{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=3&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=19&parliament=3&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=3&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=3&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":235831,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235831.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce mandatory measures to prevent reselling/euthanasia of dogs","background":"A healthy dog was euthanised by a Rescue. The registered Rescue Back Up was not contacted/advised of his imminent destruction. Had the vet scanned for a microchip it would have shown the person requesting euthanasia was not the registered keeper. Dual contact details on rescues should be mandatory.","additional_details":"It should be mandatory for vets to scan any dog not registered with their surgery using scanners which detect ALL types of microchip before treating the dog unless treatment is urgent. If asked to euthanise a dog who is not registered the vet should be required to take all reasonable steps to contact the owner. The new measure will protect rescue centre dogs from pet flipping/selling on/euthanasia by enforcing the adoption contract. It will also protect stolen and abandoned dogs whose identity will have to be checked before treatment","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30655,"created_at":"2018-12-21T17:24:03.041Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:44.932Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-23T18:02:17.743Z","closed_at":"2019-07-23T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-22T13:56:10.399Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-02T23:29:35.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-23T12:27:12.921Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-23","summary":"We are sorry to hear about the death of a healthy dog. Local authorities, vets and re-homing centres are able to, and encouraged to, scan dogs in cases where the keeper is not clear.","details":"It is already good practice for vets and local authorities to scan stray dogs, or dogs where ownership is new or unclear. Microchipping of dogs was made compulsory by The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 (link to 2015 regulations:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/108/contents). We estimate that around 90% of dogs are microchipped and so it is second nature for vets and re-homing centres to scan a dog to check the owner. Microchipping has helped increase the number of lost dogs reunited with their owners and reduced the number of stray dogs as shown by the Dogs Trust’s annual Stray Dogs Survey.\n\nThe Government considers that it is not necessary to make scanning of dogs by vets and rescues compulsory as it is already considered good practice for dogs to be scanned at first presentation and this is widely practised throughout the UK. This position is fully supported by professional veterinary bodies and local authorities.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.","created_at":"2019-04-23T12:27:12.918Z","updated_at":"2019-04-23T12:27:12.918Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":230416,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/230416.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish the 0.7% Foreign Aid Target and spend OUR money at home","background":"The Government currently spends 0.7% GDP on Foreign Aid. This means it will spend over £14bn of tax payers money on projects which could be better spent at home. By 2020 this figure will have risen to almost £16bn. We believe the Government should abolish the 0.7% GDP target for Foreign Aid.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30622,"created_at":"2018-10-14T19:16:24.193Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:09.433Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-22T09:21:06.140Z","closed_at":"2019-04-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-14T20:21:33.576Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-27T19:56:19.254Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-14T16:50:13.107Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-14","summary":"By investing less than a penny from each pound of our income in aid, the UK is helping create a safer, healthier and more prosperous world.","details":"It is not a case of choosing between international development and priorities at home. Poverty reduction is at the heart of what we do but UK aid is also tackling global challenges like disease such as Ebola, terrorism and conflict, creating a safer, healthier and more prosperous world. When we invest in stability, jobs, and sound governance, we address the root causes of problems that affect us at home too. Countries in poverty and conflict are not good for the UK; prosperous and stable countries are our trading partners of the future. Our aid commitment is a win for those we support and a win for the UK.\n\nSuccessfully exiting the EU will require us to be more, not less, outward-looking. Our commitment to invest 0.7 per cent of national income in aid contributes to the UK’s global influence and our reputation as a development superpower. Our aid is a cross-government commitment that draws on the full range of the UK’s skills and expertise. Through our world-class defence, diplomacy and leadership in international development, aid lifts millions of the world’s poorest people out of poverty around the world at the same time as securing the UK’s place in the world.\n\nWe know we must maximise the good we do with what money we have. This is why DFID seeks not just to spend money well but to show it could not be spent better – in the interest of those we are trying to help and with direct positive results for the UK too. DFID has introduced tough new reforms to deliver even better value for money, including clamping down on the risk of unethical practices by suppliers, holding aid organisations to account by tying funding to performance, closing programmes which fail to meet development objectives, and increasing efficiency savings.\n\nWe know UK aid works. To list just a few results achieved between April 2015 and March 2018, DFID has:\n-   supported 11.4 million children to gain a decent education; \n-   supported 40.3 million people to access clean water and/or better sanitation.\n-   supported 3.0 million people to raise their incomes or maintain/gain a better job or livelihood;\n-   installed 182 Megawatts of clean energy capacity. \n\nMeanwhile, UK aid is stabilising conflict zones where extremists could otherwise thrive. For example, DFID is supporting Iraq as it rebuilds following the conflict with Daesh, increasing political stability, security and prosperity in the region. This benefits both the Iraqi people and the UK. The UK is also leading the way in tackling illicit financial flows which enable global criminal gangs to operate. One UK aid project has supported African law enforcement officials to seize, confiscate or preserve over $76 million of illegal assets in 2017.\n\nAdvancing economic development in the world’s poorest countries is also fundamental to the UK’s international leadership. Investing in the growth of companies in Africa and South Asia creates the jobs and economic stability that lead to global security and help end aid dependency.\n\nLife-changing progress comes from growth that transforms economies; that creates productive jobs and private sector investment; and that spreads benefits and opportunities right across society. As we leave the EU we will build on our strong record as a champion of trade and development.\n\nWe aim to secure existing duty-free access to UK markets for the world’s poorest and continue to support developing countries to reduce poverty through trade. Helping developing countries harness the formidable power of trade means we are not only creating trading partners of the future for UK businesses, but supporting jobs at home too. Building a more prosperous world and supporting our own long-term economic security is firmly in all our interests‎.\n\nUK scientists and cutting-edge technology are also at the forefront of global efforts, from developing new vaccines to wipe out disease to transforming the way we do development. Diagnostic tests for TB developed with UK aid are now being used by the NHS. The UK’s Emergency Medical Team has gained skills in tackling diseases which now benefit their work in the UK. \n\nHowever, we must also recognise that UK aid alone is not going to deliver all we need to end extreme poverty by 2030. If we want to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals, we have to let others help, including the private sector. We are working with the private sector and others to ensure we build economic opportunities in the markets we work in.\n\nWhere the UK considers the international aid rules to be outdated, we have led the way in pushing for reforms at the governing Development Assistance Committee (DAC). We have achieved important reforms including increasing the proportion of aid spending which contributes to peacekeeping missions and reducing restrictions to support countries affected by crises and natural disasters. We continue to challenge other nations to deliver on their commitments for a better and safer world.\n\nDepartment for International Development","created_at":"2019-02-14T16:50:13.104Z","updated_at":"2019-02-14T16:51:28.602Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":273801,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/273801.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Bring the date for the post-study work visa closer to help current students","background":"I would like to request the government to bring the date for the 2-year post-study work visa closer to help current international students (i.e. students graduating before 2021) benefit from this too. It would be unfair to current international students otherwise.","additional_details":"It is a big achievement to be reintroducing the 2-year post-study work visa after it was removed by Theresa May in 2012 — I am so glad to see such a progressive step towards building a stronger global community here in the UK. \r\n\r\nStories of a few current international students that could benefit from this are available here: https://bbc.in/2Q4WXKi\r\n\r\nFurther details on the new visa can be found here: http://bit.ly/2PZFCSL","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30388,"created_at":"2019-09-11T16:43:44.043Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:54:17.729Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-09-17T13:02:12.984Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-11T17:01:22.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-20T18:52:52.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-08T09:39:12.597Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-08","summary":"The Government will implement the Graduate route in summer 2021. This route will benefit hundreds of thousands of students and boost the UK’s global offer to the best and brightest.","details":"The recently announced Graduate route demonstrates the UK is a globally focused, outward facing nation committed to attracting the best students from around the world. Hundreds of thousands of international students will be able to benefit from this route. It will also assist the UK’s higher education sector as they compete in a global market for international students.\n\nThe new route will be launched in the summer of 2021. Any student who successfully completes their degree-level course at a qualifying institution in the summer of 2021 or thereafter will be eligible to apply. This includes students who are already studying. Announcing the route now enables prospective students to decide where to study, knowing they have the option of staying in the UK to work after completing their studies.\n\nAll students accepted for the Graduate route will receive two years non-extendable leave. During that time, they will be able to work, or look for work, at any skill level. Graduates will also be able to switch into skilled work once they have found a suitable job.\n\nThose who graduate and whose leave expires before the route is introduced will not be eligible for the Graduate route. The vast majority of these students will have commenced their course prior to the announcement of the new route, and therefore had no expectation of benefiting from such a route when they applied to study in the UK. However, these students can still work in the UK post-study if they secure a graduate level job which meets the requirements of the Tier 2 skilled work route. They will also continue to benefit from the generous provisions which allow them to switch into skilled work on favourable terms. They are exempt from the Resident Labour Market Test, have a reduced salary threshold and are not subject to the annual cap on numbers under this route.\n\nThis route is being introduced to help new graduates who complete their education in the UK to get a head-start on their career and allow them to look for work as soon as they have successfully graduated. It is entirely appropriate that they should benefit from this route, rather than those with degrees previously gained in the UK who have already progressed in their career, whether in the UK or overseas.