{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=4&state=not_debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=4&state=not_debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions.json?parliament=4&state=not_debated","next":null,"prev":null},"data":[{"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":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":624461,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/624461.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":"Fund 30 hours free childcare from age 1 for families where both parents work","background":"There is often no benefit for both parents to work when childcare costs so much. My wife is working 20 hours a week on just over minimum wage which just covers childcare. Extending free childcare where both parents work would mean working families could better benefit from their employment.","additional_details":"Up the 30 free hours to the age of 1 from 3 for working families. This should encourage more parents to work. This in turn will bring in more tax and should encourage more spending.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":157591,"created_at":"2022-10-03T17:32:43.013Z","updated_at":"2024-12-27T14:53:26.405Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-10-13T17:38:44.833Z","closed_at":"2023-04-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-10-03T20:06:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-04T23:04:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-11-25T17:46:10.461Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-08T11:06:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2023-10-24T14:14:12.610Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-11-25","summary":"The government is not currently planning to extend 30 hours free childcare. We support working parents through a range of childcare offers, including Universal Credit and Tax-Free Childcare.","details":"Education and early years policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is devolved. The 30 hours free childcare offer in England aims to support working families of 3- and 4-year-olds with the cost of childcare and to help parents back into work or work more hours should they wish to. We are not currently planning an extension to this early years entitlement.  \n\nThe government recognises the impact that cost of living pressures are having on families. In England, we have spent over £3.5 billion in each of the past three years on our early education entitlements to support families with the cost of childcare. Improving the cost, choice and availability of childcare for working parents is important for this government and we are exploring a wide range of options to achieve this. \n\nIn July, we announced measures to increase take-up of childcare support to ensure that families can access government support to save them money on their childcare bills. You can view the full announcement online at: Drive to reduce the cost of childcare for parents - (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drive-to-reduce-the-cost-of-childcare-for-parents)\n\nWe are running a communications drive to encourage parents to take up the government childcare offers that they are entitled to. Parents are encouraged to visit https://www.childcarechoices.gov.uk/ for further information on the offers available.\n\nAll 3- and 4-year-olds are eligible for the 15-hour free entitlement regardless of their parents’ circumstances. This is available the term after a child turns 3 and is available for 38 weeks a year during term time.  Parents can stretch their child’s entitlement by taking fewer hours per week over more weeks of the year (hours cannot be compressed into fewer than 38 weeks per year). \n\nOn top of this universal entitlement, an additional 15 hours (often known as ‘30 hours’ childcare) is available to parents who earn at least the equivalent of 16 hours a week at the national minimum/living wage, and under £100,000 per year. This means that parents can be eligible if they earn from just over £7,900 per year, or £152 a week. \n\n30 hours free childcare is making a difference to eligible working families’ lives, helping save eligible families up to £6,000 per child per year. Our 2021 childcare and early years parent survey (https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/childcare-and-early-years-survey-of-parents) found that almost three quarters of parents (73%) reported having more money to spend since they started using 30 hours, and almost two in five (38%) thought that without 30 hours they would be working fewer hours.\n\nThe government also offers 15 hours to disadvantaged 2-year-olds. Working parents on low incomes and in receipt of certain benefits (earning less than £15,400 and in receipt of Universal Credit or earning less than £16,190 and receiving tax credits) can qualify for 15 hours free early education for 2-year-olds.\n\nThe government appreciates that the cost of childcare can pose challenges for many families. But although the 2-year-old entitlement provides some practical support with the cost of childcare, this is not its primary purpose.\n\nThe core purpose of the 2-year-old entitlement is to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged children from low-income families who are less likely to use formal early education, but who stand to benefit from it the most. National eligibility criteria have been designed to target those groups who the evidence shows will benefit most from early education.\n\nIn addition to the free early education entitlements, across government there are other childcare offers that support working parents who wish to work more hours and need assistance with childcare.\n\nWorking parents on Universal Credit may be eligible for help with up to 85% of their childcare costs through Universal Credit Childcare which can be used in addition to the early education entitlements to support with the costs of childcare. This is subject to a monthly limit of £646 for one child or £1,108 for two or more children for children aged 0-16. \n\nThe government also offers Tax-Free Childcare, which can help parents with an additional 20% contribution towards childcare costs outside the free entitlements. Tax-Free Childcare which can be worth up to £2,000 per year for your child from 0-11, or up to £4,000 per year for disabled children aged 0-16. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2022-11-25T17:46:10.457Z","updated_at":"2022-11-25T17:48:12.380Z"},"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 agreed to implement its central request.\r\n\r\nAt the 2023 Budget the Government announced that from September 2025, working parents of children under the age of five will be entitled to 30 hours free childcare per week.\r\n\r\nFind out more about the Government's plans to expand eligibility for free childcare: https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/16/budget-2023-everything-you-need-to-know-about-childcare-support/\r\n\r\nMPs discussed support for childcare and the early years, including the Government's plans to extend entitlements to 30 hours free childcare, on Monday 16 October.\r\n\r\nRead a transcript of the debate on support for childcare and the early years: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-10-16/debates/33DE9895-22BA-4197-B4A1-D39A20AF5500/EarlyYearsChildcare\r\n\r\nWatch the debate on support for childcare and the early years: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/34c6780e-874a-42b9-9458-348112831866?in=20:51:37","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":601583,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/601583.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":"Remove Clause 9 from the Nationality and Borders Bill","background":"Under provisions in Clause 9 of this Bill, individuals could be stripped of their British citizenship without warning. We believe this is unacceptable, and inconsistent with international human rights obligations.","additional_details":"Clause 9 of the bill, “Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship,” which was updated earlier this month, exempts the Government from having to give notice if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or is otherwise in the public interest.\r\n \r\nWe believe these provisions should be removed before this Bill is enacted.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":327103,"created_at":"2021-11-19T12:05:29.221Z","updated_at":"2024-04-24T09:44:47.686Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-11-29T08:09:46.943Z","closed_at":"2022-05-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-19T13:15:28.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-07T19:02:38.000Z","government_response_at":"2022-01-05T12:38:34.135Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-10T07:44:48.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-25T12:02:05.575Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2022-01-05","summary":"The Government will not remove Clause 9. It is necessary to ensure deprivation powers can be used effectively and will only apply in very limited circumstances. It does not affect the right to appeal.","details":"Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill removes the requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship in certain limited circumstances. The clause also has retrospective effect so that where a decision to deprive has already been made but not notified to the person, the deprivation order stemming from that decision remains valid. This provision strikes the right balance between the rights of the individual and the aims of the policy to keep the public safe.\n\nThe Government recognises that to deprive someone of British citizenship is a very serious matter and it is a power reserved for those whose conduct poses a threat to the UK, involves very high harm, or where citizenship has been obtained by fraudulent means and so the person was never entitled to it in the first place. Deprivation on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds is rare, has been possible for over a century, comes with a right of appeal and is used against people like terrorists to keep the public safe. Such decisions are therefore made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers and in accordance with domestic and international law as well as the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Clause 9 doesn’t change any of that. It is simply about how someone is notified. It cannot be right that the proper functioning of the immigration and nationality system is impeded because an individual has removed themselves from contact with the Home Office, or they are in a war zone where they cannot be contacted, or where to make contact would disclose sensitive intelligence sources.  \n\nThis clause is therefore necessary to avoid the situation where we could never deprive a person of their British citizenship just because it is not practicable, or not possible, to communicate with them. Preserving the ability to make decisions in this way is vitally important to preserve the integrity of the UK immigration system and to protect the security of the UK from those who would wish to do us harm. \n\nHowever, the Government wishes to make clear that it does not intend to deny a person their statutory right of appeal where a decision to deprive has been made. The amendment to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 preserves the right of appeal in cases where the notice of a decision to deprive has not been given to the person as their current whereabouts are unknown. Once a person makes contact with the Home Office, they are given a copy of the deprivation decision notice. They can then seek to exercise their statutory right to appeal against that decision. \n\nThe Government is not extending deprivation powers through the inclusion of this measure and is not denying a person their statutory right of appeal where a decision to deprive has been made. The proposed amendment preserves this right. The change is simply intended to ensure existing powers can be used effectively in all appropriate circumstances and does not in any way represent a policy change in this important area of work.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2022-01-05T12:38:34.133Z","updated_at":"2022-01-05T12:38:34.133Z"},"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 request of this petition has already been considered by MPs through the legislative process.\r\n\r\nFollow progress of the Nationality and Borders Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023","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":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":597665,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/597665.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":"Referendum in the United Kingdom to abolish the Coronavirus Act.","background":"The government as a matter of urgency, to bring to Parliament for approval, legislation to have a referendum on the above subject within a maximum of six months.","additional_details":"It is important for the government and Parliament to enable the public to consent to, or abolish the impositions of this Act and its consequences.\r\nThe public deserve the right to have the final say in this Act because of the immense suffering which has been caused by the use of it. \r\nThis is especially so because it enables Government Ministers to issue decrees (statutes) without any Parliamentary approval or scrutiny.\r\nThere have been lockdowns, restrictions of freedoms and liberties, misuse of the emergency powers, excessive expenditure of public funds, mass testing, vaccine coercion of adults and children, vaccine certifications/passports, quarantine and much more. There has also been damage to the social and economic fabric of society.\r\nPublic say is vital.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":109708,"created_at":"2021-09-23T18:20:02.627Z","updated_at":"2022-11-03T09:45:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-09-28T10:22:26.571Z","closed_at":"2022-03-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-24T10:55:08.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-04T22:32:28.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-10-15T12:41:21.602Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-12-15T23:24:18.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2022-03-01T16:50:44.307Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-10-15","summary":"The Coronavirus Act has proved to be both necessary and highly successful in enabling governments across the UK to support people, and the public services they rely on, whilst combatting the pandemic.","details":"The Coronavirus Act (‘the Act’) contains provisions which have enabled support to be given throughout the pandemic to individuals and businesses, and which have enabled public services such as the NHS to continue to function. The Act will continue to do this into the recovery period. Any Regulations made under this Act are subject to Parliamentary and/or judicial oversight. The Government does not plan to hold a referendum on the Act.\n\nThe Act helped set the foundation of the Government’s approach to combating the pandemic and has enabled action in five keys areas: \n• increasing the available health and social care workforce\n• easing and reacting to the burden on frontline staff\n• supporting people\n• containing and slowing the virus\n• managing the deceased with respect and dignity.\n\nSince its inception, the Act has ensured that the NHS had the capacity to deal with the peak of the virus by allowing the temporary registration of over 14,000 temporary nurses, other healthcare professionals and social workers. \n\nIt has also protected critical societal functions and ensured that they were still able to continue, such as providing courts with the ability to use video technology. Currently, these powers allow over 14,000 hearings per week to take place using remote technology across 3,200 virtual court rooms. \n\nThe Act has meant that we have been able to put in place effective support packages such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) and Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) for people and businesses. As at 16 August 2021, there have been 11.6 million unique jobs supported by the CJRS since its inception, with 1.3 million employers making a claim, totalling £68.5 billion in claims. SEISS also continued until the end of September 2021, with a fifth and final grant. As of 15 August 2021, £27.1 billion has been paid in SEISS grants in total. 2.9 million individuals had received a grant and 9.9 million total grants had been claimed.\n\nThe Act has always sought to balance the need to be able to respond effectively to the pandemic with a commitment to maintain powers for the shortest possible time, expire provisions which are no longer proportionate and thoroughly review those powers that are in force. There is a high level of Parliamentary scrutiny built into the Act which includes a six-monthly Parliamentary review of the Act, which culminates in a debate and renewal vote on the temporary provisions in the House of Commons.\n\nDebates and renewal votes took place in September 2020 and March 2021. On both occasions, Parliament debated the Act in detail and voted to renew the remaining temporary provisions. In addition, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care reports to Parliament every two months on the status of the non-devolved provisions in the Act. \n\nThere is provision also for the suspension of powers, which can then be revived again if should they be needed. Temporary powers in the Act can also be expired earlier than the automatic sunset date. \n\nFollowing the third six-monthly review in September 2021, if Parliament agrees, 50% of the temporary, non-devolved provisions in the Act will have been expired. The remaining temporary provisions will sunset on 25 March 2022, as per section 89(1) of the Act. In the spring, the Government will review this legislation and the other remaining regulations and measures and decide whether any need to remain in place.\n\nMost of the legal restrictions that were put in place during the pandemic made use of powers under the 1984 Public Health Act, rather than the Coronavirus Act 2020. These were deployed only where necessary and lifted as soon as possible. Although not experienced on this scale in this country for many years, nonetheless these approaches to containing the spread of a deadly contagious disease are neither novel nor unique, and in fact represent standard practice (as set out, for example, in the pandemic flu plan that pre-dated this pandemic).\n\nThe bulk of legal restrictions were lifted when we moved to Step 4 of the Government’s roadmap on 19 July 2021 and were replaced by guidance to help people understand how they themselves can best manage their risks from Covid-19. All remaining businesses were able to reopen, which was an enormous boost to the country. \n\nAs with other forms of medical treatment, vaccination requires the patient’s informed consent. COVID-19 vaccination is no exception to this.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2021-10-15T12:41:21.592Z","updated_at":"2021-10-15T12:41:21.592Z"},"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, now the Government has removed all domestic restrictions in England relating to covid-19, and set out plans for expiring the remaining temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2019, the request of this petition has been largely overtaken by events.\r\n\r\nYou can read the Government's plans for expiring the remaining temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2019 in the Government's strategy for living with covid-19, which was published on 21 February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":560216,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/560216.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 dog theft a specific criminal offence","background":"The Government should create a specific offence for dog theft, with 8 years minimum sentencing and a fine of at least £5,000. Dogs are like members of the family to many people and current laws do not reflect this. Dogs are a support network for so many, a family member, a lifeline.","additional_details":"There have been reports of substantial increases in dog theft in recent months, with the most loyal of animals torn away from its family. Thieves think it’s all too easy and the punishment can be nothing compared to the gain with a shocking minority of dogs being reunited with their families.\r\nDog theft is not currently a specific offence and the crime of theft carries a sentence of up to seven years according to the Theft Act 1968, but this doesn’t target the specific problem which is dog theft.\r\n \r\nDogs should be seen to have their own offence to protect them. Current laws and penalties are not enough justice for the families and dogs that go through this trauma. They protect us, so we will protect them.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":316545,"created_at":"2020-11-12T06:18:39.286Z","updated_at":"2024-01-25T12:08:57.715Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-20T17:14:04.974Z","closed_at":"2021-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-12T10:16:37.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-19T19:29:37.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-01-21T12:54:42.100Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-05T19:23:47.