{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=1","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=1270&parliament=1","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=1","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=1"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":117136,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/117136.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make planting trees a priority to reduce flooding by improving soil and drainage","background":"By planting trees we are putting back what we took away a natural means of controlling rain water not only will the trees soak up the water the root systems will hold together the soil and make drainage far better. flood defences have been useless we need trees/hedgerows to support the ecosystem.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30665,"created_at":"2015-12-28T15:16:43.254Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:09:42.483Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-29T12:24:21.183Z","closed_at":"2016-06-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-28T16:00:08.428Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-30T20:04:34.231Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-25T10:30:10.830Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-25","summary":"Trees can slow the flow of water down and reduce the impacts of floods; we are currently exploring the increased role that this could play in flood risk management. ","details":"Every part of our natural environment from our coasts, to our great landscapes, and clean air to productive soils, is a vital part of the success of our country; nature doesn’t exist in silos. By managing the environment in an integrated way we will gain key environmental, economic and social benefits. We are working on a 25 Year Environment Plan which will set out how we will deliver the best natural environment anywhere by making more integrated decisions, using catchments and landscapes as the building blocks rather than single species or features. This makes sense because we will deliver the most effective and efficient environmental improvements if we work with the natural systems that underpin the health of our environment. \n\nWe will structure our work around river catchments and landscapes that make up the environment. For the first time, we will have a plan and budget for each area rather than several organisations operating with different plans. We are going to be integrating these plans with the 25-year Plan. As part of this we will be starting four catchment pathfinder projects later this year— in a catchment, marine, and urban setting as well as one in a large rural landscape.\n\nWe also need to value our environmental assets for the full range of benefits they provide and incorporate this into the decisions we make. Using natural capital principles can help all of us to do this better, equipping us with a robust and consistent evidence base that can inform practical action on the ground.  Data and technology are powerful tools to drive environmental understanding and improvement and Defra has committed to releasing 8,000 data sets by June 2016 to help spur this innovation and development. The tools being designed will give a consistent framework to empower local people to take decisions nationally and locally. For example, natural capital accounting will help calculate where woodland planting would provide the greatest benefits for plants and animals, recreation and reduced flood risk alongside the economic gains for forestry and farming. \n\nDefra continues to support a number of leading research and demonstration projects to better understand the role that land management changes in our landscapes and catchments, such as tree planting, peatland restoration and habitat creation, could have in reducing flood risk.  These include the Forest Research led ‘Slowing the Flow Partnership’ in Pickering, North Yorkshire, the National Trust led project at Holnicote Estate in North Somerset and the Making Space for Water’s project on the Upper Derwent catchment in Derbyshire.\n\nThese projects indicate that woodlands can slow the flow of water through smaller catchments and reduce the impacts of some floods.  We will continue to support such investigations, gathering further evidence into the potential benefits that land management changes, such as tree planting in catchments, could have on reducing flood risk, in addition to the wider environmental and economic benefits that they could provide.\n\nWe are also supporting ongoing Forestry Commission research into the role that woodlands could play in reducing flood risk. The England Woodland Grant Scheme has already targeted 1,857 hectares of planting to help reduce flood risk and diffuse pollution in England. We have also designed the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in the new Rural Development Programme to help achieve multi-objectives including flooding and water management. \n\nAfter the recent storms, it is also important to look at what happened and to learn lessons. That is why we have commissioned an in-depth review. This will give us a chance to look at our defences and ways of modelling to explore new ways of tackling floods in the future. This includes upstream land management options for slowing the flow to reduce the intensity of flood peak and build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood defence planning. \n\nThe framework setting out the key themes for the 25-year environment plan will be published in spring 2016 and we’ll be working with a range of interested parties over 2016 to develop the full plan.    \n\nDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-02-25T10:30:10.824Z","updated_at":"2016-02-25T10:30:10.824Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":112379,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/112379.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"The government has no mandate to privatise the NHS and should cease immediately.","background":"70% of NHS contracts awarded from April 2013 to April 2014 were to private companies, covering all aspects of the patient journey including diagnosis, treatment and on-going healthcare. As the Government were not elected on a manifesto of NHS privatisation this action is constitutionally non-viable.","additional_details":"This petition is calling for all privatisation of the NHS to cease with immediate effect, for a referendum on NHS privatisation to be called, and for, in the event of a popular vote against NHS privatisation, for the complete re-nationalisation & for the sanctity of the NHS to be enshrined in law.\r\n\r\nFor further information please follow these links;\r\nhttp://weownit.org.uk/evidence/nhs\r\nhttp://www.nhsforsale.info/privatisation-list.html\r\nhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/…/nhs-privatisation-soars-500…","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30390,"created_at":"2015-11-13T12:33:36.988Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:07:59.395Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-16T17:30:02.162Z","closed_at":"2016-05-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-13T12:41:41.103Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-03T01:23:22.866Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-25T13:41:44.506Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-25","summary":"The Government is not privatising the NHS; we are committed to an NHS free at the point of use, based on clinical need and not ability to pay. In 2015/16, spend on private providers was just 6.3%.","details":"The claim that 70% of NHS contracts awarded from April 2013 to April 2014 only relates to a small sample of NHS contracts and is therefore selective and misleading. The NHS Support Federation claims that ‘£13 billion worth of contracts to run or manage clinically related NHS services have been advertised’ in this time period, and that 70% of those were awarded to private providers. This represents a very small proportion of approximately £112 billion of total NHS spending for the same period. In 2015/16, spend on private providers by NHS commissioners equated to just 6.3% of total NHS spend.\n\nWe think it right that local doctors and nurses, through clinical commissioning groups, decide how services are provided in the best interest of their patients. Independent providers, both for-profit and not-for-profit, have long been providing care to NHS patients.  Competition between providers of NHS services has been pursued on the basis of competition for quality, through a system of fixed national tariffs.  Decisions on who provides services should be taken locally to ensure patients receive the best possible care. \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-02-25T13:41:44.503Z","updated_at":"2016-02-25T13:41:44.503Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":183526,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/183526.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Call on DEFRA to withdraw UK approval of A24 trap, sold in NZ to kill hedgehogs.","background":"DEFRA recently approved the use of these traps in England (pending in Wales & Scotland). The traps (http://www.goodnature.co.nz/products/rat-stoat/) are sold to kill hedgehogs (& other species), in New Zealand where hedgehogs are non-native & considered a ‘pest’ species.","additional_details":"In the UK hedgehogs are protected being listed on Schedule 6 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act. If a trap is set & it catches a hedgehog, then the person who set the trap can be prosecuted. Anyone setting traps for ‘vermin’ or non-protected species is obliged to take all reasonable precautions to avoid catching a protected species, since there are no ‘reasonable precautions’ to avoid catching hedgehogs using this trap, anyone who sets them is at risk of prosecution if they catch a hedgehog.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29613,"created_at":"2017-02-07T10:28:21.569Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:28:14.441Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-13T16:38:39.273Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-07T15:49:26.506Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-16T21:05:00.622Z","government_response_at":"2017-04-03T14:42:33.124Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-04-03","summary":"The Goodnature A24 trap is not approved for use against hedgehogs in England. Where traps are used for other species, the trapper must ensure that offences against protected species are not committed.","details":"Before a new spring trap is brought into the market it must first be approved for use via a Spring Trap Approval Order made in England and Wales under the Pests Act 1954, Scotland under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 and Northern Ireland under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. \n\nThe humaneness of the trap is assessed before it is approved for use. Trap evaluation is currently carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), which then recommends whether a trap should be approved or not and, if so, what conditions of use (placement criteria, permitted target species) should apply. \n\nUnder the Spring Traps Approval (Variation) (England) Order 2015, the Goodnature A24 Rat and Stoat Trap may only be used for the purpose of killing rats and stoats. The trap must also be placed so that it can only be entered by way of an artificial tunnel which is suitable for that purpose. \n\nNo spring trap is approved for use against hedgehogs as under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence, unless under and in accordance with the terms of a licence, to use any trap or snare for the purpose of killing or taking a hedgehog or to set in position any trap or snare in such a way so as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to a hedgehog.\n\nA condition of use for all approved spring traps is that so far as is practicable without unreasonably compromising its use, the trap must be used in a manner that minimises the likelihood of its killing, taking or injuring non-target species. \n\nIt is for the trapper to make sure conditions of use are complied with and offences against protected species are not committed.