\n\nThe earlier Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route was closed in 2012 because evidence suggested that the route was open to abuse, and many on the route were unemployed or in low-skilled work. The Graduate route will have safeguards to ensure that we have control over who can access it, in order to prevent such abuse in the future. Students will only be eligible for the route if they can demonstrate that they have successfully passed their course at degree level or above, studied at a trusted institution, and complied with the terms of their student visa.\n\nHome Office.","created_at":"2019-10-08T09:39:12.595Z","updated_at":"2019-10-08T09:39:12.595Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":215415,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/215415.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make anti-GD2 treatment available on the NHS","background":"Neuroblastoma is an aggressive cancer which mainly affects children under the age of 5.\r\n\r\n\r\nAnti GD2 therapy is standard in the US but is not available on the NHS. Around 60% of patients relapse with current NHS treatment options compared to 10% of patients after anti GD2 treatment.","additional_details":"One of the founding principals of the NHS was \"Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service\" as stated by Sir William Beveridge (1942).\r\n\r\nIf we have the ability to treat children such as Jack and many others but do not do so, we are undermining the very base principals of our NHS and, even worse, we are betraying our own children by making funding a real factor in life-and-death healthcare.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30387,"created_at":"2018-03-17T09:01:31.483Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:45.250Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-04T09:53:17.062Z","closed_at":"2018-10-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-17T17:16:47.644Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-22T07:21:24.364Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-07T11:17:22.470Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-07","summary":"The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance for the NHS on dinutuximab beta, an anti GD2 therapy, for high-risk neuroblastoma and recently consulted on draft guidance.","details":"The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent expert body responsible for the development of authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the National Health Service (NHS) on whether drugs and treatments represent an effective use of resources.  These are very difficult decisions to make and its guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the best available evidence and developed through wide consultation with stakeholders.  \nUnfortunately, there are no routinely available anti-GD2 treatments for use in the NHS in England currently. NICE is currently appraising two drugs for use in high-risk neuroblastoma.  The first is dinutuximab beta, on which, NICE published draft guidance for consultation on 4th May. More information can be found at the following link - https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ta10069.  NICE will carefully consider the comments it has received in response to the consultation in developing its final recommendations.  \nNICE’s appraisal of the second drug, dinutuximab, has unfortunately been suspended as the global demand for dinutuximab is outstripping supply.  The company, United Therapeutics Corporation, is taking steps to address this issue and, in February 2017, signalled that it would take approximately three years to resolve.\n\nThis government recognises the terrible effects of neuroblastoma on children and their families and despite financial pressures in the NHS, cancer treatment has been and always will be a priority. Since 2010 rates of survival from cancer have increased year-on-year.  Around 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been had mortality rates stayed the same as in 2010.  For many types of cancer, the Government has focused on research and innovation, and ensuring that proven innovations, once discovered, are adopted swiftly across the health service.  Through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Government has spent £137million on cancer research in 2016/17, an increase from £101million in 2010/11.  This constitutes the largest investment in a disease area.  \nHowever, we recognise there is more to do. NHS England is leading the health and care system in implementing the recommendations of the independent Cancer Taskforce to save a further 30,000 lives a year by 2020. There will always be drugs that the NHS is unable to provide, but the CDF and NICE processes are designed to ensure patients can benefit as soon as possible, whilst also representing a clinically and cost effective use of NHS resources.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-06-07T11:17:22.466Z","updated_at":"2018-06-07T11:17:22.466Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200224,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200224.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Impose Financial sanctions on the State of Myanmar (Burma).","background":"Impose harsh financial sanctions on the State of Myanmar due to the current ongoing ethnic cleansing being pursued by elements of its security forces.","additional_details":"Human rights watchdogs have voiced mounting concerns, over Myanmar’s systematic campaign aimed towards ethnic cleansing of its minority population.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41260767","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30349,"created_at":"2017-09-14T00:42:23.290Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:29.901Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-14T16:19:42.313Z","closed_at":"2018-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T01:50:05.060Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T21:10:24.248Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.816Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-16","debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-17T09:28:10.787Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-04","summary":"The UK is seriously concerned with recent events in Rakhine. We are working closely with partners on the international community’s response. \r\n\r\n","details":"The UK is seriously concerned about the situation in northern Rakhine and the linked refugee crisis across the border in Bangladesh.  We have been at the forefront of the international community's response, both humanitarian and political.\n\nAs a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, the UK has now raised Burma three times at the Council.  On 18 September, we secured agreement for a statement expressing concern about reports of excessive violence during the security operations in Rakhine, calling for immediate steps to end the violence  and ensure full access for humanitarian relief.  The Security Council discussed Burma in an open session on 28 September. The Foreign Secretary hosted a lunch during UNGA week to discuss the situation in Rakhine which included Burma and a range of international partners.\n\nAt the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the UK took part in an Interactive Dialogue led by Kofi Annan with the Burma Fact Finding Mission on 19 September. The UK co-sponsored a resolution to extend the mandate of the Mission. \n\nEU sanctions, other than the Arms Embargo, were removed in 2013 following progress made in Burma towards a democratic transition. .   Following recent events in Rakhine, we judge the Security Council would be unlikely to agree to sanctions at this stage. However, we are working with EU partners to consider possible measures by the EU and to follow the UK’s lead in suspending defence assistance and visits to EU countries by senior military figures such as the Commander in Chief and regional commanders responsible for the violence in Rakhine state.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.813Z","updated_at":"2017-10-04T14:13:37.813Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-04-16/debates/FB517E47-EA76-40A7-BA56-71279FFA1FF8/MyanmarRohingyaMinority","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0e341f8d-4bca-4583-b986-e455bf79a2f5","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0086","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":262354,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/262354.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal IR35 legislation in Public Sector and proposed Private Sector rollout.","background":"Freelance workers and contractors have been treated unfairly by this ill conceived legislation since it's conception.  It has been incorrectly used to investigate and prosecute many hardworking self employed business owners striving to be successful in today's world.  IR35 is anti-business!","additional_details":"This is legislation that encourages envy because of supposed benefits to being self employed by some who are not self-employed themselves.  Why should a self-employed person working under IR35 be treated the same as an employee regarding taxation?  The self-employed under IR35 are not entitled to paid holiday or sickness and by implication have no job security.  The HMRC make more money from VAT, Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Dividend Tax than from PAYE.  IR35 is about discouraging strivers!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30343,"created_at":"2019-05-23T17:46:39.392Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:51:13.739Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-06-20T15:39:09.579Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-23T21:20:42.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-03T11:28:42.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-22T16:45:05.432Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-22","summary":"The off-payroll working rules do not apply to the self-employed. They ensure that individuals who work like employees but through their own company pay broadly the same taxes as the directly employed.","details":"The off-payroll working rules have been in place for nearly 20 years. They are designed to ensure that individuals working like employees, but through their own limited company, pay broadly the same tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) as those who are employed directly. The rules support a fair tax system by ensuring that two individuals working in a similar way for the same employer pay broadly the same tax and NICs, even if one of them structures their work through a company. \n\nThe rules apply only to individuals who are working like employees through their own company and do not apply to the self-employed.\n\nNon-compliance with these rules is widespread. HMRC estimate that only 10% of those who should be applying the rules do so. People who are not complying with these rules are not paying their fair share of employment taxes resulting in projected costs to the Exchequer of £1.3 billion a year by 2023/24. This money would otherwise go into funding hospitals, schools and other public services.\n\nTo address this, in April 2017 the Government reformed the way in which the rules operate in the public sector. Public sector bodies are now responsible for determining whether the rules apply to individuals they contract with through limited companies, and for ensuring that they and the individuals who work for them pay the right tax. HMRC analysis of income tax and NICs receipts shows this has been successful in improving compliance, with an estimated additional £550 million being raised over the first 12 months. Independent research has also shown that this change has so far been achieved without disrupting public services or reducing market flexibility. \n\nThough the rules are now operating effectively in the public sector, non-compliance is growing elsewhere. That is why at Autumn Budget 2018 the Government announced that it would extend the reform to all medium and large organisations from April 2020.\n\nThe Government has consulted extensively on the proposed extension of the reform to other sectors, and on 11 July published its response to the most recent consultation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/816059/Off-payroll_working_rules_from_Apri_2020-_summary_of_responses.pdf.\n\nHaving listened to stakeholders, the Government decided not to apply the reform to the smallest 1.5 million organisations. It will take effect from April 2020 to give organisations time to prepare. The Government has also decided to bring forward legislation requiring organisations to maintain a client-led status disagreement process to allow individuals and fee-payers to challenge the client’s status determinations directly and in real time. \n\nThe Government is currently seeking feedback from experts and stakeholders on the draft legislation for inclusion in Finance Bill 2019. \n\nFalling within the off-payroll working tax rules does not change an individual’s status for employment rights as there are currently separate frameworks for tax and for employment rights, with no direct link between them. However, as set out in the Good Work Plan published in December 2018, the Government agrees that reducing the differences between the tax and rights frameworks for employment status to a minimum is important. In the meantime, it is right that the Government takes action to improve compliance with existing tax rules. Those who wish to challenge their employment status for rights can take their case to an employment tribunal, regardless of their tax status.\n\nThe Government values the contribution of flexible workers to the UK economy. However, it is also under an obligation to ensure fairness between individuals who work in a similar way.