{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=debated","next":null,"prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=3&parliament=3&state=debated"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":200299,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200299.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 GCSE English Literature exam from closed book to open book.","background":"Last year, lots of students struggled with GCSE English Literature as it was a closed book exam. Because of this many failed. How can they expect us to remember quotes from 15 poems, plus how to analyse them, plus remembering the whole plot, themes, characters and quotes from another book.","additional_details":"Is it really fair that students have to remember so much, whilst also doing revision for other exams. It is important to know how to do all that is asked in the exams, but when in life will you ever have to remember lots of information about lots of texts, then be expected to recall it perfectly under pressured conditions, on top of loads of other stresses, then write about it for strangers to judge whether or not you are worthy of a good grade or not.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":165932,"created_at":"2017-09-14T15:45:14.180Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:30.969Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-18T10:34:56.904Z","closed_at":"2018-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T16:03:46.699Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-21T18:34:13.105Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-21T23:53:25.743Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-02-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-27T09:19:54.483Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-06","summary":"Exam boards do not allow access to copies of whole texts in exams, but provide relevant extracts as exam materials. Pupils should be able to understand and analyse the texts, not memorise them. ","details":"We have reformed English GCSEs so that they are more rigorous. The new English literature GCSE encourages pupils to read a wide range of classic literature, including 19th century novels, Shakespeare and the Romantic poets. The poetry selection has to include no fewer than 15 poems by at least five different poets, including the Romantic poets, and a minimum of 300 lines of poetry.\n\nWe were pleased to see the rise in English literature GCSE entries in 2017. It is important that as many pupils as possible have the opportunity to study a range of high quality, intellectually challenging, and substantial texts from our literary heritage. When a wider range of pupils enters a subject this can change the nature of the cohort. Ofqual’s statistical approach to awarding means that, if the cohort’s ability remains broadly the same, the same proportion of pupils would get a grade 4 (standard pass) and above compared to the previous year. Ofqual, the independent qualifications regulator in England, found overall results for 16 year old students in English literature to have remained stable at grade 4/C. Therefore any change in the proportion of top grades (grade 7/A) was likely due to a change in the profile of the candidates rather than difficulty of the exam. \n\nOfqual’s regulatory requirements[1], which reflect DfE’s content requirements, are designed to reward students who have gained a deep understanding of literature and who have read widely throughout the course. Ofqual does not prohibit access to all textual material during an exam. Rather it requires that where an exam board provides students taking the exam with, for example, an extract from a novel, a scene from a play or a poem, this forms part of the exam materials. Ofqual therefore sets out an expectation that pupils will be given extracts of texts during their exams and are clear in their guidance that they do not expect students to be given a complete novel, play or anthology of poems. \n\nPupils are not required to memorise texts and will not be awarded good marks simply by memorising and writing out sections of the poems or texts they have studied. The mark schemes for the reformed qualification reflect the fact that students will not have access to all the texts, and do not expect extensive quotes from memory. Pupils may gain extra marks through the intelligent use of quotations, but the requirement is about pupils’ illustrating their interpretations of the text, and so demonstrating their understanding of the question, and quotations can be part of this.  \n\nThe changes we have made are designed to reward pupils for reading and understanding important literature and appreciating it at a deeper level. For those engaging at this level, this will be a good preparation for A level for those choosing to study English post-16.\n\n[1] Subject level Conditions and Requirements: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-9-to-1-subject-level-conditions-and-requirements-for-english-literature  \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.264Z","updated_at":"2018-02-06T09:19:13.264Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-26/debates/8A4FD9EF-3C98-48D5-B268-3F611B6FE1A3/GCSEEnglishLiteratureExams","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f0649091-91ca-4f92-accf-950702087c8b","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0067","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":209455,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/209455.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make Orkambi available on the NHS for people with Cystic Fibrosis","background":"Conventional CF treatments target the symptoms of CF, precision medicines like Orkambi tackle the cause of the condition. Though Orkambi is not a cure, it has been found to slow decline in lung function, the most common cause of death for people with CF, by 42%","additional_details":"In July 2016, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recognised Orkambi as an ‘important treatment.’ They were, however, unable to recommend the drug for use within the NHS on grounds of cost effectiveness and a lack of long-term data.\r\nWe are calling on the British Government to call for a resolution to ongoinging negotiations between Vertex Pharmaceuticals, NHS England and NICE as a matter of the utmost urgency. It is essential that a fair and sustainable agreement is found.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":118034,"created_at":"2018-01-12T16:25:32.009Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:58.960Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T21:01:23.799Z","closed_at":"2018-07-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-12T16:42:33.646Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-18T21:30:44.740Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-07T13:05:22.413Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-28T15:53:32.788Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-02-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-19","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-20T12:12:21.648Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-07","summary":"We want patients to benefit from clinically and cost effective treatments. We welcome the dialogue between Vertex and NHS England to agree a deal that would make Orkambi available to NHS patients.","details":"The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body that provides guidance on the prevention and treatment of ill health and the promotion of good health and social care.  