{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?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=2&parliament=1&state=with_response","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":131215,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131215.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":"EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum","background":"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":4150262,"created_at":"2016-05-23T23:39:38.957Z","updated_at":"2020-02-07T11:13:34.091Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-25T11:19:56.925Z","closed_at":"2016-11-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-24T15:58:22.999Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T06:54:57.319Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.365Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-06-24T10:48:23.281Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2016-09-05","debate_outcome_at":"2016-09-06T09:02:15.389Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-08","summary":"The European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015, receiving overwhelming support from Parliament.  The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.","details":"The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015.  The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper.  The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.\n\nAs the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.  The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected.  We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.363Z","updated_at":"2016-07-08T16:22:29.363Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-09-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cb2f33f6-f9fe-463e-a6d5-40eca4b614c0","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":171928,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/171928.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":"Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom.","background":"Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.","additional_details":"Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales. Therefore during the term of his presidency Donald Trump should not be invited to the United Kingdom for an official State Visit.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":1863708,"created_at":"2016-11-09T13:13:40.310Z","updated_at":"2018-01-26T15:29:28.385Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-29T16:32:44.442Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-09T20:28:21.805Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T10:50:27.498Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.504Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T12:40:56.821Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-01-31","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-21T09:46:31.016Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-13","summary":"HM Government believes the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit. We look forward to welcoming President Trump once dates and arrangements are finalised.","details":"HM Government recognises the strong views expressed by the many signatories of this petition, but does not support this petition.\n\nDuring her visit to the United States on 27 January 2017, the Prime Minister, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, invited President Trump for a State Visit to the UK later this year. The invitation was accepted. This invitation reflects the importance of the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. At this stage, final dates have not yet been agreed for the State Visit.  \n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.502Z","updated_at":"2017-02-13T14:00:37.502Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20/debates/34847E5C-8B14-46E6-8251-AE99526CC011/PresidentTrumpStateVisit","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85c7c283-d353-4863-8628-3a012a80b2f5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":108072,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/108072.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give the Meningitis B vaccine to ALL children, not just newborn babies.","background":"All children are at risk from this terrible infection, yet the Government plan to only vaccinate 2-5 month olds. There needs to be a rollout programme to vaccinate all children, at least up to age 11. Meningococcal infections can be very serious, causing MENINGITIS, SEPTICAEMIA & DEATH.","additional_details":"NHS.UK","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":823349,"created_at":"2015-09-09T17:27:00.200Z","updated_at":"2021-02-09T23:31:26.844Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-14T12:26:36.871Z","closed_at":"2016-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-11T07:08:33.793Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T00:05:29.066Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.676Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-16T21:32:14.741Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-03-22","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-04-25","debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-26T16:16:07.671Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-01","summary":"MenB vaccine is offered to infants, free on the NHS, at 2 months with further doses at 4 and 12 months. The programme, as advised by independent experts, offers protection to those at highest risk. ","details":"As the UK, we are proud to have been the first– and to date the only - country in the world to introduce a national, publicly-funded MenB immunisation programme for infants using the Bexsero vaccine. We are leading the world in offering children protection from this devastating disease.\n\nNational immunisation programmes are introduced on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the independent expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation\n\nJCVI reviewed all available evidence before it advised on eligibility for the Bexsero vaccine. It recommended that MenB immunisation should be routinely offered to the group of children at the highest risk - infants at two months of age with a further dose at four months and a booster at 12 months, provided that the vaccine could be procured at a cost-effective price.  There is a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of the JCVI, are implemented.\n\nThe programme started on 1st September 2015 for those babies due to receive their primary immunisations starting at 2 months of age on or after 1 September 2015 (i.e. those born on or after 1 July 2015). A one off catch-up programme was recommended by JCVI for infants born from 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2015 (aged 3 or 4 months of age when the programme launched) when they attended for their primary immunisation appointments. This ensured that those infants were offered the vaccine before the winter peak of the disease. By May 2017, all children under the age of two years will have been offered the vaccine. The vaccine is also available for a small number of older children and adults who are at increased risk of infection, such as those with no spleen. Early indications are that the vaccine has been very well accepted by parents and coverage is likely to be high. \n\nWith this programme, our priority is to protect those children most at risk of MenB, in line with JCVI’s recommendation.  The NHS budget is a finite resource.  It is therefore essential that JCVI’s recommendations are underpinned by evidence of cost-effectiveness. Offering the vaccine outside of JCVI’s advice would not be cost effective, and would not therefore represent a good use of NHS resources which should be used to benefit the health and care of the most people possible. \n\nWhen any new immunisation programme is introduced, there has to be a cut-off date to determine eligibility. While this is extremely difficult for parents whose children aren’t eligible there is no other way of establishing new programmes to target those at highest risk without introducing inequalities. This approach is supported by the best evidence and by independent recommendations. JCVI considered older age groups (1-4 year olds) but did not advise a catch-up programme in view of the marginal cost-effectiveness of even the infant programme. JCVI considered that the priority should be the implementation of the primary immunisation programme for infants. They also considered a programme for adolescents but advised that further research was needed Preparatory research has been commissioned and is underway.\n\nThere are many bacterial, viral and other causes of meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain and surrounding tissues) and septicaemia (blood poisoning). Successful vaccination programmes have already reduced the risk of these serious diseases. Current rates of group B meningococcal disease are low. In the early 2000s there were more than 1,600 cases in England, compared to around 400 cases in 2014. \n\nThe vaccine should provide direct protection against MenB for infants and those who are at increased risk of meningococcal disease. However, not all strains of the group B meningococcal bacteria are covered by this vaccine and cases can still occur in vaccinated infants and children. There are also other strains of meningococcal disease for which there is currently no vaccine. It therefore remains important for parents to be alert to the symptoms of meningococcal disease such as fever, blotchy skin, refusal to feed, irritability, cold hands and feet, rash, muscle pain, and a stiff body with jerky movements or else floppy and lifeless.  They should trust their instincts and seek urgent medical attention if they have concerns. \n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z","updated_at":"2016-03-01T10:35:49.673Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-04-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-25/debates/16042524000001/MeningitisBVaccine","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/184bc220-e082-4f5f-9ffa-35d817220b83","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":114003,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/114003.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":"Block Donald J Trump from UK entry","background":"The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry.","additional_details":"The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.  \r\n  \r\nIf the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful. \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":586930,"created_at":"2015-11-28T17:55:11.248Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:37.097Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-08T16:39:59.718Z","closed_at":"2016-06-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-28T18:01:29.777Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-08T21:53:38.265Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.472Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-09T12:04:03.028Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-01-18","debate_outcome_at":"2016-01-19T12:31:02.419Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-29","summary":"The Government has a policy of not routinely commenting on individual immigration or exclusion cases. ","details":"For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.\n\nThe Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good. \n\nThe Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. \n\nExclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence. \n\nThe Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong. \n\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-12-29T11:20:45.469Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:25:58.285Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-01-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-01-18/debates/1601186000001/DonaldTrump","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/83208344-218d-4c43-9300-ca78c374b875","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":107516,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/107516.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated.","background":"In February 2015 Dr Shea, Nato’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, warned there would be IS jihadists on the refugee boats. IS also threatened to flood Europe with 500,000 jihadists.","additional_details":"Allowing uncontrolled immigration and taking in these refugees potentially endangers the entire UK population. At any other time in our history this would be tantamount to a declaration of war and borders would be closed.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571932/Islamic-State-jihadists-Middle-East-refugees-smuggle-Europe-Nato-chief\r\n\r\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":463501,"created_at":"2015-09-05T09:06:10.767Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:06:07.649Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-09-09T12:02:47.037Z","closed_at":"2016-03-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-05T09:37:36.590Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-14T13:26:37.536Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.858Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-14T16:06:05.759Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-02-17T18:22:58.647Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-24","summary":"The UK government will not close Britain’s borders. It will ensure access for legitimate travellers and trade whilst operating its borders securely to protect the public from the threat of terrorism.","details":"The UK government has no intention of closing Britain’s borders, as this would create more problems than it would solve. The UK remains ‘open for business’ for legitimate travellers and trade.  However, we continue to operate our borders securely and to enforce our immigration laws.  This includes carrying out 100% checks on arriving passengers in order to identify any criminal, security and immigration concerns.  Given recent events in Paris, Border Force has intensified checks on people, goods and vehicles entering the UK from the near continent and elsewhere, undertaking additional and targeted security checks against passengers and vehicles travelling to France via both maritime and rail ports and a number of airports across the country.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.855Z","updated_at":"2015-11-24T15:46:02.855Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided on 24 November 2015 not to schedule a debate on this petition, because there had already been a debate on 19 October (scheduled by the Petitions Committee) on a similar petition entitled “Stop allowing immigrants into the UK.”