\n\nHM Treasury.","created_at":"2019-07-22T16:45:05.429Z","updated_at":"2019-07-22T16:45:05.429Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":239850,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/239850.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a criminal offence for MPs to deliberately mislead the general public.","background":"Members of Parliament are elected into a position of power and trust. It is therefore imperative that Parliamentarians accurately review the information they are presented with and ensure, to the best of their ability, the information they present to the general public is truthful.","additional_details":"When parliamentarians deliberately lie or mislead the electorate, it compromises and severely undermines our democracy. I am therefore calling on Parliament to debate this issue and consider making the deliberate presentation of misinformation to the electorate a criminal offence. A criminal offence constitutes an act that is harmful not only to an individual but also to a community, society or the state. There is a genuine case for this both legally and morally.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":30296,"created_at":"2019-01-30T11:08:00.117Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:44:55.101Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-11T17:19:51.323Z","closed_at":"2019-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-30T12:11:52.696Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-19T17:54:38.849Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-11T14:08:38.582Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-11","summary":"An important principle of the UK Parliament is that MPs are accountable to those who elect them. Responsibility for privilege is a matter for the House of Commons itself, rather than the Government.","details":"It is an important principle of the UK Parliament that Members of Parliament are accountable to those who elect them. It is therefore absolutely right that all Members of Parliament are fully accountable to their constituents for what they say and do and this is ultimately reflected at the ballot box. \n\nThere are strong rules that govern candidates prior to their election to Parliament.  The Electoral Commission sets out the rules for candidates during General Election campaigns, such as the type of publicity material that candidates are able to use and the rules around making false statements. You can find further information on specific electoral offences at the following website: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/uk-parliamentary-general-election-great-britain  \n\nOnce elected to Parliament, and as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, all MPs must abide by the seven principles of public life which form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office as set out in their respective Codes of Conduct. The seven principles of public life are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. It is a requirement that any holder of public office must be truthful and must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.\n\nUpon election, MPs are also subject to the House’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the application of the Code and further details are available on the Parliament website at: https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/\n\nUltimately, it is right that MPs are accountable to the electorate and should uphold the highest of standards. As such, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 was introduced to  allow constituents to sign a petition for the recall of their MP if they are convicted of an offence, or are suspended from the House for at least 21 sitting days (or 28 calendar days if the suspension does not specify sitting days). A recall petition would be successful if signed by at least 10% of the registered voters in a constituency. The recall mechanism adds to the House of Commons’ own suite of disciplinary measures and gives constituents a say over their MP’s conduct between General Elections.\n\nLeader of the House of Commons.","created_at":"2019-03-11T14:08:38.578Z","updated_at":"2019-03-11T16:46:02.366Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":227405,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/227405.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap The Forestry Commission Licence Agreements With Fox & Hare Hunts","background":"The Forestry Commission licences ‘trail hunts’ (fox, beagle & harrier packs) to use public land with staff convicted under the Hunting Act 2004 & Protection of Badgers Act 1992. These should be scrapped. This shouldn’t apply to licenses agreed with Masters of Bloodhounds & Draghounds Association.","additional_details":"A recent list of Forestry Commission licensed hunts is here: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/foi Including: \r\nThe Meynell & South Staffordshire Hunt, whose master has been convicted for illegally hunting foxes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19552192 \r\nCottesmore Hunt (employee convicted for blocking a badger sett): https://nwhsa.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/cottesmore-hunt-employee-pleads-guilty-to-badger-sett-offence/\r\nTrail hunting is a myth exposed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ifaw-pantheon/sites/default/files/legacy/2015-IFAW-Trail-of-Lies-full-report.pdf","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29876,"created_at":"2018-08-16T22:35:17.179Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:18.220Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-18T16:32:26.900Z","closed_at":"2019-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-17T05:59:38.904Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-30T07:19:58.739Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-17T15:05:28.679Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-17","summary":"Trail hunting is a legitimate activity. The Forestry Commission only permits trail hunting on its land under strictly controlled agreements.","details":"The Hunting Act 2004 came into effect on 18 February 2005 and bans all hunting of wild mammals with dogs in England and Wales, except where it is carried out in accordance with the exemptions set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. \n\nMany hunts have since turned to trail hunting as an alternative to live quarry hunting, which involves the hunting of an artificial scent, or the scent of a fox, deer or mink, to mimic live quarry racing. A huntsman will go out ahead of the field and lay a trail; the dogs and followers will then follow this trail. Because the huntsmen or followers do not know in advance the route hounds will take when following the trail, trail hunting tends to closely match traditional live quarry hunting.\n\nIt is for the Forestry Commission to decide whether to permit trail hunting on its land.\n\nThe Forestry Commission only permits trail hunting on the Public Forest Estate (PFE) to members of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA) and the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association (MDBA). The Forestry Commission enters into master agreements with the MFHA and MDBA, which strictly govern the terms under which trail and drag hunting are permitted on the PFE.\n\nThe agreements oblige each hunt to obtain a separate permission from the Forest Management Director of the District to trail and drag hunt on the PFE and to agree dates and routes four weeks prior to the commencement of the season in November.\n\nThe permission obliges the hunt to maintain £5 million liability insurance and indemnify the Forestry Commission against any damage or loss. The permission also strictly enforces the byelaws of the Forestry Commission and gives the Forest Management Director the ability to restrict the number of hounds and manner of hunting.\n\nThe Head of Estates meets the MFHA annually to review the previous season’s activity and to report on any issues and agree any actions that need to be taken. Through the agreements with MFHA and MDBA, the Forestry Commission is able to monitor the conduct of trail hunts on the PFE to ensure hunts comply with legislation.\n\nThe Government has no plans to ban trail hunting, which is a legitimate activity. Anyone who believes an offence is taking place, or has taken place, during a hunt (including trail hunting) should report the matter to the Police, as they deal with complaints of illegal hunting. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-10-17T15:05:28.675Z","updated_at":"2018-10-17T15:05:28.675Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200793,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200793.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel HS2 immediately and repeal the 2013 and 2017 High Speed Rail Acts.","background":"HS2 is a vanity project, lobbied for by the firms who will make billions out of building it, at a time of continued austerity and cuts to essential services. Independent economists, rail experts and environmentalists have all heavily criticised the project, but Governments have refused to listen.","additional_details":"HS2 is not a 'magic wand' to cure the North-South divide. All the international evidence shows it will reinforce the dominance of London and increase regional divisions.\r\n\r\nIn 20 years HS2 would deliver capacity where it is needed the least, with the lowest flexibility, at the greatest cost, whilst more beneficial rail projects have already been cancelled.\r\n\r\nThe official cost of HS2 has almost quadrupled since it was proposed in 2008, and it will carry on rising unless it is immediately cancelled.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29843,"created_at":"2017-09-19T14:26:38.922Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:36.714Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-21T11:59:55.194Z","closed_at":"2018-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-19T14:48:35.409Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-27T16:07:21.356Z","government_response_at":"2017-10-11T16:46:55.407Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-10-11","summary":"HS2 will provide new rail network capacity, drive economic growth, create jobs and investment, train the next generation of engineers and better connect our major cities. It is on time and on budget.","details":"New Railway\n\nHS2 will form the new backbone of our national rail network, providing new capacity and better connecting our major cities, while creating more space for commuter and freight trains on our busiest lines. This will create better connections and more seats for passengers and allow more goods to be moved by rail, which will also help to improve air quality.\n\nOpening in 2026, the HS2 network will serve towns and cities including London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Crewe, Nottingham, Derby, York and Newcastle, with trains running on to Scotland. By 2033 up to 18 trains an hour will run in both directions, carrying up to 1,100 passengers each. \n\nHS2 is a major investment but an essential one. HS2’s total budget is £55.7bn. Over the current Spending Review period spending on HS2 will equate to 0.14% of GDP. We are keeping a tough grip on costs and are determined to deliver HS2 on time and on budget.\n\nBenefits to the North\n\nWe are delivering unprecedented investment in infrastructure in the North, to redress the historic imbalance in infrastructure investment between north and south. The Northern Powerhouse is a key priority, and our substantial investment will boost the northern economy and reduce the prosperity gap with the South that has existed for far too long.\n\nWe are also working to future-proof HS2 by including provisions for new junctions in the North and Midlands, which will help ensure that the infrastructure can accommodate the Northern powerhouse. HS2 will transform capacity and connectivity for millions of people across the north. With HS2 stations in Manchester, Leeds, Crewe and Sheffield, the north will be the principal beneficiary of HS2. \n\nHS2 will underpin the plans of local areas to grow their economies, in places like Leeds where the South Bank regeneration project around Leeds station is expected to support 35,000 jobs across key sectors and 4,000 new homes. HS2 will generate around £25 billion of contracts and represents a major opportunity for businesses across the whole of the UK including small and medium-sized enterprises.\n\nThe Government has committed £60m to take HS3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, forward and we are working closely with Transport for the North to develop a business case for the project by the end of 2018. The Government is investing over £13bn in the north of England’s transport infrastructure, including on roads and railways, to deliver faster journeys and increased capacity. That work will continue apace and is a key priority for the Department.\n\nThis includes dramatically improving journeys for passengers across the north with the Great North Rail Project. By 2020, as a result of this ambitious and comprehensive upgrade, passengers will benefit from faster and more comfortable journeys, as well as new direct services across the north and beyond. We are also developing options for the Transpennine Route Upgrade, to increase the number of seats, and reduce journey times, allowing journeys such as from Leeds to Manchester in 40 minutes. \n\nHS2 is key to the future of our transport system and the relationship it has with our existing network is a vital part of our planning.  