{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=1&state=all","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=all","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=263&state=all","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=all","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":700143,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a General Election","background":"I would like there to be another General Election. \r\n\r\nI believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":3084714,"created_at":"2024-10-31T09:43:44.666Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.203Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-20T09:13:21.152Z","closed_at":"2025-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-31T10:09:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-23T16:51:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-06T16:09:44.690Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-23T21:18:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-01-06","debate_outcome_at":"2025-01-07T10:52:50.816Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-06","summary":"This Government was elected on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election. Our full focus is on fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain, and restoring public confidence in government.","details":"The Prime Minister can call a general election at a time of their choosing by requesting a dissolution of Parliament from the Sovereign within the five-year life of a Parliament. The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election.\r\n\r\nThis Government is fixing the foundations and delivering change with investment and reform to deliver growth, with more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, to rebuild Britain and get the NHS back on its feet. This will be built on the strong foundations of a stable economy, national security and secure borders as we put politics back in the service of working people.\r\n\r\nOn entering office, a £22 billion black hole was identified in the nation’s finances. We inherited unprecedented challenges, with crumbling public services and crippled public finances, but will deliver a decade of national renewal through our five missions: economic growth, fixing the NHS, safer streets, making Britain a clean energy super-power and opportunity for all. This is what was promised and is what we are delivering.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s first Budget freed up tens of billions of pounds to invest in Britain’s future while locking in stability, preventing devastating austerity in our public services and protecting working people’s payslips.\r\n\r\nMission-led government rejects the sticking-plaster solutions of the past and unites public and private sectors, national, devolved and local government, business and unions, and the whole of civil society in a shared purpose. The Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on. \r\n\r\nCabinet Office ","created_at":"2024-12-06T16:09:44.688Z","updated_at":"2024-12-06T16:09:44.688Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-01-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-06/debates/7132F58B-DE05-4912-8BFC-67F310B55911/GeneralElection","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BAM81Twgk","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0177/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":730194,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not introduce Digital ID cards","background":"We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. There are reports that this is being looked at.","additional_details":"We think this would be a step towards mass surveillance and digital control, and that no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system. We oppose the creation of any national ID system. \r\n \r\nID cards were scrapped in 2010, in our view for good reason.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2984191,"created_at":"2025-06-12T15:26:34.449Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:25.998Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-09T15:28:15.595Z","closed_at":"2026-01-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-17T16:12:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-03T12:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-10-02T15:25:09.956Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-22T12:28:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-12-08","debate_outcome_at":"2025-12-09T13:28:36.897Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-10-02","summary":"We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon. ","details":"The Government has announced plans to introduce a digital ID system which is fit for the needs of modern Britain. We are committed to making people’s everyday lives easier and more secure, to putting more control in their hands (including over their own data), and to driving growth through harnessing digital technology. We also want to learn from countries which have digitised government services for the benefit of their citizens, in line with our manifesto commitment to modernise government.\r\n\r\nCurrently, when UK citizens and residents use public services, start a new job, or, for example, buy alcohol, they often need to present an assortment of physical documents to prove who they are or things about themselves. This is both bureaucratic for the individual and creates space for abuse and fraud. This includes known issues with illegal working and modern slavery, while the fragmented approach and multiple systems across Government make it difficult for people to access vital services. Further, there are too many people who are excluded, like the 1 in 10 UK adults who don’t have a physical photo ID, so can struggle to prove who they are and access the products and services they are entitled to.\r\n \r\nTo tackle these interlinked issues, we will introduce a new national digital ID. This is not a card but a new digital identity that will be available for free to all UK citizens and legal residents aged 16 and over (although we will consider through consultation if this should be age 13 and over). Over time, people will be able to use it to seamlessly access a range of public and private sector services, with the aim of making our everyday lives easier and more secure. It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications.\r\n\r\nFor example, the new digital ID will build on GOV.UK One Login and the GOV.UK Wallet to drive the transformation of public services. Over time, this system will allow people to access government services – such as benefits or tax records – without needing to remember multiple logins or provide physical documents. It will significantly streamline interactions with the state, saving time and reducing frustrating paperwork, while also helping to create opportunities for more joined up government services. International examples show how beneficial this can be. For instance, Estonia’s system reportedly saves each citizen hours every month by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, and the move to becoming a digital society has saved taxpayer money.\r\n  \r\nBy the end of this Parliament, employers will have to check the new digital ID when conducting a ‘right to work’ check. This will help combat criminal gangs who promise access to the UK labour market in order to profit from dangerous and illegal channel crossings. It will create a fairer system between UK citizens and legal residents, crack down on forged documents, and streamline the process for employers, driving up compliance. Further, it will create business information showing where employers are conducting checks, so driving more targeted action against non-compliant employers.\r\n \r\nFor clarity, it will not be a criminal offence to not hold a digital ID and police will not be able to demand to see a digital ID as part of a “stop and search.”\r\n \r\nPrivacy and security will also be central to the digital ID programme. We will follow data protection law and best practice in creating a system which people can rightly put their trust in. People in the UK already know and trust digital credentials held in their phone wallets to use in their everyday lives, from paying for things to storing boarding passes. The new system will be built on similar technology and be your boarding pass to government. Digitally checkable digital credentials are more secure than physical documents which can be lost, copied or forged, and often mean sharing more information than just what is necessary for a given transaction.\r\nThe new system will be designed in accordance with the highest security standards to protect against a comprehensive range of threats, including cyber-attacks.\r\n  \r\nWe will launch a public consultation in the coming weeks and work closely with employers, trade unions, civil society groups and other stakeholders, to co-design the scheme and ensure it is as secure and inclusive as possible. Following consultation, we will seek to bring forward legislation to underpin this system.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\r\n","created_at":"2025-10-02T15:25:09.953Z","updated_at":"2025-10-02T15:29:00.740Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-12-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-12-08/debates/9E01F17C-557A-4D02-8A93-B573721B8B20/a","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/dCGWpaAfJIw","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10369/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727309,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727309.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call an immediate general election","background":"We want an immediate general election to be held. We think the majority need and want change.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1059230,"created_at":"2025-05-12T05:53:57.501Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.037Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-05T09:37:54.250Z","closed_at":"2025-12-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-13T16:30:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-16T15:06:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-08-12T08:30:01.937Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-06T11:53:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-12","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-14T17:20:59.292Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-11","summary":"This Government was elected on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election. Our full focus is on fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain, and restoring public confidence in government.","details":"The Prime Minister can call a general election at a time of their choosing by requesting a dissolution of Parliament from the Sovereign within the five-year life of a Parliament. The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election.\r\n\r\nThis Government is fixing the foundations and delivering change with investment and reform to deliver growth, with more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, to rebuild Britain and get the NHS back on its feet. This will be built on the strong foundations of a stable economy, national security and secure borders as we put politics back in the service of working people.\r\n\r\nOn entering office, a £22 billion black hole was identified in the nation’s finances. We inherited unprecedented challenges, with crumbling public services and crippled public finances, but will deliver a decade of national renewal through our five missions: economic growth, fixing the NHS, safer streets, making Britain a clean energy super-power and opportunity for all. This is what was promised and is what we are delivering.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s first Budget freed up tens of billions of pounds to invest in Britain’s future while locking in stability, preventing devastating austerity in our public services and protecting working people’s payslips.\r\n\r\nMission-led government rejects the sticking-plaster solutions of the past and unites public and private sectors, national, devolved and local government, business and unions, and the whole of civil society in a shared purpose. The Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2025-08-12T08:30:01.935Z","updated_at":"2025-08-12T08:30:38.590Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-12/debates/49F4AFFB-2D48-44D4-AE24-1DC5262CD9C7/a","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/9A_Mm9hZO4o","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0251/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737105,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737105.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce offshore detention/mass deportation for illegal migrants","background":"The Government should seek to establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation.\r\n \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"The UK is facing unprecedented levels of illegal migration, particularly through small boat crossings. We believe current use of hotels and temporary accommodation is unsustainable, costly and dangerous.\r\n\r\nWe believe that establishing offshore detention centres would act as a strong deterrent, prevent absconding, and allow for the swift processing and removal of those who enter illegally.\r\n \r\nWe consider the detention and mass deportation of all illegal migrants in the UK is a necessity.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":720773,"created_at":"2025-08-11T15:09:44.204Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.017Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-12T15:58:14.530Z","closed_at":"2026-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-11T15:38:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-15T09:19:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.426Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-15T14:50:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"This Government is doing whatever it takes to secure our borders; though offshore detention is costly and impractical, the most sweeping asylum reforms in a generation are being introduced. ","details":"We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders. We believe the number of small boat crossings are shameful and the British people deserve better. To restore order and control to our borders, on 17 November 2025, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in decades, removing incentives that bring illegal migrants to the UK and scaling up and easing the return of those with no right to be here. More information on these major changes can be found here - \r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement. \r\n\r\nThese reforms will end the UK’s asylum ‘golden ticket’ which has drawn migrants from safe countries across Europe. We are taking a new approach to refugee protection in the UK, which marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection, and towards a more basic, and temporary protection, which we call ‘core protection’ lasting only until a refugee can safely return home. Refugee status will become temporary, reviewed every 30 months, with a 20-year path to settlement, ensuring long-term commitment and integration. \r\n\r\nTo reduce other pull factors, we have increased illegal working arrests and raids to the highest level in British history, so that there is nowhere to hide. The number of raids has soared by 77% in the UK since the Government came to power, with 17,400 raids made to dodgy businesses - such as nail bars or barbers – leading to an 83% rise in arrests (July 2024 to end of 2025). This major uplift and over 12,300 arrests were made possible by a £5 million funding boost last year for Immigration Enforcement, to pursue this criminality. The crackdown builds on other work to reduce the lure of illegal working that gangs use to sell spaces on small boats.\r\n\r\nOn small boats, our partnership with France led to 20,000 fewer crossings in 2025, and this Government’s landmark UK-France returns agreement means those arriving risk immediate detention and removal. Since this pilot was introduced over 150 people have been removed in this way. To further reduce arrivals, we are giving police new stronger powers to act earlier to disrupt and take down the operations of criminal smuggling gangs.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, 50,000 illegal migrants have been removed or deported from British soil since July 2024 - a 23% increase compared to the previous 16-month period before July 2024. We shall go further by returning people to countries that are now safe – eg Syria – and by returning families with no right to be here. As part of this, we are reforming human rights laws so that in deportation cases involving ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the British public interest is given an appropriate weight. We are working closely with international partners to reform interpretation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) so it is limited to the most serious forms of ill-treatment in the first place. \r\n\r\nTo ease removals, this Government will stop at nothing to secure cooperation from all countries to ensure swift and efficient return of those with no right to be in the UK. Where countries fail to cooperate, action will follow, including, where necessary, the use of visa penalties. The UK has already threatened such action on Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Namibia, due to historical poor cooperation. This has already resulted in improvements to cooperation from Namibia and Angola, while the UK has imposed a first set of visa measures on DRC targeting VIPs and diplomatic passport holders. The UK keeps such cooperation under constant review, and will not hesitate to take further such action, where required.\r\n\r\nThis Government is furious at the number of asylum hotels in this country. We will close every one by the end of this Parliament. Progress is already being made: from over 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, there are now fewer than 200 in use. We are working to move asylum seekers to more suitable sites such as disused military bases, to ease pressure on our communities. \r\n\r\nThis Government is restoring order and control to our borders.\r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.423Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.423Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":722903,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the Online Safety Act","background":"We want the Government to repeal the Online Safety act. ","additional_details":"We believe that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society.\r\nFor instance, the definitions in Part 2 covers online hobby forums, which we think do not have the resource to comply with the act and so are shutting down instead.\r\nWe think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society talking about trains, football, video games or even hamsters because it can't deal with individual bad faith actors.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":550136,"created_at":"2025-03-20T19:05:13.386Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.046Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-22T14:53:36.080Z","closed_at":"2025-10-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-21T00:04:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-15T10:34:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-28T14:02:03.825Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-25T19:21:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-12-15","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-04T10:18:45.939Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-28","summary":"The Government is working with Ofcom to ensure that online in-scope services are subject to robust but proportionate regulation through the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023. ","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition. It is right that the regulatory regime for in scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.\r\n\r\nThe Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.\r\n\r\nProportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.\r\n\r\nSome duties apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope of the Act. This includes risk assessments, including determining if children are likely to access the service and, if so, assessing the risks of harm to children. While many services carry low risks of harm, the risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting small services from the Act would mean that services like these forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.\r\n\r\nOnce providers have carried out their duties to conduct risk assessments, they must protect the users of their service from the identified risks of harm. Ofcom’s illegal content Codes of Practice set out recommended measures to help providers comply with these obligations, measures that are tailored in relation to both size and risk. If a provider’s risk assessment accurately determines that the risks faced by users are low across all harms, Ofcom’s Codes specify that they only need some basic measures, including:\r\n\r\n•\teasy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;\r\n•\ta complaints tool that allows users to report illegal material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;\r\n•\tthe ability to review content and take it down if it is illegal (or breaches their terms of service);\r\n•\ta specific individual responsible for compliance, who Ofcom can contact if needed.\r\n\r\nWhere a children's access assessment indicates a platform is likely to be accessed by children, a subsequent risk assessment must be conducted to identify measures for mitigating risks. Like the Codes of Practice on illegal content, Ofcom’s recently issued child safety Codes also tailor recommendations based on risk level. For example, highly effective age assurance is recommended for services likely accessed by children that do not already prohibit and remove harmful content such as pornography and suicide promotion.  Providers of services likely to be accessed by UK children were required to complete their assessment, which Ofcom may request, by 24 July.\r\n\r\nOn 8 July, Ofcom’s CEO wrote to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology noting Ofcom’s responsibility for regulating a wide range of highly diverse services, including those run by businesses, but also charities, community and voluntary groups, individuals, and many services that have not been regulated before.\r\n\r\nThe letter notes that the Act’s aim is not to penalise small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith. Ofcom – and the Government – recognise that many small services are dynamic small businesses supporting innovation and offer significant value to their communities. Ofcom will take a sensible approach to enforcement with smaller services that present low risk to UK users, only taking action where it is proportionate and appropriate, and will focus on cases where the risk and impact of harm is highest.\r\n\r\nOfcom has developed an extensive programme of work designed to support a smoother journey to compliance, particularly for smaller firms. This has been underpinned by interviews, workshops and research with a diverse range of online services to ensure the tools meet the needs of different types of services. Ofcom’s letter notes its ‘guide for services’ guidance and tools hub, and its participation in events run by other organisations and networks including those for people running small services, as well as its commitment to review and improve materials and tools to help support services to create a safer life online.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to work with Ofcom towards the full implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, including monitoring proportionate implementation.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\r\n","created_at":"2025-07-28T14:02:03.822Z","updated_at":"2025-07-28T14:02:03.822Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-12-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-15/debates/DA0F7CFE-CCED-4864-BCCF-160E0AF56F92/OnlineSafetyAct2023Repeal","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ixue9rQbi0","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0224/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":705383,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/705383.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop financial and other support for asylum seekers","background":"This petition is to advocate a cessation of financial and other support provided to asylum seekers by the Government. This support currently includes shelter, food, medical care (including optical and dental), and cash support.","additional_details":"I believe that such provisions may inadvertently incentivise illegal migration, particularly via the English Channel. \r\n \r\nThis petition is to urge the Government to discontinue these support measures and payments.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":427447,"created_at":"2024-11-27T11:30:36.204Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.104Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-20T16:07:53.467Z","closed_at":"2025-07-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-27T15:19:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-01T13:51:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-24T10:24:00.851Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-03T19:54:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-10-20","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-04T11:33:09.681Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-06-23","summary":"We are determined to tackle illegal migration and end the use of asylum hotels but in the meantime there is a legal requirement to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be living on the streets.","details":"We are grateful to everyone who took the time to sign this petition. In response, we will first explain the background to the current situation, and then set out what the Government is doing about it.\r\n\r\nBackground:\r\n\r\nSince the 1950s, the UK has been legally obliged under the Refugee Convention to properly consider the claims of asylum-seekers arriving in our country. There is also a long-standing legal requirement to provide support to those asylum-seekers who would otherwise be left destitute on our streets.\r\n\r\nApplicants for support must provide details of their income and assets, so an assessment can be made of their risk of destitution. If they provide misleading information, break the rules of their accommodation, or do anything else to breach the conditions of their support, it can be suspended or withdrawn. \r\n\r\nWhen this Government came to office last July, it inherited an asylum system under unprecedented strain, with tens of thousands of cases waiting to be considered, and asylum hotels being used across the country to house the asylum-seekers caught in that backlog. At their peak in autumn 2023, they had 400 hotels in use, at a cost of almost £9 million per day.\r\n\r\nOur Plan for Change:\r\n\r\nAs part of the Government’s Plan for Change, we are restoring order to the asylum system by clearing the backlog, ending the use of hotels, and increasing the removal of individuals with no right to be in the UK.\r\n\r\nFirst, on clearing the asylum backlog, we have significantly increased the numbers of cases being processed each month. In the last full quarter, from January to March 2025, the second highest number of initial decisions was taken since records began in 2002, more than double the number taken in the three months before the election.\r\n\r\nSecond, on the use of asylum hotels, we will reach the point this summer where the number of hotels in use will have halved from its peak under the last government, and our commitment remains to end their use entirely by the end of this Parliament. As a result of the action we have taken already, £500 million has been cut from the annual cost of asylum hotels. \r\n\r\nThird, on removing people with no right to be here, our new enforcement programme put almost 30,000 people on flights out of the UK up to 18th May, including the four biggest returns charter flights in our country’s history. That includes 8,511 former asylum cases, an increase of almost a quarter compared to the same period twelve months earlier. \r\n\r\nWe will continue to take action in all three areas above, so that the cost of providing support to asylum-seekers is reduced by as much as possible as quickly as possible. However, we cannot end this problem entirely overnight. There are still tens of thousands of people in the backlog, and even though we are working as fast as we can to process their cases, there is still a legal requirement to provide many of them with support in the interim. \r\n\r\nThe petition’s proposals:\r\n\r\nThe petition proposes ending that support immediately, and while we understand the objective behind that proposal, we have to recognise that – in many cases – the people currently receiving that support would end up living on the street instead, including many women and children. According to the latest official data, the number of rough sleepers in England in autumn 2024 \r\nwas 4,667, so if we immediately ended the support given to every asylum-seeker, it would increase that number by multiple amounts.