\r\n\r\nYou can watch the 19 October debate here: \r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2e5038-cbf0-4a43-bfc3-6a6deb279c4d\r\n\r\nYou can read a transcript here:\r\n\r\nhttps://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2015-10-19/debates/15101914000001/Immigration","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":105991,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/105991.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":"Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK.","background":"There is a global refugee crisis. The UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts. We can't allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe. We must help.","additional_details":"With an estimated 173,100 asylum applications, Germany was the largest recipient of new asylum claims in 2014. The USA was 2nd with 121,200 asylum applications, followed by Turkey (87,800), Sweden (75,100), and Italy (63,700). By comparison, the UK received 31,300 new applications for asylum by the end of 2014.\r\n(Source: UNHCR 2014 Asylum Trends Report)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.amnesty.org.uk/calais-migrants-dangerous-rhetoric\r\nhttp://tracks.unhcr.org/2014/12/welcome-to-calais/\r\n\r\nThese people need help.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":450287,"created_at":"2015-08-10T14:33:57.667Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:30.842Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-13T16:25:55.670Z","closed_at":"2016-02-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-13T09:16:50.209Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-31T19:50:16.135Z","government_response_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.568Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-03T09:13:52.439Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-27T18:20:29.770Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-09-09","summary":"The UK has a proud history of providing refuge to those in genuine need of protection.  We will continue to play our full part at the forefront of the international response to the crisis. ","details":"The Government is committed to remaining at the forefront of the international response to the situation in the Mediterranean.  To support this commitment, the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will expand the existing Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) scheme to resettle around 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. \n\nThe Prime Minister’s announcement to expand the VPR scheme is part of our comprehensive approach designed as far as possible to help refugees in the region but recognising that for some vulnerable people the only solution is to bring them to countries like the UK. \n\nThe UK already has some of the largest and longest running resettlement schemes in the EU, providing sanctuary to around 1,000 refugees a year. We see targeted resettlement as part of a sustainable plan to tackle the root causes of these crises and reduce the need to make dangerous journeys, often in the hands of ruthless criminals. Our response must adapt to the changing situation.\n\nAccording to the UNHCR, by the end of 2014, Syria was the world’s top source country of refugees and one out of every four refugees is Syrian. So it is right that our resettlement efforts are concentrated here. \n\nBut the UK already runs other resettlement programmes which focus on a wider set of nationalities. The Gateway Protection Programme resettles 750 refugees each year from a small number of targeted locations. In recent years, the majority of these refugees have been Congolese, Ethiopians, Iraqis and Somalis from, predominantly, Kenya, Burundi and Syria. \n\nThe Mandate resettlement scheme resettles individuals recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and resettles individual refugees from anywhere in the world who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR, and judged by them to be in need of resettlement; and who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them.  \n\nWe already have significant experience of resettling vulnerable people and our existing domestic resettlement mechanisms provide a basis for a relatively quick   increase in numbers. We are already working with existing partners to ensure that we can begin to increase numbers as quickly as possible. Over the coming weeks and months, we will work with local authorities, the UNHCR and others to put in place the full structures to ensure we can scale up the current arrangements to ensure we can meet the aim of bringing up to 20,000 Syrians over the lifetime of this Parliament and deliver on the expansion that has been announced.\n\nAlongside the expansion of the VPR scheme, we have already committed £900 million in humanitarian aid to the humanitarian crisis. The Prime Minister announced a further £100 million in the past few days, bringing our commitment to £1billion – more than any other country in the world except the United States. The UK is the only EU country to fulfil its pledge to provide 0.7% of GDP to international aid and we should be proud of this. By the end of March 2015, UK support had delivered over 18 million food rations, each of which feeds one person for one month, provided access to clean water for 1.6 million people (peak month), and over 2.4 million medical consultations in Syria and the region.\n\nThe Government takes seriously its obligation to do what must be done to provide support to Syrians in need of protection as a result of events in the Middle East, and as such our priorities are on continuing to provide humanitarian aid to those most in need in the region and actively seeking an end to the crisis.  We believe this approach is the best way to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for the majority of refugees who remain in the region and their host countries.\n\nThose who have already reached Europe are no longer in immediate danger and the European countries in which they arrive have a duty to provide adequate protection and support to refugees within their territory. The UK stands ready to provide practical support to those frontline Member States who are experiencing particularly serious pressures. However, those that remain in the immediate region around Syria are more likely to be particularly vulnerable. It is right that we should focus our efforts on helping the most vulnerable which is why we are expanding the VPR scheme.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.565Z","updated_at":"2015-09-09T11:11:20.565Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-09-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-09-08/debates/15090846000002/RefugeeCrisisInEurope","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/85646ce6-0ade-44cc-834a-6d4ea7e61e09?in=13:47:45","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons has debated this topic on several occasions, including:\r\n\r\n- The Prime Minister made a statement on Monday 7 September and was questioned by MPs about it:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/statement-on-syria-refugees-and-counter-terrorism-7-september-2015/\r\n\r\n- On Tuesday 8 September there was an emergency debate on the refugee crisis in Europe:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/emergency-debate-the-refugee-crisis-in-europe/\r\n\r\n- There was a further debate on Wednesday 9 September on the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/mps-debate-humanitarian-crisis-in-the-mediterranean-and-europe/\r\n\r\nThe Home Affairs Committee is looking into the migration crisis. You can find out more about the inquiry here:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/mediterranean-migration/\r\n\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":121152,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121152.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":"Consider a vote of No Confidence in Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary","background":"Mr Hunt recently gave totally inappropriate advice to Google conditions before seeking medical opinion. He referred to Paramedics as Ambulance Drivers and has caused the first Doctors strike in years of the NHS. Mr Hunt is destroying all staff morale in the NHS & will cause recruitment issues.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":339925,"created_at":"2016-02-10T04:45:28.735Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:15.438Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-11T16:56:37.583Z","closed_at":"2016-08-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-10T21:19:35.958Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-11T23:00:10.318Z","government_response_at":"2016-03-17T15:00:53.901Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-12T18:20:49.281Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-03-16T11:22:48.253Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-03-17","summary":"The latest staff survey showed  NHS staff engagement is at a 5 year high. We will continue to invest in and support NHS staff to help deliver safe, high quality patient care every day of the week.","details":"We know NHS staff work incredibly hard to provide outstanding patient care around the clock. Patient safety is the absolute priority for NHS staff and the Government.  That is why our manifesto committed to improve patient care across 7 days of the week, with a particular focus on emergency and urgent care at weekends. The current medical contracts were drawn up in the early 2000s, and there is widespread consensus that they now require reform, partly in order to support improvements in urgent and emergency weekend care through more modern and flexible contractual arrangements. We have been trying for 4 years to agree the necessary changes with the doctors’ trade union, the BMA. Sadly, despite undertaking 3 independent processes to try to reach a negotiated solution, it has not been possible. The contract we are therefore introducing was recommended by one of the NHS’ most successful and respected Chief Executives, Sir David Dalton. He was commissioned at the end of 2015 to lead negotiations on behalf of the NHS with authority to compromise on every issue under discussion. He successfully reached agreement with the BMA on approximately 90% of issues on the table, leaving the final unresolved issue of Saturday pay rates. The process Sir David undertook followed 2 previous independent processes. Last July the DDDRB published recommendations following representations from both sides. The BMA refused even to discuss their recommendations and balloted for strike action on the back of them. Last December the Government and NHS entered detailed discussions with the BMA through ACAS and agreed Heads of Terms to achieve a negotiated solution. Unfortunately, despite agreeing to discuss Saturday pay rates, the BMA reneged and refused to contemplate any compromise on this issue. Sir David advised that a negotiated solution to the outstanding contractual issues was impossible. He also advised that the health service now needs certainty, and as such the Government decided that the only plausible option was to press ahead with the introduction of new contracts. Changes will not be imposed on staff who currently have a contract of employment, but new terms will be offered as juniors enter or move through training and onto new contracts as current contracts expire. This is simply exercising a right that employers have when unable to reach agreement on changes with trade unions. It would not be practical or democratic to allow any trade union to exercise a veto over reforms that support the delivery of the elected Government’s manifesto commitments.The new contract is safer for patients and fairer for doctors. Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in one week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum consecutive nights will be reduced from 7 to 4; the maximum consecutive long days will be reduced from 7 to 5; and no doctor will ever be required to be rostered consecutive weekends. We will also introduce a new ‘Guardian’ role within every Trust with the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours.  These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.\n\nThe new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5pm, nights from 9pm to 7am, and all day on Sunday. Plain time hours will now be extended from 7am to 5pm on Saturdays. However the government was willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay and we have been: those working 1 in 4 or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%, higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff. It is also a higher premium than that available to fire officers, police officers or those in many other walks of life. None the less it does represent a reduction compared to current rates, necessary to ensure hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering. So because we do not want take home pay to go down for junior doctors, these changes will allow an increase of 13.5%. Three quarters of doctors will see a take home pay rise and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.\n\nWe recognise the negotiation process has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ wellbeing and quality of life that need to be addressed. These issues include inflexibility around leave, lack of notice about placements that can be a long way away from home, separation from spouses and families, and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. The Government has therefore asked Prof. Dame Sue Bailey, President of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to lead a review of measures outside the contract to improve morale of junior doctors. The Government has committed an extra £10billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services for patients across all 7 days of the week.\n\nDepartment of Health","created_at":"2016-03-17T15:00:53.898Z","updated_at":"2017-01-13T14:26:52.829Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because the Committee does not have the power to schedule debates on motions of no confidence, and the petition does not contain a specific request for action on policy. \r\n\r\nIt is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law, rather than a petition about an individual Minister. It is still open to MPs to seek time for a debate on this petition in the main House of Commons Chamber, if they wish to do so. However, debates on motions of no confidence are fairly rare.\r\n\r\nYou might be interested to know that the Petitions Committee has scheduled a debate on  21 March on an e-petition calling on Jeremy Hunt to resume contract negotiations with the BMA. You can read the petition and find out how to watch the debate here:\r\n\r\nhttps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121262","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":178844,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/178844.