{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=published","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=3&state=published","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=327&parliament=3&state=published","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2&parliament=3&state=published","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":241584,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.","background":"The government repeatedly claims exiting the EU is 'the will of the people'. We need to put a stop to this claim by proving the strength of public support now, for remaining in the EU. A People's Vote may not happen - so vote now.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":6103056,"created_at":"2019-02-14T12:14:59.326Z","updated_at":"2024-05-29T15:03:01.338Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-20T10:25:02.393Z","closed_at":"2019-08-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-14T14:57:53.747Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-18T13:26:30.257Z","government_response_at":"2019-03-26T17:19:45.070Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-20T20:33:35.184Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-03-27","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-04-01","debate_outcome_at":"2019-04-03T11:38:59.231Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-26","summary":"This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.","details":"It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.\n\nRevoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.\n\nThe Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government. \n\nBritish people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. \n\nThis Government stands by this commitment. \n\nRevoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2019-03-26T17:19:45.067Z","updated_at":"2019-03-26T17:19:45.067Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-04-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-01/debates/DAEA92D0-DB85-4370-B65C-2BB2FF6B5AE9/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uMe5FmqH8&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":269157,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/269157.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Do not prorogue Parliament","background":"Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":1725630,"created_at":"2019-08-06T08:21:33.311Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:53:06.101Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-15T16:04:23.329Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-07T21:45:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-28T10:04:52.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-09T13:15:53.478Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-28T11:38:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-09-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-09-09","debate_outcome_at":"2019-09-10T14:24:28.080Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-09","summary":"Prorogation is a prerogative Act of the Crown, exercised on the advice of Ministers. We must respect the referendum result and the UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October whatever the circumstances.","details":"The UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October whatever the circumstances. We must respect the referendum result.\n\nProrogation is a prerogative Act of the Crown, exercised on the advice of Ministers, to bring about the end of the parliamentary session. The royal prerogative is the term used to describe the powers held by Government Ministers, either in their own right, or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow. The Government determines the length of a parliamentary session and advises the Queen on the date for the beginning of the next parliamentary session.\n\nThe beginning of the next session is marked by the State Opening of Parliament during which the Queen delivers the Queen’s Speech. The Queen’s Speech sets out the programme of legislation the Government intends to pursue in the forthcoming parliamentary session.\n\nAs the Prime Minister said in his statement on 2 September 2019, the Government has committed to recruiting another 20,000 police officers, improving both NHS and schools funding, and completing 20 new hospital upgrades. It is to progress the Government’s agenda on these and many other fronts that the Prime Minister has sought to commence a new session of Parliament in October.\n\nParliament is only dissolved before a General Election. Dissolution brings an end to a Parliament. The effect of a dissolution is all business comes to an end and every seat in the House of Commons is vacated until a General Election is held.\n\nUnder the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, General Elections are now automatically held every five years and the next general election is scheduled for May 2022. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act removed the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament; no longer can the Prime Minister advise the sovereign to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election.\n\nThe Fixed-term Parliaments Act also provides the basis on which an early General Election can be triggered:\n\n1. If a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House of Commons or without a vote; or\n\n2. If a motion of ‘no confidence’, in the terms set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, is passed and no subsequent motion expressing confidence in Her Majesty’s Government is passed by the Commons within 14 days.\n\nIn the event of an early-general election, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allows the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Queen. There will be a Royal Proclamation to set the date. Parliament is then automatically dissolved 25 working days before polling day.\n\nThe Government would prefer to leave the EU with a deal and will work in an energetic and determined way to get a better deal. The Government is very willing to sit down with the Commission and EU Member States to talk about what needs to be done to achieve that.\n\nThe Prime Minister has said an election needs to take place ahead of the European Council on 17 to 18 October. This would allow the Prime Minister to go to the European Council with a clear mandate from the British people to deliver the referendum result.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2019-09-09T13:15:53.476Z","updated_at":"2019-09-09T13:16:41.712Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-09-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-09/debates/1A26EFC3-A9AA-4302-B852-B5312AB2BC45/ProrogationOfParliament","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN9Fd7jv88c","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8589","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229963,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229963.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Leave the EU without a deal in March 2019.","background":"We are wasting Billions of pounds of taxpayers money trying to negotiate in a short space of time. Leaving the EU in March 2019 will allow the UK good time to negotiate more efficiently. The EU will be more eager to accept a deal on our terms having lost a major partner.","additional_details":"We will save billions of pounds from our EU divorce payment as well as a similar amount from Civil Service and Govt costs. This money will be used to support our own country whilst we await the EU to talk to us to make deals more in our favour. The EU border in Ireland to be managed simply by having a dual Euro / pound currency as legal tender in both the North and South. Exports to the South would be dealt with in Euro and vice versa when importing to the North. Rates fixed at time of the deal.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":608152,"created_at":"2018-10-07T22:34:13.115Z","updated_at":"2020-03-05T13:52:17.493Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-17T09:57:44.028Z","closed_at":"2019-04-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-10T10:54:22.833Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-27T21:28:02.990Z","government_response_at":"2018-12-14T09:57:34.136Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-15T18:51:04.394Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-14","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-15T12:39:39.423Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-14","summary":"The deal that we have reached with the EU is the right one for the United Kingdom. Leaving without a deal would risk uncertainty for the economy, for business and for citizens.","details":"EU leaders have endorsed the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU. This agreement secures the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU; and sets out the terms of the time-limited implementation period which will provide our businesses and citizens with certainty.\n\nThe financial settlement represents a fair settlement of our obligations as a departing member state and was agreed in the context of the implementation period and our future relationship. This agreement confirms that the days of sending vast payments to the EU are coming to an end. \n\nIt also means we will be able to spend more of taxpayers’ money on our priorities, such as the extra investment we are putting into our NHS. \n\nOn Northern Ireland, the agreed Protocol guarantees that even in the unlikely event that the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not in place by the end of the implementation period, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and no customs border down the Irish Sea. \n\nThe agreement preserves the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, upholds the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, and ensures people and businesses that rely on an open border between the Northern Ireland and Ireland can continue living their lives and operating as they do now.\n\nAs set out in the Political Declaration, once we have left the EU and for the first time in more than four decades, the UK will have an independent trade policy. The UK will be free to negotiate, sign, and ratify trade deals during the implementation period and bring them into force after the period has finished. \n\nThe deal we have reached is the right deal for the UK. It takes back control of our borders, our laws and our money while protecting jobs, security and the integrity of the UK. Anything other than straightforward approval of the deal will bring with it uncertainty for the economy, for business, and for citizens.\n\nNeither Parliament nor the Government want a ‘no deal’ scenario. However, as a responsible Government, we will continue to prepare for all eventualities.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-12-14T09:57:34.133Z","updated_at":"2018-12-14T10:18:26.531Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-14/debates/694BA27D-566E-4F52-BC4B-8FC1ACA3F109/LeavingTheEU","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/64100b1a-6f58-46b5-a84e-d0b2416896b3","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0002","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231521,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231521.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban all ISIS members from returning to UK","background":"Ban all ISIS members from returning to the UK, remove their citizenship and passports","additional_details":"By banning all returning ISIS members and by removing their citizenship and passports it would help keep the UK safe from terrorists and their actions. It would also save hundreds of thousands of pounds and time of the police and security services. It would also send a message to others that membership of terrorist orgsnisation will not be tollerated.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":598254,"created_at":"2018-10-30T16:49:25.269Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:28.448Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-06T11:36:10.075Z","closed_at":"2019-05-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-30T17:00:41.964Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-14T20:56:47.204Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-27T11:04:04.640Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-15T08:27:18.798Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-02-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-18","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-19T16:23:51.701Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-27","summary":"British citizenship can be removed if it does not render the individual stateless. Any risk posed by those who return from Syria will be managed and they may be investigated for criminal offences.","details":"The Government’s priority is to do everything we can to help keep our country safe, including managing the risk posed by those who have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq and may be linked to terrorist organisations.\n\nUK nationals have the right to return to the country, but anyone who does return from taking part in the conflict in Syria or Iraq will be investigated by the police and prosecuted where there is evidence that they have committed criminal offences.