{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=5&parliament=4&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=4&state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=41&parliament=4&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=4&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=4&parliament=4&state=with_response"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":661407,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/661407.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Give parents/guardians a right to access social media accounts of their children","background":"I want parents/guardians to have the right to be given access to their children's social media accounts, by social media providers, both when the child is alive and if they are deceased.","additional_details":"My son Jools was 14 when he took his life in 2022. At the time the new Coroner's powers to request social media access were not in force. However, I also think this is too late.\r\n \r\nSince my son's death, I have not been able to access information to see what my son was looking at that could have contributed to him taking his own life.\r\n \r\nParents should have the right to full access to their child's social media accounts either whilst they are still alive (to protect them) or if they die as in my case.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":126033,"created_at":"2024-04-27T09:12:21.273Z","updated_at":"2025-01-15T16:11:49.632Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-05-10T15:57:56.135Z","closed_at":"2024-05-29T23:01:00.000Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-04-27T09:55:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-23T14:12:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-08-20T14:01:27.928Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-28T16:14:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2024-11-27","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-01-13","debate_outcome_at":"2025-01-15T16:11:49.632Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-08-20","summary":"The Government is committed to tackling the harm children face online and we will look at how we can support families to see information about a child’s internet use following a bereavement.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this incredibly important issue. Every death is a tragedy but extremely so when it involves a young person, and I am grateful to the brave parents who continue to fight for greater protections for children online.\n\nChildren face significant harm online and the Government is committed to finding ways in which we can strengthen protections for children and support those families who have had to endure unimaginable losses. We understand that families want answers and to be able to access information about a child’s internet use following a bereavement, and it is crucial that companies respond to parents’ requests for information in a humane and transparent way.\n\nThe Online Safety Act 2023 contains several provisions which will address some of the challenges faced by parents and coroners when trying to access information from online services about a child’s activities prior to their death.\n\nFirstly, the Act introduces measures to strengthen coroners’ ability to obtain information from online services, providing a route for the parents or guardians to see data in relation to a deceased child. These measures give Ofcom the power to require information from regulated services about a deceased child’s online activity following a request from a coroner. This includes content the child had viewed or with which they had engaged, the role algorithms and other functionalities played and any content that the child generated, uploaded or shared on the service. Where a company refuses to provide information requested by Ofcom, companies may be subject to enforcement action.\n\nSecondly, the Act will ensure services categorised as Category 1 (major user-to-user services, such as the largest social media companies), Category 2A (major search services) or Category 2B (other categorised user-to-user services) are transparent about their policies regarding data disclosure concerning a deceased child. These services will have to set out policies on disclosing information to parents regarding the online activities of a deceased child in a clear, accessible and sufficiently detailed format in their terms of service. They must provide a written response to data requests in a timely manner and must provide a dedicated helpline, or similar means, for parents to communicate with the company to streamline the data request process. They will also be required to offer options for parents to complain when they consider a platform has not met its obligations.\n\nWe know that, in some instances, social media companies' routine processes may erase or delete data that is later required by coroners as part of an investigation into a child’s death. To address this, the new Digital Information and Smart Data Bill will establish a data preservation notice process. This would require Ofcom, on notification from a coroner, to issue a notice to specified services requiring them to retain relevant data they may have on a child which could later be required in an inquest.\n\nThe Online Safety Act does not include any measures which enable parents to access the data of a living child. Social media companies with processes in place that grant parents access to a living child’s data will need to ensure that they comply with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. While data protection legislation does not apply to a deceased persons’ data, social media companies must still consider whether any personal data relating to third parties, such as other children that child has interacted with, is captured by a parent’s request for access, as this personal data will also be protected under UK GDPR and DPA 2018.\n\nHowever, there are a range of parental control tools which give parents greater oversight of their child’s online activity. These tools enable parents to restrict child access to pre-approved sites, manage their privacy and messaging settings, and block or filter inappropriate content or websites.\n\nIn addition, the Online Safety Act ensures that all children will receive a far greater level of protection online. All in-scope services will need to take robust steps to protect children from illegal content and criminal behaviour, including by removing and limiting the spread of such content and taking steps to prevent it from appearing. Additionally, services which are likely to be accessed by children will be required to take steps to protect children from content that is legal but nevertheless harmful to them, including violent content, content that encourages suicide or self-harm, and content that encourages participation in dangerous stunts or challenges.\n\nThe Government is working closely with Ofcom to ensure the Online Safety Act is implemented as quickly, and effectively, as possible. We will continue to work with stakeholders to balance important considerations regarding the safety and privacy of children, and will continue our dialogue with bereaved parents to put their concerns at the heart of our work.\n\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology","created_at":"2024-08-20T14:01:27.922Z","updated_at":"2024-08-20T14:01:27.922Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-01-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-13/debates/BE75FBD7-CA64-4944-AA56-913BD13AD2AC/Children%E2%80%99SSocialMediaAccounts","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/RMUGxnySoPI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0182/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":549015,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/549015.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Implement a two week school lockdown before 24 December to save Christmas","background":"Schools should move to online learning from 9 December so that all students and school staff have a chance to isolate for two weeks and then can safely meet older relatives.","additional_details":"We need to be able to look forward to family celebrations at the end of a difficult year. There will be so many lonely grandparents if measures aren't taken to allow households to mix safely. There will be many very risky meetings which could lead to unnecessary pressure on the NHS.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":125227,"created_at":"2020-08-19T17:11:00.361Z","updated_at":"2021-04-02T23:00:00.507Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-02T16:56:10.620Z","closed_at":"2021-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-20T00:39:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-17T22:38:47.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-12-01T16:48:53.392Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-27T11:24:17.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-12-03","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-12-07","debate_outcome_at":"2020-12-08T14:05:06.490Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-01","summary":"As set out in the Government’s COVID-19 Winter Plan, schools should not close early or change their Christmas holidays. It remains a national priority to avoid further disruption to education.","details":"It remains a national priority to keep schools open full time and avoid further disruption to education.  As set out in the Government’s COVID-19 Winter Plan, nurseries, schools and colleges should not change their Christmas holidays or close early this term. Parents should continue to send their children to school during term time and students should continue to attend college right up until the end of term. A time-limited change to social restrictions over Christmas does not require any children to be taken out of school prematurely. The leaders and staff of education settings have been doing an extraordinary job to remain open, keep settings safe and provide education.\n\nReturning to school full time has been vital for children’s education and for their wellbeing. Time out of school is detrimental for children’s cognitive and academic development, particularly for disadvantaged children. This impact can affect both current levels of education, children’s future ability to learn and preparation for those studying exams next summer. \n\nSchool is the best place for children to learn, and it is important for their mental wellbeing to have social interactions with their peers, carers and teachers.\n\nSchools have been open to all pupils since the start of the autumn term with figures showing, on average, 99% of schools are open each day.\n\nThe risk to children themselves of becoming severely ill from coronavirus (COVID-19) is low and there are negative health impacts of being out of school. Senior clinicians, including the Chief Medical Officers of all four nations, still advise that school is the very best place for children to be, We have taken a national decision to prioritise education during the current period of national restrictions in order to avoid any further reduction in face to face education for children and young people. This is the chance for them to catch-up on lost education through full time attendance at school, and pupils and teachers will still have a break over the festive period.\n\nWe published ‘Guidance for full opening: schools’ (1) to support schools to welcome back all children full-time. Our guidance sets out measures which provide a framework for school leaders to put in place proportionate protective measures for children and staff, which also ensure that all pupils receive a high quality education that enables them to thrive and progress. This includes the public health advice schools must follow to minimise the risks of coronavirus (COVID-19) transmission.\n\nThe measures set out in the department’s guidance to minimise the risk of transmission in schools has been endorsed by Public Health England. These include regular handwashing, promoting good respiratory hygiene, keeping groups separate and maintaining distance and minimising contact between individuals. Whilst pupils are in school they are in an inherently safer environment. Closing schools early would also cause additional disruption and inconvenience to many parents, including key workers such as NHS staff due to the additional child care arrangements required as a result of this action.\n\nThe festive period is an important time for many people of all faiths and none who come together over the holidays. For this reason, the government is changing some social contact restrictions for a short period of time. When following these new rules, we must each continue to take personal responsibility to limit the spread of the virus and protect our loved ones, particularly if they are vulnerable. For many, this will mean that it isn’t possible to celebrate Christmas in the normal way. \n\nWe will continue to keep the evidence, particularly on the transmission rate and wider risks on health, under review so that we can continue to support schools to remain open and provide the education that children deserve. \n\n(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/actions-for-schools-during-the-coronavirus-outbreak/guidance-for-full-opening-schools\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2020-12-01T16:48:53.390Z","updated_at":"2020-12-01T16:48:53.390Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-12-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-12-07/debates/4FFF63BD-3E7E-4CD6-A1B1-1A8400F88AD8/Covid-19ImpactOnSchoolsAndExams","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r7ECc92V3g&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300628,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300628.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Close all universities down for an appropriate amount of time amidst COVID-19","background":"We would like the government to to consider closing universities down in the coming weeks or as soon as possible, in addition to taking necessary actions to prevent further spread","additional_details":"To prevent the spread of COVID-19","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":123903,"created_at":"2020-03-06T19:27:18.439Z","updated_at":"2020-10-07T15:53:19.768Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-11T14:32:42.514Z","closed_at":"2020-09-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-06T19:32:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-11T16:00:44.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-24T14:04:26.780Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-12T20:52:54.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-07-29T10:55:32.524Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-24","summary":"The Government’s number one priority is the safety of students and staff. The DfE is working with universities to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, based on guidance from Public Health England.","details":"The Government’s number one priority is the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. We will also do all we can to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the higher education (HE) sector.\n\nOn 18 March, the Prime Minister and Education Secretary announced changes to the operational models of schools and colleges in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These changes show how much we need to ratchet up social distancing measures to deal with the outbreak.\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of supporting HE providers to remain open, as long as expert medical advice supports this. It is doing all it can to support the HE sector and its students, including encouraging them to make online teaching provision as widespread as possible for the summer term, in compliance with social distancing guidance.