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":"Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom.","background":"Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because he is the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":317542,"created_at":"2017-01-29T11:40:35.005Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:25:15.288Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-01-30T16:56:19.950Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-29T12:09:44.050Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-30T20:25:04.250Z","government_response_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.989Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-31T13:01:24.786Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-01-31","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-02-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-02-21T09:47:22.026Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-02-13","summary":"HM Government believes the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit. We look forward to welcoming President Trump once dates and arrangements are finalised.","details":"HM Government supports this petition.\n\nDuring her visit to the United States on 27 January 2017, the Prime Minister, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, invited President Trump for a State Visit to the UK later this year. The invitation was accepted. This invitation reflects the importance of the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. At this stage, final dates have not yet been agreed for the State Visit.  \n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.987Z","updated_at":"2017-02-13T13:58:37.987Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-02-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20/debates/34847E5C-8B14-46E6-8251-AE99526CC011/PresidentTrumpStateVisit","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85c7c283-d353-4863-8628-3a012a80b2f5","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104349,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104349.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 the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.","background":"Legalising cannabis could bring in £900m in taxes every year, save £400m on policing cannabis and create over 10,000 new jobs. \r\n\r\nA substance that is safer than alcohol, and has many uses. It is believed to have been used by humans for over 4000 years, being made illegal in the UK in 1925. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":236995,"created_at":"2015-07-20T15:36:33.017Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:04:40.827Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T08:29:48.141Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T17:39:58.248Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-22T16:01:34.636Z","government_response_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.706Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-25T08:49:55.926Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-12","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-13T10:40:27.705Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-08-25","summary":"Substantial scientific evidence shows cannabis is a harmful drug that can damage human health. There are no plans to legalise cannabis as it would not address the harm to individuals and communities.","details":"The latest evidence from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is that the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue (‘Cannabis Classification and Public Health’, 2008).\n\nCannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society. Legalisation of cannabis would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery that this can cause to families.\n\nLegalisation would also send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.\n\nDespite the potential opportunity offered by legalisation to raise revenue through taxation, there would be costs in relation to administrative, compliance and law enforcement activities, as well as the wider costs of drug prevention and health services.\n\nThe UK's approach on drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities; help dependent individuals through treatment and wider recovery support; while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping the supply and tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade. The Government will build on the Drugs Strategy by continuing to take a balanced and coherent approach to address the evolving challenges posed.\n\nThere are positive signs that the Government’s approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10. The number of adults aged 16-59 using cannabis in the last year in England and Wales has declined over the last decade from 9.6% to 6.7%, with cannabis use amongst young adults aged 16-24 and young people aged 11-15 following a similar pattern. \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-08-25T09:14:40.704Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:51:57.078Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-12/debates/15101213000001/Cannabis","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c277985b-3edb-4f13-93f2-902bf81ea208","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":125692,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/125692.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 spending a fixed 0.7 per cent slice of our national wealth on Foreign Aid","background":"Despite spending cuts at home the Government is committed to hand over 0.7% of national income in overseas aid, regardless of need. The Mail on Sunday believes voters do not want this and instead, we should provide money only for truly deserving causes, on a case-by-case basis.\r\n","additional_details":"Read articles at: www.mailonsunday.co.uk/foreignaid\r\n\r\nA bill passed in 2015 required the Government to spend a fixed 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid. UK handouts will rise from current £12bn to £16bn by 2020. This is by far the highest rate of any G20 nation and is leading to huge waste and corruption. We believe this is the wrong approach because it fuels waste by focussing on targets, not outcomes. Foreign aid should provide money for the job, not jobs for the money.\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":235979,"created_at":"2016-03-24T15:02:14.691Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:13:02.946Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-03-24T16:44:36.177Z","closed_at":"2016-09-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-24T16:41:34.182Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-27T01:20:18.080Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-12T13:40:11.645Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-03-27T19:33:04.436Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-04-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-06-13","debate_outcome_at":"2016-06-14T09:29:56.420Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-12","summary":"The UK’s aid commitment means we can be proud to be a country that not only meets its responsibilities to the world’s poorest, but in doing so best serves and protects its own security and interests.","details":"The UK’s commitments on overseas aid were part of the 2015 manifesto on which the government was elected. The government is keeping its promise to the electorate, tackling global challenges in the national interest.\n\nBritain faces a simple choice: either we wait for the problems of the world to arrive on our doorstep, or we take action to tackle them at source.\n\nUK aid, whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, is about creating a more stable and secure world.\n\nOver the last five years, UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. We have supported 11 million children through school. We have helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. We are leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation.\n\nUK aid is spent where it is most needed and is subject to rigorous internal and external checks and scrutiny at all stages. The UK’s aid programmes are scrutinised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the International Development Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee in Parliament, and the National Audit Office. This is in addition to internal monitoring and evaluation to ensure projects stay on track and deliver value for taxpayers’ money.\n\nThe government has realigned the UK’s aid strategy, cutting wasteful programmes and making sure spending is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Alongside an increased defence budget and the UK’s world class diplomatic service, our aid programme is helping to create a more prosperous and stable world in which the UK can stand tall and flourish.\n\nBritain’s aid strategy recognises that tackling poverty overseas means tackling the root causes of global problems that affect all of us, such as disease, migration, and terrorism. The Department for International Development is the UK’s primary channel for aid, but to respond to the changing world, more aid will be administered by other government departments, such as the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department of Health, and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, drawing on their complementary skills.\n\nThe government will invest more through its aid programme to tackle the causes of instability, insecurity and conflict, and to tackle crime and corruption. DFID is already working with the Metropolitan Police, National Crime Agency, and HMRC to recover funds stolen from developing countries, and help countries build proper tax systems and robust institutions so they can stand on their own two feet.\n\nThis is an approach that works; as well as delivering humanitarian aid to crisis zones and targeting the root causes of the migration crisis, it is increasing economic prospects in fragile states to help counter extremism, and helping build our future trading partners.\n\nYou can the read the full UK aid strategy here:\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478834/ODA_strategy_final_web_0905.pdf\n\nDepartment for International Development","created_at":"2016-04-12T13:40:11.636Z","updated_at":"2016-04-12T13:57:14.659Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-06-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-06-13/debates/16061315000001/ForeignAidExpenditure","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d3ed341d-af80-4b35-aee4-f1e20d8f40c4","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104334,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104334.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 debate a vote of no confidence in Health Secretary the Right Hon Jeremy Hunt","background":"Jeremy Hunt has alienated the entire workforce of the NHS by threatening to impose a harsh contract and conditions on first consultants and soon the rest of the NHS staff. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":231136,"created_at":"2015-07-20T13:02:14.720Z","updated_at":"2017-12-18T17:39:44.469Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-20T14:12:50.460Z","closed_at":"2016-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T13:56:15.383Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-20T18:57:24.174Z","government_response_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.250Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-21T15:54:26.382Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-08","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-09-14","debate_outcome_at":"2015-09-15T14:42:56.281Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-07-24","summary":"The Government is committed to delivering seven day services to make sure that patients get the same high quality, safe care on a Saturday and Sunday as they do on a week day.","details":"Many people do not realise that if you are admitted to hospital on a weekend, you have a 16% greater chance of dying. The Government wants to change this so that everyone can be confident that they will receive the same level of care whatever day of the week they are admitted to an NHS hospital.\n\nNHS consultants already provide an outstanding service and show great dedication to ensuring patients get the best outcomes. But the Government has a duty to make sure the system is set up in a way which makes it as easy as possible for hospitals to organise their resources to maximise patient safety across every day of the week.\n\nTo understand more about the possible issues for staff contracts, last year the government asked the independent pay review bodies for NHS staff - The Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) and the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB) for their observations and recommendations about how the reform of employment contracts could help support the delivery of seven day services in England. \n\nThe reports were published this month. They identified that a major barrier to seven day services is a decade old contractual right in the consultants’ contract negotiated by their union representatives in 2003 that allows senior doctors to refuse to work non-emergency work in the evenings, at nights and at weekends. No junior doctor, nurse or other clinical group has any such right. Other senior public sector professionals who work in services required to keep the public safe, such as police officers, firemen and prison governors, do not have this opt out either.\n\nWhilst the vast majority of consultants work tirelessly for their patients, the opt out allows individuals to charge employers hugely expensive payments which are much higher than national contract rates (up to £200 an hour). The average earnings for a hospital consultant are already in the top 2% in the country at £118,000, and these inflated payments can make it difficult for hospitals to provide the weekend cover they know patients need.\n\nThe report endorsed  the removal of the opt out, as well as broadly supporting other changes to the consultant contract that would ensure the right level of cover is available every day of the week; not just Monday to Friday.\n\nUnder the new plans, doctors will still continue to receive a significantly higher rate for working unsocial hours and there will be a contractual limit (not an expectation) of working a maximum of 13 weekends a year.