\n\nThe Home Secretary has the power to remove or ‘deprive’ a British national’s citizenship and stop them from returning to the UK if they hold or are eligible to hold another nationality and if he assesses that individual’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may only happen if the person would not be left stateless as a result. This power has been used against those who travelled to fight overseas. Non-UK nationals can be excluded from the country.\n\nWhere it is not possible to deprive an individual of their British nationality, a range of powers are available to protect national security.\n\nThere have already been several successful prosecutions for those who have returned from Syria. This includes the minimum of 40 years for Khalid Ali who was sentenced earlier this year for planning a terrorist attack in Westminster.\n\nIn addition to seeking prosecution of terrorism suspects we use a range of tools to manage the threat posed.  We impose travel restrictions for individuals subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, and require those individuals who return to the UK subject to a Temporary Exclusion Order, to report to a police station regularly.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-11-27T11:04:04.637Z","updated_at":"2018-11-27T11:04:04.637Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-18/debates/42259394-C90B-4670-BFC9-A5F91518A5FF/ISISMembersReturningToTheUK","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ea49e7c2-49c3-4118-bc89-ce3168819534","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8519","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":244233,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/244233.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make 'netting' hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting a criminal offence.","background":"Developers, and other interested parties are circumventing laws protecting birds  by 'netting' hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting. \r\n\r\nThis facilitates the uprooting of hedgerows which aid biodiversity and provide the only remaining nesting sites for birds, whose numbers are in sharp decline.","additional_details":"'Netting' hedgerows threatens declining species of birds, presents a danger by entrapment to wildlife, and produces large amounts of plastic waste.\r\n\r\nThis is how Jeremy Vine responded to reports of 'netting' in preparation for hedgerow removal:\r\n\r\nThis is how the human race ends, everybody.\r\n\r\nWe cover hedges with nets.\r\nWe get permission to build flats because there are no birds.\r\nThen we live in the flats and feel pleased that no birdsong wakes us in the morning.\r\nThen we die.\r\n\r\nSometimes I hate us.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":365508,"created_at":"2019-03-04T23:17:51.784Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:46:09.859Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-18T17:28:34.927Z","closed_at":"2019-09-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-05T01:02:48.659Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-19T19:32:02.445Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-10T10:53:35.499Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:49:21.166Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-04-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-05-13","debate_outcome_at":"2019-05-14T13:43:18.638Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-04","summary":"Causing suffering to birds is already criminal.  Planning authorities have enforceable powers to protect bird habitats and will soon be able to mandate that developers provide biodiversity net gain.","details":"Wild birds and their nests are already protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a bird by an act, or a failure to act, where the person concerned knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would or be likely to cause unnecessary suffering. Anti-bird netting can, however, be appropriate in a few exceptional circumstances, to protect birds during construction work, or where birds have been identified as a health hazard. \n\nEvery local authority also has power to impose conditions when it grants planning permission, and these conditions can specify what information it needs to understand and protect any wildlife on the application site, and at what time of year development may take place.  The authority can also use planning conditions to prevent disturbance on parts of a site, and stipulate how the phases of construction should be managed to avoid harm to biodiversity.  \n\nOn 8 April 2019, in response to public concern about anti-bird netting around permissioned or potential development sites, a letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government was forwarded to major house-builders. It reminded them of their legal obligation to consider the impact of any project on local wildlife and take precautionary action to protect habitat. The Secretary of State was clear that if developers do not follow their obligations, he has not ruled out further action to protect our country’s valuable ecological system. Following this, major house-builders announced an end to the practice on their sites. \n\nOur National Planning Policy Framework expects planning policies and decisions to enhance the natural environment by minimising the impacts of development on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity. We plan to require developers to deliver biodiversity net gain, under the forthcoming Environment Bill. Local authorities will be able to make certain that avian habitat is left in a measurably better state than it was before development.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/244233)","created_at":"2019-04-10T10:53:35.496Z","updated_at":"2019-11-04T14:40:08.726Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-05-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-13/debates/4419D95F-AD1C-40B7-86FC-6564ED636AE6/BirdNestingSitesProtection","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bc6f2865-bebc-454a-b505-04fa3b762516","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8558","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":231147,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231147.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of fireworks to the public. Displays for licenced venues only.","background":"Every year fireworks are set off unnecessarily.\r\nFireworks are a nuisance to the public. They scare animals, young children and people with a phobia.\r\nThey injure thousands of people every year.\r\nThey cause damage to buildings, vehicles,emergancy vehicles etc.\r\nLastly Kids are STILL being sold them.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":307897,"created_at":"2018-10-24T21:11:57.328Z","updated_at":"2020-03-20T17:46:19.311Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-30T12:37:35.196Z","closed_at":"2019-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-24T23:01:36.654Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-03T17:55:35.038Z","government_response_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.008Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-05T12:12:38.688Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-11-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-11-26","debate_outcome_at":"2018-11-27T11:21:48.075Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-21","summary":"Government takes the issue of safety of fireworks very seriously. Legislation is in place to control their sale, use and misuse. We have no plans to change legislation.","details":"Fireworks have played a part in the UK’s history, and have been used for celebrations by many of our cultures – Christian, Hindu, Muslim - for many years. We recognise the enjoyment they bring to many people and the important role that they play in bringing communities together in celebration or remembrance.  Private displays allow families and friends to hold their own displays and create their own traditions, celebrating events throughout the year such as weddings and birthdays. However, there is a limit on when fireworks can be set off, with a nightly curfew after 11pm every day apart from the four traditional dates, when that curfew is extended.  \n\nThe Government understands the strong feelings that many people have about fireworks. But we would like to reassure you that there is already strict legislation in place to regulate the supply, storage, possession, use and misuse of fireworks to ensure public safety. This includes powers to prosecute those who use them in a dangerous or antisocial manner.\n\nTogether, the restrictions set out in the 2003 Fireworks Act, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, provide a regulatory framework that allows for the safe enjoyment of fireworks by the public while minimising the risk of fireworks harming individuals, property or animals. \n\nIn addition, the availability of fireworks to the public is restricted by a licensing scheme for retailers which only allows for their sale without a license during the traditional firework periods of November 5th, New Year’s Eve, Diwali and the Chinese New Year.  There are also age restrictions in place which prevent the sale of fireworks to those under the age of 16 or 18 dependent on the classification of firework.  There are further restrictions on the public possession of most fireworks by those under 18.\n\nLocal Authority Trading Standards have powers to take action against those who sell fireworks illegally, including those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence, or outside the normal selling period, or to underage people. This also includes the sale of illegally imported fireworks and internet sales.\nWe recognise that the noise from fireworks can be distressing to some people and so there is in place a noise level limit of 120 decibels on fireworks that are available for consumer use.  Consumers can also choose to buy from the wide range of low noise fireworks now available. \n\nThe Government is also aware of concerns about the risks of firework-related injury. Measures have already been taken to ban certain dangerous items from sale in the UK including bangers and jumping jacks.  This removes from sale higher risk fireworks which could lead to injury. Also, the most powerful category of display fireworks must not be sold to members of the public. \n\nHaving said that legislation is in place, we have listened to the concerns around the potential for distress to be caused by fireworks to individuals, as well as to livestock, pets and wildlife. \n\nWe believe that the best way to continue to reduce any distress caused by fireworks is to work with industry, retailers and others to promote their safe and responsible use through guidance and public education and to ensure that appropriate action is taken against those that break the rules.\n\nThat is why the new Office for Product Safety and Standards is working with industry, retailers, charities and others, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and Netmums, to promote their safe and responsible use and to raise consumer awareness on firework safety. \n\nThe Government urges those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and to give sufficient notice of firework use, particularly to those who are vulnerable such as the elderly, children, those with mental health issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and those with pets and livestock. Government-sponsored guidance on safe and considerate use of fireworks is available via the GOV.UK website.  This includes a link to the Fireworks Code hosted by RoSPA containing guidance on respecting neighbours, especially those with pets and informing them of planned displays.  In addition, the Government supports the Blue Cross animal charity guidance which advises how to avoid or reduce stress to animals when fireworks are being set off. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust provide similar advice on their websites concerning how to minimise the impact of fireworks use on animals.\n\nThe Government believes the legislation and guidance already in place is appropriate to allow for the safe use of fireworks by the public; therefore, we have no plans to ban private sales.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.006Z","updated_at":"2018-11-21T11:20:50.006Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-11-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-26/debates/C95047CD-F24E-44DA-BE73-FC571B014CEF/FireworksPublicSales","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/11ebe695-5f06-4aea-8424-7ab9dbc1c465","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05704","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":276425,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/276425.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban fireworks for general sale to the public.","background":"Every year more and more people, animals and wildlife get hurt by fireworks. It’s time something was fine to stop this. There are enough organised firework groups around for us to still enjoy fireworks safely so please help me stop the needless sale of them to the public!","additional_details":"The noise from fireworks causes a great amount of fear, stress and anxiety in wild animals. ... Errant fireworks can also cause environmental damage though fires, and from the release of poisonous chemicals and particle-laden smoke, which is not just inhaled by wildlife, but contaminates the natural environment. \r\nIn England last year, 4,436 individuals attended A&E because of an injury caused by a firework - more than double the 2,141 in 2009/10.