\n\nWhere the safety of protected species cannot be reasonably assured, the use of non-lethal methods of capture, such as cage trapping, should be employed so non-target species can be released unharmed if accidently captured.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2017-04-03T14:42:33.120Z","updated_at":"2017-04-03T14:42:33.120Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":122183,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/122183.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop KS1 tests and go back to teacher judgements and levels","background":"This year the government decided to change the year 2 SATs tests to tests far beyond what most children of that age can achieve. Teachers were trusted to make judgement on the children they taught. This year that has gone out the window too. Help save childrens education and enjoyment of school.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29463,"created_at":"2016-02-19T08:13:51.828Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:39.704Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-19T17:38:22.303Z","closed_at":"2016-08-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-19T11:29:40.217Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-23T22:28:56.033Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-18T10:18:55.563Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-18","summary":"We recognise that reforms like these take time to embed, but the new tests and the removal of levels are central to achieving our shared goal of giving children the best possible education.","details":"Pupils already take Key Stage 1 tests in Year 2. Teachers use these tests to inform the judgements they report to parents and the Department about their pupils. \n\nWe have developed new tests with a more challenging expected standard to align with the high expectations within the new national curriculum. Our reformed education system has been designed to set expectations that match those in the highest performing jurisdictions internationally. Previous national expectations for primary school pupils were too low and left 1 in 3 children starting secondary school unable to read, write and add-up properly. We make no apology for setting high aspirations for all children and encouraging schools to support every one of their pupils to succeed.\n\nIt is worth noting that changes to the national curriculum tests were first announced in March 2014, and since then the Department for Education and Standards and Testing Agency have provided schools with further information to help them prepare for the assessment arrangements. In addition to sample questions published in summer 2014, complete sample tests were published in summer 2015 to give primary schools nearly a year of lead-in time to ensure their pupils are adequately prepared. \n\nWhile the new tests have a more challenging expected standard, they do measure attainment across the range of ability in assessing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the national curriculum. The easiest questions in the tests remain of a similar standard to the easiest questions in the old tests. There are, however, some more difficult questions at the top end of the scale to stretch more able pupils. Furthermore, it is important for parents and teachers to understand how children are performing in relation to national expectations, but statutory tests only form part of the broader assessments that schools make on an ongoing basis.\n\nThe removal of national curriculum levels has helped to put classroom assessment back in the hands of teachers by giving schools the freedom to develop their own approaches to assessment within key stages. Levels had a damaging impact on teaching. They encouraging pace over consolidation and incentivising teachers to focus on pupils at level boundaries. Their removal is ensuring that assessment returns to its real purpose of evaluating pupils’ knowledge and understanding of curriculum content. It is allowing teachers to focus on what they do best – teach. The report of the Commission on Assessment Without Levels provides clear guidance and advice for schools to support them in developing high-quality assessment systems This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/commission-on-assessment-without-levels-final-report\n\nWe do recognise that significant reforms like these take time to embed and the Minister of State for Schools has recently written to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, and to Regional Schools Commissioners to emphasise that schools are in a process of transition. \n\nPrimary school standards are rising and the new assessment system will ensure that the work of dedicated teachers throughout the country is recognised and encouraged for years to come. The new Key Stage 1 tests form an important part of that recognition and not to administer them would undermine our shared goal of giving children the best possible education.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-03-18T10:18:55.559Z","updated_at":"2016-03-18T10:18:55.559Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":171052,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/171052.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Save State-Funded Nursery Schools","background":"The government's consultation paper (Early Years Funding: changes to funding for 3 & 4 year olds 11/8/16) outlined proposals that will leave Nursery schools financially nonviable, forcing them to close. This funding will not cover basic costs, let alone staffing with qualified teachers.","additional_details":"State nursery schools have very good outcomes with regard to closing the achievement gap and supporting children with special needs. State nursery schools are legally required to employ highly-qualified teaching staff, who are proven to give young children the best opportunities for academic achievement and enabling social mobility. The petitioners request the House of Commons to urge the government to recognise the school status of State nursery schools & fund them accordingly.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29200,"created_at":"2016-11-02T21:44:20.677Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:21:41.389Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-03T17:56:13.145Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-02T22:39:22.479Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-12T12:45:29.921Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-24T14:22:00.616Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-24","summary":"We want maintained nursery schools to be sustainable for the long-term. We will provide £55m a year of supplementary funding for them for at least 2 years and consult on their future in due course.","details":"Maintained nursery schools make an important contribution to social mobility, particularly in disadvantaged areas. They are also high quality providers, and are more likely to care for children with special educational needs than other types of early years and childcare provider.\n\nWe want maintained nursery schools to be sustainable for the long-term, not only to ensure that the quality support they give to disadvantaged areas continues, but also to make the most of the expertise and experience that they have for the benefit of the early years system as a whole. \n\nAs a result of being constituted as schools, they experience costs that other providers do not. That is why we proposed in our consultation on an early years national funding formula in August that we would provide £55m a year for them for at least two years. This will give them stability during wider changes to funding, and it is a level of funding based on what they currently receive.\n\nThis will also give us the time to consult on the future of maintained nursery schools, and we have already announced the intention to do so. We are developing this consultation informed by conversations with maintained nursery schools themselves and others with an interest in their role and future. We will publish the consultation in due course.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-11-24T14:22:00.614Z","updated_at":"2016-11-24T14:22:00.614Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":105708,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105708.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"We demand the British Government Reschedule Cannabis.","background":"Currently Cannabis is in Schedule 1 - meaning that there is no known therapeutic use - Not only is this notion scientifically incorrect, it also puts patients that rely on Cannabis to survive in immediate danger i.e. no regulation/poor quality medicine, criminal activity to acquire medication.","additional_details":"Our demand does not require any change in law.\r\nIt is vital that raw Cannabis be recognised as having therapeutic value, and that patients in the UK are allowed immediate access to this medicine. There are tens of thousands of patients living within the UK that do and more could benefit from the therapeutic benefits of Cannabis to survive and to treat their condition(s), whom all are currently risking up to 14 years imprisonment for their medical use.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29114,"created_at":"2015-08-04T19:24:52.807Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:22.222Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-05T15:44:02.085Z","closed_at":"2016-02-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-04T21:01:40.834Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-21T19:04:09.119Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-05T15:40:40.638Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-05","summary":"Herbal cannabis is listed in Schedule 1 as a drug with no recognised medicinal uses outside research. A substantial body of scientific evidence shows it is harmful and can damage human health. ","details":"The Government will not encourage the use of a Schedule 1 controlled drug based on anecdotal evidence. It is important that a medicine is very thoroughly trialled to ensure it meets rigorous standards before being licensed and placed on the market so that doctors and patients are sure of its efficacy and safety.\n\nCannabis in its raw form (herbal cannabis) is not recognised as having any medicinal purposes in the UK. There is already a clear regime in place to enable medicines (including those containing controlled drugs) to be developed and subsequently prescribed and supplied to patients via healthcare professionals. This regime is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which issues Marketing Authorisations for drugs that have been tried and tested for their safety and efficacy as medicines in the UK. \n\nIt is up to organisations to apply for Marketing Authorisation for products that they believe have potential medicinal purposes so that these can be subject to the same stringent regime and requirements that all medicines in the UK are subjected to. \n\nSince 2010 UK patients can use the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. ‘Sativex’ can also be prescribed for other conditions at the prescribing doctor’s risk. ‘Sativex’ was rigorously tested for its safety and efficacy before receiving approval, and is distinguished from cannabis in its raw form. It is a spray which is standardised in composition, formulation and dose and developed to provide medicinal benefits without a psychoactive effect. Due to its low psychoactive profile ‘Sativex’ was rescheduled from Schedule 1 and placed in Schedule 4 Part 1 to enable its availability for use in healthcare in the UK.\n\nThe MHRA is open to considering marketing approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed. As happened in the case of ‘Sativex’, the Home Office will also consider issuing a licence to enable trials of new medicines to take place under the appropriate ethical approvals.\n\nIn view of the potential harms associated with the use of cannabis in its raw form and the availability of avenues for medicinal development, the Government does not consider it appropriate to make changes to the control status of raw or herbal cannabis.