\n\nBy the end of the Parliament, the Government hopes that the majority of consultants, in line with existing practice for nurses, midwives and junior doctors, will be on reformed contracts, working across seven days, to deliver a better service to patients. Hospitals like Salford Royal and Northumbria that have instituted seven day services have already seen improvements in patient care and staff morale. \n\nThese new plans will mean that doctors working in some of the toughest areas in the NHS, such as A&E and obstetrics, will at last be properly rewarded and there will be faster pay progression for all consultants early on in their career. Under the new proposals, the highest performing consultants could be able to receive up to £30,000 a year in bonus payments, on top of their base salary.\n\nOf course, improving weekend care requires more than just ensuring greater consultant presence.  That's why the government is also addressing issues such as access to weekend diagnostic services, provision of out of hospital care to facilitate weekend discharges, and adequate staffing cover amongst other clinical groups,. But NHS leaders and the independent pay review bodies are clear that increasing the presence of senior clinical decision makers at weekends is vital, and that the consultant opt out remains a barrier to organising broader support services and staff rotas.\n\nThe Government feels it is under an obligation to the public to do all it can to make NHS care at the weekend as safe as during the week through the delivery of seven day services this Parliament and that is what it will continue to do.\n\nDepartment for Health","created_at":"2015-07-24T10:15:58.247Z","updated_at":"2015-12-03T14:59:43.805Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-09-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-09-14/debates/15091415000001/NHS(ContractsAndConditions)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d6fbba1f-282d-4027-82b7-754baad69ce6","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113064,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113064.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":"Vote no on military action in Syria against IS in response to the Paris attacks","background":"In response to the tragedy of the Paris attacks, the British government is considering military action; air strikes against ISIS targets. However, this is the response that ISIS is wanting and hopes to gain recruits and increase its numbers from the fear and radicalise more people against the West.","additional_details":"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457\r\n\r\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33851482\r\n\r\nThere are other avenues to solve ISIS that should be considered such as freezing their assets, shutting down ISIS related social media accounts and restricting access to arms from selling weapons to the Middle East. There is no one solution that should be considered, but murdering people will just make things worse.\r\n\r\nhttp://stopwar.org.uk/resources/petitions/stop-the-bombing-of-syria-now-lobby-your-mp-now\r\n\r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":227745,"created_at":"2015-11-17T23:16:23.248Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:15.318Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-20T16:51:17.688Z","closed_at":"2016-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-17T23:33:57.970Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-24T21:31:00.277Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.304Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-29T23:31:16.979Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-03T18:46:24.990Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-13","summary":"Following a lengthy debate, MPs voted for the UK to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. Military action is only one element of the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh.   ","details":"One week after the tragic attacks in Paris, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249; a clear call for action against Daesh, using all necessary measures. \n\nThe UK has always been committed to defeating Daesh.  Parliament’s approval of airstrikes in Syria on 2 December has allowed the UK to join our allies in the Global Coalition in striking Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq, where we have been active since the start of the Coalition’s campaign.\n\nThe UK Government supported extending British airstrikes against Daesh into Syria as an integral part of a much broader strategy to degrade Daesh and reduce the threat it poses to us.\n\nOur comprehensive overall strategy to tackle Daesh globally includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action, as well as military.  The UK is a leading part of a Global Coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united to defeat Daesh on all fronts.  We are attacking Daesh militarily, but we are also squeezing its finances, disrupting the flow of fighters, challenging its poisonous ideology and working to stabilise areas liberated from Daesh.  We must pursue all these tracks in parallel.\n\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that tackling Daesh financing is a key element of our comprehensive strategy. Daesh gains most of its funding from the territory it controls – by selling oil, by taxing and exhorting local populations, and by seizing and selling prized antiquities.  The UK has led UN efforts on sanctions, making it illegal to sell oil and oil products to Daesh. We are also expanding existing work with regional partners to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside formal financial system, by cutting access to black market and international money flows and to stop smuggling.   However, the military campaign is also crucial; through targeted military actions, the Global Coalition has already damaged or destroyed 260 oil infrastructure targets.\n\nWe must tackle Daesh in Syria, as we are doing with some success in Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that Daesh poses to the region and to our security in the UK.  As the threat from Daesh grows, we must take action - recognising that no course of action is without risk, but that inaction – not dealing with Daesh at source – also carries grave risk.\n\nThe Prime Minister has also been clear that the UK will continue to support the diplomatic and political process.  The UK’s priority in Syria has always been to achieve a political settlement which is the only way to stop this terrible war and give Syrians hope for the future.\n\nAs members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) we are working with a host of countries including Russia, the US, France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN, towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional government, a new constitution and free and fair elections.   All those countries have accepted the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué – the need for Syrian-led and Syrian owned political transition.  The composition of the transitional government will be negotiated by Syrians through the peace process, with the support of the UN and the ISSG.  We welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2254 on 18 December requesting UN-convened peace negotiations and formally endorsing the ISSG Vienna process.  As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN on 18 December “This has given new international momentum towards the resumption of Syrian-led talks”.\n\nWe remain committed to supporting international efforts to alleviate the terrible humanitarian suffering.  The UK is playing its part.  We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  But more is needed. The Supporting Syria and the Region London 2016 Conference in February will aim to raise significant new funding from a wider range of partners to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis within Syria and to support neighbouring countries.\n\nWhile military operations are inherently risky, we take the protection of civilians very seriously.  We employ rigorous targeting protocols.  In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations.  The UK has the most advanced forms of targeting and precision weaponry, possessed by only a small number of countries, which enables us to strike accurately, with minimal collateral damage.  These same high standards are being applied in Syria.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.301Z","updated_at":"2016-01-13T12:01:27.301Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-12-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-12-02/debates/15120254000002/ISILInSyria","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":190627,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/190627.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 online abuse a specific criminal offence and create a register of offenders","background":"Trolling is a major problem in this day and age. People of all ages and background suffer every day, including my family - especially my son Harvey. I have tried my best to expose people and even had two arrested but nothing was done and there were no repercussions or penalties for this behaviour.\r\n","additional_details":"This does not affect just high profile people it affects everyone from every walk of life from young children, teenagers, people at work, husbands and wives. This abuse includes racism, homophobia, body shaming and a whole range of other hate speech.\r\n\r\nThis petition is an important topical issue and I want it to help bring justice to everyone who has ever suffered at the hands of trolls. Help me to hammer home worldwide that bullying is unacceptable whether it's face to face or in an online space. \r\n","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221914,"created_at":"2017-03-14T21:02:21.868Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T15:13:49.637Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-03-28T14:02:01.409Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-14T21:12:28.633Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-28T19:45:02.569Z","government_response_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.321Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-29T15:22:56.003Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-04-29","debate_outcome_at":"2019-05-01T11:20:38.202Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-04-18","summary":"We recognise that behaviour that is not tolerated offline is now common online. DCMS is working on an Internet Safety Strategy which aims to make the UK a safer place for young people to be online.","details":"The internet has provided everyone with some amazing opportunities. It can help isolated individuals find safe communities and can be an amazing resource for people to develop their creativity. However, government recognises that behaviour that would never be tolerated in the real world has become increasingly common online with potentially devastating impacts.\n\nThe law does not differentiate between criminal offences committed on social media or anywhere else. Where something is illegal offline it is also illegal online and there is already legislation which applies in relation to online abuse. A variety of different offences already exist covering communications which are grossly offensive, obscene, indecent or false. It is also an offence to send certain articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety.\n\nWhile we will continue to monitor the situation, we believe that our current legal approach is the right one. The House of Lords Communications Select Committee stated in their report into Social Media and Criminal Offences in July 2014 that the criminal law in this area, almost entirely enacted before the invention of social media, is generally appropriate for the prosecution of offences committed using social media.\n\nThe Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published revised guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media on 10 October 2016. The guidelines provide prosecutors with a clear framework for a consistent approach to all cases involving social media and are available to the public on the CPS website.\n\nThe revised guidelines contain a number of new sections, including on:\n● Hate Crime, which makes it more likely that a prosecution is required\n● Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG), including potential cyber-enabled VAWG offences, such as “baiting”, humiliating peers online by labelling them sexually promiscuous\n● False or offensive social media profiles\n● Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses\n● Reporting and preventing abuse on social media\nThis update also includes types of offences that may be committed, such as hacking into social media accounts in order to monitor and control them or potentially menacing or threatening actions such as posting pictures of the complainant’s workplace or children on social media sites, even if no reference is made to the complainant.\n\nThe issue of keeping people safe online is a top priority for this Government. DCMS is leading a new cross-Government drive on online safety, on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will involve ministers and officials from departments across Government as part of a coordinated effort to make the UK the safest place in the world for children and young people to go online.\n\nWe want to know more about the scale of the problems that young people face online, identify where the gaps are and start to think about solutions, which we will develop in a Green Paper to be published before the summer. The work is expected to centre on four main priorities: how to help young people help themselves; helping parents face up to the online risks and discuss them with children; how technology can help provide solutions; and importantly, industry’s responsibilities to society.\n\nWhile the initial focus will be on children and young people, the Strategy will consider how to make the online world a safer place more generally, including by examining concerns around issues like trolling and other aggressive behaviour. The Strategy will draw out relevant links between solutions that will protect children online that will also help in the fight against online violence against women and girls.\n\nThe Strategy will build on the good work that has already been done in this area by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) which brings together government, industry, law enforcement, academia, charities and parenting groups to work in partnership to help to keep children and young people safe online.\nIn December 2015, UKCCIS published a practical guide for providers of social media and interactive services. The guide has examples of good practice from leading technology companies (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube), and advice from NGOs and other online child safety experts. Its purpose is to encourage businesses to think about “safety by design” to help make their platforms safer for children and young people under 18.