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2021-09-21T16:35:02.062Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-20","summary":"Current court sentencing guidelines for theft already take into account the emotional distress that theft of a family pet can have on owners, and already recommend higher penalties for such offences.","details":"We understand the emotional trauma which the theft of a much-loved dog can cause. All reported crimes should be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences.\n\nThe theft of a dog is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.\n\nIf someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from its owner, then they are liable to prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The existing maximum custodial penalty for causing animal cruelty is 6 months’ imprisonment. However, there is legislation before Parliament – the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill – which when passed will increase the maximum penalty to 5 years’ imprisonment. This will be the highest penalty for animal cruelty in Europe. The Government will support this Bill as it makes its way through Parliament.\n\nSentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts and must take into account the circumstances of each case. When deciding on an appropriate sentence, the courts consider any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. In February 2016 the Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft offences. The guidelines take account of the emotional distress, and therefore harm, that theft of a pet can have on the victim, and accordingly recommends higher penalties for such offences.\n\nWhile the Government takes the issue of dog theft very seriously and is concerned by suggestions that occurrences are on the rise, we consider the legislative tools we have in place to deal with cases of dog theft to be robust and proportionate. However, as Victoria Prentis MP said on behalf of the Government at the recent Westminster Hall debate on pet theft, we continue to keep things under review and are keen to explore ways to address the issue that will be effective and have a meaningful impact on the problem at hand. That includes working with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations to try and get messages across to the pet owners to help them keep their pets safe.\n\nIt is important to raise awareness of precautions that owners can take to reduce risk of dog theft and increase the chances of owners being reunited with lost or stolen dogs. For dog owners this includes never letting their pet out of sight when it is being exercised; varying their routines when walking their dogs and not leaving their dog unattended when in public.\n\nThe law requires that dogs must be microchipped, and their details recorded on a database. Since we made microchipping compulsory, the proportion of dogs microchipped has gone up from around 58% of all dogs in 2013 to over 90% of all dogs. This means that about 8.5 million dogs in the United Kingdom are microchipped. We have also committed to introducing compulsory cat microchipping.\n\nOwners should report the theft of their dog to the database on which the animal’s microchip is registered, along with the corresponding crime reference number. There is a much better chance that dogs who become lost or stolen will be returned to their owners if they are microchipped and their records kept up to date. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2021-01-21T12:54:42.097Z","updated_at":"2021-01-21T12:54:42.097Z"},"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\nThey have agreed not to schedule a debate on this petition as the central request of the petition is being met with the Government’s announcement of plans to introduce a specific criminal offence of pet abduction, which the Petitions Committee has itself supported calls for, following a number of petitions on this issue. The Committee also debated a similar petition in October 2020.\r\n\r\nOn Friday 3 September 2021, the Government announced plans to introduce a specific criminal offence of pet abduction, along the lines called for in the petition you signed.\r\n\r\nYou can read the Government's announcement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pet-abduction-to-be-made-new-criminal-offence-in-crackdown-on-pet-theft\r\n\r\nAfter writing to the Government supporting calls for a specific offence of pet theft, the Petitions Committee debated pet theft in October 2020, in response to another petition calling for this to be made a specific criminal offence.\r\n\r\nRead the Committee's letter calling for pet theft to be made a specific offence: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/1502/documents/13678/default/\r\n\r\nAnd read the Government's response: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2185/documents/20152/default/\r\n\r\nYou can read a transcript of the debate from 20 October 2020 here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-19/debates/7DB00823-5B7F-452D-8F36-B857FEDE682B/PetTheft\r\n\r\nYou can also watch the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRtSMPH_zuc","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":592813,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/592813.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":"Exempt dogs assessed by experts as safe from breed specific legislation","background":"Amend the breed specific legislation to create a clause where by dogs that have been expertly assessed and found to be no more risk to the public than any other breed, to be exempted from breed specific legislation and allowed to live by the same laws as any other dog.","additional_details":"There are many dogs that are known to be reactive, but it is at present determined by breed if a dog is deemed to be dangerous. Public safety must always be paramount, BUT dogs that have been expertly assessed and found to be well behaved, surely are not the ones that need restrictions for public protection.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":127508,"created_at":"2021-07-20T14:27:40.707Z","updated_at":"2022-10-24T09:07:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-07-26T13:56:40.286Z","closed_at":"2022-01-26T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-20T14:59:15.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-27T14:46:15.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-08-12T14:49:53.945Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-15T13:52:45.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2021-09-21T16:30:50.629Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-10-19","summary":"The Dangerous Dogs Act places restrictions on certain types of dogs bred for fighting. Individual dogs can be kept under strict conditions if a court judges that they are not a risk to public safety.","details":"Public safety is at the heart of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The 1991 Act prohibits four types of fighting dog – types traditionally used for dog fighting (pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo argentino, fila braziliero). This approach is supported by the Police.\n\nThe statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs provides owners with information on how to provide for their dog’s natural needs as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Code of Practice clearly sets out that all dogs need to be trained to behave well, ideally from a very young age and should be introduced gradually and positively to different environments, people and animals.\n\nIn this country, pit bull types have been traditionally bred for dog fighting to accentuate any aggressive tendencies and therefore the Government considers that they pose an inherently greater risk to the public. We fully recognise that pit bull terriers are crossbreeds, which is why we refer to them as “type” rather than “breed” and base identification on physical characteristics. Identification of pit bull terriers is made by Dog Legislation Officers who are police officers specially trained to recognise the four prohibited type dogs.\n\nThe Government considers that a lifting of the restrictions on these types of dogs would more likely result in an increase in dog attacks, rather than contributing to any reduction in such incidents.\n\nDespite the general prohibitions on these types of dog, individual prohibited dogs can be kept by their owners if a court judges that the dog is not a danger to the public, that the dog can be kept in a suitable environment, and that the proposed owner is a fit and proper person. If the court considers these criteria to be met, the dog can be listed on the Index of Exempted Dogs and must be kept under strict conditions, including being on a lead and muzzled in public. The Government considers that these conditions, which include assessment of the dog’s temperament, are proportionate and should be maintained to provide the necessary degree of public safety required and to provide assurance to the public.\n\nUnder section 3 of the 1991 Act, it is an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control. For the purposes of the 1991 Act, this includes any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog in question will injure someone, whether or not it actually does so. The maximum penalty for such an offence is fourteen years’ imprisonment if it results in the death of a person; five years in the case of injury; three years if it is an attack on an assistance dog and six months where no injury is caused to a person or assistance dog.\n\nDefra has commissioned further research in collaboration with Middlesex University to look at responsible ownership across all breeds of dog. The research will consider different approaches and the effectiveness of current dog control measures. The report will be published later this year.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/592813)","created_at":"2021-08-12T14:49:53.942Z","updated_at":"2021-10-19T14:37:10.102Z"},"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 recognises the support that the petition has received. However, the issue raised by the petition was recently debated in the House of Commons on 5 July in response to a petition making a related request. \r\n\r\nRead a transcript of this debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-05/debates/814EF953-52F7-4499-953C-447928FF71DB/BreedSpecificLegislation\r\n\r\nYou can also watch the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRtSMPH_zuc\r\n\r\nGiven the significant support for petitions about prohibitions for certain dog types, the Committee has written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, highlighting support for petitions on this subject. \r\n\r\nThe Committee has called on the Government to: \r\n\r\n- Establish a new framework for responsible ownership of dog types which are currently prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act\r\n- Commission new research to consider the evidence base for current prohibitions\r\n- Look at alternatives to current prohibitions on certain dog types\r\n\r\nIn the letter, the Committee has said the Government should publish the outcome of this work, followed by a Government review of the prohibitions set out in the Dangerous Dogs Act.