\n\nThe Government’s view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and regulations made under the Act continue to facilitate the development of medicines which are made from Schedule 1 controlled drugs. The legislation is aimed at protecting the public from the potential harms of drugs and is not an impediment to research into these drugs or development of medicines. \n\nIn 2013 the Home Office undertook a scoping exercise targeted at a cross-section of the scientific community, including the main research bodies, in response to concerns from a limited number of research professionals that Schedule 1 status was generally impeding research into new drugs.\n\nOur analysis of the responses confirmed a high level of interest, both generally and at institution level, in Schedule 1 research. However, the responses did not support the view that Schedule 1 controlled drug status impedes research in this area. While the responses confirmed Home Office licensing costs and requirements form part of a number of issues which influence decisions to undertake research in this area, ethics approval was identified as the key consideration, while the next most important consideration was the availability of funding. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-11-05T15:40:40.635Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T15:40:40.635Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":175134,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/175134.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"STOP all immigration & implement an Aussie style border control system.","background":"We the British public would like to see an immediate STOP on all immigration and see the implementation of a border control system for all future immigration.","additional_details":"We need an Aussie style border control system, where people trying to come into the Country are checked for full documentation, passport, birth certificate, working visa’s, health insurances etc, proof of an address where they will live, proof of an employment contract, educational & professional qualifications, an adequate amount of money to live on until they are paid from their employment. Failure to supply ALL of this information should find an individual with refusal of entry.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28986,"created_at":"2016-12-09T13:02:43.848Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:23:05.853Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-12-20T15:02:09.029Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-11T18:56:33.897Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-30T19:41:13.741Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-24T14:27:59.593Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-24","summary":"The Government is committed to reducing net migration to sustainable levels. Non-EU workers must have a skilled job and pay towards the NHS. Brexit will allow us to get more control of EU migration. ","details":"The immigration system has a role to play in supporting growth and meeting the needs of UK businesses.  Migrant workers fill skills gaps in our labour market and help to boost our economy.  We also welcome international students who want to come to study at our world-leading universities and are committed to making sure we attract the brightest and the best.\n\nUncontrolled, however, mass immigration makes it difficult to maintain social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes.  That is why we are committed to reducing net migration to sustainable levels.\n\nThe context that Australia operates in is very different to the UK.  It has a low population density and there is public support for increased legal migration.  The net immigration rate in Australia is, in proportion to their population, three times ours at 240,000 per year on a population one third of the UK’s.  \n\nThe Australian points-based system forms only a part of the work migration system and is intended primarily for job seekers, not employers (who have a different route for recruitment).  As the Prime Minister has said many times in the past, a points-based system will not work and is not an option. It would give foreign nationals the right to come to the UK if they meet certain criteria, instead of ensuring that decisions on who comes to the country are based on our economic needs and reside with the Government.\n\nOur immigration system is designed to meet the UK’s specific needs.  We are putting an end to automatic entry where points tests are met and placing more emphasis on credibility testing.  We have closed routes which allowed migrants to come to the UK without a skilled job offer to look for work. There is a renewed emphasis on migrants being selected by sponsors such as employers and universities, with sponsors being made accountable for their choices. To qualify for a Tier 2 work visa, non-EU nationals must have a specific job offer from an employer which has been licensed by the Home Office to sponsor migrant workers.\n\nWe have capped the number of migrants outside the EU who can come here to work and are ensuring that only those who make a real economic contribution can come. We have also closed almost 1,000 bogus colleges, and increased scrutiny of sham marriages. We are removing more foreign national offenders than ever before and have legislated to stop illegal migrants operating under the radar.\n\nApplicants coming to the UK to work, study or join family need to provide documentation and must have sufficient money to support themselves without relying on public funds.  Those coming for more than six months must pay an immigration health surcharge to ensure they make a fair contribution towards the costs of the NHS.\n\nAs we conduct the negotiations to leave the EU, it must be a priority to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe.  The precise way in which we will do this is yet to be determined. There are a whole range of issues to consider, not just how to bring control through the rules for people coming in, but also crucially the activities they are permitted to undertake when they are here.\n\nAt every step of the negotiations, the Government will work to ensure the best possible outcome for the British people. We are about to begin these negotiations and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance.\n\nOur reforms since 2010 have already made it more difficult for EU migrants to claim benefits in the UK and, through the landmark Immigration Act, made it tougher for illegal immigrants to remain by restricting access to work, housing, benefits, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences and making it easier to remove those who have no right to be here by reducing the number of appeals.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2017-02-24T14:27:59.590Z","updated_at":"2017-02-24T14:27:59.590Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":187137,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/187137.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Car insurance is compulsory therefore it should be nationalised","background":"Insurers have for too long sought annual increases for premiums against motorists.  The insurance industry has blamed this on the \"whiplash culture\".  However, even though costs have been reduced due to a change in legislation in 2012, which insurers requested, policies have become more expensive.","additional_details":"The costs of car insurance is rising five times faster than train fares.  There is, rightly, an uproar when train fees are increased however when it comes to car insurance the uproar is muted.  The insurance industry has sought to end whiplash claims which will ultimately benefit the insurance industry.  As car insurance is compulsory it should be nationalised and run as not for profit.  The insurers are legally making vast profits for their shareholders and fleecing the public.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28879,"created_at":"2017-02-22T16:24:39.485Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:30:37.278Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-06T09:43:30.300Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-22T16:36:42.680Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-10T10:44:25.781Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-21T10:25:53.395Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-21","summary":"The Government is taking action to tackle high insurance premiums caused by fraudulent and expensive whiplash claims.","details":"The UK motor insurance market is very competitive and shopping around for the best possible option before making any decisions is likely to benefit customers.  The British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) run a not for profit ‘find a broker’ service that specialises in finding cover for those who are having difficulties obtaining the cover they need at a reasonable cost. Further information can be found on their website: www.biba.org.uk.  New rules coming into force this year will require motor insurers to disclose last year’s premium at renewal and prompt customers to shop around for the best deal.\n\nOn 23 February the Government announced reforms aimed at tackling the continuing high number and cost of whiplash injury claims that were having a negative impact on the price of motor insurance premiums.  These reforms will end the cycle in which motorists pay higher insurance premiums due to minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims by others.   Leading insurers have already expressed their commitment to passing on the savings from these reforms to consumers through lower premiums.   We will continue to work closely with the insurance industry and monitor their reaction to the reforms. \n\nIt is a longstanding principle that insurers will set their premiums according to their assessment of the risks involved. This in turn incentivises safer driving.  Motor insurers use a wide range of criteria to assess the potential risk associated with a quotation and this includes the age of the applicant, the type of vehicle being insured, the postal area where the applicant lives and the driving experience of the applicant.  \n\nThe level of premiums is a commercial matter for individual insurers as they use their own funds to underwrite the policies that they issue. Decisions that they make are based on their underwriting experience and the Government does not generally intervene or seek to control the market.\n\nA nationalised car insurance scheme would remove competition from the market and an insurer’s incentive to reward safer driving with lower premiums.    It is also likely lead to cross-subsidisation where non-drivers and those with a lower risk subsidise the cost of insurance for drivers of more expensive vehicles or those who represent a greater risk e.g. those with driving convictions.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2017-03-21T10:25:53.393Z","updated_at":"2017-03-21T10:25:53.393Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":190894,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/190894.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Immediately stop plans to cut Southeastern services to Charing Cross & Victoria","background":"Chris Grayling has today released a document aimed at making the lives of the people of Dartford, Bexleyheath, Eltham, Blackheath and the surrounding areas a misery.  He wrongly diagnoses all Southeastern train problems to be the fault of the above mentioned stations.","additional_details":"Grayling on OUR services 'it also introduces operational complexity, requiring trains to cross complex and busy junctions. This is a major contributor to delays, and makes it much harder to recover the service when things go wrong.'  His answer is to cut these services and ruin our lives. We wont be able to get to work, areas will suffer, house prices drop. Sign and stop it\r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/599062/south-eastern-franchise-consultation.pdf ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28678,"created_at":"2017-03-15T20:14:29.614Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:33:42.030Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-27T08:24:00.547Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-15T20:35:56.424Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-28T21:44:37.381Z","government_response_at":"2017-04-10T14:56:59.455Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-04-10","summary":"We are seeking passengers’ views on the principle of reducing the choice of London termini to provide a more regular timetable and reliable service.  