{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=1&state=debated","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=debated","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=debated","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=debated","prev":null},"data":[{"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":202723,"created_at":"2026-01-05T15:44:31.884Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:49:10.000Z","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":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":147348,"created_at":"2025-11-24T21:03:09.099Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:30:50.000Z","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":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":154033,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:10:00.000Z","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":731497,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/731497.json"},"attributes":{"action":"New Disclosure and Safeguarding Mechanism for At-Risk Children","background":"We propose a statutory safeguarding framework that facilitates proactive information sharing where a child is at risk due to a parent or caregiver’s known history, even when current laws may not trigger disclosure.","additional_details":"•            Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme (CRDS) that operates similarly to Clare’s and Sarah’s Laws but is focused on the broader risk history of caregivers.\r\n•            Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past history to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.\r\n•            Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.\r\n•            Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110028,"created_at":"2025-06-25T12:14:57.544Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T12:59:46.293Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-05T09:20:41.352Z","closed_at":"2026-02-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-25T14:07:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T20:18:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-07T08:16:31.248Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T07:36:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-13","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-17T12:59:46.293Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-07","summary":"We are delivering significant reform across children’s social care, policing and the family court system to better safeguard children and stop them falling through the cracks of services.","details":"Keeping children safe is a priority for this government, and this is why we are delivering the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation. We deeply sympathise with calls to more effectively safeguard children and we recognise that fostering a culture of proactive information sharing amongst safeguarding professionals is critical to the early identification of need and risk, hence the facilitation of better support provision to prevent escalation. \r\n\r\nThrough our landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we have set out to improve multi-agency information sharing, introduce a responsive family help system, and sharpen the child protection system. These reforms, taken together, are intended to better safeguard children, and stop them from falling through the cracks. \r\n\r\nIt is only when safeguarding partners have a fuller understanding of a child that they can effectively assess risk and take the most appropriate action. Rightly, the proposed Child Risk Disclosure Scheme highlights the importance of empowering and encouraging safeguarding practitioners to proactively share information relevant to a safeguarding concern, including where information relates to a risk posed by another person in a child’s life. Whilst the Government is not minded to introduce the elements of a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme requiring police to disclose information to parents and guardians, proposals to strengthen multi agency responses and earlier safeguarding help are already included in the package of reforms we are taking forward.\r\n\r\nWe are introducing a new Information Sharing Duty as set out in clause 4 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. By legally obliging statutory safeguarding partners to share information across agencies where there is a concern relevant to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, we are ending misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. Crucially, this extends to the sharing of information about other individuals for the same purpose, enabling practitioners to act and inform families as appropriate.\r\n\r\nWe are also exploring means of reducing friction in sharing information across agencies through technological improvements. This includes delivering on our manifesto commitment to introduce a consistent identifier for children, to allow data to be shared more efficiently and accurately by linking records together to improve join-up across services.\r\n\r\nOnce needs are identified, our wider reforms will ensure children and families receive the appropriate support. Through the Families First Partnership Programme, we are committed to delivering the national rollout of Family Help – a new model of responsive early support that places children and families at the centre of its design, intended to prevent problems from escalating. \r\n\r\nWhere need does escalate, or concerns are of a greater gravity, we are sharpening the child protection system and ensuring strong multi-agency protocols on a local level through the introduction of Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams. These will bring experts together across agencies to better identify cases where children are suffering, or are at risk of suffering, significant harm. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill places a duty on safeguarding partners to implement this on a local level, alongside measures to strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in safeguarding arrangements.\r\n\r\nAlongside reforms to children’s social care and in recognition of the impact domestic abuse has on children, we introduced Operation Encompass in November 2025. This is a statutory duty that requires police to notify a child’s education setting where they have attended a domestic abuse incident in a child’s home, regardless of if they were present.\r\n\r\nRegarding multi-agency protocols where child contact and custody are being considered, we affirm that the welfare of children is the paramount concern in family court proceedings. Established risk assessments and multi-agency safeguarding arrangements are already in place and we are taking a step further by delivering a package of reforms to the family court to enhance safeguarding of, and support for children. This includes our decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989, and our work to expand the private law Pathfinder model, which promotes safeguarding through multi-agency collaboration, early identification of risk and expert support in cases involving domestic abuse. \r\n\r\nThrough these reforms, we hope to bring about fundamental change – to lay the foundations for a system that is responsive, champions professional curiosity, keeps children safe and helps families thrive. We will continue to consider where we can go further to strengthen safeguarding arrangements and encourage good practice on a local level, either through future legislation or the implementation of these measures. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-01-07T08:16:31.246Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T08:16:31.246Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-13/debates/02AEEF70-640B-4605-90D6-8ED35599A399/DisclosureAndSafeguardingAt-RiskChildren","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/ZoJ8VHaOcD0","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10606/","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":732342,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/732342.