{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=5&parliament=3&state=published","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=published","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=327&parliament=3&state=published","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=3&state=published","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=3&state=published"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":220501,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/220501.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Public Holiday on Muslims religious occasions in the UK(Eid ul Fitr&Eid ul Adha)","background":"Public Holiday on Muslims special two religious occasions in a year: 1. Eid ul-Fitr and 2. Eid ul-Adha. This will give an opportunity for Muslim families to get together and share happiness with other religious communities. It is very important for Muslims to celebrate EID.","additional_details":"Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635, (2.7 million ) 4.8% of the total population. The vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom live in England: 2,660,116 (5.02% of the population). \r\nMuslims don't get a lawful Public Holiday on their two special religious occasions in a year 1. Eid ul-Fitr and 2. Eid ul-Adha.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":52451,"created_at":"2018-05-22T21:54:07.926Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:15.256Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-29T18:00:30.722Z","closed_at":"2018-11-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-23T12:04:56.994Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-10T17:50:11.391Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.638Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-29","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-30T13:31:20.950Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-26","summary":"The Government has no plans to create a public holiday to commemorate religious festivals such as Eid. The costs would be considerable. The cost of the 2012 Diamond Jubilee holiday was around £1.2bn.","details":"The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences. Festivals such as Eid contribute towards this objective. We regret however that we cannot agree to create new bank or public holidays to mark this festival.\n\nThe Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions including religious festivals.  However the current pattern is well established and accepted, \n\nWhilst an additional bank holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday remains considerable.  The most recent estimate following an Impact Assessment (IA) for the additional holiday for the Diamond Jubilee is that a bank holiday (across the UK as a whole) costs employers around £1.2bn. \n\nWorkers in the UK are entitled to 28 days holiday each year.  Workers are under no legal obligation to grant a religious-based request for time off.  However Government's policy is to encourage employers to respond flexibly and sympathetically to any requests for leave, including requests for religious holidays, bearing in mind business needs.  Acas provides detailed guidance for employers about religious festivals and holy days on its website.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.636Z","updated_at":"2018-06-26T08:51:17.636Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-29/debates/6EF118AA-489B-4ADC-B915-FFE29C922C4E/PublicHolidaysOnReligiousOccasions","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c6b5effc-168a-495e-a680-e425ec2ce00b","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/religious-holidays-29-10/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":221033,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/221033.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Prevent avoidable deaths by making autism/learning disability training mandatory","background":"My son Oliver was only 18 when he died in hospital on 11 Nov 2016. I believe his death could have been prevented if his doctors and nurses had received mandatory training. He had autism and a mild learning disability, and they weren't trained to understand how to make reasonable adjustments for him.","additional_details":"1 in 4 healthcare professionals has never had training on learning disability or autism. This is unacceptable. Two thirds want more training, and 1 in 3 think a lack of government leadership is contributing to the problem of avoidable deaths. The Government must ensure all healthcare professionals get mandatory training to address the huge health inequalities facing people with autism and a learning disability. For more information search for: LeDeR report 2018; CIPOLD 2013; Treat me well 2018.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":52148,"created_at":"2018-05-30T06:51:09.316Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:23.880Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-07T11:06:27.477Z","closed_at":"2018-12-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-30T08:00:10.002Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-14T13:53:36.992Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.009Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-10-10","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-10-22","debate_outcome_at":"2018-10-23T10:19:01.450Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-25","summary":"We want all staff to receive the support, training and professional development they need to support people with learning disabilities and autism, in line with employers’ existing responsibilities.","details":"Our deepest sympathies are with Oliver’s family for their loss. \n\nEveryone has the right to high quality, safe health care so it is crucial that all health workers are given the skills and education to confidently deliver care that meets the needs of all their patients. This is a priority for the Government. \n\nAll employers have a clear legal responsibility to make sure that staff are competent to perform their role as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014; regulation 18.\n\nTo support a consistent approach to learning disability education and training, the Department for Health and Social Care commissioned Skills for Health and Health Education England to develop a Core Skills Education and Training Framework. Published in July 2016, the Framework, which sets out the essential skills and knowledge needed for all staff working with people with a learning disability in health and social care settings, is structured in three tiers, or levels of training, to reflect the different levels of knowledge specific roles would require. \n\nTier one, which is relevant to the entire health and care workforce including ancillary staff, concerns general awareness skills and attitudes.  \n\nTier two is aimed at developing the knowledge and skills of staff that are likely to have regular contact with people with a learning disability. \n\nTier three is aimed at enhancing the knowledge, skills and attitudes of key staff and is relevant to those who are managing care and support services for people with a learning disability. \n\nEmployers and/or commissioners of education should use the Framework as guidance for the development and delivery of appropriate and consistent education and training, as well as for identifying the skills needed for particular roles in line with their legal responsibilities. By doing so, this will result in safer and more effective practice. \n\nTo ensure that health and care staff also have appropriate knowledge and awareness of autism, the Department of Health and Social Care has commissioned the development of a Core Skills and Competency Framework for Autism, which will be in line with the tiered approach adopted by other core skills frameworks. The development of this framework is expected to improve the availability of general awareness training to all staff across the health and care system and wider public services to equip them to offer appropriate support to autistic people (Tier 1), as well as developing and enhancing the knowledge, skills and attitudes for roles that have regular contact with autistic people (Tiers 2 and 3).\n\nThe recent annual report of the Learning Disability Mortality Review (LeDeR) Programme highlighted that people with a learning disability are still dying prematurely due to avoidable factors. We recognise that more is needed to address this profound inequality. \n\nAs outlined by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister of State for Care, on 23 July, the Department is working with NHS England and other system partners to agree actions for each of the nine recommendations; the Government’s response will be published after summer recess  (House of Commons Written Statement 906, https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-07-23/HCWS906/). \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.006Z","updated_at":"2018-07-25T15:00:15.006Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-10-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-22/debates/F8EBB4E2-C858-4B5B-B2E0-39D0C25EAA4C/AutismAndLearningDisabilityTrainingHealthcareProfessionals","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b10b5496-54a6-4262-bb54-5c74ec58eedf","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0216","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":234531,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/234531.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":"Strengthen workers' rights to tackle in-work poverty.","background":"The Government should implement the following improvements to workers' rights:\r\n•\tA minimum wage of £10 for all workers\r\n•\tA minimum contract of 16 hours per week for everyone who wants it\r\n•\tA contract based on an individual’s normal hours of work\r\n•\tA ban on zero hours contracts","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":50499,"created_at":"2018-12-05T10:42:40.970Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:22.546Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-10T14:32:08.793Z","closed_at":"2019-06-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-05T10:49:18.766Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-23T16:51:55.302Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-07T12:22:28.054Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-07","summary":"The Good Work Plan is the largest upgrade in worker rights in over a generation. We are raising the NLW to £8.21 per hour, making full-time workers on the NLW more than £2750 better off over the year.","details":"The Good Work Plan was published in December 2018, setting out the Government’s vision for the future of the labour market. This is the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in over a generation and is a key part of building a labour market that continues to reward people for hard work, that celebrates good employers and is boosting productivity and earning potential across the UK. As part of this we will bring forward legislation to introduce a right for all workers, including those on zero hours contracts, to request a more predictable and stable contract. Those who are content to work varied hours each week will be able to continue doing so. However, those who would like more certainty will be able to request a more fixed working pattern from their employer after 26 weeks of service. This right will be available to both employees and workers and will provide them with greater control over their own lives.  The Government has also laid secondary legislation to repeal the Swedish derogation – a particular use of pay-between-assignment contracts which allow business an opt-out from equal pay requirements for agency workers.\n\nThe Government recognised the concerns over zero hours contracts and commissioned independent research from the Low Pay Commission. The independent research showed that zero hours contracts can be beneficial for the labour market as they allow flexibility for both employers and individuals. However, we recognise concerns around insecure work and the Government is committed to addressing the instances where some employers unfairly transfer risk to workers. Following the advice from the Low Pay Commission, we will be consulting on further proposals to address this issue.\n\nWe have introduced wide ranging reforms to support working families, going beyond EU minimum labour market standards. Fathers and partners now have a statutory right to Paternity Leave and Pay. Eligible parents can also take shared parental leave and pay, allowing them to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay after childbirth or adoption.  Most recently we have launched proposals to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination.  The Government is currently consulting on extending redundancy protection for women and new parents for up to six months after they return to work and on affording the same protections to parents returning from adoption leave or shared parental leave.\n\nWe are committed to ensuring that individuals are not unlawfully discriminated against because of any of the nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. These include both sex and pregnancy or maternity-related discrimination. The legislation not only implements the four EU equality Directives but extends the rights and protections to prohibit discrimination by providers of goods or services on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.    \n\nThe Government is responsible for setting minimum pay thresholds and, through the National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW), protects the lowest paid within our society. The introduction of the NLW delivered the fastest pay rise for the lowest earners in 20 years. The Government has committed to increase the NLW to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. To meet this target, we will increase the NLW rate by 4.9% to £8.21 in April 2019, so that a full-time worker on the NLW will be more than £2750 better off over the course of the year compared to when the policy was introduced. This should benefit around 1.8 million workers directly. Furthermore, inflation-beating increases in the NMW rates are expected to benefit 350,000 young workers from April 2019.