\r\n\r\nYou can read the Committee's letter here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7403/documents/77570/default/\r\n\r\nThe Committee will publish the Government's response when it is received, and notify petitioners by email.","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":581974,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/581974.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":"Remove Pakistan from red list for travel","background":"Remove Pakistan from the red list. Thousands of people are stuck in Pakistan! Families are struggling financially and don’t have enough to come wit! No direct flights are being run! Help us come home!","additional_details":"To remove the ban of hotel quarantine! Help people come back to their homes and be with their families for Ramadan!","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":134665,"created_at":"2021-04-02T13:39:27.429Z","updated_at":"2023-07-13T15:08:34.773Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-08T11:19:36.204Z","closed_at":"2021-10-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-02T13:51:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-14T03:07:45.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-05-11T11:25:41.769Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-05T20:56:45.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2021-09-21T15:47:33.975Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-05-11","summary":"The Government has made it consistently clear it will take decisive action, if necessary, to contain the virus and Pakistan has been added to the “Red List” to protect public health.","details":"The Government recognise the impact that the decision to place Pakistan on the red list will have on individuals. However, it is right that the Government does all it can to reduce the risk of new strains of COVID-19 being imported into the UK. \n\nThe decision was taken to protect against new variants of COVID-19 at a critical time for the vaccine programme. The addition of Pakistan to the red list was based on data alongside a consideration of the recommendations of the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC). With over 30 million vaccinations delivered in the UK so far, the additional restrictions will help to reduce the risk of new variants entering the country. \n\nWe offer deferred payment plans and hardship support for people who cannot afford to pay for the cost of this managed quarantine and testing up front. In some circumstances this may be available to those who are not in receipt of income related benefits. \n\nThe Pakistani community makes a huge contribution to British society and plays an important role in our relations with Pakistan. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) regularly engages on issues with the Pakistani community including any changes to our policy on travel restrictions during this pandemic.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2021-05-11T11:25:41.766Z","updated_at":"2021-05-11T11:25:41.766Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee have decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that the petition had received. However, the central request of the petition has now been met with the Government's announcement that Pakistan is to be removed from the 'red list' for international travel. You can read more about changes to international travel rules here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-amber-and-green-list-rules-for-entering-england.\r\n\r\nThe Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps MP, made a statement in the House of Commons on international travel on Monday 20 September, covering the changes to international travel rules. You can read the statement here: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/99341/committee-opens-consultation-on-its-working-methods.","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":576024,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/576024.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":"Scrap the Voter ID requirement introduced in the Election Integrity Bill","background":"Starting it the 2023 Local Elections, the government plans to force every UK voter to present ID upon voting. This is a grave breach of the  democratic process and will make it harder for those on lower incomes and people of colour to vote, as these groups are less likely to possess an official ID.","additional_details":"There were 34 allegations of voter fraud in the 2019 election, and one case of proven fraud. Out of 48 million registered voters. There is no need for us to add an extra layer of bureaucracy and complexity to the voting process. Our elections are the only thing which allow us a true say in our government; voting should be the most open and inclusive process possible. \r\n\r\n\r\nhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9272615/Voters-need-photo-ID-polling-stations-2023.html","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":102430,"created_at":"2021-02-20T13:05:17.348Z","updated_at":"2023-05-12T09:55:45.202Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-03-31T17:23:34.601Z","closed_at":"2021-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-20T13:27:57.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-11T13:36:25.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-05-25T13:50:24.848Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-11T11:40:25.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2021-07-15T17:48:42.181Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-05-25","summary":"Voter identification is part of the Government’s body of work to strengthen the integrity and security of our elections. We will not remove voter identification requirements from the Elections Bill.","details":"The Government was elected on a manifesto that committed to protecting the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. The Government has since announced that we will be bringing forward these measures as part of a wider initiative to tackle electoral fraud and give voters confidence in our elections.\n\nElectoral fraud is a crime that strikes at a core principle of our democracy - that your vote is yours, and yours alone. Strengthening the integrity of our electoral system will give the public confidence that our elections will remain secure well into the future.\n\nShowing identification to prove who you are is something people of all walks of life already do everyday. It is a reasonable and proportionate approach to extend this practice to voting and to give the public confidence that their vote is theirs, and theirs alone.\n\nEveryone who is eligible to vote will continue to be able to do so. The list of approved photographic identification will not be limited to passports and driving licences. A broad range of documents will be accepted, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, PASS cards, Ministry of Defence identity cards and photocard parking permits issued as part of the Blue Badge scheme.\n\nIn addition, expired photographic identification will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.\n\nNew research published by the Government shows that 98% of voters already own a photographic document that is on the list of acceptable types of identification under this policy. The figure was between 96%-99% across all age groups and regions and found that 99% of people from ethnic minorities owned an accepted form of identification. This research can be found at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9187/\n\nWhere a voter does not have one of the approved forms of photo identification, local authorities will be required, by law, to provide a Voter Card free of charge. An independent review of electoral fraud conducted by Lord Pickles highlighted the events of cases such as Tower Hamlets - in which the 2014 Mayoral election was declared void by corrupt and illegal practices - as evidence of vulnerabilities in our system which must be addressed.\n\nPersonation - assuming the identity of another person with the intention to deceive - is very difficult to prove and prosecute but it is by no means a victimless crime. There are frequent anecdotal reports of personation, including most recently during the 2021 local elections. Often, it only comes to light if and when the real voter tries to vote later after the crime has been committed.\n\nThat is why voter identification is so important, as it virtually eliminates the risk of personation occurring in the first place.\n\nEven the perception that our electoral system is vulnerable to fraud is damaging for public confidence. Data from our pilot evaluations in 2018 and 2019 show that the requirement to show identification increased voter confidence in the process. Both rounds of voter identification pilots also demonstrated our ability to collaborate very successfully with local authorities and support them in delivering voter identification that works for voters.\nVoters in Northern Ireland have been required by law to show paper identification since 1985 and the Labour Government introduced photo identification at polling stations across Northern Ireland in 2003. The experience in Northern Ireland illustrates that once the requirement has become established and is part and parcel of the voting process, the vast majority of voters complete the voting process after turning up at the polling station. This is also the case in many countries around the world, where voter identification works with ease.\n\nWe will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including charities and civil society organisations, to make sure that voter identification works for all voters.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2021-05-25T13:50:24.845Z","updated_at":"2021-05-25T13:50:24.845Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee have decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that the petition had received. However, the issue raised by the petition has already recently been debated in Parliament on 13 July, which you can read here:\r\n\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-13/debates/10AA3BB2-B654-45DB-BEA1-3191EA315CC5/VoterID\r\n\r\nThe voter ID requirements are contained in the Elections Bill that was introduced by the Government on 5 July this year.