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce Statutory Menstrual Leave for People with Endometriosis & Adenomyosis","background":"We call on the UK Government to introduce statutory paid menstrual leave of up to 3 days per month for people with conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis, following the model introduced in Portugal in 2025.","additional_details":"We urge the UK Government to implement a statutory menstrual leave policy similar to the one recently passed in Portugal. \r\n\r\n• Provide up to 3 days of paid menstrual leave per month for individuals with a valid medical diagnosis\r\n• Require only a single annual medical certificate confirming the condition\r\n• Ensure full employment protections, including no loss of pay, benefits or seniority\r\n• Guarantee confidentiality and non-discrimination in the workplace","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":109025,"created_at":"2025-07-03T22:25:14.191Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T05:46:38.215Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-29T16:24:01.435Z","closed_at":"2026-01-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-08T21:59:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-30T18:52:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-08-20T15:22:35.552Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-24T19:15:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-13","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-16T05:46:38.215Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-20","summary":"The Government has no plans to introduce menstrual leave for those with endometriosis or adenomyosis. We know the hardship they cause. Our employment rights reforms will help manage health at work.","details":"We recognise the difficulty and pain many women with endometriosis, adenomyosis and other menstrual or reproductive health issues face. We understand that for some women, menstrual or reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on their physical and mental wellbeing, including their participation in education and the workforce.\r\n\r\nThe Government takes women’s health issues very seriously, and we are committed to tackling them and supporting women to balance work with wider life circumstances.\r\n\r\nThe Equality Act 2010 defines disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. ‘Long-term’ is described as having lasted or likely to last for at least 12 months, or likely to last for the rest of a person’s life. ‘Substantial’ is defined as more than minor or trivial. Endometriosis and adenomyosis can classify as disabilities under this definition, and individuals with a disability are protected from discrimination and their employer is required to make reasonable adjustments.\r\n\r\nReasonable adjustments can include useful changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours. These adjustments ensure that disabled employees are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to their non-disabled colleagues. Therefore, the Government has no plans to introduce statutory menstrual leave for people with endometriosis and adenomyosis.\r\n\r\nHowever, we are taking steps to support the wellbeing and positive work-life balance of all workers, including those suffering from both conditions.\r\n\r\nIf an individual’s symptoms result in them being unable to work, they may be entitled to receive Statutory Sick Pay. The landmark Employment Rights Bill boosts access to this by making Statutory Sick Pay available to all eligible employees and payable from the first day of sickness absence.\r\n\r\nThe Bill will also make flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help workers with menstrual or reproductive health issues and their employers to agree solutions which work for both parties, ensuring they can access greater flexibility to balance their work and manage their condition.\r\n\r\nAs part of our plan to Get Britain Working, we have launched an external review to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working Independent Review is examining how best to support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence, and recruit and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions. Sir Charlie Mayfield is expected to produce a final report with recommendations for government on how to support this agenda in autumn 2025.\r\n\r\nIt is unacceptable that women can wait an average of 4 to 10 years for an endometriosis diagnosis, and we have already taken action to address this.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guidelines on endometriosis in November 2024. Two new treatments have been approved, and we are investing £5.6 million into research and taking action to cut gynaecology waiting lists through our Elective Reform Plan.\r\n\r\nWe know that endometriosis, adenomyosis and other menstrual or reproductive health issues can affect women in different ways. We therefore believe that the best approach is to enable individuals to have an open discussion to determine what solution best supports their needs and the circumstances of the employer.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Business and Trade","created_at":"2025-08-20T15:22:35.549Z","updated_at":"2025-08-20T15:22:35.549Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-13/debates/20959D32-00D3-4F4E-91D4-F2C3FE68CA69/StatutoryMenstrualLeave","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqbA8ok56dU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0050/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","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":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":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":122648,"created_at":"2025-11-10T13:58:45.843Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T20:18:20.000Z","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":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":154397,"created_at":"2025-10-17T13:47:26.613Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:21:40.000Z","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":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":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":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":550137,"created_at":"2025-03-20T19:05:13.386Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T10:15:19.131Z","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":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":115742,"created_at":"2025-09-29T09:54:02.162Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T16:05:10.000Z","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":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":244028,"created_at":"2025-10-10T11:35:06.069Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:26:50.000Z","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":727372,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727372.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect Legal Migrants: do not implement the 10-Year ILR proposal","background":"We urge the UK Government to scrap plans to extend ILR from 5 to 10 years. We feel that legal migrants, especially care workers, followed the rules and built lives here under the 5-year promise. We think they support vital services and deserve fairness, not shifting rules.","additional_details":"We think that retroactively extending ILR from 5 to 10 years is unfair. We are concerned that it creates insecurity for legal migrants, disrupts vital sectors like health and care, and adds financial strain. We urge the UK Government to withdraw this proposal, protect visa renewals, and prioritise tackling illegal migration. Do not penalise those who follow the law, support the economy, and uphold British values. We think legal migration must be protected, not discouraged.