It is not a case of “either/or” but rather one of joined up and complementary delivery.  Over £38 billion is being spent on improving the existing rail network for the five years between 2014 and 2019.  This investment is funding projects to increase capacity on the existing rail network and improve journeys for all passengers. There is also potential for HS2 to increase the amount of freight transported by rail – meaning fewer cars and lorries on our roads, cutting congestion and carbon.\n\nCreating Jobs and skills\n\nHS2 will support growth in the wider economy, worth an additional 100,000 jobs. 70% of all jobs created by HS2 will be outside of London. But this isn’t just about when the new railway opens - jobs and skills are being created now. \n\nSeveral contracts have already been let and major contracts for up to £11.8 billion worth for the civil engineering work will be let this year. HS2 is working with businesses across the UK - including many small and medium-sized firms - to ensure they are well prepared to bid for work on HS2. HS2 will generate around 25,000 jobs during construction as well as 2,000 apprenticeships.\n\nAnd HS2 is about upskilling: a more skilled workforce is vital for the country as we forge a bold new positive role for ourselves in the world. The National College for High Speed Rail, based in Doncaster and Birmingham, will open its doors later this month. The College will train young people to build HS2 and other world-leading rail projects. \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2017-10-11T16:46:55.405Z","updated_at":"2017-10-11T16:46:55.405Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":214030,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/214030.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum for the legalisation of cannabis","background":"It is clear that the cannabis debate is not going away and given that the current conservative government understand the meaning of democracy by giving a referendum to the public on our membership of the E.U it should give the public a referendum on cannabis legalisation and let the public decide","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29775,"created_at":"2018-02-28T23:35:29.626Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:21.913Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-12T16:24:18.473Z","closed_at":"2018-09-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-01T21:07:58.878Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-13T20:37:33.607Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-30T12:42:38.839Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-04-30","summary":"This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis and there are no plans to hold a referendum on the matter.","details":"Cannabis is a Class B Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is a substantial body of scientific and medical evidence to show that controlled drugs, such as cannabis, are harmful and can damage people’s mental and physical health, and our wider communities.\n\nThe evidence from the Government’s independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (‘ACMD’), is that the use of cannabis is a “significant public health issue and can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society”. The ACMD’s most recent advice on cannabis is set out in its 2008 report:\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acmd-cannabis-classification-and-public-health-2008\n\nGiven these acknowledged harms, the Government does not consider it appropriate to hold a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis. Whilst the debate is an important one, the eleven previous referenda have centred on fundamental constitutional issues such as devolution and the UK’s membership of the EU.\n\nThe legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs. It would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. As such, the Government’s position on Cannabis remaining a controlled drug remains clear and there is no intention to hold a referendum on the matter.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-04-30T12:42:38.836Z","updated_at":"2018-06-12T15:25:57.997Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":219650,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/219650.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap car parking charges at NHS Hospitals in England","background":"Hospital car parking charges affect the vulnerable, visitors of ill relatives and hardworking NHS staff. The fees are a major cause of social injustice.\r\n \r\nJoin the campaign to get this stealth tax scrapped, once and for all.\r\n","additional_details":"The NHS should be free at the point of access but hospitals charge up to £300 for a week of parking.\r\n \r\nIn 2014, the Government introduced guidance suggesting free or reduced parking should be available for staff, blue badge holders and visitors of gravely ill relatives.\r\n \r\nSince then, 47% of hospitals have increased their hourly parking charges and almost half still charge blue badge holders.\r\n \r\nThe campaign is supported by FairFuelUK, CLIC Sargent and Headway.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29771,"created_at":"2018-05-09T17:01:10.965Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:00.652Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-04T16:46:11.895Z","closed_at":"2018-12-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-10T08:30:36.422Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-13T20:19:14.963Z","government_response_at":"2018-06-27T10:48:30.291Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-06-27","summary":"Hospitals’ car parking policies must put patients first, but removing charges would mean losing over £200m from patient care budgets, and result in fewer spaces being available for genuine users.","details":"67% of NHS sites don’t charge for car parking, meaning the majority of regularly attended community sites and mental health wards - that often see some of the most vulnerable patients – do not charge.\n\nNHS organisations are locally responsible for the provision and charging for their parking and this includes the methods used to charge and their rules must be clearly displayed.\n\nWe expect all NHS organisations to follow the published NHS Car Parking Principles but NHS organisations have the freedom to make decisions on their car parking including charges to reflect their local situation. We want to see Trusts coming up with options that put staff, patients and their families first.\n\nIncome generated from parking charges is used to pay the costs of providing the parking (such as maintenance, security and lighting) and to avoid funds being taken from budgets for healthcare services.\n\nIf any excess is generated, income generation rules require that it is used to fund clinical services.\n\nThe principles explicitly state that contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, e.g. 'income from parking charge notices only'. \nParking Charge Notices must be applied reasonably.\n\nIn 2015 a Health Technical Memorandum (NHS car parking management: environment and sustainability) was published to provide helpful guidance on how NHS organisations should approach the provision of car parking and other travel plans – including some good examples of best practice. \n\nSince introducing free parking at hospitals, Scotland and Wales have seen other issues arise, such as illegitimate use and a lack of spaces. Having a parking regime prevents these problems.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-06-27T10:48:30.288Z","updated_at":"2018-06-27T10:48:30.288Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":275680,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/275680.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Revoke article 50 if the EU does not grant an extension past 31 October","background":"The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) mandates the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Article 50 in the event of no deal Brexit. It does not prevent no deal in the event where the EU does not grant an article 50 extension.","additional_details":"The Government must provide for an emergency contingency article 50 revocation.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29690,"created_at":"2019-09-26T20:56:21.367Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:54:45.173Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-04T16:15:22.557Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-26T21:26:12.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-05T20:21:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-10-31T10:31:44.541Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-31","summary":"The Government is committed to delivering on the result of the referendum and getting Brexit done. The Prime Minister has secured a great new deal, but MPs have forced a further delay.","details":"It has been three years since the referendum, and the British people want Brexit done with no more delay. The Government has been clear that we will be leaving the EU, delivering on the will of the people, and providing the certainty businesses need.\n\nThe Government has secured a great new deal with the EU that will allow us to leave in an orderly and friendly way.\n\nThis new deal ensures that we take back control of our laws, trade, borders and money without disruption, and provides the basis of a new relationship with the EU based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We introduced the necessary legislation, which passed its Second Reading. Unfortunately Parliament then again voted for delay, rather than a timetable that would have guaranteed, that the UK would be in a position to leave the EU on October 31 with a deal.\n\nThis Government is determined to get Brexit done, with no more delays so the country can move forward and focus on the cost of living, the NHS and other domestic priorities.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-10-31T10:31:44.538Z","updated_at":"2019-10-31T10:31:44.538Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":202588,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/202588.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the cuts to the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy's amphibious assault ships","background":"This petition calls on the Government to stop cuts to Devonport-based HMS Albion & HMS Bulwark. There has been recent media speculation that the Government is considering scrapping the Royal Navy's entire amphibious assault capabilities and cut 1,000 Royal Marines. We want these cuts stopped.","additional_details":"The BBC News article about these possible cuts is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29634,"created_at":"2017-10-10T12:50:40.715Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:56.541Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-17T15:51:22.454Z","closed_at":"2018-04-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-10T13:02:45.964Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-26T20:51:04.338Z","government_response_at":"2017-11-06T13:40:23.773Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-11-06","summary":"A cross-Government review of national security capabilities is being conducted to ensure future investment is unified and efficient. No decisions have been made and the media articles are speculation.","details":"In the face of ever-changing threats to our security, the Ministry of Defence is contributing to the cross-Government review of national security capabilities in support of the continued implementation of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.  This Review is to ensure that the United Kingdom’s investment in capabilities is as joined-up, effective and efficient as possible, and will cover areas including Defence, counter terrorism, national resilience and cyber.  This Review is on-going and no decisions have been made; any discussion of specific platforms or capabilities is speculation.  \n\nMinisters will consider the conclusions of the National Security Capability Review in due course.\n\nMinistry of Defence","created_at":"2017-11-06T13:40:23.770Z","updated_at":"2017-11-06T13:40:23.770Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231479,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231479.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a legal requirement to have a second safety critical person on trains","background":"Train Operating Companies across London and the rest of the country are beginning to introduce DOO (Driver Only Operation) on their trains. Some companies want to keep a second person on the trains but their role is revenue protection and is not safety critical. This cannot be allowed!","additional_details":"\r\nIn October 2018 a disabled man was left on a Scotrail train which was driver only operated. He needed a ramp in order to get on and off of the train. His home station was not staffed when his train arrived and the driver was not allowed to leave the cab leaving him stuck on the train until the next staffed station, 11 miles away. If we do not do something and stop our railways from becoming unmanned, more stories like this will emerge. Please help us with this cause","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29455,"created_at":"2018-10-29T19:13:48.537Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:27.359Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-06T11:14:02.568Z","closed_at":"2019-05-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-29T19:42:08.999Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-07T19:14:44.730Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-30T11:31:41.390Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-30","summary":"Driver Only Operation (DOO) and Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) have been used on the network for over 30 years and over 50% of all passenger journeys are now on such train services.","details":"This includes Thameslink and the London Underground.  