We are not proposing to cut specific services.","details":"The Department for Transport has launched a public consultation to seek passengers’ views on their priorities for the train service on the South Eastern network.  These will be used by the Department of Transport to specify the service required from the next train operator, which is planned to start in December 2018.  \n\nThe public consultation seeks views on all aspects of the train service, including the provision of more space for passengers, improvements to customer service, simplifying fares and ticketing, improving access and facilities at stations, priorities for speeding up journeys, and providing additional services.\n\nQuestion 17 seeks views about whether passengers would support the principle of reducing the choice of London termini served from individual stations to provide a more regular timetable and reliable service.  We are not proposing to reduce or change specific services.  An example is provided to explain how the concept could potentially operate in practice if passengers supported it.    \n\nThis question is being asked because passengers have indicated that reducing delays is a priority.  Paragraph 4.6 of the consultation document explains that one of the causes of delays is the need for trains to cross complex junctions at key points such as London Bridge and Lewisham, which are operating at close to maximum capability.  Reducing the need for trains to cross these junctions, by reducing the number of London termini served from individual stations, would help to reduce delays.  \n\nJourneys could also be quicker.  It is currently necessary to add in waiting times at stations to timetable moves across these junctions and these could be reduced or eliminated if services ran to a single London termini.\n\nIn the peak periods, the majority of passengers change at London Bridge, although a significant number do continue through to Cannon Street, Waterloo East, and Charing Cross.  We know that these passengers value a choice of London stations.  \n\nWe are therefore seeking passengers’ views on the principle of reducing the choice of London termini to provide a more regular timetable and reliable service.   \n\nIn answering this question, it is important to consider the many new journey choices for passengers that will result from the completion of the Thameslink programme and the opening of the Elizabeth line.  For example, by 2019, passengers from many South Eastern stations will be able to travel via Abbey Wood or Woolwich for fast and regular onward connections to Canary Wharf and central London.  Many more passengers will change at London Bridge to join Thameslink trains that run every five minutes between London Bridge-Blackfriars-City Thameslink-Farringdon-St. Pancras. \n\nOn the Bexleyheath line the number of passengers from intermediate stations between Dartford and Lewisham and who travel beyond Lewisham towards Victoria is relatively small when compared with those travelling on much faster trains to London Bridge. In the future some passenger from the outer stations on this route will travel via Abbey Wood and the Elizabeth line, or change at London Bridge for Thameslink onward connections. Overall all passengers will benefit from more reliable journeys and many will benefit from faster journey times. \n\nThe public consultation will end on 23 May 2017, after which the Department for Transport will carefully analyse each response.  The conclusions will be published in the Autumn in a Stakeholder Response document. \n\nIt is important to note that there would need to be a separate public consultation by the next train operator before any significant timetable changes were introduced, and this would include reducing the choice of London termini served from stations on the South Eastern network.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2017-04-10T14:56:59.452Z","updated_at":"2017-04-10T14:56:59.452Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125673,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125673.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme","background":"Then government minister, Francis Maude, introduced changes to civil service redundancy terms in 2010 saying they were 'fair for the taxpayer' and 'right for the long term'. Civil servants feel betrayed that this promise is being broken as their terms and conditions come under fresh attack. ","additional_details":"Massive changes to the CSCS are being proposed at a time when hundreds of government offices are earmarked for closure and thousands of loyal public sector workers face losing their jobs. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28643,"created_at":"2016-03-24T12:18:14.942Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:01.020Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-25T12:07:38.033Z","closed_at":"2016-09-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-24T12:49:33.228Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-23T09:00:54.882Z","government_response_at":"2016-05-10T14:15:50.557Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-05-10","summary":"The Government has consulted on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.  It has not yet made a decision and will respond to the consultation in due course.","details":"A consultation on possible changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme was run by the Government between 8 February 2016 and 4 May 2016.  The consultation document (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-reform-of-the-civil-service-compensation-scheme) sets out the arguments in favour of reform based around a set of core principles.  The Government has entered the consultation with an open mind and has not yet reached a decision on what changes to make.  Once it has reached that decision it will publish its reply to the responses on the consultation.  Any change to the Compensation Scheme that reduces benefits payable will need to be accompanied by a report to Parliament on the steps taken to reach agreement with those consulted on the changes.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-05-10T14:15:50.554Z","updated_at":"2016-05-10T14:15:50.554Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":132191,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/132191.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow loud call for prayer (Adhan) in UK mosques","background":"The adhan, or Islamic call to prayer, is an integral part of the Muslim faith. The number of people practicing the religion of Islam in the United Kingdom exceeds 3 million. Some neighborhood towns have more than 50% Muslim population. ","additional_details":"I believe its the right time to experiment and allow highly muslim populated areas with a loud call for prayer atleast 3 times a day not during anti-social hours.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28609,"created_at":"2016-06-07T15:00:36.268Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:51.230Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-15T15:33:47.161Z","closed_at":"2016-12-15T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-08T11:26:22.919Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-20T23:04:42.313Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-04T10:40:54.706Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-04","summary":"Britain has a proud tradition of religious tolerance and we support people’s right to conduct their lives in accordance with their faith.","details":"Britain is a country with a proud history of upholding the values of faith, and of recognising the principle of freedom of religious observance for all citizens. \n\nThe Government recognises the unique contribution that people of faith make to their own local communities and to wider society. Britain’s religious and racial diversity strengthens and enriches our society. Freedom of religious observance for all citizens is an important principle of a free society. \n\nAnyone wishing to discuss public calls to worship should speak to their local authority.\n\nDepartment for Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2016-10-04T10:40:54.704Z","updated_at":"2016-10-04T10:40:54.704Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":151064,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/151064.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make Continuous Glucose Monitors available on the NHS for Type 1 Diabetics","background":"CGMs are a considered less invasive than Blood Glucose Meters. They also help users to maintain target blood glucose levels & limit the risk of hypos.\r\n\r\nAccess to this technology is limited on the NHS. However, they can help to avoid night-time severe hypos, & severe hypos cost the NHS £13m a year.","additional_details":"CGMs work 24 hours a day and can include alarms to indicate when glucose levels are too high. Research suggests they can help to reduce haemoglobin A1c without increasing the risk of a hypo. \r\n\r\nThe initial cost of the hardware for a continuous glucose monitor can vary from around £1,000 to £2,500. In addition to this, running costs are estimated at £40-£60 per 5-7 days. Access to this important technology should not be based upon whether or not the patient is able to afford it.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28410,"created_at":"2016-06-27T16:21:52.612Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:15:25.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-07-05T19:51:51.053Z","closed_at":"2017-01-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-28T08:45:10.286Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-19T20:42:32.309Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-07T09:46:31.356Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-07","summary":"Commissioners decide whether to make continuous glucose monitors available locally. NICE considers they can have benefit but are generally no more effective than current methods of self monitoring.","details":"Preventing diabetes and promoting the best possible care for people with diabetes is a key priority for this Government.  We are working hard to improve outcomes and quality of life for those living with diabetes or those who will develop it in the coming years.  Once a patient has been diagnosed with diabetes, it is vital to ensure they can manage their condition as effectively as possible.\n\nNHS England is working with other organisations to help promote services that are integrated around patients’ needs across all settings; and is implementing a 'customer service platform' to allow patients with diabetes to self-manage through booking their own  appointments, managing their prescriptions, monitoring the care they have received and being able to view their personal health records.\n\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body that provides guidance on the prevention and treatment of ill health and the promotion of good health and social care. NICE’s guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed through wide consultation with stakeholders.\n\nIn August 2015, NICE published guidelines which recommend that such devices should not be made routinely available to people with Type 1 diabetes unless they are willing to commit to using them at least 70% of the time and to calibrate them as needed (as well as meeting certain other criteria).  NICE’s guideline on the diagnosis and management Type 1 diabetes in adults (NG17) is available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng18. \n\nNICE will next consider updating this guidance in 2 years’ time. In the meantime, NICE is considering setting up a standing update committee for diabetes, which would enable a more rapid update of discrete areas of the diabetes guidelines, as and when new relevant evidence is published. NICE will confirm whether it is proceeding with this in due course.