NICE produces a range of guidance products, including technology appraisals, clinical guidelines and quality standards. NICE’s guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed through wide consultation with stakeholders. NHS commissioners are required to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisals.\n\nNICE published its final guidance on the use of Orkambi in July 2016 and did not recommend it for use in treating Cystic Fibrosis.  NICE’s appraisal committee concluded that while Orkambi was clinically effective and important for managing cystic fibrosis, the benefits were not sufficient to justify its considerable cost. Officials from NHS England engaged with Vertex (the manufacturer) to explore proposals to secure a pricing structure that would enable a positive recommendation from NICE – however, Vertex was unable to come forward with a viable model that would enable the drug to be funded. \n\nNICE periodically reviews its guidance to determine whether there is significant new evidence that might affect its recommendations.  NICE’s guidance on Orkambi is scheduled to be reviewed in July 2019.  If significant new evidence comes to light before the scheduled date to review the drug, NICE has processes in place to bring forward a review.  NICE remains open to a further approach from the company, with new evidence or a revised price. Although there has been recent correspondence between NHS England and the company, NICE has not yet received any fresh proposals from the company.\n\nA number of meetings have been held with Vertex, and the Department welcomes any further negotiations between NICE, NHS England and Vertex. Ministers are continuing to engage with Vertex, NHS England, NICE and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to encourage the responsible parties to reach a deal.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-02-07T13:05:22.410Z","updated_at":"2018-02-07T13:08:37.551Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-03-19/debates/41D2017B-E026-49FC-B94E-BCDB566AF1D6/OrkambiAndCysticFibrosis","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b74bb8c9-5d04-4df7-9f19-1dbf498329e0","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0075","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":207616,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/207616.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Insurance should be on the car itself instead of the individuals who drive it","background":"In some countries, such as America and Portugal, insurance is based on vehicle itself instead of being based on the individual who drives it. This is an effective method for families and friends as they are able to share a car without paying for multiple insurances.","additional_details":"Scenario: 3 friends go on a night out in the same car, they all have driving licenses, but only one of them is insured on the car. 2 of them are under the influence of alcohol and incapable of driving, including the car owner. If the car was insured on itself, the sober friend could drive it legally. However, because each individual is insured on the car, no one would  be able to drive it as it would be illegal.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":60448,"created_at":"2017-12-13T14:20:25.207Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:25.692Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-15T15:32:12.862Z","closed_at":"2018-06-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-13T19:56:54.260Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-24T18:21:11.633Z","government_response_at":"2018-01-09T13:59:01.680Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-05","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-06T12:04:50.511Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-01-09","summary":"The Government has no plans to change the motor insurance system to require vehicles themselves, rather than the use of a vehicle, to be insured.","details":"There are a variety of approaches to motor insurance taken around the world, and the UK Government is not alone in requiring the use of a vehicle to be insured. \n\nThe current motor insurance system of insuring individual drivers, rather than cars, does not prevent named drivers from being added to an insurance policy for shorter or longer periods of time. This allows for friends or relatives who share a car to be included on one insurance policy. \n\nThe price of insurance depends on a range of factors, including many which are specific to the person driving; for example, driving history (whether the driver has had previous claims or unspent convictions for drink driving, for example), the use they make of the vehicle (for example, for commuting or business use), and their years of driving experience.\n\nIf insurers had to cover the vehicle itself and were not able to take driver-specific factors into account in their pricing, then the cost of insurance would likely rise for those with a good driving record and history of driving safely. \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2018-01-09T13:59:01.678Z","updated_at":"2018-01-09T15:15:37.940Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-05/debates/8209EF41-487A-475C-9E6B-CB1A3B22FCA5/CarInsurance","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/8f71f255-6065-40d8-8de0-7524a2613d00?in=18:05:50","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8241","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200000,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200000.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make British Sign Language part of the National Curriculum","background":"Around 50,000 people in the UK use British Sign Language, so why is this not taught in schools? There are many children who are born deaf, and we need to give them a better chance at a more integrated future. This is why BSL needs to be taught in schools.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":35203,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:02:07.606Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:21.454Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T09:11:47.013Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T09:11:09.867Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-25T19:03:46.182Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-17T14:21:38.518Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-03-05","debate_outcome_at":"2018-03-06T12:02:34.502Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-17","summary":"BSL was recognised as a language in its own right by the UK government in 2003. Whilst it is not a mandatory part of the curriculum, schools are free to teach it if they choose to do so.    ","details":"We recognise that for some children and young people with a hearing impairment, the use of BSL is a vital method of communication and is the first or preferred language of an estimated 70,000 deaf people in the UK. BSL has been recognised by the government as a language in its own right since March 2003. There are existing accredited BSL qualifications including a Level 1 award, Level 2, 3 and 4 certificates and a Level 6 NVQ certificate. The Level 1 and 2 qualifications, equivalent to GCSE grades A*-G or 9-1, have the highest take up. Schools are free to enter pupils for these awards at any point in their school career. We are also aware that the 2015 Consortium for Research into Deaf Education survey of teachers of the deaf in the UK showed that the vast majority (around 86%) of deaf children use spoken language as their main language in schools.  \n\nWe have no plans to change the current national curriculum for schools.  The national curriculum has been designed to focus on the essential knowledge that must be taught, allowing teachers to take greater control over the wider curriculum in schools and how it is taught. It is just one element in the education of every child. There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-10-17T14:21:38.515Z","updated_at":"2018-03-14T11:49:37.304Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-03-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-03-05/debates/553511A4-468B-4B1E-9AD9-A55DCBF3ED06/BritishSignLanguageNationalCurriculum","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/981f3ea2-b033-4599-a3de-56036727acf7","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0056","overview":"","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":[]}},{"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":200165,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200165.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Leave the EU immediately","background":"The Government should walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal. The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite. Why wait another 18 months when we could leave right away and fully take back control of our country, lawmaking powers and borders?","additional_details":"The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite, insisting we pay tens of billions of pounds as part of a ‘settlement fee’ and continue to accept the jurisdiction of EU courts even after we’ve left. Meanwhile pro-EU MPs in Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, along with unelected Lords, are attempting to block Brexit, the longer we remain a member the more opportunity they have to interfere. Why wait almost another 2 years when we could just leave right away?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":141835,"created_at":"2017-09-13T16:02:45.914Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:28.655Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-14T10:38:55.122Z","closed_at":"2018-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T22:47:50.226Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T15:08:23.909Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.377Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-16T09:03:12.654Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-01-09","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-22","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-23T10:06:27.817Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-17","summary":"The country voted to leave the EU, and this Government respects that. A smooth and orderly exit is in the interest of both the UK and the EU. ","details":"The country voted to leave the EU, and the Government is clear that there must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum.\n\nIn leaving the EU the Government will seek the best deal for the UK  maximising the benefits from leaving the EU – control over our borders, laws and money – while maintaining the greatest possible access to EU markets and continuing to work with our European neighbours on common problems. After withdrawal, the UK will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the United Kingdom. \n\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end. The European Commission has set out the European Union’s position on the financial settlement, and the Government is undertaking a rigorous examination of the detail of this. \n\nThe Government has already introduced legislation to ensure the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control. A smooth and orderly exit is in the national interest and further legislation will be introduced to deliver that. \n\nBoth the UK and the EU should want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership for the future. The Government believes that a deep and special partnership between an independent  UK and the EU is in the interests of both sides.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.375Z","updated_at":"2017-10-17T08:45:04.375Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-22/debates/1BEAD2EE-F7CC-4732-A4CC-DC4D8E5D8B93/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2237e95c-62c3-498e-8174-619d61ef069b","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0007","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200585,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200585.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":"Keep Childcare Vouchers open beyond April 2018","background":"Hundreds of thousands of parents will lose out under the new tax-free childcare. The voucher schemes should be kept open alongside tax-free childcare to give parents a genuine choice for the support that best suits their family.","additional_details":"Childcare Vouchers have been used by millions and are currently used by 780,000 parents. The new Tax-Free Childcare (TFC) regime will extend childcare support to some people that cannot access the current voucher scheme and this should be welcomed. \r\nGovernment plans to close Childcare Vouchers to new entrants so hundreds of thousands of parents could lose out by £100s or find themselves unable to claim any support at all! Including couples with one working parent who won’t be eligible under TFC.