\n\nWe already expect industry to improve online safety provisions at the same speed and with the same determination with which they bring out new products and innovations. We expect social media companies to have relevant safeguards in place, including access restrictions, particularly for children and young people who use their services. Social media companies should have reporting tools that are easy to access and act promptly when abuse is reported, removing content which does not comply with acceptable use policies or terms and conditions, and, where appropriate, suspend or terminate the accounts of those breaching the rules in place.\n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.318Z","updated_at":"2017-04-18T10:59:25.318Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-04-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-29/debates/65420802-6952-4830-9CF3-1B4001FFE0EA/OnlineAbuse","video_url":"https://youtu.be/S00UaiQAcQU","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0098","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":116762,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/116762.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 CAMERON spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets","background":"Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum - without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government.","additional_details":"We, the petitioners, demand the Government STOPS spending our money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union. \r\n\r\nThe Great British Public have waited since 1975 for a vote on our relationship with Brussels. No taxpayers’ money should be spent on campaign literature to keep Britain inside the EU.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221866,"created_at":"2015-12-21T13:31:03.996Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:09:35.198Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-12-22T16:34:06.166Z","closed_at":"2016-06-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-21T14:01:51.201Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-27T17:00:47.398Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-07T21:32:40.753Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-04-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-05-09","debate_outcome_at":"2016-05-10T12:58:24.960Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-20","summary":"The EU Referendum Act 2015 commits the Government to provide information to the public on EU membership ahead of the vote, and that is what we will do.","details":"We are fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. Throughout we are driven by one consideration – what is best for our economic and national security. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 means there will be a referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017.  This is a big decision for the country.  The Government is determined that the public should be clear on what reforms have been agreed, and what EU membership means for the UK.  \n\nThe Referendum Act requires the Government to publish reports that set out the outcome of the negotiation of our EU membership and the Government’s opinion on that outcome and provide information on rights and obligations in EU law and on examples of countries that do not have EU membership but do have other arrangements with the EU. \n\nIn the last 28 days of the referendum period, Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will apply.  This restricts publications about the referendum by bodies or persons that are wholly or mainly publicly funded.  It is fully expected that the voices of the two official designated campaigns will lead the debate.\n\nIn the end, the British people will decide whether we are stronger and better off with our European neighbours as part of the European Union, or on our own.  That is because we made a promise and kept it – to deliver an in-out referendum.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z","updated_at":"2016-01-20T17:47:26.978Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-05-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-05-09/debates/1605098000001/EUReferendumLeaflet","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/93a979e7-4c8a-4d3f-89b1-529df4b4cad4","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":180642,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/180642.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":"Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen","background":"We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":221514,"created_at":"2017-01-30T20:30:18.662Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T14:43:36.154Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-06T18:14:20.373Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-01-31T11:02:33.952Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-13T20:45:06.723Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.717Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-03-15T08:17:03.173Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-13","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-14T09:42:50.262Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-30","summary":"The UK Government is clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum. ","details":"The UK needs to work together, putting all our energies into ensuring we get the right deal for the UK and for Scotland in our negotiations with the EU. \n\nIn 2014, the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish Governments to respecting the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Calling for a second referendum is creating damaging uncertainty for the economy, and most people in Scotland do not want the country to be plunged into another divisive campaign. All our focus should be on our negotiations with the EU and  working together to get the right deal for Scotland and the right deal for the UK. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like. \n\nAs the Prime Minister has set out, we will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the Devolved Administrations. \n\nThis will be an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process.\n\nScotland Office","created_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.714Z","updated_at":"2017-03-30T16:53:32.714Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-13/debates/42449346-E2BE-4429-921B-3F72D50E27B9/ReferendumOnScottishIndependence","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4f1a9acc-4b0a-4142-b89a-d623b580f839","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.intranet.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0219","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":106477,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/106477.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 allowing immigrants into the UK.","background":"The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country! ","additional_details":"If the Government does not do anything, then Britain may take in 12 million more immigrants by 2060. There is footage of foreigners destroying British soldiers graves,  which is a huge disrespect to us. Sign this petition to show the government what they need to do!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":216949,"created_at":"2015-08-21T22:58:36.240Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:05:43.486Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-08-25T13:23:52.756Z","closed_at":"2016-02-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-08-21T23:05:13.292Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-04T04:28:03.060Z","government_response_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.436Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-09-07T20:14:13.386Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2015-09-15","scheduled_debate_date":"2015-10-19","debate_outcome_at":"2015-10-20T09:13:18.018Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-10-26","summary":"We are building an immigration system that works in the public interest. We welcome the brightest and the best who come here legally to work and study, but believe net migration should be lower(contd)","details":"and are clamping down on illegal migration, including through the Immigration Bill. We will also introduce a new approach to asylum - with strict new rules for people who abuse the system, and greater generosity for people who need our help.\n\nThe UK has a proud history of protecting those most in need.  As the Prime Minister announced to Parliament at the beginning of last month, the UK will accept a further 20,000 migrants dislocated from their homes following the Syrian crisis.  The UK can be proud that since the start of that conflict we have been at the forefront of the humanitarian response. We are providing more than £1 billion in aid – making us the second biggest bilateral donor in the world. Our contribution is almost as much as the rest of the EU put together. We can be proud of our contribution and our history of valuing diversity in the UK. \n\nUncontrolled immigration, however, places pressure on public services, the labour market and wages. \n\nTo control legal migration we have changed the profile of migrants coming here to work and study from outside the EU, to ensure that we are genuinely welcoming the brightest and the best.  The figures show this strategy is working, with a 17% increase in the number of sponsored student visas applications for universities since 2010, and a rise of 33% for the elite Russell Group universities.  We have toughened access to welfare and housing and non-EU immigration remains 10% lower than in September 2010.  Going forward, our long term economic plan will see many more young Britons given the training and skills they need to fill the jobs our booming economy is creating. \n\nIn terms of illegal migration one of the most visible pressure points has been at Calais.  Over the summer the migrant population in this area increased to around 5,000 and there was an associated increase in the number of illegal attempts to breach the border.  \n\nThe Government has made good progress with the French Government to address this situation.  The declaration the Home Secretary signed with the French Interior Minister, on 20th August, cements a comprehensive programme of work between France and the UK including additional French police, and extra fencing, search dogs and other security measures provided by the UK.  \n\nThe Government is also taking action through a new Immigration Bill that was introduced to Parliament on 17th September.\n\nThe Government is introducing new powers to build an immigration system that works in the best interests of the UK and those who play by the rules. Illegal workers will face having their earnings seized, while rogue employers could have their businesses closed.\n\nThe Bill will make it harder for people to settle in the UK when they have no right to do so, building on the Immigration Act 2014 to further restrict access to services for illegal migrants. Landlords will be able to evict illegal migrants more quickly and access to driving licences and bank accounts will be further protected as services for only the lawfully resident population.\n\nThe Bill will close existing loopholes that allow certain illegal migrants to claim asylum support even though they do not have a pending asylum application or appeal. We will continue to meet all of our international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, but equally we expect other illegal migrants to depart from the UK rather than providing access to support.\n\nThe Bill will make it easier to remove people who should not be in the UK by introducing new powers to tag foreign national offenders released on bail, and extending “deport now, appeal later” certification powers to more immigration cases. We will also be equipping immigration officers with additional search and seizure powers to better enforce our immigration laws. \n\nFinally, as the Home Secretary set out earlier this month, we will introduce a new approach to asylum with strict new rules for people who abuse the system in Britain, and greater generosity for people in parts of the world where we know they need our help.  For example, we will take a tougher approach to those who claim asylum after abusing the visa system or having travelled to get here through safe countries but we will establish a register of people and organisations that can provide houses for the settlement of genuine refugees.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z","updated_at":"2015-10-26T10:11:14.433Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-10-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-10-19/debates/15101914000001/Immigration","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2e5038-cbf0-4a43-bfc3-6a6deb279c4d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":173199,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/173199.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":"Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)","background":"A bill allowing UK intelligence agencies and police unprecedented levels of power regarding the surveillance of UK citizens has recently passed and is awaiting royal assent, making it law. \r\n\r\nThis means it's not too late!\r\nThis is an absolute disgrace to both privacy and freedom and needs to stop!","additional_details":"With this bill, they will be able to hack, read and store any information from any citizen's computer or phone, without even the requirement of proof that the citizen is up to no good. \r\n\r\nThis essentially entitles them to free reign of your files, whether you're a law-abiding citizen or not!\r\n\r\nThis is sickening. It has only made it this far due to it being snuck past the population in relative secrecy. It isn't too late. We can fix this before the UK is turned into a dystopian surveillance state.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":212743,"created_at":"2016-11-20T00:52:32.484Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:22:25.831Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-11-23T11:56:18.361Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-20T01:32:34.242Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-24T22:22:03.669Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.559Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-26T16:44:33.030Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-12-06T16:47:34.931Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-29","summary":"The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.","details":"The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.