\n\nCessation of face-to-face teaching in favour of online provision is not closure. It is a move that enables compliance with social distancing guidance. We will continue to work with the sector to understand the developing range of options for distance teaching and learning and ensure that we support students where necessary.\n\nAny decision to close universities would be based on careful consideration of multiple factors. In any eventuality, a significant number of students may be care leavers, students who are estranged from their families, and international students for whom alternative accommodation is not easily available or who are not able to get home because of travel restrictions. It is essential that these students are reassured that their provider will continue to support them through these difficult and unsettling times. Students who remain in campus accommodation will also need additional support, including access to counselling and mental health advice.\n\nThe Department for Education (DfE) stands ready to support providers in any discussion that is needed to ensure that they have access to the right resources to care for students. The Chancellor has also announced a series of wider measures to support employers and employees, recognising the significant impacts caused by COVID-19.\n\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2020-03-24T14:04:26.778Z","updated_at":"2020-03-24T14:05:03.084Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"Because it has not been possible to debate this petition to date, and the issues raised by this petition have been considered by the Committee in other ways, the Committee has agreed not schedule this petition for debate.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300025,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300025.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Vets to scan prior to euthanasia for Rescue Back up and confirm keeper details","background":"A healthy young dog with RBU was euthanised. The person who requested euthanasia was not the registered keeper. ","additional_details":"Vets must be legally required to scan for rescue back up contact details on microchips and confirm the person presenting the animal is registered on the microchip. Rescue Back Up must be contacted and honoured\r\n\r\nTuks Law request vets:\r\n \r\nScan microchips prior to euthanising a healthy/treatable animal.\r\n \r\nConfirm keeper details on original database of unknown animals presented for euthanasia.\r\n \r\nSeek alternative options in non life threatening/non emergency situations. \r\n \r\nIf an unsubstantiated reason for euthanasia is made corroborating evidence is required.\r\n \r\nOn government endorsed databases a prefix is to be added to microchips to identify dual registration of rescue animals.\r\n \r\n#TuksLaw","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":121170,"created_at":"2020-03-03T11:54:38.434Z","updated_at":"2021-12-08T16:30:14.837Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-04T12:27:27.042Z","closed_at":"2020-09-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-03T11:59:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-09T09:56:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-23T17:59:02.435Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-30T15:57:34.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-28","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-29T08:18:03.474Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-07","summary":"The Government understands the distress that the death of a pet can cause and is considering scanning requirements, as part of the Post Implementation Review of the microchipping regulations.","details":"We agree that no dog should be put down unless there are extenuating reasons for having to do so.\n\nParagraphs 8.9 and 8.10 of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Conduct provides advice to vets on euthanizing animals when the owner is not present. A link to the RCVS’ Code of Conduct can be found here:\n\nhttps://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/euthanasia-of-animals/\n\nEvery responsible dog owner wants to ensure their pet is safe and microchips are often the only hope of finding dogs that are lost or stolen. It is a legal requirement for all owners to microchip their dogs, and to enter the details onto a database. Since compulsory microchipping for dogs came into force in 2016, we have seen a clear drop in the number of stray dogs on the streets and an increase in the number of lost or stolen pets reunited with their owners.\n\nBritish Veterinary Association (BVA) best practice is that vets should scan dogs on first presentation at their practice, and at other regular intervals including prior to euthanasia, where euthanasia is deemed the appropriate course of action by the veterinary expert. BVA’s website sets out their position on scanning:\n\nhttps://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Companion-animals/Microchipping/\n\nThe guidance includes advice on what a vet should do if the details of the person presenting the dog are different to what is recorded on the database, and what to do when stray or lost animals are brought to the practice by checking the microchipping databases in order to reunite the animal with their owner.\n\nAlthough the Government considers that advice from BVA and RCVS provides veterinary professionals with helpful guidance on conducting appropriate scanning, the Government is considering proposals for the compulsory scanning of dogs before euthanasia by vets as part of the ongoing Post Implementation Review of The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015.\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/300025)","created_at":"2020-03-23T17:59:02.433Z","updated_at":"2020-05-19T14:02:53.539Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-06-28/debates/FAE1F98B-BE16-4016-B701-FAEF87D7055C/MicrochippingOfPets","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlDYqU6y-m8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0096/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300561,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300561.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a new statutory framework","background":"Breed Specific Legislation fails to achieve what Parliament intended, to protect the public. It focuses on specific breeds, which fails to appreciate a dog is not aggressive purely on the basis of its breed. It allows seizure of other breeds, but the rules are not applied homogeneously by councils.","additional_details":"We need a system that focuses on the aggressive behaviour of dogs, and the failure of owners to control their dog, rather than the way a dog looks. Reconsider a licensing system. The framework must be applied by local authorities the same, whereas currently some destroy dogs with no court order. It must be much more strictly controlled than it is currently. The system needs to be fairer for all, dogs and humans. We are touched by cases of people committing suicide over the current system.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":118641,"created_at":"2020-03-06T09:57:24.007Z","updated_at":"2021-11-03T08:20:51.851Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-11T12:26:43.218Z","closed_at":"2020-09-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-06T12:09:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-01T13:54:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-04-17T15:42:30.673Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-08T14:51:34.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-06-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-07-05","debate_outcome_at":"2021-07-06T06:51:36.627Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-17","summary":"The Government considers that prohibition on the four types of fighting dog under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should remain in place. This is supported by police who are responsible for enforcing the Act.","details":"The law on dangerous dogs is concerned with protecting the safety of the public. The four types of dog, pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro are prohibited because they are types bred for fighting. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 states that no person shall give away, breed or breed from, sell, or exchange a prohibited dog. However, the law allows a person to keep an individual dog where a court has considered that it does not present a danger to public safety. The court must consider the temperament of the dog and whether the intended keeper is a “fit and proper person” and other matters such as suitability of accommodation. Dogs placed on the Index of Exempted dogs may be kept by the owner under strict conditions, including that the dog is neutered, microchipped and kept on a lead and muzzled in public. There are currently around 3,000 dogs where a court has granted an exemption and allowed them to stay with their owner.\n\nThe Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 also makes it an offence to allow a dog of any breed or type to become dangerously out of control in any place. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment, where the offence has led to a death and 5 years imprisonment where someone is injured.\n\nEnforcers are able to take action before dog attacks happen. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 includes specific measures to enable the police and local authorities to tackle irresponsible dog ownership before a dog attack occurs. Practitioners can intervene at an early stage to help to prevent situations involving irresponsible owners of dogs from becoming serious. \n\nThe 2014 Act includes streamlined measures to tackle anti-social behaviour, including where such behaviour involves a dog. The main tool to combat this form of irresponsible dog ownership is the Community Protection Notice (CPN). CPNs can be issued by local authority officers or the police on dog owners, or anyone temporarily in charge of a dog at the time of an incident, where dogs are behaving in an unruly way. The CPN could require the dog’s owner, or the person in charge of it, to take appropriate action to prevent a reoccurrence of the offending behaviour. To breach a CPN is a criminal offence and could lead to a significant penalty. The Government is determined to crack down on irresponsible dog ownership and to that end we are encouraging police forces across the country to use these new tools.\n\nIn addition, Defra has commissioned further research in collaboration with Middlesex University to look at responsible ownership across all breeds of dog. The research will consider different approaches and the effectiveness of current dog control measures. The research will also seek to identify and examine the factors and situations that may cause dog attacks; how to promote responsible dog ownership.  We expect to have a final report by the end of 2020.\n\nThere are no proposals to re-introduce the dog licence. The previous licensing scheme for dogs was ceased in 1988 because it was estimated that only around 40% of owners were compliant. This is similar to compliance levels in countries that still operate a dog licensing scheme.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2020-04-17T15:42:30.670Z","updated_at":"2020-04-17T15:42:30.670Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-07-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-05/debates/814EF953-52F7-4499-953C-447928FF71DB/BreedSpecificLegislation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR2Y3YQa_lU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0111/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":563473,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/563473.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Urge the Indian Government to ensure safety of protestors & press freedom","background":"The Government must make a public statement on the #kissanprotests & press freedoms.\r\n\r\nIndia is the worlds largest democracy & democratic engagement and freedom of the press are fundamental rights and a positive step towards creating a India that works for all.","additional_details":"A public statement by the Government will encourage transparency & accountability in the worlds Largest Democracy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":116491,"created_at":"2020-12-10T23:01:03.976Z","updated_at":"2021-06-17T23:00:07.022Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-17T16:38:39.910Z","closed_at":"2021-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-10T23:24:37.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-29T19:35:47.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-02-16T17:54:34.529Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-02T20:47:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2021-03-08","debate_outcome_at":"2021-03-09T10:50:37.500Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-15","summary":"Media freedom and the right to protest are essential to robust democracies such as the UK and India. Governments have the power to enforce law and order if a protest crosses the line into illegality.","details":"The UK Government is conscious of the level of concern regarding the farmers’ protests in India. We appreciate that there are strong feelings in the United Kingdom towards the issue and that many British citizens have family ties to farming communities in India.\n\nThrough our High Commission in New Delhi and Deputy High Commissions across India, the Government is following developments closely.  We understand that the Government of India has held several rounds of talks with farmers’ unions, and that in January the Supreme Court put three farming laws on hold and designated an expert committee to scrutinise the laws. \nAs would be expected between close partners, we have constructive discussions on a wide range of issues with India. The UK considers farming reform a matter for the Government of India. We consider the right to peaceful protest, freedom of speech, and internet freedom vital in any democracy. We also recognise that governments have the power to enforce law and order if a protest crosses the line into illegality. We look to the Indian government to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in India’s strong constitution. \n\nThe Foreign Secretary discussed the farmers’ protests with his Indian counterpart during his visit to India in December 2020. Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon, Minister of State responsible for South Asia and for Human Rights, speaks regularly to his opposite number in the Ministry of External Affairs and to the Indian High Commissioner in the UK. Human rights issues form part of their dialogue.\n\nAn independent media is essential to any robust democracy.  The UK is committed to media freedom, and to championing democracy and human rights around the world. In 2018, the UK Government launched the Media Freedom Campaign to shine a global spotlight on media freedom and increase the cost to those abusing media freedom and persecuting journalists. \n\nWe regularly engage with India’s vibrant media, which promotes lively debate across the political spectrum. The British High Commission has undertaken project work such as the annual South Asia Journalism Fellowship Programme, under our flagship Chevening scholarship programme, which funded 17 fellows, including seven from India in 2019. In 2020, we supported the Thomson Reuters Foundation to run workshops for journalists to report on a range of human rights matters. \n\nThe UK Government will continue to follow the farmers’ protests closely. We respect that agricultural reforms are a matter for India, and will continue to champion human rights globally.