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106570,"created_at":"2025-05-12T18:11:04.037Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T10:27:55.471Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-05-23T15:26:53.533Z","closed_at":"2025-11-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-12T21:44:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-03T09:34:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-05T08:40:29.530Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-13T10:18:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-02-03T08:48:30.921Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-04","summary":"The earned settlement consultation is seeking views on whether the increase in settlement qualifying period will apply to people already in the UK. No decision has been taken on this point.","details":"The Government is grateful for the vital contribution legal migrants make to the UK, including the dedication of overseas health and care workers who deliver high quality care and strengthen our public services.\r\n\r\nThis issue has already been the subject of previous petitions and parliamentary debate earlier this year, including the e-petition ‘Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders’ (Petition 727360) and ‘Keep 5-year ILR terms to Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visas’ (Petition 727356), which was debated in Westminster Hall on 8 September 2025. The Home Affairs Committee launched an inquiry into ‘Routes to Settlement’ on 21 October 2025.\r\n\r\nAs set out by the Home Secretary in ‘A Fairer Pathway to Settlement’, the Government is proposing a new, contribution-based settlement model. Under these proposals, the standard qualifying period for settlement will be 10 years. However, individuals will have the opportunity to reduce this period if they demonstrate strong contributions to the UK’s economy and society for example, through sustained employment, National Insurance contributions, English language ability, a clean criminal record, and positive community engagement. Those who have been non-compliant may be required to wait longer or be refused settlement.\r\n\r\nThese are proposals only. No final decisions have been made, and we launched a consultation on the earned settlement proposals on 20 November 2025. The consultation will run for 12 weeks (until 12 February 2026) and is open to all interested parties, including migrants, employers, representative bodies, and members of the public. Its purpose is to gather a wide range of views and evidence on the proposed changes, including the impact on those already in the UK and the practicalities of implementation. The consultation is, in particular, seeking views on whether there should be transitional arrangements for those already on a pathway to settlement.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to a transparent and inclusive process. The consultation is being publicised widely, and responses can be submitted online or in writing. All feedback will be carefully considered before any final decisions are made. A summary of responses and the Government’s conclusions will be published after the consultation closes, ensuring that the process is open and accountable. Following the consultation, we will provide full details of how the new model would work, including any transitional arrangements for people already in the UK. We encourage all affected groups including health and care workers to take part in the consultation so that their views and evidence inform the final approach.\r\n\r\nSettlement in the UK is a significant step, bringing lifelong benefits and supporting integration into local communities and the wider country. The Government’s aim is to ensure that settlement is earned through contribution and integration, while maintaining strong safeguards for the most vulnerable. The new model will continue to offer a shorter pathway to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens and retain existing protections for victims of domestic violence and abuse.\r\nWe recognise the concerns raised about fairness and the impact on those who have built their lives in the UK under the current system. We will consider these issues carefully, and no changes will be made without listening to the views of those affected.\r\n\r\nFurther information on the proposals announced by the Home Secretary is available in Ministerial statements, November 2025 Command Paper, as well as the May 2025 Immigration White Paper.\r\n\r\nWe are grateful to the petitioners for setting out their views, 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":"2025-12-05T08:40:29.527Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T08:40:29.527Z"},"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":718660,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/718660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce Licensing and Regulation for Dog and Cat Rescues to Protect Welfare\r\n","background":"Many UK animal rescues operate without clear legal oversight, creating opportunities for unethical practices. Some rescues have been linked to supporting irresponsible breeding, neglecting animals, or misusing public donations. ","additional_details":"Without enforceable standards, there is a risk that animals suffer in poor conditions, and public trust is undermined. We call on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and regular inspections to ensure rescues operate transparently and uphold high welfare standards. Regulation is essential to prevent cruelty, improve accountability, and ensure all rescued animals receive proper care.  \r\n \r\nBy introducing clear legal requirements, the Government can safeguard animal welfare, protect public confidence in rescues, and prevent organizations from operating irresponsibly.  ","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":109647,"created_at":"2025-02-21T07:32:44.335Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T16:55:27.633Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-08T14:27:32.559Z","closed_at":"2025-10-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-27T21:44:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-16T17:49:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-06T07:49:36.733Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-17T07:50:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-26","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-27T09:50:42.023Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-10","summary":"Animal rescue organisations must meet existing statutory welfare requirements. Moving forward, the Government is developing an animal welfare strategy and will outline more detail in due course.","details":"The Government appreciates the important work that responsible animal sanctuaries as well as rescue and rehoming organisations do, often on a voluntary basis, to ensure that animals taken into the care of these organisations are offered the opportunity of a forever home. \r\n\r\nThere are existing protections under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, whereby any person responsible for an animal, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, has a duty to ensure the welfare of the animals in their care. Companion animal rescue and rehoming organisations in England and Wales must therefore comply with statutory welfare requirements set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Therefore, the Department encourages individuals to report any concerns regarding whether these standards are being met to the relevant local authority, which has powers to investigate.\r\n\r\nMembers of the public can also check if the rescue centre they use is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, which has set clear standards for animal assessments, neutering and rehoming procedures that all members adhere to.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, the Department is developing an overarching approach to animal welfare and, as part of this, is actively considering the animal welfare protections in place in rescue and rehoming centres, including whether there is a need for additional guidance or regulation. The Department has also initiated a series of meetings with key animal welfare stakeholders as part of this wider work. We will be outlining more detail in due course.\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/718660)","created_at":"2025-06-06T07:49:36.731Z","updated_at":"2025-07-17T10:45:39.625Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-26/debates/D4C51DDC-9C32-4F43-B598-CB8C3C82B90F/AnimalRescueCentres","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuVIHqnrV5M","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0013/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/licensing-regulation-animal-rescues/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":729440,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/729440.