\n\nIn setting the NMW and NLW rates, the Government considers the expert and independent advice of the Low Pay Commission. We reward workers with the highest possible minimum wage while considering the wider impact on the economy and affordability for businesses. Setting the minimum wage rates too high or increasing it too quickly may lead to higher unemployment and harm the very people the policy is intended to help. We encourage businesses to pay more than the minimum where they can afford to do so, but we also recognise that this will vary across business and sectors. The Government has an aspiration to end low pay and later this year will set out the Low Pay Commission’s remit for the years beyond 2020. \n\nThe Government is committed to not rolling back workers rights as we leave the EU.  We will enhance workers rights where it is the right decision for the UK.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2019-02-07T12:22:28.051Z","updated_at":"2019-02-07T12:22:28.051Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200251,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200251.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 balloon and sky lantern releases.","background":"Balloon & sky lantern releases litter the environment, causing death to wildlife & in the case of sky lanterns, can cause uncontrollable fires that destroy life & property. Let's respect our environment & stop littering it.","additional_details":"Balloon releases may look pretty, but they have to end up somewhere. They land in our seas & countryside where birds get tangled up in the ribbons, or the balloons & ribbons are eaten by other wildlife causing slow & painful death. Sky lanterns are even more dangerous. Sometimes landing early before the flame has extinguished, causing fire & damage with the possible risk to life. We wouldn't accept people littering our streets, so why accept littering our countryside?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":50414,"created_at":"2017-09-14T09:20:09.794Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.128Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-18T10:32:34.822Z","closed_at":"2018-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-15T16:32:52.038Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-06T11:54:41.875Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-30T13:58:45.257Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-30","summary":"The Government considers the current regulatory regime, supported by existing information and guidance, effective and proportionate.","details":"In 2013, the UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government jointly commissioned an independent study on balloons and sky lanterns to identify and assess their impacts and risks to livestock and the environment. It is published here:\nhttp://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18402. The report concluded that the risk of injury and death to cattle and impact on the environment is low. Despite this, we are aware of the ongoing concerns among livestock keepers, the wider agricultural community and others about the potential risks posed by balloons. We continue working with the agricultural industry to address those concerns.\n\nWhere a council has experienced anti-social issues in relation to the matter within their local communities, and  legislation or local measures through which the issue could be addressed does not exist, there is a ‘model' byelaw, produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, to help those councils wanting to regulate the release of sky lanterns on council-owned land.\n\nThe Chartered Trading Standards Institute has published a code of practice for sky lanterns, which aims to provide guidance for manufacturers, importers, and retailers. Local authority Trading Standards enforce the relevant regulations and have taken action to remove lanterns from the market if they think they do not meet the safety requirements. Some large retailers no longer sell sky lanterns, and some venues outlaw their release on their premises. \n\nThe Government considers the current regulatory regime, supported by existing information and guidance, effective and proportionate. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-10-30T13:58:45.255Z","updated_at":"2017-10-30T13:58:45.255Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":261092,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/261092.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 energy-wasting open fridges and freezers in all retail outlets","background":"Retailers in the United Kingdom unnecessarily waste huge amounts of energy on open fridges and freezers. Climate change threatens our planet. If all supermarkets had doors on their fridges and freezers it would save energy the equivalent of the entire residential population of Poland","additional_details":"https://www.coolproducts.eu/news/why-dont-supermarket-fridges-have-doors\r\n\r\nBio Intelligence Service, 2007, Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs - Lot 12 : Commercial refrigerators and freezers","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":49272,"created_at":"2019-05-12T14:49:11.227Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:50:53.896Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-06-14T11:07:27.880Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-12T15:33:03.962Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-14T13:19:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-23T14:53:14.318Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-04","summary":"The Government has no plans to ban the use of open fridges and freezers in retail outlets as it is already taking action to improve the energy efficiency of these products.","details":"The European Commission recently introduced mandatory Ecodesign minimum energy performance standards and Energy Labels for refrigerating appliances which have a direct sales function. These new standards will lead to a significant reduction in the energy used in commercial refrigerating appliances, by encouraging manufacturers to innovate in the design of these appliances, without impeding shopping.\n\nMinimum energy performance standards are technology neutral, so do not prescribe that manufacturers should increase efficiency by putting doors on appliances. Rather, they set a minimum energy efficiency level that all manufacturers placing products on the market must meet.  The legislation therefore supports innovation by allowing the manufacturer to meet the requirements in the most effective way possible, which could include but is not restricted to putting doors on fridges. It also now sets requirements on material efficiency obligations on features such as repairability, dismantlability and recyclability to reduce their overall environmental impact.\n\nIn 2020, the ecodesign policy overall is estimated to save around 8 MtCO2 and £100 on bills for the average dual-fuel household whilst also yielding a Net Present Value (NPV) to the UK of £16bn (2015-30). Net energy savings of implementing the commercial refrigeration requirements is estimated to be around 6 TWh between 2021 and 2040, equivalent to approximately 800 kt Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e).\n\nThe Government is encouraging the uptake of highly energy-efficient refrigerated display cabinets by the retail sector through the Energy Technology List Scheme which is it’s register of the best performing commercial products.\n\nThe 2019 update to the Energy Technology List has raised the performance requirements for refrigerated display cabinets to capture the top 25 percent of products available on the UK market across the range of cabinet types; horizontal and vertical chillers and freezers.\n\nIn this way, the Energy Technology List encourages high energy performance standards, leaving manufacturers to innovate and meet these requirements, be it through the use of doors and blinds or through the use of shelf edge technology to direct air inwards on open cabinets. This approach encourages the use of the most efficient products to suit specific retailer requirements.\n\nThe Government is also taking action to improve energy efficiency across businesses by at least 20% by 2030, with the retail sector supported by the measures below: \n\n• The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme, which requires all large businesses to audit by 5 December 2019 their energy use in buildings, processes (including refrigeration) and transport and identify energy saving opportunities;\n• A new Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting framework from April 2019. This legislation covers all UK quoted and large UK businesses (an estimated 11,900 organisations), requiring them to disclose energy and emissions information and details of the key energy efficiency actions taken in their annual reports;\n• The Climate Change Agreements Scheme encourages improvements in energy efficiency across 53 industrial sectors, including supermarkets, in return for significant discounts of over £200M p.a. from the Climate Change Levy, the key business energy tax.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/261092)","created_at":"2019-07-23T14:53:14.316Z","updated_at":"2019-11-04T14:34:57.988Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":201443,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/201443.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","background":"Mismanagement of UK uplands for Driven Grouse Shooting leads to the illegal killing and persecution of British raptors, including Hen Harriers, Golden Eagles and Peregrine Falcons and causes significant flood risk, water pollution and environmental damage contributing to global climate change.","additional_details":"*Raptors, Foxes, Badgers, Stoats, Hedgehogs and Mountain Hare are killed in their thousands each year \r\n*Draining of peat bog (internationally valuable Carbon storage resource) and burning of heather has been shown to pollute our waterways, increase lowland flooding and cause significant environmental damage, contributing to climate change\r\n*Grouse moorland estates and wealthy landowners have so far received £20m+ in subsidies paid for by the tax payer \r\n*www.BanDrivenGrouseShooting.Wordpress.Com","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":48177,"created_at":"2017-09-25T12:09:51.521Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:43.719Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-02T11:02:08.489Z","closed_at":"2018-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-25T19:04:36.635Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-27T20:50:08.893Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-17T12:36:04.801Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-17","summary":"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.","details":"The 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. We do have concerns that in some limited instances management practices have unwanted consequences for the wider environment.\n\nPersecution of British raptors and other wildlife\n\nAll wild birds 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.\n\nIn particular the government takes the decline in the hen harrier population in England very seriously and is committed to securing its future. In January 2016 the hen harrier sub-group of the Defra led Upland Stakeholder Forum published the Hen Harrier Action Plan to increase the English hen harrier population. It contains six actions which individually can bring benefits for hen harriers, but when combined, underpin each other and have the potential to deliver positive outcomes. \n\nThe Action Plan was developed with senior representatives from organisations including Natural England, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, National Parks England and formerly the RSPB. These organisations, led by Natural England, will monitor activities and report annually on progress to the Defra Uplands Stakeholder Forum and the UK Tasking and Co-ordinating group for Wildlife Crime. \n\nTargeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations. Maintaining the balance between biodiversity and the numbers of each species is important. Defra monitors populations of a number of rare or vulnerable species where human intervention is thought to be a contributing factor in their decline, and ensures appropriate action is taken to keep their populations out of danger.   \n\nSubsidies to grouse moorland estates\n\nNeither subsidies nor agri-environment payments are paid to farmers to support shooting activities. Agri-environment schemes provide funding to support environmentally beneficial land management, including the management of habitats and work to improve water quality, facilitate carbon capture and protect our historic landscapes. Uplands, including grouse moors, have complex land ownership and tenure arrangements with many areas being designated common land with multiple beneficiaries. Hence, many of the agreements under our schemes result in funding going to grazing tenancies that are critical to the beneficial management of these areas.\n\nFlood risk, water pollution & environmental damage\n\nThe government is aware that the UK uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog. 70% of the UK’s drinking water is provided from upland catchments, and tourism brings in an estimated £1.78 billion to England’s upland national parks.  \n\nThe government recognises that healthy, 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 within Special Areas of Conservation to develop voluntary agreements, which include vegetation management principles for the various habitats on grouse moors. The government encourages land managers to work closely with Natural England to put voluntary agreements in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment.\n\nThe government is also working with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peat condition, such as through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-11-17T12:36:04.799Z","updated_at":"2017-11-17T12:36:04.799Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":242193,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/242193.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":"Automatic by-election if an MP resigns membership of their political party","background":"If a Member of Parliament decides to leave the party they were elected under, then they should be required by law to call a by-election and stand as an independent or for another party if they wish to remain a sitting MP","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":47092,"created_at":"2019-02-18T12:42:31.158Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:45:36.307Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-22T12:29:24.386Z","closed_at":"2019-08-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-18T14:36:11.675Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-23T08:17:04.144Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-07T10:55:08.287Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-06","summary":"Formally, electors cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent. The Government does not plan to change this constitutional position.","details":"There is no requirement for a Member of Parliament to stand down and cause a by-election to be held if they decide to leave the party for which they stood and were elected. Formally, electors cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent; although it is recognised that many people vote on the basis of party preference. It is generally agreed that a candidate, if elected to the House of Commons, is not deemed to be a delegate of a particular party, and will hold the office to which they have been elected in a personal capacity.\n\nWhen a Member of Parliament decides to leave the party for which they were elected, it is for them to decide whether to stand down from their seat in the House of Commons and seek re-election in the subsequent by-election, or to continue to sit in the House of Commons.\n\nA Member of Parliament who decides to leave the party for which they were elected and to continue to sit in the House of Commons will be required to stand as a candidate at the next General Election if they wish to remain in office.\n\nAmending the existing law would involve a significant change to our constitutional arrangements, and would raise important issues about the role and status of Members of Parliament, which would need careful consideration. The government currently has no plan to make such changes.\n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-03-07T10:55:08.284Z","updated_at":"2019-03-07T10:55:08.284Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":252449,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/252449.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 Theresa May resigns as Prime Minister a general election must be held.","background":"The people must decide the future of this country not a political party","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":46622,"created_at":"2019-03-27T22:49:42.641Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:48:27.786Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-01T08:28:37.861Z","closed_at":"2019-10-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-27T23:02:19.128Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-24T22:21:52.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-13T11:42:37.891Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-13","summary":"General elections are now every 5 years unless an early general election is called under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.","details":"The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (“the Act”) introduced, for the first time, fixed-term elections to Parliament meaning an election must be held five calendar years on from the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election. The next general election is due to take place on the 5 May 2022.\n\nPrior to the passage of the Act it was within the gift of the Prime Minister to call a general election. This drove significant speculation over the date of the next general election. The creation of five-year parliamentary terms provides a set period of time for which Parliament shall meet, and members of Parliament shall hold office, before the next general election takes place.\n\nAs a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Prime Minister can no longer exercise the traditional prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and unilaterally call an early general election. However, as in 2017, the Prime Minister can seek an early general election by tabling a motion “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election”. The motion must secure a two-thirds majority of all MPs in the House of Commons to have effect.\n\nAn early general election can also take place if the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence which conforms to the wording set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, namely “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and no subsequent motion of confidence is passed within 14 days. It is convention the Government will give time to debate a motion of no confidence when it is tabled by the Leader of the Official Opposition, as occurred earlier this year when the House of Commons confirmed its confidence in the Government by a clear majority.\n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-06-13T11:42:37.888Z","updated_at":"2019-06-13T11:42:37.888Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":218729,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/218729.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in UK for 10 years","background":"This petition calls for illegal immigrants who have been in UK for 10 years or more to be given amnesty and the legal right to stay in the UK. ","additional_details":"The UK has voted to leave the EU and needs all hands available to contribute to the nation’s development. If illegal immigrants who are already in the UK are granted amnesty, they will play a major role in the development of the country.\r\n \r\nAn amnesty could also yield additional millions of pounds sterling a year from Income Tax and National Insurance.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":46592,"created_at":"2018-04-26T21:51:17.300Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:49.870Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-08T14:18:30.360Z","closed_at":"2018-11-08T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-27T10:29:01.688Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-14T20:49:19.686Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-06T15:52:57.343Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-06","summary":"There are no plans to grant an amnesty to illegal migrants. Our immigration policies are based on principles of fairness to legal migrants and not rewarding those who do not abide by the Rules.","details":"The Government does not believe that introducing a blanket amnesty for illegal migrants wishing to regularise their immigration status would be the correct approach. It would reward illegality, undermine the Immigration Rules for applying for leave to enter or remain, which Parliament has approved, and would be unfair to those migrants who come to the UK legally and observe immigration conditions. It could also encourage more migrants to attempt to enter or stay in the country illegally in the hope that they would be treated similarly. This additional risk of encouraging further illegal migration could potentially endanger individuals and their families by placing them in the hands of unscrupulous traffickers. \n\nImmigration Rules have been designed to be fair and to treat people with respect and dignity, but also firm with those who do not abide by the Rules, and that ensure people come to the UK for the right reasons – to work hard and contribute to our economy and society. \n\nIt is important that we distinguish between those who are here legally and those who are here illegally. We recognise the devastating consequences that illegal migration can have on individuals who become vulnerable to exploitation. We are committed to tackling the organised crime groups who profit from illegal migration and protecting those who are at risk of exploitation.   \nThere are routes available for individuals who believe they have a right to remain in the UK on the basis of family or private life, or other human rights grounds. Those who wish to can apply under the Immigration Rules and each application is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances. \n\nIt is important that there are clear incentives to comply with the Immigration Rules. This means for example that private life established here while a person is in the UK unlawfully or while their immigration status is precarious should be accorded little weight. Full details can be found on GOV.UK by searching for Appendix FM 1.0b Family Life (as a Partner or Parent) and Private Life: 10-year Routes here: www.homeoffice.gov.uk. Balancing the individual right to respect for private or family life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK by controlling immigration is a legitimate objective. \n\nAt the same time, we recognise some people arrived in the UK many years ago and do not have documentation confirming their immigration status.  They have faced difficulties in proving their right to work, to rent property and to access benefits and services to which they are entitled. The Government has apologised to people in this position and has made a commitment to help them get the documents they need.  \n\nOn 16 April, a Taskforce was established to make immediate arrangements to help those who needed it. This included setting up a helpline to get in touch with the Home Office. \n\nOn 24 May, the Home Secretary announced the Windrush Scheme to make it easier for people to access the support they need. Those applying under this Scheme will benefit from the services of the Taskforce which will help people to navigate the immigration system and will continue to take a sympathetic and proactive approach when resolving applications.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-06-06T15:52:57.340Z","updated_at":"2018-06-06T15:52:57.340Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235185,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235185.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":"Walk away now!\r\nWe voted for a No Deal Brexit","background":"Theresa May has failed to negotiate a Brexit deal that is acceptable to Parliament and the British people. \r\nThe Withdrawal Agreement does not deliver the Brexit we voted for.\r\nIt is clear that the EU is not going to offer anything else, particularly regarding the backstop","additional_details":"The Government must now be prepared to walk away from the negotiations.\r\nNo Deal is better than the Deal that has been negotiated. \r\nNo Deal is also what we voted for. \r\nGive the people what they voted for. \r\nAnything less is not Brexit.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":46560,"created_at":"2018-12-13T21:17:08.415Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:34.556Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-20T15:25:26.640Z","closed_at":"2019-06-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-13T21:27:33.235Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-17T05:17:57.508Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-29T15:09:14.683Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:42:34.186Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-29","summary":"The best way forward for the UK is to leave in an orderly way with a good deal that delivers on the referendum and commands parliamentary support.","details":"The Government wants a smooth and orderly Brexit, with a deal that protects our union, gives us control of our borders, laws and money, and means that we have an independent trade policy.\n\nFollowing the result of the meaningful vote on 15 January the Government has been meeting with parliamentarians to identify what would be required to secure the backing of Parliament and respect the result of the referendum. The Government has been approaching these meetings in a constructive spirit.  If these meetings yield ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support in Parliament, the Government will then explore them with the EU.\n\nIn relation to the backstop, both the UK and EU are committed to avoiding the backstop ever coming into force. A letter of assurance from the EU to the Prime Minister also reaffirmed that the backstop would only ever be used for a short time if it did come into force. \n\nWhile the Government does not want a no deal scenario we are accelerating no deal preparations to ensure the country is prepared for every eventuality.  Given the significant disruption and impact on the economy that a no deal exit could create, this is the responsible thing to do. Extensive work to prepare for a no deal scenario has been under way for over two years and we are taking necessary steps to ensure the country continues to operate smoothly from the day we leave, in any scenario. \n\nOur preparations for a no deal scenario include publishing extensive guidance explaining to people and businesses what they need to do in a no deal scenario. The Government has also brought forward legislation that takes account of different scenarios including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the Nuclear Safeguards Act, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act and the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act.\n\nThe Government has delivered on its commitment to provide appropriate analysis to Parliament that delivers a robust, objective assessment of how exiting the EU may affect the economy of the UK, and its sectors, nations and regions in the long run.