\n\nForeign & Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2021-02-16T17:54:34.526Z","updated_at":"2021-02-16T17:54:34.526Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-03-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-03-08/debates/79128E64-85A5-4BD5-A449-449EC2921060/PressFreedomAndSafetyOfProtestersIndia","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN12tu6cndg","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0026/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":635904,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/635904.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005","background":"We are concerned that Parliament has not discussed and will not have a say on the 307 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, AND the amendments to 5 Articles of the IHR that were ADOPTED by the 75th World Health Assembly on 27 May 2022.","additional_details":"The amendments that were adopted on 27 May 2022 have not been debated in or voted on by Parliament. The UK has the authority to reject them under Article 61 of the IHR, but any such rejection must be within 18 months of their adoption.\r\n \r\nParliament must be given the opportunity to vote on whether to reject the amendments that have already been adopted, and also the 307 proposed amendments that are currently being negotiated by the UK delegates to the 76th World Health Assembly. The UK has not proposed any of the 307 amendments.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":116391,"created_at":"2023-03-30T14:50:42.737Z","updated_at":"2023-12-19T15:46:54.630Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-04-03T12:21:53.748Z","closed_at":"2023-10-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-30T17:41:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-04-12T05:44:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-05-05T14:22:01.527Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2023-07-24T18:54:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2023-12-18","debate_outcome_at":"2023-12-19T15:44:59.355Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-07-04","summary":"We support targeted IHR amendments to ensure a suitable global framework to respond to international spread of disease. Parliament may scrutinise legislation relating to amendments accepted by the UK.","details":"The UK and 195 other countries adopted the current version, of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005 and they came into force on 15 June 2007. The IHR are a legally binding international instrument that form a key part of the global health system, providing a technical framework to prevent, protect against, control, and respond to cross-border health threats. The UK wants to ensure that countries’ obligations under the IHR remain fit for purpose and take into consideration relevant lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic. The best way to protect the UK from the next pandemic is by ensuring all countries can contain and respond to outbreaks through compliance with strengthened IHR.\n\nThe Government is supporting the process of agreeing targeted amendments of the IHR as a means of strengthening preparedness for and response to future health emergencies; including through increasing compliance and implementation of the IHR; improving transparency; and speeding up timeliness of reporting.\n\nAt the 75th World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2022, WHO’s Member States including the UK agreed a process to negotiate and agree targeted amendments to the IHR and by consensus adopted one process-related amendment under Article 59 of IHR (2005) which reduces the time for future amendments to come into force.\n\nThe 75th WHA also agreed a process for the amendments to the IHR. This included the ability of Member States to submit proposed amendments for consideration and the formation of a Working Group made up of all WHO Member States, including the UK, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed. Member States agreed to submit the targeted amendments which will have been negotiated and agreed to the 77th WHA in May 2024. For the amendments to be considered adopted, at least two thirds of WHO’s 194 Member States that are present and voting will need to agree to them. The proposed amendments and relevant papers including reports from the Working Groups are available on the WHO website.\n\nThe process of negotiating the amendments began in November 2022. The UK is an active party to that process and will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a good outcome for the UK. The amendments to the IHR are still subject to discussion during the Working Group.\n\nThe UK Government has a strong commitment and duty to implement international law that it is subject to. However, we have been clear that the UK will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures.\n\nThere are currently no plans to hold a vote on IHR amendments. Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, then depending on the content of the respective IHR amendment, changes to domestic law considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the IHR amendment, may be required. The Government would prepare such draft legislation before Parliament in the usual way.\n\nIn all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged, and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national public health measures.\n\nConcerns related to the IHR and national sovereignty were also discussed by Parliament during the debate on 17 April 2023 on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement which can be found here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-04-17/debates/12BE683F-A25C-46E5-9FE9-B9C12CCDA9B7/PandemicPreventionPreparednessAndResponseInternationalAgreement.   \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\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/635904)","created_at":"2023-05-05T14:22:01.523Z","updated_at":"2023-07-04T14:54:52.823Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2023-12-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-18/debates/945EBBB4-D052-4CF7-8109-B39FF7FF919D/InternationalHealthRegulations2005","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAs1cmIPXoc","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":603988,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/603988.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal Breed Specific Legislation","background":"The Government should repeal breed specific provisions in dangerous dogs legislation. We believe these provisions are a flawed approach to public safety and an ethical failing with regards to animal welfare.","additional_details":"We are not satisfied with the response to previous petitions making requests relating to breed specific legislation, and the recent report by Middlesex University, commissioned by the Government at a cost of £71,621, has now cast doubt on one of the core assumptions of the Dangerous Dogs Act: that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more dangerous. The Government should therefore immediately repeal breed specific legislation.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":116252,"created_at":"2021-12-18T15:59:13.650Z","updated_at":"2023-10-26T12:20:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-12-21T17:49:50.414Z","closed_at":"2022-06-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-18T16:28:48.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-24T18:24:38.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-01-13T17:29:33.742Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-01-21T16:36:38.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-05-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-06-06","debate_outcome_at":"2022-06-07T14:25:53.123Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-01-13","summary":"Simply repealing the breed specific provisions in dangerous dogs legislation with no other changes would increase the risks to public safety, which the Government is unwilling to do.","details":"I recognise that many people are opposed to the prohibitions placed on the four types of dog - Pit Bull terrier; Dogo Argentino; Fila Brasileiro and the Japanese Tosa. However, the Government must balance the views of those who want to repeal or amend the breed specific legislation with our responsibility to ensure that the public is properly protected from dog attacks. \n\nHistorically, pit bull types are powerful dogs which have been traditionally bred in the UK for dog fighting. Data gathered from 2005 onwards on fatal dog attacks show that pit bulls were involved in around one in six tragic incidents, despite the prohibitions that we have in place that have significantly limited the numbers of pit bulls in the UK. Furthermore, according to information from the Metropolitan Police, nearly 20 per cent of dogs found to be dangerously out of control in Greater London were pit bulls. \n\nThe Government, therefore, considers that a lifting of the restrictions on these types of dogs would more likely result in an increase in dog attacks, rather than contributing to any reduction in such incidents. This position is supported by the police. \n\nDespite the general prohibitions on these types of dog, individual prohibited dogs can be kept by their owners or person for the time being in charge if a court judges that the dog is not a danger to public safety, subject to certain conditions, including being on a lead and muzzled in public.\n\nIn December 2021, Defra published research in collaboration with Middlesex University to look at responsible ownership across all breeds of dog. The research considers different approaches and the effectiveness of current dog control measures and makes several recommendations including specifically on improving the evidence base. The report will provide the basis for the consideration of reform in this area and the Government is already working with the police, local authorities, and stakeholders to consider the recommendations further.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2022-01-13T17:29:33.739Z","updated_at":"2022-01-13T17:29:33.739Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-06-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-06-06/debates/E7DC68B3-E1E5-449B-B922-F3333187C8FB/Breed-SpecificLegislation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbMLb_xBUXg","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0100/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300535,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300535.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"The UK should ban the importation of Shark Fins.","background":"Now that we have left the EU, the UK has the ability to finally stop the importation of Shark Fins. They had previously stated that 'Whilst in the EU, it is not possible to unilaterally ban the import of shark fins into the UK.'","additional_details":"Each year roughly 75 million sharks are killed for Shark Fin Soup where their fins are brutally cut from their bodies and thrown back in the sea to die. Despite countries in recent years making an attempt to crack down on Shark Finning no European country has yet to ban the importation of fins, meaning that loopholes still exist. Britain should become the first European country to ban the importation of Shark Fins before we lose these beautiful creatures forever.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":115383,"created_at":"2020-03-06T00:34:07.895Z","updated_at":"2023-09-13T09:37:25.611Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-11T10:56:35.415Z","closed_at":"2020-09-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-06T01:07:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-07T06:04:14.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-06-30T13:43:06.974Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-08T18:54:14.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-19","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-07","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-08T06:19:30.519Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-11-03","summary":"The Government is opposed to SF. SF is banned in UK waters and we support international controls. We are working to address the importation of shark fins, and to end illegal SF practices globally.","details":"The UK has a strong track record in marine conservation and places great importance on ensuring that appropriate protection and management is in place for all shark species. \n\nThe UK Government is strongly opposed to shark finning, the practice of removing the fins of a shark and discarding the body at sea. The UK has already banned the act of shark finning and has enforced a Fins Naturally Attached policy in order to combat illegal finning of sharks in UK and EU waters. This means that shark fins from sharks fished in UK and EU waters can only be retained and utilised provided they are still attached to the shark when landed at port by fishing vessels.\n\nFollowing the end of the Transition period we will explore options consistent with World Trade Organisation rules to address the importation of shark fins from other areas, to support efforts to end illegal shark finning practices globally.\n\nThe UK Government does not oppose the capture and use of sharks providing catches are shown to be genuinely sustainable; the whole shark is used; and that fins are not removed from sharks while alive. The Government is also exploring a range of other measures to support shark conservation. The greatest conservation benefit for sharks will come through controls directed at the activities of the fishing vessels operating on the high seas rather than just restrictions on the trade itself. This is why the UK continues to press for stronger international controls within the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and the associated Sharks MoU.\n\nAdditional trade controls are in place for certain species of sharks under CITES. These can prohibit the trade in particular species or require trade to be carefully regulated, including through additional assessments of sustainability. Currently there are 46 species of sharks and rays listed under CITES and the UK played a leading role in successfully championing the listing of 18 shark species to appendix II of CITES at the Conference on Parties in August last year.\n\nHaving left the EU, the UK can champion conservation measures much more forcefully in international fora. This will help improve shark conservation globally through RFMOs and through CITES. In addition, EU law allows individuals travelling to Europe to carry 20kg of dried shark fins for personal consumption. Our departure from the EU allows us to consider options to tighten the personal import allowance and improve the traceability of the shark in fin trade in the UK.\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/300535)","created_at":"2020-06-30T13:43:06.972Z","updated_at":"2020-11-03T16:47:14.486Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-06-07/debates/081C04E8-CAAA-408D-8AD1-85A058640393/AnimalWelfare","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GfznTV76Ls","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0083/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":600954,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/600954.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle \"tampering\"","background":"The Government’s modernising vehicle standards proposal suggested new offences for tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road. This could have a hugely detrimental impact on the UK motorsport and custom aftermarket industry.","additional_details":"Modified vehicles that are used on the roads are subject to the same MOT testing as all other road cars and there are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure modified vehicles are roadworthy.\r\n \r\nThe MOT also includes emissions testing, which ensure that modified cars do not breach emission standards.