\n\nThe Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.\n\nThe Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.\n\nSecond, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.\n\nThird, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.\n\nPublic scrutiny\n\nThe Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.\nThe Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.\n\nThe Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.\n\nA revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time. \n\nThe Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes. \n\nPrivacy and Oversight\n\nThe Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy. \n\nA new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.\nThe safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.557Z","updated_at":"2016-11-29T12:00:09.557Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons.  \r\n\r\nThe Investigatory Powers Bill was debated on many occasions in Parliament before it became law. You can read all the debates here: \r\nhttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html \r\n\r\nBefore it was introduced into Parliament, the Bill was investigated by a Committee of MPs and Members of the House of Lords, who heard evidence and produced a report with recommendations about the Bill. You can find out about the work of that Committee here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-investigatory-powers-bill/\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":129698,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/129698.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":"No more school penalty fines and bring back the 10 day authorised absence","background":"Back in 2013 the government changed the law on taking your children out of school in term time so that now you receive a penalty fine of £60 per child per parent. This can increase . The law prevents families from taking term time holidays forcing families to pay extra during school holidays.  ","additional_details":"Myself and my wife received a fine for our two eldest children (two fines each parent) for taking our children on holiday for 5 days in term time which was the only week free from surgery and radiotherapy (school knew of cancer diagnosis) This apparently is not an exceptional circumstance. The council quote is S.444 A or 1 of the Education act 1996 which in its own term indicates truancy and not a one off family holiday. Councils are too ready to fine and wont consider exceptional circumstances","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":204790,"created_at":"2016-05-07T15:42:05.203Z","updated_at":"2018-09-07T08:52:21.914Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-09T14:55:37.872Z","closed_at":"2016-11-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-08T12:07:26.922Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-10T07:59:25.978Z","government_response_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.399Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-05-11T09:57:07.851Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-05-24","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-07-11","debate_outcome_at":"2016-07-12T12:11:56.836Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-07-08","summary":"Evidence shows that every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chance of gaining good GCSEs. The Government is committed to reducing all school absence unless there are unavoidable reasons.","details":"The Government has focused on reducing absence in schools so that every pupil receives an education that allows them to reach their full potential. \n\nResearch shows that the amount of time missed from school is linked with a pupil’s academic success. The most recent research ‘The link between absence and attainment at key stage 2 and key stage 4: 2013 to 2014 academic year’(1)  was published by the Department for Education on 24 March 2016, and shows that every extra day of school missed can affect a child’s attainment at the end of key stage 2 and key stage 4. Missing school unnecessarily is unfair to children as it can damage their life chances.\n\nThe Government acknowledges that family holidays can be enriching experiences. The school year is designed to give families multiple opportunities to enjoy holidays without disrupting their children’s education. Parents should plan their holidays around school breaks and avoid taking their children out of school during term-time, except in exceptional circumstances. Head teachers know their pupils best and are best placed to make these decisions by considering the merits of each request and deciding whether or not it qualifies as an exceptional circumstance. \n\nIn 2013, the Government clarified the law that enables head teachers to authorise a leave of absence, allowing for term-time holidays in exceptional circumstances only. There was previously a widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term-time. No such entitlement has ever existed in law. The misconception had been created by the previous allowance for head teachers to grant up to 10 days of leave for ‘special circumstances’. \n\nTo address unauthorised absence the Government increased the financial penalty parents must pay for their child’s unauthorised absence, shortened the time permitted to pay a penalty notice from 42 days to 28 days and placed a greater emphasis on school attendance levels in inspection outcomes. \n\nAs a consequence, the number of persistent absentees in England’s schools has dropped by over 40%, from 433,000 in 2009/10 to 246,000 in 2014/15. Some 6 million fewer days were lost due to authorised absences in the first six half terms in 2014/15 compared to the equivalent period in 2012/13, a drop from a total of 47.9 million days missed to 41.8 million days missed. Overall absence rates have followed a significant downward trend from 6.5% in the academic year ending in 2007 to 4.6% in the academic year ending in 2015. In 2012/13, 7.0% of all absences were accounted for by authorised term-time holiday. This figure dropped to 2.6% of all absences in 2013/14 and 1.6% of all absences in 2014/15. Overall, this means that, on average, pupils miss fewer days at school than they did in 2010, and therefore are receiving less interruption to their education.\n\nThe recent High Court judgment (Isle of Wight Council vs. Platt, 13 May 2016), ruling that the magistrates who heard the case did not err in law when determining the attendance of the child, was disappointing. The Government is clear that school attendance is non-negotiable. The Department for Education is therefore providing support to the Isle of Wight Council in their application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment.\n\nIn addition, the Minister of State for Schools has written to all schools and local authorities, setting out the importance of good school attendance for raising standards. In his letter, the Minister reminded head teachers of their duty to determine whether or not a request for absence is granted. He also made clear that the High Court’s judgment did not establish that a pupil’s attendance above 90% is regarded as ‘regular’ attendance.\n\nThe Government will continue to ensure that pupils attend every school day possible. When children take unauthorised absence, they miss vital stepping stones towards understanding curriculum content. The Government’s measures will ensure that pupils receive the maximum amount of schooling possible, helping to ensure that all pupils reach their potential, irrespective of background, ability or aptitude. Improving school attendance will continue to play a central role in our commitment to create a world-class education system in this country.  \n\n(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/absence-and-attainment-at-key-stages-2-and-4-2013-to-2014\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.397Z","updated_at":"2016-07-08T11:49:24.397Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-07-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-11/debates/1607115000001/SchoolPenaltyFinesAndAuthorisedAbsence","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e487aaf6-6065-4c01-93f8-faffaa2fa33d","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":104471,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104471.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":"Vote no confidence in David Cameron","background":"The current Tory government has caused devastation for the poorest in society for the last 5 years. We cannot afford another 5 years of Tory rule, with the recent welfare reform that will cause nothing but immense poverty in the UK. ","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":199391,"created_at":"2015-07-21T10:34:08.042Z","updated_at":"2018-04-18T13:03:13.521Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-07-21T11:33:30.327Z","closed_at":"2016-01-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-21T10:47:13.661Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-07-28T16:17:08.314Z","government_response_at":"2015-12-23T15:01:30.667Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-05T17:58:52.129Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-11-18T17:22:31.035Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-12-23","summary":"The Government’s reforms to welfare are focused on encouraging people to find and keep work, while developing a system that is fair, affordable and protects the most vulnerable in our society.","details":"The Government’s reforms to welfare are focused on encouraging people to find and keep work, while developing a system that is fair, affordable and protects the most vulnerable in our society. We know that work is the best route out of poverty and that is why we are building a strong economy and getting people into work. \n\nThe progress made over the past five years provides clear evidence that our approach is working. Since 2010, 2.25 million more people are in employment, the overall number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits has fallen by over 1 million, and we have the lowest number of workless households on record. \n\nWe are committed to driving real change and tackling the root causes of poverty - that’s why we are putting into law our new life chances measures on worklessness and educational attainment. These will ensure there is real action in the areas which will make the biggest difference to children in low income families, both now and in the future. \n\nThe Department for Work and Pensions offers a range of support in jobcentres across the UK, to help people into employment. This includes work placements, employer-led training, skills training, and help for promising entrepreneurs through the New Enterprise Allowance.\n\nThe introduction of Universal Credit marks a fundamental reform to welfare in this country. By combining six working-age benefits into one, Universal Credit simplifies the benefits system and ensures that work always pays. Compared to similar Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants, Universal Credit claimants spend twice as much time looking for a job, are 8 percentage points more likely to be in work, and earn more.  \n\nAs well as getting more people into work, the Government is also committed to helping those in work keep more of the money they earn. We have committed to increasing the Personal Allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in April 2016, and raising the higher rate threshold from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in April 2016. As a result of these changes, 29 million people will benefit and 570,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether. \n\nWe also increased the adult National Minimum Wage rate to £6.70 in October 2015 and from April 2016 workers over the age of 25 will be entitled to a National Living Wage of £7.20 per hour, which is forecast to rise to £9 by 2020.\n\nIn addition, the introduction of an improved childcare offer will help support parents into work. Working families will benefit from 30 hours of free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds from September 2017, and under Universal Credit from April 2016, claimants will get 85% of their childcare costs covered, up from 70% currently. \n\nTaken together, these reforms ensure that the right support and incentives are in place so that people are always better off in work rather than trapped on benefits. They will help the lowest paid workers to keep more of the money they earn, while ensuring we move towards a society of higher wages, lower taxes and lower welfare.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2015-12-23T15:01:30.664Z","updated_at":"2016-01-18T17:27:10.037Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because the Committee does not have the power to schedule debates on motions of no confidence, and the petition does not contain a specific request for action on policy. \r\n\r\nIt is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law, rather than a petition about an individual Minister. \r\n\r\nIt is still open to MPs to seek time for a debate on this petition in the main House of Commons Chamber, if they wish to do so. However, debates on motions of no confidence are fairly rare. \r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":110776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/110776.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 fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women","background":"The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with a lack of appropriate notification","additional_details":"The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA to 65, the same as men’s.  Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), agree with equalisation,  but don’t agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little/no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans.  Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.  ","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":193185,"created_at":"2015-10-20T16:09:34.695Z","updated_at":"2017-09-14T08:24:39.524Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-10-20T16:47:03.447Z","closed_at":"2016-04-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-20T16:37:14.912Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-10-21T22:14:12.328Z","government_response_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.103Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-01-02T14:20:26.972Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2016-01-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2016-02-01","debate_outcome_at":"2016-02-02T17:34:08.156Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2015-11-05","summary":"State Pension age changes were first made in 1995. All women affected have been directly contacted following the changes. There are no plans to alter State Pension age arrangements for this group. ","details":"Firstly, to clarify, State Pension age (SPa) changes affect individuals in the following way:\n• Women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953 have an SPa set by the 1995 Pensions Act, of between 60 and 63. This group will reach SPa by March 2016, and will therefore receive a State Pension under the current system.