The use of this technology has been assessed by both the Office of Rail and Road - the independent regulator - who confirm that DOO is a safe method of working, provided as with all forms of train dispatch, suitably maintained equipment, proper procedures and competent staff are in place; and the Rail Safety and Standards Board, who concluded there is no safety reason to prevent the further adoption of DCO.\n\nDCO delivers substantial benefits including performance improvements and allows for on-board staff to provide higher levels of customer service to passengers.  This is why train operating companies want to move to this method of operation.  \n\nDCO allows staff to look after passengers rather than just operating the doors. Supporting disabled people to access the rail network is what we are committed to doing.  In July this year we published the Inclusive Transport Strategy, which is the next step in our ambition to deliver accessible transport. We want to make the transport system inclusive. Our goal is for disabled people to be able to access the transport system easily, confidently and at no extra cost.  \n\nIt is unacceptable for people to be left on trains and the situation outlined in this petition of a disabled man travelling on a Scotrail train is the opposite of what we are seeking to achieve.  \n\nWe want to see more people working on our railways delivering for passengers and maintaining the high level of safety standards that makes the UK rail network one of the safest in Europe.  We wholly support the desire in the petition to improve customer service. That is why the Secretary of State has offered to extend job guarantees for those currently working as the second member of staff on the train beyond the lives of the franchises introducing DCO.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2018-11-30T11:31:41.387Z","updated_at":"2018-11-30T11:31:41.387Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":223408,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/223408.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ensure that free musical instrument tuition is available to all schoolchildren.","background":"1. Feel the groundswell of support! \r\n2. The educational benefits are profound.\r\n3. Business leaders are telling us we need to teach children to be creative, not to compete with machines.\r\n4. Music makes our communities stronger and healthier, saving money elsewhere.  \r\n5.  Music fuels our economy.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29423,"created_at":"2018-06-30T19:36:39.405Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:07.283Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-05T12:41:59.530Z","closed_at":"2019-01-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-01T06:56:11.973Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-12T06:44:57.870Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-24T16:21:07.915Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-24","summary":"The role of Music Education Hubs includes ensuring that every child has an opportunity to learn a musical instrument free of charge, and hubs receive £75m a year from the government to provide this.  ","details":"We believe a high-quality music education should engage and inspire all pupils to develop a love of music, their talent as musicians, and increase their self-confidence, creativity and sense of achievement.\n\nOur National Plan for Music Education sets out our vision that all children have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument free of charge.\nBetween 2016-2020 we are spending £300 million on a network of music education hubs. The hubs ensure that every child aged 5-18 has the opportunity to learn a musical instrument; provide opportunities to play in ensembles; ensure that clear progression routes are available and affordable for all; and ensure that every pupil has the opportunity to sing regularly. In 2015/16, 662,871 pupils learned to play a musical instrument through whole class ensemble teaching that was provided or supported by music education hubs. Pupils and parents cannot be charged for this teaching. Data for 2016/17 will be published later this year.\n\nIn addition to music education hubs, we provide almost £120m through the Music and Dance Scheme to support exceptionally talented young musicians, dancers and choristers to attend specialist schools and centres of excellence. Also, the government has used almost £2m for National Youth Music Organisations (NYMOs) such as the National Youth Orchestra and £2m for ‘In Harmony’. ‘In Harmony’ aims to inspire and transform the lives of children in 6 areas in England through community-based orchestral music-making in areas of exceptional deprivation through high-quality musical education. Lastly, over £400,000 has gone to Music for Youth to provide opportunities for young people and families to perform in and attend regional and national festivals and concerts, who might not otherwise have had access. \n\nThere are also great innovations being carried out by organisations such as ABRSM, which, together with the DfE, Classic FM and Decca, launched the Classical 100 music app with recordings of the 100 pieces of classical music primary school pupils should hear. This can be found at www.classicfm.com/classical-100/launch/.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-07-24T16:21:07.912Z","updated_at":"2018-07-24T16:21:07.912Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":259256,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/259256.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Improve maternal care for black British women","background":"Black women in the UK are five times more likely to die from complications surrounding pregnancy and childbirth than white women. We need an urgent review of care with recommendations on how to ensure it is no more dangerous for black women to give birth in the UK than white women. ","additional_details":"The Government must commit to funding the changes necessary to ensure it is safe to give birth while black in the UK. The chance of death is 1 in 2,500 for black women according to the UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths . But the rate was five times smaller for white women between 2014 and 2016. This requires urgent explanation and action.\r\n\r\nhttps://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/695/cpsprodpb/DB31/production/_105631165_maternaldeaths-nc.png","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29336,"created_at":"2019-04-25T17:58:31.221Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:50:24.069Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-30T16:37:08.253Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-26T16:58:44.582Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-16T08:12:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-23T15:56:15.845Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-10-22","summary":"The Government is funding research at the Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care PRU to investigate the factors associated with the excess risk of maternal death for Black and South Asian women.","details":"Analysis of maternal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths, undertaken by MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK) at the University of Oxford, shows that poor outcomes are much higher for mothers and babies from Black/Black British and Asian/Asian British ethnic groups and women living in the most deprived areas of the country.\n\nBlack women are five times more likely to die from causes related to pregnancy than white women. Black babies have a 121% increased risk for stillbirth and a 50% increased risk for neonatal death (i.e. dying within 28 days after birth) compared to white babies. Asian women are twice as likely to die from causes related to pregnancy than white women. Asian babies have a 55% increased risk for stillbirth and a 66% increased risk for neonatal mortality compared to white babies. Babies born to mothers in the most deprived areas of the country have a 30% increased risk neonatal mortality. For all of these groups the risk of a poor pregnancy outcome compared to white women or women in less deprived areas is increasing.\n\nThe NHS Long-Term Plan takes a concerted and systematic approach to reducing health inequalities and addressing unwarranted variation in care. The Chief Midwifery Officer, Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent OBE, is leading work to support maternity services to provide high-quality maternity care for all women with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage (known as ‘proportionate universalism’). Initiatives recently introduced to reduce and eliminate health inequalities in maternity include:\n\n• Targeted and enhanced continuity of carer – Evidence suggests that continuity of carer can significantly improve outcomes for women from ethnic minorities and those living in deprived areas. The NHS Long-Term Plan describes how an enhanced and targeted continuity of carer model is being implemented to help improve outcomes for the most vulnerable mothers and babies. Continuity of carer teams are being developed and launched across the country with the aim that in 2019, 20% of pregnant women will be offered the opportunity to have the same midwife caring for them throughout their pregnancy, during birth and postnatally. We will continue to work with midwives, mothers and their families to implement continuity of carer so that, by March 2021, most women receive continuity of the person caring for them during pregnancy, during birth and postnatally. This will be targeted towards women from Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and those living in deprived areas, so that by 2024, 75% of women from BAME groups and a similar percentage of women from the most deprived communities will receive continuity of carer from their midwife throughout pregnancy, labour and the postnatal period. This will help reduce pre-term births, hospital admissions, the need for intervention during labour, and women’s experience of care.\n\n• The NHS Planning Guidance 2019/20 sets an expectation that local systems will to start to implement continuity of carer models for Black and Asian women and those in the most deprived areas. \n\n• The Department of Health and Social Care is funding research through the National Institute of Health Research’s Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care at the University of Oxford to investigate the factors associated with the excess perinatal mortality experienced by BAME babies; and identify the factors associated with the excess risk of maternal death for Black and South Asian women.\n\n• Improving ethnic coding in maternity data systems - Ethnic coding data is not present for 16% of Maternity Services Dataset records. We will work with NHS Resolution to include an effective incentive to improve coding completeness in the Maternity Safety Incentive Scheme in future years.\n\n• Health Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB): learning from parents - Work is underway with HSIB to learn from their interviews with parents, including an analysis by ethnicity and deprivation index.\n\n• Gap analysis for each workstream of the Maternity Transformation Programme - We are working with NHS England / NHS Improvement and other system partners to map current work and additional actions and support that may be needed to reduce and eliminate inequalities.\n\n• Measurement - Health inequality measures covering a range of clinical quality indicators have been developed as part of the NHS Long-Term Plan work.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/259256)","created_at":"2019-07-23T15:56:15.843Z","updated_at":"2019-10-22T14:31:31.368Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":200153,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/200153.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the age of Mandatory Mammograms to age 25-30","background":"I was diagnosed with breast cancer age 36, at 37 I was told it was terminal. I have a 7 year old daughter who has already lost her dad to heart disease. \r\nBecause of my age, I never dreamt I'd have breast cancer","additional_details":"I know of a huge amount of women/men diagnosed with breast cancer between the age of 23-40 most are now terminally ill and leaving children & babies behind. \r\nI want everyone to have a better chance of survival; not only for themselves, but for their children, parents, siblings, friends. \r\n\r\nCancer does not discriminate, it doesn't care how old or fit you are or whether you're male or female, so why are mandatory mammograms only available for women 50+\r\n\r\nWe need change!!!