\r\nWith around 40% of the UKs dogs being scared.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":305579,"created_at":"2019-10-05T09:00:00.606Z","updated_at":"2020-11-05T11:50:00.037Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-18T10:41:06.269Z","closed_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-17T22:26:02.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-22T06:53:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-11-05T14:48:31.816Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-11-03T19:04:42.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-02","debate_outcome_at":"2020-11-05T11:49:40.511Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-05","summary":"The Government takes the matter of fireworks safety seriously. This includes protecting consumers and the public. Laws are in place to control firework availability and use.","details":"The Government recognises that many people have strong feelings about fireworks, and the potential negative impact they can have on a community, for example, by causing distress to individuals or animals.\n\nHowever, we believe that the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them.  We consider it a minority of people who use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate or anti-social manner.\n\nThe current legislative framework for fireworks aims to reduce the risks to people and disturbance to animals. Legislation ensures products being placed on the UK market meet essential safety requirements. It also controls the storage, sale and use of fireworks including where and when fireworks can be sold, when they can be set off and by whom, and sets maximum noise levels. For example, legislation allows retailers to sell consumer fireworks during the traditional firework periods of: 15th October to 10th November (inclusive); the 3 days prior to and including the first day of Chinese New Year and Diwali; and 26th December to New Year’s Eve (inclusive). But retailers may only supply fireworks outside these periods if they obtain a licence from their local authority.\n\nIn addition, enforcement mechanisms are in place to tackle those situations when fireworks are sold illegally or misused. There are a range of penalties for breaching legal requirements, including, in certain circumstances, imprisonment. The police and local authorities have powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, where it arises, caused by the misuse of fireworks.\n\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling around the use and misuse of fireworks and has listened to the concerns raised in parliamentary debate and wider discussion. We receive representations from a wide range of stakeholders, including members of the public, organisations and charities, with wide-ranging views on what the issues are and what action they would like to see.\n\nFollowing the Westminster Hall debate on 26 November 2018 regarding fireworks, the Minister with responsibility for fireworks policy and legislation in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kelly Tolhurst MP, asked the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) to develop a fact-based evidence base on the key issues that had been raised. This includes looking for data around noise and disturbance, anti-social behaviour, non-compliance, environmental impact, and the impact on humans and animals. As part of this work we are considering the findings of the Scottish Government consultation on fireworks, which was published on 4th October. We will also consider the House of Commons Petitions Committee inquiry on fireworks once that has reported.\n\nThe aim of the evidence base is to build a full picture of the data around fireworks in order for government to identify whether there is a problem, and if so, what action - if any - is appropriate. This work will also help us identify trends across fireworks seasons and determine whether, there has (for example), been an increase in fireworks being set off or an increase in firework related injuries.  \n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2019-11-05T14:48:31.813Z","updated_at":"2019-11-05T14:49:13.413Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-02/debates/F982D230-02C0-4A8B-8A60-D0C51F952944/Fireworks","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLDheB0lygI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0119/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205476,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205476.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Put pressure on Libya to take action to stop enslavement of Black Africans.","background":"CNN has released video footage of a black Africans being sold into slavery in Libya. I am asking the UK government to put pressure on the Libyan government to take immediate action to stop these criminals from selling more people, to set current prisoners free, arrest the criminals and end this.","additional_details":"http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html\r\n\r\nhttp://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-victory-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":269157,"created_at":"2017-11-18T01:24:31.077Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:47.428Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-22T15:39:25.642Z","closed_at":"2018-05-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-18T12:14:04.285Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T08:58:04.531Z","government_response_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.146Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-29T16:54:17.543Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2017-12-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2017-12-18","debate_outcome_at":"2017-12-19T10:14:23.762Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2017-12-13","summary":"The Government shares the public’s outrage and welcomes the Libyan government’s commitment to investigate these reports and to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.","details":"Tackling forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking is a domestic and foreign policy priority for the UK Government.  The Prime Minister has called modern slavery one of the ‘greatest human rights issues of our time’, and made clear that the international community must step up our efforts to eradicate it.  It is not acceptable that such exploitation is occurring in the 21st Century. \n\nThe Prime Minister launched a Call to Action to end modern slavery at this year’s UN General Assembly alongside 40 other countries, and committed to doubling UK aid spend in support of this objective to £150 million. We will continue to push for an increased international response, through the UN and other channels, to eliminate these horrific crimes, provide support for victims, and bring criminals to justice. In particular, we are pushing for the United Nations Security Council to take greater steps to combat slavery in conflict situations. \n\nThe UK Government shares others’ disgust and grave concern at the recent video footage apparently showing slave markets in Libya.  We welcome the Libyan government’s commitment immediately to investigate these reports and to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.   In addition, the UK has raised with the Libyan Prime Minister the importance of offering humanitarian support to migrants.  \n\nWe have consistently argued for a comprehensive approach, addressing the root causes of migration as well as their consequences.  In addition to the UK’s £150 million commitment on modern slavery, UK programmes have provided humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees, and delivered assistance in detention centres and to those rescued at sea.  We have provided specific support to women and girls, to protect them from the heightened risks of trafficking and sexual and gender based violence.  So far this year, the Department for International Development has supported more than 20,000 emergency interventions such as healthcare, funding psychosocial support, hygiene kits and safe shelter to migrants and refugees in Libya.\n\nWe have also developed a new £75m migration programme, which will specifically target migrants travelling from West Africa via the Sahel to Libya.  It will provide critical humanitarian assistance and protection and assist those along the way that may wish to return home, providing information about the dangers ahead and offering vulnerable people meaningful alternatives to the treacherous journeys to Libya and Europe.  \n\nAt the United Nations General Assembly in September, the Prime Minister committed to increasing efforts to tackle smuggling and trafficking through building the capacity of Libyan law enforcement agencies, and supporting efforts to sanction people smugglers at the UN.  \n\nThe UK has made clear at the United Nations Security Council our condemnation of these reports, and we support the recent Declaration from the EU-Africa Summit and the establishment of an EU-AU-UN Taskforce to address this dire situation to help returns.  UK programming has enabled the assisted voluntary return of over 1,400 migrants from Libya to their home countries this year, and we support further efforts in this area, including by the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.\n\nWe are clear that a sustainable improvement in the human rights situation in Libya can only be achieved under the stability of a strong and united Government, and we are actively supporting UN-led efforts to deliver a more inclusive political settlement in Libya.  As well as our support for peace mediation and stability we are providing support to improve women’s rights, civil society, municipalities, and freedom of speech.  A safe, secure and prosperous Libya that is able confidently to tackle the challenges in the region is in all our interests.\n\nThe Government looks forward to responding with fuller details on this very important issue in the forthcoming Westminster Hall Debate on Monday 18 December.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.144Z","updated_at":"2017-12-13T10:52:14.144Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2017-12-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-18/debates/D4D9004C-0D4E-4DAD-8C98-309E2C42D2E1/EnslavementOfBlackAfricans(Libya)","video_url":"http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/71772c45-c2ba-400a-a9f3-7bcdd9400907","debate_pack_url":"http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0259","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":248281,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/248281.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Leave the EU Without a deal on April 12th.","background":"The Government are right when they say that exiting the EU is the \"will of the people\"\r\nDespite the best efforts of the political classes and media establishment the \"silent majority\" still wish to leave the EU. \r\nIf Mrs May's deal is rejected again we should leave the EU on April 12 with No deal.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":249530,"created_at":"2019-03-22T14:19:05.059Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:37:07.052Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-28T18:57:35.639Z","closed_at":"2019-09-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:49:53.143Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-30T09:47:44.679Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-10T11:03:44.242Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-31T18:11:51.990Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:36:52.308Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-10","summary":"The Government stands by its commitment to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum. We continue to seek a consensus across the House, which will allow the UK to leave the EU with a deal in place.","details":"In 2016, this Government stated that it would honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.\n\nDuring the 2016 referendum campaign, this Government wrote to every UK household to promise that it would implement the result of the referendum. With that commitment in mind, 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at a UK Government.\n\nIt is now the responsibility of this Government to uphold that result.\n\nParliament has continuously rejected leaving without a deal. The Government continues to seek a consensus across the House to find a way through which allows the UK to leave in an orderly manner, with a deal in place.\n\nHowever, it remains the legal default that we will leave the EU without a deal on 12 April unless MPs can agree an alternative way forward and pass a withdrawal agreement.\n\nThe Government has been preparing for the contingency of a ‘no deal’ since 2016 and have accelerated no deal preparations to ensure the country is prepared for every eventuality. Parliament has now bound the Government to seek an extension to Article 50, so the Government has proposed that the extension should be as short as possible, ending when we have passed and ratified a deal.