\n\nIt is for NHS commissioners to decide whether to make continuous glucose monitoring devices available to their local populations, taking NICE’s guidance into account.\n\nAs one way of incentivising improvements to diabetes services, NHS England has introduced the Best Practice Tariff for paediatric diabetes which provides an annual payment for the treatment of every child and young person under the age of 19 with diabetes, providing 13 standards of care are met.\n\nOne of these standards is to ensure that each young person has received a structured education programme, tailored to their and their family’s needs, both at the time of initial diagnosis and ongoing updates throughout their attendance at the paediatric diabetes clinic. \n\nThe CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework measures progress being made by CCGs in improving outcomes. It includes measures on: \n• the proportion of diabetes patients that have achieved all the NICE-recommended treatment targets. (The treatment targets include having HbA1c levels within recommended limits. HbA1c is a measure of patients’ blood glucose levels) and:  \n• the proportion of people with diabetes diagnosed less than a year who attend a structured education course. \n\nTaken together, these should help identify both whether patients are being supported to understand how to manage their blood glucose levels and whether the approaches being taken in a CCG area are successfully achieving improvements in this.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-10-07T09:46:31.353Z","updated_at":"2016-10-07T09:46:31.353Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":112003,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/112003.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a criminal offence for a mother to deny a father contact with his child","background":"Mothers who deny contact between their children and the father without due cause should be held accountable. It is a form of child abuse that is not taken seriously by the family courts. We want justice for the affected children whose mothers think they can play God with their lives","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28214,"created_at":"2015-11-08T11:48:46.897Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:07:51.060Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-16T16:55:21.185Z","closed_at":"2016-05-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-08T15:25:08.893Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-19T08:11:27.868Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-29T15:09:39.317Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-29","summary":"The Government is confident that enforcement measures available to deal with breaches of court orders for child arrangements are sufficient and there is no need to legislate to criminalise parents.","details":"The Government is aware of the difficulties that the non-resident parent can face in continuing a relationship with their child following parental separation or divorce, sometimes because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the child resides.  In the majority of cases the non-resident parent will be the father and we firmly believe that a child’s best interests are usually met by both parents continuing to have a meaningful relationship with, and responsibility for, their child after separation, where this is safe.\n\nChild arrangements orders are civil orders which can be obtained from a family court and determine with whom a child is to live and/or spend time. When a child arrangements order is breached without good reason, there are sanctions that can be taken against the person who breached the order. In addition to treating a breach as contempt of court, for which a fine or term of imprisonment can be imposed, the court also has other powers to deal with breaches. \n\nChild arrangements orders can be enforced by means of an enforcement order. This requires the person who, without good reason, failed to comply with the child arrangements order to carry out unpaid work. It is also possible to apply to the court to award financial compensation if there has been financial loss as a result of a failure to comply with a child arrangements order, for example for the cost of a holiday.\n\nThe courts treat breaches of child arrangements orders seriously. Guidelines about dealing with the non-compliance and sanctions are available to the court under the Children Act 1989. The President of the Family Division has also issued a revised Practice Direction, the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP), which outlines the approach to be followed by the courts when dealing with enforcement cases. In particular, the CAP requires that any application for enforcement of a child arrangements order should be listed for hearing within 20 working days of issue, and wherever possible, before the same judge who made the order that has been breached.\n\nThe court’s approach to a breach is never automatic.  The court will want to consider the facts and is required by law to satisfy itself of various matters before imposing a punitive punishment such as unpaid work.  The focus is always on making the arrangements work for the benefit of the child.  Published academic research from Exeter University in 2013 of 215 child arrangement enforcement cases showed that the number of intransigent parents who deliberately ignored court orders was very small (4%).  In 10% of cases older children were resisting the arrangements.  In 31% of cases further concerns about risk had been raised.  In 55% of cases chronic conflict and mistrust led to flashpoints over fairly minor changes to child arrangements to accommodate issues such as illness, for example.  This research showed that enforcement cases are not a homogenous group and there are often complex underlying issues.  This is why the government does not believe it would be right to criminalise parents where a child arrangements order naming them has been breached. \n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2016-01-29T15:09:39.314Z","updated_at":"2016-01-29T15:09:39.314Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":107864,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/107864.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Sharia Law and the use of Sharia courts within the UK should be prohibited.","background":"Prohibit the Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam particularly the Quran and the Hadith from being practised or implemented within the United Kingdom to protect and maintain the supremacy of the UK's current constitution along with its legal and judicial systems. ","additional_details":"No laws based on the precepts and doctrines of any religion should be allowed to be implemented or used within the United Kingdom. Sharia law opposes democracy and supports actions that either breach or are contrary to human rights, civil liberties and current statute and common laws of the United Kingdom   ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27885,"created_at":"2015-09-07T22:59:06.406Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:15.268Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-11T15:47:30.913Z","closed_at":"2016-03-11T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-09T11:44:28.309Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-26T09:41:43.698Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-18T16:15:27.500Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-18","summary":"Sharia ‘law’ has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and the Government has no intention to change this position. ","details":"The Government has announced an investigation into the application of Sharia law in this country, to enhance our understanding of any ongoing misuse of Sharia law and the extent of the problem where it exists.  \n\nThere can be no question of there being a parallel system of law in this country.  There is one system of national law which applies equally to all citizens, regardless of religious belief. Practices that follow Sharia principles are therefore allowed to the extent that they also comply with the existing law in England and Wales. \n\nThe Government does not prevent individuals from seeking to regulate their lives through religious beliefs or cultural traditions. Communities and individuals have the option to use religious councils or any other system of alternative dispute resolution and to agree to abide by their decisions. However, these councils are not part of the court system in this country and have no legal means of enforcing their decisions. If decisions or recommendations are contrary to national law, including equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, national law would prevail.  This is no different to any other council or tribunal - whether or not based on Sharia principles.\n\nAny individual or group is free to express views and beliefs, but they also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.  Where there are behaviours and views which run counter to our shared values, these will be challenged by this Government. Promoting fairness in society is one of the Government's core commitments. This is everyone's responsibility; it is only together that we are able to develop a stronger and more cohesive society.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2016-04-18T16:15:27.498Z","updated_at":"2016-04-18T16:15:27.498Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":168675,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168675.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Overturn the Government's decision to allow fracking in Lancashire.","background":"Theresa May promised to give back control to local councils. However even though Lancashire County Council refused permission for fracking in their county, the Government overruled it. This is against the will of the people of Lancashire and the council they elected. Therefore it must be overturned.","additional_details":"Two thirds of Lancashire people are against fracking that is an overwhelming majority that is represented by the Lancashire County Council who refused permission as that is the will of their constituents. To simply ignore it, is beyond irresponsible. This decision must be overturned.\r\n\r\nLancashire Telegraph article:  http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/chorley/11637799._/?","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27868,"created_at":"2016-10-06T16:21:24.054Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:54.462Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-12T10:53:15.841Z","closed_at":"2017-04-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-07T12:53:33.475Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-15T07:24:12.841Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-31T10:10:10.202Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-31","summary":"Full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decisions were published in his decision letter of 6 October 2016. ","details":"Full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decisions are set out on pages 1-25 of the decision letter that was published on 6 October 2016.\n\nThe Secretary of State took into account the wide range of relevant issues that were raised and evidence that was put forward in these appeals, as well as the detailed findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Planning Inspector who held a public inquiry.  All relevant issues raised by local people, Lancashire County Council and others were carefully considered by the Inspector and by the Secretary of State.\n\nThe decision letter explains how the Secretary of State has taken these issues into account and how he has reached his conclusions and decisions. The decision letter and the Inspector’s Report are available at: \nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recovered-appeals-cuadrilla-bowland-ltd-and-cuadrilla-elswick-ltd-refs-3134386-3130923-3134385-and-3130924-6-october-2016\n\nThe Government is committed to devolving powers to local authorities, and the vast majority of planning applications are considered by local authorities. However, for most planning applications there is a right of appeal where the local authority refuses planning permission or does not make a decision within specified timescales. Decisions on appeals are made by the Planning Inspectorate or the Secretary of State, and there is also a right to legally challenge these decisions. Further information on planning appeals and legal challenges is available in the national planning policy guidance at: http://tinyurl.com/AppealGuidance\n\nDepartment for Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2016-10-31T10:10:10.199Z","updated_at":"2016-11-29T15:50:20.406Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106791,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106791.