\r\n\r\nWe believe a better approach is to continue speeding up the processing of asylum claims, so that people who are genuine refugees can be accepted, those who are not can be rejected and removed, and either way, we can keep working to cut the amount of money spent on asylum support. In addition, we will continue taking strong action to reduce the number of people entering the UK asylum system in the first place:\r\n\r\n•\tThrough the work of our Border Security Command and the new counter-terror style powers in our Border Security Bill, we are doing what should have been done many years ago, and going after the organised criminal gangs who make millions bringing people across the Channel in small boats. We have also agreed with the French authorities that – for the first time – they will start intercepting those boats in the shallow waters off the French coast, and taking the passengers back to shore, something which their internal rules have previously prevented them doing; and\r\n\r\n•\tIn our Immigration White Paper, we have not only set out plans to reduce net migration substantially from the record levels reached under the last government, we have also announced new proposals to crack down on abuse of the asylum system, in particular to prevent people coming here on student and work visas, and then claiming asylum at the end of their stay. For too long, the previous government turned a blind eye to those abuses and let the system run out of control, but this Government is determined to restore order to the system, and save the taxpayer money. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-06-24T10:24:00.848Z","updated_at":"2025-06-24T10:24:00.848Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-10-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-20/debates/5B57404B-1EB6-4652-93C9-26B8F084AEFA/AsylumSeekersSupportAndAccommodation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqocyL8XpV8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0184/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":702844,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702844.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise the income tax personal allowance from £12,570 to £20,000 ","background":"Raise the income tax personal allowance from £12570 to £20000. We think this would help low earners to get off benefits and allow pensioners a decent income.","additional_details":"We think it is abhorrent to tax pensioners on their state pension when it is over the personal allowance. We also think raising the personal allowance would lift many low earners out of benefits and inject more cash into the economy creating growth.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":281794,"created_at":"2024-11-24T12:27:44.090Z","updated_at":"2025-12-23T15:37:17.809Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-20T12:09:49.385Z","closed_at":"2025-06-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-24T20:32:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-05T15:20:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-20T15:47:44.075Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-10T22:48:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-05-12","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-16T13:29:04.152Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-20","summary":"The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility.","details":"The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility and so, at our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds.\r\n \r\nThe Government has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £20,000. Increasing the Personal Allowance to £20,000 would come at a significant fiscal cost of many billions of pounds per annum. This would reduce tax receipts substantially, decreasing funds available for the UK’s hospitals, schools, and other essential public services that we all rely on. It would also undermine the work the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, which are critical to getting our economy growing and keeping taxes, inflation, and mortgages as low as possible.\r\n \r\nThe Government keeps all taxes under review as part of the policy making process. The Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.   \r\n\r\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2025-02-20T15:47:44.067Z","updated_at":"2025-02-20T15:47:44.067Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-05-12","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-05-12/debates/EEB4E70E-87F1-450E-8CA7-1C38E316913F/IncomeTaxPersonalAllowance","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEI8WbYRHCw","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10237/CBP-10237.pdf","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":730605,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730605.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Mandatory collection and publication of certain child sexual offender data","background":"Place a statutory requirement on councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and all other related institutions to collect, record and publish the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders, including gang based crime.","additional_details":"To protect children and inform public policy, we believe it is essential to collect, record and publish the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of all child sexual offenders, including gang based crime. This data will allow for better understanding of offender demographics, ensure transparency, and support targeted safeguarding strategies. Without this information, critical patterns may be missed, weakening efforts to prevent abuse and protect vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":260974,"created_at":"2025-06-17T07:57:36.152Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T09:27:56.323Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-16T13:00:46.177Z","closed_at":"2026-01-16T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-17T08:09:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-16T15:07:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-30T14:40:37.703Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-16T21:58:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-06-01","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-05","summary":"The Government is already taking action to increase the collection and transparency of data on the demographic characteristics of individuals responsible for group-based child sexual exploitation.","details":"The Government is determined to protect children from the horrors of grooming gangs and other forms of sexual abuse and exploitation. In February 2025, the Prime Minister and then Home Secretary commissioned Baroness Louise Casey of Blackstock to evaluate the understanding of the scale, nature and drivers of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA), including assessing data on the ethnicity of perpetrators. Her National Audit was published on Monday 16 June, and can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-audit-on-group-based-child-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse.  \r\n\r\nThe Government immediately accepted the twelve recommendations from Baroness Casey’s Audit, which included making it a requirement for the police to collect the ethnicity and nationality data of individuals suspected of being members of grooming gangs or perpetrators of other group-based child sexual exploitation (recommendation four).  \r\n\r\nIn July this year, the former Home Secretary wrote to all Chief Constables to set out the clear expectation that ethnicity data on child sexual exploitation and grooming gang suspects should be collected in every case, and to urge them to make sure they are fulfilling their obligation to collect suspect ethnicity data as part of the Government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The Home Office is closely monitoring data collection and provision from forces and continues to engage with individual forces on where improvements are required. If we do not see improvements, we will not hesitate to take further action.  \r\n\r\nIn respect of nationality data, the Ministry of Justice already includes data on the nationality of persons within the prison system in its quarterly offender management statistics, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly.  In addition, the Home Office has committed to review the data that it collects and publishes regarding the nationalities and offences committed by foreign national offenders who are subject to deportation proceedings. Further details of that review process can be found here:  \r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-foreign-national-offenders-and-the-immigration-system. \r\n\r\nRecommendation four of Baroness Casey’s Audit did not include the collection of data on religion and immigration status. There is no current mechanism to collect such data on religion, other than through any declaration made by the perpetrator themselves, which would weaken both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of any analysis based on that data. \r\n\r\nMore broadly, as part of implementing the Casey Audit recommendations, we will nonetheless be looking at how safeguarding agencies (including the police, local authorities, schools and health services) are using information and intelligence to disrupt and prosecute those committing these terrible crimes and ensure victims and survivors are protected. \r\n\r\nWe will also continually seek to deepen our understanding of the drivers behind child grooming gangs and other group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse and ensure that as many as possible of the perpetrators responsible for these heinous crimes – whether non-recent or contemporary – are investigated and brought to justice. \r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n\r\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/730605)","created_at":"2025-07-30T14:40:37.701Z","updated_at":"2025-12-16T17:38:50.218Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":705384,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/705384.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures","background":"As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment. ","additional_details":"In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog's throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":257938,"created_at":"2024-11-27T11:31:12.874Z","updated_at":"2025-11-03T10:55:30.589Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-02-14T10:09:31.203Z","closed_at":"2025-08-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-27T12:08:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-16T20:59:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-03-05T13:30:55.930Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-18T12:22:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-04-28","debate_outcome_at":"2025-04-29T09:03:35.117Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-03-05","summary":"The government does not agree to the proposed immediate ban as international guidance still requires data from animal testing to ensure the safety of medicines and products before testing in humans.","details":"While the use of animals in science, including for human medicines, generates significant debate, the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans, animal health and the wider environment. The Government therefore does not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe manifesto committed the Government to partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. This is a long-term goal, and it will need further scientific and technical advancement and validation to reach this point but we are determined to work towards it. Currently the use of animals remains important for understanding how biological systems work, in the development of safe new medicines, treatments and technologies, and in testing chemicals.\r\n \r\nOur current approach is to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs), and to ensure that the UK continues to have a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards. The UK has a world leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides core funding for the National Centre for 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.\r\n \r\nThe use of animals in science is highly regulated, including a three-tier system of licensing which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body, which reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the 3Rs of animal use.\r\n\r\nThe UK Home Office regulator conducts an integrated assessment of the compliance of all licence holders including on-site inspections. The Government has published and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.\r\n\r\nAlthough much research can be done without using animals, there are still purposes where use of live animals is essential, as the complexity of whole biological systems cannot be reliably replicated using validated alternative methodologies. Animal testing is therefore required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We are working with regulators to see how advances in technology can and will reduce use and phase out use in some areas.\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species as some drugs lack their primary mode of action in animal species other than primates. However, most drugs do retain their activity in animal species and safety testing in a second species is therefore required for these drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. Toxicity testing in dogs is limited in duration: in the UK and European Union, this period is 6 months. The MHRA does not itself use dogs in scientific procedures. The Government’s commitment to phasing out the use of animals is a clear goal; however, we expect the use of animals in science to adapt and reduce over time and be phased out for some purposes.\r\n \r\nThe Government will take steps to place the UK at the forefront of an alternative methods revolution and we believe that scientific advances make the prospects for change better than they have ever been. We are supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research and importantly to avoid some of the scientific limitations of animal models of human diseases. This includes stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling and AI techniques based on very large data sets. DSIT, Home Office and DEFRA Ministers have agreed to publish an alternative methods strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods and the phasing out of animal testing. We expect to publish this strategy later this year.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology ","created_at":"2025-03-05T13:30:55.921Z","updated_at":"2025-03-05T13:30:55.921Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-04-28","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-28/debates/3CC1C22D-4585-4A07-90EF-0FB55C37FC54/ScientificAndRegulatoryProceduresUseOfDogs","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/oQ3Vpixa_vU?si=F5j5fGjEPmx5NNtw&t=296","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0082/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":718406,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/718406.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Shut the migrant hotels down now and deport illegal migrants housed there","background":"The Labour Party pledged to end asylum hotels if it won power. Labour is now in power.\r\n","additional_details":"It has transpired that the migrant hotels may stay open for at least the next 4 years.\r\n \r\nWe want to see the migrant hotels shut down now and all illegal migrants housed in them deported immediately.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":257442,"created_at":"2025-02-19T01:07:42.455Z","updated_at":"2025-11-28T18:20:45.609Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-01T10:02:49.961Z","closed_at":"2025-10-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-19T05:06:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-07T09:36:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-04-23T15:01:49.598Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-28T21:28:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-10-20","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-04T11:34:04.351Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-23","summary":"We are working as fast as possible to close asylum hotels and increase the removal of people with no right to be in the UK, but we inherited an asylum system in chaos, and we cannot fix it overnight. ","details":"The Home Office has a statutory obligation to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be left destitute on our streets.\r\n\r\nBefore an individual can apply for that support, they are required to provide information about their personal circumstances which includes declaring all income, assets, and other forms of support available to them. Entitlement to support is kept under review, and failed asylum seekers are expected to leave the UK. \r\n\r\nBecause of the historically high number of individuals claiming asylum in the UK in recent years, there have been shortages in available asylum accommodation, and that required the previous government to start taking over hotels for that purpose.\r\n \r\nAt their peak, in Autumn 2023, more than 400 hotels were in use as asylum accommodation, at a cost of almost £9 million per day. That situation was also exacerbated towards the end of the last government when asylum decision-making fell into steep decline, and the asylum backlog rose accordingly.\r\n\r\nAs a result, the new Government inherited an asylum system under unprecedented strain, and due to the size of the backlog that has to be cleared, we have been forced to continue with the use of hotels for the time being, although it should be noted that the number in use now is lower than it was before the election and is around half the peak level that was reached in 2023.\r\n\r\nHowever, this Government is absolutely clear that hotel use is not a permanent solution, and we remain determined to end hotel usage entirely, as part of our objective to cut the costs of asylum accommodation.\r\n \r\nA key element of this is clearing the asylum backlog. Compared to the last few months of the previous government, when asylum decision making collapsed by more than 70%, we have spent the last nine months doing the opposite, increasing asylum decision making by 52% in the last three months of 2024 alone.\r\n \r\nAnother key element of ending hotel use is increasing the removal of people who have no right to be in the UK, including failed asylum seekers. After coming to power, this Government reallocated significant additional resource into immigration enforcement and returns, and again, that has delivered significant results.\r\n\r\nIn our first nine months in office, this Government has ensured the removal of more than 24,000 failed asylum seekers, foreign criminals and other immigration offenders with no right to be in the UK, an 11 per cent increase on the same period a year earlier, and a higher nine-month total than any achieved under the previous government after 2017. Of these returns, 6,781 were asylum-related returns, an increase of almost a quarter compared to the same period twelve months prior.\r\n\r\nWe will continue working hard to clear the asylum backlog, and remove people with no right to be in the UK, and over time, that will help us to achieve our commitment to end the use of hotels. We cannot achieve that overnight, because the scale of the challenge we inherited was too large, but we are determined to deliver on our pledge, and ensure that these unacceptably high costs are brought to an end.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-04-23T15:01:49.595Z","updated_at":"2025-04-23T15:01:49.595Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-10-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-20/debates/5B57404B-1EB6-4652-93C9-26B8F084AEFA/AsylumSeekersSupportAndAccommodation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqocyL8XpV8","debate_pack_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-20/debates/5B57404B-1EB6-4652-93C9-26B8F084AEFA/AsylumSeekersSupportAndAccommodation","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":746363,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/746363.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep 5-Year ILR and Restrict Access to Benefits for New ILR Holders","background":"The Government should keep the current 5-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and restrict access to government benefits for new ILR holders.","additional_details":"Extending the ILR route to 10 years would unfairly affect thousands of Skilled Worker visa holders who moved to the UK based on existing 5-year rules, disrupting their plans, families, and financial stability. The Government should keep the 5-year ILR route and ensuring new ILR holders demonstrate financial independence before accessing public benefits. We think this protect fairness and stability. ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":244264,"created_at":"2025-10-10T11:35:06.069Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:08:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-18T12:20:30.212Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-10T15:40:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T12:36:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-05T08:09:28.923Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-23T15:53:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-02-03T08:49:54.168Z","creator_name":"Pulasthi Weerasinghe","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-04","summary":"As set out in the Immigration White Paper, the default qualifying period doubles to 10 years. We welcome views on other measures, including access to benefits, via the earned settlement consultation.","details":"Settlement in the UK is a privilege and not a right. It is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen and brings lifelong benefits. It marks an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the wider country.\r\n\r\nUnder the current system, individuals qualify for settlement primarily on the basis of the length of time they have spent in the UK alongside a knowledge of life test which is used to verify knowledge of British customs, history, traditions, laws and political system.\r\n\r\nThese criteria alone do not reflect our strongly held belief that people should contribute to the economy and society before gaining settled status in the UK. Moreover, they fail to promote integration, which limits the wider benefit from long term migration into the UK and increases pressure on public services.\r\n\r\nWe therefore intend to fundamentally reform our settlement rules for the first time in over 50 years. The Immigration White Paper, published on 12 May 2025, set out that the default qualifying period for settlement would be increased from five to ten years. It also included proposals for a new ‘earned settlement’ model which are subject to consultation.\r\n\r\nThe consultation on the ‘earned settlement’ model launched on 20 November 2025 and will run for 12 weeks until 12 February 2026. It is open to anyone who wishes to share their views, including individuals, organisations and other stakeholders who may be affected by, or have an interest in, the proposed changes.\r\n\r\nWe are proposing to increase the baseline qualifying period for settlement to 15 years for those on the Skilled Worker route in a role below RQF level 6 (equivalent to a bachelor’s degree). \r\n\r\nIn the next five years, settlement volumes are forecast to increase significantly, due to the unprecedented level of migration to the UK in recent years. Between 2021 and 2024, there was significant growth in lower-skilled migration on work routes, particularly on the Health and Social Care visa, which is estimated to make up 47% of settlement grants in 2028.\r\n\r\nIndividuals will have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period to settlement based on contributions to the UK economy and society.\r\n\r\nSpeaking English at degree level, earning a high salary and being employed in specific public service roles would result in a reduction. However, where a person has claimed public funds or committed immigration offences, they would face a penalty of extra years. \r\n\r\nWe are also proposing that benefits and social housing might not be available to new migrants granted settled status and that instead they should be reserved for those who have achieved British citizenship, easing the pressure on public finances.\r\n\r\nFor those who are on a pathway to settlement but have not yet been granted settled status, we are consulting on transitional arrangements for these individuals. \r\n\r\nWe would encourage anyone with an interest in the proposals, including the petitioners who have taken the time to sign this petition, to contribute to the consultation. We realise the significance of these proposals to people and we will listen carefully to what they tell us.\r\n\r\nFurther details on the proposals and the link to respond to the consultation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-12-05T08:09:28.921Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T08:09:28.921Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-02/debates/A0693D73-AD95-418E-86A6-FAB882454522/IndefiniteLeaveToRemain","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/yRZnXiYnZ1Q?si=nzQy_-BAtn0r9S3b&t=254","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0006/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700824,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700824.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Close the borders! Suspend ALL immigration for 5 years!","background":"We believe our country is facing serious challenges both from legal and illegal migration, and think the only way to deal with this is to suspend all immigration temporarily for 5 years.","additional_details":"We think we need a tougher approach. We believe we can’t even look after the people we have here at the moment.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":229772,"created_at":"2024-11-05T09:44:05.655Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T10:22:47.279Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-26T10:57:32.064Z","closed_at":"2025-05-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-05T21:14:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-26T08:50:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-01-17T11:12:48.123Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-28T13:15:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-10","debate_outcome_at":"2025-03-11T10:35:49.415Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-01-17","summary":"The Government is taking the tough action required to reduce both illegal immigration and overall net migration, without the economic damage that would come from suspending immigration entirely.","details":"In his Downing Street speech on 28 November last year, the Prime Minister made clear that net migration - which rose to a record high of more than 900,000 in the year ending June 2023 – must come down. It had been allowed to grow out of control in recent years, driven largely by overseas recruitment. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have also repeatedly made clear their intention to reduce illegal immigration by dismantling the criminal smuggling gangs behind the trafficking of migrants across the Channel, by cracking down on illegal working within the UK, and by increasing the removal and returns of people with no right to be in this country.\r\n\r\nOn net migration, we are committed to bring down numbers through the continuation of tough measures on visas alongside the introduction of new employment legislation, ensuring that the visa and employment systems are strongly aligned. We will do this by making sure that workers in this country receive the skills training they need to fill vacancies in key sectors, so that overseas recruitment does not remain the default for filling those shortages. The independent Migration Advisory Committee has been commissioned to review key sectors, and the long-term plan we will set out in our Immigration White Paper will see departments working across government, partnering with experts to build our skills base and reducing reliance on overseas labour. \r\n\r\nAlongside this action to tackle the root causes behind the UK’s historically high levels of net migration, we will continue to:\r\n\r\n•\tRestrict most overseas students from bringing family members to the UK;\r\n•\tRestrict the ability of care workers to bring dependants with them and require all care providers sponsoring migrants to register with the Care Quality Commission;\r\n•\tIncrease the general salary threshold for those arriving on Skilled Worker visas from £26,200 to £38,700; and\r\n•\tAbolish the 20% going rate discount so that employers can no longer pay migrants less than UK workers in shortage occupations.\r\n\r\nWe have also set out our plans to tackle the criminal smuggling gangs making millions out of small boat crossings, undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We have introduced the Border Security Command (BSC) to focus on targeting and dismantling this vile trade. The BSC has been backed by £150 million of investment this year and next for investment in new investigators and new technology, and - in partnership with key organisations like the National Crime Agency - it has already overseen significant enforcement action against criminal gangs, in partnership with overseas agencies. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be introduced this year to further strengthen the BSC’s ability to coordinate the UK’s response to all aspects of organised immigration crime, and provide the UK's investigators with stronger powers to go after the smuggling gangs. \r\n\r\nThe Prime Minister and Home Secretary have also led the drive for stronger international cooperation in the fight against Organised Immigration Crime, ranging from agreements with the German authorities to target warehouses in Germany storing dinghies destined for use in the Channel, to joint cooperation agreements with the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities to disrupt smuggling gangs and supply chains operating through that region. We have already begun delivering a major surge in immigration enforcement and returns activity to remove people with no right to be in the UK and ensure the rules are both respected and enforced, with 16,400 people returned from 5 July 2024 to 4 January 2025. In the year ending September 2024, asylum-related returns were around a fifth lower than they were compared to 2010. By the end of 2025, it is our ambition to return to 2010 levels of asylum-related returns. We are also continuing to crack down on visa abuse by unscrupulous employers, and the hiring of illegal workers, with major increases in raids and arrests targeted at illegal working. \r\n\r\nWe are determined to increase momentum in all the areas set out above to deliver our twin goals to reduce both net migration and illegal immigration. However, we believe it would be harmful to the UK economy to go further, in the way suggested by the petitioners, through suspending all legal migration into the UK. We continue to welcome business investment and talent from around the world, and we value the contribution that controlled migration plays in supporting many sectors of our economy, including our essential public services. By taking the action set out above, and restoring confidence in our immigration controls, we believe we can address many of the concerns which have led to this petition, without damaging our economy and public services by suspending immigration entirely.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-01-17T11:12:48.121Z","updated_at":"2025-01-17T11:14:23.884Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-03-10/debates/9B6A956A-1429-4A08-8033-9651A18E86A1/LegalAndIllegalMigrationSuspension?highlight=immigration#contribution-753B8A74-DCD4-46AA-984B-1FFDE914510B","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/h4FaK4SK2Ss?si=oCZUnzrnFTFJikMe&t=251","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0046/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":725716,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/725716.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions","background":"We think that the Government should not make any changes to legislation that would allow Northern Ireland Veterans to be prosecuted for doing their duty in combating terrorism as part of 'Operation Banner'. (1969-2007)","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":209956,"created_at":"2025-04-22T12:02:34.522Z","updated_at":"2025-11-10T16:55:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-05-09T09:07:12.736Z","closed_at":"2025-11-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-22T18:02:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-10T12:48:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-04T08:14:45.623Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-22T16:45:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-07-14","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-15T11:17:37.950Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-06-03","summary":"The last Government’s Legacy Act was wrong and was found to be unlawful. It was opposed by many, including some families who lost relatives serving in Operation Banner.","details":"This Government's commitment to our Armed Forces community is unshakeable. Veterans who served in Operation Banner ultimately helped bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. We will always recognise the extreme circumstances under which our Armed Forces were operating during Operation Banner; the split second judgements that had to be made, and the restraint that was so often required in the face of danger. There will be no rewriting of history. \r\n\r\nThe approach taken by the last Government to the legacy of the Troubles was wrong. The Legacy Act - which would have also given immunity to terrorists - has been found to be unlawful and was opposed by many, including families who lost relatives whilst serving in Northern Ireland. Any Government would have to repeal unlawful legislation. This Government is therefore committed to repeal and replace the Legacy Act in a way that is lawful, fair and that enables families, including military families, to find answers.\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the strength of feeling within the veterans and wider armed forces community, especially since the Clonoe Inquest findings in February this year which the Government is appealing. We recognise that legacy mechanisms need to be human rights compliant and be able to command support and confidence across communities, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working closely with the Defence Secretary and Minister for Veterans and People on how to ensure that veterans who engage with legacy processes are fully supported with welfare and, where appropriate, legal support.\r\n\r\nAs the Government prepares new legislation, the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland will continue to discuss this issue with all interested parties. The Government owes it to those who were affected by the Troubles across the United Kingdom, including our Armed Forces community, to get this right.\r\n\r\nNorthern Ireland Office\r\n","created_at":"2025-06-04T08:14:45.620Z","updated_at":"2025-06-04T08:14:45.620Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-07-14","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-07-14/debates/EF85E9A5-B0C4-4F47-AA30-303D0D456657/NorthernIrelandVeteransProsecution","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/OO_CMKBb8K4","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10304/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"NIO","name":"Northern Ireland Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/northern-ireland-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750050,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750050.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","background":"On July 4 2024, Sir Keir Starmer was elected as Prime Minister. Since then, his Government has introduced measures that were not included in the Labour Party's manifesto.","additional_details":"We believe we were misled and the obfuscation has only got worse since Starmer took power. It is time for action. We believe the Government has failed to defend our borders from the small boats. We have no confidence in the way this Government has acted. Pensioners and farmers have been directly affected by policies that were not included in Labour's manifesto.\r\n \r\nOur country cannot go on like this. Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":207044,"created_at":"2025-11-08T22:55:44.097Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:57:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-10T16:12:30.998Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-08T23:27:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-29T07:03:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.700Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-03T22:20:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-16T14:38:48.150Z","creator_name":"Robert JF Barnes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"The Government holds office by virtue of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the public. There are no plans to change these arrangements.","details":"The Prime Minister can call a general election at a time of their choosing by requesting a dissolution of Parliament from the Sovereign within the five-year life of a Parliament. The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election.\r\n\r\nThis Government remains focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last General Election. Since coming into office, we have restored stability across government; and secured £340 billion of investment into our country.\r\n\r\nWages under this Government have increased more during our first year in office than under the previous 10 years of the last government. We have reduced NHS waiting lists by 225,000 and rolled out thousands of free breakfast clubs across the country. We have also increased the National Minimum Wage and our manifesto pledge to introduce an Employment Rights Act has now been passed into law.\r\n\r\nWe recognise people across the country want to see change in their everyday lives. As a result of the decisions this Government has taken, families will see £150 come off their energy bills this year, rail fares will remain frozen for the first time in 30 years and NHS prescription charges will be capped below £10.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_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 issue raised by this petition has recently been discussed by MPs in a petitions debate on this topic.\r\n\r\nA debate took place on 12 January 2026 on e-petition 727309, “Call an immediate general election” (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727309).\r\n\r\nWatch the debate: \r\nhttps://www.youtube.com/live/9A_Mm9hZO4o\r\n\r\nRead a transcript of the debate:\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-12/debates/49F4AFFB-2D48-44D4-AE24-1DC5262CD9C7/a \r\n"},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756036,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756036.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge","background":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Currently, fees can reach thousands, creating a \"paywall\" for justice. All legal records should be public property to help ensure transparency, allow for fair appeals, and support victims. Access to the law should not depend on wealth.","additional_details":"High transcription costs can create a prohibitive paywall for justice. Private companies can charge thousands for transcriptions, which can effectively bar small-claims litigants from pursuing fair appeals or accessing their own trials. Full transcriptions of the longest trials can cost £20k. Access to the law mustn't be a luxury for the wealthy. We ask the Government to end the private-pay model and provide free digital access to all transcripts to help ensure transparency and equality.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":203011,"created_at":"2026-01-05T15:44:31.884Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:14:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-05T12:46:37.363Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-05T15:55:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T10:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.037Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T19:04:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Daniel ShenSmith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government is already increasing transparency in the courts, including expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks.  Going further now would place even more pressure on the system.","details":"The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.\r\n\r\nIn the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks. These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge's sentencing remarks: Form EX107H (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-transcript-of-a-judges-sentencing-remarks). From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme. The Government's ongoing reform of the criminal courts will further enhance transparency by making sure all hearings in magistrates courts are recorded.\r\n\r\nIn the family court, the Government has also been working to support the judiciary to increase the number of family court judgments that are published in anonymised form, while ensuring the privacy and protection of children and families involved in proceedings.  On more targeted transparency measures, the Government is working with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders across England and Wales, providing a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing. Since 29 September 2025, provisions relating to Transparency Orders have applied to all children’s cases. \r\n\r\nIn civil proceedings, litigants in England and Wales do not need to pay for the written order or judgment relating to their own case; this is sent to all parties involved, setting out the court’s reasoning for the decision, which parties can refer to if they wish to appeal that decision.\r\n\r\nIn tribunal proceedings, any judicial decision and the reasons will be provided to the parties unless there has been an order restricting that. Many of the major tribunal chambers also allow parties to proceedings to request fuller written reasons for tribunal decisions for no additional cost. \r\n\r\nThe Ministry of Justice is also working with the judiciary and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to consider the procedural, operational and resource requirements of implementing the publishing of written reasons for decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, to improve transparency and public understanding.\r\n\r\nWhile the Government remains committed to continuing to improve transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Making all court and tribunal transcripts available for free would create significant financial and operational pressure at a time when we are focused on rolling out free sentencing remarks for all victims, and when the wider justice system is under considerable pressure. Producing an accurate court or tribunal transcript is a resource-intensive process. Full hearing or trial transcripts are particularly expensive due to their length and the level of quality assurance required to ensure they are accurate and safeguard personal data. Ensuring compliance with reporting restrictions is also central to the release of any court transcript, including vulnerable parties are protected and sensitive details are not inadvertently released.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to upholding the principle of open justice, including embracing AI and exploring the opportunities it offers to produce court and tribunal transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively, while still meeting the necessary accuracy and safeguarding standards. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.033Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:29.587Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700682,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700682.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Urgently fulfil humanitarian obligations to Gaza","background":"Act to ensure deliverer of fuel, food, aid, life saving services etc. We think this shouldn't be dependant/on condition of Israeli facilitation as the Knesset voted against UNWRA access to Gaza. We think if military delivery of aid, airdrops, peacekeepers etc, are needed, then all be considered.","additional_details":"Israel does not agree to ceasefire and does not permit UNWRA access. We think the UK must find alternative means to deliver aid. We believe this must done urgently with urgent deadlines, with or without Israeli support.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":198966,"created_at":"2024-11-04T08:27:03.849Z","updated_at":"2026-03-16T17:10:20.521Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-28T14:16:15.231Z","closed_at":"2025-07-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-04T20:15:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-26T14:10:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-08-08T08:59:15.448Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-25T07:00:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-11-24","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-25T10:25:44.805Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-08","summary":"The UK is funding aid, supporting air drops and evacuations, urging Israel to ease restrictions, and pressing for safe, large-scale UN-led aid delivery via land into Gaza.","details":"On 29 July, the IPC issued an alert warning that the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding. The humanitarian situation is appalling – starvation, malnutrition and disease are driving hunger-related deaths. All routes to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza are controlled by and must be approved by the Government of Israel. The UK has taken steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation through our advocacy and funding the humanitarian response, as well as supporting air drops and preparing for medical evacuations of children.\r\n\r\nIsrael has now agreed to impose 10-hour “tactical pauses” and ease restrictions on aid though we are yet to see a real change on the ground. However, the UK is pressing for permanent change to enable the UN and humanitarian partners (including NGOs) to deliver life-saving aid, safely and at-scale. The UN and humanitarian partners have the systems and expertise to deliver aid – they must be enabled to deliver aid safely and at-scale. Israel must work with the UN, and all partners to continue to facilitate a surge of aid into Gaza. Fully re-instating commercial deliveries will be key to sustaining the flow of aid.\r\n\r\nThe UK has also taken immediate steps to help alleviate the humanitarian situation, including air drops of humanitarian supplies along with Jordan and preparing to get injured children out of Gaza and into British hospitals. Throughout the conflict, the UK has collaborated with regional partners on alternative routes for aid to get into Gaza, including air drops and a maritime corridor. However, we are clear that these cannot substitute delivery by land, which remains the best way to get aid in at the scale required. This FY (25/26), the UK has announced £101m funding for the OPTs, including £60m for humanitarian assistance, £20m of which is for UNRWA.\r\n\r\nOn 21 July, the UK signed a joint statement with 31 partners that warned the suffering of Gazans had reached new depths, pressing for immediate lifting of restrictions on the flow of aid and calling for the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life-saving work safely and effectively. On 19 May, the UK signed a joint donor statement on the humanitarian situation in Gaza calling for a full resumption of aid and for Israel to allow the UN and other aid organisations to operate independently. \r\n\r\nForeign, Commonwealth & Development Office","created_at":"2025-08-08T08:59:15.445Z","updated_at":"2025-08-08T08:59:15.445Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-11-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-11-24/debates/8BB76C8A-F2FE-4705-9BB5-563E49C2D641/GazaHumanitarianObligations","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/h91WfAZi2tw?si=wK3jrLpFuNVmzPzr","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10235/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759385,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759385.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office","background":"Introduce a new legal disqualification so people convicted of terrorism offences (in the UK or abroad) cannot stand as candidates or hold elected office, including local councils.","additional_details":"This is needed because current local election disqualification rules focus mainly on recent imprisonment thresholds (for example, being sentenced to 3 months or more within the last 5 years) and therefore may not prevent individuals with serious historic convictions from standing today. The Electoral Commission notes that the returning officer cannot confirm whether a candidate is disqualified and candidates self-declare their eligibility when submitting nomination papers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":198020,"created_at":"2026-01-30T15:04:00.665Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:56:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-06T11:41:36.948Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T15:26:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-06T15:32:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.657Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-08T02:39:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Richard James Donaldson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-01","summary":"Anyone sentenced to 3 months or more in prison is disqualified for 5 years from local government. We keep the broader counter terrorism framework under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.","details":"Currently anyone who has received a custodial sentence of 3 months or more, suspended or not, is disqualified for 5 years from standing or sitting as a member of a local authority. Councillors and candidates must declare anything that might disqualify them from standing for or holding local office. Not doing so is potentially a criminal offence.\r\n\r\nFor the role of Police and Crime Commissioner, an individual is disqualified from standing for, and holding office, if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.\r\n\r\nAs regards Members of Parliament, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Representation of the People Act 1981 set out the criteria which disqualify an individual from membership of the UK Parliament.\r\n\r\nThe UK has one of the strongest counter terrorism frameworks in the world. This includes a range of specialised counter terrorism powers which support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon their release.  We always keep this framework under review to ensure it is fit for purpose in the context of emerging threats. This is supported through independent scrutiny provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.655Z","updated_at":"2026-04-01T15:55:34.118Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":732559,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/732559.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Limit the sale of fireworks to those running local council approved events only","background":"Ban the sale of fireworks to the general public to minimise the harm caused to vulnerable people and animals. Defenceless animals can die from the distress caused by fireworks.\r\n\r\nI believe that permitting unregulated use of fireworks is an act of wide-scale cruelty to animals.","additional_details":" \r\n \r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":195930,"created_at":"2025-07-06T14:27:42.186Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T12:03:42.266Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-20T10:08:00.535Z","closed_at":"2026-02-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-06T20:30:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-03T18:36:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-18T12:56:17.287Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-09T20:23:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-19","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-20T15:23:55.089Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-18","summary":"The Government recognises the negative impact fireworks can have on some people and animals.  However, when used responsibly they are a source of enjoyment for many people. ","details":"The Government’s intention is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to support their considerate use, while reducing the risks and disturbances to individuals, animals, and property. The majority of individuals who use fireworks do so in a responsible and safe manner and there are enforcement mechanisms in place to tackle situations when fireworks are misused.\r\n\r\nAt this point in time the Government does not have any plans to ban the sale of fireworks to consumers. We have launched a fireworks campaign for this fireworks season to provide guidance on minimising the impacts of fireworks on animal welfare and encouraging responsible use. Lower noise fireworks are promoted in the campaign alongside encouraging people to consider going to a public display. Public displays are more likely to be well-publicised, providing people with an opportunity to prepare ahead of the display taking place. The campaign also includes new guidance for those running community fireworks events, and social media posts that emphasise the risks from the misuse of fireworks. This supplements existing guidance from Government and other organisations that is available to help people to use fireworks safely and appropriately. My safety: fireworks - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/my-safety-fireworks)\r\nOrganising non-professional fireworks displays - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organising-non-professional-fireworks-displays)\r\n\r\nA regulatory framework currently controls the sale, availability, and use of fireworks to consumers. For example, there is an 11pm curfew in place for the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of November 5th, Diwali, New Year’s Eve and the Chinese New Year. Using fireworks outside the curfew hours is a criminal offence enforced by the police and can lead to imprisonment and a substantial fine.  There is also a maximum noise level of 120 decibels with many retailers also offering ‘lower noise’ and ‘no bang’ fireworks.\r\n\r\nA number of animal welfare organisations, along with industry and local authorities, provide advice and guidance to enable people to minimise the negative impacts of fireworks on people, animals and our communities. We work closely with these organisations to amplify this messaging in the run up to, and during, key dates when fireworks are commonly used.  \r\n\r\nTo inform any future action the Government will continue to engage with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks.  \r\n\r\nDepartment for Business and Trade","created_at":"2025-11-18T12:56:17.285Z","updated_at":"2025-11-18T12:57:00.440Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-19/debates/C0AE7A79-B8C1-4E33-8CB7-A9AAD98B62E6/SaleOfFireworks","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/G1ntVoBByDE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05704/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/fireworks/index.html","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"BT","name":"Department for Business and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759783,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759783.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make a public animal abuser register & automatically ban ownership","background":"Create a public register of all offenders convicted of animal abuse and introduce an automatic, lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal neglect or abuse. This register should be searchable by vets, breeders, charities and the public to prevent repeat offending.","additional_details":"I clean homes for free for people in need and regularly witness animals suffering under owners with a history for animal neglect or abuse. Currently, bans are discretionary and there is no public register. Abusers can continue acquiring animals. A mandatory ban and register could prevent repeat cruelty and break cycles of harm. Additionally, an immediate automatic lifetime ban could prevent animal ownership being at a judge’s discretion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":194387,"created_at":"2026-02-03T12:04:15.845Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:55:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-12T17:01:57.173Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-03T12:51:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-02T17:17:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-03T22:06:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Bea Elton","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":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":"petition","id":728715,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/728715.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review possible penalties for social media posts, including the use of prison","background":"We call on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. ","additional_details":"There is serious public concern about the proportionality of sentencing in cases involving opinion-based online speech. We believe imprisoning individuals for posts on social media sets a dangerous precedent and raises wider questions about freedom of expression, proportionality in sentencing, and the misuse of limited prison resources. We consider that alternative sanctions, such as fines or community service, would be more appropriate.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":191591,"created_at":"2025-05-27T18:05:08.578Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.084Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-20T12:02:52.796Z","closed_at":"2025-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-27T18:12:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-20T15:14:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-07T12:07:13.039Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-21T09:35:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-11-17","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-18T10:17:47.743Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-25","summary":"The government is committed to ensuring penalties are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression.","details":"Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable these may be to the majority. The government is committed to protecting this right while also ensuring that laws are in place to address harmful, criminal behaviour.