{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=7&parliament=4","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=4","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=2082&parliament=4","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=8&parliament=4","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?page=6&parliament=4"},"data":[{"type":"archived-petition","id":602285,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/602285.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 the real bearskins used for the Queen’s Guard’s caps with faux fur","background":"There is no excuse for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to continue to effectively fund the slaughter of bears for ceremonial headgear since an indistinguishable alternative has been produced, which is waterproof, and mimics real bear fur in appearance and performance.","additional_details":"According to PETA, it takes the skin of at least one bear to make a single cap. There are concerns that some of the bears whose fur is used for this headgear are shot several times by hunters and can endure slow, painful deaths.\r\n\r\nIt is unconscionable to continue to spend taxpayers’ money (£1 million in the last seven years) on a product that 93% of British people refuse to wear. The MoD is not exempt from the ethical standards of the rest of society. For this national symbol to endure in a way that embodies modern society, it must be replaced with faux fur.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106354,"created_at":"2021-12-01T16:15:36.169Z","updated_at":"2022-10-24T09:07:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-01-06T17:55:19.581Z","closed_at":"2022-07-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-13T12:33:28.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-01-09T16:55:58.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-02-11T15:56:47.842Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-06-01T02:23:09.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-06-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-07-11","debate_outcome_at":"2022-07-12T11:30:52.348Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-02-11","summary":"Currently we have no plans to end the use of bearskins. Bear pelts that are used are the by-products of a licensed cull by the Canadian authorities to manage the wild bear population.","details":"Bears are never hunted to order for use by the MOD. Our suppliers source pelts made available by the Canadian authorities following a licenced cull as part of a programme to manage the wild bear population; Provincial, territorial, federal and international laws provide strict trade regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears both within Canada and internationally. \n\nBear pelts that are used for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps are the by-products of these licenced culls, as opposed to fur being harvested from an animal being bred for this sole purpose. Therefore, any reduction in the number of bearskins procured by the MOD would not equate to a reduction in the numbers of bears being culled. \n\nGuardsmen take great pride in wearing the bearskin cap which is an iconic image of Britain. It must look smart but also be practical for the guardsman to wear in wet or dry weather. The material it is made from must therefore meet the five required criteria. MOD do use man made alternatives in their uniforms where these provide suitable, affordable and sustainable alternative to animal products. For example the smaller busby hats worn by the King's Troop are made from faux fur. Unfortunately, there is currently no non-animal alternative available that meet the essential criterion for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps.\n\nA man-made fabric manufactured by Ecopel was passed to an independent testing house by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and those results were shared with the MOD. However, our analysis of the results shows that it does not in fact reach the standards needed to provide an effective replacement for our bearskin ceremonial caps.\n\nAnalysis of these recent tests conducted on the fake fur fabric showed it met only one of the five requirements to be considered as a viable alternative for ceremonial caps. Whilst it met the basic standard for water absorption, it showed unacceptable rates of water shedding and performed poorly on the visual assessment. As the artificial fur sadly didn't meet the standards required for a ceremonial cap which is worn throughout the year and in all weathers, the MOD has no plans to take this fake fur fabric forward.\n\nAs well as passing initial laboratory tests, any new fabric would have to meet with user approval for shape and comfort for a parade length of duty. It would look at whether the fabric could maintain its shape over time, whether it is comfortable and safe for the user - including ensuring any waterproof backing is breathable - whether the faux fur is waterproof after the shaping, sewing and perforation that would be involved and consideration would also be given to its sustainability compared to the current natural fur fabric. \n\nMinistry of Defence","created_at":"2022-02-11T15:56:47.839Z","updated_at":"2022-02-11T15:56:47.839Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-07-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-07-11/debates/6362336E-6871-4A2B-B674-D1C48E34C883/BearskinHatsQueenSGuards","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AUTCF9KnMs","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0138/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"MoD","name":"Ministry of Defence","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":636542,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/636542.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":"Require train operators keep ticket offices and platform staff at train stations","background":"We want the Government to require train operators keep ticket offices and platform staff at train stations, to help maintain health and safety standards and customer information.","additional_details":"Train companies provide an important public service, and some are subsidised by the Government, and should be required to maintain standards.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106156,"created_at":"2023-04-12T09:56:35.272Z","updated_at":"2023-11-17T11:57:13.804Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-04-18T16:34:04.302Z","closed_at":"2023-10-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-04-15T20:41:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-07-06T10:18:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-07-14T13:30:54.392Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2023-09-07T19:03:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2023-11-17T11:57:13.804Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-10-11","summary":"The rail industry has consulted on plans to modernise to provide the service passengers deserve, moving staff from behind ticket office screens to provide help and advice in customer-focused roles.","details":"Together with the rail industry, we want to improve and modernise the experience for passengers by moving staff out from behind the ticket office screens to provide more help and advice in customer-focused roles in the station. No currently staffed station will become unstaffed as a result of this reform, with staff still being there to provide assistance and additional support at stations for those who need and want it. This would include providing assistance in purchasing tickets and providing customer information. When consulting, train operators were required to follow the rules set out in the rail industry’s Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA), and the Government has no role unless objections are referred to the Secretary of State for a decision. We do not therefore plan to require train operators to keep ticket offices and platform staff at train stations.\n\nThere has been a significant shift in the way passengers purchase tickets, with just one in every ten transactions taking place at a ticket office in 2022/23, down from one in three a decade earlier. This is equivalent to 13% of revenue in 2022/23. Train operators have therefore consulted on proposals to close ticket offices and move staff out onto stations where they can provide support to passenger where this is needed.  \n\nThe public consultations on proposed ticket office changes have now closed. The independent passenger bodies, Transport Focus and London TravelWatch, are engaging with train operators on the basis of the consultation responses they have received and the criteria they have set out on how they will consider their responses. Train operators are expected to work collaboratively with passenger bodies in the coming weeks to listen to the concerns raised and to refine their proposals accordingly. \n\nShould ticket offices close following this process, staff would be redeployed and multi-skilled in order to provide advice and assistance across stations. Exact arrangements will vary operator by operator and will be the subject of collective bargaining with the trade unions.  \n\nDepartment for Transport\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/636542","created_at":"2023-07-14T13:30:54.389Z","updated_at":"2023-10-18T12:51:13.244Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, because the Government has asked operators to withdraw their proposals to close ticket offices.\r\n\r\nIn response to a recent public petition about the closure of a local railway ticket office, the Government said that it had been clear that any proposals to close ticket offices must deliver the highest quality of service for all users of the railway.\r\n\r\nThe Government said that the proposals that have resulted from the consultation process run by train operators do not meet the high thresholds set by Ministers, and so the Government has asked train operating companies to withdraw their proposals and for no ticket offices to close.\r\n\r\nYou can read the Government's full response to the public petition here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-11-13/debates/23111325000031/StowmarketRailwayStationTicketOffice#contribution-BECE6F3F-F0E2-4015-83BD-561B6C175961","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":301836,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/301836.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 UK nurseries emergency funding if they have to close down amid COVID-19","background":"If nurseries are shut down in view of Covid-19, the Government should set up an emergency fund to ensure their survival and ensure that parents are not charged the full fee by the nurseries to keep children's places.","additional_details":"Being without childcare and having to pay nursery fees is a great concern for parents with small children. Nursery-based care is already extremely expensive, especially for children up to the age of 3. To expect parents to pay these fees up front to keep a place at the time when there is no accessible childcare (and for many parents no paid work), is unrealistic. We also need these nurseries to survive. When this is over, parents want their children to return to their nurseries.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106128,"created_at":"2020-03-12T17:07:18.092Z","updated_at":"2024-10-19T03:16:09.142Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-18T17:49:48.099Z","closed_at":"2020-09-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-12T18:36:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-19T21:59:34.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-04-14T09:58:32.788Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-23T18:30:04.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2020-06-25","debate_outcome_at":"2020-06-30T12:50:04.796Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-14","summary":"The Government has announced a comprehensive package of support for individuals and businesses which will directly benefit providers of childcare.","details":"Hard-working parents across the country rely on childcare to help them balance their home and work commitments. We can rightly be proud of our childcare sector. 96% of childcare settings in England are now rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, an increase from 74% in 2012.\n\nDuring the current Coronavirus outbreak, the Government wants to support nurseries, pre-schools and childminders during what must be a worrying and uncertain time.\n\nWe have asked childcare providers to continue to provide care for a limited number of children - children who are vulnerable, and children whose parents are critical to the coronavirus (COVID-19) response and cannot be safely cared for at home.\n\nTo help them do this, we have taken steps to directly support childcare providers in the current crisis.\n\nWe currently fund local authorities (LAs) to pay early education providers to offer up to 30 hours of early education per week, to qualifying families, for two, three and four-year-old children. We announced on 17 March that we will continue to pay this funding to LAs, which will provide reassurance for early years settings. \n\nWe have also put in place a significant package of financial support including a business rate holiday for many private providers and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to support workers. We expect nurseries to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to parents’ fees, in light of these unprecedented circumstances, and to communicate any arrangements clearly with them\n\nFurthermore, childcare providers will benefit from the additional range of financial assistance measures we have introduced to support workers and businesses at this time.\n\nWe have announced that childcare providers will be eligible for a business rates holiday for one year. That means non-local authority providers of childcare (registered with Ofsted and providing EYFS) will pay no business rates in 2020 to 2021, from 1 April. This includes nurseries which are eligible for a charitable status relief – they will also pay no business rates at all in 2020-21 – and nurseries in receipt of small business rate relief or rural rate relief will benefit from small business grant funding of £10,000 (we also know that some settings operate from shared spaces which may now benefit from a 100% rates relief – and we strongly encourage those shared spaces to reflect any business rates saving in their rent charges).\n\nWe have also set up schemes to help employees and the self-employed, during the outbreak – which will benefit both providers and parents. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme means that for employees who are not working but kept on payroll, the Government will contribute 80% of each worker’s wages of up to £2,500, backdated to 1 March 2020. Businesses can access this scheme while continuing to be paid the early entitlements funding via local authorities. The self-employed may be eligible for taxable grants under the Government’s Coronavirus (COVID-19) Self-employment Income Support Scheme, announced on 26 March. \n\nWe thank the nurseries and other childcare providers who are working so hard to care for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children. This is a vital part of our fight against Coronavirus. In turn, we are working hard to mitigate the impacts of Coronavirus on all parts of our society. In the light of the steps we have already taken, we urge all childcare providers to be reasonable and balanced in their dealings with parents, given the great uncertainty they will be facing too.  We are keeping under very close review what further support individuals and businesses may require.\n\nFurther information relating to setting closures, plus the full range of support available for workers and businesses can be found here:\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-early-years-and-childcare-closures/coronavirus-covid-19-early-years-and-childcare-closures#funding\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-support-for-businesses\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-a-grant-through-the-coronavirus-covid-19-self-employment-income-support-scheme\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2020-04-14T09:58:32.786Z","updated_at":"2020-04-14T09:58:32.786Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-06-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-25/debates/E1479A23-8697-4B2E-9E5F-2A208EC3E217/Covid-19SupportForUKIndustries","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV0Et_Pfhdk","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0076/","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":333693,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/333693.