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make Play and Continuous Provision statutory in England's Key Stage 1 Curriculum","background":"Revise statutory guidance for KS1 to make play based pedagogy a core part of the Key Stage One National Curriculum, extending the best practice that we see in Early Years to ensure all Key Stage One children continue to have a developmentally appropriate play based approach to their learning.","additional_details":"The Early Years Framework highlights the importance of play. However, as children transition to Year 1 and throughout KS1, many may experience a stark shift to formal teaching strategies. We think this fails to reflect how young children learn best. We want our children to access a reformed education system that meets their developmental needs, supports wellbeing, allows for movement, communication, play and develops a true love of learning, enabling all children to thrive.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":106082,"created_at":"2025-06-04T22:00:07.094Z","updated_at":"2026-03-26T10:28:27.465Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-03T12:54:20.577Z","closed_at":"2026-01-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-05T09:36:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-05T11:51:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-08-01T10:01:44.577Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-30T22:10:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-26","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-27T09:47:52.250Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-01","summary":"We recognise play is critical to children’s wellbeing and development which is why the Department is working to make sure that all children have access to these enrichment opportunities at school.","details":"The Department is working to make sure that all children and young people have access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school, as an important part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. For some schools, these opportunities may be used to encourage children and young people to play.\r\n\r\nWe recognise that play is critical to children’s wellbeing and development, as highlighted in the Centre for Young Lives’ Everything to Play For report. This is reflected in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework, which is clear that play is essential for children’s learning and development. The EYFS emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for indoor and outdoor play, and enabling environments and cultures for high-quality play.\r\n\r\nOur expectation is for schools to organise the school day and school week in the best interests of their pupil cohort, to both provide them with a full time education suitable to their age, aptitude and ability, and to provide opportunities for schools to incorporate time for play and other activities.\r\n\r\nWe recognise the current key stage 1 curriculum requires reform. This is why the Government established an independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, to look into issues, such as this, and make recommendations to improve the curriculum for children. The Review Group is currently looking across the existing national curriculum and statutory assessment system, to ensure they meet the needs of young people in your area and across England.\r\n\r\nThe Review’s final report and recommendations will be published in autumn, at which point the Government will be in a position to consider any changes to the curriculum. The Government will consult with education experts, teachers, and parents to ensure the very best for children in England.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2025-08-01T10:01:44.575Z","updated_at":"2025-08-01T10:01:44.575Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-26","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-26/debates/95E8607E-8004-4B1F-A74A-18505A90FAE2/KeyStage1Curriculum","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HS6698xi0M","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0020/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/play-curriculum/index.html","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"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":"2026-03-26T10:50:15.303Z","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":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":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":1059231,"created_at":"2025-05-12T05:53:57.501Z","updated_at":"2026-01-14T17:20:59.302Z","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":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":702845,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702845.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Extend free bus travel for people over 60 in England","background":"We call on the Government to extend free bus travel to all people over 60 years old in England outside London. We believe the current situation is unjust and we want equality for everyone over 60. ","additional_details":"Currently, people in England who do not live in London are not entitled to free bus travel until they reach the state pension age, which we believe has changed dramatically. As people get older some over 60s drive less and less, therefore we believe we need equality on public transport. It would mean England had the same provision as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":101204,"created_at":"2024-11-24T12:27:59.770Z","updated_at":"2026-03-26T16:33:35.784Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-27T11:26:30.209Z","closed_at":"2025-06-27T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-25T06:06:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-05T05:30:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-12T13:23:22.210Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-26T15:26:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-05","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-06T10:11:15.488Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-12","summary":"The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme costs around £700 million annually. Any changes to the statutory scheme must be carefully considered for their impact on its financial sustainability. ","details":"The government wants everyone to have access to public transport and is committed to improving services. We also recognise the importance of the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) in supporting local bus travel, assisting with access to essential local services and helping those who use it to stay active and avoid isolation.\r\n\r\nThe ENCTS provides free off-peak bus travel to those with eligible disabilities and those of state pension age, currently sixty-six. The ENCTS costs around £700 million annually and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as lowering the age of eligibility, would therefore need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme’s financial sustainability.   \r\n\r\nLocal authorities in England do have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations, for example, by extending the age of eligibility for the older persons’ bus pass. These are additional local concessions provided and funded by local authorities from local resources, depending on the needs and priorities of each area.\r\n\r\nAt the Budget on 30 October, the government confirmed a £1 billion boost for buses, of which £712 million has been allocated to local authorities to support and improve bus services. Funding allocated to local authorities to improve services for passengers can be used in whichever way they wish. This could include extending the discretionary concessions available in the local area.