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"DECC to urgently review the current approach to the solar feed in tariff","background":"Today (27/08/15) DECC announced a proposed cut of the Solar Feed In Tariff by 87% by January 2016. A variety of recent cuts by government to support solar and renewable energy will cause a loss of affordable clean energy choices, taking away power from people and handing it back to big energy firms.","additional_details":"Subsidies for ALL renewables currently cost £3.5bn yr compared to £26bn yr in subsidies for fossil fuels. That's £400 per year per household to support the fossil fuel industry. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27695,"created_at":"2015-08-27T12:52:34.421Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:50.617Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-28T10:35:55.180Z","closed_at":"2016-02-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-27T14:05:08.739Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-04T08:17:07.271Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-21T14:49:21.133Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-21","summary":"The Government is committed to a low carbon and affordable future for energy while also ensuring bill payers are getting the best possible deal.","details":"It is a condition of our State Aid approval from the European Commission that we review the performance of the Feed-in Tariff scheme (FITs) every three years and ensure that generators receiving FITs are not overcompensated.\n\nWe are currently consulting on new generation tariffs based on fresh evidence collected by independent consultants which suggests that, amongst other issues, the costs of buying and installing solar technology has fallen significantly since our last review in 2012. \n\nThe proposed new tariffs are designed to bring forward more renewables deployment and still give investors a return on their investment of between 4-9%. Proposing appropriate tariffs is part of the consultation process and we welcome further evidence from stakeholders on our assumptions.\n\nThe generation tariff is not the whole picture for those benefitting from generating their own electricity. FIT recipients also benefit from significant savings on their electricity bills as well as payments for exporting electricity to the grid. Factoring these benefits into the overall lifetime revenue for small-scale solar investors results in an overall reduction in revenue of 40%, rather than 87%, and this still provides an appropriate return on investment.\n\nFITs has been successful in meeting its renewable energy deployment projections. We have already met or exceeded our 2020 projections for wind, hydro, and anaerobic digestion and, even if we implement the cost control measures of the FIT Review, we will be within the 2020 deployment range for solar PV.\n\nSince 2010 we have seen an average of £7 billion a year of investment in renewables and last year we reached a record high of almost £8 billion. However, figures released by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility in July 2015 project that we are likely to exceed the budget set for renewable energy subsidies (the ‘Levy Control Framework’) by £1.5bn a year in 2020/21. Public expenditure on renewables has therefore exceeded all our expectations.\n\nThis expenditure is helping to meet our target to generate at least 30% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. Even with the actions proposed in the FIT Review we are on track to deliver at least 30% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. At the end of 2013, our share of electricity generation from renewable energy was 14.9%. In 2014 this figure rose to 19.2%, and a record of 22.3% was recorded in the first quarter of 2015.\n\nDepartment of Energy and Climate Change","created_at":"2015-09-21T14:49:21.130Z","updated_at":"2015-09-21T14:49:21.130Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":114102,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/114102.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Do not judge student finance on parents/guardians income","background":"Student finance is a joke on the way they assess how much money each student gets. They base it on how much your family earns. But myself and others fend for ourselves, We don't rely on our parents for financial help. Also at the end of our courses, we are the ones paying it back not our parents.  ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27605,"created_at":"2015-11-30T14:38:23.607Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:38.729Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-03T16:31:11.741Z","closed_at":"2016-06-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-02T11:48:34.885Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-14T19:24:45.133Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-06T15:32:13.629Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-06","summary":"The Government is confident that it has struck the right balance between delivering a financially sustainable system and ensuring fair access to higher education for students from all backgrounds. ","details":"All new eligible full-time and part-time students in higher education can apply for up-front tuition fee loans to meet the full costs of their tuition while studying at publically funded institutions, regardless of their income. \n\nIn addition, students attending full-time higher education courses qualify for living costs support which is normally based on the income of their families. All full-time students qualify for some support towards their living costs with the most support available to students from the poorest families who are historically under-represented in higher education and whose parents are least likely to be able to be able to support them.\n\nBasing the amount of living costs support on family income not only means the Government can target the most support toward students from disadvantaged groups, but also helps ensure the higher education funding system remains sustainable.  However, where a student has been self-supporting for at least 3 years before the start of their course, they are treated as independent for student support purposes. \n\nThe Government has no plans to replace this system of means-tested living costs support for full-time students with a system that is not based on income. To remain financially sustainable, a non-means tested system would require the Government to reduce the amount of living costs support available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Such an approach would undermine the Government’s objective to provide a progressive student finance system that targets support on disadvantaged students.\n\nThe Government is also taking further steps to support part-time students. In addition to introducing part-time fee loans in the 2012/13 academic year, we will be consulting on introducing part-time loans for living costs for the first time. We are also further relaxing the \"ELQ\" (Equivalent and Lower Qualification) restriction introduced for student support in 2009 so that students seeking to re-train on a part-time STEM course can access student finance.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-04-06T15:32:13.626Z","updated_at":"2016-04-06T15:32:13.626Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":107166,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/107166.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Force close Retailers on Boxing day! Greed keeps many having to go to work!","background":"Retailers ram boxing day sales down your throat, but it is important to remember that retail workers have families too and would probably appreciate an extra day of xmas with them. Rather than having to return and work ridiculous hours listening to people complain and shout about their returns!","additional_details":"Working in retail at xmas is bad enough, with the long hours, large queues and angry shoppers. Boxing day should be an enforced holiday which allows workers time to spend with their families. Retailers do not save lives, do not provide protection and are not necessary to open on boxing day! Greed is the reason theses companies open and it should be stopped. Family values and traditions should be respected. Let us respect the tradition!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27525,"created_at":"2015-09-03T13:20:57.282Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:00.135Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-03T15:01:01.377Z","closed_at":"2016-03-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-03T13:40:58.545Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-22T20:59:15.595Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-15T10:35:46.899Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-15","summary":"We do not believe it is for central Government to tell businesses how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers. Therefore we are not proposing to ban shops from opening on Boxing Day. ","details":"The Importance of the Retail sector and its employees\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of retail to national and local economies.  It employs 3 million people and the sector generated £90 billion of Gross Value Added in 2014, 5.6% of the UK economy and 4% higher than in 2013.\n\nThe Government also believes that all workers, including those in retail, should have access to employment rights and protections.  The Government’s website, GOV.UK, provides detailed and accessible advice on all aspects of employment, including what to do in case of a dispute.\n\nRetail opening hours\n\nThere are no controls on shops’ opening hours on Boxing Day, unless it falls on a Sunday. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 limits the opening hours of large stores in England and Wales (i.e. those with a trading area over 280 square metres / 3,000 square feet) to 6 continuous hours on a Sunday and not at all on Easter Sunday. The Christmas Day Trading Act 2004 prohibits large shops from opening on Christmas Day whatever day of the week it falls. Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.\n\nThe arrival of the internet has changed consumers’ shopping habits radically and many have got used to the freedom to buy what they need at any time that suits them. Online businesses and smaller retailers already have the flexibility to respond to this demand. Billions of pounds are spent by millions of shoppers on Boxing Day and it is also a busy day for internet sales. The Government believes that all businesses should be allowed flexibility to meet their customers’ needs and offer consumers choice about when and how they want to shop. This will help drive competition, productivity and the local economy, as well as helping create jobs.\n\nIn this internet age, the Government aims to support local high streets to remain at the heart of our communities by being vibrant and viable places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, both during the day and evening. \n\nBoxing Day, Bank Holidays and Working Hours\n\nThe Government believes that the current regulatory situation represents a fair balance between the interests of employers and workers. \n\nIf Boxing Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, then the Government arranges for another day to be a bank holiday.  As Boxing Day falls on Saturday 26 December in 2015, there will be a public holiday on Monday 28 December 2015.\n\nUnder the relevant legislation (the Working Time Regulations or WTRs), workers do not have a statutory entitlement to time off on Bank Holidays.  