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 the shooting of badgers immediately","background":"Shooting of Badgers is licensed by Natural England as part of the DEFRA Badger cull. 24,000+ Badgers were shot in 2019.","additional_details":"Shooting is poorly monitored and Wild Justice believes it has never met the animal welfare standards recommended by a 2014 Independent Expert Panel, whose recommendations were accepted by DEFRA. This method of culling is inhumane and should be banned immediately.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106108,"created_at":"2020-08-03T05:35:01.961Z","updated_at":"2022-03-22T07:34:29.735Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-09-24T07:48:31.317Z","closed_at":"2021-03-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-03T08:17:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-24T16:22:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-10-12T17:22:18.919Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-06T13:26:07.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2022-03-21","debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-22T07:34:05.884Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-10-12","summary":"Natural England carries out compliance monitoring and ensures that each cull company has suitable arrangements and plans in place to carry out an operation that is safe, effective and humane.","details":"Bovine TB (bTB) is one of the most difficult and intractable animal health challenges that England faces today. Around 30,000 cattle are slaughtered annually due to infection. Our cattle breeders suffer the loss of prize-winning animals and valued herds and this loss creates considerable trauma in the farming industry. It is important to bear in mind that, if left unchecked, bTB could pose an increased risk to animal and human health. It is a particular threat to the dairy and beef industries, which form part of an agri-food sector that contributes billions of pounds to the UK economy each year.\n\nOur 25-year strategy to eradicate bTB in England is founded in science. It applies the lessons learnt from previous attempts to control the disease, as well as drawing evidence from other countries, trial work conducted in the UK during the 1970s and, more recently, the Randomised Badger Culling Trial conducted between 1998 and 2007. \n\nSince the initial badger culls in 2013, a policy of badger control has been rolled out to other parts of the High-Risk Area (HRA) in the south-west and west of England. As of the end of 2019, 57% of the HRA is now subject to a licensed cull of badgers. This policy is starting to yield results. The latest peer-reviewed epidemiological analysis has shown that the incidence of the disease in the first cull areas of Somerset and Gloucester fell substantially, by 37% and 66% respectively relative to comparison areas.\n\nThe Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entered into an agreement with Natural England (NE) in October 2006 under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 authorising it to perform specified wildlife licensing functions, including those under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. NE is therefore responsible for granting, modifying or revoking badger control licences under the 1992 Act.\n\nNatural England (NE) carries out compliance monitoring which includes observations of controlled shooting in the field, and the results are published each year on GOV.UK. All applications that are received are carefully assessed by NE to ensure that each cull company has suitable arrangements and plans in place to carry out an operation that is safe, effective and humane.\n\nNE’s Chief Scientist advised that marksmen continued to show high levels of discipline and compliance with the Best Practice Guide in 2019. The level of accuracy of controlled shooting continued to compare favourably with the range of outcomes when other control activities, currently accepted by society, have been assessed. \n\nHowever, the badger is an iconic, protected species. No one wants to cull them forever, and widespread badger culling was only ever envisaged as a phase of the strategy, not a perpetual state of affairs. Therefore, five years into the current strategy, it is appropriate to take stock and consider how our strategy might be evolved. That is why the government asked Professor Sir Charles Godfray to conduct a review, which concluded in October 2018. \n\nThe Godfray Review is clear that the evidence indicates that presence of infected badgers does pose a significant threat to local cattle herds. The review also considers that moving from lethal to non-lethal control of disease in badgers is desirable.\n\nThe Government's response to Professor Sir Charles Godfray's review noted that while it is important to retain the ability to introduce new cull zones where epidemiological evidence points to a reservoir of disease in badgers, we envisage that any remaining areas would join the current cull programme in the next few years and that the badger cull phase of the strategy would then wind down by the mid to late 2020s. This plan has not changed. It is unrealistic to switch immediately to badger vaccination, but we are already doing a great deal to make sure the transition happens. Culling would, however, remain an option thereafter where epidemiological assessment indicates that it is needed.\n\nIn July, the government announced that world-leading cattle bTB vaccination trials are set to get underway in England and Wales as a result of a major breakthrough by government scientists. These trials enable work to accelerate towards planned deployment of a cattle vaccine. While the candidate BCG vaccine will never provide full protection, it promises to be a valuable additional tool if deployed with a test to detect infected cattle among vaccinated cattle (DIVA test). Government scientists have now developed a candidate DIVA test. The government is committing the funding necessary to accelerate field trials towards the aim of securing marketing authorisations for both the vaccine and the DIVA test by 2025.\n\nThere is no single answer to tackling the scourge of bTB but by deploying a range of policy interventions, we can turn the tide on this terrible disease and achieve our long-term objective of eradicating it in England by 2038.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2020-10-12T17:22:18.917Z","updated_at":"2020-10-12T17:22:18.917Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-03-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-03-21/debates/3A62786C-3340-47E7-9DC0-D95B1EE9BD57/BadgerCulling","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22qv8pHnqU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0058/","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":574305,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/574305.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":"Stop the rising number of ear-cropped dogs in the UK","background":"Leading veterinary and welfare bodies are concerned by the alarming rise in ear-cropped dogs in the UK. Ear cropping is illegal in the UK and an unnecessary, painful mutilation with no welfare benefit. The practice involves cutting off part of the ear flap, often without anaesthesia or pain relief.","additional_details":"The RSPCA states a 621% increase in reports of ear cropping from 2015 to 2020. We believe a rise in UK celebs sharing images of their cropped dogs on social media is helping to fuel this. While illegal to crop in the UK, it’s not illegal to sell ear-cropped dogs, import them from abroad or take dogs abroad to be cropped. These loopholes act as a smokescreen for those illegally cropping in UK. We call on the Government to close these loopholes and end the trend in ear-cropped dogs for good.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":105844,"created_at":"2021-02-07T00:01:29.557Z","updated_at":"2022-01-20T10:25:18.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-02-24T15:09:03.846Z","closed_at":"2021-08-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-07T00:11:47.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-26T11:49:07.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-03-09T16:31:41.843Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-16T06:43:55.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-19","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-07","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-08T06:19:18.016Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-03-09","summary":"The Government welcomes further evidence on this abhorrent practice from the RSPCA. We will also explore options to tackle the import of mutilated dogs, consistent with World Trade Organisation rules.","details":"The practice of mutilating dogs’ ears is abhorrent and has rightly been banned in the UK for 15 years.\n\nWe already have some of the world’s highest animal welfare standards. Now we have left the EU we have the opportunity to consider options regarding the importation and commercial movements of dogs with cropped ears into Great Britain.  \n\nUnder section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 Act it is an offence to carry out certain surgical procedures, unless they are specifically exempted under The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations). The cropping of dogs’ ears is not exempted under the 2007 Regulations and consequently is prohibited in England. Similar legislation applies in Scotland and Wales.\n\nThe maximum penalty for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal or cropping a dog’s ears is 6 months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. However, the Government is committed to increasing the maximum custodial penalty for both of these offences from six months to five years. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, currently before Parliament, will continue to receive Government support as it completes its passage through Parliament.\n\nEqually, the Government has powers to intervene on animal welfare grounds. Importers of animals must adhere to welfare standards as set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and in domestic legislation, The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 (WATEO). This legislation aims to protect the health and welfare of animals during transportation and applies to dogs that are suffering injury as a result of non-exempted mutilations.\n\nThe Government will engage with stakeholders, including the RSPCA, to understand the extent to which dogs are having their ears cropped in breach of the law in this country. Now the Transition Period has ended, we also have the opportunity to consider options regarding this abhorrent practice for imported dogs, in line with World Trade Organisation rules and would welcome further evidence from stakeholders and the public on this issue. The Government is taking steps to ensure that the illegal importation of pets is stopped, and that pets brought into the UK through legal means receive a high standard of care. \n\nThe Government also continues to raise awareness regarding the improper selling of pets by deceitful sellers in the UK and abroad through our ‘Petfished’ campaign, which seeks to educate prospective pet buyers on common tricks and tactics used by deceitful sellers which may result in the purchase of a mistreated or unwell pet including those who have been subject to cropping. The campaign urges buyers to mitigate risks, for example by buying from trusted sellers such as those under the Kennel Club’s Assured Breeder scheme, viewing puppies with their mothers and siblings, asking questions of the seller and following the Animal Welfare Foundation and RSPCA Puppy Contract to ensure that puppies are in good health when purchased.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2021-03-09T16:31:41.841Z","updated_at":"2021-03-09T16:31:41.841Z"},"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":593769,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/593769.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":"Provide more funding for stalking advocates for victims of stalking","background":"The Government should provide more funding for stalking advocates for victims of stalking. This would help support victims, and should also help the police to investigate cases more thoroughly, potentially helping prevent threats to life.","additional_details":"Funding increased provision of stalking advocates should prevent further harm from stalkers to their victims, including death. This should help prevent unnecessary distress and suffering to victims and their families.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":105721,"created_at":"2021-07-30T11:45:46.031Z","updated_at":"2022-09-14T09:14:00.817Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-08-03T11:26:01.072Z","closed_at":"2022-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-30T12:49:45.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-03T20:33:05.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-08-27T14:25:01.862Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-01-06T22:33:18.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-01-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-01-31","debate_outcome_at":"2022-02-01T09:52:16.793Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-08-27","summary":"The Government provided additional funding to stalking charities to help support victims, including funding specifically for advocacy, both this year and last.","details":"The Government is committed to protecting and supporting victims of stalking and is determined to do everything it can to stop perpetrators at the earliest opportunity.  The 2019/20 Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that 3.6% of adults aged 16-74 experienced stalking in the last year – equivalent to an estimated 1.5 million victims - 977,000 women and 526,000 men. Therefore, it is vital that there is adequate support available for victims.\n\nIn 2021-22, the Ministry of Justice will provide just under £151 million for victim and witness support services.  This includes an extra £51 million to increase support for rape and domestic abuse victims; the latter can include stalking that takes place in a domestic abuse context (i.e. where the stalker is a former partner or a family member of the victim).\n\nThe Home Office provided £97,000 of funding to Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service to enable them to engage additional Independent Stalking Advocacy Caseworkers between April 2020 and March 2021 and thereby help to address the risks to victims during the coronavirus pandemic.\n\nTo help ensure victims and survivors are supported, the Home Office also part-funds the National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, and has recently tripled its funding, such that it will now provide up to £155,000 this year.  The additional funding will, amongst other things, enable the Trust to expand its advocacy service outside London.\n\nIn addition, we have introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act which will bolster the response to domestic abuse on every level, strengthening protections for victims whilst also ensuring perpetrators feel the full force of the law.  The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 places a duty on the Government to prepare and publish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy that aims to bring more perpetrators to justice and reduce reoffending. The strategy must include the detection, investigation and prosecution of offences, assessment and management of risk (including risks associated with stalking), and how we will work to reduce the risk of individuals committing further acts of abuse.\n\nWe understand that it is extremely important that the police are provided with the correct materials and training to deal with stalking cases.  In April 2019, the College of Policing provided a set of new advice products on stalking for police first responders and call handlers, and in November 2019 it released a new product for investigators.  