\n\nThis Government maintains that leaving with a deal remains the best solution. The Prime Minister has committed to working with members across the House to ensure that the result of the referendum is upheld, and the UK leaves the EU in an orderly manner, without undue delay.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-04-10T11:03:44.240Z","updated_at":"2019-04-10T11:03:44.240Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UK has now left the European Union.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":232684,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232684.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the use of all non-recyclable and unsustainable food packaging","background":"Today the Earth is at a crisis point due to our plastic consumption, and as a result, people in the UK are more willing than ever to engage in recycling. Yet so much food packaging remains completely, frustratingly unrecyclable. Let's aim for the UK to lead the world with a 100% recycling rate.","additional_details":"Every day we send to landfill, to decompose over thousands of years:\r\nCereal box inner bags\r\nPeel-off film (fruit and veg punnets/ready meals/yoghurt pots)\r\nAlmost all plastic supermarket fruit and veg packets\r\nCrisp packets\r\nSweets wrappers\r\nChocolate bar wrappers\r\nStyrofoam\r\nVacuum pack plastic\r\n-to name a few\r\nThe British public WANTS to recycle but we can't get away from the vast amounts of waste that poorly designed packaging creates- appoint people to design alternatives and the UK will thank you!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":247048,"created_at":"2018-11-12T11:34:59.360Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:42:49.886Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-05T17:21:28.139Z","closed_at":"2019-06-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-26T21:52:27.978Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-18T16:39:32.243Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-02T09:51:27.729Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:59:54.591Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-05-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-06-24","debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-25T15:32:35.765Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-18","summary":"Our Strategy sets out plans to eliminate avoidable plastic waste. We have consulted on proposals to incentivise producers to make more sustainable packaging design choices and recyclable packaging.","details":"Most food packaging is technically recyclable, though the current market does not make all recycling economically viable. The Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy for England published in December last year sets out our plans to reduce plastic pollution and move towards a more circular economy. This builds on the commitment in the 25 Year Environment Plan to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. For the most problematic plastics we are going faster, which is why we commit to work towards all plastic packaging placed on the UK market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025.\n\nOur general approach is to help people and companies make the right choice and develop alternatives, rather than move to banning items outright. There are circumstances when a ban is appropriate as part of a wider strategic approach. We have already banned the sale of plastic microbeads, will be banning the supply of plastic drinking straws, stirrers and plastic stemmed cotton buds from April 2020 in England, and are assessing the impact of banning other single-use plastic items. We will continue to review the latest evidence on problematic products and/ or materials to take a systematic approach to reducing the use of unnecessary single-use plastic products including problematic packaging materials, in line with our commitment to match and where economically practicable exceed the ambition of the EU in this regard.\n\nOur priority is to prevent or reduce waste in the first place. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations already require businesses to ensure that all their packaging does not exceed what is needed to make sure that the products are safe, hygienic and acceptable for both the packed product and for the consumer. As part of the Resources and Waste Strategy, we have committed to review the effectiveness of these Regulations by the end of next year. These Regulations apply to those responsible for the packing or filling of products into packaging and those importing packed or filled packaging into the UK from elsewhere.\n\nOn 18 February, the Government launched several consultations to overhaul the waste system. This includes proposals to reform packaging waste regulations to financially incentivise packaging producers to take greater responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products. We also consulted on introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers and increasing consistency in recycling collections. We also consulted on introducing a tax on plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled content. These consultations closed on 13 May. We are analysing the responses and will publish the government’s response in due course.\n\nThe reforms to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations will require producers to fund the full net-cost of managing the packaging they place on the market, once it becomes waste. This creates an incentive for companies to use less packaging and to ensure that their packaging can be recycled at end of life as it will reduce their costs in complying with the Regulations. We will also ensure that producer fees fund a move to a system where a nationally agreed set of packaging materials are collected and where it is easier for consumers to know what packaging they can recycle, through improved communication campaigns and packaging labelling.\n\nWe have set out in our consultation options for how we want to enhance the incentive for producers to make better, more sustainable packaging design choices. The options are for a modulated fee system or a deposit fee system. These options provide a financial incentive for producers, in addition to the full-net cost fees, to move towards using more easily recycled packaging materials and formats. To support this we want to introduce an “approved list”. This list will set out what packaging materials are recyclable.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232684)","created_at":"2019-04-02T09:51:27.727Z","updated_at":"2019-06-18T14:20:27.205Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-24/debates/E0C0041B-0792-42D5-A2E7-E10A1E94D68D/UnsustainablePackaging","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfPfpczIOc","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8515","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235653,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235653.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish the BBC television license.","background":"The quality of BBC programmes do not reflect the price of the TV license. It is far too expensive for the majority of people and should be abolished.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":246736,"created_at":"2018-12-19T15:34:55.484Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:42.899Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-20T11:38:29.512Z","closed_at":"2019-06-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-19T18:33:51.200Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-10T18:31:32.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-26T16:03:44.926Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-11T21:18:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-06-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-15","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-16T10:57:50.944Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-26","summary":"A television licence is required to watch or receive television as it is broadcast live or on BBC iPlayer.","details":"The licence fee is payment for a licence to watch or receive television programmes. It is not a fee or charge for BBC services and is payable regardless of whether the licence holder ever watches the BBC. Licence fee revenue is not just used to fund the BBC, it is also used for other strategic public service objectives including broadband, local television and S4C.\n\nThe licence fee funding model was considered as part of Charter Review 2015-16. The BBC Charter Review consultation received over 192,000 responses and found the majority of the public do not want to see a change in the way that the BBC is funded: 60% thought the current licence fee model did not need to be changed, while only 3% of respondents supported a subscription model and 1.5% advertising. \n\nThe current system commands wider public support than any alternative model provides the BBC with a sustainable core income paid by all households who watch or receive television. As a result, the government committed to maintain the current licence fee funding model for the duration of the current Charter period.\n\nThe Government is therefore committed to ensuring the BBC continues to deliver high quality, distinctive content for all audiences. That is why we have guaranteed the licence fee level will increase with inflation until 2022.\n\nOn editorial matters, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from government and the government cannot intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day operations. As the BBC's independent regulator, Ofcom is responsible for ensuring the BBC delivers for audiences - including how the BBC meets its mission and public purposes. \n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.","created_at":"2019-06-26T16:03:44.924Z","updated_at":"2019-06-26T16:03:44.924Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAu4gz2VWeo","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8101","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":205106,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/205106.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the privatisation of NHS services","background":"We call for a ban on the outsourcing (privatisation) of NHS services, and stop the renewal of any outsourcing contracts already signed. Companies should not be profiteering from NHS contracts, when every pound of NHS budgets is desperately needed for more doctors and nurses, and to pay them more.","additional_details":"Research by Bain & Company published by the Financial Times in January 2017, found that private-sector companies had been invited to bid for 14 per cent more NHS contracts in the 12 months to August 2016 than just a year previously. In March 2017 the Financial Times also reported of the extra £2bn given to the NHS in 2014 to try and bolster NHS services, according to data analysis carried out by the Health Foundation, an independent charity, only about half this extra money was spent in the NHS.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":238769,"created_at":"2017-11-13T11:18:15.151Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:34:38.478Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-17T14:21:10.458Z","closed_at":"2018-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-13T13:42:03.263Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-10T09:21:05.254Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.991Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-26T06:28:35.090Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-03-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-23","debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-24T09:20:07.119Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-20","summary":"The vast majority of NHS care has and will continue to be provided by public sector organisations. Patients should be able to access the best treatments based on quality of care not type of provider.","details":"We remain committed to a publicly funded NHS. However, the private sector has always played a vital supporting role in the NHS, for example in building hospitals, in providing facilities management services, in supplying medicines and equipment. Primary care contractors – GPs, dentists, pharmacists – have always been independent contractors and are not NHS employees.  The opportunity – not obligation – of NHS commissioners to use private sector healthcare providers in order to support existing NHS-delivered care has played a key role in improving patient choice, and in reducing waiting times. In such cases, private sector contractors have to adhere to the same standards of efficiency, safety and quality as NHS providers do, and for this reason the publicly funded NHS will always remain in the driving seat. We are clear that patients should be able to access the best possible treatments based on quality of care and value for money not the type of provider they receive this care from.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.988Z","updated_at":"2018-02-20T11:27:06.988Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-23/debates/A43878B7-E1E8-4205-A7D2-6624BCF0E403/PrivatisationOfNHSServices","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dd85df77-1e1d-4f1b-bb9f-30a6f5e06a98","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0091","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":223013,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/223013.