However employers may allow workers to take time off on those days.\n\nWorkers have many protections under the WTR, including\n• A statutory annual leave entitlement of 5.6 weeks (subject to a limit of 28 days)\n• A maximum working week of 48 hours, normally averaged over 17 weeks (however workers can choose to opt-out of the 48 hour limit)\n• Entitlements to rest breaks, and daily and weekly rest periods\n\nYoung workers and night workers are entitled to additional protections.\n\nIf workers are unhappy with any aspects of their working conditions, they can contact the ACAS helpline for free and confidential advice on 0300 123 1100, or consult the ACAS website at www.acas.org.uk. \n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2015-12-15T10:35:46.896Z","updated_at":"2015-12-15T10:35:46.896Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":169664,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/169664.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Verify that all child refugees accepted into the UK are genuinely under 18.","background":"It is clear that there is some debate as to the veracity of many claims made by refugees, such as their actual age. \r\n\r\nMany appear visibly older than British children of the same claimed year of birth whose ages are verifiable with extensive documentation from birth. ","additional_details":"So we the undersigned call on the government to ensure that they seek the opinion of medical professionals to settle the question. We realise that age cannot be accurately pinpointed, but an estimate can be given to within a few years. \r\n\r\nFirstly this will create public confidence that only genuine child refugees are being accepted, and secondly it will ensure that British children are properly safeguarded in schools where adults are normally subjected to an extensive criminal records check.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27509,"created_at":"2016-10-17T20:00:02.907Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:21:13.634Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-21T17:50:30.961Z","closed_at":"2017-04-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-17T20:11:35.751Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-23T10:55:58.031Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-08T13:52:00.180Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-08","summary":"We do as much as we can at initial interview to assess whether an asylum seeker is under 18.  This can be followed by a local authority age assessment, approved by two social workers. ","details":"Where credible and clear documentary evidence of age is not available, criteria including physical appearance and demeanour are used as part of the interview process to assess whether the person is under 18.  From 17 to 28 October, around 10 per cent of cases referred to us in France were refused on age grounds. \n\nOnce the person is in the UK, there is the option of requesting a local authority age assessment, which must comply with case law and be approved by two social workers.  \n\nThe courts have set out guidance and minimum standards for local authority age assessments.  Much of the initial guidance was set out in a High Court case in 2003 involving Merton Council.  Since then the courts have further developed their view as to the standards which must be followed.  These include that the assessment must be carried out by two trained social workers; an interpreter must be provided if this is necessary; and the individual must be offered the opportunity to have an independent appropriate adult present.  \n\nThe local authority may take into account information obtained by the Home Office, but it must make its own decision and have adequate information available to it.    We do not use dental x-rays to assess the age of those seeking asylum in the UK: the British Dental Association has described them as inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical.  \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-11-08T13:52:00.174Z","updated_at":"2016-11-08T13:52:00.174Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":131556,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131556.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Fund more research into DIPG brain tumours, which are almost universally fatal.","background":"In April this year our world turned upside down and our heart shattered to pieces as the consultant's diagnosis confirmed that our beautiful 6 year old daughter Kaleigh had a condition called DIPG, a rare, aggressive, inoperable brain tumour. This is an evil that no family should have to go through.","additional_details":"• DIPG - MOST FATAL form of brain cancer which grows in the pons (middle) area of the brainstem making it inoperable.\r\n• NO effective treatment or known cure available. \r\n• DIPG primarily affects children between 5 and 10 years of age.\r\n• Average survival time from diagnosis is just 9 months.\r\n• Every 9 days a child in the UK is diagnosed with DIPG.\r\n• Just 1% of the national spend on cancer research has been allocated to brain tumours.\r\nMore funding for research is urgently needed, please support us!\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27502,"created_at":"2016-05-27T23:24:18.798Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:48.258Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-03T09:55:42.250Z","closed_at":"2016-12-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-28T08:05:52.730Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-28T11:35:38.278Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-15T13:19:09.608Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-15","summary":"The Government has set up a new working group on how to increase the impact and quantity of brain tumour research, including that on DIPG to achieve better outcomes for patients and their families.","details":"The Government agrees that an increase in the level of research into diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) and other brain tumours is crucial in order to achieve better outcomes for patients and their families who are affected by these devastating diseases.\n\nGeorge Freeman, the Minister for Life Sciences, is therefore convening the new Department of Health Task and Finish Working Group on Brain Tumour Research. This is bringing together clinicians, charities and officials to discuss how, working together with research funding partners, we can address the need to increase the level and impact of research into brain tumours.\n\nThe Working Group will be chaired by Professor Chris Whitty, the Department’s Chief Scientific Adviser, and will report directly to the Minister for Life Sciences. The Government anticipates that the Working Group will need to meet in person three times before completing its tasks by September 2017.\n\nThe Department funds the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to increase the volume of applied health research for the benefit of patients and the public, drive faster translation of basic science discoveries into tangible benefits for patients and the economy, and develop and support the people who conduct and contribute to applied health research. NIHR cancer research expenditure has risen from £101 million in 2010/11 to £135 million in 2014/15 (the latest available figure). Most of this investment (£111 million in 2014/15) is in cancer research infrastructure where spend on specific disease areas such as brain tumours cannot be separated from total infrastructure expenditure. This infrastructure including NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network.\n\nThe Medical Research Council (MRC) is one of the main agencies through which the Government support medical and clinical research. It is an independent research funding body which receives its grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The MRC supports research through a range of grants and personal awards to scientists in universities, medical schools and other research institutes and welcomes investigator-initiated research proposals in all areas of research relevant to human health. Between 2010/11 to 2014/15 the MRC spent £10.9 million supporting research into brain and pituitary tumours, spanning basic discovery science, translational projects to progress treatments to clinics and early clinical trials. MRC will be represented on the Working Group.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-07-15T13:19:09.605Z","updated_at":"2016-07-15T13:19:09.605Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":133767,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/133767.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ask the Government not to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty.","background":"Parliament is sovereign and, if Brexit wins, the Government will not be legally obliged to invoke the Lisbon treaty to start an EU exit. The vote represents less than 75% of the population and already the leave propaganda has been proving untrue.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27151,"created_at":"2016-06-24T07:08:33.706Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:59.843Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-30T16:17:30.142Z","closed_at":"2016-12-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T17:45:05.822Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-03T13:48:26.655Z","government_response_at":"2016-08-11T14:59:37.804Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-10-18T12:22:25.884Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-08-11","summary":"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected and delivered.","details":"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected and delivered. Article 50 explicitly recognises that a Member State may decide to withdraw “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. It is for the Member State concerned to determine what those constitutional requirements are.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2016-08-11T14:59:37.803Z","updated_at":"2016-08-11T14:59:37.803Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7b53b5c2-1b12-474d-855e-a8bca88605e5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":193282,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/193282.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Put the final Brexit deal to a referendum with revoking Article 50 as an option.","background":"A leaked copy of a European parliament resolution setting out its stance on the Brexit negotiations suggests that the EU would be willing to allow the UK to revoke its Article 50 notification. This makes it imperative that the true will of the people is made known once there's a final Brexit deal. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":27005,"created_at":"2017-03-29T10:42:34.934Z","updated_at":"2017-12-12T15:18:15.919Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-04-05T11:13:38.315Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-29T11:34:54.434Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-09T20:30:27.517Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-19T11:17:50.189Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-12T10:19:35.819Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-19","summary":"On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum. ","details":"On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.\n\nThere must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess that decision, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach that respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between the UK and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.\n\nSince the referendum, the whole of Government has undertaken a huge work programme to make sure that we begin negotiations from a position of strength. This has included analysis of over 50 sectors of the economy. Ministers have also travelled up and down the country to listen to the hopes and concerns of businesses, civil society and the general public.