In addition, on 11 August the Home Office announced that it is awarding funding of £11.3 million to twenty five Police and Crime Commissioners to support the roll out and extend the geographical coverage of domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator programmes. The aim of these programmes is to protect victims of domestic abuse and stalking, by changing perpetrators’ behaviour.\n\nThe Government recently published its new cross-Government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy to help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere – at home, online and on the streets. The Strategy sets out the Government’s ambition to help better target perpetrators and support victims of crimes which disproportionately affect women and girls, including stalking. The Strategy commits to radically changing how we tackle violence against women and girls with a whole system approach focusing on: prioritising prevention, supporting survivors, pursuing perpetrators, underpinned by a stronger system. Through the Strategy we have committed an additional £1.5 million for vital specialist support services and to increase our funding for helplines this financial year, and £3 million to better understand what works to prevent violence against women and girls – to invest in high quality, evidence-informed prevention projects, including in schools, aiming to educate and inform children and young people about violence against women and girls, healthy relationships and the consequences of abuse.  We have also made a commitment in the Strategy to work with the police in order to make sure they are making proper use of Stalking Protection Orders. These orders enable early police intervention, pre-conviction, to address stalking behaviours before they become deep-rooted or escalate and have the flexibility to impose both restrictions and positive requirements on the perpetrator.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2021-08-27T14:25:01.859Z","updated_at":"2021-08-27T14:25:01.859Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-01-31","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-01-31/debates/D9B1EA23-67DB-4896-B6BA-86038D6FAA94/StalkingAdvocates","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy-IKC5Ts8s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0025/","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":300059,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300059.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":"Publish the Russia report","background":"Lift the restriction on publishing the report on Russia’s spying activities against the UK and its attempts to penetrate the British establishment. This will require the re-establishment of  the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can be immediately published.","additional_details":"The timing of the suppression of the Russia report in November 2019 was far too convenient for the present government which won an increased majority in the elections in Dec 2019. Questions were  being asked about why, since it had already been cleared by the Prime Minister, had it not been published before the election. The continuing suppression of the report is doing nothing to raise the confidence of the British people in the integrity of the electoral process.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":105310,"created_at":"2020-03-03T13:18:09.290Z","updated_at":"2021-01-27T18:54:27.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-04T14:19:38.363Z","closed_at":"2020-09-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-03T15:40:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-04T23:31:44.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-19T16:48:33.012Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-27T14:07:24.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-09-02T10:37:49.191Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-19","summary":"The Prime Minister cleared the ISC’s Russia report on 13 December 2019. The Russia Report is the property of the ISC and is for them to publish once the normal reappointment process is complete.","details":"The Government welcomes the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s (ISC) Inquiry into Russian activity against the UK.  This is an important subject which has clearly captured the public interest.\n\nISC reports must go through a number of clearance processes before publication. This includes the Prime Minister carefully ensuring that reports do not include material that would undermine the work of those who protect our national security, a vital and statutory obligation as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013. \n\nThe former Committee - former because all ISC members stood down at the dissolution of Parliament for the December 2019 General Election - submitted the report for final clearance to the Prime Minister just before the General Election.  The Prime Minister carefully considered the report and provided clearance following the election purdah period on 13 December 2019.\n\nThe Russia report remains the property of the ISC and it is for them to publish ISC reports. The ISC is regulated by the Justice and Security Act 2013.  Section 3(6) provides that the “ISC must lay before Parliament any report made by it to Parliament”. The effect of taking a report to Parliament is to place it in the public domain, this is a statutory requirement, which can only be completed by a sitting ISC.\n\nOnce the new Committee has been re-appointed, it will be for the ISC to decide when the Russia report should be published.  Members of the ISC are appointed by Parliament having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.  The new Committee is being formed in the normal way and at the normal pace.  Following the 8 June 2017 General Election, the Committee was appointed on 16 November 2017.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office.","created_at":"2020-03-19T16:48:33.010Z","updated_at":"2020-03-19T16:48:33.010Z"},"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 acted on by the Government and considered by the Committee and in the House of Commons in other ways, the Committee has agreed not schedule this petition for debate.","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":648609,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/648609.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":"End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organization","background":"The World Health Organisation is not a democratically elected body and we are concerned about the powers WHO may be given over Sovereign Nations in the future.","additional_details":"We think that ending the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation is important for the sovereign governance of our country.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104974,"created_at":"2023-10-11T22:26:29.183Z","updated_at":"2025-10-29T12:31:41.502Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-10-18T16:25:25.243Z","closed_at":"2024-04-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-12T20:28:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-25T18:47:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-11-17T15:14:26.248Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-02-10T18:32:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2024-02-21T10:47:41.966Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-11-17","summary":"The UK Government will not end our WHO membership. We are committed to working with the WHO to tackle the world’s health issues. We do not and will never cede sovereign powers through our partnership.","details":"The UK continues to have a strong relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO), which, as the United Nation’s specialised agency for health, and the world’s main technical and co-ordinating body in global health, has a vital role to play in supporting public health globally. The Government will not end the UK’s WHO membership.\n\nThe WHO is a Member State-led organisation and works on a wide range of technical health areas. These areas are agreed with Member States, including the UK, in advance and are based on our collective health needs and priorities; they are outlined in the WHO’s General Programme of Work (GPW) which are adopted and reviewed regularly by Member States. The current GPW runs from 2019 to 2024; the UK, amongst other Member States, is engaged in the development of the next GPW which will run from 2025 to 2029. \n\nThe WHO is the cornerstone of global health cooperation. It is through the WHO that Member States share with each other information on disease outbreaks around the world, share best practice on how to counter health threats and emergencies, and make commitments to each other to undertake activities to promote health and to avoid activities which could be detrimental to health. \n\nThe UK has long partnered with the WHO and its Member States to tackle the world’s most pressing health challenges. The UK continues to engage with the WHO, including on improving the global health system so the world better prepares and responds to future health emergencies. The UK is also an active attendee at the WHO governing body meetings including the WHO World Health Assembly and the WHO Executive Board. The World Health Assembly (WHA) is the decision-making body of the WHO; it is attended by delegations from all WHO Member States and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by Member States on the Executive Board. The UK is a rotating member of the WHO Executive Board including most recently until May 2023, and we use these opportunities to hold WHO to account for delivering the General Programme of Work and other commitments.\n\nThe Government wants to best protect the UK population including from future pandemics. COVID-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until we are all safe, and that effective global cooperation is needed to better protect the UK and other countries around the world from the detrimental health, social and economic impacts of pandemics and other health threats. \n\nThe best way to protect the UK from the next pandemic is by ensuring all Member States can contain and respond to disease outbreaks through compliance with International Health Regulations (IHR). Therefore, the Government is supporting the processes of negotiating an Accord on pandemic preparedness and response, and agreeing targeted amendments of the IHR as a means of strengthening preparedness for and in response to future health emergencies.\n\nThe Pandemic Accord is intended to prevent and tackle pandemic threats, whereas the IHR is a technical framework, the purpose and scope of which is to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease. Both processes aim to strengthen global health coordination, cooperation and mutual accountability to address the weaknesses seen in global health security during the COVID-19 pandemic and other recent health emergencies.\n\nBoth negotiations processes are led by Member States. No content of the Pandemic Accord or amendments to the IHR have been agreed yet. The two processes are separate but are intended to complement each other in supporting improvements to global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Member States have agreed to finalise the Accord and IHR amendments to be submitted to the WHA in May 2024. The UK is an active participant in both processes and we will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a good outcome for the UK. \n\nThe Pandemic Accord and amendments to the IHR must be adopted by Member States at the WHA for them to then come into force as a matter of international law for all Member States. The proposed amendments to the IHR, current and previous drafts of the Pandemic Accord, and relevant papers including reports from both processes are available publicly on the WHO website.  \n\nThroughout both negotiations, the UK has been and will continue to be clear that we would not agree any amendments to the IHR or sign up to an Accord that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in relation to making domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as, domestic immunisation programme rollouts and other similar measures.\n\nAny new or amended domestic legislation necessary to reflect new international obligations under the IHR or the Accord would be made through the applicable parliamentary process. In all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2023-11-17T15:14:26.245Z","updated_at":"2023-11-17T15:14:26.245Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that this petition has received. However, the issues raised by this petition have recently been discussed by MPs in other debates, including:\r\n\r\nA debate on e-petition 614335, \"Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum\", which took place on 17 April 2023. You can read a transcript of this debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-04-17/debates/12BE683F-A25C-46E5-9FE9-B9C12CCDA9B7/PandemicPreventionPreparednessAndResponseInternationalAgreement\r\n\r\nA debate on e-petition 635904, \"Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005\", which took place on 18 December 2023. You can read a transcript of this debate here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-18/debates/945EBBB4-D052-4CF7-8109-B39FF7FF919D/InternationalHealthRegulations2005","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":""},"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":631529,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/631529.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 remove LGBT content from the Relationships Education curriculum","background":"We believe kids should learn about this at an early age. I am sure there are many parents who want their and other children taught about LGBT issues in primary school.","additional_details":"There is a petition to remove this content, which we believe is discriminatory. LGBT people exist, they have the same rights as the rest of us and kids should know them and accept them without judgement or issue. Despite what their parents might believe.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104920,"created_at":"2023-01-18T11:32:44.182Z","updated_at":"2024-03-22T11:42:01.203Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-01-20T15:53:04.997Z","closed_at":"2023-07-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-01-18T13:13:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-01-23T20:17:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-01-31T12:47:02.315Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2023-04-13T10:27:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2024-03-18","debate_outcome_at":"2024-03-22T11:42:01.203Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-01-31","summary":"Primary schools are not required to teach LGBT content but can choose to teach it in an age-appropriate way. The Department for Education has no plans to change its advice to schools on this subject.","details":"To prepare children for life in modern Britain, pupils need to understand the world in which they are growing up. RSHE is therefore designed to give pupils the knowledge they need to lead happy, safe, and healthy lives and to foster respect for other people and for difference. \n\nThe statutory guidance states that all pupils should receive teaching on LGBT content during their school years. Secondary schools should include LGBT content in their teaching. Primary schools are strongly encouraged and enabled, when teaching about different types of family, to include families with same sex parents. \n\nThrough these subjects, children will be taught about the importance of respectful relationships and the different types of loving and healthy relationships that exist. This can be done in a way that respects everyone’s views.  \n\nThe Department for Education has no plans to change its advice to schools on this subject.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2023-01-31T12:47:02.313Z","updated_at":"2023-01-31T12:47:02.313Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-03-18","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-18/debates/4135DD73-1BD4-4F3A-9D5C-8C2C08832790/RelationshipsEducationLGBTContent","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pew-W3ae1qA","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"","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":554073,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/554073.