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"If England win the world cup, the Monday should be made a bank holiday for 2018","background":"We need this for all those supporting England as the next day will not be pleasant for all fans","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":237396,"created_at":"2018-06-25T12:29:48.499Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:59.527Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-29T10:11:51.627Z","closed_at":"2018-12-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-25T12:59:27.661Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-09T12:32:13.799Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-19T16:49:56.208Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-10T11:00:28.827Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-18T09:37:07.767Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-19","summary":"The Government would like to congratulate the England team on its sterling performance in the World Cup.  The Government has no plans for a bank holiday. ","details":"The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences. Sporting events such as the World Cup contribute towards this objective. We regret however that we cannot agree to create new bank or public holidays to mark the success of sporting events.\n\nThe Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions.  However, the current pattern is well established and accepted. \n\nWhilst an additional bank holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday remains considerable.  The most recent estimate following an Impact Assessment for the additional holiday for the Diamond Jubilee is that a bank holiday (across the UK as a whole) costs employers around £1.2bn. \n\nWorkers in the UK are entitled to 28 days holiday each year.  Employers are under no legal obligation to grant time off for public holidays.  However, Government's policy is to encourage employers to respond flexibly and sympathetically to any requests for leave, bearing in mind business needs.  Acas provides detailed guidance about holiday entitlement on its website.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2018-07-19T16:49:56.204Z","updated_at":"2018-07-19T16:49:56.204Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.  \r\n\r\nGareth Southgate and the England team did a fantastic job, but sadly they didn’t win the World Cup. So there wouldn’t be much to gain from debating this petition.  \r\n\r\nMore than 200,000 people signed the petition in less than two weeks – it’s the biggest petition we have open at the moment. That’s a sign of the fantastic support from fans that the team enjoyed throughout the World Cup.  \r\n\r\nYou can start and sign petitions about the issues that matter to you at petition.parliament.uk","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":206851,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/206851.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"We want a Public Inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.","background":"Throughout the conduct of the case there have been a number of issues that have been swept under the carpet. It's high time they were investigated.","additional_details":"One mystery surrounding the murder of James Bulger case is why the \"experts\" insisted that Jon Venables was rehabilitated.\r\n\r\nThe report of the Prison Service into an incident at Red Bank secure unit has not been published. It is time to examine all this.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":213624,"created_at":"2017-12-01T09:48:55.264Z","updated_at":"2024-03-27T09:49:36.377Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-11T13:41:11.787Z","closed_at":"2018-07-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T13:51:46.838Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-24T19:20:48.457Z","government_response_at":"2018-02-14T14:06:36.911Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T11:07:05.685Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2024-03-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-03-25","debate_outcome_at":"2024-03-27T09:49:36.377Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-02-14","summary":"The offender was convicted of further offences as a direct result of robust and effective monitoring. Therefore the Government considers that a public inquiry into this tragic case is not necessary.","details":"The murder of Jamie Bulger was an appalling crime which shocked the nation and, 25 years on, continues to be of huge interest and concern. Our deepest sympathies remain with Mrs Fergus and Mr Bulger for the pain and suffering they have endured. \n\nBecause this case has been of such understandable concern, when the man formerly known as Jon Venables was recalled to custody in February 2010, the then Justice Secretary asked Sir David Omand, the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, to conduct an extensive review of the management of Venables from the time of his release from Red Bank Secure Children’s Home in 2001 until his recall to custody. In July 2010 Venables was convicted of possessing, downloading and sharing indecent images of children, and Sir David’s detailed report was published in November 2010 and can be found at the following link: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/omand-review-web.pdf \n\nThe independent Parole Board directed Venables’ re-release on life licence – subject to strict licence conditions in July 2013 after a thorough risk assessment and in accordance with the statutory release test, which is whether it is necessary on the grounds of public protection for the offender to be detained in custody. The Parole Board is legally not allowed to share the reasons behind any of its release decisions, but the Government last month announced an urgent review into how to increase the transparency of Parole-Board decision-making and whether and how it might be possible to challenge those decisions.\n\nUnlike in 2010, Jon Venables’ recent criminal acts were discovered as a direct result of the tight monitoring to which he was subject by the Police and Probation Services. He has also constantly been subject to stricter licence conditions and more scrutiny than most lifers would be at the same stage of their sentence. For that reason, a review of the management of Venables since 2010 would not have the same clear focus. \n\nNonetheless, the Government’s number one priority is public safety so we will of course keep the monitoring practice under constant review. Venables is now serving a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment for possessing indecent images of children. Once he has completed the custodial part of that sentence, he will remain in custody until the independent Parole Board determines that his risk is such that he may be re-released on life licence.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2018-02-14T14:06:36.907Z","updated_at":"2018-02-14T14:06:36.907Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-03-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-25/debates/67BB38BF-6376-49C0-945B-FB4E9D9D85F0/JamesBulgerMurderPublicInquiry","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ex1SZcXAW4","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0065/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":254329,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/254329.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Leave the EU with No Deal in October 2019\r\n","background":"Brexit is in chaos. Leave won in 2016 that should be honoured. In the 2016 debates, both sides stated this meant leaving the European Union, Customs Union, Single Market and European Court of Justice. ","additional_details":"This petition is for the government to commit to leave with No Deal but defer the leave date so as to leave in an orderly fashion.\r\n \r\nAfter six months in October 2019 we leave, no deals, no if's, no but's, no delays. We adopt all law as our own and we trade under World Trade Organisation rules.\r\n \r\nWe are then free to build a future relationship from this position without any time constraints, on an equal basis without one side holding all the cards. Our future relationship with the world would be for the government of the day to decide, as it does on all other international issues.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":207673,"created_at":"2019-04-01T21:00:02.304Z","updated_at":"2020-03-06T11:38:02.059Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-03T09:53:36.003Z","closed_at":"2019-11-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-01T21:24:45.089Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-08-28T19:36:22.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-09-24T10:24:17.167Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-09-05T16:02:42.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-03-06T11:37:48.645Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-09-24","summary":"The Prime Minister has been clear: we will leave the EU on 31 October. We’d prefer to do so with a deal, but if there isn’t movement from the EU on the backstop we will have to leave without one.","details":"The Prime Minister has said that the UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October. The Government must respect the referendum result. We would prefer to leave with a deal and we will work in an energetic and determined way to get that better deal. The Government is committed to preparing for this outcome.\n\nThe Government is undertaking preparations to ensure that the UK and the public are fully ready for Brexit. All necessary funding has now been made available.\n\nThe Government has launched the single largest public information campaign, “Get Ready for Brexit”. As part of the campaign, the Government has also launched an online checker tool (Gov.uk/brexit) to identify actions that businesses and citizens can take to prepare. Prior to this, the Government published approximately 750 pieces of communications on No Deal since August 2018, including over 100 technical notices explaining to businesses and citizens what they need to do to prepare. Meanwhile, the Government has laid over 600 Brexit Statutory Instruments and Border Force has increased its headcount by around 900 officers between March 2018 and March 2019. The Government is also undertaking steps to secure additional freight capacity and has worked on preparations with suppliers and partners, meaning that our plans should ensure the supply of critical goods, including medicines and medical products, remain uninterrupted.\n\nPreparations are being made by the Government to ensure we are ready by pursuing international agreements, including signing bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg and approaching all other Member States for similar agreements. The Government has reached trade agreements with partners worth around £90 billion of current trade, secured air services agreements with countries like Canada and the US permitting passenger flights and has ensured that all agreements required to enable continuity in civil nuclear trade are in place - including with Japan, Canada, US, Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.\n\nHowever we leave the EU, the Government’s ambition is for a comprehensive, ambitious future partnership based on a best in class FTA. It will be a relationship based on international law, not EU law. It will be a relationship where the UK would have left the Customs Union so we would have control of our own trade so that we can strike deals with other global partners; we will no longer have to make financial contributions to the EU budget; we will control our own migration policy through an Australian style points-based system; our own laws and courts will be supreme within the UK; and only our Parliament would have the power to set our taxes.\n\nThe Prime Minister remains absolutely focused on delivering on the vote of the British people by taking us out of the European Union on 31 October.\n\nCabinet Office.","created_at":"2019-09-24T10:24:17.165Z","updated_at":"2019-09-24T10:24:17.165Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UK has now left the European Union.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":225767,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/225767.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Lower the age for smear tests from 25 to 18 to prevent cervical cancer.","background":"Hi I'm Natasha, I am making this petition because I want to make a difference to all woman living in the UK.\r\n\r\nI am 30 years old and I have metastatic cervical cancer. I believe that the age of screening should be lowered to age 18 to enable all woman to detect cell changes and prevent cancer.","additional_details":"I believe that lowering the age and giving woman the knowledge about cervical cancer will enable all woman the right to live. There is little to no awareness about cervical cancer. \r\nBy reducing the age of smear tests and cervical screening today we can save lives, we can tackle cell changes early and prevent cervical cancer. \r\nIf I can do anything with my life I want to make this change happen, it's too late for me but it's not too late for the next generation of young ladies.