\r\n \r\nSome modifications, such as aftermarket brake parts, can even increase safety and applying any offences to improvements like this would be illogical.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115285,"created_at":"2021-11-10T11:39:10.660Z","updated_at":"2024-02-20T16:31:55.293Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-11-17T17:34:35.530Z","closed_at":"2022-05-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-11T10:37:58.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-14T14:10:28.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-12-21T14:10:02.061Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-20T14:01:08.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2022-04-25","debate_outcome_at":"2022-04-26T08:06:11.254Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-12-21","summary":"The intention of the consultation proposal is to prevent modifications that negatively impact on road safety, vehicle security and the environment. ","details":"Our ‘Future of Transport’ work is a broad and ambitious programme focused on supporting the industry. The regulatory review aims to ensure our transport regulations are fit for the future.\n\nAs part of the Future of Transport: Modernising Vehicle Standards regulatory review, we have put forward proposals to enable Government to better target and prevent harmful tampering with vehicle emission control systems, as well as with safety and security critical systems, parts and components.\n\nWe are not proposing that all modifications be prevented, and we recognise there are legitimate reasons why a vehicle owner or business may want to modify a vehicle. Our proposals are not intended to hinder activities such as motorsports, restoration, repairs, or legitimate improvements and alterations to vehicles, or indeed do any damage to the businesses involved in these activities.\n\nNevertheless, certain modifications can negatively affect the safety and health of the vehicle owner, its occupants, other road users, and the wider population.\n\nTampering activities that prevent a vehicle’s emissions system from operating correctly, such as the removal of the diesel particulate filter from a vehicle’s exhaust, can significantly increase a vehicle’s harmful pollutant emissions.\n\nTherefore, as vehicles become increasingly automated, we want to prevent alterations to a vehicle’s integral software and sensing technologies which could create safety and security risks. A badly modified vehicle has the potential to kill its occupants and other road users. It is also essential that we ensure modern vehicles remain cyber secure throughout their lifetime, and that any modifications do not make them vulnerable to malicious cyber-attacks.\n\nThe MOT test is an important part of ensuring that vehicles on our roads are safe and roadworthy. However, we must also recognise that the MOT test is fundamentally an inspection of a vehicle as presented at the time of a test and can only be a simple check.\n\nThere are risks in relying solely upon the MOT test to tackle harmful tampering. For example, it only includes basic checks for the presence and/or function of certain emissions control equipment and is not proof that the relevant emissions standards are being met. It is therefore important that we also have the powers to target and prevent tampering activities that negatively affect road safety, vehicle security and the environment.\n\nWe opened a consultation on these measures on 28 September, which closed on 22 November. The Government will consider all responses received and publish a consultation response summarising the responses and setting out the next steps. Any legislative proposals taken forward will be carefully defined so they do not prevent vehicle owners or businesses from making legitimate modifications to vehicles.  \n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2021-12-21T14:10:02.052Z","updated_at":"2021-12-21T14:10:02.052Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-04-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-04-25/debates/F816EED7-62C8-40B4-89E8-1728DFD5F3EE/VehicleTamperingOffences","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxV7WyUO9F4","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0078","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/107864/default/","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":302284,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/302284.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Implement Universal Basic Income to give home & food security through Covid-19","background":"The government should implement an immediate Universal Basic Income trial for all UK residents to ensure home and food security through the coronavirus Covid-19 crisis, to support the needs of those that need to self-isolate as well as the public health at large, and the wider economy.","additional_details":"The Covid-19 crisis means there will be an impact on society. The scientific & medical measures needed are paramount. The economy is pivotal to the UK, but relief is needed for people as well as businesses.\r\n\r\nTrialling a Universal Basic Income for all residents would give home and food security, allowing people to make the right decisions for their families and wider society, whilst also keeping money flowing through the economy.\r\n\r\nDoing this will reduce pressures caused by acts of desperation.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":114574,"created_at":"2020-03-13T18:52:59.739Z","updated_at":"2024-10-19T03:16:17.431Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-16T16:52:07.141Z","closed_at":"2020-09-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-13T19:11:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-17T13:46:54.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-30T10:27:50.361Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-23T10:43:44.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-09-18T11:48:02.593Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-30","summary":"The Government does not believe a Universal Basic Income is the best method to tackle the extraordinary situation resulting from COVID-19, because it does not target help to those who need it most.","details":"This Government has set out a substantial package of timely, targeted measures to provide financial assistance to people affected by COVID-19 and support the wider economy.\n\nThis includes:\n• ensuring UK workers of any employer who is placed on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme can keep their job, with the government paying up to 80% of a worker’s wages, up to a total of £2,500 per worker each month;\n• providing a grant to self-employed individuals or partnerships, worth 80% of their profits up to a cap of £2,500 per month.\n• increasing the standard rate in Universal Credit and Tax Credits by £20 a week for one year from April 6th, meaning claimants will be up to £1040 better off per year;\n• making Statutory Sick Pay available from day one for those who must stay at home on government advice;\n• ensuring the self-employed can now access in full Universal Credit at a rate equivalent to Statutory Sick Pay for employees;\n• ensuring those affected by COVID-19 can apply for Universal Credit and receive up to a month’s advance upfront without physically attending a jobcentre; and\n• providing nearly £1bn of additional support for renters, through increases in the generosity of housing benefit and Universal Credit. From April, Local Housing Allowance rates will pay for at least 30% of market rents in each area.\n\nAs both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have made clear, the Government will do whatever it takes to support people affected by COVID 19 and we have been clear in our intention that no one should be penalised for doing the right thing. \n\nThese are rapidly developing circumstances, we continue to keep the situation under review and will keep Parliament updated accordingly.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions.","created_at":"2020-03-30T10:27:50.358Z","updated_at":"2020-03-30T10:30:22.192Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-09-17","transcript_url":"https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/856/default/","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/680ac921-0f35-4295-ae1c-76aea7b4b007","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":586700,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/586700.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Commission an independent review of childcare funding and affordability","background":"We have the second most expensive childcare system in the world. A full time place costs, on average, £14,000 per year, making it completely unaffordable for many families. Parents are forced to leave their jobs or work fewer hours, which has a negative impact on the economy and on child poverty.","additional_details":"Childcare workers are paid so badly that 1 in 10 are officially living in poverty. Meanwhile, a lack of funding has resulted in 2,087 childcare settings closing in England in the first 3 months of 2021 when provision was already low. Without good quality, affordable childcare the 'levelling up' agenda will fail. An independent review would explore what the Government needs to do to ensure we have a childcare sector that works for families, children and the economy.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":113704,"created_at":"2021-05-20T14:45:27.518Z","updated_at":"2024-02-20T16:34:23.189Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-05-26T08:37:50.443Z","closed_at":"2021-11-26T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-20T15:25:35.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-01T18:57:25.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-06-23T12:15:05.375Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-07T21:29:05.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-07-23","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-09-13","debate_outcome_at":"2021-09-14T10:02:23.168Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-06-23","summary":"The Government is not currently planning a review of the childcare system. Support is available to help with childcare costs, and the Government monitors the sustainability of childcare providers.","details":"We know that the cost of childcare is a key concern for parents which is why the government has made an unprecedented investment in childcare over the past decade.\n\nAll three- and four-year-olds in England are entitled to 15 hours of free childcare each week, providing children with high-quality early education and helping parents to return to work. Disadvantaged families in England are also eligible for 15 hours of free early education a week for their two- year-old children. \n\n30 hours free childcare was introduced in England in September 2017 and is an entitlement for working parents of three- and four-year-olds, benefitting around 345,700 children in January 2020. It aims to help working parents with the costs of childcare so they can take up paid work if they want to or can work additional hours. To be eligible, both parents, or a single parent, must earn the equivalent of 16 hours a week at national minimum/ living wage (for parents aged 23 or over, this would work out at just over £7,400 per year) and less than £100,000 per year. \n\nAll the department’s entitlements provide free early education for parents across 38 weeks of the year. They can also be “stretched” if parents wish to use fewer hours over more weeks and this is an option their childcare provider offers.\n\nWe have spent over £3.5bn in each of the past three years on our early education entitlements and the government continues to support families with their childcare costs. The Chancellor announced on 25 November 2020 a £44 million investment for 2021-22, for local authorities to increase hourly rates paid to childcare providers for the government’s free childcare entitlement offers.\n\nIn addition to the free early education entitlements, the government offers Tax-Free Childcare for children from 0-11 years old, or up to 16 if disabled. This scheme means that for every £8 parents pay their provider via an online account, the government will pay £2 – up to a maximum contribution of £2,000 per child each year, or £4,000 if disabled.\n\nWorking parents on a low income may also be eligible for help with up to 85% of their childcare costs through Universal Credit Childcare. This is subject to a monthly limit of £646 for one child or £1108 for two or more children, payable in arrears. \n\nData published by Ofsted shows that the number of childcare places available in providers on the Early Years Register as of August 2020 has remained broadly stable since August 2015.  \n\nThe Department currently offers a range of support to early years settings during the pandemic, such as the furlough scheme (where settings have experienced a drop in either their income from parents or government), Business Rates Relief Nurseries Discount and support from the Recovery Loan Scheme. \n\nAs childminders are usually self-employed, they may benefit from the continuation of the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme.\nFurther information regarding business support packages can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus/business-support\n\nWe are committed to supporting the sector to develop a workforce with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to deliver high quality early education and childcare. We are investing £20m in high quality, evidence-based professional development for practitioners in targeted disadvantaged areas.\n\nIn February 2021, we announced a further £10m for a pre-reception early language recovery programme to support early years staff in settings, and in June, we announced a further investment of up to £153 million over three academic years, including funding for training early years staff to support the very youngest children’s learning and development.\n\nWe are not currently planning a review of early years funding, but we continue to evaluate the support on offer and endeavour to provide support to both parents and providers to ensure the sustainability of the sector.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2021-06-23T12:15:05.373Z","updated_at":"2021-06-23T12:15:05.373Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-09-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-09-13/debates/55E6BB12-54B7-4C08-8D68-00140DFFB5B1/Childcare","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWJmNDNxAto","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8052/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/37718/pdf/","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":643216,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/643216.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Reform the Grocery Supply Code of Practice to better protect farmers","background":"We want the Government to amend the Grocery Supply Code of Practice (GSCP) to require retailers, without exception, to:\r\n\r\n- Buy what they agreed to buy\r\n- Pay what they agreed to pay\r\n- Pay on time\r\n\r\nWe believe the current GSCP is inadequate and doesn't protect farmers from unfair behaviour.","additional_details":"Almost half (49%) of a panel of 100 UK fruit and veg farmers fear they will have to give up their farm within the next 12 months, and many raised concerns about the behaviour of supermarkets, with 69% agreeing that tougher regulations are required to redress the imbalance of power between farmers, processors and the supermarkets.\r\n\r\nThe current GSCP contains provisions that are meant to protect suppliers, but allows supply agreements to be varied in certain circumstances. We believe a stronger, clearer code of practice is needed to make sure that all supermarkets stick to fair practices when dealing with farmers.