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 greyhound racing to end unnecessary deaths & suffering of racing dogs","background":"The Government must introduce legislation to abolish greyhound racing, via managed shutdown of activities, and ensure welfare of redundant dogs through a levy on the industry. In 2019 Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) data confirmed 4970 injuries & 710 deaths (14 per week).","additional_details":"Thousands of greyhounds are forced to race for worldwide betting markets. We believe that the welfare of racing greyhounds is not adequately protected by Animal Welfare Act 2006, GBGB, or any independent body, and that greyhounds endure unavoidable suffering on tracks that can be dangerously configured, race in extreme weather & can be housed in kennels that have not been independently inspected to gain UKAS accreditation, despite commitments to DEFRA.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104885,"created_at":"2020-10-12T06:04:06.918Z","updated_at":"2024-12-24T12:47:17.626Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-30T14:54:45.699Z","closed_at":"2021-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-12T08:54:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-11T20:04:37.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-11-27T09:43:30.032Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-16T12:50:25.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2022-03-28","debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-29T08:20:44.877Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-11-26","summary":"Defra supports high welfare for racing greyhounds, considers that welfare concerns are being addressed in many ways, and believes a ban is unnecessary.","details":"The Government is aware of the genuine concerns that exist about greyhound racing. We are a world leader when it comes to animal welfare, and the Government expects high welfare standards to apply to racing greyhounds. Welfare concerns are being addressed, with the support of the Government. We do not, therefore, consider a ban to be justified. \n\nThe welfare of racing greyhounds in England is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) and the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 (the 2010 Regulations).\n\nThe 2006 Act allows action to be taken where there is evidence of cruelty to an animal or a failure to provide for an animal’s welfare needs. These provisions apply where greyhounds are at tracks or kept at trainers’ kennels. Further to these general provisions, welfare standards at all English greyhound tracks are set by the 2010 Regulations.\n\nThe 2010 Regulations require that all greyhound tracks have a vet present while dogs are running, and that the vet inspects all greyhounds to ensure that they are fit to run, including in extreme weather. Temperature-controlled kennelling must also be provided at the track, and all racing greyhounds must be microchipped and tattooed. \n\nA Government review of the 2010 Regulations in 2016 concluded that the regulations had proved effective in improving the welfare of greyhounds at the track, and traceability. However, the review also found that the industry needed to do more to improve conditions at trainers’ kennels as well as be more transparent.\n\nIn response, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) agreed to publish annual independently verified injury, euthanasia and retirement statistics from GBGB tracks. GBGB also agreed to extend their United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation. In addition to allowing them to enforce the standards in the 2010 Regulations at GBGB tracks, this extension would ensure independent welfare standards are enforced at GBGB trainers’ kennels.  \n\nGBGB have published injury, euthanasia and retirement figures each year since 2018. Publication of the figures, which have shown a decline in the number of track fatalities but also an increase in track injuries, has been accompanied by the introduction of GBGB’s Greyhound Commitment. The Commitment sets targets to reduce track injuries, as well as continue to reduce track fatalities. For example, GBGB have committed to halving within three years the number of dogs being put to sleep on humane grounds at the track due to injuries. 2019 figures showed a drop in such cases to 207, from 242 in 2018. GBGB continue to work with the Sports Turf Research Institute to make track surfaces as safe as possible to further reduce this figure.\n\nThe Commitment also includes other initiatives that the Government has welcomed. The Injury Recovery Scheme, which provides financial support to trainers to treat career-ending injuries to greyhounds where otherwise they might be put to sleep, has enabled the treatment and rehoming of over 500 greyhounds since its introduction in October 2018. In September 2020, GBGB introduced its Greyhound Retirement Scheme. The scheme attaches a £400 bond to each greyhound at the point of registration, paid for jointly by the owner and GBGB, in order to pay for rehoming costs at the end of a dog’s racing life. GBGB have already paid out over £70,000 in bond payments to approved re-homing centres.\n\nTo support GBGB’s efforts to improve welfare, in January 2019 the Government announced an increased funding commitment from bookmakers. In 2019/20 the British Greyhound Racing Fund collected a total of £8.87m from bookmakers, up from £6.95m in the previous 12 months. The Government continues to encourage any remaining bookmakers that have not signed up to the voluntary arrangements to do so.\n\nGBGB are in the process of securing UKAS accreditation for their trainers’ kennels scheme. From January 2021, all GBGB trainers’ residential kennels will be audited by independent auditors as part of the process of securing UKAS accreditation. These independent inspections will be in addition to the current arrangements which include a minimum of two unannounced visits by GBGB officials each year and an annual veterinary inspection. As requested by Defra, the new external inspections will be based on “PAS 251:2017 Specification for greyhound trainers’ residential kennels”. Developed by BSI, PAS 251:2017 provides an independent standard for trainers’ kennels based upon best welfare practice and the experience of animal welfare organisations, vets, government and industry specialists.\n\nThe Government has welcomed the Greyhound Commitment as an example of how, as a modern regulatory body, GBGB can initiate welfare reform without the need for further legislation. The Government will continue to monitor GBGB’s progress against the Commitment. Should further measures and protections be required the Government stands ready to consider options which are targeted, effective and proportionate.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2020-11-27T09:43:30.030Z","updated_at":"2020-11-27T09:43:30.030Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-03-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-03-28/debates/3D4F5F47-3466-44ED-B67D-C8A7AC0ACC7C/GreyhoundRacing","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD80MGXpnHs","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0072/","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":548682,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/548682.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":"Tom’s Law - Give police the power to suspend driving licences","background":"We want Police Officers to be able to provide a suspension notice from the moment an offender is caught drink, drug or dangerous driving until they appear in court. It would then be for the Judge to decide whether a ban continues or they are able to continue to drive again.","additional_details":"On 24th February 2019 Tom McConnachie was killed in a hit & run by a drink driver who left Tom fatally injured in the road & drove to Okehampton & set fire to the vehicle. The offender was able to continue driving for 11 months before being disqualified as only a court can disqualify a driver.\r\n \r\nWith Tom's Law we want Police Officers to be able to issue a suspension notice to an offender when arrested at the Road side to stop them from driving until they attend court to protect other Road users.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104868,"created_at":"2020-08-16T17:08:38.321Z","updated_at":"2023-09-07T14:49:04.006Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-09-25T12:48:11.376Z","closed_at":"2021-03-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-16T19:00:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-28T14:01:57.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-02-22T14:51:29.635Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-09T21:04:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-12-07","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-01-10","debate_outcome_at":"2022-01-11T13:20:26.235Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-11","summary":"The Government is committed to reducing road casualties and supporting responsible road users by identifying and prosecuting the few who make our roads less safe for the many.","details":"Ministers are aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Tom McConnachie and extend their sympathy to family and friends.\n\nThis case involved failing to stop at the scene of collision. Another petition regarding the sentencing of drivers who cause death and fail to stop has recently gained over 100,000 signatures and will now be considered for debate in Parliament.\n\nThe Road Safety Statement 2019 sets out the Government commitment to reducing road casualties and supporting responsible road users by identifying and prosecuting the few who make our roads less safe for the many. The Department of Transport have also established a combined roads policing project team with the Home Office and the NPCC, with a broad aim to improve road safety by adopting a new collaborative and evidence-led approach to road traffic enforcement.\n\nIt established a Roads Policing Review driven by DfT, Home Office and Police. In addition, the Government has published a Call for Evidence on Roads Policing and a summary of responses will be published in late Spring.\n\nWhere there is evidence that the driver caused harm, there are a range of other offences available. Failure to stop will be treated as a further and aggravating factor in the sentencing decision, including the common law offence of perverting the cause of justice which has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for failure to stop and report offences is six months’ imprisonment.\n\nTurning to the suggestion that in certain circumstances a driving ban should be imposed pending investigation and trial, under the Bail Act 1976, the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, one of which is to ensure there is no further offence committed while on bail. A driving ban as a condition of police bail may be appropriate for some cases. Decisions on when to use these powers are operational matters for the police, and the rights of a defendant, not yet convicted, and the potential benefits to public safety from reducing the risk of further offences have to be balanced.  The magistrates’ courts also have the power to impose an interim driving disqualification before sentencing in a case or transferring the case to another court.\n\nThe Government take this issue seriously and the Department for Transport is looking into the issue of fail to stop collisions and whether there are further options that can be pursued.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2021-02-22T14:51:29.633Z","updated_at":"2021-02-22T14:51:29.633Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-01-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-01-10/debates/5A577E0A-524E-43F0-B5FA-F687781F8C47/PolicePowersToSuspendDrivingLicences","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8FhrMj75M&feature=youtu.be","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0217/","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":552017,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/552017.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":"Stop Forestry England granting licenses for Fox & Hare hunts","background":"For the most recent hunting season, Forestry England gave hunting licences for 34 fox & hare “trail hunts”. Despite hunting wild mammals with dogs being illegal, two of the licensed/previously licensed trail hunts have been associated with convictions under the Hunting and Animal Welfare Acts.","additional_details":"Other licensed fox hunts have recently been in the press for alleged trespass, killing foxes, losing control of their dogs & for another criminal conviction. A saboteur was severely injured at a hunt in early September that ordinarily receives a licence from Forestry England. \r\n\r\nIt is only a matter of time before more convictions and more bans will have to be implemented. The answer is simple and effective – stop granting licences to hunts that are continuing to use the myth of ‘trail hunting’ to chase and kill wildlife.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104705,"created_at":"2020-09-22T11:23:38.045Z","updated_at":"2022-04-26T07:18:26.005Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-06T08:21:17.848Z","closed_at":"2021-04-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-24T11:21:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-10T07:02:14.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-12-07T16:09:37.805Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-23T22:22:25.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-03-29","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-04-25","debate_outcome_at":"2022-04-26T07:18:26.005Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-07","summary":"Trail hunting is a legal activity. Forestry England permits trail hunting under an agreement with the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. It has the power to suspend or withdraw any permission.","details":"The Government responded to a petition on this issue on 10 September 2020 and the position remains the same. The full response can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300634\n\nTrail hunting in the nation's forests is currently suspended in response to confirmation that the police are investigating webinars hosted by the Hunting Office.\n\nForestry England has no plans to end the granting of permission for trail hunting where the hunts concerned can meet the terms and conditions of the permission which are themselves kept under regular review.\n\nThe Government will not amend the Hunting Act 2004.","created_at":"2020-12-07T16:09:37.803Z","updated_at":"2020-12-07T16:09:37.803Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-04-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-04-25/debates/3B9901EF-11D1-488B-8BF0-B7ECF8991C90/Hunting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38I4ZBR1UBo","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0084/","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":328754,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/328754.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 government workers a fair pay rise","background":"During the pandemic government workers have delivered vital public services and kept our country safe and secure. After ten years in which the real value of civil service pay has fallen, many face hardship. The Government must start to restore the real value of their pay with a 10% increase in 2020.","additional_details":"Government workers are UK civil servants, those working for NDPBs and on outsourced government contracts. Civil service pay has fallen in value by up to 20% over 10 years. Civil servants have been overpaying pension contributions. Government pay policy for 2020 restricts increases to 1.5-2.5%. Government workers have delivered the Job Retention scheme, kept our courts running and our borders secure. It’s time to recognise their contribution and restore the real value of their pay.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104704,"created_at":"2020-06-23T10:38:19.031Z","updated_at":"2021-05-18T15:49:35.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-20T09:26:26.427Z","closed_at":"2021-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-23T11:17:24.