\n• Women born between 6th April 1953 and 5th December 1953 have an SPa set by the 2011 Pensions Act, of between 63 and 65. The maximum increase in SPa that anybody will experience relative to the 1995 timetable is 16 months. This group will reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. \n• Men and women born between 6th December 1953 and 5th April 1960 have an SPa set by the 2011 Act, of between 65 and 66. Of the approximately five million individuals affected by the 2011 change, two point four million are men. For women, the maximum increase in SPa relative to the previous timetable is 18 months and for men it is 12 months. This group will also reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension.\n\nBoth the 1995 and 2011 changes followed on from public calls for evidence. The Government has notified the women affected by the State Pension age changes. Following the 2011 changes, DWP wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their State Pension age - using the address details recorded by HMRC at the time. Mailing to these individuals, due to reach State Pension age between 2016 and 2026, was completed between January 2012 and November 2013, subject to the accuracy of their address details with HMRC. Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011. The DWP also has information on State Pension age changes and who they affect on gov.uk. This includes State Pension age timetables, impact assessments (including an impact assessment for the 2011 Pensions Act) and a State Pension age calculator. In addition, the State Pension age equalisation changes were built into the State Pension statement IT system; introduced in 2001. Therefore, statements produced on request using this system would have included women’s new State Pension ages as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act. \n\nThe Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 1995 or 2011 Acts. The Government carried out extensive analysis of the impacts of bringing forward the rise to 66 when legislating for the change (impact assessment available at Gov.uk). The decision to amend the timetable originally set out in the bill, to cap the maximum increase at 18 months rather than 2 years, was informed by this analysis. \n\nAll women affected by faster equalisation will reach State Pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. The new State Pension will be more generous for many women who have historically done poorly under the current, two-tier system - largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. Around 650,000 women reaching State Pension age in the first ten years will receive an average of £8 per week (in 2014/15 earnings terms) more due to the new State Pension valuation of their National Insurance record.\n\nRegular consideration of State Pension age is necessary to ensure the pensions system remains sustainable as life expectancy grows. The 2014 Act provides for a 6-yearly review, to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently-led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, amongst a number of other factors, the impact of State Pension age change on women.\n\nThe policy decision to increase women’s State Pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove this inequality. The decision was approved by Parliament in 2011 and there is no new evidence to consider.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T14:10:20.101Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2016-02-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-02-01/debates/16020126000001/TransitionalStatePensionArrangementsForWomen","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf878aac-b8e6-40a2-bc03-9bbe5254fc92","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The House of Commons Petitions Committee scheduled a debate on this petition in Westminster Hall.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":113231,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/113231.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":"No UK airstrikes on Syria.","background":"Emergency petition: In the light of the actions of ISIS in Paris, this government may want to launch air strikes on Syria. We, the petitioners want this government NOT to do so, as it will make a terrible situation, much worse.","additional_details":"The effects of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the continued destabilisation of the government in Syria has caused an immense amount of suffering to the innocent, increased terrorism action in the west, increased recruitment to radical factions claiming to be a form of Islam, dividing society along secular, Islamic, Christian lines, imposing draconian surveillance and policing laws, as well as directing much-needed social funds, into the surveillance and military budget.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":190223,"created_at":"2015-11-19T12:07:34.490Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:08:19.016Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-11-22T16:20:06.205Z","closed_at":"2016-05-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-19T12:41:29.224Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2015-11-29T09:58:51.771Z","government_response_at":"2016-01-13T11:45:11.780Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2015-12-02T18:58:02.567Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2015-12-03T18:48:51.625Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-01-13","summary":"Following a lengthy debate, MPs voted for the UK to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. Military action is only one element of the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh.","details":"One week after the tragic attacks in Paris, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249; a clear call for action against Daesh, using all necessary measures.\n\nThe UK Government supported extending British airstrikes against Daesh into Syria as an integral part of a much broader strategy to degrade Daesh and reduce the threat it poses to us.\n\nWe must tackle Daesh in Syria, as we are doing with some success in Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that Daesh poses to the region and to our security in the UK.  As the threat from Daesh grows, we must take action whilst recognising that no course of action is without risk but that inaction – not dealing with Daesh at source – also carries grave risk.\n\nThe UK is a leading part of a Global Coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united to defeat Daesh on all fronts.  We are attacking Daesh militarily but we are also squeezing its finances, disrupting the flow of fighters, challenging its poisonous ideology and working to stabilise areas liberated from it.  We must pursue all these tracks in parallel.\n\nThe Prime Minister has been clear that tackling Daesh financing is a key element of our comprehensive strategy. Daesh gains most of its funding from the territory it controls – by selling oil and by taxing and exhorting local populations.  The UK has led UN efforts on sanctions, making it illegal to sell oil and oil products to Daesh. We co-sponsored UN Security Resolution 2253 which was adopted in December and sets out clear measures which States should take to counter Daesh financing. We are also expanding existing work with regional partners to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside formal financial systems and to stop smuggling.  However, the military campaign is also crucial; the Global Coalition has already damaged or destroyed 949 oil infrastructure targets.\n\nWe are also working to prevent the flow of Foreign Terrorist Fighters from Britain by seeking to tackle extremism through counter-radicalisation programs, challenging Daesh propaganda online and, where necessary, stopping travel. The Prime Minister announced in New York, in September, the formation of an anti-Daesh Coalition Communications Cell based in London. The cell, with an initial UK contribution of £10 million, deploys the full-range of strategic communications to attack and undermine the Daesh brand proposition. This will degrade the group’s ability to spread fear and to attract foreign terrorist fighters to its cause.\n\nThe Prime Minister has also been clear that the UK will continue to support the diplomatic and political process.  The UK’s priority in Syria has always been to achieve a political settlement which is the only way to stop this terrible war and give Syrians hope for the future.\n\nAs members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) we are working with a host of countries, including Russia, the US, France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN, towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional government, a new constitution and free and fair elections.   All those countries have accepted the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué – the need for Syrian-led and Syrian owned political transition.  The composition of the transitional government will be negotiated by Syrians through the peace process, with the support of the UN and the ISSG.  We welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2254 on 18 December requesting UN-convened peace negotiations and formally endorsing the ISSG Vienna process.  As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN on 18 December, “This has given new international momentum towards the resumption of Syrian-led talks”.\n\nWe remain committed to supporting international efforts to alleviate the terrible humanitarian suffering.  The UK is playing its part.  We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.  But more is needed. The Supporting Syria and the Region London 2016 Conference in February will aim to raise significant new funding from a wider range of partners to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis within Syria, and to support neighbouring countries.\n\nWhile military operations are inherently risky, we take the protection of civilians very seriously.  We employ rigorous targeting protocols.  In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations.  The UK has the most advanced forms of targeting and precision weaponry, possessed by only a small number of countries, which enables us to strike accurately with minimal collateral damage.  These same high standards are being applied in Syria.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2016-01-13T11:45:11.773Z","updated_at":"2016-01-13T15:59:56.489Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2015-12-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-12-02/debates/15120254000002/ISILInSyria","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":166847,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/166847.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2015-2017","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2017-05-03T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Put a max of £1200 on car insurance for 18-25 year olds","background":"Insurance companies are making it harder and harder for people aged 18-25 years of age to start driving. I myself am looking at a £2500 insurance for my first year driving which is completely unaffordable as i am earning minimum wage £5.30 per hour and am also having to pay bill for my property.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":185175,"created_at":"2016-09-10T22:30:39.947Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:20:17.377Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-09-14T10:18:56.752Z","closed_at":"2017-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-09-11T07:12:56.500Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-26T13:42:40.306Z","government_response_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.038Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-30T15:45:14.744Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2017-03-20","debate_outcome_at":"2017-03-21T10:45:51.061Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-12-13","summary":"By strengthening the way that people learn to drive and are tested and by tackling insurance fraud this Government is helping bear down on the cost of insurance for new and inexperienced drivers.  ","details":"The Government is aware that the cost of motor insurance can be high for new and inexperienced drivers. We have taken forward a programme of measures to strengthen the way that people learn to drive and are tested.  We have engaged insurers in this process, so that they can have confidence that additional measures will make a real difference that can be rewarded with lower premiums.  \n\nMotor insurance premiums can vary according to the risks associated with different types of driver, vehicle and other factors such as age and driving experience.   Motor insurance is a very competitive market and shopping around for the best possible option before making any decisions is likely to benefit customers.  The British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) run a not for profit ‘find a broker’ service where there are many broker products for young drivers. Further information can be found on their website: www.biba.org.uk. New rules coming into force next year will require motor insurers to disclose last year’s premium at renewal and prompt customers to shop around for the best deal.\n\nSome insurers have introduced the use of telematics or in-car black boxes to allow better risk-based pricing for new drivers. It means insurers now have a real time data feed, which allows them to see an individual’s driving behaviour, which had not previously been possible in the past. There is some evidence that suggests new drivers could see their annual premiums fall by 20% or more if they show good driving behaviour with a black box installed in their cars. \n\nThe Government recently announced reforms aimed at tackling the continuing high number and costly whiplash injury claims that were having a negative impact on the price of motor insurance premiums.  These reforms will end the cycle in which motorists pay higher insurance premiums due to minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims by others.   