\n\nThis analysis indicates that:\n\nThe spectrum of outcomes for a future UK-EU relationship in a deal scenario would deliver significantly higher economic output than a no deal scenario; Every sector, nation and region would be better-off in a deal than in a no deal scenario; Assuming no change in migration arrangements, a no deal scenario could leave the UK economy 6.9% worse off and increase annual government borrowing by over £90 billion in the long run, compared to a modelled White Paper scenario.\n\nAs the Prime Minister has made clear, it is our duty to deliver on the instruction of the referendum and accordingly, it is the Government’s policy that the UK will leave the European Union on 29 March.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-01-29T15:09:14.681Z","updated_at":"2019-01-29T15:09:14.681Z"},"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":244520,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/244520.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":"Revoke permission given for beagle breeding centre in Hull for animal testing","background":"It is a facility for the breeding of beagles for dissection and animal testing while alive. They are breed for experimentation. There is already a faculty in Cambridgeshire which breeds 3000 dogs a year which are subject to animal testing and experiments. This has been going on since 2015.","additional_details":"This has been going on since 2015 when the US-company gained permission for the facility from Greg Clarke,although previously Eric Pickles refused the company permission in 2012. The farm is owned by Yorkshire Evergreen, which is part of US group Marshall BioResources, and is currently used for breeding genetically modified mice as well as being a transit point for imported beagle dogs.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":46451,"created_at":"2019-03-07T18:17:40.958Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:46:14.386Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-19T15:49:21.311Z","closed_at":"2019-09-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-07T20:51:30.531Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-05T20:36:35.821Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-20T12:15:04.023Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-20","summary":"The Secretary of state is unable to use his powers to revoke planning permission for the dog breeding facility at the Field Station in Grimston, Hull as the facility is built and operational.","details":"Ministers are required to assess planning applications against relevant legislation and local and national planning policy, and to decide whether to grant permission based on the planning merits of individual cases.\n\nThe reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision to grant planning permission for this development are fully explained in his decision letter. The letter and associated Inspector’s Report can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals.\n\nThe Government has a strong commitment to maintaining a rigorous regulatory system under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). Guidance on the operation of ASPA can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-the-operation-of-the-animals-scientific-procedures-act-1986#guidance-on-the-operation-of-aspa.\n\nThe regulatory system ensures that animal research and testing is carried out only where no practicable alternative exists, and under controls which keep suffering to the minimum. This is achieved through robustly applying the principles of the 3Rs which require that, in every research proposal, animals are replaced with non-animal alternatives wherever possible; that the number of animals used is reduced to the minimum needed to achieve the results sought; and that, for those animals which must be used, procedures are refined as much as possible to minimise their suffering.\n\nThe Government only authorises procedures on animals after a rigorous assessment process, which is undertaken by the Home Office Inspectorate. The cornerstone of the assessment process is the harm benefit analysis. As part of the project licence application process, applicants are required to describe what steps they have taken to research non-animal alternative methodologies and why the use of animals is required to achieve their scientific objectives. Applicants are required to ensure that their specified programme of work does not involve the application of any regulated procedure to which there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative method or testing strategy not entailing the use of a protected animal. For every project licence granted there is a mandatory requirement to publish a Non-Technical Summary which sets out how the 3Rs have been considered: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/research-and-testing-using-animals#non-technical-summaries. Once a licence is granted, establishments are regularly inspected by Home Office inspectors for compliance with their licence and the legislation.\n\nAll establishments that use, breed or supply animals in scientific procedures must adhere to the rigorous UK framework under ASPA. The requirements are set out in the Guidance on the Operation of ASPA published by the Home Office: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-the-operation-of-the-animals-scientific-procedures-act-1986.\n\nDogs are a specially protected species under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office will only grant a project licence for a programme of work using dogs where the purpose of the programme of work specified in the licence can only be achieved by their use, or where it is not practicable to obtain other suitable animals. In 2017 (the latest year for which official figures are published) procedures on dogs accounted for less than 0.1% of total number of procedures carried out.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.","created_at":"2019-05-20T12:15:04.019Z","updated_at":"2019-05-20T12:15:04.019Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":218343,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/218343.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 animal cruelty laws exemptions given to UK halal and shechita abattoirs","background":"The EU’s 2009 slaughter regulation requires all animals, including poultry, be stunned before slaughter. Religious abattoirs in the UK are de facto exempt from the stun laws which apply to non-religious abattoirs. Animal welfare must take priority over faith tradition.","additional_details":"Non-stun slaughter is cruel. Many consumers do not want to eat meat killed by religious slaughter. Meat killed by religious slaughter is not prepared in Parliament, so MPs know that they are not eating it, unless they specifically request it. On leaving the EU, specific UK legislation must replace the EU slaughter directive, explicitly precluding the religious exemption from pre-stunning requirement. Stun to kill must be mandatory.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":45924,"created_at":"2018-04-23T14:28:59.718Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:41.531Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-14T09:42:35.559Z","closed_at":"2018-11-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-23T18:03:34.055Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-24T18:08:08.948Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-18T11:41:47.345Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-18","summary":"The Government encourages the highest standards of welfare at slaughter but respects the rights of Jewish and Muslim people to eat meat prepared according to their religion.","details":"The Government is aware of concern about meat from animals slaughtered according to religious beliefs.\n\nCurrent national regulations on religious slaughter have a long history. The issue was first debated in Parliament in 1875. The Slaughter of Animals Act 1933 introduced a legal requirement for stunning of animals prior to slaughter but contained an exemption where animals were slaughtered for consumption by Jewish and Muslim communities. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide additional protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.\n\nEU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter except where animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. The EU Regulation and the Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (WATOK) include strict requirements on where, how and who can slaughter animals in accordance with religious rites. These requirements are monitored and enforced by Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency to ensure that animals are spared unnecessary suffering, distress or pain during the slaughter process.\n\nThe legislation also requires each person either handling or carrying out slaughter operations, including religious slaughter, to hold a Certificate of Competence. A person must undergo formal training, understand their responsibilities for the protection of animal welfare during slaughter operations and consistently demonstrate competent performance in order to pass the independent examination to obtain a Certificate of Competence.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-06-18T11:41:47.342Z","updated_at":"2018-06-18T11:41:47.342Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231406,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231406.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the detention of people with autism & learning disabilities in ATU’s\r\n \r\n","background":"Too many people with Autism and learning disabilities are detained in Assessment and Treatment Units (ATUs), some end up being put in seclusion units, this needs to stop. ","additional_details":"People with Autism & learning disabilities need appropriate support and care and not be detained in units that cannot appropriately support them","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":45010,"created_at":"2018-10-28T20:11:59.965Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:25.818Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-06T11:11:18.360Z","closed_at":"2019-05-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-28T20:21:15.110Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-13T14:50:52.598Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-30T15:21:11.591Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-30","summary":"We agree that people with autism and learning disabilities should not be inappropriately detained in mental health hospitals. The CQC will review the use of long-term segregation and seclusion","details":"People with learning disabilities and autism deserve the very best support and care to have the same opportunities to live full and rewarding lives as everyone else.\n\nIn times of the most acute need, we want people with a learning disability and/or autism to be able to access high quality support in the community, close to home.\n\nBut recent reports have shown that for some children, young people and adults with a learning disability and/or autism who display behaviour that is considered challenging we remain too reliant on in-patient care in these circumstances. \n\nFurthermore, where people are admitted they can spend too long in hospital before appropriate support is available for them to be discharged causing distress to the individual and to their families. \n\nWe acknowledge this and we remain committed to supporting people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live in the community, to ensure that they are only admitted to hospital when absolutely necessary, and to ensure that if they are admitted they can leave as soon as their treatment has finished.\n\nWhilst some people will need access to time limited inpatient services for assessment of their needs and treatment, as appropriate, we have been clear that this should be as close to home as possible, for as short a time as possible, and with discharge plans put in place. The national plan and the service model which we are putting into place to support this was set out in Building the Right Support, published in 2015. Building the Right Support envisages that there would need to be some inpatient capacity but that the amount required would be significantly reduced.\n\nThrough the Transforming Care Programme, we are supporting both the discharge of people with learning disabilities and/or autism from mental health hospitals into the community with appropriate support and the development of community services to prevent admissions in the first place.  Since March 2015, we have reduced the number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in mental health inpatient settings by nearly 20%. The number of inpatients at the end of October 2018 was 2,350 and NHS England and local government continue to invest significant funding to develop community services and further reduce inpatient numbers. We are committed to achieving a reduction of at least 35% and to go as far beyond this as possible in line with the Building the Right Support planning assumptions.\n\nThe NHS Long Term Plan is expected to set out the next steps for the development of community support and achieving the Building the Right Support vision beyond March 2019. \n\nWe are very clear that any kind of restrictive practices, including seclusion, should only ever be used as a last resort and the intervention should always represent the least restrictive option to meet the immediate need. We will continue working to reduce the use of restrictive interventions and improve patient safety through improved monitoring and training across health and care services.\n\nWe remain deeply concerned about the misuse of such practices and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has asked the Care Quality Commission to undertake a thematic review into the use of restraint, the practice of prolonged seclusion and long-term segregation for children and adults with a mental illness, learning disability or autism in secondary care and social care settings and to make recommendations. This will help us to eliminate inappropriate restrictive practices and ensure that vulnerable people supported by health and social care are provided with dignified and compassionate care. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-11-30T15:21:11.588Z","updated_at":"2018-11-30T15:21:50.432Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":277121,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/277121.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 all efforts to introduce ID checks at polling stations","background":"In person voter fraud is incredibly rare with just 28 allegations out of 44.6 million votes and only one conviction. In the UK, 3.5 million people don't have any form of photo ID and if checks required a driving licence or passport, 11 million people would be unable to vote.","additional_details":"People from ethnic minority and less well-off backgrounds are far less likely to hold a form of photo ID so any move to restrict the right to vote in this way could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to suppress voters from these communities and this cannot be allowed to happen.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/voter-id/\r\n\r\nhttps://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/1825\r\n\r\nhttps://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/presentation-of-electoral-fraud-statistics/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":43195,"created_at":"2019-10-13T16:36:54.007Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:55:06.036Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-14T13:55:43.855Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-13T16:55:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-15T13:15:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-29T11:22:14.382Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-29","summary":"Voter ID is part of a body of work this Government is delivering to strengthen the integrity of our electoral system and give the public confidence that our elections are secure.","details":"An identity check has been in our electoral system since the 19th century – we are updating it for this century. We merely need to walk up to the polling station and say our name, under current law. Voter ID is part of a body of work this Government is delivering to strengthen the integrity of our electoral system and give the public confidence that our elections are secure and fit for the 21st century. If people are confident about the electoral system, they are more likely to participate in it. In our current electoral system, there is undeniable potential for electoral fraud and the perception of this undermines public confidence in our democracy.\n\nThe Government has included a commitment to national roll out of voter ID requirements across Great Britain in their manifesto. In the Queen’s Speech, the Government stated that we will bring forward measures that will improve the integrity and security of each elector’s vote, whether they vote at a polling station or elsewhere. These measures are part of a wider initiative to improve trust in the integrity of the electoral process, maintain public confidence and support equality and inclusivity in our electoral system.\n\nElectors will be required to show an approved form of photographic ID before casting their vote in a polling station across Great Britain, at General Elections, and at local elections in England. The list of approved ID will not be limited to passports and driving licences - a range of documents will be accepted. Any voter who does not have an approved form of ID will be able to apply, free of charge, for a local electoral ID from their local authority to ensure that everyone eligible to vote has the opportunity to.\n\nVoter ID has applied to elections in Northern Ireland since 1985. Both the pilots and the Northern Irish experience demonstrate that the requirement to provide ID before voting does not have a negative effect on election turnout or participation.\n\nThe Government has worked with local authorities across England to pilot voter ID at local elections in 2018 and 2019. Both rounds of voter ID pilots were evaluated by both the independent Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office, and those evaluations were published online. The evaluations of the voter ID pilots show that these pilots were a success as the overwhelming majority of electors who turned up to vote did so with the right documents and had confidence in knowing how to cast their vote. In Pendle and Woking, which piloted photographic ID in 2019, 99.6% of people who attended a polling station were able to show the right photo ID and were issued with a ballot paper.\n\nBased on the evaluations there is no indication that the ID requirement negatively affected the intention to vote for any consistent specific demographic group across the pilot authorities. Showing ID is something people of all backgrounds already do every day, for example to take out a library book, claim benefits or pick up a parcel from the post office. Proving who you are before you make a decision of huge importance at the ballot box should be no different.\n\nThe Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and other organisations who are experts in the delivery of elections, and continue to welcome the views of all stakeholders with an interest in voter ID as we take forward measures to improve the integrity and accessibility of elections.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2019-10-29T11:22:14.379Z","updated_at":"2019-10-29T11:22:14.379Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200094,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200094.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Impose 5% levy on the Premier League’s broadcasting rights back into  grassroots","background":"We call on Government to impose a 5% levy on The Premier League's £8.3bn combined revenue from UK and international TV deal for 2016-2019 to be reinvested back into Grassroots football","additional_details":"Cuts by government to local councils are having a huge impact on Grassroots football across the country with most authorities not able to fund grassroots football anymore while the Premier League clubs have just spent £1.4bn in this summers transfer window.\r\n\r\nAs many Grassroots clubs and teams struggle to survive in these difficult times with ever increasing fees and a lack of affordable facilities both indoor and out, we call on government to impose a 5% levy so that the £billions at the top of the tree reach the roots, the starting place for every football player","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":42844,"created_at":"2017-09-12T20:09:40.017Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:25.809Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-13T16:38:14.616Z","closed_at":"2018-03-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T20:38:31.269Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-24T20:21:24.114Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-08T17:03:47.985Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-08","summary":"As set out in “Sporting Future” the Government’s strategy for sport, grassroots football will benefit from at least £100m a year from the Premier League – double the previous commitment.","details":"The FA and the Premier League together make a significant voluntary contribution to grassroots sport but it is right that their continued commercial success should be reflected in the support it gives to all levels of football.\n\nThe Government continues to work closely with the football authorities to ensure that grassroots sport benefits from a healthy proportion of the broadcast rights revenue generated by the Premier League and any commercial surplus made by the Football Association. \n\nIn 2016, the Premier League outlined that it will invest at least £1 billion of its domestic TV revenues deal for 2016-2019 on grassroots facilities, youth coaching, improving disabled access, ticketing, solidarity payments to lower leagues, youth development grants, and community funding for all English Football League and National League clubs. Together this is a “40-50%” increase on previous investment.\n\nAs part of that £1 billion, the Government agreed a deal with the Premier League which will see at least £100 million invested annually over the 2016-2019 cycle - double what was previously spent - to help grassroots football across the country.  This is set out in “Sporting Future” - the Government’s Strategy for Sport, with funding going towards the objectives in the Strategy, such as on programmes for young people to encourage sports participation, health and wellbeing, education, employability, and promoting diversity, social inclusion and access for disabled people. \n\nThe Government has also welcomed the Premier League’s expansion of its schools offer to every primary school in the country within the next 6 years. The programme, which involves both Premier League and Football League clubs’ community coaches, offers PE lessons and teacher training in addition to the government’s £150m a year school sport premium, as well as after-school multi-sport clubs and tournaments that encourage competitive sport.\n\nThe FA’s commercial revenues also ensure a significant return to all levels of the game, with grassroots football currently benefitting from an investment of £71 million each year from the sport’s national governing body.\n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2017-11-08T17:03:47.981Z","updated_at":"2017-11-08T17:03:47.981Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":215228,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/215228.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give all women the choice of an Induction at 41 weeks of Pregnancy.","background":"Our son Archie was stillborn in June 2017 at 41+5. He had died only hours before I had gone into labour and was born a perfect 7lb11. Had I been induced with Archie at 41 weeks he most certainly would have been born a healthy baby boy. We now have to live everyday with the grief of losing our son.","additional_details":"Eight babies are Stillborn everyday in the UK. Evidence proves that a pregnancy continued past 41 weeks has a dramatically increased risk of a stillbirth. Due to this evidence the USA induce all women at 41 weeks.\r\nUnfortunately we have no such law in the UK and it is still currently procedure to let mothers continue to 42 weeks. The result of this is that the UK still has one of the highest percentages of stillbirth in the world today. \r\nHelp us save lives of unborn children in the UK.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":42652,"created_at":"2018-03-15T13:51:46.583Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:42.279Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-26T09:00:18.368Z","closed_at":"2018-09-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-15T15:06:57.739Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-28T12:47:22.214Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.735Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-04-17","summary":"In line with NICE clinical guidance [CG70], women with uncomplicated pregnancies should usually be offered induction of labour between 41+0 and 42+0 weeks to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy.","details":"We are very sorry to hear about the loss of your son, Archie, and send our sincere condolences to you and your family. We are committed to reducing the rates of stillbirth in England and improving maternity outcomes for women and babies. \n\nThe decision to induce pregnancy is one that must be taken following careful consideration between the woman and her obstetrician. In line with current NICE clinical guidance, women with uncomplicated pregnancies should usually be offered induction of labour between 41+0 and 42+0 weeks to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy. Decisions on induction of labour should also take into account women’s preferences and local circumstances. We have no plans to introduce legislation to induce all women at 41 weeks.\n\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines [CG70] on induction of labour can be found at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/chapter/1-guidance \n\nThe NHS is a safe place to give birth, however the Government and NHS England are acutely aware that more can be done to improve safe outcomes for women and their babies. The Secretary of State’s ambition is to halve the national rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth by 2025, with a 20% reduction in these rates by 2020. A second ambition is to reduce the national pre-term birth rate from 8% to 6% by 2025.  \n\nNHS England’s Maternity Transformation Programme supports the Secretary of State’s ambitions, and recommends that all NHS Trusts with maternity services implement ‘Saving Babies’ Lives: A Care Bundle for Reducing Stillbirth’, published in March 2016. The Care Bundle guidance brings together four key elements of care based on the best available evidence and clinical practice, including reducing smoking in pregnancy; risk assessment and surveillance for fetal growth restriction; raising awareness of reduced fetal movement; and effective fetal monitoring during labour. During 2018/19, NHS trusts with maternity services have been asked to demonstrate compliance with all 4 elements of the ‘Saving Babies’ Lives’ care bundle as part of the Clinical Negligence for Trusts Scheme administered by NHS Resolution. Further information on this is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safer-maternity-care-progress-and-next-steps (see page 32 of Maternity Safety Strategy 2017).\n\nAn academic study by University of Manchester, evaluating the efficacy of the Care Bundle in 20 hospital sites will be published later in 2018. Following this, the Care Bundle guidance will be updated to reflect new evidence and best practice. \n\nOverall NHS England is making good progress in reducing the number of stillbirth. It is on track to deliver the 20% reduction by 2020 and has already seen a 16% reduction since 2010. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.733Z","updated_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.733Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":239638,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/239638.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":"Raise awareness and fund research into Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG)  ","background":"Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) affects 30-40 children (sometimes adults too) in the UK each year. Median survival is just 9 months. Radiotherapy, which is palliative, has been the only treatment for decades. More must be done to fund research into this disease. ","additional_details":"May 17th has been recognised in other countries as Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) Awareness Day. The UK Government and Parliament should consider using this day to raise awareness of DIPG.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":41675,"created_at":"2019-01-28T22:50:41.588Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:44:52.102Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-05T17:32:57.490Z","closed_at":"2019-08-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-29T12:44:22.513Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-16T22:27:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-24T14:30:57.240Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-03","summary":"We are highlighting the benefits of HeadSmart, and we have announced £40 million over five years for brain tumour research, including funding for childhood brain tumour research. ","details":"DIPG is an aggressive, and hard-to-treat childhood brain tumour. It is a truly heart-breaking burden for any family to bear. Research is crucial in order to make more progress. \n\nImproving early diagnosis of all cancer is a priority for this Government and we are aware that diagnosis of brain tumours can present certain challenges in general practice and as such we very much welcome the work of HeadSmart to increase awareness of symptoms that might be brain cancer. As well as making the NHS in England aware of the benefits of HeadSmart we have highlighted the values of it with Directors of Public Health, health visitors and school nurses, to encourage their use by professionals in signposting to specialist advice if needed. \n\nIn May 2018 the Government announced £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. This includes funding for childhood brain tumour research. \n\nFunding will be invested through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to support a wide range of research from early translation (experimental medicine), through clinical, and on to applied health and care research. In essence this will support the translation of laboratory discoveries into treatments and better care for patients, including children.  \n\nWe are relying on researchers to submit high-quality research proposals in this very difficult area. To encourage such applications we have released a NIHR Highlight Notice on brain tumour research asking research teams to submit collaborative applications building on recent initiatives and investments. The highlight notice appears to have led to an increase in applications and these are now being considered. \n\nWe are also working closely with research funding partners such as Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, and brain tumour charities, who fund research into new scientific discoveries. We stand ready to translate these new discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments and diagnostics for patients via the NIHR. \n\nWe are working closely with our research funding partners, and other stakeholders, via the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, which will meet several of Dame Tessa’s campaign requests to improve research and care for adults and children with brain cancer. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239638)","created_at":"2019-06-24T14:30:57.238Z","updated_at":"2019-09-04T15:34:28.737Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":218952,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/218952.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 everyone with a life time disability mental or physical have life time pip","background":"It's completely unfair that people with life time disability mental or physical have to repeatedly go through forms, face to face interviews, mandatory considerations and tribunals. It's mentally draining and unfair to repeatedly go through this when it's a life time illness you have.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":40302,"created_at":"2018-04-29T18:35:46.318Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:53.079Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-03T14:53:53.375Z","closed_at":"2018-11-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-29T19:51:05.314Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-08T16:43:57.172Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.285Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-17","summary":"PIP is based on needs not condition. Reviews are a key part of the benefit and ensure awards remain correct where needs may change, and that claimants continue to receive the correct level of support.","details":"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. We want to enable disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. We have, therefore, designed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to reflect a modern understanding of disability, treating all conditions fairly.\n\nPIP maintains the key principles of Disability Living Allowance as a non-means-tested cash benefit available to people in and out of work but which is delivered in a fairer and more consistent manner. It is only right that support is targeted at those disabled people who require the most assistance to lead independent lives and PIP is achieving that; 29 per cent of the 1.6 million claimants now receiving PIP getting it at the highest level (£143.35 a week) compared to 15 per cent for working age Disability Living Allowance prior to the introduction of PIP.\n\nPIP is needs-based and not condition based and reviews are a key part of the benefit to ensure that the right support continues to be delivered. \n\nIn terms of award lengths and reviews, once someone has been awarded PIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, that award will be reviewed. Reviews of PIP are a key part of the benefit and ensure that not only do awards remain correct where needs may change but that we also maintain contact with the claimant, both features missing from its predecessor Disability Living Allowance. Importantly, the length of an award is based on an individual’s circumstances and can vary from nine months to an on-going award, with a light touch review at the ten year point. \n\nHowever, PIP already recognises that for the most severely disabled claimants, the award review process could seem unnecessarily intrusive. That is why we introduced changes so that existing claimants with the most severe, lifetime disabilities, whose functional ability has remained the same, are more likely to have their evidence reviewed by a DWP Decision Maker and will not need to have a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional.\n\nThe Government are committed to ensuring that the PIP reassessment process works effectively across the spectrum of disabilities and health conditions, including mental health conditions, cognitive impairments and physical disabilities.\n\nGoing forward, one of our key priorities will be to ensure that those  with progressive or degenerative conditions for which functional limitation is likely to stay the same or worsen who are awarded the highest level of support get an award duration that is appropriate to the condition and needs arising – something we acknowledge that is not always happening. We are therefore developing a solution through changes to guidance which will ensure that those receiving the highest level of support get an appropriate award duration.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.282Z","updated_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.282Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231177,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231177.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":"Investigate what more can be done to tackle van theft and van tool theft.","background":"The loss of a van and/or tools can severely impact on a tradesperson. Even if they are insured, sourcing replacements, organising van repairs and rebooking appointments means significant time out of work. For those who cannot find affordable insurance, this can lead to the loss of livelihood.","additional_details":"While tradespeople can take preventative measures to protect their vans and tools, this only goes so far in deterring thieves. We are, therefore, calling on the Government to consider what more can be done to tackle this problem, whether it be introducing new legislation, additional sentencing guidelines or regulations on the reselling of tools. Ultimately, thieves must understand that such a crime is not profitable and that stealing a livelihood carries with it commensurate penalties.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":40262,"created_at":"2018-10-25T11:28:35.903Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:21.928Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-01T09:51:33.954Z","closed_at":"2019-05-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-25T12:17:45.524Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-07T21:28:51.656Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-22T12:07:24.385Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-22","summary":"The Government takes these crimes very seriously. There are robust penalties in law to deal with theft and we are supporting the police to explore what more can be done to tackle stolen goods markets.","details":"The Government understands the distress and disruption that this type of crime causes and the effect it has on victims, including the impact on people who rely on the tools of their trade to earn a living.  \n\nThe Government is clear that these crimes, when they take place, should be reported to the police, so that they can be investigated and, where appropriate, the perpetrators taken through the courts and given appropriate sentences.  It is, however, for Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners, as operational leaders and elected local representatives, to decide how best to deploy resources to manage and respond to individual crimes and local crime priorities. \n\nThe Theft Act 1968 provides a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for this type of offence.  In addition, the Act provides sufficient powers to tackle the threat of people going equipped to steal, with maximum penalties of three years’ imprisonment available.  \n\nOf course, in each case sentencing is a matter for our independent courts.  When deciding what sentence to impose, the courts will take into account the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating and aggravating factors, in line with sentencing guidelines which are issued by the independent Sentencing Council.  As outlined in the definitive guideline on Theft, consequential financial harm and the impact of theft on a business are factors which will be taken into consideration by the courts when assessing the harm suffered by the victim or others.  \n\nTo ensure the courts are made aware of the full impact these crimes can have on victims, individuals can provide a Victim Personal Statement to set out the physical, emotional, psychological, financial or other impact a crime has on them.  Similarly, businesses can provide an Impact Statement for Business to set out impacts such as operational disruption, loss of custom and reputational damage.   Further information about these impact statements can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victim-personal-statement.\n\nMaking stolen goods harder to sell on is a key part of making theft less attractive to thieves.  The Home Office is therefore supporting the police in exploring what more can be done to tackle the markets for stolen goods.  The first phase of this work has involved the Home Office working with the police, retailers, trade associations, insurers and others to understand better the buying and selling journey for a range of goods.  This phase of the work is now complete, and will inform police decisions on next steps, which include: establishing whether there is a need to strengthen identity and due diligence checks undertaken by the police, traders or members of the public; raising awareness of how traders and the public can further protect themselves from inadvertently buying and selling stolen goods; and whether these are actions that need to be driven locally by individual Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners, or nationally.\n\nThis work will build on current police activity, which includes working with key partners such as product manufacturers, security companies and representatives from the insurance industry to make goods ‘harder to steal, harder to sell’; and encouraging the public to mark and register their property.  Indeed, police forces have funded the provision of over half a million property marking kits to households across England and Wales, which has helped to bring those who steal or handle stolen property to be brought to justice.  Details of some of these property marking schemes can be found on police force websites, or by contacting the police locally.\n\nThe Government will consider the evidence on what more needs to be done to prevent van theft.  The Government supported a multi-agency approach to tackle crimes that involve the use of motorcycles, mopeds or scooters, commonly referred to as ‘moped crime’.  