\r\n\r\nConcessionary travel is a devolved policy area and as such, the eligibility age for the bus pass differs between the devolved nations of the United Kingdom. This means, in effect, that there are different schemes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so the administrative arrangements are entirely separate.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2025-02-12T13:23:22.208Z","updated_at":"2025-02-12T13:23:22.208Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-05/debates/B84513B0-9668-4082-B440-DCFB18F22112/FreeBusTravelOver-60S","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/id1c1yZlOMY","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"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":2984192,"created_at":"2025-06-12T15:26:34.449Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T15:14:53.953Z","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":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":166496,"created_at":"2025-03-16T12:52:25.657Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T18:53:31.026Z","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":706513,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/706513.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Every school & college to be obliged to have an evacuation chair & training","background":"I believe the government should make it a legal requirement for all schools and colleges to have evacuation chairs, and for all staff to be trained in using them.","additional_details":"Fires can spread very quickly.  Sign so disabled people feel safer!","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104197,"created_at":"2024-11-29T18:11:28.685Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T18:48:04.050Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-02-18T16:21:42.902Z","closed_at":"2025-08-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-29T18:38:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-31T21:55:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-23T11:09:56.445Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-05T14:07:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-12-01","debate_outcome_at":"2025-12-05T18:48:04.050Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-06-23","summary":"In a school or college, where a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) requires an evacuation chair, it must be provided. Staff and the person needing the chair must be trained in its use.","details":"The safety of all pupils and staff in schools and colleges is paramount. \r\nUnder the Equality Act 2010, schools and educational premises have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where necessary for anyone with a disability. All disabled learners and staff should have a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) in place should they need one, whether they have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or not.\r\n \r\nUnder current fire safety legislation, those who have responsibility for the building need to provide a fire safety risk assessment that includes an emergency evacuation plan for all people likely to be in the premises. This includes disabled people. When a learner with a disability, requiring assistance with building evacuation, is enrolled in a school or college, their PEEP should be developed with them as part of the admissions process. \r\n\r\nA PEEP is a tailored plan to ensure someone who may need assistance in a building evacuation can safely reach a place of safety. It is designed for individuals with impairments or disabilities that might make it difficult for them to evacuate on their own. PEEPs are developed collaboratively between the individual and relevant staff, such as managers, fire safety officers, or disability advisors, to ensure the plan is effective and meets their needs.\r\n \r\nA PEEP is a personal document relating to a specific individual. The requirements and preferences of individuals may vary, even when the disability is similar. While some disabled people will require the use of an evacuation chair, others would not welcome this as a means of escape. Additionally, almost half of schools in England are only single-storey buildings. This is why it is important the use of evacuation chairs should be determined on a case-by-case basis, at a local level based on the specific needs of the individual required one.\r\n\r\nAn evacuation chair looks like a deckchair with skis and wheels underneath. When placed on the stairway, it slides down the stairs. There are wheels at the back that facilitate movement on the flat, but they are not suitable for long distances.  \r\nAn evacuation chair is operated by one or two people and requires training and practice to use. Not all disabled people feel comfortable using these chairs and it is not always possible for wheelchair users to transfer into an evacuation chair or to maintain a sitting position once seated in one. Therefore, evacuation chairs should not be considered as an automatic solution to the escape requirements of wheelchair users.\r\n\r\nThe preferred options for escape of many people with mobility impairments are by horizontal evacuation to outside the building, horizontal evacuation into another fire compartment, or fire evacuation lift, eventually arriving at a place of safety. This is the preferable option for some disabled people. Within this group, many people will be able to manage stairs and to walk longer distances, especially if short rest periods are built into the escape procedure, although this won’t apply to all.\r\n\r\nPractice for PEEPs will depend on the type of escape required. Generally, escape plans should be practised on a regular basis and at least every six months. If the disabled person wants or needs to practise their route and plan more frequently, this should be written into their PEEP. For an evacuation chair to be used safely both the user and the operators must be well trained and familiar with the piece of equipment.\r\n\r\nAs well as comprehensive training regular practice should also take place. In most instances, these may not need to include the disabled person, although some may wish to practise being moved in the evacuation chair. It is more appropriate for the people who are trained to operate the evacuation chair to take it in turns during practices rather than involve the disabled person. This will also increase their confidence in using the equipment. Using an evacuation chair in practice may put the disabled person at unnecessary risk from injury, so it is best to limit their use by disabled people to the real situation.\r\n\r\nAll schools and colleges must also comply with Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which means they must have an up-to-date fire risk assessment, appropriate fire alarms and regular fire drills. This is to ensure they are as safe as possible and well prepared in the event of a fire.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education\r\n","created_at":"2025-06-23T11:09:56.442Z","updated_at":"2025-06-23T11:09:56.442Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-12-01","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-01/debates/47AB5506-6501-4D6F-8005-EB2827CC31A8/EvacuationChairsSchoolsAndColleges","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpbQvroz9lw&list=PLj3mInRJqIemzke3yWcmPaR5ZTW4S4bur&index=2","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0228/","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":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":713714,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/713714.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Increase funding for people with Parkinson’s and implement the \"Parky Charter\"","background":"We want the government to take the decisive five steps set out in the Movers and Shakers' \"Parky Charter\" and to fulfil the Health Secretary’s promises. ","additional_details":"As a priority, we want to make sure that everyone referred for a possible Parkinson’s diagnosis sees a consultant within 18 weeks and at least once a year after that.\r\n \r\nAs set out in the Parky Charter, we want:\r\n \r\n1. Speedy specialists\r\n2. Instant information\r\n3. Parkinson's passport\r\n4. Comprehensive care\r\n5. Quest for a cure\r\n \r\nParkinson’s is considered the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. We think it’s time for the government to respond to our grave concerns about what we consider systematic failings in Parkinson’s care.