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":205359,"created_at":"2018-07-24T11:49:06.489Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:51.363Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-03T11:56:46.041Z","closed_at":"2019-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-24T11:55:29.616Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-25T21:24:24.954Z","government_response_at":"2018-09-13T11:59:02.881Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-05T23:08:19.624Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-01-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-01-28","debate_outcome_at":"2019-01-29T10:43:08.093Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-09-13","summary":"The Government accepted the UK National Screening Committee recommendation that the first invitation for cervical screening should be offered at age 25 based on the assessment of research evidence.","details":"We are grateful that you have taken the time to focus on making a difference to other women on this important matter by starting your petition, and we are sorry to learn about your diagnosis.\n\nPublic Health England has been running ‘Be Clear on Cancer’ campaigns since 2011. These are designed to raise the public’s awareness of specific cancer symptoms; encourage people with those symptoms to go to the doctor; and diagnose cancer at an earlier stage, and therefore make it more treatable, and thereby improve cancer survival rates.\n\nThe UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises ministers and the NHS in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy and supports implementation.  Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria.  In 2012 the UK NSC recommended that the age of the first invitation for cervical screening should be age 25.  This was based on evidence that a large number of women below this age received relatively little benefit from being screened and treated.  It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. This UK NSC recommendation also concurred with a major review by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening in 2009.\n\nCervical cancer in women under the age of 25 is very rare with 2.6 cases per 100,000 women. Importantly, younger women often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix that screening could identify as cervical abnormalities, and in most cases these abnormalities resolve themselves without any need for intervention.\n\nThe purpose of screening is to reduce mortality and morbidity from cancer and other conditions in the population who appear healthy and have no symptoms, by detecting conditions at an earlier, more treatable stage.\n\nPeople with symptoms are encouraged to contact their general practitioner as soon as possible and work is ongoing to ensure that GPs are aware of the symptoms and the need to refer for further investigation. Guidance is available for the primary care of young women who present with gynaecological symptoms, and was developed and published in March 2010.  The guidance ‘Clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of young women aged 20-24 with abnormal vaginal bleeding’ was produced by a multi-disciplinary group, including professionals, patients and the voluntary sector, and was endorsed by the relevant Royal Colleges.  This can be found at this link:\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436924/doh-guidelines-young-women.pdf\n\nThe NHS offers cervical screening to all eligible women aged 25 to 49 every three years and those aged 50 to 64 every five years, and saves an estimated 5,000 lives a year by detecting abnormalities of the cervix early and referring women for effective treatment.  \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-09-13T11:59:02.878Z","updated_at":"2018-09-13T11:59:02.878Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-01-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-28/debates/44DEED72-12B6-4B63-BD5D-B0956449A299/CervicalCancerSmearTests","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a6180194-ebc1-4a29-8c34-2a0140dc5d9a","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0013","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":223729,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/223729.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum","background":"If Vote Leave has broken any laws regarding overspending in 2016 EU referendum then Art.50 should be immediately withdrawn and full EU membership continued.","additional_details":"Article 50.1 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out that a member can leave by \" Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.\"\r\n \r\nAlso, Article 10.3 of the Lisbon Treaty, \"Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.\"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":203235,"created_at":"2018-07-04T20:41:19.252Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:40:14.477Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-12T16:39:52.003Z","closed_at":"2019-01-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-04T21:38:27.352Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-17T10:13:51.444Z","government_response_at":"2018-08-01T12:20:25.372Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-18T20:33:54.233Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-09-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-09-10","debate_outcome_at":"2018-09-12T14:47:51.684Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-09","summary":"It is regrettable that fines were levied on multiple groups, but it is firm policy the Article 50 notification will not be withdrawn. Britain voted to leave and Government respects that decision.","details":"It is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaign. However, the Government is clear that there can be no attempt to rescind Article 50. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction.\n\nThe result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.\n\nIn last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then voted for parties committing to respecting the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the electorate.\n\nThis was not a decision made after just a few weeks of campaigning, but one that came after a debate that had taken place both in Parliament and across the country for decades.\n\nThe Government is determined to make a success of the British people’s decision to leave the European Union. And that is how we have always approached the negotiations - anticipating success, not failure. It is vital that we try to reach an agreement that builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners. Not just for those who voted to leave, but for every citizen of the United Kingdom. We were given a national mandate and this Government is determined to deliver a deal in the national interest.\n\nAs the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people. The premise that the people can trust their politicians to deliver on the promises they make and will deliver them in Parliament is fundamental to our democracy.\n\nIt is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaigns. The Electoral Commission is an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament, not the Government, and the use of its sanctioning powers show that it is doing its job. \n\nHowever, almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in the highest ever number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, to leave the European Union. This instruction was then reinforced both in Parliament, and in the subsequent General Election. The British people therefore gave a clear directive to Government to leave the EU, and we are committed to respecting that directive. Our focus now is on making a success of Brexit, and delivering an outcome which will better the lives of British people, whether they voted to leave or to remain. \n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-08-01T12:20:25.369Z","updated_at":"2019-01-09T17:17:34.790Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-09-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-09-10/debates/765648D6-5872-49B6-AA13-4E9AC0DA923C/VoteLeaveCampaignElectoralLaw","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f5d8b613-0156-4925-a54f-958105fd7bb5","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0202","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":235138,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235138.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a second referendum on EU membership.","background":"The Brexit process has been a failure. At the end of two years, our ruling party is bitterly divided, the main opposition not a viable replacement for it, and the deal we have negotiated is almost universally opposed. \r\n No one voted for this to happen.","additional_details":"Whether you voted leave or remain, you didn't vote for us to leave the EU in disarray, with no deal, putting many peoples livelihoods and living situations at risk.\r\n\r\n We must hold a second referendum, now we can all see what 'Leave' really means for this country and Europe. We must hold a vote between the following two options:\r\n\r\n- Take the Deal negotiated by Theresa May\r\n- Cancel Brexit and remain in the EU\r\n\r\nNo deal is not an option.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":194336,"created_at":"2018-12-13T11:51:45.917Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:33.480Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-16T15:18:04.772Z","closed_at":"2019-07-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-30T12:48:57.783Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-18T16:23:14.638Z","government_response_at":"2019-01-30T12:47:44.201Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-18T18:25:21.784Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-03-26","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-04-01","debate_outcome_at":"2019-04-03T11:40:17.240Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-30","summary":"The Government remains clear that we will respect the result of the 2016 referendum, and we therefore will not hold a second referendum.","details":"The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum; it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum.\n\nThe 2016 referendum delivered a very clear instruction to Government - to withdraw from the European Union. Since then, this Government has remained committed to honouring that instruction, given to us through 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union - the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. \n\nThat result was reinforced not only by Parliament’s passing of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill with clear and convincing majorities; but also in the 2017 General Election, where over 80% of people also voted for parties committed to respecting the result of the referendum. In fact, both major parties stood for election on a stated policy to respect the decision of the people. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will expressed by voters in the referendum - respecting both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.\n\nThe British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”\n\nThe Government therefore remains committed to delivering on the instruction and the mandate given to us by the British people - to withdraw from the European Union. We continue to work to reach consensus on the deal we have negotiated, to enable a smooth and orderly exit, and deliver an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2019-01-30T12:47:44.198Z","updated_at":"2019-01-30T12:47:44.198Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-04-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-01/debates/DAEA92D0-DB85-4370-B65C-2BB2FF6B5AE9/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uMe5FmqH8&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":229178,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/229178.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"School should start at 10am as teenagers are too tired","background":"Teenagers are so tired due to having to wake up very early to get to school. The Government should require secondary schools to start later, which will lead to increased productivity at school.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":187902,"created_at":"2018-09-24T10:31:05.632Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:41:50.296Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-04T09:32:54.361Z","closed_at":"2019-04-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-24T10:36:45.194Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-26T01:13:30.178Z","government_response_at":"2019-02-07T11:39:09.340Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-26T19:52:55.664Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-02-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-02-11","debate_outcome_at":"2019-02-12T13:42:30.607Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-22","summary":"The Department has no plans to require secondary schools to start later. The decision on when to start the school day lies with individual schools. ","details":"The government has given all schools the ability to set their own school hours so all schools have the autonomy to make decisions about the content, structure and duration of their school day, including the flexibility to decide when their school day should start and finish. In light of this, the Department has no plans to require secondary schools to start later. We trust head teachers to decide how best to structure their school day to support their pupils’ education. \n\nThere are no specific legal requirements about how long the school day should be. Governing bodies of all maintained schools in England are responsible for deciding when morning and afternoon sessions should begin and end on each school day\n\nAcademy and free school funding agreements state that the duration of the school day is the responsibility of the academy trust. In the event that a school decides to make changes to its school day, it is our expectation that the school should consider the impact on those affected – including pupils, teachers, and parents’ work commitments and childcare options.