{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=1&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=1&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=20&parliament=1&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=9&parliament=1&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=1&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":110042,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/110042.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce LGBT sex education as a compulsory part of the school curriculum.","background":"Schools have no obligation to offer sex education to individuals who do not identify as heterosexual. Despite the higher rates of HIV amongst the gay community and the increased risks associated with homosexual sex. This would also help to destigmatise the topic, likely reducing homophobic bullying.","additional_details":"The numbers of people who identify as LGBT are hugely growing, and so the proportion of youth who need this information is increasing. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/. The rates of HIV are also at record highs in gay men, partially due to the lack of education of the matter and the complacency created by the new HIV drugs. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":26607,"created_at":"2015-10-08T13:39:15.333Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:07:05.243Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-13T11:45:23.442Z","closed_at":"2016-04-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-08T20:29:40.068Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-16T13:06:17.152Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-16T16:56:08.842Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-16","summary":"Sex and relationship education should be relevant and sensitive to all young people,whatever their sexuality.The government is also committed to tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying.","details":"Sex and relationship education (SRE) is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools and many primary schools also choose to teach it in an age-appropriate way. We expect academies and free schools to deliver relationship education as part of their provision of a broad and balanced curriculum. All schools must ensure that young people, whatever their developing sexuality, feel that sex and relationship education is relevant to them and sensitive to their needs. \n\nWhen teaching sex and relationship education, it is a requirement for schools to have regard to the Secretary of State’s Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (2000). The guidance is available at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sex-and-relationship-education. The guidance makes clear that all sex and relationship education should be age-appropriate and that schools should ensure young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour. It also makes clear that sex and relationship education should inform young people about safer sex, including giving them the skills to avoid being pressured into unwanted or unprotected sex, and ensure they are aware of the risks of contracting STIs. It states that clear knowledge about HIV/AIDS is vital. \n\nThe Government launched a project last year to identify how best to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying in schools.  On 29 October 2014, research by NatCen Social Research on what works in preventing HBT bullying was published.  Alongside this, the Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities announced funding of £2 million was being made available for not-for-profit organisations to bid for grants to deliver creative ideas to build schools’ capacity to address homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying.  More details about this new programme can be found on our website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-million-fund-to-tackle-homophobic-bullying-in-schools\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2015-11-16T16:56:08.837Z","updated_at":"2015-11-16T17:20:03.450Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":167410,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/167410.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a moratorium on the hunting of critically declining wading birds","background":"Woodcock, Snipe and Golden Plover are shot in the UK despite serious, ongoing population declines. A moratorium should be imposed to allow the impact of shooting to be established by independent scientific investigation and any necessary regulations introduced to ensure that shooting is sustainable.","additional_details":"BTO, JNCC and RSPB Bird Trends data report a 76% decline in Woodcock in the last 25 years. Although the wintering population is increased by migrants, BTO and GWCT studies of shot birds report that 17% are UK residents. It is Red Listed. In the same period Snipe (Amber listed) have declined by 89%. Between '93 and '13 Golden Plover decreased by 17% in England and 25% in Scotland. Continuing to harvest species in such steep decline is perilous and counterproductive to conservation practices. \r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":26043,"created_at":"2016-09-18T16:40:41.400Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:26.636Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-09-23T09:21:04.623Z","closed_at":"2017-03-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-20T18:28:48.563Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-27T10:17:52.781Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-20T13:02:39.973Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-20","summary":"It is unlikely that hunting has had a significant impact on recent population trends for woodcock, snipe and golden plover; trends are likely to be influenced more by the quality and extent of habitat","details":"All wild birds are protected in accordance with the provisions set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, however, some species of birds (as listed in Schedule 2 of the Act)  may be killed or taken outside the close season. Woodcock, snipe and golden plover are amongst those species that may be taken. In England and Wales the dates for woodcock are 1 October to 31 January; common snipe 12 August to 31 January; golden plover 1 September to 31 January.\n\nShooting is a legitimate activity and in addition to providing jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas, it can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government’s manifesto commits to protect shooting for the benefits it brings to individuals, the environment and the rural economy.\n\nRecent data shows that the woodcock has a breeding population or around 78,000 pairs; common snipe 76,000 and golden plover between 38,000 and 59,000. Overwintering populations increase their numbers to approximately 1.4 million (woodcock), 1 million (common snipe) and 400,000 (golden plover). The numbers in winter are greatly increased as a result of birds arriving from Scandinavia, the Baltic States and Russia and many of our breeding birds (and their offspring) leave the country in winter.  \n\nFor all three species, the numbers of birds hunted is small compared with the population present in the country during the open season.\n\nWhen combined with the fact that many of our breeding birds winter abroad, it is unlikely that hunting pressure in this country has played a significant role in the recent downwards trends in the size and range of GB breeding populations of either woodcock or snipe. There is little evidence that the golden plover is currently in decline in GB as a whole.\n\nThe reasons for any declines are complex and include habitat loss as a result of land drainage, the drying out of natural woodlands, declining woodland management, the maturation of new plantations, overgrazing by deer, recreational disturbance and reductions in prey availability. The woodcock is currently red-listed due to breeding range decline in the past 25 years.\n\nMeasures have been taken to improve habitats through Environmental Land Management schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, where grassland breeding waders have been specifically targeted. The woodcock will have benefited from Woodland Grant Schemes, some of which specifically target management for declining woodland birds.\n\nThe Government is not persuaded that the current level of hunting has a significant detrimental impact on the numbers of woodcock, common snipe and golden plover. A number of English estates have already instigated their own voluntary bans on the shooting of woodcock. Any moratorium in the rest of the UK is a matter for the devolved administrations.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-10-20T13:02:39.970Z","updated_at":"2016-10-20T13:02:39.970Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":137376,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/137376.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"A change in prime minister should trigger a general election.","background":"We the undersigned ask parliament to legislate to require the calling of a general election within 3 months of a prime minister resigning leadership of his/her party.","additional_details":"The office of prime minister has come a long way since its inception and the phrase 'first among equals' is no longer an appropriate description of his/her role.\r\n\r\nIn addition, during a general election, the potential prime minister has a significant effect on voting behaviour, often more so than the local MP being voted for.\r\n\r\nDemocracy demands that a country's ruler be elected by the people, the appointing of a prime minister post-resignation is undemocratic.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25897,"created_at":"2016-06-25T08:34:10.466Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:14:17.647Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-30T09:54:04.371Z","closed_at":"2016-12-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-25T10:10:19.100Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-12T08:18:02.287Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-21T14:32:43.863Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-21","summary":"As set out in the Cabinet Manual, when a Prime Minister resigns from his position and his MPs have a majority in the Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify a successor. ","details":"An early election can only be triggered by Members of the House of Commons. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 means that an early General Election can only be called if two thirds of the Members of the Commons vote in favour of a motion for an early General Election (as worded in section 2(2) of the Act) or a motion of no confidence in the Government is passed by a majority of Members of the House of Commons (as worded in section 2(4) of the Act), and no subsequent motion of confidence is passed within 14 days. \n\nThe Act was introduced to provide greater predictability and continuity, enabling better long term legislative and financial planning. The Act allows any Member of the House of Commons to table a motion which would result in an early General Election. \n\nAs set out in the Cabinet Manual, the appointment of the Prime Minister is a prerogative power which is exercised by the Monarch. On the advice of the existing Prime Minister, the Monarch appoints the new Prime Minister according to his or her ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons.\n\nOver the past century, Britain has changed Prime Minister 24 times and on 12 occasions this has occurred without a General Election. It is therefore, by no means unprecedented that a person is appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between General Elections. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-07-21T14:32:43.861Z","updated_at":"2016-07-21T14:32:43.861Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":133540,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/133540.