\r\n \r\nThe measures in the Parky Charter, which are supported by the three big Parkinson’s charities, require the government to deliver on their promises, ensuring timely diagnosis, comprehensive care, and dignity for all people with Parkinson’s.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":113439,"created_at":"2025-01-11T11:22:09.737Z","updated_at":"2025-11-18T10:20:06.361Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-03-10T16:20:29.552Z","closed_at":"2025-09-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-13T12:25:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-13T10:31:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-04-03T15:07:19.723Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-16T18:12:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-11-17","debate_outcome_at":"2025-11-18T10:20:06.361Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-29","summary":"The Government is committed to improving health outcomes for people with neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease. Funding provision is subject to Spending Review decisions.","details":"We acknowledge the challenges that neurology services have faced, particularly regarding workforce, delays to treatment and care, and a lack of information and support for patients. Nationally, there are initiatives supporting service improvement and better care for Parkinson’s patients, including the RightCare Progressive Neurological Conditions Toolkit and the Getting It Right First Time Neurology Programme. NHS England (NHSE) has established a Neurology Transformation Programme, which has developed a new model of integrated care to support integrated care boards to deliver the right service, at the right time for all neurology patients.\r\n\r\nWe have set up a UK-wide Neuro Forum, to bring together key stakeholders from across all four nations, to share learning, best practice examples and potential solutions.\r\n\r\nNHSE commissions the specialised elements of Parkinson’s care that patients may receive from 27 specialised neurology centres across England. Within specialised centres, multidisciplinary teams ensure patients can access a range of health professionals and specialised treatment, according to their needs.\r\n\r\nA central part of the 10-Year Health Plan will be our workforce and how we train and provide the staff the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities. This summer, we will publish a refreshed Long Term Workforce Plan aiming to treat patients on time again. We will ensure the NHS has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills to deliver the care patients need when they need it, including in neurology.\r\n\r\nIn January, NHSE published a new Elective Reform Plan, which sets out a whole system approach to hitting the 18-week referral to treatment target by 2029. We have achieved our pledge to deliver 2 million extra elective appointments. The additional appointments have taken place across a number of specialities, including neurology. We have made the commitment that 92% of patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment – in line with the NHS constitutional standard – by March 2029.\r\n\r\nNICE guidance recommends that people with Parkinson's should be seen at regular intervals of 6-12 months. While NICE guidance is not mandatory, we expect commissioners to take it fully into account when designing services for their local population.\r\n\r\nThe Government currently has no plans to increase specific funding for people with Parkinson’s. However, at the Autumn Budget, DHSC received a £22.6 billion increase in resource spending from 2023-24 to 2025-26. How this is spent will be determined according to clinical priorities.\r\n\r\nThere are no plans to add to the list of conditions that give entitlement to free prescriptions. Around 89% of prescription items are currently dispensed free of charge and a wide range of exemptions from prescription charges are in place. People with Parkinson’s who are 60 years old or over are entitled to free prescriptions. For those that pay for prescriptions, the cost can be capped by purchasing a pre-payment certificate. Also, the NHS Low Income Scheme can provide help with health costs on an income-related basis.\r\n\r\nThe Government recently brought forward a Green Paper on the health and disability benefits system and the support we offer, entitled Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working. Within that, we consider how to improve the system for those with very severe health conditions and disabilities, including exploring ways to reduce the need for some people with very severe health conditions to undergo a full Personal Independence Payment functional assessment.\r\n\r\nEligibility for a Blue Badge is not condition specific. Blue Badge eligibility criteria in England were extended in 2019 to include more people with non-visible disabilities, to ensure that people with the greatest needs, whatever their disability or condition, all have the same access to a badge.\r\n\r\nThe Government spent £79.06 million on Parkinson’s research from 2019-20 to 2023-24, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). We are continuing to invest in Parkinson’s research. For example, the UK Dementia Research Institute, primarily funded by Government, is partnering with Parkinson’s UK to establish a new £10 million research centre dedicated to better understanding the causes of Parkinson’s and finding new treatments. The NIHR welcomes high-quality funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including Parkinson's. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on Parkinson’s disease to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility in terms of the amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\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/713714)","created_at":"2025-04-03T15:07:19.720Z","updated_at":"2025-05-14T08:59:37.507Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-11-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-17/debates/81DDE476-39E4-431C-BD14-838C2AB3BB5F/Parkinson%E2%80%99SDisease","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JShKcoB1bqE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10394/","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":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":191592,"created_at":"2025-05-27T18:05:08.578Z","updated_at":"2025-12-21T00:00:22.011Z","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":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":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":427448,"created_at":"2024-11-27T11:30:36.204Z","updated_at":"2025-11-28T18:20:45.667Z","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":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":715292,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/715292.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise statutory maternity/paternity pay to match the National Living Wage","background":"Statutory maternity and paternity pay is £4.99 per hour for a full-time worker on 37.5 hours per week - approximately 59% less than the 2024 National Living Wage of £12.21 per hour for workers aged 21+, which has been set out to ensure a basic standard of living. ","additional_details":"If the National Living Wage is £12.21 per hour to legally enforce and ensure a basic standard of living, why is statutory maternity or paternity pay just £4.99 per hour?\r\n\r\nWe feel that working parents, especially women, who contribute to the tax system are being pushed into poverty at their most vulnerable time. We believe this undermines family stability and suggests the Government does not prioritise childbirth or its economic value.