\n\nParliament passed an Act with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. \n\nIn her speech in Florence on Friday 22 September, the Prime Minister set out a creative and pragmatic approach to securing a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union. The speech set the tone for the fourth and fifth rounds of negotiation talks on Monday 25 September and Tuesday 10 October . The talks were robust, constructive and have given us a lot to be positive about. \n\nThe people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. \n\nAs a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn for the simple reason that the majority of the British people voted to leave. We are determined to see that instruction through and now look forward to forging a new relationship with the European Union.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-10-19T11:17:50.186Z","updated_at":"2017-10-19T11:24:59.562Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-11/debates/E3B1D9A4-5B9B-4337-8486-C4BE9A46F2BB/BrexitDealReferendum","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3e1dd847-9bcc-48fb-b141-5c8441b50ae9","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0253","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":175845,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/175845.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Debate the possibility that the \"Will of the People\" has changed since Brexit","background":"\r\nIt is becoming increasingly evident that the full implications of Brexit were not considered in the run-up to the Referendum. Numerous polls suggest that there would now be a clear majority for Remain","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":26951,"created_at":"2016-12-17T17:16:13.402Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:23:22.384Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-12-21T17:57:37.827Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-17T17:25:31.712Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-27T23:15:05.763Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-08T11:15:03.749Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-08","summary":"On 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in a referendum provided for by an Act of Parliament. ","details":"The Government is committed to implementing the democratic outcome of the referendum.\n\nThe Government was clear in the run up to the EU referendum that we would honour the choice made by the people of the UK on 23 June 2016. We will maintain that commitment: the UK will leave the EU. \n\nThis Government will make no attempt to remain in the EU by the backdoor, nor will we hold a second referendum on membership. We are preparing for a smooth and orderly exit from the EU and we will trigger the legal process which starts this by the end of March 2017. \n\nWe will seek an ambitious future relationship with the EU which works for all the people of the UK and which allows the UK to fulfil its aspirations for a truly global UK.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2017-02-08T11:15:03.746Z","updated_at":"2017-02-08T11:15:03.746Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":182429,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/182429.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give military veterans priority housing and mental health care","background":"We call on the Government to urgently reform legislation so military veterans are always provided with affordable housing and adequate support services by local authorities, including mental health care for PTSD\r\n","additional_details":"The Armed Forces Covenant states military veterans SHOULD get priority, not MUST. Thousands are homeless with no mental health care.\r\n\r\nEvery local authority signed the Covenant, but they place housing responsibilities onto housing associations, who haven't signed the pledge. \r\n\r\nThis is wrong and must be changed.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":26754,"created_at":"2017-02-02T20:35:14.158Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:27:37.753Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-08T15:15:00.601Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-02T20:42:59.380Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-11T08:42:00.152Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-27T10:53:27.029Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-27","summary":"The Government has already taken steps to ensure that veterans are given appropriate priority for housing and those that suffer from mental health problems receive the support and care they need.","details":"We owe a duty to ensure that those who lay their life on the line for their country are not disadvantaged when they move back into civilian life.  \n\nGovernment has already put in place a raft of measures to ensure that current and former members of the Armed Forces can gain the housing and support they need and deserve. \n\nIn 2012 we changed the law so that seriously injured and disabled Service personnel and former members of the Armed Forces with urgent housing needs are always given high priority for social housing. \n\nAt the same time, we introduced regulations to ensure that serving personnel, and veterans who are within 5 years of having been discharged, do not lose their qualification rights because of the necessity to move from base to base. \n\nBoth these changes apply also to bereaved spouses of Service personnel who are required to leave services accommodation and to members of the Reserve Forces who have been seriously injured or disabled in service.\n\nRecognising that many veterans will have aspirations of home ownership, we have given former Service personnel and their surviving partners priority for government funded shared ownership schemes for 24 months after service. \n\nWe have also recently consulted on removing the age restriction for eligibility for starter homes (which allows homes to be sold at a minimum 20 per cent discount to market value for eligible first time buyers) for injured Service personnel and bereaved spouses. \n\nWe know that just 3 per cent of people seen sleeping rough in London are UK nationals with a history of service in the armed forces. But no-one should ever have to spend a night on the streets. That’s why we’re investing £30 million in projects to help people at risk of sleeping rough, new to the streets or with the most complex needs.\n\nWe have supported the roll-out of the No Second Night Out and StreetLink initiatives ensuring rough sleepers, including veterans, are found quickly and that they do not spend more than one night on the street.\n\nThe Government is committed to supporting the vulnerable in society, which includes veterans with mental health needs. The Government has a strong track record of boosting the supply of supported housing for vulnerable people. Between 2011 and 2015 the Government delivered over 18,000 new supported homes in England.\n\nIn addition, the NHS in England has a number of tailored mental health services available to all veterans, including:\n• 12 veterans’ specific mental health teams across England who each provide different service models that best reflect their local veteran population needs enabling specialist staff to care for veterans with mental health needs and direct them to the most appropriate service. \n• 24-hour veterans’ mental health helpline\n• The Big White Wall, an On-line early intervention peer support, wellbeing and counselling service – providing services to Armed Forces, their families and veterans. \n• Veterans’ Information Service – this service contacts those who have discharged from the Armed Forces a year after they have left. The contact also provides a link through to the Royal British Legion knowledge database where advice can be provided on line for most cases.\n\nIn 2016, NHS England ran an extensive engagement exercise of their current veteran’s mental health services to seek views and experiences of these services exploring the reasons why some people have not sought or received support and treatment. Following the findings, a pathfinder transition, intervention and liaison mental health service for armed forces serving personnel approaching discharge and after discharge has been commissioned. \n\nIn addition, up to £18m of NHS England specialist funding is being provided to Combat Stress to provide acute PTSD mental services for veterans. \n\nRaising awareness of the armed forces community and their mental health and physical needs is imperative to ensure individuals receive high-quality support in a timely manner. Health Education England working with NHS England and welfare charities have produced a package of e-learning modules aimed at all health and social care professionals, to help increase understanding of the armed forces population and facilitate improved care and treatment.  The programme is split across three areas of NHS care for current serving personnel, the families of serving personnel and veterans, and for veterans.\n\nDepartment for Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2017-02-27T10:53:27.027Z","updated_at":"2017-02-27T10:53:27.027Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":185283,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/185283.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow retired dependent parents of British citizens in U.K","background":"All parents have rights to seek support from their children when they are retired and suffering health and financial issues.Not allowing them to come to UK is to take away their rights to live with their children in their old age.","additional_details":"There is always a time in life when the parents will need their children and it is the duty of the child to give them a shoulder at that age.Allowing them in Uk will give the chance to their sons and daughters to fulfill their duty\r\n\r\nMy Parents are not keeping well and I am desperately waiting to call them here. They are now completely dependent on me.Please support this good cause.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":26741,"created_at":"2017-02-13T23:00:00.732Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:29:27.519Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-20T09:17:59.157Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-14T00:07:49.827Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-22T09:00:00.066Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-13T10:58:31.884Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-13","summary":"The Immigration Rules for adult dependent relatives provide a route for those who require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided in the UK by their relative here.","details":"The family Immigration Rules were reformed in July 2012 to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse, and thereby ensure that family migration to the UK is on a sustainable basis that is fair to migrants and the wider community.  These reforms included changes to the route for adult dependent relatives, given the significant NHS and social care costs which can be associated with these cases.  The Department of Health has estimated that a person living to the age of 85 costs the NHS on average around £150,000 in their lifetime, with more than 50 per cent of this cost arising from the age of 65 onwards.  This figure does not take account of any social care costs met by local authorities.\n\nUnder the rules adult dependent relatives must demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided in the UK by their sponsor here and without recourse to public funds.  The new rules seek to ensure that only those adult dependent relatives who need to be physically close to and cared for by a close relative in the UK are able to settle here.  Those who do not have such care needs can be supported financially in the country in which they live by their relative in the UK.  The route now provides for those most in need of care, but not for those who would simply prefer to live in the UK. \n\nThe lawfulness of the new rules for adult dependent relatives was upheld by the High Court on judicial review on 20 April 2016 and, overall, we believe that the rules are having the right impact and are helping to restore public confidence in the immigration system.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2017-03-13T10:58:31.882Z","updated_at":"2017-03-13T10:58:31.882Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}