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Let Parliament decide whether or not we remain a member of the European Union","background":"The people of the United Kingdom just voted to leave the European Union.\r\n\r\nHowever, the referendum is not binding and Parliament remains supreme. As a representative democracy, this petition proposes that we hand the question over to those qualified, and paid by taxpayers, to answer it.","additional_details":"The European Union is a complex institution. As such, politicians and the media have been unable to present clear, factual and un-biased information to the general public on either side of the referendum debate. The outcome, therefore, has been largely the product of misinformation and the referendum should not be the basis on which we, as a country, make such a monumental decision.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25729,"created_at":"2016-06-24T04:39:25.111Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:58.500Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-29T18:08:41.704Z","closed_at":"2016-12-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T05:21:43.405Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-04T18:05:27.012Z","government_response_at":"2016-08-11T15:00:18.476Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-10-18T12:23:23.731Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-08-11","summary":"The British people have voted to leave the EU and their will must be respected. Parliament will clearly have an important role in making sure we find the best way forward.","details":"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected and delivered. Parliament overwhelmingly supported the Referendum Bill by a margin of 6 to 1. While legally there is no obligation to consult Parliament on triggering Article 50, it will clearly have an important role in making sure that we find the best way forward. \n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2016-08-11T15:00:18.474Z","updated_at":"2016-08-17T13:24:57.799Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7b53b5c2-1b12-474d-855e-a8bca88605e5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106355,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106355.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium","background":"West Ham has only contributed £15m towards the £272m conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium, with the taxpayer footing the rest of the bill. Considering the cost to the taxpayer, and the effect of this taxpayer subsidy on competition between clubs, a full public inquiry into the deal is needed.\r\n","additional_details":"On top of the minimal conversion contribution, West Ham has been allowed to keep the sale proceeds of their current stadium, valued at £71m. Rental is £2.5m a year, halving should WHU be relegated. Taxpayers will cover the costs of stadium utilities, security, pitch maintenance, goalposts and corner flags - estimated to be worth £1.4m - £2.5m a year. Public money should be used responsibly, and in a way which does not distort the competitiveness of independent sports bodies and businesses.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25528,"created_at":"2015-08-19T12:09:30.997Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:39.170Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-19T16:11:59.008Z","closed_at":"2016-02-19T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-19T13:25:36.761Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-20T16:26:07.541Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-02T12:36:16.658Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-02","summary":"West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.","details":"Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.\n\nAs a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.\n\nThe Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.\n\nA world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.\n\nNone of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.\n\nThe agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.\n\nThe European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.\n\nThe detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.\n\nIt is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.\n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2015-09-02T12:36:16.655Z","updated_at":"2015-09-02T12:36:16.655Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121692,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121692.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Allow GCSE English candidates to have blank texts during their exams.","background":"The new educational reforms have restricted the use of blank texts during GCSE English exams. This makes the English course and exam a test of a candidates memory, not their academic ability. ","additional_details":"I am a student myself and have experienced first hand the confusion about the educational benefit of these reforms: from students AND teachers. An example of the unnecessary changes is students must now remember the exact words of 12 poems, and are not allowed the poetry anthology during the exam to refer to. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25349,"created_at":"2016-02-14T20:09:09.921Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:28.516Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-17T11:03:20.719Z","closed_at":"2016-08-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-14T22:28:31.640Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-29T21:56:14.901Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-18T12:11:28.541Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-18","summary":"GCSE English literature content requires students to read the full text of the books and poems they study. Students will not need to remember the exact wording of poems by heart in order to succeed. ","details":"The GCSE English literature content requires students to read the full texts of the books, drama and poems they study. It requires students to study a range of intellectually challenging and substantial whole texts in detail including Shakespeare, 19th-century novels, Romantic poetry, and fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards. The content requires students to study no fewer than 15 poems by at least five different poets, and a minimum of 300 lines of poetry. The assessment arrangements must reflect those requirements and is designed to reward students who have gained a deep understanding of literature and who have read widely throughout the course.\n\nThe content also requires that students are examined on texts which they have not read previously (‘unseen’ texts).  Students will need to read widely during their studies to prepare them for the ‘unseen’ text in the exam and to be able to compare and contrast a range of texts using ‘relevant quotation and detailed textual references’ to demonstrate the breadth of their understanding of literature. These ‘unseen’ texts might, but do not have to be, by authors whose works students have studied as set texts. \n\nWe do not expect awarding organisations to give or allow students to have access during their exams to copies of the whole texts they have studied. Exam boards can, however, provide students with relevant extracts. The exam boards have each chosen in their sample assessment materials to provide students with extracts of the texts they have studied. \n\nStudents will not achieve high marks in GCSE English Literature simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied.  Students will not need to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart or write those out in full in the exam in order to succeed.  \n\nTo gain good marks, students will need to be able to show that they are familiar with the texts - that they have studied them – and that their understanding is sufficiently developed to be able to compare them with other texts that might have been given to them in the exam. The student will need to write about a poem they have studied and that is not given to them in the exam, but that does not require them to reproduce the text in full.  \n\nThe Chief Regulator’s blog written last year made it clear that GCSE English literature is about understanding not memory https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2015/03/18/gcse-english-literature-learning-and-understanding-not-memory/\nOfqual’s Regulatory Conditions and Guidance documents for GCSE English are available here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448680/2015-07-27-gcse-subject-level-conditions-and-requirements-for-english-literature-version-3.pdf.\n\nNote: The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) is the independent regulator responsible for overseeing and maintaining standards in qualifications. The government is responsible for the content of the new GCSE English Literature qualification while Ofqual is responsible for the assessment arrangements exam boards must apply to the qualification.  GCSEs taken in England have been reformed so they are more rigorous and challenging. First teaching of the new GCSEs in maths, English language and English literature began in schools in September 2015.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-03-18T12:11:28.537Z","updated_at":"2016-03-18T12:11:28.537Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":164851,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/164851.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Protect grouse Moors and grouse shooting","background":"Grouse moors and grouse shooting are an integral part of moorland management both for the grouse and other native wildlife such as lapwing and curlew it also helps support of local businesses and jobs in the local areas this cannot be banned ","additional_details":"Here is a link to the Countryside Alliance website for more information on how grouse moors benefit the environment and the facts behind it:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca-flatcap/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Grouse-Shooting-The-Facts-10-Key-Questions-Answered-July-2016.pdf","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25322,"created_at":"2016-08-14T12:21:58.222Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:19:38.993Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-08-15T13:01:14.433Z","closed_at":"2017-02-15T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-14T14:14:57.817Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-08-23T09:36:35.184Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-10T15:42:37.725Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":"2016-10-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-10-31","debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-01T09:59:16.458Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-10","summary":"Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity that provides economic benefits, jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas and can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation.","details":"A report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is positive; the industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation. For grouse shooting in particular, according to the Moorland Association, estates in England and Wales spent £52.5 million on managing 149 grouse moors for shooting in 2010. Scottish landowners manage a further 150 moors for shooting grouse. The industry also supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £97.7 million across Great Britain. \n\nGrouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable “ecosystem services”, including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities for health and wellbeing. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including by protecting peatlands through measures such as the Peatland Code. \n\nThe Government welcomes the proactive approach taken by game keeping organisations to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation, for example through the British Association for Shooting and Conservation’s green shoots initiative. \n\nThe Government recognises the benefits that grouse shooting, and shooting more widely, bring to individuals, the environment and the rural economy. It is for these reasons that the Government believes shooting and other country pursuits such as hunting and fishing should be protected.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-10-10T15:42:37.722Z","updated_at":"2016-10-10T15:42:37.722Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-10-31","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-31/debates/06472E95-10EC-49A0-BF93-84CAD2BE4191/DrivenGrouseShooting","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0b841a46-eb3d-44b3-83b7-9500482b6d92","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":195077,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/195077.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap the \"rape clause\" and the \"family cap\" on social security payments.","background":"As the \"rape clause\" exemption cannot be delivered in a way that does not breach women's rights and undermine women's equality and safety, we call on the UK Government to repeal the \"family cap\" measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, including all of its exemptions. ","additional_details":"The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 places a \"family cap\" on social security by limiting child tax credits and elements of Universal Credit to two children.\r\n\r\nOne of the exemptions to the cap set out in secondary legislation is known as the \"rape clause\". This allows payments for third and subsequent children when pregnancy has arisen from rape. DWP's plan for implementation of the \"rape clause\" requires women to disclose rape to a certifying \"third-party assessor\".","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":25307,"created_at":"2017-04-13T10:31:22.885Z","updated_at":"2017-11-07T14:19:42.123Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-04-13T12:28:51.156Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-13T12:25:09.227Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-14T20:34:09.975Z","government_response_at":"2017-04-27T09:50:58.921Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-04-27","summary":"By limiting certain benefits and tax credits to two children, all families now face similar choices about how many children they can afford to support. In certain circumstances, exceptions can apply.","details":"The policy to provide support for a maximum of two children in Tax Credits and Universal Credit was announced in the 2015 Summer Budget, and was debated during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act. It became law in March 2016 and came into effect from 6th April 2017.\n\nFamilies supporting themselves solely through work do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children.  The policy encourages families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions about the number of children they can afford to support as those families who support themselves solely through work, while protecting the vulnerable by retaining extra support for families with disabled children. \n\nParents continue to receive help with the cost of raising children through the payment of Child Benefit, which continues to be paid regardless of family size.\n\nSome claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family as others. For that reason, a series of exceptions form a key part of the policy.\n\nThe Government invited views from stakeholders in a full consultation from 21 October 2016 to 27 November 2016 on the detail and implementation of the exceptions, including the non-consensual conception exemption, and contacted organisations across the UK who might have an interest in the policy. We received 82 responses with around 50 from organisations and this feedback informed a response, published on Friday 20th January 2017. This reflected comments and suggestions made as part of the consultation, including adding children conceived through controlling and coercive relationships, using aspects of the legal definition of the criminal offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” legislated for by the Home Office, within the non-consensual conception exception.\n\nIn recognition of the sensitive and complex nature of the exception for non-consensual conception, the Government took the decision not to rely solely on the criminal justice system and to use a third party model where a claimant may provide evidence to support their request for the exemption through engaging with a third party professional. \n\nThe selected third party professionals are those who can also provide individuals with, or signpost them to, further support. This allows claimants to have a choice of whom they disclose these very sensitive circumstances to, and in some cases this will mean they can use a third party professional that they have already established a relationship with. The role of the third party professional is to confirm that the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the criteria for the non-consensual conception exception, they are not required to seek any further evidence. Neither DWP nor HMRC staff will question the claimant about the incident nor will they be asked to identify the alleged perpetrator. The intention is to strike the right balance between ensuring claimants in these circumstances get the support they need in a not overly intrusive manner whilst at the same time providing the right assurance that the additional support is going to those for whom it is intended.\n\nThe Government has assessed the impact of the policy from an equality and human rights perspective throughout its development and in its implementation, thus meeting its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty and ensuring compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and other international law obligations. The policy was implemented through primary legislation and therefore its impacts were considered fully by Parliament.  Ministers also took account of that duty during the formulation of the exceptions to the policy. Consequently, it is the Government’s position that this policy is compliant with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As the policy relates solely to benefit entitlement, it does not interfere with any person's rights or freedom to have children.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2017-04-27T09:50:58.918Z","updated_at":"2017-11-07T14:14:12.373Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":123581,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/123581.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Don't ban tackling in school rugby.","background":"Doctors want to ban tackling in school rugby. Their argument is that it is dangerous and can cause injury. If this is the case then other sports which could involve contact such as netball and hockey should be banned also. If Coached correctly Rugby is not dangerous. Give teachers correct training.","additional_details":"I have been a level 2 rugby union coach for a long time. Rugby has been incorrectly labelled as a contact sport. It is an invasion and evasion game with contact. The Rugby Football Union see that the correct technique for tackling is delivered in all coaching courses. If the guidelines are followed than injury would be reduced.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24680,"created_at":"2016-03-02T18:47:53.684Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:12:12.957Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-03T13:23:55.242Z","closed_at":"2016-09-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-02T21:21:00.568Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-04T22:52:01.900Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-11T16:49:26.908Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-11","summary":"The government has no plans to ban tackling in school rugby. We expect schools to be aware of the risks associated with sporting activities, and to provide a safe environment for their pupils. ","details":"The government has no current plans to ban tackling in school rugby. \n\nTeam sports, such as rugby, play an important role in children’s development. They can help children develop positive traits such as fair play, leadership and resilience; an important part of our commitment in preparing children for life in modern Britain. They also provide an opportunity for physical activity and help children develop healthy habits for life.\n\nThere is no definitive list of the activities or sports that schools should offer their pupils.\n\nSchools have the flexibility to organise and deliver a diverse and challenging PE curriculum which best suits the needs of their pupils. We expect schools to be aware of the risks associated with all the sporting activities they provide, to provide a safe environment for their pupils, and to ensure that their teachers and other staff have the appropriate training.\n\nThere is expert advice available for schools to help them make sure all sporting activities are safe. The Association for Physical Education (AfPE) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provide advice to schools on how to manage activities safely and reduce the risk of injuries and accidents. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-03-11T16:49:26.905Z","updated_at":"2016-03-11T16:49:26.905Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125788,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125788.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Protection for Sikhs to not have their turbans removed at airports.","background":"Across the world at airports Sikhs are being asked to remove their turbans. The turban for Sikhs is a mandatory symbol of their faith and therefore to ask them to remove it, is a direct infringement of their human right to religion/ faith. \r\n\r\n\r\n","additional_details":"There have been many recent example of where a Sikh man has been asked to remove his turban, Mr Waris in the US was a recent event that was publicised.\r\n\r\nI would like the UK Government to introduce a law protecting the right of Sikhs. I would also ask the UK Government to raise this issue with international governments.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24575,"created_at":"2016-03-25T14:22:47.974Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:03.921Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-31T10:56:13.935Z","closed_at":"2016-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-27T12:43:08.302Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-17T18:54:20.787Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-04T10:12:55.827Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-04","summary":"The Government recognises that screening of religious and cultural headgear needs to be conducted sensitively and considerately with due respect to the requirements of religious observance.","details":"Until 2013, there was a clear requirement in EU aviation security regulations that headgear should be hand searched if the passenger activated a walk-through metal detector. In light of representations made by religious communities the UK Government conducted research, in 2010 to 2012, to see if more could be done in this field. \n\nAs a result this research, in February 2013 the European Commission, with the support and encouragement of the UK, amended EU Regulation to allow the use of the alternative screening method utilising Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) and Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) as a permitted alternative to hand search. In addition, the UK Minister for Aviation wrote to Transport Ministers of other EU Member States to ask them to take the opportunity provided by this change in regulation to consider, where appropriate, adopting this alternative to hand search, particularly in respect of religious and cultural headgear.