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":113515,"created_at":"2023-08-31T15:55:14.568Z","updated_at":"2024-03-15T00:00:19.787Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-09-14T12:01:50.514Z","closed_at":"2024-03-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-08-31T18:36:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-09-20T10:55:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-11-27T14:57:51.712Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2023-11-23T16:22:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2023-12-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-01-22","debate_outcome_at":"2024-01-23T15:54:27.491Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-11-27","summary":"The Government is committed to tackling contractual unfairness that can exist in the agri-food supply chain and Defra is working to support farmers and ensure they get a fair price for their products.","details":"At the UK Farm to Fork Summit held at Downing Street on 16 May, we announced a new review into fairness in the horticulture supply chain building on what we have already got underway to improve transparency and contracts in the pork and dairy markets. Beginning in December, we will launch a public consultation exploring these issues. We will analyse the responses and provide a formal response that provides a summary of the findings and sets out next steps. We can only decide what, if any, action is needed once we have analysed the responses, but I can assure you we will use the powers in the Act to bring forward legislation, wherever necessary.\n\nThis review seeks to understand issues relating to fairness in the supply chain across the whole of the UK. If responses indicate there are contractual issues that we believe we should seek to address, the powers in the Agriculture Act apply to the whole of the UK. If regulations are developed, we will engage widely with stakeholders, including the devolved administrations, to ensure that legislation works for all parts of the UK and incorporate special provision for differing circumstances, if necessary.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2023-11-27T14:57:51.710Z","updated_at":"2023-11-27T14:57:51.710Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-01-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-01-22/debates/F4E6009C-23CF-4160-8575-AC2A6ED0F9CD/GroceriesSupplyCodeOfPractice","video_url":"https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2c0f93b2-17a9-45d8-a54c-8c6db67f2ba8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0007/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":329339,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/329339.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Increase Number of Guests Permitted at Weddings, according to Venue Capacity","background":"Weddings take months and even years of intricate planning. Myself and many others believe the maximum number of guests authorised at wedding ceremonies should be increased. The number of guests permitted at weddings should be calculated according to venue capacity.","additional_details":"For instance, if a venue has a capacity of 600 people social distancing could still be practised with 1/5 of this number. People should not have to alter their plans if social distancing is observed. Surely, if beaches are allowed to remain open, weddings should be permitted to go ahead considering appropriate measures are put in place. It is more than apparent social distancing is not practised at such public places of leisure, thus guidelines for weddings should be reconsidered.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":113401,"created_at":"2020-06-26T11:30:50.660Z","updated_at":"2021-02-05T00:00:08.377Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-08-04T11:56:37.908Z","closed_at":"2021-02-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-26T12:13:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-18T21:25:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-09-14T11:54:56.501Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-07T20:00:54.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-09","debate_outcome_at":"2020-11-11T11:10:42.537Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-09-11","summary":"Wedding ceremonies and celebrations can go ahead provided COVID-Secure guidelines are followed. However social distancing guidance remains, including limiting attendees at weddings to 30 people.","details":"We understand how important weddings are to many people, and how their plans have been impacted by the coronavirus outbreak – not just to the couple wishing to get married but their families, guests and those companies and organisations wanting to deliver these events. However it is important to recognise that weddings pose risks for transmission of COVID-19 as they involve people from multiple households meeting and spending extended periods of time in close proximity.\n\nWedding ceremonies can take place with a maximum of 30 people present provided the COVID-19 secure guidance is followed. In addition, from 15 August 2020, wedding receptions have been able to go ahead. These celebrations should not take place in private homes or gardens, but rather in COVID-19 secure venues and can comprise of up to 30 people. Social distancing must be maintained at all times. The guidance to be followed for receptions and marriage ceremonies can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-small-marriages-and-civil-partnerships.\n\nWe know that the restrictions laid out in this guidance may be disappointing for many couples planning their big day and recognise that this may create challenges for those planning such events. We do not want the restrictions to go on for a day longer than they have to, but our priority is controlling the virus and ensuring that weddings do not put the couple, their family, friends, and venue staff at risk.\n\nFrom 14 September it will be against the law to meet people you do not live with in a group larger than 6 unless you are meeting for an exempt reason. The police will have the powers to enforce these legal limits, including to issue fines. The limit of 30 people at a wedding ceremony or reception will be one of the few occasions when people are legally permitted to gather in groups of more than 6 people. More details on this limit can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing.\n\nWe will continue to monitor the situation and make changes to the guidance as and when it is safe to do so.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2020-09-14T11:54:56.499Z","updated_at":"2020-09-14T11:54:56.499Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-09/debates/A147FE68-411B-4541-99D8-BD09678D4920/LiveEventsAndWeddingsCovid-19Support","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuICkaTRvZg","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0131/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300010,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300010.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Fern’s Law: Compulsory to scan & check microchips to reunite stolen dogs, cats.","background":"Many missing microchipped pets are never reunited as it’s optional to scan & check microchip registration. It’s time veterinary professionals, authorities and rescues checked pet & keeper match on the original database at a pets 1st consultation or yearly checkup. It’s their only chance to get home","additional_details":"Vets can play a valuable role in reuniting missing microchipped pets. We have microchipped our pets with the expectation to be reunited if the worst happens and they are lost or stolen. If just one organisation is not committed to scan and check microchip registration the whole system fails and is not fit for purpose. Legislation is needed to replace half hearted ‘strengthened, best practice recommendations’   VetsGetScanning.co.uk","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":112232,"created_at":"2020-03-03T11:23:29.124Z","updated_at":"2021-12-08T16:35:55.582Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-04T13:33:05.149Z","closed_at":"2020-09-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-03T12:29:24.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-10T16:11:34.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-04-02T12:11:42.132Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-11T11:31:44.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-28","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-29T08:18:54.678Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-02","summary":"BVA and RCVS provide necessary guidance to scan dogs. We will consider reform options including whether this should be mandatory as part of Post Implementation Review of the microchipping regulations.","details":"It is a legal requirement for all owners to microchip their dogs, and to enter the details onto a database. British Veterinary Association (BVA) best practice is that vets should scan dogs on first presentation at their practice, and at other regular intervals including prior to euthanasia, where euthanasia is deemed the appropriate course of action by the veterinary expert. BVA’s website sets out their position on scanning: https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Companion-animals/Microchipping/ \n\nThe guidance includes advice on what a vet should do if the details of the person presenting the dog are different to what is recorded on the database, and what to do when stray or lost animals are brought to the practice by checking the microchipping databases in order to reunite the animal with their owner. \n\nThe Government considers that advice from BVA and RCVS (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) provides veterinary professionals with helpful guidance on conducting appropriate scanning and to protect the welfare of dogs. Ministers will continue to emphasise the importance of vets scanning pet animals when they are first presented to their surgery. \n\nSince 6 April 2016, all dogs in England and Wales must be microchipped and registered on an approved database by the time they are eight weeks’ old. Since we made microchipping compulsory, the number of dogs microchipped has gone up from around 58% of all dogs in 2013 to over 90% of all dogs. This means that about 8.5 million dogs in the United Kingdom are microchipped. We also advise cat owners to get their cat microchipped and it was a manifesto commitment to introduce compulsory microchipping for cats. As part of this commitment we recently completed a Call For Evidence on cat microchipping which attracted over 3,000 responses. We are in the process of analysing the responses and will publish a summary of the responses together with a way forward in due course.\n\nThe Government is also considering proposals for the scanning of dogs by vets as part of the ongoing Post Implementation Review of The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2020-04-02T12:11:42.130Z","updated_at":"2020-04-02T12:11:42.130Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-06-28/debates/FAE1F98B-BE16-4016-B701-FAEF87D7055C/MicrochippingOfPets","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlDYqU6y-m8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0096/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":570779,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/570779.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Do not give consent for another Scottish Independence Referendum\r\n","background":"The SNP government appears solely intent on getting independence at any cost. ","additional_details":"The independence referendum was called a once in a generation vote - so let it be.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":112232,"created_at":"2021-01-18T08:58:02.639Z","updated_at":"2022-02-28T11:52:05.361Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-26T17:55:26.593Z","closed_at":"2021-07-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-18T11:26:07.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-28T13:48:37.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-02-16T17:23:16.340Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-18T12:38:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-03-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-03-22","debate_outcome_at":"2021-03-23T12:19:33.170Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-12","summary":"The UK Government continues to respect the decision of the people of Scotland who voted decisively in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom.","details":"The referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 was legal, fair and decisive and the people of Scotland voted by a significant margin to remain part of the United Kingdom. The Edinburgh Agreement committed both the UK and Scottish governments to respect the referendum’s outcome. The Prime Minister wrote to the First Minister of Scotland in January 2020 to confirm he cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament that would lead to further independence referendums.\n\nScotland benefits greatly from being part of a strong United Kingdom and the UK Government is committed to continuing to protect and promote the combined strengths of our Union, building on the historic bonds and common values we share.  Now, more than ever, it is important all parts of the United Kingdom work together to protect lives and livelihoods and drive our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. \n\nScotland Office","created_at":"2021-02-16T17:23:16.337Z","updated_at":"2021-02-16T17:25:21.519Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-03-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-03-22/debates/489A2866-C484-4569-A2C7-E91C9D076685/ScottishIndependenceReferendum","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoMAlX8_TBs","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9104/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"},{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":306494,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/306494.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Refund university students for 3rd Semester Tuition 2020","background":"As students are unable to access facilities or continue with their eduction at their university setting in the following semester, we would like to request that the government considers refunding tuition payments for Semester 3.","additional_details":"Majority of Universities across England have closed early to ensure safety for all students and staff in light of the recent situation regarding COVID-19.\r\nIn addition to moving teaching events online, these closures have resulted in students having no access to facilities that they have paid for (such as the library, students union, student support services, etc.)\r\nIt would be unfair to charge students for Semester 3 as services paid for will not be provided.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":111499,"created_at":"2020-03-20T11:54:00.452Z","updated_at":"2021-01-25T16:00:37.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-04-07T12:40:58.664Z","closed_at":"2020-10-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-20T12:05:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-05-03T14:15:44.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-05-26T11:02:09.252Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-05-15T12:29:24.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-11-17T09:42:41.386Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-19","summary":"HE providers must deliver high quality courses.\r\nIf students are unhappy they should first complain to their provider and if their concerns are unresolved they can ask OIA to consider their complaint.","details":"Government recognises the challenges facing students and supports them in their desire to continue receiving the best possible learning experience from our higher education (HE) providers. We consider it in the best interests of all students that they receive a high quality online education during this unprecedented period that allows them to progress and to complete their studies within the time period they had been anticipating.