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":119587,"created_at":"2017-09-17T08:01:18.630Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:35.578Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-18T09:58:36.987Z","closed_at":"2018-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-17T22:18:32.508Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-26T17:25:01.081Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.793Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-08T20:43:49.590Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-11-15","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-01-15","debate_outcome_at":"2018-01-16T09:42:25.270Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-12","summary":"The Government is investing more in childcare than ever before. Tax free childcare is one part of that childcare support and is fairer and better targeted than vouchers.","details":"The Government is committed to supporting working families and is investing more in childcare than ever before. Tax free childcare is one part of that increased childcare support, and everyone who earns at least £120 per week on average, but doesn’t exceed the upper income limit of £100,000 per annum can apply for the scheme, which is fairer and better targeted than vouchers.\n\nTax-Free Childcare will be available to over 2 million households to help with the cost of childcare, enabling more parents to go out to work if they want to. Working parents will be able to apply via an online childcare account, and access up to £2,000 per child (or £4,000 for disabled children). \n\nThe system is fairer and better targeted than vouchers, which are only offered by a minority of employers and self-employed parents are unable to access them. Tax-free childcare benefits parents whose employer doesn’t offer vouchers and the self-employed. It’s also fairer: support will be paid per child rather than per parent, so lone parent households will get the same support as those with more than one parent.\n\nIn addition to Tax-Free Childcare, we are also supporting families by offering 30 hours free childcare for working parents of three and four year olds in England, and more generous support for parents on Universal Credit, who are able to claim up to 85% of childcare costs.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.790Z","updated_at":"2017-10-12T15:10:46.790Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-01-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-15/debates/F831B5C6-4C08-4F0C-B532-140F9E70B353/ChildcareVouchers","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1b35e4c7-860b-4f2b-ab68-99699601adf1","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0265","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205476,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205476.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":"Put pressure on Libya to take action to stop enslavement of Black Africans.","background":"CNN has released video footage of a black Africans being sold into slavery in Libya. I am asking the UK government to put pressure on the Libyan government to take immediate action to stop these criminals from selling more people, to set current prisoners free, arrest the criminals and end this.","additional_details":"http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html\r\n\r\nhttp://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-victory-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":269157,"created_at":"2017-11-18T01:24:31.077Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:47.428Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-22T15:39:25.642Z","closed_at":"2018-05-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-18T12:14:04.285Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T08:58:04.531Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.146Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T16:54:17.543Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-12-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-18","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-19T10:14:23.762Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-12-13","summary":"The Government shares the public’s outrage and welcomes the Libyan government’s commitment to investigate these reports and to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.","details":"Tackling forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking is a domestic and foreign policy priority for the UK Government.  The Prime Minister has called modern slavery one of the ‘greatest human rights issues of our time’, and made clear that the international community must step up our efforts to eradicate it.  It is not acceptable that such exploitation is occurring in the 21st Century. \n\nThe Prime Minister launched a Call to Action to end modern slavery at this year’s UN General Assembly alongside 40 other countries, and committed to doubling UK aid spend in support of this objective to £150 million. We will continue to push for an increased international response, through the UN and other channels, to eliminate these horrific crimes, provide support for victims, and bring criminals to justice. In particular, we are pushing for the United Nations Security Council to take greater steps to combat slavery in conflict situations. \n\nThe UK Government shares others’ disgust and grave concern at the recent video footage apparently showing slave markets in Libya.  We welcome the Libyan government’s commitment immediately to investigate these reports and to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.   In addition, the UK has raised with the Libyan Prime Minister the importance of offering humanitarian support to migrants.  \n\nWe have consistently argued for a comprehensive approach, addressing the root causes of migration as well as their consequences.  In addition to the UK’s £150 million commitment on modern slavery, UK programmes have provided humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees, and delivered assistance in detention centres and to those rescued at sea.  We have provided specific support to women and girls, to protect them from the heightened risks of trafficking and sexual and gender based violence.  So far this year, the Department for International Development has supported more than 20,000 emergency interventions such as healthcare, funding psychosocial support, hygiene kits and safe shelter to migrants and refugees in Libya.\n\nWe have also developed a new £75m migration programme, which will specifically target migrants travelling from West Africa via the Sahel to Libya.  It will provide critical humanitarian assistance and protection and assist those along the way that may wish to return home, providing information about the dangers ahead and offering vulnerable people meaningful alternatives to the treacherous journeys to Libya and Europe.  \n\nAt the United Nations General Assembly in September, the Prime Minister committed to increasing efforts to tackle smuggling and trafficking through building the capacity of Libyan law enforcement agencies, and supporting efforts to sanction people smugglers at the UN.  \n\nThe UK has made clear at the United Nations Security Council our condemnation of these reports, and we support the recent Declaration from the EU-Africa Summit and the establishment of an EU-AU-UN Taskforce to address this dire situation to help returns.  