\r\n\r\nRead the Government's announcement of the Bill here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elections-bill-introduced-in-parliament-today\r\n\r\nMPs will be able to debate the voter ID requirement as part of the various stages of the Bill, and we'll make them aware of this petition ahead of debates on the Bill. We'll also send updates on the main stages of the Bill to people who signed this petition. \r\n\r\nFind out more about the Elections Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3020\r\n\r\nFind out more about how laws are made: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/\r\n","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":590282,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/590282.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 the UK a Bank Holiday on Monday July 12th if England win Euro 2020","background":"England may be playing a European Championship Final at 8pm on Sunday 11th July. It would be beneficial and sensible to give the country the day off the next day if England win, in the form of an extra Bank Holiday Monday.","additional_details":"Sunday 8pm is a difficult time for families to plan to be together for the event - knowing we have an additional day off the next day would significantly help this. Furthermore, a historic win should be celebrated. It would be expected for the winning team to parade the trophy, and a Bank Holiday would be a perfect time to do this. Also, English people would naturally want to continue to enjoy the win, giving the retail and leisure industry a much-needed opportunity to make up lost revenues.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":364822,"created_at":"2021-06-30T09:01:23.069Z","updated_at":"2023-01-23T15:57:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-07-06T10:34:26.537Z","closed_at":"2022-01-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-30T09:08:55.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-08T05:39:05.000Z","government_response_at":"2021-07-22T10:24:01.204Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2021-07-08T12:21:35.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2021-07-15T17:46:37.415Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-22","summary":"The Government would like to congratulate the England team on its sterling performance in the UEFA Euro 2020 Final. However, the Government has no plans for a bank holiday.","details":"The Government appreciates how England’s performance at Euro 2020 has united and inspired the nation, particularly in light of the incredibly difficult times endured during the pandemic. We are extremely proud of the England team’s success.\n\nThe Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions.  However, the current pattern is well established and accepted. \nThere are eight permanent bank and public holidays in England and Wales. There are nine in Scotland and ten in Northern Ireland. \n\nWhile an additional bank holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the overall cost to the economy is considerable.  The most recent estimate – from the impact assessment for the additional holiday for the Diamond Jubilee in 2012 - is that a bank holiday (across the UK) costs the economy around £1.2bn. The extra costs to certain businesses are substantial.  \n\nFull-time workers in the UK are entitled to 28 days statutory paid holiday each year. However, many workers are likely to have to work on bank holidays due to their contractual arrangements. Legislation does not give employees a right to time off or extra pay on bank holidays. \n\nShort notice bank holidays can also have implications across the public sector which need to be taken into consideration, such as:\n\n• Benefit payments falling on the bank holiday would have to be rescheduled, which may lead to backlogs and hardship for claimants.\n\n• Disruption to health and social care services and cancellation of scheduled operations and treatments, of which there is already a backlog due to Covid-19.\n\n• Courts and tribunals would have to postpone hearings. Due to the way that listings are managed, these may have to be pushed back by more than a single day, leading to longer delays.\n\n• Children would require an additional day out of school, having already missed a significant number of days due to the pandemic. \n\nFor these reasons, the Government has no plans to create a one-off bank holiday for this occasion.\n\nDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy","created_at":"2021-07-22T10:24:01.200Z","updated_at":"2021-07-22T10:24:38.456Z"},"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.  The Committee considered the petition at its meeting on 13 July 2021. \r\n\r\nGareth Southgate and all of the members of the England team did the country proud, but sadly they didn’t win Euro 2020, so the request of this petition isn't something that needs to be debated.\r\n\r\nThis petition was the most popular petition on petition.parliament.uk in the run up to the final. It was great to see the support that fans had for the team, and the outpouring of support for the players in the days after. ","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":310515,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/310515.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":"Coronavirus Support Package for Directors / Shareholders of small Limited Co's.","background":"Provide a COVID-19 Support Package in line with that offered to the Employed and Self-Employed.","additional_details":"There are many owner managed businesses in the UK who own and operate under a Limited Company who have lost all their income like the employed and self-employed who have already been advised they will receive a support package.   \r\n\r\nPlease make sure that they are looked after in line with the other taxpayers.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":101094,"created_at":"2020-03-26T20:13:04.643Z","updated_at":"2021-10-21T11:22:08.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-04-03T11:52:11.397Z","closed_at":"2020-10-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-27T12:07:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-06T17:50:14.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-04-28T18:04:52.071Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-11T16:50:14.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-12-21T12:18:30.430Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-06-05","summary":"The Government has announced an unprecedented package of support for those adversely affected by Covid-19, including support available to owner-managers operating under a Limited Company.","details":"The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) is available to employers and individuals, including owner-managers operating under a limited company, who pay themselves a salary through a PAYE scheme. Employers can use a portal to claim for 80 per cent of the usual monthly wage costs of furloughed employees (employees on a leave of absence) up to £2,500 a month, plus the associated Employer National Insurance Contributions and minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions for that wage. This means owner-managers can furlough themselves and claim for 80 per cent of their usual monthly PAYE wage costs, up to £2,500 a month. More details about the CJRS are available at www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme.\n\nDividends are not covered by the CJRS. Income from dividends is a return on investment in the company, rather than wages; under current reporting mechanisms it is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to distinguish between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and dividends from other sources, and between dividends in lieu of employment income and as returns from other corporate activity.  \n\nHMRC designed the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) using information they already had, in order to make it deliverable quickly and to minimise the risk of fraud. Expanding the scope would have required HMRC to collect and verify new information. This would have taken longer to deliver and put at risk the other schemes which the Government committed to delivering in a timely way.\n\nFinally, these schemes supplement the other significant support the Government has announced. Individuals can benefit from the Government’s relaxation of the earnings rules (known as the Minimum Income Floor) in Universal Credit. Further support for UK businesses includes the Bounce Back Loans Scheme for small businesses, the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme and the deferral of tax payments. More information about the full range of business support measures is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/financial-support-for-businesses-during-coronavirus-covid-19\n\nHM Treasury\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/310515)","created_at":"2020-04-28T18:04:52.068Z","updated_at":"2020-06-05T12:27:06.985Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"Because the issues raised by this petition have already been considered by Select Committees and debated in the House of Commons, the Committee has agreed not schedule this petition for debate.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":326932,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/326932.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":"Broker a ceasefire for all sides in Yemen to carry out humanitarian aid","background":"As Yemenis who are privileged to be British citizens, we want our Government to put pressure on all military groups in Yemen, including the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition forces, to halt attacks on Yemen; to allow humanitarian aid to be carried out. We want all groups to put down their weapons.","additional_details":"This devastating war has took a huge toll on Yemen. It's upsetting to witness such crimes being carried out in our homeland. Over 24 million Yemenis require urgent humanitarian assistance. This conflict has resulted in economic collapse. 10 million Yemenis are on the verge of famine and more than 17 million are without adequate access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene. Yemen is on the verge of extinction now that there's been an outbreak of COVID19. Yemen needs our help to end its suffering","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":211848,"created_at":"2020-06-13T00:03:46.645Z","updated_at":"2021-01-17T12:36:27.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-16T11:07:30.150Z","closed_at":"2021-01-16T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-13T00:26:54.