\n\nThis method of screening allows security officers to conduct searches with more sensitivity not only in the case of Religious/Cultural Headgear, but also for example, in the searching of plaster casts and prostheses. \n\nHowever, it must also be emphasised that the hand search is still an option in all countries, and there may be circumstances where a security officer will require a hand search or even complete removal of a turban in order to satisfy himself that no prohibited articles are being carried onto an aircraft. If this is the case, in the UK passengers are able to request that the hand search is conducted in private. The Department does have a level of expectation that security officers in the UK will conduct any searches with sensitivity and understanding, whilst maintaining the high security standards of this country. \n\nInternational aviation security is governed by international law set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) (the UK also contributes to the work of ICAO), under which each country is responsible for security at its airports and for aircraft flying from its territory. The overriding principle is that of “host state responsibility” whereby the measures at an airport are determined by the appropriate authority of the state in which the airport is located. The Department does not comment on security measures at overseas airports. \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2016-07-04T10:12:55.824Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T10:12:55.824Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":108789,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/108789.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Save Our Homecare. More funding to support people at home & reward careworkers.","background":"The UK’s crucial homecare support network is facing a crisis. Almost a million people need help to live at home, due to age or disability, yet government continues to put an unbearable squeeze on funding and these vital frontline services are at risk. ","additional_details":"Essential homecare support is not possible unless it has proper funding. Without these important services, older and disabled people may not get the help they need and the stretched NHS faces more pressure.\r\nHomecare is already chronically under-funded and a £750m shortfall is predicted in 2016 if action isn’t taken now. We are calling on the UK Government to address this issue urgently in the autumn spending review.  \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24540,"created_at":"2015-09-17T13:50:23.823Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:36.288Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-25T11:56:09.057Z","closed_at":"2016-03-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-18T07:59:06.284Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-31T23:28:55.049Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-16T10:21:42.659Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-16","summary":"The Government is engaging with the adult social care sector to understand the cost pressures on the system. The costs of providing social care are being considered as part of the Spending Review.","details":"Government Departments have submitted Spending Review bids to Her Majesty’s Treasury, setting out their policy ambitions for the Parliament, demonstrating how they will deliver on manifesto commitments and bidding for the resources required for delivery. The overall costs of providing social care are being considered as part of the Spending Review. Negotiations and agreement of final budgets are ongoing. The Spending Review process will formally conclude on Wednesday 25 November 2015, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce the outcome.\n\nThe Department has engaged with the social care sector, including care providers, to understand how the introduction of the National Living Wage will affect them. The new National Living Wage will ensure that care workers are better paid for the vital work they do. It is intended to ensure that work pays and to reduce the need for the State to top up peoples’ wages through the benefits system.\n\nFrom April 2016, it will be set at £7.20 per hour. The Government’s ambition is for it to reach £9 by 2020.\n\nSince the announcement in the Budget, the Department’s officials have engaged with the adult social care sector to understand the impact on their business of these pressures and the market in general. We have hosted at least two meetings with a range of individual companies (including the large corporate care providers) to understand more about their perspective on this, supported by other officials from the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and Her Majesty’s Treasury.\n\nThe financial and market sustainability issues in relation to local authority finance of social care are well known to officials and Ministers in the Department of Health and the Department of Communities and Local Government.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2015-11-16T10:21:42.655Z","updated_at":"2015-11-16T10:21:42.655Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113810,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113810.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the small claims track limit for personal injury claims at £1,000.00","background":"George Osborne announced yesterday that the small claims track limit for personal injury claims will be increased from £1,000 to £5,000. This will put many restrict access to justice for thousands of people, will put firms of solicitors out of business, leading to unemployment in the legal sector ","additional_details":"Please sign this petition to keep the small claims track for personal injury claims at £1,000. The chance of the £40.00 a year saving being passed onto motorists is slim so there is no incentive for the public to have the small claims track limit increased. Maintaining the small claims track limit and £1,000.00 ensure access to justice for the public and ensure that thousands of solicitors, barristers and Judges are not made redundant. ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24398,"created_at":"2015-11-26T08:14:36.364Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:31.614Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-26T13:58:43.103Z","closed_at":"2016-05-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-26T08:57:23.916Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-27T20:45:24.294Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-21T16:33:35.581Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-21","summary":"The Government is concerned about the number of whiplash claims and the impact on premiums. Therefore we announced new measures to control costs, including raising the small claims limit to £5,000.","details":"Raising the personal injury small claims limit will remove the ability of the claimant to recover legal costs associated with such claims by transferring them to the small claims court. The personal injury small claims limit has been set at £1,000 for nearly 25 years and the Government believes it is both justifiable and proportionate to increase the limit to £5,000.\n\nIn addition, the reforms will remove the right to claim for damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for minor whiplash injuries. However, people who suffer more serious injuries will continue to be entitled to such compensation. Compensation for other areas of loss such as the costs of medical treatment or for loss of earnings will remain available to all claimants.\n\nThese reforms will end the cycle in which innocent car owners pay higher premiums to cover false or unnecessary claims by others and the Government expects insurers to pass savings of £40-£50 per average motor insurance policy on to consumers.  Two companies have already said publicly that they will pass all the savings back to consumers. \n\nThe Government will consult on the detail of the proposals early in 2016 including on any safeguards considered necessary. A detailed impact assessment will be published alongside the consultation.\n\nFigures\n\nThe number of reported road traffic accidents has fallen from approximately 190,000 in 2006 to around 146,000 in 2014(1)(a reduction of over 20%).  However, at the same time, the number of road traffic personal injury claims has risen from around 520,000 in 2006/07 to 760,000 in 2014/15(2)(an increase of around 50%). \n\nBackground\n\nThe Government is determined to crack down on false or unnecessary personal injury claims and the compensation culture.  The overall costs of these claims far outweigh the value to genuine claimants of relatively small amounts of compensation.\n\nIn April 2013 the Government implemented significant reforms to control the costs of civil litigation through provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.  This reduced the costs of litigation whilst enabling appropriate cases to be pursued.\n\nContinuing concerns relating to the number and cost of whiplash claims and the impact they were having on the price of motor insurance premiums led to a further phase of reform.  On 1 October 2014 the Government reduced and fixed the cost of initial whiplash medical reports, introduced an expectation that there will be a single report and banned experts who write the reports from also treating the claimants.\n\nFurther changes meant that from 6 April 2015, solicitors, medical experts and medical reporting organisations must use, and be registered on, the new MedCo Portal. The new system brings greater independence and breaks the financial links between the solicitors who commission medical reports and the medical experts and organisations who provide them. \n\nIn addition, from 1 June 2015 claimant lawyers must undertake a ‘previous claims’ check on clients before accepting a claim; and from early 2016 a robust new accreditation scheme for medical experts will be introduced which means that any experts must be accredited with MedCo or they will be removed from the system.\n\nChanges to the small claims limit\n\nWhen considering whether a case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track, the court will take into account a number of factors, the main one being the financial value of the case. Generally, the small claims track is for claims with a financial value of not more than £10,000, but not for personal injury claims and housing disrepair claims where the limit is set at £1,000.  Claims above these limits are generally dealt with in the fast-track if valued up to £25,000 and the multi-track if they are above £25,000.  The main difference between the small claims track and the fast-track is that in the small claims track their own costs are generally borne by each side, whereas legal costs are generally recoverable by the winning party in the fast-track. \n\nClaimants are not precluded from engaging legal representation, but the small claims track is intended for cases which could be brought without lawyers. However, the £1,000 limit for personal injury cases in the small claims track was set in 1991 and has not been changed for nearly 25 years, so a revision is long overdue. The Government will launch a consultation in the New Year on the detail of this and the measure to remove general damages for low level whiplash claims.  \n\nMost minor injury cases are straightforward enough to be brought without the need for legal representation, making them suitable for consideration in the small claims track.\n\nMinistry of Justice \n\n(1)https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-2014\n\n(2)www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/424356/cases-registered-cru-2014-15.csv/preview","created_at":"2015-12-21T16:33:35.577Z","updated_at":"2015-12-21T16:33:35.577Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":118875,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/118875.