UK programming has enabled the assisted voluntary return of over 1,400 migrants from Libya to their home countries this year, and we support further efforts in this area, including by the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.\n\nWe are clear that a sustainable improvement in the human rights situation in Libya can only be achieved under the stability of a strong and united Government, and we are actively supporting UN-led efforts to deliver a more inclusive political settlement in Libya.  As well as our support for peace mediation and stability we are providing support to improve women’s rights, civil society, municipalities, and freedom of speech.  A safe, secure and prosperous Libya that is able confidently to tackle the challenges in the region is in all our interests.\n\nThe Government looks forward to responding with fuller details on this very important issue in the forthcoming Westminster Hall Debate on Monday 18 December.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.144Z","updated_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.144Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-18/debates/D4D9004C-0D4E-4DAD-8C98-309E2C42D2E1/EnslavementOfBlackAfricans(Libya)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/71772c45-c2ba-400a-a9f3-7bcdd9400907","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0259","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200004.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal","background":"We, the undersigned, call upon HM Government to give the people of this country the final say on the Brexit deal negotiated by the UK and EU. This would be done through a referendum that would take place prior to the April 2019 exit date.","additional_details":"The referendum would allow for three options: \r\n\r\n(1)\tTo revoke Article 50, thereby keeping Britain in the EU\r\n(2)\tTo reject the UK-EU deal and leave the EU\r\n(3)\tTo accept the UK-EU deal and leave the EU\r\n\r\nIf no agreement has been negotiated by the UK and EU before the date of the referendum, then the third option could be removed. If all three options remain, it may be necessary for the vote to take place using a Single Transferable Vote to ensure no option is disadvantaged. \r\n\r\nRegardless of whether individuals voted to remain or leave the EU in the June 2016 EU referendum, everyone should have a chance to decide their future based on the final agreement negotiated between the UK and EU.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":145118,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:16:45.410Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:22.251Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T09:42:01.831Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T09:36:25.152Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T15:46:25.014Z","government_response_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.064Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T21:09:12.682Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-11","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-12T10:16:34.426Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-09-28","summary":"On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum. ","details":"The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.\n\nThere must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.\n\nParliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.\n\nBoth Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement. \n\nThe people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. \n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.060Z","updated_at":"2017-09-28T14:59:41.060Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-11/debates/E3B1D9A4-5B9B-4337-8486-C4BE9A46F2BB/BrexitDealReferendum","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3e1dd847-9bcc-48fb-b141-5c8441b50ae9","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0253","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200032,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200032.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":"Pay Up Now! – Scrap the pay cap and give public servants a meaningful pay rise","background":"Every single person who works in public services needs and deserve a pay rise. It’s time for the pay cap to be scrapped, for the government to provide additional funding for public sector pay and for employers to put public sector workers pay up now.","additional_details":"For more than seven years, everyone who works in public services has seen their pay decline, thanks to the public sector pay cap. Inflation is currently at 2.9%, meaning that the cap is a significant annual pay cut for those public service champions – nurses, care workers, teaching assistants, social workers and so many others - who work for all of us. Public sector pay has risen by just 4.4% between 2010 and 2016 while the cost of living rose by 22%.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":149138,"created_at":"2017-09-12T11:32:17.940Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:24.162Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T14:36:29.582Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T11:46:53.292Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-15T17:23:31.475Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.758Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-02T19:25:15.709Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-04","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-05T10:04:52.545Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-09","summary":"Public sector workers deserve to have fulfilling jobs that are fairly rewarded. On 12 September we announced a move away from the 1% public sector pay policy, towards a more flexible approach on pay.","details":"We still need to deal with our country’s debts to ensure we have a strong economy to enable us to invest in our public services.  This means that we will continue to take a balanced approach to public spending.\n\nThe Government will consider each specific workforce to ensure pay is set so that we can continue to both attract and hold on to the excellent staff that support our world-leading public services.\n\nBefore we make final decisions on pay awards, we will seek the views of the eight independent Pay Review Bodies, which will consider the evidence on how we ensure we attract and retain the very best people within our public services, like giving people more flexibility over their working hours.\n\nThey will report in Spring 2018, at which point we will consider their recommendations and announce public sector pay awards for each of those workforces.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.756Z","updated_at":"2017-10-09T15:29:36.756Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-04/debates/B20D70FA-4B48-4680-B680-0528E9B42474/PublicSectorPay","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3665b48b-f2f5-413d-a9c0-d28b9129ac7e","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8037","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}