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-22T16:16:04.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-10-16T17:04:25.881Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-27T17:48:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2020-12-03","scheduled_debate_date":"2020-12-14","debate_outcome_at":"2020-12-15T12:10:40.963Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-10-16","summary":"The 2020/21 pay remit guidance allows departments to make pay awards between 1.5 and 2.5%. We believe this achieves a balance of fair pay for civil servants and value for money for taxpayers.","details":"The Coronavirus pandemic is the biggest threat the UK has faced in decades, it has clearly had a significant impact on the UK economy. We share this in common with almost every other major country in the world. HM Treasury will continue to take stock of the economy as we move towards the next spending review, planned for later  this year.\n\nCivil servants have already demonstrated remarkable commitment to keeping the public safe in the continuing fight against the virus. The ‘Here For You’ campaign has showcased just some of the many ways civil servants across the country have been contributing, and continue to contribute, to the Government's COVID-19 response. Much of the work highlighted in the campaign has been achieved whilst working from home, including such initiatives as HMRC's Employee Retention Scheme.\n\nIn order to continue to deliver public services which are vital for the nation, it is important that pay continues to balance rewarding civil servants for their hard work with providing value for money to the taxpayer. In May 2020, public sector pay was up by 3.7% on the year before, compared to a fall of 1.2% in the private sector. Furthermore, this financial year’s public sector pay awards, including those of Civil Service Departments, will be significantly more than the average in the private sector, where the Office of Budget Responsibility’s central scenario assumes a fall in average earnings. This year’s Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance allows departments to make pay awards between 1.5% and 2.5%, achieving a balance that offers fair pay for civil servants, while delivering value for money for the taxpayer.\n\nThese arrangements therefore allow departments as much flexibility as possible in agreeing a pay award, depending on their cost pressures. There is additional flexibility to go beyond the limits set out above by submission of a business case to the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury in exchange for plans to improve workforce productivity.\n\nSenior Civil Service (SCS) pay is subject to an independent pay review body process, whereby Government evidence is submitted annually to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).\n\nIn addition to the pay award, most Departments continue to offer non consolidated performance related awards to ensure the best performers can be recognised in this way.\n\nDepartments are able to fund the legal requirements of increases to the National Living Wage (NLW) and statutory Holiday Pay for worked overtime outside of the 1.5% to 2.5% range.\n\nThe Civil Service Pension Scheme is one of the most generous pension schemes available in the UK and members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme pay some of the lowest contribution rates across the public sector. When comparing civil servants’ remuneration with other professions, it is important therefore to consider total reward.\nMember contributions are set every four years following the completion of a scheme valuation, specifically a cost control assessment. The 2016 assessment indicated that the member benefits needed to be improved, or their contributions cut, with effect from April 2019. However, in December 2018 the Court of Appeal found that the transitional protection used during the 2015 pension reform process amounted to age discrimination (the McCloud judgment). Following the judgment the\nGovernment announced a pause to the cost control element of the 2016 valuations. It was right to pause the mechanism, as the uncertainty around member benefits arising from the McCloud judgment made it impossible to assess the value of the schemes to members with any certainty.\n\nIn light of the developments to address the McCloud judgment, and as the associated uncertainties recede, the Government has announced that the pause should be lifted. HM Treasury will set out how the cost of providing the additional member benefits required to remedy the age discrimination should be taken into account in the cost control element of the valuations process and the government will then consider how best to take forward the outcome of the 2016 cost cap for civil service pensions once the detail of these is known.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2020-10-16T17:04:25.878Z","updated_at":"2020-10-16T17:05:37.184Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-12-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-12-14/debates/0E4E3FA4-7D6B-439D-BACC-8520F2A99C03/FinancialRewardForGovernmentWorkersAndKeyWorkers","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1KuCI2GcQ","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0167/","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":597171,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/597171.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":"Suspend trade agreement with Faroe Islands until all whale & dolphin hunts end","background":"In 2019 UK Government finalised a free trade agreement (FTA) with Faroe Islands which allows for £100 million of exports of wild caught and farmed fish to Britain per annum (20% of the Faroe Islands global trade). This FTA should be suspended until all whale & dolphin hunts on Faroe Islands end","additional_details":"The Free Trade Agreement with the Faroe Islands gives the UK Government significant leverage when it comes to ending the mass slaughter of pilot whales and dolphins on the Faroe Islands which causes huge anger and revulsion around the world. If the UK is to be considered a world leader in the protection of marine mammals it must use this leverage now","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":104660,"created_at":"2021-09-15T19:14:45.483Z","updated_at":"2023-07-19T12:51:07.736Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-09-21T08:47:01.032Z","closed_at":"2022-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-15T19:26:38.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-22T19:18:28.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-10-26T08:38:30.302Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-03-14T11:33:08.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-06-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-07-11","debate_outcome_at":"2022-07-12T11:31:48.874Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-10-26","summary":"The UK strongly opposes the hunting of cetaceans and is committed to upholding high animal welfare standards in its trade relationships. We continue to urge the Faroe Islands to stop cetacean hunts.","details":"The UK plays a leading role in championing the conservation and welfare of all cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and is an active member of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). We strongly believe that the hunting of cetaceans is unacceptably cruel, and that responsible tourism is the only truly sustainable interaction with these animals. \n\nLord Goldsmith has written to Jacob Vestergaard, the Faroese Minister for Fisheries, to express the UK’s opposition to the killing of cetaceans in the Faroe Islands, with particular reference to the hunt of 1,428 Atlantic white-sided dolphins that took place on the 12th September. UK officials have also raised concerns through diplomatic channels including through the IWC.  \n\nThe UK welcomes the Faroese Prime Minister’s announcement that his government will start an evaluation of regulations on the catching of Atlantic white-sided dolphins and review closely the part these hunts play in Faroese society. UK Ministers will continue to engage with the Faroese Government throughout this evaluation process.\n\nBy having strong diplomatic and economic relationships with partners, we are able to have open discussions on a range of issues. The UK will continue advocating at every appropriate opportunity, included those provided by our Trade Agreement, for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands. \n\nDepartment for International Trade","created_at":"2021-10-26T08:38:30.298Z","updated_at":"2021-10-26T08:38:30.298Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-07-11","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-07-11/debates/7FA9E7DD-870E-491A-8DAC-6F25F2F6C631/DolphinAndWhaleHuntingFaroeIslands","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd9QBpBwwA","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0135/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":328621,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/328621.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":"Protect Retail Workers from Abuse, Threats and Violence.","background":"Enact legislation to protect retail workers. This legislation must create a specific offence of abusing, threatening or assaulting a retail worker. The offence must carry a penalty that acts as a deterrent and makes clear that abuse of retail workers is unacceptable.","additional_details":"Throughout the Coronavirus outbreak, retail workers have been spat at, threatened with infection of Coronavirus and physically assaulted. Since the start of the outbreak, the average retail worker has been assaulted, threatened or abused every 6.5 days, more than double the rate of incidents compared to 2019.\r\n\r\nKey workers across retail have been undervalued for too long. We need to recognise the valuable contribution of these workers and ensure they are safe whilst undertaking essential work.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":104354,"created_at":"2020-06-22T10:01:40.230Z","updated_at":"2023-12-08T20:55:14.636Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-24T16:11:16.980Z","closed_at":"2021-01-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-23T07:35:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-20T15:54:14.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-09-15T15:07:41.530Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-17T08:30:07.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-05-25","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-06-07","debate_outcome_at":"2021-06-08T06:20:15.455Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-09-15","summary":"The Government is not persuaded that a specific offence is needed as a wide range of offences already exist which cover assaults against any worker, including shop workers.","details":"Everyone should feel safe at work which is why assaults on shop workers, doing vital work for the country and the economy are simply unacceptable.  The Government pays tribute to all shop workers who have worked tirelessly during the pandemic to keep shops stocked with essential items.  \n\nAlthough the Government is sympathetic to the motivations behind the petition, it remains unpersuaded of the need for a specific offence as there are already a wide range of offences which exist and which cover assaults against any worker, including shop workers and those selling age restricted items.  Relevant offences include common assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, harassment and other public order offences which criminalise threatening or abusive behaviour intended to harass, alarm or distress a person.  All these offences already apply to people whose work brings them into contact with members of the public. \n\nIn April last year, the Home Office published a call for evidence - `Violence and abuse towards shop staff’ - to further understand the issue of violence and abuse towards shop workers, the measures which may help prevent these crimes and the extent to which existing legislation is being used to tackle them.  The consultation concluded on 28 June 2019.\n\nAn overview of the responses to that call for evidence, showed there to be a general lack of faith in the way in which these crimes are dealt with either by the police, the shop worker’s employer or in response to shop workers themselves.  This seemed to contribute to the view that the response to such crimes was often inadequate and was also a factor that led individuals to decide not to report further incidents.  The Government believes that it is this issue that requires more urgent action rather than a change in the law.  \n\nThe Government’s response to that call for evidence was published on 7 July 2020 and sets out plans to crack down on abuse and violence against shop workers.  The steps, which are detailed in the Home Office’s response to the call for evidence (see - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/violence-and-abuse-toward-shop-staff-call-for-evidence)  are designed to improve support for victims and ensure perpetrators face justice. They include working with the National Retail Crime Steering Group (NRCSG) on a best practice guide to support staff in reporting these crimes, strengthening and making full use of existing laws, and improving data sharing between businesses and the police.\n\nThe courts also have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines.  The current guidelines for assault offences specify that it is an aggravating factor for an offence to be committed against a person who works in the public sector or who is providing a service to the public, such as a shop worker.  In 2019, the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales provided additional advice on this factor in order to make clear that it could apply to those working in the private as well as the public sector. In all cases, therefore, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public will be considered an aggravating factor when passing sentence.  In addition, due to the outbreak of Covid-19, the Sentencing Council also published interim guidance in April that clarifies that, when sentencing assault offences relating to the transmission of Covid-19, the courts should treat this as meriting a more severe sentence.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2020-09-15T15:07:41.528Z","updated_at":"2020-09-15T15:07:41.528Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-06-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-06-07/debates/3EAB4085-F969-4B6D-BC90-D4D0C1F9A8B6/ProtectionOfRetailWorkers","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO5jOVUPvgw","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0081/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":323926,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/323926.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":"Tougher sentences for hit and run drivers who cause death","background":"The maximum penalty for failure to stop after an incident is points and a 6-month custodial sentence. Causing death by careless/dangerous driving is between 5-14 yrs. The sentence for failing to stop after a fatal collision must be increased.","additional_details":"Our sons, Matt aged 25 & Paul aged 23, were both killed on their motorbikes just 9 months apart. Both drivers fled the scene. We are not the only families to have suffered this tragedy or endure unjust sentencing. We at the Roads Injustice Project want the laws changed as we feel they are both outdated and unfair. Tougher sentences are needed for the life sentence we have to deal with every single day from the loss of our son's due to the actions of somebody else.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104323,"created_at":"2020-06-01T14:17:46.924Z","updated_at":"2022-02-17T11:29:09.254Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-20T07:07:21.553Z","closed_at":"2021-01-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-01T16:14:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-06T19:00:14.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-08-28T15:34:37.498Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-07T12:40:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-11-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-11-15","debate_outcome_at":"2021-11-16T11:06:03.665Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-28","summary":"It is wholly irresponsible for drivers to fail to stop and report an incident. However, the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.","details":"We were very sorry to read of the deaths of Matt and Paul; our sympathies are with their families and friends.