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish road tax on Motorcycles.","background":"\r\nMost Motorcycles cover a minimal annual mileage, have low emissions, they reduce congestion & do little to damage the roads, yet they still have to pay up to £81 tax whilst lots of cars pay Nil or only £30. This is clearly unfair and unreasonable.\r\n","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24194,"created_at":"2016-01-17T20:11:44.620Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:10:21.865Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-01-18T18:03:40.509Z","closed_at":"2016-07-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-17T20:39:50.827Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-19T22:14:39.266Z","government_response_at":"2016-02-10T16:08:55.285Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-02-10","summary":"The average motorcycle owner pays £54 VED per year whilst the average car owner pays £166. VED rates have been limited to inflation only increases since 2010. ","details":"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax on vehicle ownership irrespective of miles driven. \n\nThe rates of VED for lower emissions cars are part of a multi-pronged strategy to help realise long-term fuel-efficiency improvements through funding technological innovation, regulating manufacturing improvements and incentivising consumer take-up. This helps the Government to fulfil its legal obligation to reduce national CO2 emissions. \n\nUnlike for cars, it has only been mandatory for CO2 emissions data to be included as part of the type approval process for motorcycles since 1 January 2016. Therefore, it has not been possible to base motorcycle VED rates on CO2 emissions. The current engine capacity based rates offer the most practical and easy-to-understand way to reflect the respective emissions of motorcycles. \n\nCurrently, the average motorcycle owner pays £54 per year – a lot less than the top VED rate of £81 per year – and the average car owner pays £166 per year. In addition, under this Government, VED rate increases for motorcycles have been limited to inflation only, meaning that all motorcyclists’ VED liability remains unchanged in real terms since 2010.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2016-02-10T16:08:55.282Z","updated_at":"2016-02-10T16:08:55.282Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":159996,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/159996.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament should hold Tony Blair to account for the war in Iraq","background":"The Chilcot Report has presented a range of evidence that demonstrates that Parliament and the country were misled by Tony Blair in the run up to the war in Iraq. Parliament should now agree a process by which it can hold the former Prime Minister to account. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24126,"created_at":"2016-07-08T19:39:06.837Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:18:06.967Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-07-20T11:59:28.332Z","closed_at":"2017-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-09T11:09:38.480Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-25T12:27:49.401Z","government_response_at":"2016-08-10T17:10:18.260Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-08-10","summary":"The Government recognises the importance, rigour and depth of Sir John Chilcot’s independent Iraq inquiry report, and has made time to debate it.","details":"It made time for a two day debate in the House of Commons and a day long debate in the House of Lords before the Summer recess to enable Parliament to study and debate the report in depth. It has committed to learning the lessons which Sir John identifies from his Inquiry. How Parliament decides to hold Mr Blair to account is a matter for Parliament.\n\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2016-08-10T17:10:18.258Z","updated_at":"2016-08-10T17:10:50.505Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":191485,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/191485.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the Illegal Slaughter of Migrating Songbirds on MoD land in Cyprus.","background":"After hearing the Radio 2 discussion about the slaughter of Songbirds on MoD land in Cyprus I went to sign a petition asking the MoD to stop it - there is no such petition.\r\n\r\nRSPB estimate 1.7 million killed in 2016, approx 800,000 on MoD land.\r\nChris Packham advises there are simple solutions.","additional_details":"Migrating songbirds are being trapped by poachers in hidden nets and sold as a delicacy.\r\n\r\nI understand that we can't control what happens on Cypriot land, but think the MoD should stop illegal activity on it's own land.\r\n\r\nIt is also illegal in Cyprus.\r\n\r\nChris Packham interviewed on\r\nRadio 2 speaks of practical solutions - www.rt.com/document/58ca94a4c36188584d8b46a7/amp\r\n\r\nwww.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/songbirds-cyprus-military-base-800000-british-ministry-of-defence-a7632221.html%3famp","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":24035,"created_at":"2017-03-18T16:48:13.119Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:34:10.414Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-27T16:33:15.424Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-18T18:40:27.891Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-04-27T18:35:56.505Z","government_response_at":"2017-05-02T16:37:58.283Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-05-02","summary":"The UK Government is confident the Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) Administration is making considerable efforts to prevent bird trapping in the SBAs. ","details":"We recognise the elimination of bird trapping and change of cultural practices in Cyprus will take some years.  \n\nThe practice of trapping birds in the SBA is an issue the SBA Administration and the UK Ministry of Defence takes very seriously. The SBAs comprise of both Crown and private land, only a small proportion of which is enclosed military sites.  Trapping birds in SBA occurs mainly in the Cape Pyla area near Dhekelia, where the public have full access to the 13000 acre area that is not contained within the perimeter of a military camp.  The area is 12 km to the east of Dhekelia Station in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area of Cyprus.  Illegal trapping of birds is a widespread issue across the whole of Cyprus and is not confined to the SBAs. The practice of trapping and eating ambelopoulia (a dish made from songbirds), has been a traditional way of life in the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) and substantial profits are made by those who organise and control this activity. There are no restaurants in the SBA selling ambelopoulia, however, there are restaurants that serve this in the RoC, and this is not something the SBA Administration can control. \n\nThe SBA Administration is pursuing over 80 convictions associated with bird trapping and poaching offences in the SBA.  The SBA Police have conducted 39 major mist netting clearance operations, resulting in the seizure of 1030 mist-nets and over 450 limesticks as well as other trapping paraphernalia.  We believe this enforcement has impacted on bird trapping activity and this kind of intervention will continue as part of our ongoing activities. Of the 150 acres of invasive acacia bushes used by trappers to attract birds towards their mist-nets in the special areas of conservation on the Pyla Range, the SBA Administration has removed over 60 acres in the last three years. Removals will continue in spite of the aggressive stance by the local community and individuals who favour bird trapping. \n\nIn addition to these measures, significant time is invested on wider educational programmes in the areas. These are designed to change attitudes and to educate communities about the effects of illegal bird trapping and wildlife trapping in general.  One specific measure is the recent opening of an Environment and Education Centre at Akrotiri in the Western Sovereign Base Area.  This provides a dedicated outreach facility from the SBAs into the community with the intent to provide and promote environmental education to school groups and interested parties from all over Cyprus. Around 10,000 school pupils visited the centre in its first year of operation. \n\nThe SBA Administration is working closely with BirdLife, the RSPB and other non-government organisations in all aspects of countering bird trapping. Non-Government Organisations are working hard to encourage the RoC to do the same.  \n\nThe SBA Administration is continually reviewing a variety of methods to combat this illegal activity.  The UK Government recognise there is little prospect of a swift resolution to the wider problem of bird trapping across Cyprus and any permanent solution will require a significant change in traditional views and activities held by some Cypriot communities.\n\nMinistry of Defence","created_at":"2017-05-02T16:37:58.280Z","updated_at":"2017-06-08T13:51:13.105Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":112165,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/112165.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Keep all lead ammunition.","background":"Lead ammunition has been used for hunting and shooting since the first guns were manufactured over three centuries ago. Never has there been a recorded death through lead ingestion.\r\n","additional_details":"Lead ammunition is the most widely used due to its ballistic superiority compared with other none toxic types and doesn't damage shotgun barrels. Norway has already reversed its lead ammunition ban due to the lack of scientific evidence proving harm to human health.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23942,"created_at":"2015-11-10T15:45:35.187Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:07:54.665Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-13T11:03:58.781Z","closed_at":"2016-05-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-10T16:13:16.180Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-18T21:40:53.149Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-15T16:40:09.779Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-15","summary":"The Government is considering the independent Lead Ammunition Group’s report and will respond as soon as possible.  See: www.food.gov.uk/science/advice-to-frequent-eaters-of-game-shot-with-lead.”","details":"Lead shot has been prohibited for wildfowling since 1999 by the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Those regulations introduced a double restriction: firstly, lead shot cannot be used, on any game, in certain areas – namely over the foreshore or over a list of named Sites of Special Scientific Interest; secondly, lead shot cannot be used anywhere for shooting certain species – namely ducks, geese, swans, coots and moorhens. These restrictions reflect the resolution made that year through the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, to which the UK is a party.\n\nTo examine the continued use of lead ammunition in other forms of shooting, the then Government established the independent Lead Ammunition Group in 2010 with these\naims:\n• To advise Defra/FSA on what the significant risks to wildlife from the use of lead ammunition are and what levels of risk these pose in the short, medium and long term. Also any perceived risks which the evidence indicates are not significant.\n• To advise Defra/FSA on possible options for managing the risk to human health from increased exposure to lead resulting from the use of lead ammunition, notably in terms of food safety (including game shot with lead ammunition and spent lead shot deposited on agricultural land).\n• To advise Defra/FSA of any significant knowledge gaps that may hinder the identification or assessment of risks, the development of technical solutions or the development of government policy.