\r\n\r\nThe UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 (“the Act”) reflects this careful balance. It requires platforms to take proportionate steps to tackle illegal content and protect children from harmful material. At the same time, it has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy, and support innovation. The Act does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It is not about individual posts. Instead, Ofcom will assess the systems and processes platforms have in place to manage risks and respond to harm. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, ensuring that lawful speech is not wrongly taken down.\r\n\r\nWhere an individual is convicted for an offence related to opinion-based online speech, the independent judiciary are responsible for determining appropriate sentences based on the facts of each case and the relevant sentencing guidelines.  The sentencing framework provides courts with a range of sentencing powers alongside imprisonment, including fines, community sentences, and suspended sentences. The law also makes clear that imprisonment should only be imposed where no other sentence would be appropriate.\r\n\r\nThe government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the Sentencing Review. This was a wide-ranging and evidence-led process that examined the full spectrum of sentencing options—from fines and community orders to custodial sentences—to ensure the framework is robust, proportionate, and fit for purpose.\r\n\r\nThe government has accepted the majority of the Review’s recommendations in principle and intends to legislate to implement them as soon as Parliamentary time allows. This includes targeted reforms to strengthen public protection and reduce reoffending.\r\n\r\nWe do not consider it necessary or appropriate to revisit the sentencing framework and we currently have no plans to review the penalties for these types of offences.\r\n\r\nWe are committed to ensuring that our justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights, and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice\r\n\r\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/728715)","created_at":"2025-07-07T12:07:13.037Z","updated_at":"2025-09-03T12:56:39.563Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-11-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-11-17/debates/336B2076-DEEC-4137-B2A1-2431F12C2A71/SocialMediaPostsPenaltiesForOffences","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP3uuuZGxvE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0214/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":702074,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already sold","background":"The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them. We seek this as a statutory consumer right.","additional_details":"Most video games sold can work indefinitely, but some have design elements that render the product non-functional at a time which the publisher controls, with no date provided at sale. We see this as a form of planned obsolescence, as customers can be deprived of their purchase and cannot retain or repair the game. We think this practice is hostile to consumers, entirely preventable, and have concerns existing laws do not address the problem.  Thus, we believe government intervention is needed.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":189887,"created_at":"2024-11-17T19:01:47.912Z","updated_at":"2025-11-04T10:35:11.895Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-14T10:00:44.542Z","closed_at":"2025-07-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-18T16:22:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-18T10:50:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-03T15:09:54.335Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-02T15:50:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-11-03","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-04T10:35:11.895Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-03","summary":"There are no plans to amend UK consumer law on disabling video games. Those selling games must comply with existing requirements in consumer law and we will continue to monitor this issue.","details":"The Government recognises concerns raised by video games users regarding the operability of purchased products. As the lead department for video games, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) regularly engages industry representatives and monitors how consumers interact with games. We work with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) as the lead department for consumer protection more generally.\r\n\r\nWe are aware of issues relating to the life-span of digital content, including video games, and we appreciate the concerns of players of some games that have been discontinued. We have no plans to amend existing consumer law on digital obsolescence, but we will monitor this issue and consider the relevant work of the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) on consumer rights and consumer detriment.\r\n\r\nVideo games sellers must comply with existing consumer law – this includes the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). We have provided details of relevant protections below. However, there is no requirement in UK law for software companies to support older versions of their products. Decision-making is for those companies, taking account of commercial and regulatory factors and complying with existing consumer law. There may be occasions where companies make decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for games with declining user bases. \r\n\r\nThe CRA gives consumers important rights when they make a contract with a trader for the supply of digital content, requiring it to be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It may be difficult and expensive for businesses to maintain support for old software, particularly if it needs to interact with new technologies. However, if software is offered for sale that is not supported by the provider, then this should be made clear, for example on product webpages and physical packaging. \r\n\r\nIf digital content does not meet these quality rights, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement or, if not possible, some money back up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. These rights apply to intangible digital content like a PC game, as well as tangible content like a physical copy of a game. The CRA has a limit of up to six years after a breach of contract during which a consumer can take legal action.\r\n\r\nA trader or third party can upgrade and improve the features of digital content so long as it continues to match any description given by the trader and conforms with any pre-contract information provided by the trader, unless varied by express agreement. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the CRA requires that the terms and conditions applied by a trader to a product they sell must not be unfair and must be prominent and transparent. If not, they may also be challenged and the question of fairness is a matter for the courts. Terms found to be unfair are not binding on the consumer.\r\n\r\nThe CPRs require information to consumers to be clear and correct and prohibit commercial practices which through false information or misleading omissions cause the average consumer to make a different choice. As such, the regulations prohibit commercial practices which omit or hide information which the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances. \r\n\r\nThe CPRs are enforced by Trading Standards and the CMA. If consumers believe that there has been a breach of these regulations, they should report it to the Citizens Advice helpline (or Advice Direct Scotland for those living in Scotland) which is a free service advising on rights and how to take their case forward. The helplines will refer complaints to Trading Standards and CMA where appropriate. Consumers can also pursue private redress through the courts where a trader has provided misleading information on a product.\r\n \r\nThe CPRs section of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act 2024 is expected to come into effect in April 2025. It restates and updates the CPRs into primary legislation, revokes the 2008 regulations and sets out rules around unfair trading. The Act:\r\n●\tProvides the Secretary of State with the power to add, amend, or remove a description of a commercial practice which are in all circumstances considered unfair \r\n●\tProvides clarification that someone facilitating supply or promotion of a product is a ‘trader’ and must comply with consumer law\r\n\r\nThe use of this power will be kept under review – any amendments proposed are subject to a duty to consult with stakeholders and approval by both Houses of Parliament.\r\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport\r\n","created_at":"2025-02-03T15:09:54.332Z","updated_at":"2025-02-03T15:11:52.599Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-11-04","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-11-03/debates/C603C07C-1BB5-41EF-A3C1-1AE1FEBBB95D/VideoGamesConsumerLaw","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/ONX2KUhyFow","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0195/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DCMS","name":"Department for Culture, Media and Sport","url":""}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727360,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727360.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders","background":"Do not apply the proposed 10-year ILR rule to existing Skilled Worker visa holders. Keep the 5-year ILR route for those already in the UK on this visa. Apply any changes only to new applicants from the date of implementation.","additional_details":"Many skilled visa holders moved to the UK for better opportunities and in return have contributed to the UK economy, paid taxes, and supported critical sectors like health, care, and engineering. We think that changing ILR rules mid-journey is unfair and causes stress for families. Apply the 10-year rule only to future Skilled Worker entrants, not those already building a life here under the current system.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":188125,"created_at":"2025-05-12T16:07:54.265Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T16:34:17.043Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-05-23T11:09:16.240Z","closed_at":"2025-11-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-12T16:17:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-23T16:12:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-17T08:04:22.149Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-25T13:21:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-09-08","debate_outcome_at":"2025-09-09T09:43:08.564Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-06-17","summary":"As with several other measures in the Immigration White Paper, the proposals on earned settlement will be subject to a formal consultation process, and we welcome this contribution to that process.","details":"The Immigration White Paper, published on 12 May 2025, includes proposals for Earned Settlement.\r\n\r\nSettlement in the UK is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen and brings lifelong benefits. Settlement is also an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the wider country.\r\n\r\nThere were 162,000 grants of settlement in 2024, up 35% from 2023. This rise reflects the increase in individuals coming to the UK between 2015 and 2019 on entry clearance visas who have since become eligible for settlement and citizenship. As things stand, more people are likely to become eligible for settlement and then citizenship over the next few years as a result of the extremely high level of net migration between 2019 and 2024.\r\n\r\nThe share of people who go on to claim settlement varies considerably by the type of visa people were initially granted to enter the UK, 18% of those coming on work visas between 2010 and 2018 secured settlement by 2023, compared to 75% on the Family route.\r\n\r\nIt has been a long-standing principle that settlement in the UK is a privilege and not a right. Under the current system settlement is primarily qualified for on the basis of length of time spent in the UK alongside a knowledge of life test which is used to verify knowledge of British customs, history, traditions, laws and political system.\r\n\r\nThese criteria alone do not reflect our strongly held belief that people should contribute to the economy and society before gaining settled status in our country and they fail to promote integration, which limits the wider benefit from long term migration into the UK and increases pressure on public services.\r\n\r\nWe therefore intend to reform our settlement rules by expanding the Points-Based System and increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement to ten years. \r\n\r\nIndividuals will have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period to settlement based on contributions to the UK economy and society.\r\n\r\nWe will continue to offer a shorter pathway to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens to five years, who have remained compliant with their requirements, and we will retain existing safeguards to protect the vulnerable, including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse.\r\n\r\nWe will consult on the details of the proposed policy changes later this year, including any proposed transitional arrangements for those already in the UK. These are important changes. We recognise how important this issue is to people, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us in that consultation. \r\n\r\nWe are grateful to the petitioners for setting out their views on this announcement ahead of that consultation process, and we look forward to hearing from them again when they have had the opportunity to study the final proposals in detail.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-06-17T08:04:22.141Z","updated_at":"2025-06-17T08:04:22.141Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-09-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-08/debates/25EC2767-BBFF-4FE8-8F52-65B2C28CED10/IndefiniteLeaveToRemain","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/sGBlfyO5VhI?si=qz7pcnWmcaYyv4CI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0172/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":738192,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/738192.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks from 120 to 90 decibels","background":"We think each year, individuals suffer because of loud fireworks. We believe horses, dogs, cats, livestock and wildlife can be terrified by noisy fireworks and many people find them intolerable.","additional_details":"There is independent research suggesting: \r\n\r\n• Over half of dog owners report fireworks-anxiety in their dog\r\n• There’s an 81% increase in missing dogs around Bonfire Night\r\n• Almost 25% of military veterans say fireworks have caused a negative experience for them\r\n\r\nWe think both humans and animals are less likely to be distressed by fireworks noise below 90dB. We believe lower noise levels would allow fireworks to be enjoyed while potentially reducing some of their many negative impacts.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":184376,"created_at":"2025-08-18T08:48:05.528Z","updated_at":"2026-03-26T11:00:29.806Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-04T13:29:13.913Z","closed_at":"2026-03-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-18T09:56:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-04T15:43:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-10-23T12:35:09.890Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-03T14:00:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-19","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-20T15:22:32.649Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-07","summary":"The Government recognises that some people have strong feelings about fireworks and has been listening to concerns raised by members of the public regarding the impact of firework noise.","details":"The Government's intention is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to support their considerate use, reducing the risks and disturbances to individuals, animals, and property.  Current regulations control their sale, availability, and use, including setting a maximum noise level of 120 decibels for consumer fireworks. Many retailers also offer ‘lower noise’ and ‘no bang’ fireworks which are available to purchase by consumers.\r\n\r\nFireworks, when used responsibly are a source of enjoyment for many people.  The Government recognises however the concerns raised by signatories to this petition regarding the potential impact fireworks can have on communities and animals.  \r\n\r\nThe Government is engaging with businesses, consumer groups and charities to better understand the issues with and impacts of fireworks. Noise is one of the key issues we are seeking views on. The Government is also considering the experience of other countries where lower noise limits are in place for consumer fireworks to understand the impact this has had and to identify best practice.\r\n \r\nFor this fireworks season, to ensure people continue to use fireworks in a safe and considerate manner, the Government has launched a fireworks campaign for this fireworks season to provide guidance on minimising the impacts of fireworks on animal welfare and encouraging responsible use. Lower noise fireworks are promoted in the campaign alongside considerate use.  This supplements existing guidance from Government and other organisations that is available to help people to use fireworks safely and appropriately.  The campaign also includes new guidance for those running community fireworks events, and social media posts that emphasise the risks from the misuse of fireworks.  \r\n\r\nMy safety: fireworks - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/my-safety-fireworks)\r\nOrganising non-professional fireworks displays - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organising-non-professional-fireworks-displays)\r\n\r\nA number of animal welfare organisations, along with industry and local authorities, provide advice and guidance to enable people to minimise the negative impacts of fireworks on people, animals and our communities. We work closely with these organisations to amplify this messaging in the run up to, and during, key dates when fireworks are commonly used. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Business and Trade\r\n\r\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/738192)","created_at":"2025-10-23T12:35:09.887Z","updated_at":"2025-11-18T15:28:36.600Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-19/debates/C0AE7A79-B8C1-4E33-8CB7-A9AAD98B62E6/SaleOfFireworks","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/G1ntVoBByDE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05704/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/fireworks/index.html","overview":""},"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":"petition","id":700047,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700047.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow parents to take their children out of school for up to 10 days fine free.","background":"We’re seeking reform to the punitive policy for term time leave that disproportionately impacts families that are already under immense pressure and criminalises parents that we think are making choices in the best interests of their families. No family should face criminal convictions!","additional_details":"The data that the DfE has published are statistics based on what we consider is a very weak correlation between school attendance and attainment, but they have failed entirely to consider causation. The SEND issues have also been ignored, and we believe some children are being discriminated against due to the strict guidelines that have been put in place. Many children with SEND do have a disability, and are therefore protected under the Equality Act. We are calling for reform of legislation on taking children out of school urgently.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":181597,"created_at":"2024-10-30T17:02:19.174Z","updated_at":"2025-10-30T15:16:09.458Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-28T17:41:25.108Z","closed_at":"2025-05-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T17:25:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-05T11:05:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-23T17:14:18.677Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-11T12:59:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-10-27","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-30T15:11:14.478Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-23","summary":"We are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school, working with parents and protecting children’s right to education.","details":"We sympathise with parents who, for a variety of reasons, face barriers to securing their children’s school attendance. This government is taking a new approach to tackling absence based on responsibility, partnership and belonging. This involves working with schools and local authorities to tackle barriers to school attendance and ensuring schools are able to deliver an excellent education, meeting children’s needs and creating a welcoming, engaging and inclusive environment for children. The government takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that schools are equipped to meet children’s needs and help them succeed, but that is matched by parents’ legal responsibility to send their children to school every day that they can.\r\n\r\nAbsence is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people, and has soared post-pandemic. It is one of the greatest barriers to opportunity and supporting children to achieve. The most recent DfE data shows that any increase in absence is associated with dramatic reductions in attainment – children who attend school every day are twice as likely to achieve good GCSEs compared to those who miss two weeks of school a year. It is not just those who are absent who are impacted. A steady churn of absences disrupts the learning of every child disrupting teachers’ ability to plan and sequence learning. It also has a significant detrimental impact on the hard work of school staff to cultivate a sense of community and belonging.\r\n\r\nWe know that some pupils face more complex barriers to attendance, including some pupils who have long term physical or mental health conditions or who have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Separately, we know that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds face a wide range of barriers to engagement with education, including insecure housing, uniform costs, travel costs and food. However, all of these children have the same need and right to a full-time education as any other pupil.\r\n\r\nThis is why this Government is determined to break down the barriers to opportunity, by ensuring school is the best place to be for every child. We will deliver free breakfast clubs in primary schools so that every child is on time and ready to learn, better mental health support through access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. This government is committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensuring special schools cater to children and young people with the most complex needs, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need. We have already announced over £1 billion of additional high needs funding for this year to help meet the needs of children with SEND and £740 million to create additional specialist places, including in mainstream schools. \r\n\r\nAll of this sits alongside our statutory ‘Working together to improve school attendance’ guidance, which recognises that the reasons for absence are varied and dependent on individual circumstances. It sets out that schools, trusts and local authorities should always work together with other local partners to understand and remove the barriers to attendance, including by having sensitive conversations with the pupil and their family. The guidance also reminds schools to consider their obligations under equality law when developing their attendance policies, and has an updated section on additional support for pupils with physical or mental ill health or SEND, including making formal reasonable adjustments where the pupil has a disability.\r\n\r\nHowever, where necessary, it is right that the law protects the child’s right to a full-time education. It is up to local authorities and schools to decide on the best course of action based on the circumstances of the individual case and what is most likely to improve attendance. It is important to emphasise that legal intervention cannot be used for absence that is recorded as authorised by the school (e.g. for illness or where a leave of absence has been granted). In addition, our new National Framework embeds our wider approach by including an expectation, for cases other than holiday, that support will have already been provided before a penalty notice is issued. Schools and local authorities are also expected to consider any obligations under the Equality Act 2010 when deciding whether to issue a penalty notice.\r\n\r\nOn holidays in particular, we understand that some parents wish to avoid peak periods. However, the school year is structured in such a way as to provide plenty of time throughout the year for holidays outside of term-time, and schools also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates themselves, and hold inset days and other occasional days at less busy times of the year.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education ","created_at":"2024-12-23T17:14:18.674Z","updated_at":"2024-12-30T11:17:57.777Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-10-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-27/debates/A5EB2274-327A-422C-B711-4646C9E59E27/HolidaysDuringSchoolTermTime","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/kJPKrvyed-I","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/holidays-during-school-term-time-england/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":722377,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722377.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill","background":"We call on the Government to withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We believe it downgrades education for all children, and undermines educators and parents. If it is not withdrawn, we believe it may cause more harm to children and their educational opportunities than it helps","additional_details":"We believe the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children's educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children's right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children's education and wellbeing.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":166495,"created_at":"2025-03-16T12:52:25.657Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:25.987Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-25T13:20:14.902Z","closed_at":"2025-10-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-24T17:53:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-02T17:08:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-09-16T13:19:48.433Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-07T21:01:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-12-01","debate_outcome_at":"2025-12-05T18:53:31.026Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-09-16","summary":"The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill puts in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care systems so that every child can achieve and thrive.","details":"Every child needs a safe, secure start in life and a high-quality education which provides the opportunity to succeed, regardless of background. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care systems so that every child can achieve and thrive. It will protect children at risk of abuse, stopping vulnerable children falling through cracks in services, and deliver a core guarantee of high standards with space for innovation in every child’s education.\r\n\r\nThe Bill has been developed in consultation with education and social care stakeholders to ensure that the measures included are both effective and practical. Its provisions are intended to complement and strengthen existing frameworks to support parents, school leaders and those working in the care system. The measures relating to home education, for example, have been introduced following years of extensive engagement and consultation. The government’s position remains that parents should have the right to home educate their children if they choose to do so, providing that the education being received is suitable and safe. \r\n\r\nThe government recognises the importance of the child’s voice in educational and wellbeing decisions. The Bill includes measures to ensure children’s perspectives are considered in relevant decisions affecting their education and wellbeing. The department has also conducted and published a Child Rights Impact Assessment, identifying where children are directly affected by policy and where certain groups of children and young people are more likely to be affected than others. For instance, under the School Attendance Order, local authorities will have a new power to request to visit the child in their home. This will provide an opportunity for the child to talk about their education. Local authorities should take the child’s opinion into account in their overall educational suitability decision where appropriate. In cases where parents are required to request permission from the local authority to home educate, the child’s wishes and feelings should be sought and considered, if reasonably practicable.