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":107966,"created_at":"2025-01-24T05:28:06.375Z","updated_at":"2025-11-02T07:56:10.259Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-03-18T14:37:53.740Z","closed_at":"2025-09-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-24T08:30:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-09T08:50:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-04-25T14:45:44.288Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-03T16:49:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-10-27","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-30T15:13:32.088Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-25","summary":"Parental pay entitlements are intended to provide a measure of financial security to parents to care for their child(ren).  However, they are not intended to replace earnings.","details":"The Government recognises the importance of parents having time away from work to care for a new child in their family. This is a key part of our plan to Make Work Pay, which aims to improve the quality and security of work. Parental leave and pay entitlements include Maternity, Paternity, Shared Parental and Neonatal Care Pay, as well as Adoption Leave and Pay, all of which are designed to support parents to take leave whilst retaining an attachment to the labour market so they can return to work when appropriate.\r\n\r\nMaternity pay is primarily a health and safety provision for pregnant working women, providing a measure of financial security during this important time.\r\n\r\nThere are two types of maternity pay available to pregnant working women: Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), paid by employers and Maternity Allowance (MA), paid by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to eligible women (including the self-employed and women in employment who are not eligible for SMP). The qualifying conditions for both SMP and MA are based on a woman's recent employment and earnings.\r\n\r\nBoth SMP and MA are paid for up to a maximum of 39 weeks. For SMP, the first six weeks are paid at a weekly rate equal to 90 per cent of the woman's average weekly earnings, with no upper limit, followed by up to 33 weeks at the lower of either the standard rate or 90 per cent of the woman's average weekly earnings. MA is paid at either the standard rate or 90 per cent of the woman’s average weekly earnings, whichever is the lower, for a maximum of 39 weeks.\r\n\r\nPaternity Leave and Pay arrangements enable eligible employed fathers and partners to take up to two one-week blocks of leave, either consecutively or separately, during the first year following the birth of their child or placement for adoption. Paternity Pay is paid at the statutory rate.\r\n\r\nThe Government has set an aim to deliver a genuine living wage for every adult worker; the increase to the National Living Wage (NLW) to £12.21 is intended to make progress towards that. As this petition highlights, this payment is higher than the equivalent hourly rate of Maternity/Paternity Pay. However, Maternity and other types of Parental Pay are intended to provide a measure of financial security to support parents whilst they are away from the workplace; they are not a replacement of earnings and therefore are not directly comparable.\r\n\r\nThe Government understands the importance of ensuring statutory payments are set at the right level. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and State Pensions, including statutory pay. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. From April these payments were uprated in line with the Consumer Prices Index of 1.7 per cent, with their standard rates increasing from £184.03 to £187.18 per week. This means that the benefits retain their value against inflation.\r\n\r\nWhen considering calls to increase the level of parental benefits, the Government must balance a range of factors including the needs of parents, the impact on employers, and affordability for taxpayers. This is particularly true in today’s challenging economic climate. As such, any changes would need to be carefully considered, taking into account views from businesses and other stakeholders.\r\n\r\nThis petition has raised concerns that working parents, especially women (and by association, their child/children) are being pushed into poverty at their most vulnerable time. The Government recognises the financial pressures facing many pregnant women and new mothers and has measures in place to support them and their families. Maternity Pay is just one element of the support available. Indeed, depending on an individual’s circumstances, additional financial support, for example, Universal Credit, Child Benefit, and the Sure Start Maternity Grant (a lump sum payment of £500), may also be available. More information about benefits and financial support available to pregnant women and their families can be found on www.gov.uk via the Childcare and Parenting link on the home page.\r\n\r\nDelivering the manifesto commitment to tackle child poverty is an urgent priority for this Government, and we will bring forward a Child Poverty Strategy as soon as possible.\r\n\r\nIn addition, this Government is taking a mission-based approach to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and ensure that every child has a healthy, happy start to life. Giving children the best start in life means delivering accessible, integrated maternity, baby and family support services through the 1,001 days from conception to age two.\r\n\r\nThe Government also committed in the manifesto to review parental leave to ensure that it best supports working families. Planning is underway and further details of the review will be announced in due course.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2025-04-25T14:45:44.285Z","updated_at":"2025-04-29T09:43:41.435Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-10-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-27/debates/5BF7BC8B-D0D1-4EED-9229-C4DA6945558B/StatutoryMaternityAndPaternityPay","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/fd1VHr2VfRE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0196/","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":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":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":700036,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700036.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban driven grouse shooting","background":"Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery (Wild Justice) believe that driven grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife. People; we think grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands.","additional_details":"Environment; muirburn contributes to climate breakdown and drainage leads to flooding and erosion. Wildlife; the wholesale extermination of predators has a disastrous impact on the ecology of these areas and the criminal practice of raptor persecution has taken place. We believe it's time to provide an opportunity to implement immediate and meaningful measures to address what we see as an abhorrently destructive practice so that recovery of moorlands can progress.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":104341,"created_at":"2024-10-30T16:17:50.502Z","updated_at":"2025-10-15T11:22:12.314Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-22T15:25:46.461Z","closed_at":"2025-05-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T22:49:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-24T08:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-01-16T17:52:34.602Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-20T10:47:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-30","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-15T11:22:12.314Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-01-16","summary":"The Government has no plans to ban driven grouse shooting. It recognises well-managed grouse shooting can be an important part of a local rural economy, providing direct and indirect employment.","details":"This is a devolved matter. The Government appreciates that many people hold strong views on the issue of driven grouse shooting. The Government considers that well-managed shooting activities can bring benefits to the rural economy and can be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We will continue work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. The Government has no plans to ban grouse shooting.