\n• To advise Defra/FSA on any communication issues, and possible solutions, concerning the relaying of balanced information on issues surrounding the use of lead ammunition to the media, general public and stakeholders.\n• To advise DEFRA/FSA of any significant impacts of possible advice or solutions on shooting activity and associated recreational, wildlife management, economic and employment impacts.\n\nThe Lead Ammunition Group reported in 2015, though by the time it did so five of its ten members had resigned, with four of those subsequently submitting a different set of recommendations. \n\nThe Government is considering its report. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-01-15T16:40:09.774Z","updated_at":"2016-01-15T16:40:09.774Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":128190,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/128190.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists.","background":"Cycling in the UK has become a truly popular sport and way of commuting, but we still vulnerable.In 2014 21,287 cyclist were injured in reported road accidents in the UK, 113 were killed and 3,401 were seriously injured.The Highway Code, Rule 212 states giving \"plenty of room\" when passing cyclists.","additional_details":"The lack of a clear specification may result in a personal decision what a \"plenty of room\" means in terms of distance. Therefore, introducing a minimum legal passing distance when overtaking cyclists will considerably reduce the number of cyclist casualties, aiding in a safe cycling practice. Suggestion of 3.28 ft (1 m) when overtaking cyclists on roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph. On roads with higher speed limits, the minimum passing distance should be 4.9 ft (1.5 m).","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23834,"created_at":"2016-04-17T20:13:12.533Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:31.560Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-04-29T14:24:24.032Z","closed_at":"2016-10-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-28T14:39:26.520Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-04T20:09:24.456Z","government_response_at":"2016-05-09T13:20:35.512Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-05-09","summary":"This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist. ","details":"This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.\n\nWe are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users. \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2016-05-09T13:20:35.508Z","updated_at":"2016-05-09T13:20:35.508Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":131936,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131936.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Change the law on the dangerous dog act 1991 Stop putting healthy dogs down.","background":"Innocent dogs and puppies are being put to sleep for no reason, just purely for the type of breed. Why? If they have done no harm and have proven to be safe in public they have the right to live! its inhumane and cruel! why should the dog pay for the irresponsible backyard breeders and owners! \r\n","additional_details":"The dangerous dog act 1991 has been created to stop and ban four breed of dog including the Pit Bull Terrier. These dogs are known for dog fighting and built and bred for the large muscular physique. Why should we put these dogs down if they have done nothing wrong? Any breed of dog is capable of killing or causing harm to humans! dogs are not born dangerous, its in the hands of the owner who we should blame! lets change this. backyard breeders and irresponsible owners should be prosecuted.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23749,"created_at":"2016-06-03T10:10:42.765Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:50.027Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-10T12:27:59.460Z","closed_at":"2016-12-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-03T22:50:46.578Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-07-29T10:28:35.915Z","government_response_at":"2016-09-13T10:24:25.416Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-09-13","summary":"The Government considers that the existing general prohibition on dogs bred for fighting, or that share the characteristics of dogs bred for fighting, should be maintained.","details":"In this country dogs such as the pit bull terrier are often chosen for illegally organised dog fights and have traditionally been bred for that purpose. Publicly available information shows that since 2005 there have been twenty-seven fatal dog attacks on adults and children that a disproportionate number of pit bull terriers or pit bull crosses were involved in. Sadly this includes four children (including two babies) killed by pit bull terriers. None of these dogs were registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs. \n\nThe Government considers that the general prohibition of certain types of dogs, together with other measures, provide enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to protect the public. For example it is an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control and police or local authorities can use a Community Protection Notice to intervene early in cases of low level dog nuisance before a dog becomes dangerous.\n\nWe would urge anyone considering getting a dog or a puppy to follow the advice provided by the leading animal welfare and dog interest organisations.  By following such advice it is extremely unlikely that anyone would end up with one of the prohibited type dogs.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2016-09-13T10:24:25.414Z","updated_at":"2016-09-13T10:24:25.414Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":175561,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/175561.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Work with UK Sport to reinstate GB badminton funding for the next Olympic cycle","background":"UK Sport have announced it is giving ZERO funding to GB badminton’s Olympic programme, despite exceeding the medal target by winning bronze in Rio.\r\nThis is an incomprehensible decision. We urge sports fans and the British public to sign this petition and get badminton’s voice heard in Government.","additional_details":"The ramifications of UK Sport’s decision are enormous not just for the elite end of the sport but for the grassroots who make up the heartbeat of badminton right across the UK.\r\nGB badminton stars have demonstrated they can compete with the best in the world and have the world-class talent to do so again in Tokyo. \r\nGB Badminton have appealed the decision.\r\n\r\nTo fight for the sport and support our appeal please sign this petition and lobby your local MP so we can save the future of badminton.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23740,"created_at":"2016-12-14T13:48:11.083Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:23:14.995Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-12-15T16:55:58.560Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-14T14:01:51.316Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-12-16T11:23:36.266Z","government_response_at":"2017-01-17T09:42:13.399Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-01-17","summary":"Our strategic approach to elite sport is world class and we are committed to keeping up this momentum and supporting our athletes all the way to Tokyo.","details":"Our athletes made the nation proud in Rio with incredible performances that led to TeamGB and Paralympics GB finishing second in the medal tables with our Olympic and Paralympic heroes' amazing performances, including of course our badminton medallists. Our approach to elite sport is world class and we are committed to keeping up this momentum and supporting our athletes all the way to Tokyo. \n\nThe Government’s support for our elite athletes is unwavering, as underlined by the 29% increase in Exchequer funding at the Spending Review in 2015. The four-year journey to Tokyo 2020 starts now and the Government and National Lottery is backing UK Sport to help maintain our place as a sporting superpower.\n\nThe total Tokyo investment will be up to £345 million, allowing for in-cycle adjustments, transitioning sports and for UK Sport to continue to work with those newly confirmed Olympic and Paralympic sports with strong medal potential for Tokyo. \n\nRegretfully, UK Sport has been unable to invest in 5 sports that were funded in the Rio 2016 cycle; Archery, Badminton, Fencing, Weightlifting and Wheelchair Rugby.\n\nUK Sport have not taken these decisions lightly and know that this impacts athletes, coaches and support teams that miss out on funding. UK Sport are committed to managing this with appropriate care and will be working with those affected by these decisions to help them in their transition. \n\nWhile past performances are an indicator, they are no guarantee of the future potential of any sport. The Tokyo investment process has given UK Sport greater insight than ever before of each sport’s future potential through the analysis of the athletes in their system and their strategies for delivering medal success, so these investments have been made on the basis of future medal potential of each sport.\n\nHowever, the door is always open to sports that can demonstrate increased medal potential to come to UK Sport for support through their annual review process.\n\nOn Friday 16 December Sport England announced they would be investing £7.25m in Badminton over the next four years to support the grassroots of the sport, which will help pave the way for the next generation of talent.\n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2017-01-17T09:42:13.396Z","updated_at":"2017-01-17T09:42:13.396Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":126412,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/126412.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Provide Orkambi treatment on the NHS for Cystic Fibrosis patients","background":"Orkambi is a drug that would be vital in the preservation in the lives of Cystic Fibrosis patients. It is currently not available to patients on the NHS, and deemed \"not value for money\" by NICE. My aim is to get this drug avaliable to all Cystic Fibrosis patients and start saving lives. ","additional_details":"I am Hannah Lindley, I am 20 years old. I have Cystic Fibrosis. And in November 2015, I watched my sister Iona Kesteven who was only just gone 19, die an awful, traumatising death to Cystic Fibrosis, with the haunting knowledge that I myself will have to go through that. This drug would give me the chance to not progress further with this insidious illness and a possibility of hope. Orkambi costs £104,000 per year, per patient. The current and failing treatment is just as if not more expensive.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23686,"created_at":"2016-04-02T17:37:53.415Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:18.254Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-04-04T12:56:03.410Z","closed_at":"2016-10-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-02T17:44:16.215Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-17T14:21:32.334Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-12T14:46:11.273Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-12","summary":"NICE has not yet issued its final guidance on Orkambi. The Government’s priority is to ensure patients have access to effective treatments on terms that represent value to the NHS and the taxpayer.  ","details":"We were really sorry to hear that Hannah has cystic fibrosis and that she lost her sister Iona to the same terrible disease last year.\n\nThe pace of biomedical science is putting more pressure on budgets across the developed world all the time as new and increasingly targeted drugs are developed.  These are often expensive and all health systems face difficult decisions about how to prioritise inevitably finite resources.  \n\nAs part of its remit, the independent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for issuing guidance to the NHS on whether selected drugs and treatments represent an effective use of NHS resources.  These are very difficult decisions to make, and NICE’s guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed through wide consultation with stakeholders. \n\nNICE is currently appraising Orkambi (lumacaftor–ivacaftor) for treating cystic fibrosis in people 12 years and older who are homozygous for the F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene.  NICE consulted on its draft guidance on the use of Orkambi earlier this year and, after considering the feedback from consultation, NICE published its final draft guidance on 17 June 2016 which does not recommend the treatment. NICE’s Appraisal Committee concluded that the benefits of Orkambi were not sufficient to justify its considerable cost.  Stakeholders had until 1 July 2016 to appeal.  NICE’s final guidance is expected this month.\n\nNHS commissioners are required to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisals.  In the absence of NICE guidance, or where negative guidance has been issued, funding decisions should be made by the relevant NHS commissioner, based on an assessment of the available evidence and on the basis of an individual patient’s clinical circumstances.  \n\nOfficials in the Department of Health are engaging with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Orkambi, to explore potential proposals, informed by those from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, that could enable NHS patients to access the drug at a cost-effective price.  They have encouraged Vertex to engage with NICE and NHS England on their proposals.\n\nIn cases where a company comes forward with a viable scheme proposal that Ministers are able to agree within a specified timescale after NICE publishes final guidance, NICE can undertake a ‘rapid review’ of its technology appraisal guidance and take such scheme proposals into account.\n\nThe Government is actively looking at what we can do to accelerate the pathway for innovative drugs to reach NHS patients, including those with rare diseases like cystic fibrosis.  The Accelerated Access Review, independently chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to Government on speeding up access for NHS patients to innovative and cost-effective new medicines, diagnostics, medical technologies and digital products.  The review’s full report and recommendations are expected this Summer.  More information can be found at www.gov.uk by searching for ‘Accelerated Access Review’.\n\nDepartment for Health","created_at":"2016-07-12T14:46:11.270Z","updated_at":"2016-07-12T14:46:11.270Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":132875,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/132875.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the making and receiving of all phone calls whilst driving.","background":"Cars kill. Research clearly shows a person is distracted from driving and their reaction times are slowed if on the phone, even if they are using it hands-free. No phone call is worth a distraction that could cause death. Help save lives.","additional_details":"Evidence shows making and receiving calls distracts drivers and slows their reaction times. A caller can always leave a message and call or be called back. If it is important they will be in touch.\r\n \r\nRadio 5 live programme ( starts 8.30 mins) \r\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dj0zj","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23557,"created_at":"2016-06-17T12:09:04.363Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:54.541Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-06-21T14:19:38.794Z","closed_at":"2016-12-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-20T18:06:07.417Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-02T07:36:46.114Z","government_response_at":"2016-10-13T12:44:14.773Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-10-13","summary":"The Highway Code (rule149) is clear that drivers must exercise proper control of the vehicle at all times. ","details":"Using hands free equipment is likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding – find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later. People failing to do so could face prosecution from the police. The Highway Code can be used in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.\n\nWe will be announcing further details of the tougher new penalty regime for drivers using hand held mobile phones and similar devices shortly.  \n\nWe expect to introduce increased penalties in the first half of 2017. The change in the law will coincide with a hard-hitting Think! Campaign to make a using mobile phone whilst driving as socially unacceptable as drink driving.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2016-10-13T12:44:14.771Z","updated_at":"2016-10-13T12:44:14.771Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104867,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104867.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Legalise Medicinal Cannabis.","background":"People are suffering without access to cannabis, a drug classed with \"no medicinal value\".  GW Pharma is producing 60 tonnes of this DRUG WITH NO MEDICINAL VALUE, in the UK, and is taking in billions in revenue, while the Government officials deliberately ignore  the pleas of the most  vulnerable.","additional_details":"\r\nWE DEMAND:\r\n\r\nto be able to use herbal cannabis as medicine, as we see fit. \r\n\r\nthat the government recognise thousands of medical cannabis users who wish to be free from fear of prosecution.\r\n\r\nto be able to grow cannabis. It clearly has medicinal value\r\n\r\na guarantee that we will not be harassed, arrested, and/or imprisoned/fined, for treating our illnesses as we see fit, with medical cannabis. To deny such treatment is blatant negligence, and will no longer be tolerated.\r\n  \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23414,"created_at":"2015-07-24T16:01:08.631Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:00.507Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-27T14:51:17.376Z","closed_at":"2016-01-27T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-25T09:02:31.647Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-15T21:59:37.413Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-19T17:11:11.952Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-19","summary":"Herbal cannabis is listed in Schedule 1 as a drug with no recognised medicinal uses outside research. A substantial body of scientific evidence shows it is harmful and can damage human health. ","details":"In November, the Government responded to the e-petition ‘We demand the British Government Reschedule Cannabis’, which similarly called for the use of raw cannabis for medicinal purposes. As such the response to the earlier petition is equally applicable to this question and follows below:\n\nThe Government will not encourage the use of a Schedule 1 controlled drug based on anecdotal evidence. It is important that a medicine is very thoroughly trialled to ensure it meets rigorous standards before being licensed and placed on the market so that doctors and patients are sure of its efficacy and safety. \n\nCannabis in its raw form (herbal cannabis) is not recognised as having any medicinal purposes in the UK. There is already a clear regime in place to enable medicines (including those containing controlled drugs) to be developed and subsequently prescribed and supplied to patients via healthcare professionals. This regime is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which issues Marketing Authorisations for drugs that have been tried and tested for their safety and efficacy as medicines in the UK. \n\nIt is up to organisations to apply for Marketing Authorisation for products that they believe have potential medicinal purposes so that these can be subject to the same stringent regime and requirements that all medicines in the UK are subjected to. \n\nSince 2010 UK patients can use the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. ‘Sativex’ can also be prescribed for other conditions at the prescribing doctor’s risk. ‘Sativex’ was rigorously tested for its safety and efficacy before receiving approval, and is distinguished from cannabis in its raw form. It is a spray which is standardised in composition, formulation and dose and developed to provide medicinal benefits without a psychoactive effect. Due to its low psychoactive profile ‘Sativex’ was rescheduled from Schedule 1 and placed in Schedule 4 Part 1 to enable its availability for use in healthcare in the UK.\n\nThe MHRA is open to considering marketing approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed. As happened in the case of ‘Sativex’, the Home Office will also consider issuing a licence to enable trials of new medicines to take place under the appropriate ethical approvals. \n\nIn view of the potential harms associated with the use of cannabis in its raw form and the availability of avenues for medicinal development, the Government does not consider it appropriate to make changes to the control status of raw or herbal cannabis. \n\nThe Government’s view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and regulations made under the Act continue to facilitate the development of medicines which are made from Schedule 1 controlled drugs. The legislation is aimed at protecting the public from the potential harms of drugs and is not an impediment to research into these drugs or development of medicines.\n\nIn 2013 the Home Office undertook a scoping exercise targeted at a cross-section of the scientific community, including the main research bodies, in response to concerns from a limited number of research professionals that Schedule 1 status was generally impeding research into new drugs.\n\nOur analysis of the responses confirmed a high level of interest, both generally and at institution level, in Schedule 1 research. However, the responses did not support the view that Schedule 1 controlled drug status impedes research in this area. While the responses confirmed Home Office licensing costs and requirements form part of a number of issues which influence decisions to undertake research in this area, ethics approval was identified as the key consideration, while the next most important consideration was the availability of funding.\n\nWith regard to enforcement, individual police forces tackle crime according to local priorities and it is for those agencies and prosecuting authorities to decide whether and how to dispose of a case, subject to the evidential and public interest tests. The vast majority of people caught in possession of an illegal drug are not imprisoned, with only 3% of offenders found guilty of a drug possession offence last year being sentenced to immediate custody. Indeed sentencing guidelines for judges in England and Wales specifically list the use of cannabis to help with a diagnosed medical condition as a mitigating factor in sentencing.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-01-19T17:11:11.948Z","updated_at":"2016-01-19T17:11:11.948Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":130730,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/130730.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make rape and sexual consent a mandatory part of sex education.","background":"Approximately 85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped in England and Wales alone every year; that's roughly 11 rapes every hour.