\r\n\r\nRegarding concerns about parental rights and school leadership, the Bill is structured to support parents and educators in delivering high-quality education. Part 2 of the Bill provides frameworks to assist school leaders and families in delivering optimal educational outcomes and wellbeing. The Bill will create a floor for standards so every parent can have confidence that they can send their child to a good, local school, but no ceiling on innovation so leaders can drive forward policies for the benefit of the children and communities they serve. We are continuing to engage extensively with leaders from across the school system, including our high-quality multi-academy trusts, to ensure we drive collaboration and enable best practice to be shared up and down the country.\r\n\r\nThe government notes the issues outlined in this petition on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We welcome views and engagement from the public and are committed to working closely with stakeholders to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives. \r\n\r\nThe Bill is currently being debated at Committee stage in the House of Lords, where amendments to the Bill are debated in detail. Remaining debates can be watched here: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Lords\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2025-09-16T13:19:48.430Z","updated_at":"2025-09-16T13:19:48.430Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-12-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-12-01/debates/D42A2D07-ADCB-489E-929B-6223A574DD44/details","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2sq0kjCzqU","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700765,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700765.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a compensation scheme for WASPI women","background":"We call on the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women affected by the increases to their State Pension age and the associated failings in DWP communications.","additional_details":"We want the Government to urgently respond to PHSO report and set up a compensation scheme by 21 March 2025.\r\n \r\nIn March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said 1950s-born women were owed financial redress and an apology due to DWP maladministration.\r\n \r\nThe Ombudsman’s findings were backed by the cross-party Work and Pensions Select Committee, hundreds of MPs and, according to our polling, 68% of the public. However, only the Government has the power to put this injustice right.\r\n \r\nWe have calculated that with one affected woman dying every 13 minutes, there is no time for further delay.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":161788,"created_at":"2024-11-04T19:50:41.856Z","updated_at":"2026-01-22T10:18:30.348Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-21T19:15:01.127Z","closed_at":"2025-05-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-04T20:14:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-22T10:00:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-10T14:40:47.557Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-30T11:37:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-17","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-01T11:04:57.649Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-09","summary":"The Government is reviewing the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report and once this work has been undertaken, will be in a position to outline its approach.","details":"Changes to the State Pension age were made over a series of Acts, starting with the Pensions Act 1995 to equalise State Pension age. The Pensions Act 2007 brought forward recommendations of the Pensions Commission that the State Pension age should be increased to reflect increases in life expectancy and legislated to increase State Pension age to 68 over a thirty-year period. The Pensions Act 2011 and 2014 accelerated these timetables. In addition, the Pensions Act 2014 legislated to introduce periodic reviews of State Pension age. Each Act followed detailed consideration of the issues through public consultations.\r\n\r\nThe Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report is not about changes to the State Pension age. The PHSO have been investigating the way DWP communicated State Pension age changes from 1995 onwards impacting 1950s-born women. The Ombudsman published their report on 21 March 2024, the culmination of almost 6 years’ work.\r\n\r\nThe PHSO has laid the report before Parliament and Government is carefully considering the report. It is a serious report that requires serious consideration and the Government recognises it is important to do so as quickly as possible. In addition, there have been a number of recent debates and questions in Parliament on the issue.\r\n\r\nAs part of its consideration, the Government is listening respectfully to the women involved.  The Minister for Pensions recently met representatives from WASPI Ltd, the first Minister to do so for 8 years, and has also met with the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Inequality for Women and with the interim Ombudsman. \r\n\r\nGovernment respects the work of the Ombudsman and it is actively considering the report. Once this work has been undertaken, it will be in a position to outline its approach.\r\n\r\nThis Government is absolutely committed to supporting pensioners and giving them the dignity and security they deserve. The State Pension provides the foundation income for people in retirement.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2024-12-10T14:40:47.555Z","updated_at":"2024-12-10T14:41:14.925Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-17/debates/F7CE8F38-4762-43C3-AF9C-716F38D66A7A/Women%E2%80%99SChangedStatePensionAgeCompensation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/ds-osLbggb0?si=Ecsxbr5wFViOnFNS&t=270","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9967/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701963,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701963.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all forms of 'geo-engineering' affecting the environment illegal","background":"We want all forms of geo-engineering to be illegal in the UK. We do not want any use of technologies to intervene in the Earth's natural systems.","additional_details":"We think there is a potential for this to negatively impact humanity, flora and fauna in the future. It has previously been said that Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) is essential to meet climate targets. We believe that this, and all other forms of geo-engineering, should be made illegal in the UK.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":160631,"created_at":"2024-11-16T13:19:25.009Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.123Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-23T11:13:28.616Z","closed_at":"2025-06-23T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-18T14:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-24T08:51:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-05-21T15:31:39.097Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-29T08:07:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-23","debate_outcome_at":"2025-06-24T09:44:29.929Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-05-21","summary":"Greenhouse Gas Removals are important for achieving net zero emissions. The Government is not in favour of using Solar Radiation Modification and has no plans for deployment. ","details":"Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government — delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy. The government’s priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.\r\n\r\nGeo-engineering is a term commonly used to refer to two types of technologies: Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).\r\n\r\nGGR technologies will be important for reaching net zero – balancing residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonise sectors, as recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee. There are commercial scale GGR projects operating and being planned around the world.\r\n\r\nGGR approaches fall broadly into two categories: 1) nature-based approaches, such as afforestation, and soil carbon sequestration, and 2) engineering-based approaches, such as Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, carbon in building materials, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering. Nature-based methods can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale while delivering a range of additional environmental benefits such as biodiversity gain, air quality and soil health. However, due to factors such as land constraints and timescales for sequestration, the evidence demonstrates that nature-based GGRs must be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale needed to meet our targets.\r\n\r\nIn February, the government announced an Independent Review to consider how GGRs can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets out to 2050. The review is not centred on any particular project and will consider all GGRs, with a focus on engineered GGR approaches. The review’s findings will be published.\r\n\r\nThe government supports the deployment of high integrity removals, and has committed to ensuring that GGRs provide measurable and verifiable removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. The government is currently working with the British Standards Institution to develop GGR methodologies. Some GGR technologies may use sustainable biomass and relevant GGR standards will also include biomass sustainability criteria. These criteria will build on the existing sustainability criteria for biomass to ensure they are based on the latest evidence base. The government plan to consult on the details of the sustainability actions set out in the Biomass Strategy published in 2023. \r\n\r\nIn March 2023, the government committed to launch a process to expand the Track-1 Carbon Capture Usage and Storage clusters: HyNet and East Coast Clusters. As of spring 2024, the Track-1 expansion HyNet process allows GGR and Power Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage projects to apply to the expansion of the HyNet cluster in the North West.  Applicants for Track-1 expansion HyNet were expected to complete an Environment Agency Guidance annex, as per the application guidance published in December 2023. This annex provides environmental considerations likely to be relevant to projects and steps they may need to take in relation to obtaining permits and consents. The Environment Agency Guidance aids the identification of key environmental risks associated with proposals and helps applicants to demonstrate awareness of potential control measures and environmental standards and regulations for the areas of risk that may be relevant to proposals.\r\n\r\nSRM describes a set of technologies that could theoretically cool the Earth by reflecting some of the Sun’s energy back into space. However, the wider consequences of SRM are poorly understood, with significant uncertainty around the possible risks and impacts of deployment. As such, the government’s position is that it is not deploying SRM and has no plans in place to do so.\r\n\r\nThe government acknowledges that the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), an independent research agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, are funding some SRM research projects through their Exploring Climate Cooling Programme. This research aims to begin gathering critical missing scientific data to better understand potential Earth cooling approaches, conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving understanding of the risks and impacts associated with cooling technologies. The programme does not fund deployment. None of the approved ARIA projects involve the release of toxic materials to the environment. This research into cooling technologies in no way alleviates the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero","created_at":"2025-05-21T15:31:39.094Z","updated_at":"2025-05-21T15:33:50.394Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-23/debates/E84045B1-C0C7-4E08-82DE-D7CBD31AB607/Geo-EngineeringAndTheEnvironment","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/aSXuI4PaZ0o?feature=shared","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0135/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"ESNZ","name":"Department for Energy Security and Net Zero","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":747234,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/747234.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove power to cancel local government elections\r\n","background":"Change the law to remove the power of the Secretary of State to cancel any further forthcoming local government, metropolitan borough, London borough or any other elections, for example, but not limited to, those due in May 2026.","additional_details":"Ever since 1918, the right to vote is sacred and inalienable. 2025 Elections in some areas were cancelled this year. We believe any further cancellations would be voter suppression and undemocratic. The will of the people of the nation must be heard.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":154613,"created_at":"2025-10-17T13:47:26.613Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T09:50:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-25T09:23:40.451Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-17T14:29:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-04T13:21:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-06T14:04:16.696Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-12T07:31:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:19:41.848Z","creator_name":"Dr Chris Barnes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-05","summary":"The Secretary of State’s powers in this area are set out in legislation made by Parliament and used only with strong justification. The Government has no plans to amend these powers.","details":"Parliament has conferred powers on the Secretary of State to postpone local elections under the Local Government Act 2000. While these powers sit with the Secretary of State, Parliament retains an oversight role through the statutory instrument process, ensuring democratic accountability. These powers are used infrequently.\r\n\r\nMost recently they were used in February 2025 when a statutory instrument was made to postpone the ordinary local elections due to take place in May 2025 in East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex. The instrument was made using statutory powers, laid before Parliament and debated and voted on by both Houses. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum to the 2025 statutory instrument sets out the reasons for the decision: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/137/pdfs/uksiem_20250137_en_001.pdf\r\n\r\nOn 18 December 2025, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness updated Parliament (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-18/hcws1215) that she had written to councils going through local government reorganisation that have elections scheduled for May 2026. She invited council leaders to set out their views on the postponement of local elections in their area and if they consider that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. No decisions have been made at this stage; all evidence and representations will be considered individually before any final decision. Any subsequent legislation would be subject to Parliament. The majority of local elections in 2026 are unaffected by local government reorganisation.\r\n\r\nParliament has also conferred powers on the Secretary of State to implement proposals for unitary local government under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. These powers include provision for electoral matters. Again, while these powers sit with the Secretary of State, Parliament retains an oversight role through the statutory instrument process, ensuring democratic accountability. When these powers are used, it is typical to provide for elections to the new councils and to cancel any scheduled elections to predecessor councils that otherwise would take place at the same time. We have set out our intention to use these powers to implement the proposal for two new unitary councils in Surrey. We will bring to the House, for approval, a Structural Changes Order, which will establish East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council.\r\n\r\nOn December 4 2025, the Government announced it is minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that areas will have completed the local government reorganisation, and establish the strategic authority before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations and moving forward we will want to ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas access mayoral devolution.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-01-06T14:04:16.694Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T14:11:15.451Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-02/debates/7B0237DD-38DA-4B1B-88B1-5D5CE04FB352/PowerToCancelLocalElections","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxSHRnfUDVU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10507/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751174.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Appoint a Maternity Commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies","background":"A 2024 parliamentary birth trauma inquiry recommended a Maternity Commissioner be appointed alongside a National Maternity Strategy to ensure mums and their babies were safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion.","additional_details":"As mothers affected by birth trauma, we believe the government should make this appointment to help restore confidence in maternity services which is why we are launching this petition.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":154457,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:34:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T18:31:24.854Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-19T13:11:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T18:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-28T11:38:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-20","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-21T15:27:53.917Z","creator_name":"Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-28","summary":"The Government has commissioned an independent Investigation into maternity and neonatal care, which makes recommendations this spring. There are no current plans to appoint a Maternity Commissioner.","details":"While the vast majority of births in England are safe, the Government recognises that there are failings in care, including failure to learn from mistakes and provide accountability to families. These issues, coupled with stark inequalities in maternity outcomes and experience for women and babies from ethnic backgrounds and those living in more deprived areas, demonstrate that there are deep-rooted issues across maternity and neonatal services.\r\n\r\nTo help the Government understand the systemic issues behind why so many women, babies and families experience unacceptable care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appointed Baroness Amos to lead a rapid, independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services in June 2025. The investigation is looking into the maternity and neonatal system nationally and will bring together the findings of past reviews into one clear national set of recommendations.\r\n\r\nThe investigation will aim to understand the lived experiences of women, babies and families in England at all stages of the maternity and neonatal care pathway, which includes postnatal care and psychological support. It will also aim to understand the experiences of staff and healthcare professionals delivering care at all stages of the pathway, and how they can best be supported in providing high-quality, safe and compassionate care. To support this work, the investigation launched a Call for Evidence on 20 January 2026, which has been developed following extensive insight and feedback from families. This is a survey that is open for eight weeks, until 17 March 2026.\r\n\r\nIn December 2025, Baroness Amos published reflections on what she has heard so far as part of the investigation, following engagement with women and families. Her reflections highlighted ongoing issues experienced by women and families during their care, including a lack of communication, a lack of compassion and support when things go wrong, discrimination, and significant pressure on staff. The Secretary of State has agreed with Baroness Amos that the investigation will publish its final report and recommendations in spring 2026.\r\n\r\nGiven the investigation’s ongoing work to understand the systemic issues within maternity and neonatal services and to then make recommendations about how we should tackle this, the Government does not currently plan to appoint a Maternity Commissioner at this time.\r\n\r\nThe Government will shortly be launching a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. The taskforce will take forward the recommendations of the investigation to develop a new national action plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. The taskforce will also hold the system to account for improving outcomes and experiences for women and babies.\r\n\r\nFamilies’ voices will be central to the taskforce. The Secretary of State, as Chair, will allow for direct accountability – to ensure actions are implemented and issues can be raised directly with Government. The taskforce is being set up now so that it can be fully prepared to act once the investigation reports in spring.\r\n\r\nThe Government is not waiting for the investigation to report to ensure maternity and neonatal services deliver high quality care to women and babies. Immediate action is being taken to boost accountability and safety as part of the Government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future. This includes the publication of a maternal care bundle which sets out best practice standards to reduce rates of maternal mortality and morbidity, as well as a postnatal toolkit to improve the care and support offered to women after birth. These are in addition to other programmes to tackle discrimination and racism and avoidable brain injuries.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z","updated_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-20/debates/FD803B26-6F84-45B6-8FFF-7E8E6AB29318/MaternityCommissioner","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/DcD2XNoNtss","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10447/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"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":"petition","id":700138,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700138.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Don't change inheritance tax relief for working farms","background":"We think that changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property. We urge the government to keep the current exemptions for working farms.","additional_details":"We feel that passing farms through generations is essential to UK farming. Until now, inheritance tax exemptions have made this possible by allowing farmland to pass without taxation. We think that changes to inheritance tax will harm UK farming deeply, with some farmers predicting their families will be forced out within two generations.\r\n \r\nWe think the government is framing the policy around the targeting of rich landowners, but we believe this policy will affect farming families of all sizes.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":154006,"created_at":"2024-10-31T08:23:32.044Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.193Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-13T15:43:45.501Z","closed_at":"2025-05-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-31T09:09:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-20T10:15:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.246Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-25T20:25:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-02-10","debate_outcome_at":"2025-02-25T10:40:45.253Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-05","summary":"The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. There is also an urgent need to repair the public finances in as fair a way as possible. The reform of the reliefs strikes the right balance.","details":"At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government took a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare, and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances, and support public services. These were tough decisions given the situation inherited by the Government, but it has done so in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.  \r\n\r\nInheritance tax is paid on the estate (the property, money, and possessions) of someone who has died. The most recent four years’ worth of data show that amongst agricultural property relief claims, including those that also claimed business property relief, 47 per cent of the total Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top seven per cent of claims. It is not fair to maintain such a significant relief for a very small number of claimants, when this money could better be used to fund our public services. \r\n\r\nThat is why from 6 April 2026, the full 100 per cent relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above this amount, there will be 50 per cent relief so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate up to 20 per cent, rather than the standard 40 per cent. The new system remains more generous than it has been in the past: the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50 per cent on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. \r\n\r\nThis is on top of the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax too. This means that a couple with farmland, depending on their circumstances, can typically pass on up to £3 million to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax. \r\n\r\nFull exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners continue to apply. This means that any agricultural and business assets left to a spouse or civil partner will be tax free.  \r\n\r\nAny transfers to individuals more than 7 years before death as gifts will continue to fall fully outside the scope of inheritance tax. Any tax related to these assets can be paid in instalments over 10 years interest free and it means landowners will not necessarily need to sell land or other assets. \r\n\r\nThe reforms are expected to result in up to around 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim for business property relief, paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. This means almost three-quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim for business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27.  \r\n\r\nThese are projections based on HMRC inheritance tax administrative data relating to previous years, which illustrate the distribution of claims where 100 per cent relief has been available on agricultural and business property. It is not possible to accurately infer a future inheritance tax liability from data on farm asset values. The number and value of affected estates, meaning how many estates making relief claims that would pay more inheritance tax as a result of the change, is affected by who the owners are, how many owners there are, any borrowing they have, and how they plan their affairs. \r\n\r\nThese reforms should also be seen in the broader context of the significant existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. This includes the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels, and the exemption from the plastic packaging tax for the plastic film used by farmers to produce silage bales. Furthermore, farmers are able to add together their profits from farming for two years or five years and be taxable on the average of those profits, building flexibility into their tax arrangements for difficult years.