Moped crime is a complex issue, with several underlying drivers, and we were determined to ensure that everything was being done to support police efforts to tackle this threat.  We therefore brought the police, industry and others together to see what more could be done to prevent offending and keep the public safe.  As announced by the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service on 16 October, the Government will be taking a similar multi-agency approach to see what more can be done to take real, effective and preventive action to tackle thefts of all vehicles across the country. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-11-22T12:07:24.382Z","updated_at":"2018-11-22T12:07:24.382Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":270385,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/270385.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":"Brexit is an absolute disaster, possible Medication shortages, a hard border in Ireland which puts peace at risk, job losses. This is 100% not worth it so stop it now!","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":39408,"created_at":"2019-08-22T14:45:41.214Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:53:24.362Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-09-03T10:11:09.533Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-22T15:29:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-15T17:36:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-30T16:23:29.635Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-30","summary":"This Government is clear that we won’t be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the EU on 31 October. We are taking steps to be ready for every eventuality.","details":"Three years ago, more people voted to leave the European Union than had ever voted for any party or proposition in our history. Politicians of all parties promised the public that they would honour the result.\n\nThis Government is clear that we won’t be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to leave the EU on 31 October. We are taking steps to be ready for every eventuality.\n\nOur focus remains on getting a deal at the October European Council and leaving the EU on October 31. In doing so, the Government remains absolutely committed to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, to ensuring there will be no infrastructure at the border and to upholding the functioning of the all-Ireland economy.\n\nWe are also turbocharging ‘No Deal’ preparations with the Treasury making all necessary funds available. We will ensure that there is as little disruption to national life as possible.\n\nThe Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has taken steps to ensure that we can have all the medicines that we require, both by ensuring that we have unimpeded flow in the short straits and by ensuring that we can procure additional freight capacity.\n\nThe British people gave us a clear instruction to leave the EU. This country can be entirely confident that this Government will be ready, deal or no deal.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2019-09-30T16:23:29.633Z","updated_at":"2019-09-30T16:23:48.971Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":276661,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/276661.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":"Defend the Kurds and stop the Turkish military invasion of northern Syria!","background":"The British Government must call on Turkey and the USA to halt a Turkish military invasion that would allow a genocide against the Kurdish people - the very people who have lost over 11,000 fighters defeating ISIS over the past 5 years. We call on the government to do all it can to stop this.","additional_details":"On Sunday October 6th, the White House released a statement saying President Trump and Turkey's Erdogan had spoken by phone and that Turkey's military operation into northern Syria would commence. \r\n\r\nIf Turkey's military action along its Syrian border goes ahead, there will be more bloodshed, the re-emergence of ISIS and it would be an act of betrayal (bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49960973) and a direct assault on Kurdish rights and freedoms. Find out more at https://riseup4rojava.org/","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":39052,"created_at":"2019-10-08T10:31:46.327Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:54:59.092Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-08T15:02:26.107Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-08T10:38:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-10T14:39:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-23T10:33:18.706Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-23","summary":"The UK opposes Turkey’s military intervention in Syria and has called on Turkey to end it. We welcome the halt in fighting following agreement on 17 October between the US and Turkey.","details":"The UK is deeply concerned by Turkey’s military operation in north-east Syria. \n\nPrior to the operation, we had repeatedly warned Turkey against conducting an intervention, noting that it risked undermining the stability and security of the region, harming the ongoing campaign against Daesh, and worsening the ongoing humanitarian crisis there. \n\nFollowing the start of the operation, on 10 October, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu and expressed the UK’s grave concerns. The Prime Minister repeated this to President Erdogan on 12 October where he urged Turkey to end their operation and agree a ceasefire.  On the same day, the Foreign Secretary also addressed this issue at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.\n\nAt the Foreign Affairs Council held on 14 October, the UK joined our European Union partners in condemning the Turkish action. We also discussed arms exports to Turkey with our European partners. The Foreign Secretary subsequently informed the House of Commons on 15 October that UK exports of military arms to Turkey that might be used in this operation, had been suspended subject to the review that will take place. \n\nThe UK also joined with fellow European members of the UN Security Council to request a discussion of the situation in north east Syria in the Security Council on 10 and 16 October.\n\nWe have been closely monitoring reports of violations of international humanitarian law during the operation. We are deeply concerned by reports of summary executions by Turkish-supported Syrian armed groups, including of Kurdish politician Hevrin Khalaf on 12 October. We condemn these killings, and have made clear to Turkey the need for an investigation.\n\nWe have also been clear that any efforts at deliberate demographic change following the operation would be unacceptable. We underlined this in a joint statement with partners including the US, France and Germany on 26 September, and in an EU statement on 9 October.\n\nFollowing US Vice-President Pence, discussions with President Erdogan in Ankara on 17 October, a five-day Turkish ‘ceasefire’ in north east Syria was declared.  This would allow the US to facilitate an orderly withdrawal of Kurdish forces from the ‘safe zone’ along the Turkish-Syrian border.  If achieved, Turkey agreed to make the ceasefire permanent and the US would remove its sanctions against Turkey.  No new US sanctions would be proposed in the meantime.\n\nThe UK welcomes this temporary suspension in fighting and the steps taken to implement the agreement. We want to see this lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities. The Prime Minister conveyed this message to President Erdogan on 20 October.\n\nThe UK government will continue to urge Turkey to to bring an end to its unilateral military action.  We will continue to monitor the situation closely, maintaining regular contact with our international allies including the US, EU and NATO.\n\nWe remain committed to the Global Coalition Against Daesh and to the long-term security of the region. We pay tribute to the courage and sacrifices made by the Syrian Democratic Forces in their successful efforts against Daesh in Syria. We are in close contact with international partners on the impact of recent developments on the counter-Daesh campaign.\n\nWe are also concerned by the human cost of the Turkish intervention in a region of Syria where over 1.5 million people were already in need of humanitarian assistance.\n\nThe UK has already committed £40 million to north east Syria this financial year, to help address some of the most acute needs, including shelter, water, food and healthcare.  We are hopeful that this money can be spent as planned. The Department for International Development is in daily contact with local partners and with the UN, both to ensure that people delivering assistance on the ground are safe, and to assess any impact on their ability to assist those in need. We have called on all parties to ensure that humanitarian agencies are able to operate safely on the ground.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office.","created_at":"2019-10-23T10:33:18.705Z","updated_at":"2019-10-23T10:33:18.705Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":269486,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/269486.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":"Link the state pension to the adult minimum wage \r\n£328.40p per week.","background":"Our pensioners are paid a pittance compared to pensioners from other countries. Make parliament increase the state pension to the same rate as the minimum wage based on a forty hour week.\r\n£8.21p x 40 = £328.40p per week. If we can spend sixty six billion on Brexit we can afford to pay pensions","additional_details":"We pay the lowest state pensions in the western world.\r\nLet’s link the state pension to the minimum wage. \r\n£8.21p x 40 hours = £328.40p.\r\nOur government had spent sixty six billion pounds on Brexit todate.\r\nWe can afford to pay, value and respect our pensioners for fifty years of working and contributing to Britain’s economy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":38674,"created_at":"2019-08-10T13:35:48.149Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:53:10.115Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-20T14:15:16.928Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-11T19:56:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-20T09:54:22.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-04T15:42:56.445Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-04","summary":"Government has no plans to link State Pension with National Minimum Wage. We want a decent, secure income for people in retirement, and will spend over £120 billion on pensioner benefits in 2019/20.","details":"Comparisons made in this petition between other countries and the National Minimum Wage do not take into account the full package of measures available to support people in retirement. We are committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life, including when they reach retirement.\n\nWe spend over £120 billion on benefits for pensioners, including the £99 billion on the State Pension predicted for this year 2019/20. State pension spend is expected to increase from 5.0% of GDP in 2022-23 to 6.9% in 2067-68.\n\nIt is very difficult to make meaningful comparisons between pension schemes in different countries because there are so many fundamental differences in the way they are run. You have to look at the whole system, not just State Pension.\n\nThere are many other factors to take into account – different tax systems, different healthcare systems, different pension ages, cost of living, access to occupational pensions and the availability of other social security benefits, as well as the provision of services and goods free to pensioners or at concessionary rates.\n\nThis petition suggests linking the State Pension and the National Minimum Wage. The two have different purposes, and a direct comparison cannot be drawn.  The National Minimum Wage is designed to protect low income workers and provide an incentive to work by ensuring that all workers benefit from as generous a wage as possible.\n\nThe Government introduced the Triple Lock and recommitted itself to it for the duration of this Parliament, guaranteeing that up to the full amounts of the basic and new State Pensions will rise by the highest of average earnings growth, price inflation, or 2.5%. As a result, the full yearly amount of the basic State Pension in 2019/20 is around £675 higher than if it had just been up-rated by earnings since April 2010. That’s a rise of over £1,600 in cash terms.\n\nThis Government has always acknowledged that it is important that a safety net exists for those pensioners who find themselves without an adequate income in retirement.  Pension Credit is a means-tested benefit, paid for out of general taxation.  It is made up of 2 parts: the Guarantee Credit, which tops up other income to a standard minimum level (for a single person this is currently £167.25 a week and for a couple £255.25) and, for those who reached State Pension age before 6 April 2016, the Savings Credit, which is an extra amount for those who have made some additional provision for their retirement. The Government also continues to provide some non-means tested benefits for people in retirement.\n\nIn 2016, the Government introduced the new State Pension to provide a simpler, clearer and a sustainable foundation for private saving. With the new State Pension, people will know from a much younger age how much they’re likely to get, providing a solid base for their saving and retirement planning.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions.","created_at":"2019-10-04T15:42:56.443Z","updated_at":"2019-10-04T15:44:01.878Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235954,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235954.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give voting rights to EU citizens in the UK and Brits abroad in a People's Vote","background":"We should abide by the democratic principle that there must be no taxation without representation.