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-16T15:43:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-08-06T08:38:59.785Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-18T11:05:44.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-11-26T15:22:28.661Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-06","summary":"The UK Government shares your concern at the appalling situation in Yemen. We are doing everything we can to find a sustainable political solution to the conflict and end the humanitarian crisis.","details":"The UK is deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen. We fully support the efforts of the UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths, who is leading on the peace process, and we work closely with the UN and international partners to support this vital work. We engage with all sides to the conflict and urge them to work constructively with the Special Envoy and agree to his proposals. In particular, in our engagements with the Houthis we are clear that close co-operation with the UN is the best means of achieving a peaceful and sustainable resolution to the Yemen conflict. The UK has been at the forefront of international efforts to reach a political settlement to the conflict, which is the only way to bring long-term stability to Yemen and to address the worsening humanitarian crisis. We have also used our role as penholder at the UN Security Council to help push the peace process forward. We welcome the Saudi-brokered talks to revive the Riyadh Agreement between the Southern Transitional Council (STC) and the Yemeni Government, which we hope will end the fighting in the South that threatened to derail the peace process. The UK often speaks to senior members of the Government and the STC to support implementation of the agreement.\n\nWe wholeheartedly agree that Yemen needs our help. To help Yemeni people in dire need, the Government has committed almost £1 billion in UK Aid since the conflict began in 2015. This financial year we pledged £160 million in funding. We expect that this will provide support to at least 300,000 vulnerable people each month to help them buy food and household essentials, treat 40,000 children for malnutrition and provide 1 million people with improved water supply and basic sanitation. Our pledge will also help the UN to tackle the spread of COVID-19 and we expect our support to provide over 700,000 medical consultations for a range of health conditions, train 1,500 healthcare workers to work safely in a COVID-19 environment and provide a much-needed boost to nearly 600 health centres, so that they can continue to provide existing health services. \n\nYemen is a high priority for the UK Government, and we will continue to expend every effort to bring an end to the suffering of the Yemeni people.\n\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2020-08-06T08:38:59.783Z","updated_at":"2020-08-06T08:38:59.783Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee agreed not to schedule a debate on this petition, because MPs debated the situation in Yemen on Thursday 24 September in the main House of Commons Chamber. The petition was tagged to this debate so that MPs taking part in the debate were aware of it.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":316307,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/316307.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":"Award all Nursing Staff in the NHS a pay rise of 10% backdated to 1 April 2020","background":"Pass this in law through Parliament","additional_details":"In light of their monumental effort in caring for patients during the Covid 19 outbreak","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":141772,"created_at":"2020-04-15T17:52:45.802Z","updated_at":"2021-03-22T14:50:21.736Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-05-29T13:27:20.111Z","closed_at":"2020-11-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-15T18:12:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-22T08:51:34.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-08-13T12:49:01.626Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-29T17:19:34.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-09-08T15:56:46.987Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-11","summary":"NHS nurses do an incredible job. The 2018 multi-year Agenda for Change deal delivered year on year pay increases for over a million staff. The salary for newly qualified nurses has risen by over 12%.","details":"NHS staff are our greatest asset. In these most difficult of times and with ever increasing pressures on the NHS, they work incredibly hard, always putting patients first and keeping them safe whilst providing the high-quality care we all expect.\n\nNursing staff are already within a multi-year (2018/19 – 20/21) pay and contract reform deal. This deal was agreed in partnership with the NHS trade unions and has already delivered year on year pay increases for over one million NHS staff including raising the starting salary for a newly qualified nurse by over 12% to nearly £25,000. The deal has also shortened the amount of time it takes for a nurse to progress to the top of their band and ensured all staff have received pay increases above CPI inflation over the course of the deal.\n\nOutside of multi-year pay deals the independent Pay Review Body process is the established mechanism for deciding pay increases for NHS staff. The process is intentionally designed to remove the potential conflicts that can often surround pay negotiations. The independent Pay Review Bodies make a number of considerations when formulating their recommendations. These include, but are not limited to, the cost of living and inflation, recruitment and retention, affordability and value for the taxpayer.\n\nFor recommendations on pay for nurses, the Government will look to the independent NHS Pay Review Body who will return to making pay recommendations for Agenda for Change staff from April 2021. NHS trade unions will of course be able to give evidence as part of the process. The Government takes the role and recommendations of Pay Review Bodies very seriously and always carefully considers the recommendations it receives. \n\nIn addition to basic pay, nursing staff can expect to receive additional premium rates of pay for working during unsocial hours, agreed overtime and for working in and around London. This can significantly increase the total take home pay a nurse receives.\n\nThe NHS employment and reward offer is about much more than pay and includes benefits that go well beyond the statutory minimum, such as a generous holiday allowance of up to 33 days and access to a much-valued pension scheme. We want to ensure that the NHS employment offer continues to attract, retain and reward staff and this offer continues to be kept under review.\n\nThe government have agreed that staff should receive full pay if they are off sick with COVID-19, or if they must follow advice to self-isolate, in order to help protect NHS staff and patients from the spread of the virus. It is vital we care for those that we all rely on to care for us. The NHS has introduced a free-to-use staff support line and text service which all NHS staff can use for support, signposting and confidential listening from trained respondents. NHS staff have also been given free access to a series of apps to support their mental health and wellbeing.\n\nThe recently published NHS People Plan (https://www.england.nhs.uk/ournhspeople/) sets out the support that NHS staff should expect from their leaders and from each other. The plan sets out practical actions for employers and systems, as well as the actions that NHS England and NHS Improvement and Health Education England will take, over the remainder of 2020/21. It includes specific commitments around:\n\nLooking after our people – with quality health and wellbeing support for everyone\n\nBelonging in the NHS – with a particular focus on tackling the discrimination that some staff face\n\nNew ways of working and delivering care – making effective use of the full range of our people’s skills and experience\n\nGrowing for the future – how we recruit and keep our people, and welcome back colleagues who want to return\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2020-08-13T12:49:01.625Z","updated_at":"2020-08-13T12:49:01.625Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee recently scheduled a debate on several petitions calling for recognition and reward of health and social care workers, so the Committee has agreed not to schedule this petition for debate.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":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":301397,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/301397.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Implement UK lockdown for preventing spread of COVID19","background":"The UK needs to follow suit the containment procedures of countries that have been greatly affected by COVID19 such as Italy.\r\n\r\nThe UK should restrict unnecessary travel between towns and cities. Travel permitted should only be for work or emergencies. Public gatherings should also be discouraged.","additional_details":"It is time the government should prioritise the health of the public and should consider how vital it is to implement effective containment now.\r\n\r\nIt is better to spend money to contain the virus and treating the relatively low numbers who are ill now rather than wait for more casualties.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":409474,"created_at":"2020-03-11T00:16:42.594Z","updated_at":"2021-10-01T17:55:48.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-12T16:54:59.310Z","closed_at":"2020-09-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-11T13:44:24.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-13T10:32:54.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-19T18:04:26.234Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-14T10:57:34.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-07-29T10:59:57.752Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-19","summary":"We understand the public’s concern and are doing everything we can to combat the outbreak. We will continue to evolve our response based on the latest and best scientific and medical advice.","details":"It is absolutely critical in managing the spread of this virus that we take the right decisions at the right time, based on the best evidence available. \n\nOn 3 March, the Government launched its coronavirus (COVID-19) action plan: www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk. This plan has two overriding aims: to protect the NHS by building it up and flattening the curve of coronavirus cases; and to protect life by safe guarding those who are most vulnerable. \n\nSince this petition started the Government has made a number of significant announcements which are set out below. We will continue to adapt the response to follow the best scientific advice.