\n\nFailure to stop and report offences are often referred to as “hit and run” but this is not an accurate reflection of the offence. The offence is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop, not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious, but not proven, offence.\n\nThe vast majority of the 2,820 convictions in 2019 for failure to stop and report offences involve low level traffic incidents where, for example, a driver clips the wing mirror of another vehicle in a narrow street. This is reflected in current sentencing practice where by far the most common sentence for this offence is a fine. In a small number of cases the failure to stop or report may be related to an event which leads to the death or serious injury of another person. Where there is evidence that the driver caused harm, there is a range of offences for which the driver may be charged including causing death or serious injury from dangerous or careless driving and the courts will treat the failure to stop as a further and aggravating factor in the sentencing decision. Where the driver takes action to avoid detection this may amount to perverting the course of justice, an offence which carries a life sentence maximum.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2020-08-28T15:34:37.495Z","updated_at":"2020-08-28T15:34:37.495Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-11-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-15/debates/2F33B858-4F79-42CA-9544-790886B089C1/RoadTrafficOffencesFatalCollisions","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSXmYNhl0T8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0181/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":588072,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/588072.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":"Allow fully vaccinated people coming from red list countries to isolate at home","background":"To allow fully vaccinated people who come from red listed countries to isolate at home instead of the hotel quarantine which is very expensive and non affordable.  People need to go to see their families. Doctors who work for the whole year need to see their parents.","additional_details":"The hotel quarantine is very expensive and non affordable.  I believe that there should be an exemption for fully vaccinated people and who had a negative PCR to isolate at their place of residence.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103999,"created_at":"2021-06-05T23:10:19.059Z","updated_at":"2023-12-20T16:32:11.971Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-06-10T11:06:43.378Z","closed_at":"2021-12-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-05T23:19:35.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-22T00:52:15.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-07-06T16:41:47.494Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-07T08:55:18.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-22T15:52:03.927Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-06","summary":"Public health has always been our number one priority and we will not risk throwing away our hard-won achievements which have only been possible through the work of the British people","details":"We recognise the impact that restrictions and this pandemic have had on many people. We have made enormous progress this past year in tackling the pandemic across Britain. That progress has been hard won and it is important that we do not risk undermining it now.\n\nIn 2019, UK residents took over 93 million trips abroad, for business, leisure and to visit friends and family. International travel is vital. It connects families who have been kept apart, boosts businesses and underpins the UK economy. It is absolutely essential that any steps we take now, lay the groundwork for a sustainable return to travel.\n\nTo protect the nation from the spread of Covid-19 particularly any new variants of concern, the government has put in place proportionate measures, informed by the latest scientific data and public health advice from a world-leading range of experts.\n\nThe purpose of our travel measures is to protect public health and the vaccine rollout as our top priority, while ensuring that our route out of the international travel restrictions is sustainable.\n\nThe traffic light system categorises countries based on risk to protect public health and the vaccine rollout from variants of COVID-19. The Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) produces risk assessments of countries and territories. Decisions on Red, Amber or Green List assignment and associated border measures are taken by Ministers, who take into account the JBC risk assessments, alongside wider public health factors.  Vaccination status is considered in the risk assessment, but the JBC is looking for the outcome of vaccination programmes, i.e. reduced levels of infection including variants of concern.\n\nIn the interests of continuing to protect public health, the public are being advised against leisure travel to countries categorised as ‘Amber’ and ‘Red’.\n\nInternational arrivals from red-list countries or those who have departed from or transited through a red list country in the previous 10 days are required to quarantine for 10 days in a managed quarantine hotel and take a PCR test on or before day 2 and on or after day 8.\n\nThere are some instances where travellers might be able to get an exemption from needing to quarantine. These exemptions are exceptional and limited, and you will need evidence to support your request.\n\nFor those facing significant financial hardship as a result of this charge, there will be an opportunity to apply for a deferred repayment plan when booking. They will be required to pay back the debt to the government in 12 monthly instalments.\n\nThe measures were formally reviewed on 28th June taking into account of the domestic and international health picture with 6 more countries added to the red list on 30th June.\n\nIn recognition of our successful domestic vaccination programme, and as part of the Global Travel Taskforce’s  28th June checkpoint review, our intention is that later in the summer, arrivals who are fully vaccinated will not have to quarantine when travelling from amber list countries. \n\nTo sustain the success of our vaccination programme, this exemption for fully vaccinated will be only for amber arrivals. We expect this to occur in phases, starting with people who have been vaccinated in the UK. All amber list arrivals will still be required to take a test on Day 2, and any positive results will be sequenced to continue to manage the risk of importing variants.  \n\nUntil implementation passengers must continue to abide by quarantine rules when returning to the UK from an amber list country.\n\nAll arrivals from red list countries weather fully vaccinated or not are expected to continue with the 10 days quarantine in a managed quarantine facility.\n\nRecognising the strong strategic rationale and success of the vaccine programme, we will continue to look into the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel at the next review stages of the traffic light system.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2021-07-06T16:41:47.490Z","updated_at":"2021-07-06T16:42:23.165Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that this petition has received. However, all remaining covid-19 international travel restrictions were removed for all passengers from 4am Friday 18 March.\r\n\r\nNow the Government has removed all covid-19 travel restrictions, the request of this petition has been overtaken by events.\r\n\r\nRead more here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-covid-19-travel-restrictions-removed-in-the-uk","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":648577,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/648577.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":"Create a Palestinian Family Visa Scheme for Palestinian people affected by war","background":"We want the government to take action and create a Visa scheme that allows Palestinian individuals affected by war, to be allowed into the UK. Just like we did for Ukraine.","additional_details":"This visa would provide them with an opportunity to seek refuge and reunite with their families safely in the UK. By implementing this visa, the government can demonstrate its commitment to compassion, inclusivity, and supporting those who have endured the hardships of war. Together, let's urge the government to enact policies that provide a lifeline for Palestinians seeking safety and a chance to rebuild their lives safely.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103834,"created_at":"2023-10-11T19:30:42.788Z","updated_at":"2024-05-16T13:00:24.852Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-10-18T14:12:30.466Z","closed_at":"2024-04-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-11T19:41:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-11-09T15:49:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-12-22T10:08:43.660Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-04-13T22:05:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2024-04-19","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-05-13","debate_outcome_at":"2024-05-16T08:43:35.214Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-12-21","summary":"There are no plans to introduce bespoke arrangements for people arriving from the region. Those wishing to come to the UK who currently have no visa can apply under one of the existing visa routes.","details":"The UK Government is monitoring the situation in Israel and Gaza closely to ensure that it is able to respond appropriately.  \n\nWe recognise that some people impacted by the events in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories may wish to join family in the UK. The Government is working with authorities across the region to facilitate the repatriation of British citizens and their family members who already hold permission to come to the UK.   \n  \nThere are currently no plans to introduce bespoke arrangements for people arriving from the region who do not hold permission to come to the UK. That means that immediate family members of British citizens, and those settled in the UK, who wish to come and live in the UK and do not have a current UK visa can apply under one of the existing family visa routes. Individuals who meet these criteria should apply for a visa to enable them to enter the UK in the normal way. Fee waivers are available to those who can not afford the application fee, and exceptional circumstances may be taken into account where certain requirements are not met. \n\nUK Visas and Immigration is working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in supporting family members of British nationals evacuated from Gaza who require a visa, signposting the necessary steps and expediting appointments at the Visa Application Centre (VAC). VACs in the region such as Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are open and offering a full service.\n\nSince 2015, over half a million people were offered safe and legal routes into the UK. This includes over 28,600 individuals resettled to the UK under its global UNHCR resettlement schemes, which include the UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship and the Mandate Resettlement Scheme. However, our approach must be considered in the round, rather than on a crisis-by-crisis basis.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2023-12-22T10:08:43.657Z","updated_at":"2023-12-22T10:08:43.657Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-05-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-05-13/debates/C04330B1-6243-4B7B-9AFA-66AFCE259FC5/PalestiniansVisaScheme","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8d975a4d-4b31-4979-a40b-72fdc8f9caf2","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0095/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":649894,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/649894.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":"Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks\r\n \r\n","background":"We want the Government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for some people who want to place a bet. We believe such checks – which could include assessing whether people are ‘at risk of harm' based on their postcode or job title – are inappropriate and discriminatory.","additional_details":"The proposed checks could see bettors having to prove they can afford their hobby if they sustain losses as low as £1.37 per day. We accept the need to help those with problem gambling but more intrusive checks triggered at a higher threshold risks bettors moving to the black market where there are no consumer protections or safer gambling tools. We are concerned there will also be a negative impact on British horseracing’s finances due to a reduction in betting turnover and resulting fall in Levy yield.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":103537,"created_at":"2023-10-25T08:52:45.209Z","updated_at":"2024-05-02T14:51:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-11-01T17:08:30.391Z","closed_at":"2024-05-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-25T09:16:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-11-02T10:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2023-11-16T17:33:31.616Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2023-11-28T21:11:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2024-01-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-02-26","debate_outcome_at":"2024-03-04T15:04:17.711Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2023-11-16","summary":"We are committed to a proportionate, frictionless system of financial risk checks, to protect those at risk of harm without over regulating. The Gambling Commission will set out plans in due course. ","details":"The government and Gambling Commission recognise concerns some have with the proposed system of financial risk checks for the highest spending online customers to help identify and tackle gambling related harm. We share the goals that the checks should not overregulate the gambling sector, should not unduly disrupt the millions of people who gamble without suffering harm, and should not cause unnecessary damage to sectors which rely on betting, in particular horseracing. The government is a strong supporter of horseracing, and recognises that it is not the job of either the government or the Gambling Commission to tell people how to spend their money. As outlined in the gambling white paper we are seeking to balance this freedom with the necessary action to tackle the devastating consequences which harmful gambling can have for individuals and communities. \n\nImportantly, the proposals will represent a significant improvement for both businesses and customers compared to the current situation. While the Gambling Commission does not currently have specific requirements or thresholds, we know that operators are applying inconsistent ‘affordability’ checks on a number of customers, often without being clear on why the checks are happening, and normally requiring customers to provide data manually. We have challenged operators to be more transparent with customers in the interim, but the proposed system will be a significant improvement in having clear and proportionate rules which all operators are held to, and allowing for financial data to be shared seamlessly with operators instead of burdening customers with information requests. Both the government and the Gambling Commission have been clear that we would not mandate the checks proposed in the consultation until we are sure that they will be frictionless for the vast majority of customers who would be checked.