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, the Government’s decisions at Autumn Budget 2024 provide £5 billion over two years for farming and land management in England which will restore stability and confidence in the sector, strengthening food security alongside nature’s recovery. This includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our country’s history. Despite the difficult fiscal inheritance, £60 million of funding has also been prioritised for the Farm Recovery Fund to support farmers with the impact of severe wet weather over the last year. \r\n\r\nThe Government’s commitment to farmers and the vital role they play in feeding our nation remains steadfast. There is also an urgent need to repair the public finances, but the Government has maintained very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others. The Government believes the approach to reform strikes the right balance between providing significant tax relief to farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.241Z","updated_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.241Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-02-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-02-10/debates/94821BE4-8215-4D8D-93E1-77F786B3ABD4/InheritanceTaxReliefFarms","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/g6bSH3jCJ48?t=282s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10181/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755980,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the evidence and fund the addition of SMA to the Newborn Screening Test","background":"We urge the UK Government to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test. SMA is a rare genetic condition with devastating consequences if not treated early. Every baby should be screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.","additional_details":"SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality: up to 90% of untreated babies either died before age two or required permanent ventilation. It is now treatable, but treatment is most effective before symptoms appear. Early diagnosis can give babies the chance at a life without severe disability. Without screening, many babies are diagnosed too late. The damage already caused to their mobility, breathing and swallowing cannot be reversed. Scotland has committed to piloting SMA newborn screening this year. All babies should have the same chance. No child should suffer avoidable harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":149337,"created_at":"2026-01-04T20:34:00.006Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:00:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-09T11:05:19.553Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-04T20:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T12:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.880Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T18:48:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jesy Nelson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The NHS is planning an in-service evaluation offering SMA screening to newborn babies in England. This will inform a decision on whether to extend the NHS newborn blood spot screening programme.","details":"The Government is grateful to campaigners who have made a powerful case for doing more on screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We are committed to seeing more children with SMA not just surviving but thriving.\r\n\r\nMinisters and the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom are advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the Committee is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme. Ministers in each of the four nations then make a decision on whether to accept the recommendation.\r\n\r\nAs recommended by the UK NSC, we are working at pace to roll out an In-Service Evaluation (ISE) in NHS screening services in England. An ISE is used where a change in screening policy is justified by strong evidence, but important evidence gaps still remain that can only reasonably be filled by evaluation in a live NHS setting. The UK NSC uses ISEs to support its screening recommendation process and inform wider policy decisions about screening.\r\n\r\nThere are a number of areas where evidence gaps exist which an ISE of newborn screening for SMA will help to fill:\r\n\r\n1.\tFeasibility\r\nThe ISE will test the optimum clinical pathway and test methodology within the context of a nationally delivered newborn blood spot programme in the NHS, ensuring the safe movement of babies through the screening pathway. This includes testing the logistics of administering a programme that is delivered consistently by multiple geographically separated and commissioned screening and genetics laboratories, treatment referral centres and IT systems, including the establishing of sustainable data collection systems for longer-term outcomes.\r\n\r\n2.\tAcceptability\r\nWork is required to understand the acceptability and experience of families of screened babies and the healthcare professionals involved in the screening pathway, for example with regard to the timing and mode of delivery of results. This will support future decision making on the optimal screening pathway.\r\n\r\n3.\tEffectiveness\r\nScreening for SMA aims to screen, diagnose and treat babies before they have symptoms. The ISE will evaluate the timescales that can be met by UK services at important stages of the screening pathway, such as for result availability, clinical referral and the start of any treatment. The performance of SMA tests in an NHS environment needs to be evaluated to ensure the screening programme demonstrates test characteristics, such as accuracy, reproducibility, resilience and operational utility.\r\n\r\nAs the drugs to treat the underlying biology of SMA are quite new, there is no evidence on their long-term clinical effectiveness, so evaluating this within the context of the NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme is important. Gaining more data on short-term outcomes will contribute evidence as to how clinically effective screening in the UK is.\r\n\r\nAs the long-term effectiveness of novel treatments is currently unknown, the ISE will allow for sustainable longer-term health outcome monitoring systems to be established. This will provide an essential capability for assessing the effectiveness of the screening programme. This includes metrics such as health states, quality of life, mortality and psychosocial outcomes.\r\n\r\n4.\tCost-effectiveness\r\nThe economic model commissioned by the UK NSC estimates that SMA screening in the UK is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective. However, there are important uncertainties that could affect the accuracy and conclusions of the model. The ISE will therefore identify further information to allow both clinical and cost-effectiveness to be assessed, using real world UK data. This includes:\r\n\r\n•\tcosts involved in screening \r\n•\tclinical effectiveness of presymptomatic and symptomatic treatment and the impact of diagnostic delay on presymptomatic babies\r\n•\tlong-term effectiveness of treatment\r\n•\thow accurate the screening tests are \r\n•\twhich treatments patients receive and how effective these treatments are \r\n•\tincidence of SMA in the UK\r\n\r\nThe research component of the ISE is being commissioned via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. A decision on funding is expected in spring 2026.  The Secretary of State has asked NHSE to look at what can be done to move faster on the rollout of the ISE, and whether it would be feasible to extend the ISE to the whole of England.\r\n\r\nThe planning and development of the ISE is being overseen by a partnership board that includes:\r\n\r\n•\tscreening experts from the four UK governments and from the NHS\r\n•\tstakeholder organisations interested in newborn screening for SMA\r\n•\tclinicians\r\n•\tacademics\r\n•\tgenomic experts\r\n•\tpatient and public voice representatives\r\n\r\nSMA can have a devastating impact on individuals and families, and we are committed to working with all our stakeholders to progress this work in the UK.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\r\n\r\nThis is a revised response submitted by the Government. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980 ","created_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.878Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T17:26:11.952Z"},"debate":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":"petition","id":751839,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751839.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children","background":"The government is aware of the potential irreversible impact (physical and emotional) of puberty blockers, having acknowledged an 'unacceptable safety risk’ following the Cass Review. Yet, hundreds of children are about to be given puberty blockers under a government-sanctioned trial.","additional_details":"We want this trial to be cancelled. We believe that the answer for children feeling dis-ease in their bodies (many of whom are autistic) is the passage of time and natural progression of puberty, coupled with explorative therapy. We believe that the answer is never medicalisation that can harm brain development, bone growth, sexual functioning, and lead to infertility, and that to put children on a path towards such harm is the antithesis of safeguarding.\r\nLet us not be written into history as the country that knowingly harmed vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":147542,"created_at":"2025-11-24T21:03:09.099Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T13:52:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T10:02:29.663Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-24T21:14:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T12:25:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T07:34:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"James Esses","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-02","summary":"We are following the expert advice of the Cass Review to establish a clinical trial to determine the relative benefits and harms of puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence.","details":"It is essential for the Government and the NHS to be guided by expert clinical advice and act with caution and care when it comes to supporting children and young people living with gender incongruence. The independent Cass Review concluded that the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, and that there is not enough clinical evidence for the safe and effective routine use of puberty suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence in under-18s. For that reason, this Government supported and extended indefinitely the ban on their use outside of research. Despite these restrictions, some young people are going to great lengths to source these drugs from unregulated providers, in the absence of scientific evidence.\r\n\r\nThe Cass Review recommended that a programme of research be established to underpin the design and delivery of NHS gender care. It specifically recommended this include a clinical trial into puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence. This recommendation addresses the lack of evidence about the relative benefits and harms of this treatment option, particularly when provided alongside an updated model of NHS care incorporating holistic assessment and a comprehensive and tailored package of psychosocial support.\r\n \r\nThe study protocol is available on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) website: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR167530\r\n\r\nThe bar for a UK clinical trial to be approved is extremely high, with the PATHWAYS trial going through rigorous rounds of scientific, clinical, ethical and regulatory review. It was approved by an independent NIHR funding committee. The final protocol was subject to rigorous approval processes through both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority – including review by an independent Research Ethics Committee. \r\n\r\nThe Commission on Human Medicines also considered information on the trial in detail and made recommendations that were considered and adopted by the study team. With the strongest safeguards possible, a trial of this kind is the only way to build a sufficiently high-quality evidence base to inform decisions on the future use of this treatment option for this vulnerable and distressed group of young people.\r\n\r\nProtecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is the primary concern and there are strict eligibility criteria in place to join the PATHWAYS clinical trial. Parental consent is an integral component, with the parent needing to not only agree to their child’s involvement but also demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, and what is currently known and unknown about its effects. Informed assent from the child will also be required. This will include the young person explaining in their own words to the clinician what the risks are and what they understand by those risks. \r\n\r\nThe only children to get to that stage will have already been diagnosed with gender incongruence for at least two years, will have received tailored psychosocial support, and will have been deemed clinically appropriate, within the context of the study, by both their NHS care team and the National Multi-Disciplinary Team. They will also have had to be assessed as being in stable physical and mental health.\r\n\r\nThose young people receiving (or not receiving) puberty suppressing hormones will continue to receive other elements of routine support and treatment provided as part of newly established NHS Children and Young People’s Gender Services, whose practices have been shaped by the recommendations of the Cass Review. Participants can leave the trial at any time, at which point they would receive support in their withdrawal from puberty suppression as well as ongoing psychosocial support from NHS services.\r\n\r\nHealthcare must always be led by evidence. Puberty suppression has been provided in the past with insufficient evidence, and young people have been left to go without the support and care that they need. This Government is determined to change that, and it is only through evidence-based research that we can determine the most effective way to support these young people. We believe that children and young people with gender incongruence have the same right to participate in ethically-approved research, and to receive evidence-based care, as any other group of individuals seeking the support of the NHS.\r\n\r\nFinally, it is important to reiterate that gender incongruence is an internationally recognised disorder. It is defined in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision as “a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex”. It does not describe girls and boys experimenting with gender norms, which for many children is a normal part of growing up. These important differences are properly understood and reflected in the new model of care being provided by the NHS.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.266Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T13:22:52.439Z"},"debate":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":"petition","id":707189,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/707189.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Tighten the rules on political donations","background":"We want the government to:\r\nRemove loopholes that allow wealthy foreign individuals to make donations into UK political parties (e.g. by funnelling through UK registered companies).\r\n\r\nCap all donations to a reasonable amount.\r\n\r\nReview limits on the fines that can be levied for breaking the rules","additional_details":"We think that ultra-rich individuals or foreign state actors should not be able to use their money to give unfair advantage to a political party in order to further their own agenda.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":144783,"created_at":"2024-12-02T10:01:56.641Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T16:30:48.949Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-22T10:51:59.451Z","closed_at":"2025-07-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-02T21:13:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-25T22:37:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-26T17:21:11.949Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-28T17:20:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-31","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-02T10:39:37.385Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-26","summary":"The Government is committed to protecting our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties and is currently developing proposals to give effect to this commitment.","details":"The UK has a strong political finance framework which makes it clear that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations. Foreign donations are not permitted, with the exception of donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Irish political parties. This recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence.\r\n\r\nWhile it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognises the continued risk posed by actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. We do not think the current rules are strong enough. That is why we made the commitment in our manifesto to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties.\r\n\r\nThere are currently no plans to put a cap on donations. Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they are able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate. By law it is already the responsibility of political parties to take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible.  The Government will take any necessary steps to ensure those requirements are tightened and abided by.\r\n\r\nThe Electoral Commission plays an important role in the UK’s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for promoting public confidence in democratic processes, ensuring their integrity, and combatting the threat of foreign interference. As part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we are also reviewing whether any changes are required to the role and powers of the regulator to ensure enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law whilst remaining proportionate.\r\n\r\nThe Government is currently developing proposals to give effect to these commitments and will introduce legislative measures in due course. In doing so, we are carefully considering evidence from a range of stakeholders, including recommendations from parliamentary committees and the Electoral Commission.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2025-02-26T17:21:11.939Z","updated_at":"2025-02-26T17:23:51.559Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-31","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-31/debates/9423D9DE-9B8F-453B-B92B-DA0C40758AC9/PoliticalDonations","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/Au9ERa9wE1c?si=U9p72hCgQGsctZrn&t=200","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0052/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700005,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700005.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible","background":"I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability & freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn't brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.","additional_details":"I think the Single Market would bring inward investment, frictionless trade and economic growth benefiting industry and consumers alike.\r\n\r\nFull membership could also amplify the UK’s voice on the global stage, allowing it to influence EU policy and regulations, including trade, security and environment.\r\n\r\nJoining the EU could provide access to science & research projects and give UK citizens the right to live, work & study across member states, enhancing cultural exchange & personal opportunities.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":136650,"created_at":"2024-10-30T14:28:44.914Z","updated_at":"2025-09-17T17:13:14.611Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-10-31T17:46:29.187Z","closed_at":"2025-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T14:52:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-07T02:09:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-11-19T14:28:18.247Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-11T17:25:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-24","debate_outcome_at":"2025-04-17T17:46:46.227Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-11-19","summary":"The Government was elected on a manifesto that made clear there will be no return to EU membership. However, we are determined to reset the UK-EU relationship, putting it on a more solid footing.","details":"Since taking office this Government has been working to reset the relationship with our European friends. As part of this, the Government aims to strengthen ties, secure a broad-based security pact and tackle barriers to trade with the EU.\r\n\r\nThe President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister have met several times and have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and UK. This is not about renegotiating or relitigating Brexit, but about looking forward and realising the potential of the UK-EU relationship.\r\n\r\nIn particular, we want to work closely to address wider global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices, which pose fundamental challenges to the shared values of the United Kingdom and the European Union and provide the strategic driver for stronger cooperation.\r\n\r\nThere will be issues which are difficult to resolve, as well as areas on which we will stand firm. We have been clear we are not going back to the arguments of the past; we are not rejoining the single market or customs union and we will not return to freedom of movement. But we are committed to finding constructive ways to work together and deliver for the British people. This means we will respect international law and shared institutions. We are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. And we are committed to staying in the ECHR.\r\n\r\nWe will now work with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen cooperation for mutual benefit, such as the economy, energy, security and resilience. We have been clear that the trading relationship can be improved. We have already said we will seek to negotiate a veterinary/SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food and will work to help our touring artists and aim to secure mutual recognition for professional qualifications to help open up new markets for UK service exporters.\r\n\r\nWe are working with the higher education sector to ensure our world leading universities continue to attract the brightest and best and support our economy. Having associated to Horizon Europe, the UK wants its scientists, researchers and businesses to continue to work together with partners in Europe and elsewhere.\r\n\r\nThis is about turning the page – reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past. We will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. And we will strengthen co-operation to keep our people safe.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2024-11-19T14:28:18.240Z","updated_at":"2024-11-19T14:30:19.687Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-24/debates/843E0908-311C-4791-BB00-997E88C5665B/EuropeanUnionUKMembership","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdFBSAvAhU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0067/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":711021,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/711021.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Retain legal right to assessment and support in education for children with SEND","background":"Support in education is a vital legal right of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We ask the government to commit to maintaining the existing law, so that vulnerable children with SEND can access education and achieve their potential.","additional_details":"It has been reported that the government is considering making changes to The Children and Families Act 2014, which sets out the legal rights to assessment and statutory support in education for disabled children. We believe that these rights do not only help vulnerable children and their families - they also reduce costs to the state in adulthood. We think that removing statutory obligations on local authorities could mean many children do not get the support they need to reach their potential.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":132789,"created_at":"2024-12-22T17:55:09.795Z","updated_at":"2025-10-15T11:27:42.401Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-09T13:48:17.393Z","closed_at":"2025-10-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-22T18:30:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-18T20:13:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-04T14:48:16.778Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-11T20:55:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-09-15","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-15T11:27:42.401Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-05","summary":"There will always be a legal right to additional support for children with SEND. No decisions have been made on changes to legislation. We are engaging with families on improvements to SEND provision.","details":"As part of our Plan for Change, we are determined to improve the system of support for children with SEND and their families. We are working to restore families’ trust by ensuring early years, schools and post-16 settings have the tools to better identify and meet need earlier and ensure more children and young people can receive their education in inclusive mainstream settings with their peers.\r\n\r\nWe are committed to:\r\n\r\n•\tensuring a legal right to additional support for children and young people with SEND;\r\n•\tensuring all children and young people have the support they need to achieve and thrive;\r\n•\timproving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensuring swift access to special schools for children and young people with the most complex needs; and\r\n•\trestoring confidence in the system of support for children and young people with SEND so that they all get the chance to achieve and thrive in their education.    \r\n\r\nAny changes we make will improve support for families, stop parents from having to fight for support, and protect effective support currently in place. \r\n\r\nDetails of the government's intended approach to strengthening the SEND system will be set out in a Schools White Paper in the autumn. \r\n\r\nAs part of developing our approach, we are working with parents and young people, organisations which represent parents, local authorities, SEND organisations and education settings across the country, as well as sector experts. \r\n\r\nWe share the widespread view that improvements to the SEND system are badly needed. The forthcoming consultation on the White Paper will be key to shaping the reforms to the SEND system, so that every child and young person can achieve and thrive and we continue to break down barriers to opportunity.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education\r\n\r\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/711021)","created_at":"2025-06-04T14:48:16.776Z","updated_at":"2025-09-03T13:55:46.761Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-09-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-09-15/debates/E7A26973-7F7B-41E0-8A02-689BEA99F336/ChildrenWithSENDAssessmentsAndSupport","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TymDgNxR8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07020/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700086,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700086.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 16 as the minimum age for children to have social media","background":"We believe social media companies should be banned from letting children under 16 create social media accounts.","additional_details":"We think this would help:\r\n1. Stop online bullying\r\n2. Stop children being influenced by false posts\r\n3. Stop children seeing content that encourages violence/could be harmful for their future.\r\n\r\nWe believe social media is having more of a negative impact to children than a positive one. We think people should be of an age where they can make decisions about their life before accessing social media applications. We believe that we really need to introduce a minimum age of 16 to access social media for the sake of our children’s future along with their mental and physical health.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":132102,"created_at":"2024-10-30T21:01:09.426Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T15:29:43.842Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-07T18:15:53.449Z","closed_at":"2025-05-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T21:18:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-10T10:35:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-11-26T08:48:50.831Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-19T09:50:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-02-24","debate_outcome_at":"2025-02-26T16:48:21.496Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-17","summary":"The government is aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones and access to social media. The government is not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this incredibly important issue. It is right that tech companies should take responsibility to ensure their products are safe for UK children, and the Online Safety Act 2023 is a crucial tool in holding them to account for this. \r\n\r\nThe government is aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones and access to social media; however, the government is not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16. Children face a significant risk of harm online and we understand that families are concerned about their children experiencing online bullying, encountering content that encourages violence, or other content which may be harmful. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online. However, this is a complicated issue. We live in a digital age and must strike the right balance so that children can access the benefits of being online and using smartphones while we continue to put their safety first. Furthermore, we must also protect the right of parents to make decisions about their child’s upbringing.  \r\n\r\nThe current evidence on screentime is mixed and a systematic review by the UK Chief Medical Officers in 2019 does not show a causal link between screen-based activities and mental health problems, though some studies have found associations with increased anxiety or depression. Therefore, the government is focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action. Last month, the government commissioned a feasibility study into future research to understand the ongoing impact of smartphones and social media on children, to grow the evidence base in this area. \r\n\r\nThe government’s priority is working with Ofcom to effectively implement the Online Safety Act 2023, so social media users, especially children, can benefit from the Act’s protections as soon as possible. Additionally, the DSIT Secretary of State has outlined the government’s five online safety priorities through a draft Statement of Strategic Priorities. These priorities, which include safety by design, focus on delivering the safest online experiences for all users, in particular children, through the Act. \r\n\r\nThe Act puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety, with the strongest provisions in the Act for children. \r\n \r\nSocial media platforms, other user-to-user services and search services that are likely to be accessed by children will have a duty to take steps to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content that has been designated as ‘primary priority’ content. This includes pornography and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide. Online services must also put in place age-appropriate measures to protect children from ‘priority’ content that is harmful to children, including bullying, abusive or hateful content and content that encourages or depicts serious violence. Under the Act, where services have minimum age limits, they must specify how these are enforced and do so consistently. Ofcom’s draft proposals would mean that user-to-user services which do not ban primary priority or priority harmful content should introduce highly effective age checks to prevent children from accessing the entire site or app, or age-restrict areas of the service hosting such harmful content. \r\n\r\nFinally, companies in scope of the Act must take steps to protect all users from illegal content and criminal activity on their services.   \r\n\r\nIn her letter to parliamentarians on 17 October, Ofcom’s CEO, Melanie Dawes, stressed that Ofcom’s codes are iterative. The letter also noted that Ofcom is seeking to strike a balance between speed and comprehensiveness with its initial codes and stated that Ofcom is seeking to do more work on minimum age limits in the future. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Act also updated Ofcom’s statutory duty to promote media literacy. Media literacy can also help tackle a wide variety of online safety issues for all internet users, including children. Additionally, Ofcom is required to raise awareness of the nature and impact of misinformation and disinformation, and to take steps to build the public's capability in establishing the reliability, accuracy, and authenticity of content found on regulated services. These duties are already in force. \r\n\r\nThe steps Ofcom has set out will represent a positive shift for how children and young people experience the online world. We expect that Ofcom's finalised Children’s Safety Codes of Practice will come into effect by the summer of 2025. However, the Act is designed so it can keep up with evolving areas, and Ofcom has been clear that the Children’s Codes of Practice will be updated as the evidence base of new and existing online harms grows. \r\n\r\nWe will continue to work with stakeholders to balance important considerations regarding the safety and privacy of children. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\r\n\r\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/700086)","created_at":"2024-11-26T08:48:50.826Z","updated_at":"2025-01-07T18:05:12.135Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-02-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-02-24/debates/E10FCC57-9169-4D7A-A90A-76FE1BD9309E/SocialMediaUseMinimumAge","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyVw4-cvZ2s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0036/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/pet-age-social-media/index.html?utm_source=petitioners&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=[pet-age-social-media]","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737660,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"By-elections to be called automatically when MPs defect to another party","background":"When an MP decides they want to defect to another party a by-election should be automatically triggered to allow the constituents the opportunity have their democratic right to agree or not with their elected official.","additional_details":"Regardless of political views I believe you vote for both the individual candidates and their stance on issues and the more general direction and policies of the party they stand for. When an MP decides that they no longer wish to be a member of the party they stood for when you voted for them the electorate should have the opportunity to also change their mind by voting in a by-election.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":129335,"created_at":"2025-08-14T18:20:00.840Z","updated_at":"2026-03-17T10:04:59.350Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-04T09:00:28.450Z","closed_at":"2026-03-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-19T19:49:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-17T14:35:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.802Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-22T23:06:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-17T09:39:09.032Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"There are no plans to make changes to the current constitutional arrangements, whereby voters elect individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.","details":"It is an established constitutional principle that at UK General Elections, voters cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.\r\n\r\nWhen a Member of Parliament (MP) decides to change their party affiliation, it is for the MP to decide whether to continue to sit in the House of Commons (as a representative of their new political party or as an independent MP) or to stand down from their seat to trigger a by-election and, if they wish, seek re-election. \r\n\r\nThere are no plans to make changes to the current arrangements.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.799Z","updated_at":"2026-02-10T08:23:06.700Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-16/debates/3369EB1A-E60E-4478-9299-BEF08EA9AA30/MemberDefectionsAutomaticBy-Elections","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/f6d6zJOGBww?si=mQxyXm69EIxawd1a&t=268","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10527/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701159,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701159.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow transgender people to self-identify their legal gender.","background":"We believe the government should change legislation to make it easier for trans people of all ages to change their legal gender without an official diagnosis of gender dysphoria.","additional_details":"Transgender people have a history of major discrimination in the UK and around the world. Major studies in reputable journals have shown a positive correlation between allowing trans people to live as their gender, rather than their sex assigned at birth in regards to positive mental and physical health outcomes.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":128749,"created_at":"2024-11-07T19:47:01.793Z","updated_at":"2025-09-15T09:45:21.071Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-12T15:27:26.042Z","closed_at":"2025-06-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-07T19:53:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-28T13:44:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.647Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-22T14:42:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-05-19","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-20T08:52:49.451Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-03-19","summary":"The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation that reflects the seriousness of changing a person’s legal gender. The Government will not be introducing self-identification.","details":"The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad.\r\n\r\nThis Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the rights it affords to transgender people in this country. The GRA has operated for 20 years and has allowed trans people to be recognised in law. The Act enables trans people to live, work and die in their acquired gender and this is important in ensuring that trans people can live with dignity and respect.\r\n\r\nThe Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex. The Government is committed to modernising, simplifying and reforming the legal gender recognition process to remove indignities for trans people whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We believe this strikes the right balance, and the Government will not introduce self-identification as part of these reforms.\r\n\r\nThe government is committed to ensuring trans people can live their lives as they wish. In line with the King’s Speech, this Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.\r\n\r\nWe are also working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime to make them aggravated offences.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.644Z","updated_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.644Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-05-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-05-19/debates/2801067E-044C-4628-A022-FC405ABBA9DA/GenderSelf-Identification","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/P3Pap46rD9s?feature=shared&t=247","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0103/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727514,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727514.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the school week to four days a week","background":"We urge the Government to require all schools to reduce the school week to four instead of five days by making each school day one hour longer whilst requiring the school week to be four instead of five days.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":126014,"created_at":"2025-05-14T09:44:32.926Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T16:54:56.582Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-04T10:13:43.683Z","closed_at":"2025-12-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-14T10:01:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-18T06:28:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-10-10T12:00:38.659Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-20T13:29:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-05","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-06T10:12:33.567Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-10-10","summary":"The government has no plans to reduce the school week to four days. Regular attendance at school is vital for children’s education, well-being and long-term development as well as parental employment.","details":"The government has no plans to require schools to reduce the length of the school week from five days to four by adding an additional hour to each of the four days.\r\n\r\nTo ensure children across the country have sufficient time in school to enable them to achieve and thrive, the Government has set a minimum expectation that all state-funded, mainstream schools will deliver a minimum school week of 32 hours and 30 minutes. Consistency in the length of the school week is essential for providing equal learning opportunities that will enable children and young people to achieve and thrive. While most state funded schools already meet this requirement, schools that don’t are encouraged to move towards doing so as soon as possible. \r\n\r\nReducing the school week to four days whilst still delivering the minimum expectation would mean a minimum school day of over 8 hours. Schools would have to deliver an additional 1 hour and 38 minutes per day across the four days to meet the weekly minimum requirement. \r\n\r\nReducing the school week would also have a damaging impact on parents, many of whom would need to make additional arrangements for childcare, reduce their working hours or potentially leave the workforce altogether. This would in turn put families under financial strain and have a damaging effect on the country’s economy.\r\n\r\nBeing in school, enjoying a broad and balanced education and achieving academically are key protective factors that help to promote mental health and well-being. Considering the wider benefits of time in school, the government therefore has no plans to reduce the school week from five days to four.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2025-10-10T12:00:38.656Z","updated_at":"2025-10-13T12:40:29.512Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-05/debates/19F9E3C3-4B57-4221-BC1F-38C236441355/LengthOfTheSchoolWeek","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/JJDrsAcGzHY","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07148/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/length-school-week/index.html","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750236,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750236.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not merge section 1 & 2 regulations on firearms licenses","background":"Keep section 1 firearm & section 2 shotgun licensing separate. I think this would help to protect law-abiding owners, the shooting industry, & rural communities. Policies should focus on real public safety issues without burdening responsible citizens or damaging heritage & livelihoods.","additional_details":"I want Parliament to keep Section 1 and 2 licensing separate. I think this would help to protect law-abiding owners, the shooting trade, and rural communities. I think merging licenses would create delays, higher costs, and bureaucracy without improving public safety. Policies should focus on what I think are more real threats like illegal weapons and knife crime, while helping to preserve heritage, livelihoods, and participation in shooting sports.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":122750,"created_at":"2025-11-10T13:58:45.843Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T10:27:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-11T12:12:43.647Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-10T14:36:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-12T00:41:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.717Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-21T21:48:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-23","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:22:38.626Z","creator_name":"Lisa Amers","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-06","summary":"The Government has committed to a public consultation on strengthening licensing controls on shotguns. We will consider all views submitted during the consultation before deciding on further action. ","details":"The Government recognises that shotguns and firearms are used for a range of legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and hunting, and the vast majority are used safely and responsibly. We also recognise that shooting contributes to the rural economy.\r\n\r\nThe Government is, however, mindful that legally held shotguns have been used in a number of homicides and other incidents in recent years including the fatal shootings in Keyham, Plymouth, in August 2021.  It is for this reason that we committed to having a public consultation on strengthening the licensing controls on shotguns, to bring them more into line with controls on other firearms in the interests of public safety.  We announced this on 13 February 2025 when we published the Government response to the 2023 firearms licensing consultation which had been run by the previous Government.  \r\n\r\nRecommendations relating to strengthening shotgun controls had been made to the Government by the Coroner in his preventing future deaths report issued in May 2023 and followed the inquest into the deaths of those who were shot and killed in Plymouth in August 2021. Similar recommendations on shotgun controls were also made in the report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following its investigation into the Plymouth shootings, and by the Scottish Affairs Committee in its report following a fatal shooting with a shotgun in Skye in August 2022.  \r\n\r\nWe intend to publish the consultation shortly.  No decisions have yet been made on whether and what changes might be necessary. We will consider carefully the views put forward during the consultation once it is completed, before deciding what further action to take. We will also provide an impact assessment in relation to any changes that the Government intends to bring forward after the consultation, in the normal way.     \r\n\r\nPublic safety is our priority, and our focus on shotguns and other firearms sits alongside the Government’s aim to halve knife crime in the next decade, which forms a part of the Government’s Safer Street Mission.  We are driving an ambitious programme of work focusing on prevention and enforcement, as well as strengthening knife legislation.  This includes banning weapons that have no place on our streets, targeting irresponsible sellers, giving the police more powers to deal with those supplying and owning weapons for violent purposes, intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime, and bringing together experts through the Knife-Enabled Robbery Taskforce and the Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.714Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.714Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-23/debates/7FA45CF2-9295-474B-9597-FA185FE366AF/FirearmsLicensing","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/fURXLFk0e7Q","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":736578,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736578.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use","background":"Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans.","additional_details":"Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval.\r\n \r\nIn 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":121854,"created_at":"2025-08-07T21:10:12.188Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T16:18:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-31T10:22:59.264Z","closed_at":"2026-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-07T21:53:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-02T14:09:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.743Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T19:54:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-27","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-29T09:09:44.258Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-13","summary":"The use of animals for development of products for human use remains necessary. The Government therefore does not agree to end testing on dogs and other animals for testing and research purposes.","details":"Our published Replacing Animals in Science strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/replacing-animals-in-science-strategy) will accelerate the roll out of safe and effective alternatives to phase out animal testing in all but exceptional circumstances, delivering on our manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing\". By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use, while continuing to support crucial research and innovation.\r\n\r\nScientific advances make the prospects for change better than they have ever been, and we are supporting the acceleration of advances in biomedical science and technologies, to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. This includes stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling and AI techniques based on very large data sets.\r\n\r\nThe strategy is backed by £75m of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30m for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM) – a new centre to make the path to regulatory approval for new alternatives as straightforward as possible. It also includes £30m for a preclinical translational models hub – an institute that will bring together data, technology and expertise to promote collaboration between researchers.\r\n\r\nThe strategy includes a target that aims to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic (PK) studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. The strategy also sets a target to aim to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.\r\n\r\nThe strategy builds on our current approach, to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs), and to ensure that the UK continues to have a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards. The UK has a world leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides core funding for the National Centre for 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to support the appropriate use of animals where reliable and effective alternatives are not yet available. Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). However, we are determined to work with regulators and scientists as we move towards phasing out the use of animals. Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment.\r\n\r\nThe argument claiming over 90% of drugs fail in human trials, despite being tested on animals, disregards drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable for use in human clinical trials. Drugs fail for a variety of reasons and animals are used for safety screening as well as efficacy modelling. Moreover, not all types of drugs fail at the same rate. Many do better and success rates vary widely by treatment type.\r\n\r\nThe welfare of animals in science is ensured by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (ASPA, 1986) and enforced by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). The use of animals in science is highly regulated, including a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. The UK Home Office regulator conducts an integrated assessment of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections. The Government has published and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.\r\n\r\nASPA mandates the development and application of alternative methods, including non-animal methods, as part of implementation of the 3Rs (the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animals used in research). Under ASPA, research which uses animals is only conducted where there is no alternative available, using the fewest number of animals and procedures. Until full replacement of the use of animals in science is possible, the UK’s support of refinement approaches, led by the NC3Rs, works to reduce animal suffering as much as possible.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology ","created_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-27/debates/E58B5F78-ACDD-4354-9FD6-CBAB8F3115C3/AnimalTesting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/VemDcod-F3E?si=WTR6QKGy_Rsl2Zny&t=253","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10644/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":728677,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/728677.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Funding so all infants are offered Type 1 Diabetes Testing in routine care","background":"Fund mandatory offer of testing for Type 1 Diabetes in babies, toddlers, and young children as a routine part of medical assessments at the point of care.","additional_details":"We believe that lives could be saved by doing this. Too many children are misdiagnosed, and this can tragically lead to loss of life.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":121152,"created_at":"2025-05-27T11:22:47.229Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T10:15:49.601Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-20T12:20:25.312Z","closed_at":"2025-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-27T11:31:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-04T08:16:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.718Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-02T23:34:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-09","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:15:49.601Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-17","summary":"NHS England provides diabetes care in children. Due to insufficient evidence supporting routine mandatory testing for paediatric type 1 diabetes it has no plans to introduce this at the current time.","details":"Type 1 diabetes is diagnosed with a blood test that checks blood glucose (sugar) levels. It is the responsibility of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to provide guidance and quality standards on the treatment and care of diabetes in England. NICE NG18 guideline for type 1 and 2 diabetes provides clinical guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and care of children and young people. It states that clinicians should be aware of the signs of type 1 diabetes in children and young people, including:\r\n\r\n•\thyperglycaemia\r\n•\tpolyuria (passing urine more often)\r\n•\tpolydipsia (excess thirst)\r\n•\tweight loss\r\n•\texcessive tiredness.\r\n\r\nNG18 also recommends that children and young people with suspected type 1 diabetes are referred immediately (on the same day) to a multidisciplinary paediatric diabetes team with the competencies needed to confirm diagnosis and provide immediate care.\r\n\r\nNHS England is not aware of there being any evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of the mandatory offer of testing for type 1 diabetes in babies, toddlers, and young children as a routine part of medical assessments.\r\n\r\nNHS England works closely with research charity Diabetes UK which has worked to raise public and health care professional awareness of the common symptoms of type 1 diabetes, known as the 4Ts: Toilet, Thirsty, Tired and Thinner. Further information of this campaign can be found here:https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-diabetes/type-1-diabetes/symptoms\r\n\r\nEarly identification of type 1 diabetes through screening for antibodies prior to the onset of physical symptoms can provide clinical benefits, including helping to prevent diagnosis at the point of diabetic keto-acidosis (DKA). However, there is not currently a national screening programme in England.\r\n\r\nThe UK National Screening Committee advises the NHS on screening programmes and, in 2019 concluded that more research and evidence for the benefits of screening for autoimmune type 1 diabetes was required.\r\n\r\nA National Institute for Healthcare Research-funded study called ELSA (EarLy Surveillance for Autoimmune diabetes) is currently underway in England exploring the feasibility and benefits of screening in children aged 3 to 13. NHS England is working closely with researchers and leading experts in this field to ensure that emerging evidence is considered in the development of future national guidance and is reviewed ahead of further decisions on the availability of screening.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.711Z","updated_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.711Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-03-09/debates/140525A1-26CC-48A6-8FB9-E2E91CB67807/Type1DiabetesInfantTesting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqh0F62e-Q","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0046/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"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":"petition","id":734311,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/734311.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give the British Public the Right to Vote No Confidence in the Government","background":"We call on Parliament to pass a law giving the British public the power to trigger a vote of no confidence in the ruling government.\r\nCurrently, only MPs can do this. We believe the public should also have the democratic right to express when they’ve lost trust in those elected to lead.","additional_details":"We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened. \r\n \r\nWe think being given this right would strengthen accountability, uphold democratic values, and ensure the government remains answerable not just to Parliament, but to the people it serves.