\n\nThere are some fantastic and innovative examples of high-quality online learning being delivered by HE providers across the country, and the sector is working hard to provide and prepare learning materials for the summer and autumn terms. Universities are autonomous and responsible for setting their own fees. In deciding to keep charging full fees, universities will of course want to ensure that they can continue to deliver courses which are fit for purpose and help students progress their qualifications. Any refund is a matter for universities, so we are not considering a write off of tuition fee loans.\n\nWe believe that students should be at the heart of the HE system. The Office for Students (OfS), the regulator in England, has committed to protecting students throughout the present crisis and has published guidance for registered providers on how it will approach the regulation of quality and standards, and this includes practical ways in which students can complete their studies whilst ensuring quality and standards are upheld. Providers are already making these arrangements and the Government is in continuous contact with the sector to support the continuation of teaching and assessment. The Government is also working closely with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education to ensure students continue to leave HE with qualifications that have real value, reflect their hard work and allow people to progress. \n\nThe Government’s clear expectation is that HE providers should make all reasonable efforts to enable students to complete their studies. If providers are unable to facilitate adequate online tuition, they should seek to avoid charging students for any additional terms they may need to undergo as a consequence – avoiding effectively charging them twice. Whether or not an individual student is entitled to a refund of fees will depend on the specific contractual arrangements between the provider and student. \n\nIt is important that students continue to receive a good standard of education, and they are entitled to make a complaint if they feel that their HE provider has not taken sufficient steps to appropriately respond to this situation. In the first instance, students should speak to their provider to see if they can resolve their complaint. We expect student complaints and appeals processes to be operated flexibly, accessibly, and sympathetically by providers to resolve any concerns. If a student at a provider in England or Wales is not satisfied with their provider’s response, they can ask the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) to consider their complaint. \n\nGovernment also understands that it may be difficult for some students to finish their current year of study for personal reasons, and that this will undoubtedly be a source of concern to many. Where students are unable to complete their current year of study or need to repeat a year due to compelling personal reasons, they may be eligible for an additional year of fee loan support above their standard entitlement under existing arrangements. \n\nFinally, Government has worked with the OfS to enable providers to draw upon existing funding to increase hardship funds and support disadvantaged students impacted by COVID-19. As a result, providers will be able to use the funding, totalling £46m across April and May, towards student hardship funds and mental health support, as well as to support providers’ access and participation plans.\n\nGovernment has previously responded to a petition concerning tuition fee refunds for both COVID-19 disruption and strike action. The response can be found here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/302855\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2020-05-26T11:02:09.250Z","updated_at":"2020-05-26T11:02:09.250Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-16/debates/7BF8890F-3E72-44BC-B260-49E74D0B91C7/TuitionFees","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n7QzDAmzck","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0132/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":582336,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/582336.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Ban Water Companies discharging raw sewage into water courses.","background":"Ensure Water companies treat the sewage they are responsible for. Not discharge it into rivers and water courses. After all what goes into the ocean comes back as the fish we eat.","additional_details":"This should be illegal!","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":111428,"created_at":"2021-04-06T15:35:58.496Z","updated_at":"2022-10-07T08:38:15.228Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-12T11:54:19.667Z","closed_at":"2021-10-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-06T17:45:45.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-15T06:26:55.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-05-06T10:34:38.934Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-12T19:31:28.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-10-22","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-11-15","debate_outcome_at":"2021-11-16T11:06:29.698Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-05-05","summary":"Tackling the harm caused by sewage is a top priority for Government. That is why we have established the Storm Overflows Taskforce and have announced plans for legislation to address this problem.","details":"All discharges to the water environment, including from storm overflows, require a permit issued by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The permits contain the necessary conditions to regulate the discharge and protect the environment. Compliance with permits is assessed by the Environment Agency. Any non-compliance is reported and will be subject to appropriate action under the Environment Agency’s enforcement and sanctions guidance. The Environment Agency will continue to prosecute water companies which fail to uphold the law or cause serious environmental harm.\n\nStorm overflows were designed to be used during extreme weather to prevent sewers becoming overloaded with a combination of sewage and rainwater, releasing diluted wastewater into rivers rather than letting it back up into people’s homes. Climate change has led to increased rainfall and water infrastructure has not kept pace with development growth over decades. Storm overflows are a last resort in modern sewer design, but the age of our sewerage systems means their complete elimination is not practicable or affordable.\n\nWe recognise that there is more to do with regards to the management of sewage pollution. Rebecca Pow MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defra, has met water company CEOs and made clear that the volume of sewage discharged into rivers and other waterways in extreme weather must be reduced. To achieve this, Defra has established the Storm Overflows Taskforce, bringing together representatives from Government, the water industry, regulators and environmental non-governmental organisations to set out clear proposals to accelerate progress in tackling this issue. \n\nThis Taskforce has agreed a long-term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows and has taken steps to improve monitoring and transparency. Eliminating harm from storm overflows is a generational endeavour that will involve significant change and it will take time to achieve, but the Government is determined to accelerate efforts towards this goal. The Taskforce is now working on plans to start making progress towards this goal and has commissioned research to gather evidence on the costs, benefits and feasibility of different options. \n\nOn 29 March, the Government also announced new measures would be put into law to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. Three key duties will be made law:\n\n· A duty on Government to publish a plan by September 2022 to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows and to reduce their impact;\n\n· A duty on Government to report to Parliament on progress on implementing the plan;\n\n· A duty on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis.\n\nYou can read more about this announcement at:\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/measures-to-reduce-harm-from-storm-overflows-to-be-made-law\n\nThese legally-binding obligations on water companies and the Government will reduce pollution in rivers and will therefore protect wildlife and public health.\n\nAlongside these new duties, water companies have agreed to make available real-time data on sewage discharges from storm overflows at designated bathing waters all year round from this year. This data will be made available to help surfers, swimmers and other recreational water users to check the latest information and make informed choices on where to swim.\n\nIn addition to these new measures, water companies are already committed to an existing £1.1 billion programme of action in the current five-year business planning period (2020 to 2025) to improve the monitoring and management of storm overflows. This includes the installation of monitoring devices on the vast majority of storm overflows, 800 investigations and 798 improvement schemes to storm overflows.\n\nWater companies have also committed to accelerate work to install monitoring devices to create a complete picture of the impact of storm overflows by 2023. This will help us to understand the impacts of storm overflows at all sites and to target improvements to where they are needed.\n\nFinally, water companies are currently producing comprehensive Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans to assess the capacity of and risks to their wastewater networks over a 25-year planning horizon. We are also taking steps through the Environment Bill to place these Plans on a statutory basis. They will be another tool to help address the risks that storm overflows pose to the environment.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2021-05-06T10:34:38.929Z","updated_at":"2021-05-06T10:34:38.929Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-11-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-15/debates/21111537000002/WaterCompaniesSewageDischarge","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YauNgmUMasQ","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":590405,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/590405.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Dedicate funding for research into Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP)","background":"Invest in FOP research to support this ultra-rare disease community. Research into FOP could inform the understanding/treatment of many more common conditions such as osteoporosis, hip replacements, DIPG (a rare childhood brain cancer) and many common military injuries.","additional_details":"FOP causes the body’s bone to develop in areas where normally it wouldn't, progressively locking joints in place and making movement difficult or impossible. \r\n \r\nAround one in two million have this ultrarare genetic condition!\r\n \r\nUK's charity, FOP Friends, supports FOP research at Oxford University. This is hard to maintain. Government funding would provide real hope for FOP children.\r\n \r\nFailing to find a cure or treatment means otherwise-healthy children move closer to becoming locked inside a second skeleton, forever.\r\n \r\nProvide the hope the rare disease community needs by funding this rare disease research.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":111246,"created_at":"2021-07-01T14:52:22.942Z","updated_at":"2023-09-08T12:03:00.095Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-07-07T13:25:23.774Z","closed_at":"2022-01-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-01T15:14:25.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-27T18:41:38.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-10-12T08:41:23.200Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-04T20:51:48.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-11-23","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-12-06","debate_outcome_at":"2021-12-07T07:59:43.743Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-10-12","summary":"The Government recognises the challenges faced by people affected by rare disease, and funds research into rare conditions – including fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva – via NIHR and UKRI.","details":"Although rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common, affecting 1 in 17 people at some point in their lifetime. The Government recognises the challenges faced by people affected by rare diseases, including ultra-rare conditions such as fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP).\n\nIn January 2020, the UK Government published the UK Rare Diseases Framework, outlining our vision to improve the lives of those living with rare diseases over the next five years. The Framework describes four key priorities: helping patients get a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. The Framework additionally describes five underpinning themes: patient voice; national and international collaboration; digital, data, and technology; wider policy alignment; and pioneering research. \n\nWhile the Framework describes our ambitions for rare disease, our forthcoming Action Plan will ensure delivery. Each of the four UK nations have committed to publishing an Action Plan within two years of the Framework’s publication. England’s Action Plan describes work underway across the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and our arm’s-length bodies to address the challenges posed by rare conditions and is expected in early 2022.\n\nScientific advancements have underpinned many breakthroughs in rare disease. The Government’s 2021 UK Research and Development Roadmap sets out the UK’s vision and ambition for science, innovation, and research. \n\nAlongside other charities and organisations, the Government primarily funds research into rare diseases such as FOP via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). \n\nNIHR is the nation’s largest funder of health and care research, spending £1 billion from DHSC on research every year.  In the past five years, the Institute has supported one study into FOP via NIHR Infrastructure and seven studies via NIHR Clinical Research Networks. Bringing together the seven disciplinary research councils, including the Medical Research Council (MRC), UKRI convenes, catalyses, and invests in close collaboration with others to build a thriving, inclusive research and innovation system. Since 2010, MRC have contributed funding towards three projects of underpinning relevance to FOP and the biological processes that contribute towards the condition, totalling over £6.6 million. More broadly, UKRI holds a diverse and dynamic portfolio of research directed towards musculoskeletal health and disease more generally. Findings from this broader pool of projects could stimulate future activity and discovery in FOP research. \n\nNIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including FOP. Research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Within NIHR, for all disease areas the amount of funding depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity. The usual practice of NIHR is not to ring-fence funds for expenditure on particular topics. In addition, recognising the impact of rare diseases such as FOP, the MRC Population and Systems Medicine Board supports the UK Rare Diseases Framework by encouraging the scientific community to come forward with their best ideas aimed at addressing research questions related to rare conditions.