\n\nThis careful targeting of interventions has been a guiding principle during the development of the proposed financial risk checks. We are seeking to protect those at the greatest risk of devastating and life-changing financial losses, and there is a clear need for specific requirements on online operators to prevent substantial unchecked spend. We recognise that this needs to be proportionate, which is why the proposed checks are only on the very highest spending online customers, conducted frictionlessly using data sharing, and do not come with blanket rules for operator interventions if there are no signs of harm. We estimate that the financial risk assessment using data from credit reference agencies will only impact those in the highest 3% of gambling losses. These factors significantly limit the risk of customers migrating to the black market as very few will have their experience in the licensed sector disrupted, either by the checks themselves or as a result of their findings. The financial risk checks are also intended to operate alongside existing requirements on operators to use a range of data to identify customers at risk of harm and decide whether or how to intervene. \n\nThe Gambling Commission’s consultation, which ran from 26 July to 18 October, received over 2,400 responses, many of which focused on financial risk checks. Those responses, and this petition, show the benefit of engaging the public ahead of implementing proposals.  The regulator and government are working to ensure all views are considered as the proposals are finalised.\n\nFinally, this petition raises the important link between betting and horseracing. The government recognises the enormous value of horseracing as both a spectator sport and through its economic contribution. The white paper’s estimate was that financial risk checks will reduce online horserace betting yield by 6% to 11%, which would in turn reduce racing’s income by £8.4 to £14.9 million per year (0.5% to 1% of its total income) through a reduction in levy, media rights and sponsorship returns. We are working with racing and refining that estimate. We have also commenced a review of the Horserace Betting Levy to ensure a suitable return to the sport for the future.\n\nThe government and Gambling Commission are working with the industry and others to ensure the checks can be implemented in an effective but proportionate way. We are also exploring the role of pilots or phased implementation to help ensure this. The Gambling Commission will set out details on its plans in due course. \n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2023-11-16T17:33:31.614Z","updated_at":"2023-11-16T17:33:31.614Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-02-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-26/debates/8860118F-57B3-428D-99CC-D719D3CDEEB4/FinancialRiskChecksForGambling","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabniNPdhgg&t=2s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0034/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DCMS","name":"Department for Culture, Media and Sport","url":""}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":575967,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575967.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":"Mark Allen's Law - we want throwline stations around all bodies of open water","background":"Mark Allen, aged 18, drowned after jumping into a freezing reservoir on a hot day in June 2018.\r\n \r\nIn May 2019 we watched whilst 3 throwlines were installed where he died.\r\n \r\nMark could have possibly been saved if they were in place beforehand.","additional_details":"We, Mark’s family and friends, feel that the Government should require by law that throwlines are placed in designated places around every reservoir, Lake, canal etc.\r\n \r\nSpeaking to people who work in water safety (fire services etc) such throwlines have saved many lives.\r\n \r\nWe want to save lives and save people from going through the heartbreak and tragedy of losing someone they love to drowning.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":103527,"created_at":"2021-02-19T23:30:50.464Z","updated_at":"2023-07-17T12:17:55.273Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-03-29T15:35:28.665Z","closed_at":"2021-09-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-20T15:55:07.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-06T11:59:45.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-07-02T13:21:13.270Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-19T00:01:18.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-01-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-01-24","debate_outcome_at":"2022-01-25T09:42:57.601Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-01","summary":"This tragic loss of life highlights the importance of landowner's responsibility to assess and act on the risks posed by open bodies of water on their land.","details":"Accidental drowning is a terrible tragedy for the victim and their families and highlights the importance of everyone being aware of the risks posed by water. The risks posed by open bodies of water should be assessed and acted on by the responsible landowner.\n\nThe majority of reservoirs are owned by the major water companies. The Environment Agency manages rivers and the Canal and Rivers Trust manage the canal network and all have a responsibility to ensure these are safe.\n\nLocal authorities will be responsible for a minority of bodies of water, including some beaches, and as a result the Local Government Association (LGA) has produced a water safety toolkit for councils, to ensure both locals and visitors enjoy the natural environment safely whether on the coast or inland. \n\nIt shows the importance of everyone being aware of the risks posed by water. This toolkit suggests a number of ways councils might seek to work in partnership to tackle water safety in their area. Councils want communities to enjoy open spaces and leisure facilities in their areas and to ensure that both locals and visitors enjoy the natural environment safely. This toolkit is to help councils create a partnership and plan to do that. Details of the toolkit can be found here: https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/community-safety/water-safety-toolkit\n\nThe LGA first produced a water safety toolkit for councils in 2017. They have since updated the toolkit, drawing on the Royal Life Saving Society’s (RLSS) work on creating a water safety action group and local water safety plan and their previous work.\n\nTheir document, A practical implementation guide to setting up a Water Safety Action Group and designing a local Water Safety Plan, can be found on their website (https://www.rlss.org.uk/) and provides a comprehensive look at these issues. This toolkit provides an overview of the steps councils should consider when looking at water safety in their local area.\n\nEmployers and the self-employed, whose undertaking includes work activity close to open water, are required under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, to take steps to prevent employees and other people from coming to harm due to their work activities.  \n\nThe methods of achieving this are not set down in law and may differ depending on the particular characteristics of the site and the circumstances. For example, a perimeter wall or fence around an irrigation reservoir or slurry pit will help to control risks. However where open access to water is encouraged for leisure purposes controls might, depending on the circumstances, include the provision of throwlines or other rescue devices, as part of a range of measures, recognising the advantages and disadvantages of providing such devices in terms of their limited effectiveness when used by untrained people, and the ongoing requirement for monitoring and maintenance. \n\nMuch of the open water throughout Great Britain while often used for recreational purposes, is not associated with ongoing work activity that comes under remit of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and as such, even if they were deemed appropriate at all locations, throwlines could not be made mandatory under Health and Safety legislation.\n\nIn terms of public safety at sea and at our coasts, Her Majesty’s Coastguard, part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, will coordinate rescue missions, at these locations, drawing on a matrix of available search and rescue resources including lifeboats, helicopters and volunteer Coastguard Rescue Teams, and vessels in close proximity of an incident.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2021-07-02T13:21:13.266Z","updated_at":"2021-07-02T13:21:13.266Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-01-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-01-24/debates/36B81C38-D4C9-4CA1-832A-4D4D72EE86C1/ThrowlineStations","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCTifjYNzrI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0017/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":567681,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/567681.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":"Grant an urgent Amnesty to Undocumented Migrants living in the UK","background":"Undocumented Migrants are suffering  in silence, with no access to adequate Financial support, or any help. The Government should grant an urgent Amnesty of 5years to those with no criminal record so that they could live their lives as normal human beings and pay tax to help the UK economy.","additional_details":"The current pandemic has created a more hostile environment for undocumented migrants. The Government should grant an immediate Amnesty to the Undocumented Migrants with no criminal record, to enable them to live their lives as decent human beings and help the Country economically. Since the migrants are already in the UK, it would not only be cost effective but would make sense to keep them in the UK and grant them citizenship so that they are granted their basic human rights.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":103441,"created_at":"2021-01-05T23:13:39.076Z","updated_at":"2021-08-31T09:22:08.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-14T17:20:38.052Z","closed_at":"2021-07-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-06T07:15:47.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-26T20:04:47.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-03-18T11:16:09.355Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-22T16:06:25.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-06-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-07-19","debate_outcome_at":"2021-07-20T06:54:26.908Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-03-18","summary":"The Immigration Rules already provide for undocumented migrants to regularise their status where appropriate, but such a provision would unduly reward those who have not complied with immigration law.","details":"We must maintain the integrity of our immigration system and ensure it is fair to those who have done the right thing and migrated here lawfully, plus contributed by paying items like the Immigration Health Surcharge, while also ensuring it works for UK taxpayers who fund public services. We will not reward those who exploit the system and break the rules by implementing this request.\n\nThe Immigration Rules already provide for undocumented migrants, who have not broken the law except for remaining here without lawful immigration status, and who have been in the UK for a long time, to regularise their status.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2021-03-18T11:16:09.353Z","updated_at":"2021-03-18T11:16:09.353Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-07-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-19/debates/C87C5848-DF11-4B03-90FE-39FA245CB12D/AmnestyForUndocumentedMigrants","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrTlxTNqU1I","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0126/","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":566718,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/566718.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":"Shut all nurseries and early years settings during lockdown","background":"Urgent call for the government to close all nurseries and early years settings in light of the new lockdown to protect early years staff.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":103176,"created_at":"2021-01-04T20:24:58.521Z","updated_at":"2021-07-05T23:00:08.967Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-05T09:21:23.084Z","closed_at":"2021-07-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-04T20:29:07.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-05T16:06:27.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-01-26T19:46:09.977Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-14T18:31:37.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-03-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-03-22","debate_outcome_at":"2021-03-23T12:24:39.059Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-26","summary":"The wider restrictions in place as part of the national lockdown to contain the spread of the virus in the community enable us to continue prioritising keeping nurseries and early years settings open.","details":"We continue to prioritise keeping early years settings open for three main reasons. Firstly early education gives children the communication and social skills which set them up for life. You cannot care for a very small child online and you can’t get those months back. Secondly, our PHE advice remains that young children are less susceptible to the virus and play a lower role in transmission, usually because young children have lower contact outside their household.  And thirdly,  the evidence at the moment is that the confirmed case rates of COVID amongst the very youngest children are the lowest of all age groups.\n\nKeeping children and staff safe is our utmost priority. The reason schools have been restricted is not that they are unsafe but because additional measures are needed to contain the spread of the virus. The wider significant restrictions in place as part of the national lockdown to contain the spread of the virus in the community enable us to continue prioritising keeping nurseries and childminders open, supporting parents and delivering the crucial care and education needed for our youngest children. \n\nEarly years settings remain low risk environments for children and staff. Current evidence suggests that pre-school children (0<5 years) are less susceptible to infection and are unlikely to be playing a driving role in transmission. There is no evidence the new strain of the virus causes more serious illness in children and there is no evidence that the new variant of coronavirus (COVID-19) disproportionately affects young children.  \n\nPHE advice remains that the risk of transmission and infection is low if early years settings follow the system of controls, which reduce risks and create inherently safer environments. \n\nEarly years settings have been open to all children since 1 June 2020 and there is no evidence that the early years sector has contributed to a significant rise in virus cases within the community.  Early modelling evidence from SAGE showed that early years provision had a smaller relative impact on transmission rate when modelled with both primary schools and secondary schools.  \n\nEarly years childcare providers were one of the first sectors to have restrictions lifted last summer, in recognition of the key role they play in society. Childminders and nursery staff across the country have worked hard to keep settings open through the pandemic so that young children can be educated, and parents can work. The earliest years are the most crucial point of child development and attending early education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and supports children’s social and emotional development. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2021-01-26T19:46:09.975Z","updated_at":"2021-01-26T19:46:09.975Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-03-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-03-22/debates/036445FD-6513-4719-B8F8-C5E05E2D85E4/Spring2021Covid-19RoadMap","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3K5SyLEsJc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0051/","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":303081,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/303081.