\n\nDepartment for Education.\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229178)","created_at":"2019-02-07T11:39:09.337Z","updated_at":"2019-04-23T16:47:45.714Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-02-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-11/debates/E0FFB632-2FCA-4341-A9E1-CA6CFAE6BCEF/SecondarySchoolOpeningHours","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1288b0e1-bf2c-43ed-9601-9d24c602ebdc","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0032","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":222419,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/222419.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reject calls to add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the Dangerous Dogs Act","background":"PETA, an organisation that is meant to be dedicated to protecting animals, has proposed to the UK government that it should add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the dangerous dogs act, effectively banning them outright. Breed Specific Legislation is not the solution to the problem of dog attacks.","additional_details":"Many people in the UK today have the pleasure of owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As one of these people I can recommend them as being loving, loyal and caring, far from dangerous they are great companions. It would be a terrible tragedy for the dog lovers of the UK to lose the right to own one of these great companions. We are calling on Parliament to save our staffies and not have them banned as dangerous dogs, because they are not. People create dangerous dogs, people are the problem.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":186226,"created_at":"2018-06-16T22:06:32.900Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:39:50.385Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-06-22T16:56:01.988Z","closed_at":"2018-12-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-17T16:42:06.826Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-23T20:56:16.987Z","government_response_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.481Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-06-26T17:51:52.292Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-07-11","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-07-16","debate_outcome_at":"2018-07-17T15:48:19.819Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-07-05","summary":"The Government has no intention of prohibiting the keeping of Staffordshire Bull Terriers.","details":"Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits the keeping of certain types of dog identified as either bred for fighting or that share the characteristics of dogs bred for fighting. There are four types of dog to which the prohibition applies: (i) pitbull terrier; (ii) Japanese tosa; (iii) dogo Argentino; and (iv) fila Braziliero. However, although it is an offence to keep one of these types of dog there are exemptions for individual dogs where it has been shown to a court that they do not pose a safety risk to others.  The exemptions are subject to conditions (i.e. neutered, insured against injuring third parties, muzzled and on a lead when in public).\n\nThe Government considers that the prohibition on certain types of dogs forms an important part of the measures needed to tackle irresponsible ownership of dogs. Other important measures already in place include: an offence to allow a dog, of any type or breed, to be dangerously out of control; allowing police and local authorities to issue community protection notices to irresponsible owners whose dogs are causing low level problems; and civil law allowing courts to impose restrictions on individual dogs that are found to be dangerous.\n\nThe Parliamentary Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) (not Government) are currently reviewing the law on the prohibition on certain types of dogs.  EFRA invited any written evidence to be submitted to them by 6 June 2018. Once EFRA’s review is complete they will then publish a report with recommendations and submit it to the Government.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.479Z","updated_at":"2018-07-05T09:34:26.479Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-07-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-16/debates/51B3E06E-CDFE-45DD-BD6B-D9B304DA4298/DangerousDogsActStaffordshireBullTerriers","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/62d17595-483a-4445-bb0b-7ffc90f511a5","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/debate-staffordshire-bull-terriers-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":243319,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/243319.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Parliament must honour the Referendum result. Leave deal or no deal 29/03/19","background":"The UK voted in a referendum in 2016 to Leave the EU....this wasn't dependent on a \" deal\" ....but rather just \"Leave\" \r\nwe are now demanding that all mp's honour this result .conservative and labour mp's also agreed to leave on 29/03/19......   deal or no deal as part of their gen election campaign","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":183422,"created_at":"2019-02-26T14:13:55.185Z","updated_at":"2020-06-19T15:00:46.574Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-04T16:03:33.141Z","closed_at":"2019-09-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-27T16:57:25.602Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:48:31.934Z","government_response_at":"2019-04-04T12:46:06.758Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-26T01:48:31.934Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-03-26","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-04-01","debate_outcome_at":"2019-04-03T11:42:24.645Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-04-04","summary":"The Government stands by its commitment to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum and to deliver the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.","details":"In 2016, this Government stated that it would honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.\n\nDuring the 2016 referendum campaign, this Government wrote to every UK household to promise that it would implement the result of the referendum. With that commitment in mind, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at a UK Government.\n\nThe British people voted once again in the General Election of 2017, with over 80% of those who voted, voting for parties, including the Opposition, who committed to respecting and implementing the result of the referendum.\n\nThe British people have made their view clear. It is now our responsibility to uphold the result of the referendum.\n\nThe Government’s policy was to deliver Brexit on the 29th of March. The Government has agreed a short extension with the EU, and continues to try and find consensus that will ensure the UK leaves in a smooth and orderly way. However, in the event that the House does not pass the meaningful vote, the legal default remains that the UK will leave the EU on the 12th of April without a negotiated agreement. \n\nWhilst the Government has conducted extensive preparations to ensure that the UK is prepared for all scenarios, the best outcome remains for the UK to leave the EU in an orderly fashion with a deal; this is the best way to secure certainty for businesses and citizens in the UK and the EU.\n\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union.","created_at":"2019-04-04T12:46:06.756Z","updated_at":"2019-04-04T12:46:06.756Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-04-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-01/debates/DAEA92D0-DB85-4370-B65C-2BB2FF6B5AE9/LeavingTheEuropeanUnion","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uMe5FmqH8&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":216539,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/216539.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Amnesty for anyone who was a minor that arrived In Britain between 1948 to 1971","background":"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay.We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor.The government should also provide compensation for loss & hurt.","additional_details":"With successive changes in immigration policy and legislation over the last 70 years along with the independence of countries which now form part of the Commonwealth this has created uncertainty and lack of clarity and justice for tens of thousands of individuals who have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised children and grandchildren and  who see Britain as their home. \r\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/30/antiguan-who-has-lived-59-years-in-britain-told-he-is-in-uk-illegally","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":180482,"created_at":"2018-03-30T16:36:00.632Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:38:07.280Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-06T16:51:31.292Z","closed_at":"2018-10-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-30T17:45:10.856Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-10T08:34:58.848Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.011Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-15T07:23:23.315Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-30","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-01T08:54:46.658Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-23","summary":"The Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.","details":"This petition was debated in Westminster Hall on 30 April 2018 and as part of that debate the Minister for Immigration said:\n\nLet us be in no doubt about the debt of gratitude that this country owes to the Windrush generation… they were invited to come to the United Kingdom immediately after the second world war and in the decades that followed to help us to build modern Britain…\n\n…We cannot fail to be moved and to be ashamed when confronted with the individual stories, but as a result, be determined to get the wrong righted, to sort the cases out and to make sure that the legal status is confirmed.\n\nThe Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.\nThe Immigration Act 1971 set out in law a provision that those here before it came into force should be treated as having been given indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK. It also retained a right of abode for certain Commonwealth citizens. Therefore, everyone that arrived in the UK and was settled before 1973 was given settlement rights by operation of law and was not required to have any specific documentation to prove those rights. \n\nSince 1973, many of the Windrush generation will have obtained documentation confirming their status or would have applied for citizenship and then a British passport. For those who have not, the former Home Secretary announced a series of measures on 16 and 23 April 2018 to ensure the Windrush generation could easily obtain documentation to demonstrate that right and could easily go on to apply for British Citizenship.\n\nOn 16 April, the previous Home Secretary announced a dedicated taskforce would be established to support the Windrush generation. The taskforce is taking calls and emails from those who are affected and guiding them through the application taskforce. Since its inception on 17 April the taskforce has documented hundreds of individuals who were affected.\n\nIn the Westminster Hall debate on this petition, the Minister for Immigration said of the taskforce:\n\nI was in Croydon and in Sheffield with caseworkers who are on the frontline, doing their best to help people through the process. \n\nI have to say that I was very impressed with the determination of those caseworkers to be sympathetic and understanding, and to talk people through the process as gently as they possibly could while at the same time enabling them to give their stories and to provide a picture of their life in the UK—helping them through a process with which we should have been helping them much earlier.\n\nOn 23 April, the previous Home Secretary announced four measures to assist those in the Windrush generation to become British Citizens:\n\nFirstly, that the Government will waive the citizenship fee for anyone in the Windrush generation who wishes to apply for citizenship. This applies to those who have no current documentation, and also to those who have it.