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29167,"created_at":"2017-09-13T14:03:58.799Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:33:26.897Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-13T16:16:22.282Z","closed_at":"2018-03-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-13T14:56:53.340Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-14T19:14:35.911Z","government_response_at":"2017-09-26T14:00:15.164Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-09-26","summary":"The Government is committed to helping detect, treat and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. Evidence for the effectiveness of screening women under 50 is limited.","details":"Breast cancer can be a devastating disease which is why the Government is committed to providing well-managed screening programmes that are based on the most current peer reviewed evidence to ensure the greatest benefit.\n\nA screening programme is introduced following a robust process using peer reviewed evidence that shows the benefits to screen clearly outweigh harm and they are subject to central programme specifications and quality assurance. The English cancer screening programmes are internationally renowned for their rigour, standard of evidence, national implementation and quality assurance.\n\nThe NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP) in England offers all women between the ages of 50 and 70 the opportunity to be screened every three years for breast cancer, in order to help detect abnormalities and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer.  The aim of the NHS BSP is to detect breast cancer early when there is a greater chance of cure, thus reducing the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer.  \n\nThe programme recognises that whilst early detection is the best way to reduce breast cancer mortality by giving the opportunity to offer women more treatment options, which may save lives, it accepts that there are also risks. These risks include over-diagnosis (referring women for unnecessary tests) and over-treatment (operating on women with disease which is unlikely to cause serious harm to them).  For women under the age of 50, breast screening is not very effective, especially when they have not reached the menopause.  Breast screening is offered from  the age of 50 based on the average age of menopause being 51 and that the chance of developing breast cancer increases with age.  Four out of five breast cancers develop in women over the age of 50. There is insufficient evidence to confidently offer breast screening to women at a much younger age because to do so may cause more harm than good.  Not all breast cancers can be detected early when they are non-invasive and some women with non-invasive disease would never have cancer during their lifetime. \n\nThere are several trials in the Programme addressing these issues currently:\n• Forget me not www.sloaneproject.co.uk/NonTreatmentStudy.htm  \n• Loris www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/a-trial-comparing-surgery-with-active-monitoring-for-low-risk-dcis-loris\n•  Sloane www.sloaneproject.co.uk/. \n\nThe 2012 UK independent review of breast cancer screening (Marmot review) estimated that inviting women between the ages of 50-70 reduces mortality from breast cancer in the population invited by 20% and saves an estimated 1,300 lives a year.  It also found that screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70 years could lead to over-diagnosis or over-treatment. To read the review, please visit: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/breast-screening-report.pdf \n\nIn June 2015, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published the findings of a review on breast cancer screening in the New England Journal of Medicine. A group of 29 independent international experts from 16 countries, convened by the IARC, assessed the cancer-preventive and adverse effects of various methods of screening for breast cancer. The findings of the review support the current age at which women are first invited for breast screening in England and the three year interval period between invitations. The IARC’s review found that the evidence for the effectiveness of screening women in the younger age group of 40 to 49 was limited. Women aged over 70 are not routinely invited for breast screening because there is no evidence to support this, although they are entitled to self-refer every three years if they wish. You review can be accessed here: www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr234_E.pdf\n\nIn 2008, the age extension trial began to investigate into whether extending screening to 47-49 and 71-73 year olds is clinically and cost effective. This trial is led by researchers at the University of Oxford and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in these age groups, which will include the benefit and harms. The trial is expected to report in 2020. \n\nWomen that are identified as being at high risk of the disease (e.g. due to a genetic mutation such as BRCA1/2 or having had supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy at a young age) can be referred into the programme at a younger age. However, for this younger cohort, screening is usually performed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which is a more suitable screening test than mammography alone.\n\nWe encourage all women to be breast aware and anyone with concerns should discuss these with their General Practitioner. \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2017-09-26T14:00:15.161Z","updated_at":"2017-09-26T14:00:15.161Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205332,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205332.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Declare the 2016 referendum vote null and void due to foreign interference","background":"It is clear now that foreign influence and inaccurate facts were highly influential on the electorate during the Brexit referendum and therefore the result should be declared as null and void.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29136,"created_at":"2017-11-16T08:12:42.345Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:42.856Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-21T16:09:22.698Z","closed_at":"2018-05-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-16T21:14:04.074Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-21T17:02:46.303Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.088Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-04-18","summary":"The Referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in our history. The Government is clear that the result should be respected. There has been no evidence of successful interference.","details":"We treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. There has been no  evidence of successful interference, but we take any allegations of interference in UK democratic processes by a foreign government extremely seriously. \n\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law, registering political parties, and regulating the spending of and donations and loans to political parties and other campaigners.  The Commission is independent of Government and accountable to Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission has confirmed that the 2016 referendum was a well run poll.\n\nLegislation is in place to ensure that donations can only be accepted from a “permissible donor”, which includes individuals on the electoral roll, companies registered in the UK and carrying on business here, and a number of other UK-registered bodies. \n\nThe UK is also actively engaging with international partners, industry and civil society to tackle the threat of disinformation and propaganda where this is relevant to any potential foreign interference in elections.The Government’s recently published Safety Strategy sets out how we will work collaboratively with industry to address these issues online. This also forms part of the work under the Digital Charter, which aims to ensure that the UK is the safest place in the world to be online.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.084Z","updated_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.084Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229573,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229573.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow students to register at two GPs","background":"Students are unable to access help as they are living in two locations whilst only registered to one GP. I tried to access help for my mental health (I was suicidal, anxious and self harming) whilst at home this summer but was refused as I was registered at the uni GP (100 miles away).","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":29060,"created_at":"2018-09-30T14:25:23.493Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:54.465Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-05T14:07:32.088Z","closed_at":"2019-04-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-30T14:40:54.204Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-12T09:08:26.838Z","government_response_at":"2018-10-24T09:27:04.329Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-31","summary":"GP practices must provide urgent and immediately necessary treatment, from 8am to 6.30pm, to anyone, regardless of whether they are registered at the practice.","details":"We were sorry to the hear that the petitioner was unable to receive help from a local GP practice – particularly in such distressing circumstances. Anyone who requires treatment that a GP or healthcare professional regards as an emergency, or immediately necessary, should be provided with that treatment free of charge, regardless of whether they are registered with a GP or not.\n\nIt is not possible for patients to register as a NHS patient with two GP practices at the same time as only one practice can hold a patient’s medical records and there are potential clinical risks in maintaining duplicate records.  \n\nHowever, we recognise that students registered with a university GP practice may wish to access treatment from any GP when returning home or when away from their university practice.  In such circumstances, students can apply to a GP to be accepted as a temporary resident.  Temporary residence applies where a person intends to be in an area for more than 24 hours but for less than 3 months.  Once registered, patients can receive treatment in the same way as other registered patients.  Details of the patient’s treatment provided, whilst a temporary resident, will be passed to their registered practice.\n\nThe NHS Long Term plan commits to providing access to online consultation for all patients and that by 2023/24 every patient in England will be able to access a digital GP offer. This would usually be from their own practice or, if they prefer, from one of the new ‘digital first’ GP providers. As part of the General Practice Forward View, a £45 million fund has been created to contribute towards the costs for practices to purchase online consultation systems, improving access and making best use of clinicians’ time. The evolution of services such as video consultations is likely to increase access options for patients, in particular those moving between addresses. It is, of course, important that any apps providing video consultations are evaluated and regulated to ensure that patients who access these services can be confident that they will receive safe, effective, high quality care.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-10-24T09:27:04.327Z","updated_at":"2019-02-01T13:33:01.000Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":215343,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/215343.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the age of Breast Screening to 25-30","background":"I was diagnosed with breast cancer age 36, at 37 I was told it was terminal. I have a 8 year old daughter who has already lost her dad to heart disease. Because of my age, I never dreamt I'd have breast cancer\r\nCancer does not discriminate!\r\nHelp our kids get diagnosed quicker to prevent early death","additional_details":"I know of a huge amount of women/men diagnosed with breast cancer between the age of 23-40 most are now terminally ill and leaving children & babies behind. \r\nI want everyone to have a better chance of survival; not only for themselves, but for their children, parents, siblings, friends.\r\n\r\nCancer does not discriminate, it doesn't care how old or fit you are or whether you're male or female, so why are mandatory mammograms only available for women 50+","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28935,"created_at":"2018-03-16T12:09:37.805Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:37:44.229Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-21T14:18:06.905Z","closed_at":"2018-09-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T12:39:08.171Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-20T07:55:10.362Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.483Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-15","summary":"The Government is committed to helping detect, treat and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. Evidence for the effectiveness of screening women under 50 is limited.","details":"We are very sorry to hear of your terminal breast cancer diagnosis.  Breast cancer can be a devastating disease and the Government is committed to providing well-managed screening programmes based on the most current peer reviewed evidence to ensure the greatest benefit.