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":"Support the British aviation industry during the COVID-19 outbreak","background":"As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak there are travel bans imposed by many countries, there is a disastrous potential impact on our Aviation Industry. Without the Government’s help there could be an unprecedented crisis, with thousands of jobs under threat.","additional_details":"Unite, the UK’s largest union, has devised a plan which it believes the Government must adopt to ensure the industry survives: https://unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2020/march/coronavirus-government-must-act-now-to-protect-aviation-jobs/\r\n\r\nThis calls on the Government to help cover workers’ pay, extend loans to the aviation industry, delay payment of taxes and duties, and support routes through public subsidy. Our UK Government should take action to save the British Aviation Industry.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":103040,"created_at":"2020-03-15T12:47:08.295Z","updated_at":"2024-10-19T03:16:31.788Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-20T17:24:15.025Z","closed_at":"2020-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-17T11:53:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-21T14:49:04.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-05-11T08:57:16.746Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-05-12T15:12:24.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":"2020-06-25","debate_outcome_at":"2020-06-30T12:52:03.847Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-07","summary":"The Government has announced an unprecedented package of support for companies impacted by COVID-19, including the job retention and business loan schemes.","details":"The Government has announced a range of measures to support companies impacted by COVID-19, including the aviation industry. These measures include: \n\n• Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) – providing funding to businesses to help businesses across a range of sectors to pay wages and suppliers, even while experiencing severe disruption to cashflows. \n\n• “Time to Pay” - HMRC is ready to help all businesses and self-employed individuals, experiencing temporary financial difficulties due to coronavirus, including “Time to Pay” arrangements, which allows the payment of taxes to be deferred. \n\n• Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme - launched on 20 April, this helps firms continue to keep people in employment by allowing businesses to put workers on temporary leave. The government will pay cash grants of 80% of wages up to a cap of £2,500, providing workers stay employed. The Scheme will cover the cost of wages backdated to 1 March. It was initially open for at least three months and it has now been extended to the end of June. The option remains to extend for longer if necessary. There is no limit on the amount of funding available for the scheme, and all UK-wide employers with a PAYE scheme will be eligible. Further guidance will be set out in due course. \n\n• Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme - has been created to support long-term viable small and medium sized businesses who may need to respond to cash-flow pressures by seeking additional finance. To be eligible, a business must be based in the UK and be impacted by COVID-19, have an annual turnover of no more than £45 million, and be seeking a loan up to £5 million. The scheme is delivered through commercial lenders, backed by the government-owned British Business Bank. There are more than 40 accredited lenders able to offer the scheme, including all the major banks. \n\n• Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme – all firms with a turnover of more than £45 million will now be able to apply for up to £25 million of finance, and larger firms with a turnover of more than £250 million can apply for up to £50 million. The Government will provide a guarantee to enable banks to make these loans. It will support business that were viable before the COVID-19 outbreak, which are otherwise unable to access the finance they need.\nAll of these measures have been designed to ensure that companies of any size receive the help they need to get through this difficult time – including airports, airlines and the wider supply chain.\n\nIf airlines or airports find themselves in trouble as a result of COVID-19 even following the Government’s cross-economy wage and financial interventions, the Transport Secretary and Chancellor have confirmed that the Government is prepared to enter discussions with individual companies seeking bespoke support as a last resort, having exhausted all other options. Any intervention would need to represent value for money for taxpayers.\n\nFurther details of all these schemes and support can be found at https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus/business-support\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2020-05-11T08:57:16.744Z","updated_at":"2020-05-11T08:57:43.945Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-06-25","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-25/debates/E1479A23-8697-4B2E-9E5F-2A208EC3E217/Covid-19SupportForUKIndustries","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV0Et_Pfhdk","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0076/","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":313310,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/313310.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 the Coronavirus Act 2020","background":"The Coronavirus Act grants potentially dangerous powers including to detain some persons indefinitely, to take biological samples, and to give directions about dead bodies. Powers last up to 2 years with 6 monthly reviews, and lockdown powers could prevent protests against measures.","additional_details":"The Act also lowers protections under the Mental Health Act. Only one medical 'officer' is required to sign off a compulsory treatment order. There are changes to the court system and registration of deaths, and inquests have been suspended in some circumstances. There is no requirement for any medical certification for cremations. It also provides for the indemnity of health service activity for those providing care to a person who has, or is suspected of having, coronavirus disease.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":102808,"created_at":"2020-04-02T12:26:14.518Z","updated_at":"2022-03-04T14:59:01.591Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-05-28T16:23:43.968Z","closed_at":"2020-11-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-02T15:00:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-11T10:24:54.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-10-21T17:05:33.166Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-03T15:07:17.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2021-03-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2021-03-22","debate_outcome_at":"2021-03-23T12:21:13.327Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-10-20","summary":"With the Coronavirus pandemic still at large, the Coronavirus Act, and the measures within it, remain as important as ever.","details":"The current coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which began in December 19, presents a significant, unprecedented challenge for the entire world. All of the UK has been touched by the pandemic and the use of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act should be seen in the context of the extensive and ongoing impact across the whole of society.\n\nThe development of an effective response to the pandemic required several actions. Some of these involved the use of new tools and powers that required new legislation. The UK government’s coronavirus action plan, published on 3 March, set out measures to respond to the Coronavirus pandemic that are reasonable, proportionate and were based on the latest scientific evidence. The plan envisaged that changes to legislation might be necessary in order to give public bodies across the UK the tools and powers they need to carry out an effective response to this emergency. On 25 March, the Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal Assent. The Coronavirus Act gives us the powers we need to take the right action at the right time to respond effectively to the impact of the pandemic and should be seen as part of a wide range of public health measures designed to tackle the pandemic during its life cycle.\n\nA balance has had to be struck between protecting the public’s health, and safeguarding individuals’ rights; and between acting swiftly to respond to fast moving events, whilst ensuring accountability and transparency. A two-year life span for this Act has been chosen to ensure that its powers remain available for a reasonable length of time, with the option for the provisions in the Act to be extended by the relevant national authority. These provisions are subject to a six-monthly review and renewal vote in the House of Commons. The first of these was held on 30 September 2020, following a debate in the House of Lords on 28 September, in which Parliament decided that the Act should continue. They are also subject to a two-monthly report to Parliament and an annual debate. Many of the provisions can be suspended if the scientific advice is that they are not needed, and revived again if it says that they are. This is a flexible and proportionate response to a major crisis. \n\nThe Act enabled action in 5 key areas:\n\n1. increasing the available health and social care workforce – for example, by removing barriers to allow suitably experienced people, such as recently retired NHS staff and social workers to return to work (and in Scotland, in addition to retired people, allowing those who are on a career break or who are social worker students to become temporary social workers)\n\n2. easing and reacting to the burden on frontline staff – by reducing the number of administrative tasks they have to perform, enabling local authorities to prioritise care for people with the most pressing needs, allowing key workers to perform more tasks remotely and with less paperwork, and introducing a power to suspend individual port operations if necessary for the security of the border\n\n3. containing and slowing the virus – provisions have been introduced to allow the courts and tribunals system to continue to function throughout the pandemic and ensure that more people are able to access justice.\n\n4. managing the deceased with respect and dignity – by enabling the death management system to deal with increased demand for its services\n\n5. supporting people – for example, by allowing individuals to receive Statutory Sick Pay from day one, and supporting businesses, for example by providing powers that will ensure the governments of the UK are able to support the food industry to maintain supplies\n\nThe governments of the UK therefore resolved to review and where necessary amend existing legislation, to ensure that the UK’s response is consistent and effective. \n\nThe worst-case scenario has not yet come to pass, but considerable risks remain, and significant challenges still lie ahead of us. The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in one of the largest ever shocks to the UK economy and public finances. The impact of the virus and the measures that have had to be put in place have been far reaching, affecting people’s jobs, livelihoods and wellbeing. Despite the success in reducing the burden of the virus significantly from its peak in the spring, the coming winter will present further challenges. Coinfections between seasonal coronaviruses and other respiratory viruses are common. While interactions between COVID-19 and other viruses are not fully understood, they have the potential to be negative and are likely to be more common in winter. There are also secondary risks. The pressure on the NHS and other health infrastructure is already higher in winder due to other seasonal illnesses, such as flu. As the world’s scientific understanding is still developing, it is too early to say that we know for certain precisely how the pandemic will respond to our efforts to control it in the medium to long term. \n\nDepartment for Health and Social Care","created_at":"2020-10-21T17:05:33.163Z","updated_at":"2020-10-21T17:05:33.163Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2021-03-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-03-22/debates/036445FD-6513-4719-B8F8-C5E05E2D85E4/Spring2021Covid-19RoadMap","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3K5SyLEsJc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0051/","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":600593,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/600593.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 the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife","background":"The Government should prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, putting them in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal.","additional_details":"We believe that people setting free-running snares cannot ensure animal welfare as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, that such snares cause unnecessary suffering to mammals, are indiscriminate and should be banned.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102617,"created_at":"2021-11-05T14:54:56.820Z","updated_at":"2023-01-25T17:41:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-11-09T14:10:43.873Z","closed_at":"2022-05-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-05T15:14:08.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-20T19:06:08.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-01-13T17:14:54.361Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-03-29T06:25:39.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2022-12-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2023-01-09","debate_outcome_at":"2023-01-10T06:58:16.799Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-01-13","summary":"The Government recognises that some people consider snares to be an inhumane and unnecessary means of trapping wild animals and will launch a call for evidence on the use of snares.","details":"Snares may be used in the UK to catch and restrain certain animals, primarily foxes and rabbits, for the purpose of wildlife management.\n\nSnares are controlled in England and Wales under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This prohibits the use of self-locking snares and the setting of any type of snare in places where they are likely to catch certain non-target animals such as badgers. It also requires snares to be inspected at least once daily. A person guilty of an offence can receive an unlimited fine or even a custodial sentence.\n\nThe Animal Welfare Act 2006 also prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to animals under the control of a person, including those animals caught in traps.\n\nThe Code of Best Practice on the Use of Snares for Fox Control in England sets out clear principles for the legal and humane use of snares. This was published on 20 October 2016 and can be found at: \nhttps://basc.org.uk/codes-of-practice/snares-for-fox-control-in-england/\n\nWe know that some people consider snares to be an inhumane and unnecessary means of trapping wild animals. When used improperly, snares can cause immense suffering and we are looking at whether changes are needed to address these concerns. Therefore, we have committed to launching a call for evidence on the use of snares. This was announced in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, which we launched last year as part of our continued drive to maintain the highest animal welfare standards in the world:\nwww.gov.uk/government/publications/action-plan-for-animal-welfare\n\nThe call for evidence, which will be launched in due course, will be publicly available online, allowing all interested parties to express their views on the use of snares. In this way, the Government will ensure it has the very latest understanding on this issue, and our position will be informed by the responses received.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2022-01-13T17:14:54.359Z","updated_at":"2022-01-13T17:14:54.359Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2023-01-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-09/debates/F8DC36DF-E022-4EB1-AE5A-30148FA60408/Snares","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIUJSJNyQ8&list=PLj3mInRJqIemzke3yWcmPaR5ZTW4S4bur&index=3","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0247/","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":[]}}]}