\n\nOn 16 March Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock announced a ‘Stay at Home’ policy. This is a social-distancing model for the general public with more home-working and less social interaction. \n\nGuidance on social distancing for everyone in the UK and protecting older people and vulnerable adults has been published on gov.uk: www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults.\n\nThis guidance is particularly important for people over 70 years old, pregnant women, and those with some health conditions. It advises on the social distancing measures we should all take to reduce our social interaction in order to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19): \n\nAvoid contact with someone who is displaying symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19). These symptoms include high temperature and/or new and continuous cough\n\nAvoid non-essential use of public transport, varying your travel times to avoid rush hour, when possible\n\nWork from home, where possible. Your employer should support you to do this. Please refer to employer guidance for more information\n\nAvoid large gatherings, and gatherings in smaller public spaces such as pubs, cinemas, restaurants, theatres, bars, clubs\n\nAvoid gatherings with friends and family. Keep in touch using remote technology such as phone, internet, and social media\n\nUse telephone or online services to contact your GP or other essential services\n\nEveryone should be trying to follow these measures as much as is pragmatic. \n\nThe Government advises those who are at increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus (COVID-19) to be particularly stringent in following social distancing measures. This group includes those who are: \n\naged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)\n\nunder 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):\n\nchronic (long-term) respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis \nchronic heart disease, such as heart failure \nchronic kidney disease\nchronic liver disease, such as hepatitis \nchronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy\ndiabetes\nproblems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease or if you have had your spleen removed\na weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy \nbeing seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)\nthose who are pregnant\n\nThere are some clinical conditions which put people at even higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The NHS in England will directly contact those who are in this category. \n\nPeople falling into this group are those who may be at particular risk due to complex health problems such as:\n\npeople who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication\n\npeople with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy\n\npeople with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment\n\npeople with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)\n\npeople with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)\n\nThe Government will shortly start a ‘shielding’ approach for the 1.4 million most vulnerable people in our community. \n\nOn 17 March the Foreign and Commonwealth updated their travel advice, advising against all non-essential international travel, initially for a period of 30 days. This reflects the pace at which other countries are either closing their borders or implementing restrictive measures. \n\nOn 19 March the Government will introduce the Coronavirus Emergency Bill which will grant the power to keep essential services running. \n\nThese measures will be disruptive, but the Government believes they will save lives.\n\nTackling coronavirus is a national effort: thank you for the part you are playing. \n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care.","created_at":"2020-03-19T18:04:26.231Z","updated_at":"2020-03-19T18:05:14.859Z"},"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":"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":300628,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300628.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Close all universities down for an appropriate amount of time amidst COVID-19","background":"We would like the government to to consider closing universities down in the coming weeks or as soon as possible, in addition to taking necessary actions to prevent further spread","additional_details":"To prevent the spread of COVID-19","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":123903,"created_at":"2020-03-06T19:27:18.439Z","updated_at":"2020-10-07T15:53:19.768Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-11T14:32:42.514Z","closed_at":"2020-09-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-06T19:32:44.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-11T16:00:44.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-24T14:04:26.780Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-12T20:52:54.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-07-29T10:55:32.524Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-24","summary":"The Government’s number one priority is the safety of students and staff. The DfE is working with universities to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, based on guidance from Public Health England.","details":"The Government’s number one priority is the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. We will also do all we can to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the higher education (HE) sector.\n\nOn 18 March, the Prime Minister and Education Secretary announced changes to the operational models of schools and colleges in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These changes show how much we need to ratchet up social distancing measures to deal with the outbreak.\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of supporting HE providers to remain open, as long as expert medical advice supports this. It is doing all it can to support the HE sector and its students, including encouraging them to make online teaching provision as widespread as possible for the summer term, in compliance with social distancing guidance.\n\nCessation of face-to-face teaching in favour of online provision is not closure. It is a move that enables compliance with social distancing guidance. We will continue to work with the sector to understand the developing range of options for distance teaching and learning and ensure that we support students where necessary.\n\nAny decision to close universities would be based on careful consideration of multiple factors. In any eventuality, a significant number of students may be care leavers, students who are estranged from their families, and international students for whom alternative accommodation is not easily available or who are not able to get home because of travel restrictions. It is essential that these students are reassured that their provider will continue to support them through these difficult and unsettling times. Students who remain in campus accommodation will also need additional support, including access to counselling and mental health advice.\n\nThe Department for Education (DfE) stands ready to support providers in any discussion that is needed to ensure that they have access to the right resources to care for students. The Chancellor has also announced a series of wider measures to support employers and employees, recognising the significant impacts caused by COVID-19.\n\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2020-03-24T14:04:26.778Z","updated_at":"2020-03-24T14:05:03.084Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"Because it has not been possible to debate this petition to date, and the issues raised by this petition have been considered by the Committee in other ways, the Committee has agreed not schedule this petition for debate.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300336,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300336.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":"Include self-employed in statutory sick pay during Coronavirus","background":"4.8 million people are registered self-employed in the UK. Figures are of 2017 according to the Office of National Statisticics. It would be easy enough to work out what each person is entitled to based on their tax returns.\r\nInclude self-employed in statutory sick pay.","additional_details":"The self-employed make up 15% of UK's workforce. Majority are not entitled to any sick pay. I want the Government to include us in the recent changes to statutory sick pay because of the Corona19 virus. Excluding us means the Government are running the risk of said people continuing going to work as just like everyone else we have bills to pay and thus spreading the virus.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":699598,"created_at":"2020-03-04T19:23:37.962Z","updated_at":"2021-09-15T09:34:18.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-06T17:31:13.249Z","closed_at":"2020-09-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-04T20:39:14.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-08T15:29:34.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-27T09:16:31.981Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-10T13:55:34.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-07-29T10:53:36.363Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-26","summary":"It would not be appropriate to require the self-employed to pay themselves statutory sick pay, as they are their own employer. The welfare system provides a safety net to support the self-employed.","details":"Statutory Sick Pay is paid to an employee by an employer. Given self-employed people are their own employer, there is no logic for the government to require the self-employed to pay themselves statutory sick pay. \n\nThe Chancellor has outlined an unprecedented package of measures to protect millions of people’s jobs and incomes as part of the national effort in response to coronavirus. This includes strengthening the safety-net for the self-employed who will benefit from a relaxation of the earnings rules for self-employed claimants under universal credit and deferring income tax self-assessment payments due in July 2020.  \n\nDepending on their individual circumstances individuals can claim Universal Credit and/or new style Employment and Support Allowance. \n\nThey will benefit from changes we are making, such as the £20 increase in the UC standard allowance and the increases to the Local Housing Allowance. \n\nAnd we will temporarily relax the Minimum Income Floor for all self-employed UC claimants affected by the economic impact of Covid-19 from 6 April, for the duration of the outbreak.\n\nSelf-employed people unable to work because they are directly affected by Covid-19 or self-isolating will also be eligible for Contributory Employment and Support Allowance. As announced at Budget, this is now payable from the first day of sickness, rather than the eighth. \n\nAll these measures ensure that the self-employed are supported by the benefit system so that they can follow Public Health England guidance on social distancing and self-isolation.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions.","created_at":"2020-03-27T09:16:31.979Z","updated_at":"2020-03-27T09:16:41.164Z"},"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 request made by this petition has been 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":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":300403,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300403.json"},"parliament":{"period":"2019-2024","government":"Conservative","dissolution_at":"2024-05-30T00:01:00.000+01:00","response_threshold":10000,"debate_threshold":100000},"attributes":{"action":"Close Schools/Colleges down for an appropriate amount of time amidst COVID19.","background":"We would like the government to at least consider closing schools/colleges down in the coming weeks or as soon as possible, in addition to taking necessary actions to prevent further spread.","additional_details":"We would like the Government or Parliament to enforce this action due to the growing fear among parents and students that attend school. The ability to focus or concentrate is affected in addition to the growing fears of the Corona-virus. In our view, the government and health officials around the world are more 'reactive' rather than 'proactive'. This will result in more spread as time is given for the virus to do so. We hope to come to an agreement as soon as possible in a timely manner.","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":685394,"created_at":"2020-03-05T09:21:19.141Z","updated_at":"2025-08-06T08:58:49.830Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-06T16:40:55.588Z","closed_at":"2020-09-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-05T09:31:04.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-06T18:26:34.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-03-30T16:21:49.087Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-07T00:02:44.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-07-29T10:47:52.538Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-30","summary":"Schools closed by the end of the day on Friday 20 March. Affecting schools, colleges, and early years settings in England, except for children of critical workers and the most vulnerable children. ","details":"The first aim of the school closure measures set out by the Secretary of State for Education is to reduce the number of children moving around local areas as far as possible, in order to further reduce the number of social interactions and thus flatten the upward curve of the Covid-19 outbreak. \n\nThe second aim is to continue to care for children whose parents are critical to the Covid-19 response, so that they can continue to work. This includes those who work in the health and social care sectors as well as those critical to continuing to provide essential services such as transport, food and delivery, utilities, communications and public safety. \n\nIn addition to this, schools will continue to care for the most vulnerable children. Vulnerable children include those who have a social worker and those with Education, Health and Care Plans – a legal document that describes a child’s special educational needs and the support they require.\n\nChildren who do not fall into these groups have been advised to stay at home with appropriate care to limit the spread of the virus, protect the NHS and save lives. \n\nThe DfE is working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that all appropriate arrangements, and support, are in place for all DfE sectors – from early years and childcare to schools and children’s social care. The DfE is also in regular discussions with sector bodies and unions, and we will continue to work together on current and emerging issues. We will ensure students, parents and staff are kept up to date. \n\nThe advice from Public Health England is that it remains safe for small numbers of children and staff to attend schools, colleges and childcare settings. Decisions on future advice to schools will be taken based on the latest and best scientific evidence.\n\nDepartment for Education.","created_at":"2020-03-30T16:21:49.085Z","updated_at":"2020-03-30T16:22:51.431Z"},"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 request made by the petition was acted on by the Government and has been considered by the Committee in other ways, the Committee has agreed not schedule this petition for debate.","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"archived-petition","id":323881,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/323881.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 Zoos and Wildlife attractions to reopen with social distancing in place","background":"It is essential that zoos and wildlife attractions with their acres of land and wide open spaces are given immediate permission to reopen. With social distancing in place these facilities could be safer than other facilities, such as open air markets, already given permission to reopen.","additional_details":"Zoos play a vital role in conservation, not only in the UK, but also around the world. Institutions spend millions annually funding conservation that helps to preserve the habitats and numbers of critically endangered animals.\r\n\r\nThis conservation has been put under threat by the continued closure of zoos, with many facing closure due to the lack of government support.\r\n\r\nThe cost of looking after animals doesn’t just disappear when visitors aren’t around and it is essential they be allowed to reopen immediately.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":129292,"created_at":"2020-06-01T08:56:06.833Z","updated_at":"2021-11-22T10:47:48.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-06-09T08:08:52.452Z","closed_at":"2020-12-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-01T09:29:34.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-09T14:16:24.000Z","government_response_at":"2020-06-30T13:00:09.945Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-09T22:01:14.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-06-26T11:06:26.281Z","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2020-06-26","summary":"Outdoor areas of zoos and safari parks were allowed to reopen on 15 June, subject to social distancing measures being in place. The reopening of indoor parts of zoos is being kept under review.","details":"The Government recognises that organisations such as zoos, aquariums and animal welfare charities are working tirelessly during this challenging time to safeguard the health and welfare needs of animals in their care. The Government also recognises that many of these organisations in the UK, as well as providing high welfare standards for their animals, contribute significantly to both conservation work and education, helping both sustain endangered species but also teaching people about animals’ natural habitats - as well as how at risk that species may be.\n\nAs announced by the Prime Minister on 10 June, outdoor animal attractions, including safari parks, the outdoor parts of zoos and animal attractions on farms, are now able to reopen, following strict social distancing guidelines. This includes keeping indoor exhibitions, such as reptile houses and those in aquariums, closed, and ensuring other amenities like cafes offer take-away services only.\n\nThe move follows close work by the Government with the zoo industry to ensure visitor numbers can be managed and safeguards are put in place. Allowing zoos to reopen is an integral step towards supporting an early financial recovery.\n\nThe decision to relax restrictions on these select outdoor attractions is part of the Government’s careful approach to easing the lockdown in phases, guided by the advice of scientific and medical experts and the fact the risk of transmission is much lower outdoors.\n\nA number of schemes have been made available to businesses and charities to help them during this emergency. Organisations are eligible to apply for a range of support schemes including the Job Retention Scheme, VAT deferral, Business Rates Relief, the Business Interruption Loan schemes, the option to reclaim the costs of Statutory Sick Pay and grant funding of up to £25,000.\n\nThe Government launched a Zoos Support Fund on 4 May worth £14m in direct response to the concerns raised by zoos and aquariums as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Licensed zoos or aquariums in England that are experiencing severe financial difficulties because of lost revenue can apply for a grant of up to £100,000.  The fund is intended to help zoos at immediate risk to protect the welfare of animals living on site or by rehoming.\n\nWe are aware of the concerns raised by larger zoos. Defra continues to engage with the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) and Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) to monitor how zoos are doing.  Officials continue to meet regularly with some of the major zoos and aquariums in England to identify the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on larger organisations. This includes monitoring concerns around potential implications for animal welfare. Consideration of proposals for any longer-term support that might be needed for the sector is ongoing. With the help and support of the industry, Defra is working diligently to find the best way forward.\n\nThe importance of allowing zoos to reopen was also debated in the House of Commons on 11 June in the adjournment debate on the reopening of zoos, aquariums and wildlife sanctuaries.  The details of this debate can be seen in official records at https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-11/debates/CA7F5187-2AD7-4121-89B1-C8CC188FFE78/ZoosAquariumsAndWildlifeSanctuariesReopening\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2020-06-30T13:00:09.943Z","updated_at":"2020-06-30T13:00:09.943Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"","public_engagement_url":null,"debate_summary_url":null},"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}}]}