\r\n\r\nIf rape and sexual consent were to become a part of sex education, children would learn from an early age the importance of consent and the consequences of rape. \r\n","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23363,"created_at":"2016-05-17T23:39:35.274Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:44.173Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-18T12:41:12.328Z","closed_at":"2016-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-18T11:24:36.931Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-09T23:54:44.237Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-12T14:01:13.916Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-12","summary":"The government is committed to challenging stereotypes around sexual violence to ensure that people properly understand the importance of consent. ","details":"Education has a vital role to play in encouraging young people to build healthy relationships, and to identify those relationships which are unhealthy.\n\nThe government is clear that appropriate sex and relationship guidance (SRE) is essential for children’s development and preparation for responsible adult life. SRE must be taught in all maintained secondary schools and we believe that most secondary academies and many primary schools also teach it. When any school provides SRE they have a statutory duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (2000). You may find the guidance online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sex-and-relationship-education \n\nThe statutory guidance makes clear that all sex and relationship education should be age-appropriate and that schools should ensure young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour. \n\nPersonal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education can also provide an effective way of equipping pupils with the knowledge and skills to understand and manage difficult situations, recognise and manage risk, make safer choices, and recognise when pressure from others threatens their personal safety and wellbeing. It can also help them develop effective ways of resisting pressures, including knowing when, where and how to get help. We expect all schools to teach PSHE, and we are looking at ways of improving the status and provision of the subject across all schools. \n\nThe government commissioned the PSHE Association to produce guidance for teachers on teaching about consent which was published in March 2015. It can be found online at: https://www.pshe-association.org.uk/curriculum-and-resources/resources/guidance-teaching-about-consent-pshe-education-key \n\nThe Home Office and Government Equalities Office have funded £3.85 million to develop and run the ‘Disrespect NoBody’ campaign to tackle abuse within teenage relationships. The Disrespect NoBody campaign follows on from the acclaimed ‘This is Abuse’ campaign, which since 2010 has encouraged teenagers to rethink their views of violence, controlling behaviour and what consent means within their relationships – thereby helping to challenge attitudes which can underpin violence against women and girls.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-07-12T14:01:13.913Z","updated_at":"2016-07-12T14:01:13.913Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121681,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121681.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Extend the Early Years Foundation Stage from \"birth to 5\" to \"birth to 7\"","background":"The news is full of concerns over children's mental health, their illiteracy,their behaviour,and teachers leaving in droves. The EYFS curriculum which applies from birth to 5, should be extended to birth to 7 to enable schools to focus on the essential skills,knowledge and attitudes for life!\r\n\r\n","additional_details":"In life we need communication skills,personal,social and emotional development,embedded literacy and maths skills, technological skills, an understanding of the world and creativity as well as characteristics such as resilience,perseverance,independence and risktaking. We have a curriculum that delivers this and more but it ends when children leave Reception. Let's extend the EYFS curriculum and \"Early Years\" for children from birth to 7 as it did on my teacher and Nursery Nurse training.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23337,"created_at":"2016-02-14T18:01:58.732Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:28.268Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-17T11:03:34.529Z","closed_at":"2016-08-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-14T18:13:04.584Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-22T15:00:44.868Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-17T17:30:51.749Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-17","summary":"The primary national curriculum provides a smooth transition from the early years foundation stage, and is designed to ensure pupils continue to develop the knowledge and skills needed to flourish","details":"Early years providers, including schools, are required to use the Statutory Framework for the early years foundation stage (EYFS). The EYFS sets the standards that all early years providers must meet to ensure that children learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe. It promotes teaching and learning and gives children the broad range of knowledge and skills that provide the right foundation for good future progress through school and life.\n\nThe areas of learning and development outlined in the EYFS provide the right baseline for the primary national curriculum. The new national curriculum was introduced in September 2014 and is carefully designed to provide a smooth transition from the EYFS to key stage 1.\n\nThe national curriculum focuses on the essential knowledge that must be taught, allowing teachers to take greater control over the wider curriculum in schools and how it is taught. Teachers will use their professional judgement to decide how best to ensure that their pupils develop important characteristics and skills such as creativity, resilience, independence and risk taking. Extra-curricular activities such as sports clubs, music and drama all help to build character and give younger children opportunities to flourish.\n\nPupils should not miss out on knowledge and skills development when they start key stage 1. For example, the key stage 1 programme of study for English makes clear that during year 1 teachers should build on work from the EYFS and build on what pupils have already learnt. Where pupils entering year 1 have not met the early learning goals they should continue to follow their school’s curriculum for EYFS to develop the appropriate knowledge and skills to ensure a good grounding for the key stage 1 curriculum.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-03-17T17:30:51.746Z","updated_at":"2016-03-17T17:30:51.746Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":109039,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/109039.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Please help keep Teesside Steelmaking open.","background":"Without Steelmaking, Teesside as a whole will become a 'Ghost town' with so many hard workers out of jobs and smaller companies struggling due to the major loss.\r\nWe need your help to save the people of Teesside - because it's not just the workers who will suffer. It's all of us.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":23242,"created_at":"2015-09-21T06:29:44.582Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:41.967Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-25T13:33:49.895Z","closed_at":"2016-03-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-21T07:09:37.793Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-27T14:03:31.640Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-16T10:08:44.239Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-16","summary":"This is a difficult time for Teesside. We are helping those who lost their jobs back into work. And we are ensuring a viable future for the UK steel industry by acting on cheap imports, (contd)","details":"energy costs, procurement, and emissions regulations.\n\nThe UK steel sector is facing unparalleled global economic conditions. The price of some steel products has halved and the world is producing more steel than it needs. This has led to many companies having to take difficult commercial decisions including redundancies across Tata UK and Sheffield Forgemasters and the closure of the SSI steel plant in Teeside. \n\nThroughout this crisis, the Government has worked intensively and pro-actively with the sector to support the UK’s steel industry.  On 16th October 2015 we hosted a Steel Summit in order to discuss how best to proceed with key Government and industry participants as well as constituency MPs, recognising the significant part steel companies play in local communities. Since then, and through the efforts of three ministerially chaired Working Groups, the Government has been unceasing in its efforts to deliver on the five key ‘Asks’ put to us by our partners in the steel industry: \n\n1. Lower energy costs: on 14 December the Government received State Aid approval to pay compensation to Energy Intensive Industries including steel from renewable policy costs. This will save the industry hundreds of millions of pounds. We will now go further and exempt Energy Intensive Industries from these costs.\n\n2. Flexibility over EU Emissions Regulations: we have now provided the industry with longer lead-in time for compliance with EU Regulations. This will save companies millions of pounds.\n\n3. Support for UK steel in major construction projects:  we have published and further updated procurement guidance for government departments to allow aspects such as social impacts, job impacts and staff safety to be taken into account when procuring steel for major projects. This will give UK steel back its competitive edge.\n\n4. EU and international level action on unfair trading practices: the UK voted in favour of certain steel anti-dumping measures, such as recently on the import of Chinese wire rod and steel tubing products. The UK also lobbied successfully for an investigation into cheap imports of reinforcing steel bars. The Prime Minister raised the problems of Chinese overproduction directly with President Xi on his visit to the UK. \n\n5. Business Rates: the sector’s concerns about the impact of business rates on competitiveness are taken into account in the Government’s Business Rates Review. This will conclude by Budget 2016. We have also already reduced taxes and increased investment allowances.\n\nThe Government recognises that this is also a difficult time for the individuals and communities affected by the current crisis. Our immediate focus is to help those who have lost their jobs back into work as quickly as possible.\n\nIn Redcar, Amanda Skelton, Chief Executive of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, chairs the taskforce to examine what steps need to be taken to support the local economy and co-ordinate delivery of this support. The Government and taskforce has so far agreed significant programmes including:\n• a hardship fund for individuals facing short-term financial challenges (£2.4 million), \n• retraining through Jobcentre Plus and local Further Education colleges (£5.6 million), \n• funding for former SSI apprentices to complete their apprenticeships (£1.7 million), \n• business advice and start-up grants (0.75 million), and, \n• a range of support for companies in the SSI supplies chain, to help them diversify, grow and create jobs within the local economy (£32.5 million). \n\nIn addition, Lord Heseltine has been appointed to lead the Tees Valley Inward Investment Initiative. This will be looking to advance specific investment projects, conduct a wider analysis on unlocking growth in the area and help the new Combined Authority make the most of its new devolved powers.   \n\nWhilst this crisis continues there is more that can and must be done. The Government will therefore continue to do all it can in the coming weeks and months to ensure a healthy and sustainable future for UK steel.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills","created_at":"2016-03-16T10:08:44.235Z","updated_at":"2016-03-24T15:54:37.534Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}