\n\nSecondly, that the Government will waive the requirement to carry out a Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK test for British Citizenship.\n\nThirdly, that the children of the Windrush generation who are in the UK and need to apply for naturalisation will have their fee waived.  For those not born in the UK but now living here, provided they joined their parents as children (before the age of 18) they will also be covered by the scheme.\n\nFourthly, that those who made their lives here but have now retired to their country of origin, are able to come back to the UK, without fees. \n\nFinally, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have announced that a compensation scheme will be put in place for those who have suffered loss as a result of these difficulties, and that the Government will consult on the design of this scheme – such as the shape it should take, what it should cover, and how long it should be for. \n\nAccordingly, the Home Office have launched a call for evidence addressed to those who have been affected by this situation and their families.  This is an opportunity for those people to tell the Government what happened, how it has affected them and what they believe the compensation scheme needs to address.\n\nAs a first step the Government have asked Martin Forde QC to provide independent oversight and advise us on the design of the scheme. He will help us to understand the experience of people who have been affected and how this should be reflected in the scheme.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z","updated_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-30/debates/CEC6AAFF-E02D-41DA-B681-AF9713BE6F82/MinorsEnteringTheUK1948To1971","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f29d6e8b-ff66-4e9b-97a6-89dc46a9dbfd","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0109","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":234627,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/234627.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Continue to fund free TV licences for the over 75 in the future.","background":"Removing them will only penalize the poorest old age pensioners, many who rely on their television for company and their main source of entertainment.","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":171982,"created_at":"2018-12-06T14:31:22.296Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:43:24.615Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-12-17T17:20:54.459Z","closed_at":"2019-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-09T15:36:58.830Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-11T12:06:02.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-24T15:02:58.104Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-12T16:42:32.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-06-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-15","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-16T10:54:54.557Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-24","summary":"The Government is clear that the future of the over 75 licence fee concession is the responsibility of the BBC from June 2020. ","details":"The Government recognises the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly for older people who value television as a way to stay connected with the world. \n\nIn the 2015 funding settlement, the Government agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession will transfer to the BBC in June 2020. In return the Government closed the iPlayer loophole and committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation. The Government and the BBC agreed this was a fair deal. This reform was subject to public discussion and debated extensively during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017 through Parliament.\n\nThe future of the concession is the responsibility of the BBC. The BBC has announced that, from June 2020, only people who are aged 75 and above and in receipt of Pension Credit will continue to receive a free television licence. The BBC received views from over 190,000 people as part of their broader public consultation on the issue. It said the cost of the free TV licence concession for those over 75 would amount to £745m by 2021/22, which it said would threaten the future of services including BBC 2, BBC 4, BBC News Channel and Radio 5Live. It said restricting the concession to those on pension credit was ‘the fairest and best outcome’. The BBC estimates the costs of implementing the restricted concession at £250m in the first year.\n\nPension Credit is an income-related benefit which targets help at the poorest pensioners who have been unable to provide for their retirement. It provides a minimum income for people in retirement in addition to the State Pension. Approximately 900,000 people over 75 are currently in receipt of Pension Credit; this would rise to approx 1.5m people if all those entitled took it up. \n\nThe Government has expressed its disappointment with the BBC’s decision. It believes the BBC can, and should do more to support older people. It is the BBC’s responsibility to ensure its substantial licence fee income is used effectively to deliver fully for UK audiences. The Government has asked the BBC to look at further measures to support older people.\n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.","created_at":"2019-06-24T15:02:58.102Z","updated_at":"2019-06-24T15:02:58.102Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAu4gz2VWeo","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04955","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":209433,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/209433.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords","background":"The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people","additional_details":"","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":170981,"created_at":"2018-01-12T13:08:04.466Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:35:58.776Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T18:36:38.185Z","closed_at":"2018-07-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-12T14:54:34.514Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T22:00:48.770Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-23T22:32:25.308Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2018-05-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-18","debate_outcome_at":"2018-06-19T10:27:32.745Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2018-05-15","summary":"As stated in our manifesto, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for this parliament. ","details":"Therefore, the Government does not intend to hold a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords.\n\nAs set out in the manifesto, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority. Therefore, the Government does not intend to hold a referendum on the abolition of the House. \n\nThe Government is committed to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We will also continue to work to ensure that the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.\n\nThe Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Burns, made recommendations in October 2017 on ways of reducing the size of the House without requiring legislation. In response, The Prime Minister has written to the Lord Speaker and agreed to continue with the restraint she has shown so far when making appointments to the House. It is incumbent on all sides of the House to consider what they can do to further promote the culture of retirement. In light of the Prime Minister's letter, the Lord Speaker has reconvened the Committee to consider next steps. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.494Z","updated_at":"2018-06-19T16:34:22.911Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-06-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-18/debates/37FAA193-1A7C-4FD9-9F12-3275460784D4/HouseOfLordsAbolition","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8ac13ee0-369b-4313-a023-176fe9d370dc","debate_pack_url":"https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2017/referendum-abolition-house-lords-debate-17-19/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":242300,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/242300.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2017-2019","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2019-11-06T00:01:00.000+00:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Don't put our NHS up for negotiation","background":"Please introduce concrete safeguards that will make sure our NHS is kept out of any future trade deals after Brexit.","additional_details":"Words aren't enough - we want watertight protections that will keep our NHS off the negotiating table.\r\nWhy is this important?\r\nWhen done well, trade deals can be good for the UK. They can help create jobs and build opportunities for all of us. But this plan would put our health service at risk.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":169836,"created_at":"2019-02-18T22:37:48.161Z","updated_at":"2020-02-26T22:45:38.751Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-01T10:53:57.252Z","closed_at":"2019-09-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-18T23:07:30.727Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-05T05:43:12.000Z","government_response_at":"2019-06-17T08:50:36.983Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-05T21:20:22.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2019-06-26","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-22","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-23T09:45:47.444Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-17","summary":"The Government has been clear: the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector. The Government will ensure no trade agreements will ever be able to alter this fundamental fact.","details":"The Government has been consistently clear about its commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS – that it is universal and free at the point of need.  Our position is definitive: the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.  The Government will ensure no trade agreements will ever be able to alter these fundamental facts.\n\nAs the Prime Minister noted in January, our health service “is there for all of us when we need it most”.  The NHS “is one of this country’s greatest institutions.  An institution that is consistently what makes the people of this country most proud to be British”.\n\nThat is why protecting the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest and protect public services, including the NHS, is of the utmost importance.  As set out in the October 2017 White Paper ‘Preparing for our future trade policy’, the Government will continue to ensure that decisions on how to run public services are made by UK Governments, including the Devolved Administrations, and not our trade partners. \n\nThe UK’s public services are protected by specific exceptions and reservations in EU Free Trade Agreements.  As we leave the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that rigorous protections are included in all trade agreements it is party to, whether transitioned from an EU context or as a result of new negotiations.  \n\nThese protections are an integral part of the UK’s future independent trade policy, rather than being at odds with it.  We want to maximise our trade opportunities globally and across all countries – both by boosting our trading relationships with old friends and new allies, and by seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU.  The UK aims to pursue an ambitious bilateral trade agenda.  Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) can enable increased trade and investment, secure access for UK exporters to the key markets of today and the future, give consumers access to a greater range of products at lower prices, and make the UK more innovative, competitive and prosperous.\n\nThese benefits also matter for the public services which we want to protect.  Trade is vital for the NHS, which relies heavily on vital goods and services that come wholly, or in part, from suppliers based overseas.  Trade enables the NHS to buy the best possible medicines and medical devices that industry – here and overseas – has to offer.  That is in the best interests of NHS patients.\n\nTrade agreements do not prevent governments from regulating as they see fit, and they also do not require governments to privatise any services.  The UK Government is committed to maintaining our high standards for consumers, workers and the environment, and to protecting our public services, in any future trade agreements that we conclude.\n\nThe Government will ensure that nothing in our future trade agreements dilutes the powers of UK regulators to maintain the NHS’s position as the best health service in the world. \n\nDepartment for International Trade.","created_at":"2019-06-17T08:50:36.981Z","updated_at":"2019-06-17T08:50:36.981Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-22/debates/505FC27F-DA26-4FF0-9FC4-11D495747AA6/NHSAndFutureTradeDeals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3QjbPwrb3Q","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2019-0190","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}}]}