\n\nOutside of research, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is in the early stages of developing highly specialised technologies guidance (which make recommendations on the use of new and existing highly specialised medicines and treatments within the NHS in England) on ‘palovarotene for preventing heterotopic ossification associated with FOP (ID3739)’. NICE aims to align publication of its highly specialised technologies guidance as closely as possible with a product receiving UK regulatory approval to ensure patients in the NHS can access new medicines and treatments in a timely manner. NICE cannot publish final guidance until this has been granted. For further information, including timelines for development, please visit www.nice.org.uk/. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2021-10-12T08:41:23.189Z","updated_at":"2021-10-12T08:41:23.189Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-12-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-12-06/debates/7ED1E4B7-CDE3-42B2-A3DD-406B7E82E59A/FibrodysplasiaOssificansProgressiva","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDS_7VtAfqI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0204/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":307339,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/307339.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Omit the NHS from any future trade deal with the US","background":"As the Coronavirus escalates, there are concerns that a trade deal between the UK Government and the US deal might not exempt our NHS, leaving it vulnerable to privatisation and in direct contradiction to promises this would not happen.","additional_details":"It is very important to the people of the UK that the NHS is a public institution without private business interests. The pressure from the public led Johnson to promise the NHS would be protected from trade deals; putting a deal through quietly during the Coronavirus crisis would be unethical and lack transparency.\r\nGiven that Trump recently made a bid to make a German Coronavirus vaccine US-only, (which could prolong the crisis) involving the US financially in our medical system could be a direct health risk to us.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":111079,"created_at":"2020-03-21T12:00:57.994Z","updated_at":"2021-08-10T11:49:35.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-05-11T11:06:00.908Z","closed_at":"2020-11-11T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-21T13:01:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-12T06:13:54.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-06-23T18:07:18.951Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-28T11:35:14.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-10-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-11-16","debate_outcome_at":"2020-11-17T09:36:02.037Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-06-23","summary":"The government has been clear that protecting the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest and protecting public services, including the NHS, is of the upmost importance.","details":"As set out in our negotiating objectives for a UK-US Free Trade Agreement, published on 2nd March, when we are negotiating trade deals, the NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table. We will not make changes to our intellectual property regime that would lead to increased medicines prices for the NHS. \n\nThe UK’s negotiating positions have been made clear to all of our trade partners, including by the Secretary of State for International Trade in her Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament of 18th May. 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 by any foreign government.\n\nIn all cases, we will continue to protect the right to regulate public services, including the NHS, in the national interest. \n\nDepartment for International Trade","created_at":"2020-06-23T18:07:18.949Z","updated_at":"2020-06-23T18:07:18.949Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-11-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-16/debates/27CDCCFD-787C-4696-94ED-54C1498577D1/TradeDealsAndTheNHS","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpa6fRRIeU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0137/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":617603,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/617603.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Increase State pensions to £380 a week, and lower retirement age to 60","background":"The British State pension is far too low. We want the Government to increase the basic state pension to £19,760 a year (£380 a week), and extend this to anyone aged 60 or over. This should lift thousands out of poverty, and give our elderly folk more spending power and help grow the economy.","additional_details":"The Government should restore the state pension age back to 60 for men and women, because, people should not have to wait until their mid to late 60's to claim the state pension, as many people have worked from a young age, and their health deteriorates long before they are able to claim the state pension.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":111010,"created_at":"2022-05-30T18:49:05.581Z","updated_at":"2024-02-20T16:07:16.558Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-06-06T14:38:29.165Z","closed_at":"2022-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-05-30T19:41:59.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-09-02T20:57:49.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-09-27T11:08:35.661Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-09-30T06:40:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-12-13","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-12-12","debate_outcome_at":"2022-12-13T13:49:06.836Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-09-21","summary":"The Government has no plans to increase State Pension to £380 per week or reduce State Pension age to 60.","details":"The Government is committed to a decent State Pension as the foundation of support for people in retirement.\n\nThe Government spends over £134 billion each year on benefits for pensioners, including over £110 billion on the State Pension. This is likely to increase substantially in 2023/24. This proposal would add significant costs and make the system unsustainable, creating additional burdens on the working age population.\n\nSince 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic State Pension has risen by over £2,300, in cash terms. That's £720 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £570 more than if it had been uprated by earnings. The Government has committed to implementing the Triple Lock in the usual way for the remainder of the Parliament.\n\nThe Government also provides additional support to older people, which includes the provision of free bus passes, free prescriptions, Winter Fuel Payments and Cold Weather Payments.\n\nThe Government is committed to alleviating pensioner poverty.  There are 400,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty (both before and after housing costs) than in 2009/10.\n\nAround 1.4 million of the most vulnerable pensioners also receive some £5 billion of Pension Credit, which tops up their retirement income and is a passport to other financial help such as support with housing costs, council tax, heating bills and a free TV licence for those over 75.\n\nPension Credit is a means tested benefit and provides a top up for people of State Pension age to a weekly minimum amount, (currently £182.60 for single people and £278.70 for couples). These amounts may be higher for those with caring responsibilities, a severe disability or certain housing costs. This approach ensures that spending is targeted at those most in need. Information about Pension Credit is available from the Government website – www.gov.uk - by entering ‘Pension Credit’ into the search bar.\n\nThe Government has also acted to protect pensioners against the current Cost of Living situation. This includes a £650 Cost of Living Payment to more than 8 million low-income households on Universal Credit, Tax Credits, Pension Credit and legacy benefits, with separate one-off payments of £300 to pensioner households (through and as an addition to the Winter Fuel Payment) and £150 to individuals receiving extra costs disability benefits.\n \nFrom 1 October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households. This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households. This applies to all households in Great Britain, with the same level of support made available to households in Northern Ireland.\n\nRaising State Pension age (SPa) in line with life expectancy changes has been the policy of successive administrations over many years. These changes to SPa were made over a series of Acts by successive governments from 1995 onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament.\n\nWe have no plans to reverse changes to SPa. Our reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between affordability, sustainability of the State Pension, and fairness between generations. The latest Office for National Statistics data shows that the number of people over SPa compared to the number of people of working age is expected to increase.\n\nThe State Pension is funded through the National Insurance and tax contributions of the current working-age population. Reducing the SPa to 60 would therefore increase the tax burden of the current working-age population.\n\nThis Government is committed to providing a financial safety net for those who need it, including when they near or reach retirement. Support is available through our benefit system to those who are unable to work or are on a low income but are not eligible for pensioner benefits because of their age.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2022-09-27T11:08:35.658Z","updated_at":"2022-09-27T11:08:35.658Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-12-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-12-12/debates/3E2F4019-CEBF-46B0-8401-6ED88AAC27C5/StatePension","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA_jxGkhk7Y","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0225/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/what-did-you-tell-us-about-the-state-pension/index.html","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":561730,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/561730.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public","background":"A new offence should be created and legal sanctions should be introduced to stop MPs intentionally or recklessly misleading the public. This could restore a degree of trust in the UK's political system.","additional_details":"MPs are able to say something written or unwritten that intentionally or recklessly misleads members of the public without facing criminal proceedings. This is not acceptable in a modern democracy. It is in the public interest that MPs who conduct themselves in this way face legal repercussions if they cannot prove what they say written or unwritten is true and accurate.\r\n\r\nMPs must respect their voters and being open, true and honest with voters is a vital part.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110966,"created_at":"2020-11-24T14:23:12.181Z","updated_at":"2023-10-24T08:55:18.572Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-30T15:51:43.329Z","closed_at":"2021-05-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-24T14:52:27.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-03T11:14:47.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-12-14T17:29:47.937Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-15T19:41:07.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2023-10-23","debate_outcome_at":"2023-10-24T08:54:38.691Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-26","summary":"The Government does not intend to introduce legislation. MPs must abide by the Code of Conduct and allegations of misconduct are investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.","details":"It is an important principle of the UK Parliament that Members of Parliament are accountable to those who elect them. It is absolutely right that all Members of Parliament are fully accountable to their constituents for what they say and do and this is ultimately reflected at the ballot box.\n\nThere are clear rules that govern the behaviour of candidates prior to their election to Parliament. The Electoral Commission sets out the rules for candidates during General Election campaigns, such as the type of publicity material that candidates are able to use and the rules around making false statements. You can find further information on specific electoral offences at the following website: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/uk-parliamentary-general-election-great-britain\n\nOnce elected to Parliament, all MPs must abide by the seven principles of public life which form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office. These are set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is a requirement that any holder of public office must be truthful and must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.\n\nUpon election, MPs are also subject to the House of Commons Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. Included in the code is a general duty on MPs to “act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents”, alongside a requirement that MPs “act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.”\n\nThe House of Commons Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, in liaison with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who will carry out an independent review of the Code. The Committee will publish a report on the code and a public consultation will follow.\n\nThe Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the application of the code and further details are available on the Parliament website at: https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/\n\nUltimately, it is right that MPs are accountable to the electorate and should uphold the highest of standards. This is also a principle recognised in the Representation of the People Act 1981 which provides that if an MP receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, they are disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons. The Recall of MPs Act was introduced in 2015 to allow constituents to sign a petition to recall their MP if their MP is convicted of an offence and receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, is convicted of an offence under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 or is suspended from the House of Commons for 10 or more sitting days (or 14 calendar days if the motion is not expressed in terms of sitting days). A recall petition would be successful if signed by at least 10% of the registered voters in a constituency. The recall mechanism adds to the House of Commons’ own suite of disciplinary measures and gives constituents a say over their MPs’ conduct between General Elections.\n\nOffice of the Leader of the House of Commons\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/561730)","created_at":"2020-12-14T17:29:47.935Z","updated_at":"2021-01-26T17:05:49.929Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2023-10-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-10-23/debates/4BF9E107-17B6-4633-86FA-D46057D11F2C/HonestyInPolitics","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy3wNmF6-Vs","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0197/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300118,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300118.