The government fully expects insurers to pass on the savings from these reforms to consumers through lower premiums and leading insurers have already committed to do this. \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.035Z","updated_at":"2016-12-13T09:14:32.035Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-03-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-20/debates/E796B9EB-F7DB-4376-A615-AF50A04E69E2/CarInsuranceYoungPeople","video_url":"http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1fa5009d-4d61-43eb-adef-6358bc73622e","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":122946,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/122946.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 a General Election in 2016","background":"The General Public were purposefully misguided before the 2015 election.The lies David Cameron told before the election have now been widely acknowledged as such, and it is only reasonable that the public should be allowed to vote with full knowledge about his true agenda in 2016. ","additional_details":"Cameron has reneged on numerous promises he made before the 2015 election. It is evident that the education system and the NHS are being adversely affected by the ignorance of the government and Prime Minister. I should add that in proposing this petition I was informed that a similar petition already exists; however, it doesn't appear that this is actually the case: The one that came up as 'similar' has been rejected for reasons unknown to me. This is, therefore, a new petition.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":177014,"created_at":"2016-02-25T13:34:12.196Z","updated_at":"2017-09-09T06:11:57.053Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-02-29T12:17:38.633Z","closed_at":"2016-08-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-02-27T17:53:13.201Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-05T19:34:11.242Z","government_response_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.710Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-04-09T17:00:25.545Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-04-20T10:48:22.406Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-04-14","summary":"The accusations made about the Government and Prime Minister in this petition are wrong, and the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act means no Government can call an early general election any more anyway.","details":"The Government and Prime Minister have never sought to mislead the public. Nonetheless, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which came into force in 2011 under the Coalition Government, removed the power to set the general election date, and therefore to call an early general election, from the Government and gave a power to the House of Commons to call an early general election in certain circumstances.\n\nAn early general election can only be called under the Act if either a motion (as worded in section 2(2) of the Act) that there shall be an early parliamentary general election is passed by the House of Commons with at least two thirds in favour of the motion; or if a motion of no confidence (as worded in section 2(4) of the Act) is passed by the House of Commons and the House does not pass a motion of confidence (as worded in section 2(5) of the Act) in the Government or an alternative Government within 14 days.  Aside from these triggers there is no way to replace the Government through an early General Election.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.706Z","updated_at":"2016-04-14T09:47:16.706Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because it doesn’t have the power to schedule a debate on the type of motion that could trigger a general election. \r\n \r\nThe Petitions Committee only has power to table general motions (using the form of words ‘That this House has considered e-petition [number] on [the subject of the petition]’). A debate on this petition, which asks for a debate to trigger a general election, cannot be started by a general motion. It needs a specific motion, as set out in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011.\r\n\r\nUnder this law, the House of Commons can trigger a general election only if it agrees to certain specific motions. Early elections can be held either:\r\n• if a motion saying that there should be an early general election is agreed either (a) by at least two-thirds of the whole House in a formal vote or (b) without division (a formal vote); or\r\n• if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.\r\nYou can find out more about how this law works here: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06111\r\n\r\nThis decision by the Committee doesn’t prevent MPs debating the type of motion that could trigger a general election, if they wish to do so, at another time, so long as they follow the steps set out in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.\r\n\r\nSince the Petitions Committee can only schedule general debates within which the House ‘considers’ a certain issue, it is usually more effective to start a petition calling for a specific change to government policy or the law.\r\n","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":168663,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/168663.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 sale of fireworks to the public and only approve organised displays.","background":"Every year 1000's of people are hurt, burnt, maimed and even lose their lives through accidents involving fireworks.\r\nEvery year people are terrorised by the misuse of fireworks.\r\nEvery year animals are hurt and traumatised by fireworks.\r\nBan them please.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":168160,"created_at":"2016-10-06T14:50:30.633Z","updated_at":"2018-11-28T20:15:16.977Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-10-10T15:10:40.242Z","closed_at":"2017-04-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-06T15:09:03.033Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2016-10-29T07:22:04.779Z","government_response_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.090Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2016-11-06T17:56:26.632Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2016-11-17T16:39:53.052Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2016-11-14","summary":"Government acknowledges genuine concerns about the use and, the misuse, of fireworks. Legislation restricts the sale of fireworks and controls their use, and we have no plans to extend this further.","details":"The government recognises the concerns raised about the use of fireworks by the public, particularly the potential distress caused by the use of noisy fireworks to pets, livestock and the public, and injuries caused by accidents and the misuse of fireworks.\n\nMany individuals enjoy being able to hold private fireworks displays at home, and have a sensible and responsible attitude to their use.  Indeed, the majority of the public who use fireworks do so in a safe and considerate way; it is only an anti-social minority that uses them dangerously and inconsiderately. \n\nWhile members of the public can hold private firework displays at any time of the year, they are subject to strict curfews which prevent fireworks being used after 11pm, except on a limited number of specific nights of the year around the traditional celebrations of 5th November, New Year, Chinese New Year and Diwali when they can be used up to midnight (5th November) or 1am (New Year, Chinese New Year and Diwali). \n\nRetailers are restricted to selling fireworks for limited periods around these four traditional occasions, unless they have a valid licence specifically allowing all year round sales.\n\nThere is maximum noise level of 120 decibels on fireworks sold to the public, and local authorities have powers to deal with excessive firework noise.  There is also a prohibition on setting off fireworks in a public place, enforceable by the police with tough sanctions for non-compliance.\n\nThere is government-sponsored advice and guidance to support the responsible and considerate use of fireworks on the Safer Fireworks website.  \n\nWhile any firework-related injury is a cause for concern, the number of injuries are significantly lower than suggested.  Furthermore, the latest official statistics, demonstrate that there is a downward trend in hospital admissions in England (arising from the discharge of fireworks) with 28% decrease between 2010 and 2014/15, when there were 114 admissions.\n\nThe government will continue to focus on reducing accidents and nuisance by encouraging industry, retailers and others to promote responsible use through guidance and public education.  We urge those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly where they are proposing to let off fireworks in the vicinity of animals, especially livestock, where they should notify owners of livestock nearby of their plans.\n\nThe government considers these controls effectively manage and reduce the level of risk posed by the public use of fireworks, and that to bring in further restrictions would be detrimental to an important British tradition reflecting our history and multi-culturalism.  There are no plans at the moment to place further limitations on their use.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.088Z","updated_at":"2016-11-14T11:25:55.088Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":null,"overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. When it decides which petitions should be debated, the Committee looks at whether the subject has recently been debated by the House of Commons.\r\n \r\nThere was a debate on Monday 6 June on a petition that called for restrictions on the use of fireworks. The Committee has therefore decided not to schedule a debate on this subject again, because it is only a few months since the last debate. \r\n\r\nYou can watch the debate here:\r\nhttp://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/be872a6a-721c-4dec-9a5b-0c136d4d1501\r\n\r\nYou can read a transcript of the debate here:\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-06-06/debates/16060612000001/Fireworks\r\n\r\nYou can read the petition here:\r\nhttps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109702","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":182953,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/182953.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 University fees from £9250 back to the £3000 fee for the UK.","background":"University fees are rising more and more. £9000 for university fees is too high and the stress of being in debt is what puts individuals off applying for degrees.Now that grants have been removed it makes it difficult for family's who need financial support but can't get that anymore.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":164166,"created_at":"2017-02-04T21:06:57.271Z","updated_at":"2019-05-14T14:41:50.150Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-02-09T13:26:42.171Z","closed_at":"2017-05-02T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-05T09:36:09.585Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-11T21:17:45.559Z","government_response_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.952Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-02-13T13:06:58.589Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-10-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-11-27","debate_outcome_at":"2017-11-28T09:56:45.506Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-03-01","summary":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so.  All eligible students can apply for an upfront loan to meet the full cost of tuition fees.","details":"Anyone with the ability to benefit from Higher Education should have the opportunity to do so, irrespective of their background.  That is why all eligible students can apply for an upfront tuition fee loan to meet the full cost of their tuition fees, as well as loans for living costs. \n\nBy replacing maintenance grants with loans we have been able to increase the funding for living costs that the most disadvantaged students receive by over 10% in the current academic year with a further 2.8% increase for 2017/18.\n\nUniversities, too, are spending even more to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education. In 2017/18, institutions are expected to spend £833.5 million on measures to improve the access and success of disadvantaged students. This is more than double what was spent in 2009/10.\n\nOur repayments system is based on income and not the amount borrowed. Graduates with post-2012 undergraduate loans pay back only when they are earning more than £21,000, and then only 9% of earnings above that threshold. After 30 years any outstanding debt will be written off with no detriment to the borrower. This is entirely different to a commercial loan.\n\nRecent evidence indicates that recent reforms to higher education have not deterred students from disadvantaged backgrounds from going to university. The steps we have taken to ensure higher education remains sustainably financed has enabled us to lift student number controls, so that more people have the opportunity to secure a university place. The proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education increased from 13.6% in 2009 to 19.5% in 2016 and the application rate for disadvantaged English 18 year olds in 2017 has increased to a record high at the January 15th application deadline. \n\nLowering tuition fees would carry a number of possible consequences, including a cut to universities and additional demands on public spending, which would be met through higher taxation, including on those who have not themselves benefited from University.  This could also mean the re-imposition of student number controls, leading to fewer university places being available to students.\n\nReinstating the system of maintenance grants would reduce the upfront support available for students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, while costing the taxpayer over £2.5bn per year.\n\nThe Government’s approach has struck the right balance between delivering a sustainable system and ensuring higher education remains open and accessible. This has been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which said we are “one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to student finance”.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.950Z","updated_at":"2017-03-01T14:06:57.950Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-11-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-27/debates/FF85BF9A-C7BC-4150-954F-2415DA1427D3/UniversityTuitionFees","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cd9c975f-aa58-4b84-ad2e-95ff25815477","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0218/CDP-2017-0218.pdf","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}