\r\n\r\nFive million people were wrongly disenfranchised and could not vote in the 2016 referendum.\r\nVoices for Europe and In Limbo sponsor this petition on behalf of EU citizens in the UK and Brits abroad.","additional_details":"3.7 million EU citizens live in the UK, having made this country their home. They work and have families here; 2 million of them pay tax (https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/). Their contribution to British society is considerable. 1.3 million Brits made their home in the EU (of 5 million Brits who live abroad) https://www.statslife.org.uk/social-sciences/1910-how-many-british-immigrants-are-there-in-other-people-s-countries) and couldn't vote if they had done so for 15 years.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":38083,"created_at":"2018-12-24T16:18:32.045Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:46.976Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-03T19:14:10.930Z","closed_at":"2019-07-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-25T11:00:22.221Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-09T07:27:00.239Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-23T18:09:22.570Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-23","summary":"The Government has been clear we will not hold a second referendum. There are no set rules about who can vote in referendums in the UK, which are determined by Parliament for each referendum.","details":"The Government has been clear that we will not hold a second referendum. A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union at the 2016 referendum. We must respect both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered this result.\n\nThere are no set rules about who can vote in a nationwide referendum in the UK. Instead, the franchise for each referendum is determined by the legislation for the referendum on a case by case basis.\n\nThe franchise for the referendum in 2016 was determined by the European Union Referendum Act 2015. The terms of the franchise set out in the Act were scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both Houses. \n\nEU residents in the UK are not eligible to vote in UK parliamentary elections, and it was on this basis that Parliament decided EU citizens in the UK were unable to vote in the 2016 referendum, except for Irish citizens, because of long-standing arrangements for Irish citizens in the UK, as well as Maltese and Cypriot citizens in the UK, because of their status as part of the Commonwealth. No other EU Member State permits non-nationals to vote in national elections.\n\nThe Government is supporting Glyn Davies MP’s Overseas Electors Bill to provide votes for life for UK nationals who move overseas. This extends the basis on which British citizens outside the UK can vote in parliamentary elections. It passed Committee Stage in the House of Commons on 14 November 2018. \n\nThese were the rules specifically for the 2016 referendum, and the Government has been clear that we will not hold a second referendum. \n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-01-23T18:09:22.567Z","updated_at":"2019-01-23T18:09:22.567Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":251994,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/251994.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce legal immunity for UK soldiers after a war or conflict ends","background":"Introduce legal immunity for UK soldiers after a war or conflict ends to stop prosecution.\r\nPlease sign this petition for all UK soldiers to be pardoned/immune from prosecution after the end of any war or conflict for their service during it.","additional_details":"It’s been suggested that 200+ UK veterans might be prosecuted, some of these date back to as much as 47 years ago!\r\n\r\nIt's about time this country unites and ends this once and for all for our soldiers. \r\nPlease sign and share if you are a soldier, connected to one or a civilian who just cares about how hard your soldiers work to keep you safe. \r\n\r\nOUR SOLDIERS SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED!!!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":38040,"created_at":"2019-03-27T11:42:09.105Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:48:19.440Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-27T13:14:28.069Z","closed_at":"2019-09-27T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-27T12:26:04.663Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-17T11:17:23.551Z","government_response_at":"2019-05-01T15:52:49.325Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-01","summary":"The Government is considering proposals to enhance legal protections for Service personnel.","details":"The Government has the utmost admiration and respect for the commitment and courage of all those who serve or have served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.  We rightly expect the highest standards of our Service personnel and the vast majority meet those expectations, performing exceptional feats in the most difficult circumstances. \n\nBut, like all citizens, our Service personnel are subject to the law.  Specifically, Service Personnel must comply with Service Law (which includes the requirement to comply with the criminal law of England and Wales) whenever they are on operations, regardless of where those operations take place.  In addition, Service personnel must act consistently with the UK’s obligations under international law including, where applicable, the law of armed conflict. \n\nWhile no-one wants to see repeated investigations of members of the Armed Forces community many years after the event, domestic and international law oblige that credible allegations are properly investigated. In the case of alleged criminality, this means that it is for the Police to determine which matters are investigated, and subsequently for independent prosecuting authorities to determine whether prosecutions should follow.  Both of these activities are rightly carried out independently of Government or politicians.\n\nThe Defence Secretary has established a dedicated team to examine all the options for how legal protections for current and former Service personnel, in connection with all historical operations and those to come, might be enhanced. The work is complementary to the inquiry being carried out by the House of Commons Defence Committee on the specific issue of a Statute of Limitations, which is due to report shortly.  The team is working with colleagues across Government on a way ahead, including seeking a slot in the Parliamentary programme for legislation on legal protections for Service personnel.  \n\nThe Government is very mindful of the impact that historical investigations can have on those affected by them.  Where serving or former members of the Armed Forces face allegations arising from activities carried out as part of their duties, they receive full legal support and representation at the MOD’s expense, for as long as is necessary.  This is the case regardless of the person’s length of service, the duration of any legal proceedings, and the length of time that has passed since the incident in question.  In addition to legal support, veterans can also receive pastoral and welfare support as appropriate to their needs and circumstances.  Often this support will be provided through the MOD’s ‘Veterans UK’ agency, but it can involve charities or other independent agencies as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.\n\nMinistry of Defence","created_at":"2019-05-01T15:52:49.323Z","updated_at":"2019-05-01T15:52:49.323Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":269637,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/269637.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":"Fund research for childhood cancers with the worst survival rates","background":"12 kids in the UK are diagnosed with cancer daily. 1 in 5 will die within 5 years, often of the deadliest types like DIPG (brainstem cancer) - fatal on diagnosis & other cancers on relapse. Yet there has been little, or no, funding for research into these cancers and little, or no, progress.","additional_details":"The Government must state how much has been given for childhood cancers and DIPG specifically. \r\n \r\nThe Government, through the NIHR, must ringfence funds for childhood cancer research. The figures must be transparent as must the Government's answers about the lack of progress in curing these diseases.\r\n\r\nThe Government should fund awareness campaigns such as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month & Sarcoma Awareness week. Awareness + research = cure Our children keep suffering and dying.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":37664,"created_at":"2019-08-12T22:01:23.472Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:53:12.520Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-20T15:40:55.407Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-13T06:36:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-28T21:09:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-19T15:27:29.238Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-19","summary":"Research is crucial in the fight against cancer. Research expenditure has risen from £101 million in 2010/11 to £136 million in 2017/18. This constitutes the largest investment in a disease area.","details":"Research is a crucial part of the fight against cancer. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) funds health research through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to improve the health and wealth of the nation. Cancer research expenditure has risen from £101 million in 2010/11 to £136 million in 2017/18. This constitutes the largest investment in a disease area.\n\nIn May 2018 the Government announced £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. This includes funding for childhood brain tumour research. This announcement will remain a priority within any Spending Review.\n\nFunding will be invested through the NIHR, to support a wide range of research from early translation (experimental medicine), through clinical, and on to applied health and care research. In essence, this will support the translation of laboratory discoveries into treatments and better care for patients, including childhood cancers. \n\nAs with other Government funders of health research, the NIHR does not generally allocate funding for specific disease areas. The level of research spend in a particular area, such as DIPG or neuroblastoma, is driven by factors including scientific potential and the number and scale of successful funding applications. \n\nWe are relying on researchers to submit high-quality research proposals in this very difficult area. To encourage such applications, we have released a NIHR Highlight Notice on brain tumour research asking research teams to submit collaborative applications building on recent initiatives and investments. The highlight notice appears to have led to an increase in applications and these are now being considered.\n\nWe are working closely with research funding partners such as Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, and brain tumour charities, who fund research into new scientific discoveries. We stand ready to translate these new discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments and diagnostics for patients via the NIHR.\n\nWe are also working closely with our research funding partners, and other stakeholders, via the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, which will meet several of Dame Tessa’s campaign requests to improve research and care for adults and children with brain cancer.\n\nThe NIHR is funding and supporting a range of research for children with neuroblastoma. For example: the NIHR Great Ormond Street Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) is researching the use of imaging to assess the efficacy of induction chemotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma; the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre is  studying the genetic profiles of high risk neuroblastomas to provide predictive and prognostic biomarkers for current and future targeted therapies; and the NIHR Royal Marsden Biomedical Research Centre is developing preclinical models of neuroblastoma and childhood soft tissue sarcoma cells for the development of target-driven drug treatment.\n\nThe NIHR Clinical Research Network has over 800 cancer trials and studies recruiting or in set-up. Through the Network, the proportion of patients entering cancer clinical trials and studies is more than double that in any other country for which data exists, including the United States.\n\nIn September 2016 the Secretary of State for Health announced an £816 million investment in 20 NIHR Biomedical Research Centres for 5 years from April 2017. This funding includes the NIHR Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research BRC which will focus exclusively on cancer research and will receive £43 million over five years from April 2017. Five other BRCs will have dedicated cancer research themes. The funding amount for cancer research over 5 years across all BRCs is an estimated £131 million.\n\nThe NIHR is committed to the involvement, engagement and participation of children and young people in research, supporting researchers and funders, as well as empowering children and young people to lead their own journey with research.\n\nThe NIHR have many children and young people (CYP) initiatives ongoing, such as:\nRaising awareness e.g. some Local Clinical Research Networks have set up Children and Young People's Forums to engage them in raising awareness of health research among their peers;\nContributing to feedback. In 2018/19 over 900 children and young people (11% of respondents) gave feedback about their experience of participating in clinical research through the NIHR Research Participant Experience Survey.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2019-09-19T15:27:29.236Z","updated_at":"2019-09-19T15:27:29.236Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}