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":120817,"created_at":"2025-07-23T20:55:57.496Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T10:17:37.823Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-06T13:53:48.538Z","closed_at":"2026-02-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-24T06:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-16T20:07:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.512Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-01T00:30:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:17:37.823Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-09-04","summary":"The Government holds office by virtue of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the public. There are no plans to change these arrangements.","details":"In our parliamentary democracy, a government holds office by virtue of its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, the membership of which is chosen by the electorate in a general election. It is through their votes, and through their Members of Parliament, that the voice of the electorate can be heard.\r\n\r\nVoters are able to make representations to their MPs, who in turn represent the views and interests of their constituents in Parliament. There are no plans to change these arrangements.\r\n\r\nThis Government is focused on renewing Britain’s future. We know that for working people that means more money in their pockets, rebuilding our NHS, and strengthening our borders. That’s why, through our Plan for Change, we’ve kick-started the economic growth needed to turn these commitments into reality. We know there’s plenty more to do, but with the foundations fixed, the work of securing Britain’s future can begin.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.509Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.509Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-02/debates/DC5D1535-7685-45F4-BFBE-3E1EFAD284C3/PublicRightToAVoteOfNoConfidence","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XUGkwalP08","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0038/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":740671,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740671.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce new tax code for state pensioners with double the personal allowance","background":"We want the government to introduce a new tax code for state pensioners, set at double the basic threshold. If this was implemented, pensioners would receive a higher tax-exempt limit, but wealthier pensioners would still pay tax.","additional_details":"We think that people with small private or workplace pensions are currently being taxed unfairly.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":119206,"created_at":"2025-09-10T14:25:57.624Z","updated_at":"2026-04-02T16:46:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-01T12:27:17.567Z","closed_at":"2026-04-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-10T23:20:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-15T15:18:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.659Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-11T22:53:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-09","summary":"The State Pension is the foundation of support for pensioners. The Government is committed to a fair tax system but doubling the Personal Allowance for pensioners would be untargeted and costly.","details":"The State Pension is the foundation of support available to pensioners. The government is committed to the Triple Lock – one of the most generous State Pension uprating mechanisms in the world – for the duration of this Parliament. This will increase the basic and new State Pension by 4.8% next April, boosting pensioner incomes by up to £575 a year and strengthening retirement security. \r\n\r\nThe Personal Allowance is already the highest amongst G7 countries. Doubling this allowance for all pensioners would be costly and untargeted – disproportionately benefitting higher income pensioners.\r\n\r\nAs announced at the Budget, the government will ease the administrative burden for pensioners whose sole income is the basic or new State Pension without any increments so that they do not have to pay small amounts of tax via Simple Assessment from 2027-28, if the new or basic State Pension exceeds the Personal Allowance from that point. The government is exploring the best way to achieve this and will set out more detail next year.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.656Z","updated_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.656Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762640.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum to bring the water industry into public ownership","background":"Hold a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership. Water is a basic human necessity; we believe our privatised system has failed, so the public should decide who owns and controls it.","additional_details":"Private water companies have about 62 million captive customers whose bills have delivered over £85 Bn to shareholders; money that in public ownership could have been spent on fixing our infrastructure. No other country in the world has privatised water like this. We believe that proposed government reforms to regulation show that water company owners are being favoured over the public, and this is not right in a democracy. A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":117167,"created_at":"2026-02-27T11:05:06.660Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:56:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T17:05:47.359Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-27T11:32:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-08T17:19:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.962Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-30T11:38:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashley Paul Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-23","summary":"Nationalisation would take years and involve complex legal processes, diverting effort from cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. We are taking action now through stronger regulation and enforcement.","details":"The government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of the water industry. Water is a vital public service, and people rightly expect clean rivers, reliable services and greater accountability from water companies.\r\n\r\nSome campaigners have called for a binding referendum on returning the water industry to public ownership. However, the government has no intention of nationalising the water sector currently and does not believe that a national referendum would deliver faster improvements for customers or the environment. Any move to nationalisation would take many years to implement, involve significant legal and operational complexity, and risk prolonged uncertainty and disruption across the sector. That would divert time, energy and attention away from the urgent work needed now to tackle sewage pollution, protect public health and improve water quality.\r\n\r\nThat is why the government is delivering the most significant reform of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are introducing a single, more powerful regulator for the water sector, bringing together existing bodies and giving it the authority and expertise needed to hold water companies properly to account. A Chief Engineer will sit at the heart of the new regulator, ending the days of water companies marking their own homework and ensuring that regulators can independently assess the condition of pipes, pumps and treatment works.\r\n\r\nThe new system will introduce MOT style checks on water companies’ infrastructure, with tougher consequences for those that fail, alongside no notice inspections so there will be nowhere and no chance to hide poor performance. Dedicated supervisory teams and stronger intervention powers will allow regulators to act earlier and more decisively where companies are falling short.\r\n\r\nWe are also improving transparency so both the public and regulators can see what is happening in near real time. Water companies are required to publish detailed data on sewage discharges, and reforms will go further to make performance information clearer, more accessible and easier to understand. This transparency will support better public awareness, enable communities to scrutinise performance locally, and strengthen links between environmental protection and public health, including through the Chief Medical Officer’s Public Health Taskforce.\r\n\r\nThe government has already acted to strengthen accountability and enforcement. We have banned over £4 million in bonuses for executives at polluting water companies, introduced prison sentences for executives who cover up pollution incidents, and backed the Environment Agency with a record £153 million budget for water enforcement this financial year. This has enabled a record 10,000 inspections of water company sites and more than 177 criminal investigations into suspected wrongdoing.\r\n\r\nThe government is focused on securing the fastest and most effective improvements for customers, communities and the environment. We believe this is best achieved through decisive regulatory reform and enforcement, rather than a referendum that would delay progress and distract from delivering real change on the ground.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z","updated_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z"},"debate":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":"petition","id":737327,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737327.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require non-stunned and stunned meat to be labelled accordingly","background":"We think it should be required that the labelling of non-stunned and stunned meat be clearly labelled throughout the food chain. This includes shops, supermarkets, suppliers, fast food and restaurants","additional_details":"This would include labels on every product available to consumers\r\nWe think UK government should implement mandatory method of slaughter labelling for all meat products Stunned or Non-Stunned. For all industries linked to food, including but not limited to shops, supermarkets, schools, restaurants, fast food, cafes and suppliers\r\n\r\nWe think this promotes consumer choice, enhances transparency, especially for religion and ethics\r\n\r\nWe think no one should be forced to consume food which doesn't meet their ethical and religious choices, they should have the right to choose without prejudice","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115954,"created_at":"2025-08-12T21:54:34.983Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.007Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-01T15:46:45.172Z","closed_at":"2026-03-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-12T22:46:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-17T23:25:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-10T16:01:22.926Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-24T10:11:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-22","summary":"Whilst there is no regulatory requirement for labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, any information of this nature must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer.","details":"The government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but the government respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. The first national legislative requirement for stunning before slaughter was – in England and Wales – the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933. The Act also introduced an exception from the requirement to stun when animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for the food of Muslims and Jews.\r\n\r\nWhilst currently there are no regulations that require the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, where any information of this nature is provided it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. Additionally, major retailers have sourcing policies requiring that fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. They may operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will be clearly labelled. Some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, require stunning before slaughter.\r\n\r\nA consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method of production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life which should be covered by the standards. The government’s response to this consultation is available on https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fairer-food-labelling. The government will consider the potential role of this labelling as part of the ongoing development of the government’s wider animal welfare strategy. This includes consideration of the period of life that could be covered by labelling standards, up to and including whether the animal is stunned before slaughter. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\r\n\r\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/737327","created_at":"2025-11-10T16:01:22.924Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T15:46:40.358Z"},"debate":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":"petition","id":744215,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744215.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into Russian influence on UK politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK.","additional_details":"We believe recent events underscore the urgency of this issue.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":115842,"created_at":"2025-09-29T09:54:02.162Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T12:10:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-10T11:31:03.081Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-29T13:41:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-23T16:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.678Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T16:11:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-09","debate_outcome_at":"2026-02-10T09:28:07.173Z","creator_name":"Alexander Proctor","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-15","summary":"Russian interference threats to the UK will be examined as part of the Independent Review of Foreign Financial Interference. Review findings will be presented to the House for scrutiny in late March.","details":"The Government shares the public's concern regarding the threat from Russian interference to UK democracy. The Government will not tolerate attempts to interfere in our politics from any foreign actor and we will take all measures necessary to defend our democracy.\r\n\r\nThe UK Government has already announced an independent review, in light of the deeply concerning evidence of Russia’s attempt to influence democracy in the UK. In December 2025, the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to lead the independent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics, including efforts by Russia. The review will thoroughly assess current financial rules and safeguards, and provide recommendations to mitigate future interference risks. This will include an examination of recent cases of attempted interference in UK politics by a range of foreign actors, including events surrounding the conviction of Reform UK’s former Wales leader, Nathan Gill, for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian views. \r\n\r\nReview conclusions will directly inform the major reforms to protect our elections from foreign interference, which will be set out in a forthcoming elections and democracy bill, and support the Government’s Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan, which aims to make UK politics a harder target for foreign threat actors.\r\n\r\nLaunching a new, parallel inquiry at this time would be premature as it would risk prejudging the conclusions of the ongoing review and duplicating its efforts. However, the Government will present the findings of the report by the end of March providing an opportunity for further scrutiny and debate.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z","updated_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-09/debates/F9F28AFA-E1F3-449C-B18B-63DDCABC411E/RussianInfluenceOnUKPoliticsAndDemocracy","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/BXlk5ufZTDM?si=Fh9-aPCwUVHnhcBM&t=240","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/CDP-2026-0021/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701268,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701268.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Don't apply VAT to independent school fees, or remove business rates relief.","background":"Prevent independent schools from having to pay VAT on fees and incurring business rates as a result of new legislation.","additional_details":"We think the Government needs to understand that not all independent school parents are wealthy, appreciate the benefits of independent schools and do better due diligence.\r\nIndependent schools have supported Ukrainian refugees, children with SEN, sharing facilities with public schools and supporting less fortunate families with bursaries. \r\nWe think this policy will split children from established friend networks, familiar environments and place the burden and cost on public schools.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115560,"created_at":"2024-11-09T10:07:29.270Z","updated_at":"2025-06-02T23:00:02.605Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-02T11:30:15.141Z","closed_at":"2025-06-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-09T11:12:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-04T21:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.419Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-12T06:53:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-03","debate_outcome_at":"2025-03-12T16:58:56.691Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-20","summary":"The Government will remove tax breaks for private schools. This will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to deliver the Government’s commitments for children in state schools.","details":"From 1 January 2025, all education services, vocational training, and boarding services provided by private schools for a charge will be subject to 20% VAT. This will apply to any fees charged on or after 29 July 2024 for terms starting 1 January 2025 onwards. Alongside ending the VAT exemption, private schools that are charities in England will no longer be able to claim charitable rate relief. This is intended to take effect from April 2025, subject to Parliamentary passage. Together, these policies are expected to raise c.£1.8 billion a year by 2029/30.\r\n\r\nAround 94% of school children in the UK attend state schools. Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget in 2025/26 in England, increasing per pupil funding in real terms.\r\n\r\nThe Government has carefully considered the likely impacts of these policies, and the Government's costings have been scrutinised and certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. On the VAT policy, the Government has published a detailed costing note and Tax Impact and Information Note, which are viewable online. The Government also conducted a technical consultation, which received over 17,000 responses, all of which were carefully considered before the final policy design was confirmed. The Government’s response to this consultation is also viewable online. \r\n\r\nEnding the VAT break for private schools does not mean that schools must increase fees by 20%. On average, the Government expects fees to rise by 10%. However, some schools have already said that they will cap fee increases at 5%, or indeed, absorb the full VAT cost themselves. The number of pupils in private schools has remained steady despite a 75% real terms increase in average private school fees since 2000. The Government is confident that the vast majority of parents will be able to keep their child in private school, even if fees increase. \r\n\r\nThe Government recognises, however, that some parents may not be able, or willing, to pay higher fees. The Government estimates that, in the long-term, 37,000 pupils will leave or never enter the UK private school sector as a result of the VAT change. The Government estimates that approximately 3,100 additional pupils in England will leave or never enter the private school sector in England as a result of the business rates policy. \r\n\r\nMany of the resulting moves into state schools are expected to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of exam courses. Furthermore, some parents will be opting not to send their child to private school when they otherwise might have done, rather than removing their child from a private school. \r\n\r\nThese policies will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs.  Where a pupil’s place in a private school is funded by a Local Authority or Devolved Government because their needs cannot be met in the state sector, Local Authorities and Devolved Governments will be compensated for the VAT they pay on these pupils’ fees. Furthermore, private schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan will remain eligible for charitable rate relief. The Government therefore expects that most special schools will not be affected by the business rates policy.   \r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to taking a community-wide approach to children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a £1 billion uplift in high needs funding in financial year 2025/26, providing additional support and improving outcomes for the more than a million children in the state sector with SEND. This is in addition to a £740 million capital investment to create more specialist places in mainstream schools. This new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, and create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit pupils’ needs. This will start to pave the way for the Government’s wide-ranging long-term plans for reform to help more pupils with SEND to have their needs met in mainstream schools. \r\n\r\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.415Z","updated_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.415Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-03","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-03/debates/91A910E1-456A-44DA-AB1A-AD36CAA02706/IndependentSchoolsVATAndBusinessRatesRelief","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c0367db8-6dfe-490d-99c9-7d422c75c586","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10125/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752646,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752646.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.","additional_details":"We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":114957,"created_at":"2025-11-29T09:25:32.301Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:11:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-28T13:17:00.515Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T22:08:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T14:14:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.261Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-01T10:27:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andy Kalil","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"The Government does not support a public inquiry, but takes the issue of foreign influence from any country and lobbying in UK politics very seriously and is already taking action to address this.","details":"The Government does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence, and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally. However, the Government takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this. \r\n\r\nThere is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House. As part of open governance, ministers meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of government policy. \r\n\r\nGoing further, the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. This includes looking at whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient. In Parliament, the Government has asked the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct to consider whether the rules relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. \r\n\r\nMost recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft. The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026. \r\n\r\nThe Government responded immediately to the review with two measures via amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations and regulated transactions made by British citizens living abroad, and a moratorium on political donations made using cryptocurrency of any amount. These measures build upon existing measures in the Bill to introduce tougher rules on political interference in the UK’s elections. The Government will consider all of the other recommendations of the Rycroft review and respond to them in due course. \r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727356,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727356.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep 5-year ILR terms to Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visas","background":"We urge the Government to exempt BN(O) visa for Hongkongers from the proposed immigration reforms. We think the current ILR terms must remain unchanged:\r\n \r\n1. Five years of UK residency\r\n2. B1 level English proficiency\r\n3. Passing the Life in the UK Test\r\n","additional_details":"Many Hongkongers on the BN(O) visa, including retired seniors, have started a new life in the UK after the imposition of the National Security Law. They followed the rules with the understanding that after five years, they could settle permanently if they met the English and civic knowledge requirements. We think changing these terms would break the UK's promises and cause stress and uncertainty for those who trusted in this humanitarian route. We urge the Government to honour its original commitment.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":114605,"created_at":"2025-05-12T14:38:59.382Z","updated_at":"2025-12-26T00:00:19.784Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-25T09:49:33.469Z","closed_at":"2025-12-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-12T17:40:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-26T07:41:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:20.235Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-04T21:46:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-09-08","debate_outcome_at":"2025-09-09T09:44:32.234Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-11","summary":"We are firmly committed to the existing Hong Kong community in the UK and all those who will arrive in future. Further details of measures in the Immigration White Paper will be set out in due course.","details":"Settlement in the UK is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen and brings lifelong benefits. Settlement is also an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the wider country.\r\n\r\nAs stated in the Immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, we therefore intend to reform the current rules around settlement so that individuals must earn their right to that privileged immigration status in the UK through the long-term contribution they bring to our country. It is also important that those coming to the UK are able to integrate into society. English language requirements along with the Life in the UK test are essential in supporting that integration.\r\n\r\nThe reforms to earned settlement set out in the White Paper will be set out in detail later this year, and there will be an opportunity for everyone to contribute to the consultation on those changes. We recognise how important this issue is to the Hong Kong community, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us in that consultation before taking any final decisions on how the new rules will operate, which immigration routes they will affect, and when the changes will take effect. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BN(O) route will continue to apply. \r\n\r\nThe detail of the new English Language requirements in relation to specific routes will be set out in due course when changes to the Immigration Rules introducing the new requirements are brought forward, as well as any further details about changes to the Life in the UK Test. Again, we will take all views submitted to the Home Office by the Hong Kong community into account as part of that process.\r\n\r\nWe thank the petitioners for sharing their views ahead of the consultation and look forward to hearing from them again once they have had the chance to review the final proposals in detail. We will also continue to engage regularly with representatives of the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK on any other issues related to the BN(O) visa as part of our ongoing commitment to support that community.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:20.233Z","updated_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:50.508Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-09-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-08/debates/25EC2767-BBFF-4FE8-8F52-65B2C28CED10/IndefiniteLeaveToRemain","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/sGBlfyO5VhI?si=qz7pcnWmcaYyv4CI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0172/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}}]}