThe Trust has also recently undergone a Care Quality Commission inspection and NHS Improvement await the feedback from that. \n\nNHS Improvement is leading work to develop a new national patient safety strategy to support the NHS to be the safest healthcare system in the world, this and this includes mental health. \n\nWe are introducing a new Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme to address important safety challenges in the mental health sector as well as implementing our ambition for eliminating suicides in mental health inpatient services. Every NHS mental health provider is required to have a zero suicide policy in place.  There has been significant progress made by trusts in developing these plans, with regional suicide prevention leads supporting trusts to finalise them.\n\nCases like Matthew’s have called into question whether these types of institutions and in-patient settings are appropriate places in which to care for vulnerable people for any extended length of time.  We are committed to improving the quality of care in mental health wards for anyone with a mental health issue, learning disability or autism.  We know the problems that exist in the system and we are working hard to address them.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.045Z","updated_at":"2019-08-13T09:30:48.045Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-30/debates/20113050000001/DeathsInMentalHealthCare","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdN9jkswXc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0143/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":234797,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/234797.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC","background":"The impartiality of the BBC is in question and needs addressing so as to protect its charter","additional_details":"The impartiality of the BBC is in question and needs addressing so as to protect its charter","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105421,"created_at":"2018-12-08T21:06:16.311Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:27.162Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-17T14:30:31.238Z","closed_at":"2019-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-08T22:01:16.505Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-31T12:04:13.072Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-14T15:32:30.668Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-27T08:07:23.207Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-06-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-15","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-16T10:56:21.784Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-14","summary":"The BBC has a duty to deliver impartial, accurate news coverage and content under its Charter. Perceived editorial bias at the BBC is a matter for Ofcom as the independent regulator, not government.","details":"Impartiality is a key part of the BBC’s mission set out in the BBC Charter. The BBC’s mission is ‘to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain’.One of the BBC’s public purposes is to ensure that news and current affairs content is impartial, provided to the highest editorial standards, and offers a range and depth of analysis and content not available elsewhere.\n\nIt is for the BBC Board, not government, to set editorial standards and ensure the quality and impartiality of all BBC’s content. BBC Editorial Guidelines sets out that impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to audiences. The BBC Director-General is the editor-in-chief with final responsibility for BBC editorial matters of the BBC.\n\nThe BBC is independent of government and regulated by Ofcom. It is for Ofcom to hold the BBC to account on a range of areas, including perceived BBC bias. The BBC must comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which contains rules for broadcasters on due impartiality and due accuracy and undue prominence of views and opinions. Ofcom sets the BBC operating licence which contains conditions it considers necessary for requiring the BBC to meet its mission and public purposes.\n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2019-01-14T15:32:30.665Z","updated_at":"2019-01-22T17:15:21.049Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAu4gz2VWeo","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8101","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":211950,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/211950.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Create a new independent welfare body to protect racehorses from abuse and death","background":"The British Horseracing Authority is responsible for race horse welfare. But around 200 horses die each year due to racing in Britain. We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.","additional_details":"For more information visit http://www.horsedeathwatch.com","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":105362,"created_at":"2018-02-05T15:14:52.159Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:36:44.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-13T17:50:13.036Z","closed_at":"2018-08-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-06T10:38:53.537Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T22:14:57.946Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.961Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-11T19:27:11.919Z","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":242239,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/242239.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Recognise animal sentience & require that animal welfare has full regard in law","background":"EU law recognises animals as sentient beings, aware of their feelings and emotions. Animals are at risk of losing these vital legal protections, post-Brexit. We want a BetterDealForAnimals: a law that creates a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy making.","additional_details":"Diminishing their legal protection would make animals vulnerable to new laws, policies and trade deals that don't take into account their welfare needs. We call for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level, including through animal welfare impact assessments. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103918,"created_at":"2019-02-18T17:28:41.704Z","updated_at":"2020-03-18T11:56:30.474Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-27T11:27:15.367Z","closed_at":"2019-08-27T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-18T17:50:38.773Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-01T16:07:42.170Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.021Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-09T10:59:33.346Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-03-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-18T11:52:41.749Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-13","summary":"The Government is committed to making any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after the UK leaves the EU.","details":"The Government is committed to the very highest standards of animal welfare as we leave the EU. There has never been any question that this Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by the fact that animals are sentient beings. We will make any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.\n\nThe Government’s view is that the current protections provided by Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have not delivered the progress we want to see and that once we have left the EU we can do better. Article 13 only applies to a limited number of EU policy areas, provides some wide-ranging exemptions and most importantly, there is little scope for the duty to be enforced. As such, it has not prevented some practices in EU member states, which we would consider cruel and painful to animals.  \n\nIn contrast, the Government will ensure that animal sentience is not only recognised in domestic law, but that we will have an effective and proportionate means of taking animal sentience into account in policy making. \n\nHere in the UK, we are already improving animal welfare standards without EU input and beyond the scope of Article 13. The Government is committed to taking action to improve animal welfare at home and abroad, including by increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty, banning third party sales of puppies, and introducing one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales. We have also made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses and we are planning other reforms. These steps show how seriously this Government gives regard to animal welfare. \n\nAs we move towards a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to shape future animal welfare policy in the UK to ensure our already high animal welfare standards are maintained and enhanced.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.019Z","updated_at":"2019-03-13T11:26:49.019Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-16/debates/034943BF-81AC-45EB-806A-E166F0AF291B/SentienceAndWelfareOfAnimals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_e5FSsVM4","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":244402,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/244402.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"British National (Overseas) Citizens should be given full British Citizenship.","background":"People in Hong Kong who hold the British National (Overseas) passport are British; however, the British government is refusing and avoiding giving these Hong Kongers the","additional_details":"The Chinese government is ignoring the Sino Anglo Agreements signed in 1981. It could be a disaster if we keep ignoring this is happening. Hong Kongers will come in as political refugees. We will need a lot of effort to house them and bad for the British reputations to the International community then.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101954,"created_at":"2019-03-06T17:01:45.100Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:47:25.075Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-20T13:50:58.515Z","closed_at":"2019-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-06T17:37:54.151Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-15T04:02:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-24T09:04:21.588Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-08T02:43:32.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:45:28.503Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-24","summary":"There are no plans to amend the law in this respect.","details":"Only British citizens and certain Commonwealth citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)s) are eligible to travel to the United Kingdom visa-free, for a visit of up to six months. In regard to any extended stay, BN(O)s are not treated any differently to those of any other nationality when it comes to entry to the United Kingdom through study, economic or family routes. BN(O)s can settle in the United Kingdom, if they qualify under the Immigration Rules. They can hold a British passport and are entitled to consular protection when living or travelling outside of the UK, China, Hong Kong or the Macao Special Administrative Regions. \n\nThe only way that we could give a right of abode to BN(O)s would be by granting British citizenship.  Ministers do not have discretion to do that outside of legislation, and there are no plans to amend the law to that effect.\n\nIn his 2007 Review of Citizenship, Lord Goldsmith recognised that to automatically give BN(O)s full British citizenship would be a breach of the commitments made between China and the UK in the 1984 Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong, and that to secure Chinese agreement to vary the terms of that treaty would not be possible.\n\nHowever, BN(O)s can be registered as British citizens in certain circumstances:\n\na) If a person lives in the United Kingdom for a period of five years, and meets the specified residence requirements, they can apply for registration under section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Those applying under this section are not required to demonstrate the knowledge of English and knowledge of life in the United Kingdom requirements, and so are not required to pass the Life in the UK test or have an English language qualification in the same way as those applying for naturalisation. \n\nb) The British Nationality Hong Kong Act 1997 also provides for the registration of British nationals who would otherwise be stateless and are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong. \n\nc) BN(O)s can also apply for registration under section 4B of the 1981 Act if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.\n\nFurther information can be found on the Gov.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-nationality.\n\nThe UK has a proud record of providing protection for people who need it, for as long as it is needed, in accordance with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.  However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum or temporary refuge.  \n\nHome Office.","created_at":"2019-09-24T09:04:21.585Z","updated_at":"2019-09-24T09:05:32.660Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because it has recently been the subject of a separate debate in the House of Commons.  \r\n\r\nYou can read the debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-01-29/debates/AC02FF56-64CB-4E14-92FD-D2EF59859782/BritishOverseasPassportHoldersInHongKong\r\n\r\nor watch it here: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/eaec7d44-5e95-4bba-a751-9620502bcd1e?in=11:00:00","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":253647,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/253647.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Without a Deal make \"Revoke Article 50\" the default action.","background":"There is now a grave danger that No Deal will happen simply through inaction. To avoid this catastrophic outcome, the default position must become not No Deal but a revocation of Article 50.","additional_details":"Despite Parliamentarians having voted strongly against exiting the EU with No Deal, it remains in law the default option should the Government fail to get a  deal by the close of 12th April.\r\n\r\nWe must avoid this outcome at all costs. A revocation of Article 50 is not a vote for No Brexit. It is a return to the status quo for the present, giving the UK time to rethink their Brexit strategy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101782,"created_at":"2019-03-30T13:52:45.614Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:38:49.120Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-04T11:34:54.881Z","closed_at":"2019-10-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-30T16:57:34.547Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-06T12:54:44.418Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.713Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-15T12:55:32.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:38:49.120Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-17","summary":"It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We continue to seek a consensus across the House, which will allow the UK to leave the EU with a deal in place.","details":"This Government will not revoke the Article 50 notice. During the 2016 referendum campaign, this Government wrote to every UK household to promise that it would implement the result of the referendum. \n\nWith that commitment in mind, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at a UK Government. We are committed to leaving the European Union and upholding the result of the 2016 referendum. \n\nTo revoke Article 50, and thereby remain in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government. The Prime Minister has said that failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust” and this Government maintains that leaving with a deal remains the best outcome for the UK. The Government will therefore press on at pace with efforts to reach a consensus on a deal that is in the national interest.\n\nAs the Prime Minister said at the April European Council, we have agreed a flexible extension with the EU until the end of October. However, it should be clear that this Government will not revoke Article 50. The 2016 referendum gave a clear instruction to the Government to deliver the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. This Government is committed to implementing this instruction.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.711Z","updated_at":"2019-04-17T15:03:04.711Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UK has now left the European Union.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200205,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200205.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"End the export of live farm animals after Brexit.","background":"The transport of live animals exported from the UK causes immense suffering. This trade is governed by EU law, not the UK Government.\r\n\r\nThe Government should plan legislation to ban the export of live farm animals in favour of a carcass only trade and introduce this as soon as we leave the EU.","additional_details":"Long distance travel causes enormous suffering: overcrowding; pain and stress; compromised immunity; inhumane slaughter on arrival; loss of legal safeguards. SOURCE CIWF\r\n\r\nDuring live transport there is a high risk of animal suffering: handling during loading and unloading; strange sights and sounds and animals; heat stress and lack of water and rest. SOURCE RSPCA\r\n\r\nAnimals are crammed into unsuitable transport and endure gruelling journeys heading for conditions illegal in this country. RSPCA","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":100752,"created_at":"2017-09-13T20:18:55.852Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.807Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-19T09:53:11.235Z","closed_at":"2018-03-19T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T07:36:21.674Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-29T11:51:32.240Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.082Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-17T18:48:12.009Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-01-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-02-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-02-27T11:33:34.344Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-16","summary":"Government has a Manifesto commitment “as we leave the European Union, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter” and will be considering options in this context","details":"The Government is committed to improving the welfare of animals. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare.  We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.\n\nThe Government believes animals should be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production. A trade in meat and meat products is preferable to the long distance transport of animals to slaughter. Once we leave the European Union, and in line with our manifesto commitment, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. We will be considering the options further in the context of our departure from the EU. \n\nUntil negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. \n\nWe have made clear in Brussels that we support improvements being made to enforcement across the EU of existing rules on the long distance transport of livestock. We have also supported calls for the European Commission to make improvements to the existing EU Regulation on protecting animal welfare in transport.  \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.079Z","updated_at":"2017-10-16T12:35:15.079Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-02-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-26/debates/39AF207E-7235-4D57-8723-54F6F87CC17B/LeavingTheEULiveFarmAnimalExports","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b22ff481-91ef-4c91-affc-008cf49aa434","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0042","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}