\n\nA screening programme is introduced following a robust process using peer reviewed evidence that shows the benefits to screen clearly outweigh harm and they are subject to central programme specifications and quality assurance. The English cancer screening programmes are internationally renowned for their rigour, standard of evidence, national implementation and quality assurance.\n\nThe NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP) in England offers all women between the ages of 50 and 70 the opportunity to be screened every 3 years for breast cancer, to help detect abnormalities and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer.  The NHS BSP aims to detect breast cancer early when there is a greater chance of cure.  \n\nAlthough early detection is the best way to reduce breast cancer mortality by giving the opportunity to offer women more treatment options, which may save lives, there are also risks. These include over-diagnosis (referring for unnecessary tests) and over-treatment (operating on disease that is unlikely to cause serious harm).  For women under the age of 50, there is evidence that breast screening is less effective, as younger women have less fatty, denser breast tissue.  Screening with mammography (x-rays) is the technique that is evidence-based and can detect cancers at an early stage.  However, they are not very effective in diagnosing disease in younger women with dense breasts. Breast screening is offered from the age of 50 as the chance of developing the disease increases with age.  Four out of five breast cancers develop in women over the age of 50. There is insufficient evidence to confidently offer breast screening to women at a much younger age as doing so will find many abnormalities which will be treated but would never have developed into a cancer. This can cause harm and anxiety.  Not all breast cancers can be detected early when they are non-invasive and some women with non-invasive disease would never have cancer during their lifetime. \n\nThere are several trials in the Programme addressing these issues currently:\n• Forget me not www.sloaneproject.co.uk/NonTreatmentStudy.htm  \n• Loris www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/a-trial-comparing-surgery-with-active-monitoring-for-low-risk-dcis-loris\n•  Sloane www.sloaneproject.co.uk/. \n\nThe 2012 UK independent review of breast cancer screening (Marmot review) estimated that inviting women between the ages of 50-70 reduces mortality from breast cancer in the population invited by 20% and saves an estimated 1,300 lives a year.  It also found that screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70 years could lead to over-diagnosis or over-treatment. The review can be found here: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/breast-screening-report.pdf \n\nIn June 2015, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published the findings of a review on breast cancer screening in the New England Journal of Medicine. A group of 29 independent international experts from 16 countries, convened by the IARC, assessed the cancer-preventive and adverse effects of various methods of screening for breast cancer. The findings of the review support the current age at which women are first invited for breast screening in England and the 3 year interval period between invitations. The IARC’s review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of screening women in the younger age group of 40 to 49. Women over 70 are not routinely invited for breast screening as there is no evidence to support this, although they can self-refer every 3 years if they wish. You review can be accessed here: www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr234_E.pdf\n\nWomen that are identified as being at high risk of the disease (e.g. due to a genetic mutation such as BRCA1/2 or having had supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy at a young age) can be referred into the programme at a younger age. However, for this younger cohort, screening is usually performed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which is a more suitable screening test than mammography alone.\nWe encourage all women to be breast aware and anyone with concerns should discuss these with their GP.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.481Z","updated_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.481Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":217985,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/217985.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Bring in laws to protect horses being ridden on roads","background":"Horses need legal protection from drivers who hit or kill horses being ridden on the roads, as it stands the only law is dangerous driving around horses which is hard to prove as the highway code only gives ADVICE on how to pass horses which means drivers cannot be prosecuted. laws need updating","additional_details":"Horses are being left  dead on our roads with no compensation to the owner or business. This needs to change, the laws regarding horses on the roads needs to be updated to protect us from drivers who drive off from a scene leaving huge vet fees, dead  horses and horses  which may never be able to be ridden on the roads again.  riders are now using cameras we have evidence which needs action to be taken from the police. businesses are being ruined because of no compensation or any action from the law","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28807,"created_at":"2018-04-18T12:55:16.832Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:30.641Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-02T09:58:35.267Z","closed_at":"2018-11-02T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T13:13:55.577Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-10T18:28:58.524Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-18T10:11:05.765Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-17","summary":"The Government has no plans to create new laws to protect riders and horses on public roads. Road users are required to comply with road traffic law, in the interests of the safety of all road users.","details":"If road users do not adopt a responsible attitude, or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes nuisance to other road users, there are laws in place that can make them liable for prosecution. The relevant offences include driving dangerously, driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, as set out in Rule 144 of The Highway Code. The Highway Code can be viewed online at: \nhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code\n\nAlthough failure to comply with the ‘advisory rules’ of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings (under the Traffic Acts) to establish liability. This includes the rules which use advisory wording, such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. \n\nEnforcement of the law is a matter for the police, who will decide on the evidence in each individual case whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take. \n\nThe Department recognises the importance of the safety of both riders and their horses, on public roads. Every opportunity is taken to remind motorists of their responsibilities towards vulnerable road users, including horse riders. The Highway Code provides the following advice: \n\nRule 163:\nOvertake only when it is safe and legal to do so.\n\nYou should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as \nyou would when overtaking a car.\n\nRule 215\nHorse riders and horse-drawn vehicles. Be particularly careful of horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles especially when overtaking. Always pass wide and slowly. Horse riders are often children, so take extra care and remember riders may ride in double file when escorting a young or inexperienced horse or rider. Look out for horse riders’ and horse drivers’ signals and heed a request to slow down or stop. Take great care and treat all horses as a potential hazard; they can be unpredictable, despite the efforts of their rider/driver.\n\nThrough the THINK! Road Safety Campaign, the Department has previously worked with the British Horse Society (BHS) to support their “Dead Slow” campaign to encourage car drivers to pass horses safely. The Department was able to reinforce the BHS campaign by developing a short film that is being promoted as a public information film on UK TV stations. \n\nThe Department invested in promoting the film on YouTube and other social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. Leaflets and posters to support the campaign further reminded motorists of the need to be patient when they encounter horses on the road, and supplemented the advice already given in The Highway Code. The leaflets and posters are available free of charge from the THINK! online shop and they are often used by riding groups to support local campaigns. Road safety officers around the country were also encouraged to feature the campaign locally. \n\nThe driving theory test contains questions about how drivers should interact with vulnerable road users, including horse riders and the hazard perception test includes a number of clips where horse riders are the hazard, either directly or indirectly. These clips are refreshed and updated periodically.\n\nWhere there may speed related issues: The local traffic authorities are responsible for setting speed limits on local roads. They have the flexibility to set local speed limits, that are appropriate for the individual road, reflecting local needs and taking account of local considerations. The Department issued guidance to local highway authorities on setting local speed limits in 2013, which can be viewed online at: \nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2018-07-18T10:11:05.762Z","updated_at":"2018-07-18T10:11:05.762Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":241560,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241560.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Investigate Atos PIP assessments.","background":"I am an ex Atos disability assessor with evidence, factual and anecdotal of the constantly covered problems, associated with the work of Atos on the PIP contract. Neither Atos, nor the DWP seem to think this warrants a response. I feel that anyone having to deal with Atos would argue the opposite.","additional_details":"The Government should carry out a full, independent review of the standard of PIP assessments conducted by Atos.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28702,"created_at":"2019-02-14T10:48:59.255Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:45:25.155Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-05T17:37:23.623Z","closed_at":"2019-09-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-14T11:01:17.827Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-11T14:13:22.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-20T16:39:19.861Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-03","summary":"DWP conducts a robust programme of assessment observations and audit of assessment reports, providing assurance and maximising quality. We therefore do not believe an independent review is necessary.","details":"The department fully appreciates the positive impact scrutiny from an Independent review can have on service quality. DWP has already accepted many of the recommendations of the most recent Independent Review conducted by Paul Gray, and is working hard to implement these recommendations alongside what the Department feels is a robust quality assurance programme, including observation of PIP assessments by DWP officials and audit of assessment reports.  \n\nThe department is determined to ensure individuals receive high quality, accurate assessments, without compromising their experience of interacting with the service. In addition to the current quality assurance process, DWP is reviewing PIP service delivery through the Health Transformation Programme, seeking opportunities to optimise quality throughout the service. The department’s commitment to customer experience is exemplified by the recent decision not to re-assess individuals who exceed the state pension age.  \n\nThe department is working to transform the way PIP is delivered in the future, while implementing a number of recommendations of the Paul Gray Independent Review of PIP in the immediate term and therefore cannot commit to another Independent Review. \n\nWe set our PIP assessment providers challenging targets and monitor performance closely. The requirements set out in the contract are demanding and we robustly manage the providers against those requirements. Service level agreements set out our expectations for service delivery, including quality of consultations, number of days to provide advice to the department and evidence of claimant satisfaction, taken from the Claimant Satisfaction Survey. I am pleased to confirm PIP providers consistently exceed the Customer Satisfaction target of 90%. \n\nWe also set PIP providers a target for no more than 3% of the reports they submit to the department being deemed ‘unacceptable’, above which a ‘no pay’ mechanism is applied. This ensures that PIP providers focus on improving the most crucial elements of the assessment process. The Department’s quality standards for PIP assessments are published at www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers \n\nThere are regular meetings between senior DWP clinicians and the Chief Medical Officers of both providers. This cross-provider working drives consistency in the understanding and implementation of PIP policy. \n\nWe have a relentless focus on quality and consistency, which delivers improvements in assessment quality performance. Assessment providers have ongoing assessment quality improvement plans in place which include clinical observations and procedures and tailored training and development tools.   \n\nWe have developed and maintain a strong, collaborative working relationship with both Independent Assessment Services and Capita and work closely with them to further improve quality. There are a range of regular governance and monthly performance meetings to support delivery of the contracts highlighting where action is required and agreeing solutions. \n\nAssessment providers employ quality teams who undertake an audit of assessment reports to ensure they meet the department’s strict quality criteria. The audit process confirms the information in the report is sufficiently detailed to enable the department to make a decision. An independent audit function has also been rolled out across the contracts since 2016, which is used to judge how the providers are performing against set contractual targets ensuring the advice provided to the department is of suitable quality, fully explained and justified. \n\nWe have also made some changes to the way in which we monitor assessment provider performance. Since 2016, we have given assessment providers more time in which to complete assessments and return reports back to the department. This gives assessment providers’ greater flexibility to obtain further evidence, ensuring as much relevant information as possible is considered and allows more time for scheduling appointments that suit both the assessment providers and claimants as well as undertaking more quality assurance processes prior to returning cases to DWP.  \n\nThe department and its PIP assessment providers remain dedicated to making continuous improvements increasing the trust in the system going forward.  \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241560)","created_at":"2019-06-20T16:39:19.858Z","updated_at":"2019-09-04T15:42:36.220Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":228620,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/228620.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the EU Copyright Directive, when the UK leaves the EU.","background":"The EU has just passed, Articles 11 and 13 of the EU Copyright Directive. This could damage and threaten people's right to freedom of speech and expression online, fair use and censor political and peaceful conversation. This should be repealed from UK law on the UK's exit from the EU.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28588,"created_at":"2018-09-12T16:13:32.933Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:39.081Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-20T09:56:10.504Z","closed_at":"2019-03-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-12T16:58:19.597Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-09T16:04:34.262Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-20T10:35:01.732Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-20","summary":"We support Articles 11 and 13, which seek to ensure creators and producers are rewarded when their works are used online, but agree they must include safeguards for freedom of expression.","details":"The EU Copyright Directive is still being negotiated and the UK is a full and active participant in these negotiations as part of the Council of the EU. The Council and the European Parliament are between them negotiating the final version of the text.\n\nThe Government supports the aims of the Directive, including Article 11 – a new right for press publishers – and Article 13 – new rules to ensure copyright owners can claim payment when their content is uploaded to platforms like YouTube without their permission.\n\nHowever, it is important to the Government that these proposals are balanced, take into account the need to protect freedom of expression, and avoid placing unreasonable burdens on businesses and internet users.\n\nBecause of this the Government has actively sought safeguards for freedom of expression, such as rules which will protect people’s ability to use third party content for the purpose of quotation, parody, and similar purposes which are currently allowed under UK law.\n\nThe Government’s support for the Directive, and its position on implementing and maintaining these provisions following the UK’s exit from the EU, will depend on the outcome of the negotiations on the Directive.  The Government will continue to engage in these negotiations to ensure the best outcome for the UK. \n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-12-20T10:35:01.730Z","updated_at":"2018-12-20T10:35:01.730Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":220073,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/220073.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Break all ties with EU institutions and policies completely","background":"Leaving the EU must mean leaving the Single Market, Customs Union, the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fishing Policy. \r\nThere must be a clean break from the EU so Britain can take back control of its laws, borders, trade and money.\r\n","additional_details":"On June 23 2016 the British people voted to Leave the EU. \r\nThere were only two choices on the ballot paper. \r\nThey were a vote to Remain or a vote to Leave. \r\nWe knew what we were voting for. \r\nWe voted to leave the EU. \r\nThe Government must deliver the will of the people. \r\nWe must leave the EU.\r\nWe did not vote for a Brexit fudge. In other words, kept in the EU in all but name. \r\nWe voted to take back control of our country and our sovereignty. \r\nThe Government must sever all ties with the EU.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28546,"created_at":"2018-05-15T16:34:25.025Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:07.763Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-21T18:26:07.868Z","closed_at":"2018-11-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-15T16:47:10.251Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-18T08:51:07.992Z","government_response_at":"2018-08-21T12:35:34.190Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-08-21","summary":"The UK is leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union. The UK will also leave the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policy and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK.","details":"As the Prime Minister has made clear, when we leave the European Union, we will also be leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union.\n\nThe Government has published a White Paper setting out a clear proposal for the future relationship we want to build with the European Union. This includes a UK-EU free trade area for goods to ensure continued frictionless access at the border to each other's markets, underpinned by an upfront commitment to a common rulebook on goods and agri-food.\n\nWe have listened to EU leaders and we understand and respect the position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no cherry-picking.\n\nThe Government’s proposals put our rights and responsibilities in a new balance that fulfils our joint ambition to establish a deep and special partnership once the UK has left the EU.\n\nThe White Paper also sets out a new proposal for a Facilitated Customs Arrangement (FCA) with the EU. The FCA is a business-friendly model that seeks to facilitate the greatest possible trade between the UK and its trading partners, whether in Europe or the rest of world, while allowing the UK to set its own tariffs. The FCA removes the need for new customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU, as if in a combined customs territory with the EU.\n\nThe Prime Minister has also been clear that in leaving the EU, we will also bring about an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK.\n\nThe proposal set out in the White Paper delivers on that commitment. No longer will courts in the UK be able to refer cases to the CJEU, nor will the CJEU be able to arbitrate disputes between the UK and the EU.\n\nThe CJEU will no longer have the power to make laws for the UK and the principles of direct effect and of the supremacy of EU law will no longer apply in the UK. Instead, rights will be enforced in the UK by UK courts and in the EU by EU courts.\n\nThe UK will also leave the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. We will be able to design a domestic agricultural policy that works in the best interests of the UK. We will also be an independent coastal state under international law, and therefore be able to control and manage access to UK waters, including fisheries.\n\nAs the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an end to our relationship with the EU. It marks a new beginning for our partnership with our European allies. However, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the result of the referendum which was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money.\n\nWe are confident that the we can reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as this would be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We therefore approach the negotiations in this spirit.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-08-21T12:35:34.187Z","updated_at":"2018-08-21T12:35:34.187Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":247912,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/247912.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Anonymity for those accused of sexual offences until charge.","background":"To protect the reputations of all innocent suspects, whether well-known or not, from the lasting stigma of a false sexual allegation.","additional_details":"To provide balance in the criminal justice system since complainants have anonymity for life.\r\nTo prevent the suspects becoming targets of opportunist and deluded claimants.\r\nTo prevent police searches of the homes of suspects who have not been charged being publicised.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":28462,"created_at":"2019-03-22T10:05:54.899Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:47:10.243Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-30T14:47:48.340Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":null,"response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-07-01T15:12:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-07-23T15:51:02.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-23","summary":"There should in general be a right to anonymity before charge in respect of all offences but there will be exceptional circumstances where there are legitimate policing reasons for naming a suspect.","details":"The Government believes that there should, in general, be a right to anonymity before charge in respect of all offences, but that there will be exceptional circumstances where there are legitimate policing reasons for naming a suspect.\n\nGuidance for the police on the release of suspects’ names is governed by the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice on ‘Media relations’. This Guidance was revised in 2017 following public consultation and the sections on identification of those under investigation were reinforced.\n\nThe Guidance highlights the importance of respecting suspects’ rights to privacy.  It states that the police will not name those arrested, or suspected, of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so.  A legitimate policing purpose may include circumstances such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or where police have made a public warning about a wanted individual.  The naming of an arrested person before they are charged must be authorised by a chief officer who must also ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service is consulted.\n\nThis approach recognises that there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputation of those persons, particularly if they are never charged.  It strikes a balance between the rights of suspects to privacy and the need to prevent and investigate crime.  \n\nThe College Guidance cannot and does not seek to prevent the media from relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities.  Publishing names of suspects may be unlawful if it is found to be in contempt of court, in breach of a reporting restriction, defamatory or in breach of any right to privacy.  Individuals who feel that they have been wrongly named can either make a complaint to the publishers’ self-regulator or take action through the courts.\n\nOnce it has been decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with an offence, the principle of open justice requires that the defendant should be identified in the usual way, unless there is an exceptional and legitimate policing purpose for not doing so or reporting restrictions apply. A decision not to name an individual who has been charged should be taken in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.\n\nEvidence does not suggest that false allegations are widespread.  On the contrary, it is the under-reporting of crime to the police that is known to be particularly acute for sexual offences.  However, when false allegations of sexual offences are made, they can have a serious adverse impact on the person accused.  Wrongly and deliberately accusing someone of a sexual offence is a very serious matter.  If there is evidence of this, the accuser could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.\n\nHome Office.","created_at":"2019-07-23T15:51:02.266Z","updated_at":"2019-07-23T15:51:02.266Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}