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Revoke the TV licence using legislation","background":"We wish the government to end the TV Licence as soon as possible","additional_details":"The TV Licence is not required as many people no longer watch the BBC preferring to watch other media sources and listen to many of there radio stations especially the overseas service this is seen as the british public paying for a service they dont need or use. This is also seen as a unfair tax on those on low income which usually results in many being prosecuted for non payment putting them further in debt and possible jail.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110841,"created_at":"2020-03-03T17:19:43.890Z","updated_at":"2022-11-02T15:07:02.620Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-04T14:32:59.122Z","closed_at":"2020-09-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-03T17:39:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-30T05:03:44.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-05-14T12:09:37.159Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-03T11:52:54.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2021-03-01","debate_outcome_at":"2021-03-02T14:04:18.010Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-14","summary":"The Royal Charter maintains the licence fee funding model until 2027. The government will look at the licence fee funding model in advance of the next Charter.","details":"The licence fee is payment for a licence to watch or receive television programmes.The government is clear that the licence fee remains a licence to watch or receive television programmes, and is not a fee for BBC services. It 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 S4C (the Welsh- language broadcaster). \n\nThe Royal Charter is the constitutional basis of the BBC which guarantees the BBC’s independence and provides the framework for how the BBC is governed and funded. It sets the BBC’s Mission which is ‘to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain’. It also sets the Public Purposes which include a duty to provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them and to show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services. \n\nOne of the BBC's public purposes is ‘to reflect the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world’ which the BBC does partly through the World Service - an international news service available on radio, television and online which provides impartial news reports and analysis in English and 40 other languages. The government strongly supports the BBC’s mission to bring high quality and impartial news to global audiences in some of the most remote places in the world, particularly where free speech is limited. \n\nThe licence fee funding model was considered as part of Charter Review which is the regular process for the government to review all aspects of the BBC. The BBC Charter Review consultation in 2015-16 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. As a result, the government committed to maintain the current model. It will be reconsidered again ahead of the next Charter Review, which is set to be completed by 2027. \n\nHowever, the government believes that it is right to look again at whether the criminal sanction remains appropriate for TV licence fee evasion, given ongoing concerns that the criminal sanction is unfair and disproportionate. On 5 February the government launched a consultation on whether TV licence evasion should be decriminalised. This consultation closed on 1 April 2020 and received over 150,000 responses. The government is considering the submissions and we will respond in due course. \n\nIn addition, the government has recently announced the introduction of a new payment plan for the TV licence, known as the Simple Payment Plan, from 1 April 2020. The Simple Payment Plan is a new, flexible payment instalment scheme that allows customers to pay in equal fortnightly or monthly instalments throughout the year, and is available to certain customers who currently struggle to pay the TV licence fee. The government will consider whether this payment plan may be extended further to increase flexibility and convenience for all licence fee payers. \n\nThe government is committed to ensuring that the BBC and all public service broadcasters adapt to a fast changing market, and keeping them at the heart of our world class TV sector. This work will begin well in advance of the next Charter and will include looking at the licence fee funding model. \n\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2020-05-14T12:09:37.156Z","updated_at":"2020-05-14T12:09:37.156Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-03-01","transcript_url":"https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1764/default/","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bRiLl7OA4A&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9145/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":564582,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/564582.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Increase funding for urgent research into devastating motor neurone disease","background":"We ask Government to significantly increase targeted research funding for motor neurone disease (MND).\r\n\r\nA new investment of £50m over 5 years could kickstart a pioneering MND Research Institute.\r\n\r\nThis would lead to better, faster and more definitive research outcomes and hope for those with MND.","additional_details":"The lifetime risk of contracting motor neurone disease (MND) is 1 in 300. \r\n\r\nThis means over 200,000 of today’s UK population will be affected by this devastating condition which kills a third of people within a year and over half within two. There are no effective treatments and no cure.\r\n\r\nHowever, world leading scientists in the UK are closer than ever to finding treatments for MND. Now they need the right financial support.\r\n\r\nFor more information see www.mndassociation.org/unitedtoendMND","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110700,"created_at":"2020-12-21T16:08:10.030Z","updated_at":"2021-07-13T08:37:42.478Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-06T12:05:25.229Z","closed_at":"2021-07-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-22T15:06:57.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-22T20:58:45.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-04-08T12:53:22.192Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-10T19:42:55.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-06-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-07-12","debate_outcome_at":"2021-07-13T08:37:42.478Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-04-07","summary":"The Government recognises the immense challenges faced by people with motor neurone disease and is currently working on ways to significantly boost further research into the disease.","details":"The Government recognises the immense challenges faced by people with motor neurone disease (MND) and is committed to supporting MND research. Over the past five years, the Government has spent £54m on MND research, through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) via the Medical Research Council. This includes research which aims to increase our understanding of the causes and genetic mechanisms of MND. \n\nThe Government remains strongly committed to supporting research into dementia and neurodegeneration, including MND. The 2020 Challenge on Dementia pledged to spend £300m over five years on research into neurodegenerative conditions, and this commitment was delivered a year early with £344m spent by 2019. The 2019 Conservative Manifesto committed to doubling funding for dementia research (including MND research) and the Government is putting plans in place now to deliver this commitment. \n\nThe Government has been working to establish a rich ecosystem for neurodegeneration research in the UK. Significant elements are the UK Dementia Research Institute, Dementias Platform UK, NIHR Dementia Translational Research Collaboration, and Join Dementia Research. The UK Dementia Research Institute has significant investment in MND research, with a particular focus on the mechanisms that cause the disease. Specific work on MND is also currently ongoing at Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre, part of the Dementia Translational Research Collaboration, and within the NIHR Clinical Research Network, which has a speciality in dementia and neurodegenerative diseases. \n\nGovernment funding for MND research comes via the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation. It is not usual practice to ring-fence funding for particular topics or conditions. The NIHR and UKRI welcome funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including MND. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2021-04-08T12:53:22.190Z","updated_at":"2021-07-06T13:10:20.178Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-07-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-07-12/debates/04DC38FB-44C5-4876-BE27-4531040E8228/MotorNeuroneDisease(Research)","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE1JfFrl20","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0114/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":591775,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/591775.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Change the law to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act.","background":"The Government needs to change the law so laboratory animals are included in the Animal Welfare Act. Laboratory animals are currently not protected by the Act and are therefore victims of 'unnecessary suffering' (see section 4 of the Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4).  ","additional_details":"A recent exposé showed harrowing footage of the factory farming of laboratory dogs in the UK. Experiments on such dogs, and other animals, are today widely reported to be entirely failing the search for human treatments and cures.\r\n\r\nCurrent science from multiple fields proves that animal-based research and testing is not viable. The Government should therefore change the law to include laboratory animals under the protection of the Animal Welfare Act, to prevent their unnecessary suffering. \r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110268,"created_at":"2021-07-12T14:25:14.000Z","updated_at":"2022-09-22T16:38:59.001Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-07-20T17:40:09.132Z","closed_at":"2022-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-12T15:53:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-22T10:44:45.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-08-20T14:35:26.806Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-22T22:24:18.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-01-18","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-02-07","debate_outcome_at":"2022-02-08T09:38:55.034Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-08-20","summary":"The Government believes animal use for research remains important and The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) provides specific protection for these animals..","details":"There is an explicit exclusion under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), to provide for the legitimate conduct of procedures on ‘protected animals’ for scientific or educational purposes that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work both in health and disease. Such use is crucial for the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for both humans and animals, and for the protection of our environment. \n\nThe Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) is the specific piece of legislation which provides protection for these animals: \nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-version-of-aspa-1986 \n\nNo animals may be used under ASPA if there is a validated non-animal alternative that would achieve the scientific outcomes sought. The protections for animals under ASPA include the need for three levels of licence for such procedures to occur, welfare standards which need to be met, and activities including inspection which assure compliance with ASPA. The Home Office is the department responsible for regulating the use of animals under ASPA. If any activity is found to be in breach of what is permitted under ASPA, then the AWA will apply.\n\nDetails of how these regulations are administered and operationalised are set out in the Guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) available at:\nhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-the-operation-of-the-animals-scientific-procedures-act-1986. \n\nDetails of the code of practice for housing and accommodation of animals regulated under ASPA approved by Parliament which form a core pillar of compliance assurance activities under ASPA are available at: \nCode of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).\n\nAnimal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), to protect human health and safety. Without the testing of potential medicines on animals the development, registration and marketing of new, safe, and effective medicines would not be possible. The animal species for animal testing of potential medicines are specifically chosen to give as much human relevant information as possible and to avoid species specific reactions which would not predict human effects. Many products which would not be safe or effective in humans are detected through animal testing thus avoiding harm to humans. Potential medicines fail in development for many reasons but the fact that medicines are stopped in development for reasons other than unsatisfactory animal testing does not mean that the testing is not essential.\n\nThe Government has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction, and refinement of research design – the ‘3Rs’. Applicants for licences must demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Meanwhile the Government actively supports and funds the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs).  This is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in animal research policy, practice and regulations.  NC3Rs has committed £100 million. This includes almost £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges scheme to UK and EU-based institutions, mainly focusing on new approaches for the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals and chemicals that reduce the use of animals. \n\nFrom the 22 completed CRACK IT Challenges, 12 new products and services have been delivered for industrial and academic end-users. These include miniature wireless devices for recording neural activity in mice; novel human-relevant microphysiological systems and organ on-a-chip platforms for kidney, cardiac and neuronal toxicity assessment; and AI/ in silico modelling platforms for infection, welfare monitoring and toxicology studies. The MHRA work closely with the NC3Rs, bringing together stakeholders in academia, industry, government and animal welfare organisations to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas, and the translation of research findings into practice that benefits animals and science.\n\nTo conclude the Government has no plans to amend the Animal Welfare Act (2006). We consider enabling the properly regulated use of animals in science is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment. Underpinning this is a strong commitment to a rigorous regulatory framework that fully implements the 3Rs and the continued development of non-animal alternatives.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2021-08-20T14:35:26.804Z","updated_at":"2021-08-20T14:35:26.804Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-02-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-02-07/debates/E7D8AF2F-9BB3-4475-86D6-39091FB54AC4/LaboratoryAnimalsAnimalWelfareAct","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKckhxhq8w&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02720/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}}]}