\r\n\r\nIt is of course vital that wildlife and habitats are protected and the law is respected by those involved in the grouse shooting industry. Wild birds of prey, for example, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is evidence from Ewing et al (2023) and others to suggest a link between crimes against birds of prey and grouse shooting. The Government supports the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – which helps prevent and detect crimes against wildlife by obtaining and disseminating intelligence and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations – and the Hen Harrier Task Force – which is led by the NWCU and aims to detect, deter, and disrupt offenders, in particular those persecuting rare hen harriers – by using technology and improving partnership working. Where wild birds of prey or any non-target species of wildlife are killed illegally the full force of the law should apply to proven perpetrators of the crime. All forms of predator management to protect grouse must be undertaken within the law, including compliance with animal welfare legislation. \r\n\r\nGrouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for a range of things including, food, fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities. UK uplands have 75 per cent of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13 per cent of the world’s blanket bog.\r\n\r\nUpland catchments provide 70 per cent of the UK’s drinking water. The Government is committed to delivering positive environmental and economic benefits and creating a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including preserving and restoring peatlands.\r\n\r\nHealthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits. Through the Nature for Climate Peatland Grant Scheme, the Government is continuing to invest millions of pounds in peatland restoration, to aid climate change mitigation and nature recovery. The Government’s new and improved Countryside Stewardship offer will be available this summer. This scheme will encourage land managers to enter into agreements to enhance and protect the natural environment, including upland peatland habitats.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2025-01-16T17:52:34.600Z","updated_at":"2025-01-16T17:52:34.600Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-30/debates/FFEB6B80-1AD7-4A27-9731-B15825A61BE1/DrivenGrouseShooting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVP_u8XQa8Y","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0134/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","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":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":700317,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700317.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End the Badger cull and adopt other approaches to bovine TB control","background":"The Government’s TB Eradication Strategy allows the continued killing of badgers, a protected species, until the end of this Parliament, despite the Labour manifesto calling the cull “ineffective.”\r\n\r\nWe believe the badger cull is unjustified and must end.","additional_details":"Some research has suggested culling results in a reduction in bovine TB (bTB) in cattle. However, there are concerns about the methodology used. Other research, which has been peer reviewed and published, shows no evidence that culling badgers reduces confirmed bTB in cattle. Over 230,000 badgers — many healthy — have been killed, disrupting ecosystems without solid scientific justification.\r\n\r\nWe call for an immediate end to the cull and the implementation of cattle focused measures to control bTB, rather than what we see as scapegoating wildlife.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":102458,"created_at":"2024-11-01T16:28:12.166Z","updated_at":"2026-03-26T10:09:23.381Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-28T16:23:10.721Z","closed_at":"2025-05-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-01T20:34:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-29T12:46:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-01-10T14:43:18.894Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-11T20:57:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-10-13","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-14T09:13:28.429Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-01-10","summary":"Bovine TB has devastated British farmers and wildlife. Work has started on a new eradication strategy to drive down TB rates, protecting cattle and farmers’ livelihoods, and to end the badger cull.","details":"Bovine tuberculosis (TB) has had a devastating impact on British livestock and wildlife. Over the past decade alone, 278,000 cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered and over 230,000 badgers have been killed in efforts to control the disease. \r\n \r\nOn 30 August, the government announced the start of work on a comprehensive new strategy to continue to drive down bovine TB rates to save cattle and farmers’ livelihoods and end the badger cull by the end of this parliament. \r\n \r\nWorking closely alongside farmers, vets, scientists and conservationists to rapidly strengthen and deploy a range of disease control measures, a key part of the strategy remains the ongoing development of a cattle vaccine, which is at the forefront of innovative solutions to help eradicate this disease.  \r\n \r\nField trials of the candidate CattleBCG vaccine and companion test to “Detect Infected among Vaccinated Animals” (the so-called DIVA skin test) started in June 2021 and are on-going. The aim of these trials is to gather further information on the vaccine and the test to support marketing authorisation applications and international recognition. Our aim is to deliver an effective cattle TB vaccination strategy within the next few years to accelerate progress towards achieving Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free status for England by 2038. \r\n \r\nThe work towards a new strategy marks a step-change in approach to tackling this devastating disease. It will consider how we boost cattle testing, reduce the spread of disease through cattle movements, and deploy badger vaccination on a wider, landscape scale. This will build on the independent review of the bovine TB strategy led by Professor Sir Charles Godfray in 2018. \r\n \r\nExisting cull processes will be honoured to ensure clarity for farmers involved in these culls whilst new measures can be rolled out. However, the government has decided that it will not be proceeding with the proposals drawn up under the previous government relating to targeted badger culling. That follows careful consideration of the responses received to the public consultation launched earlier this year.\r\n\r\nWork to underpin the next phase of policy with robust science has already begun and includes:    \r\n   \r\n•\tThe first badger population survey in over a decade, to start this winter, to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. \r\n\r\n•\tThe development of a new national wildlife TB surveillance programme to provide an up-to-date understanding of disease in badgers and other wildlife such as deer, unlocking a data-driven approach to inform how and where TB vaccines and other eradication measures are deployed. \r\n\r\n•\tEstablishment of a new Badger Vaccinator Field Force to increase badger vaccination delivery at pace and create progressively healthier badger populations that are less susceptible to catching and transmitting TB.  \r\n\r\n•\tA badger vaccination study to rapidly analyse the effect of badger vaccination on the incidence of TB in cattle, which in turn will encourage farmers to take part and provide greater confidence that doing so will have a positive effect on their cattle.   \r\n \r\nThe strategy announcement ensures the government meets its manifesto commitment and represents a new direction in defeating this disease that will both protect the farming community and preserve wildlife. \r\n \r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2025-01-10T14:43:18.890Z","updated_at":"2025-01-10T14:43:18.890Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-10-13","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-13/debates/29C3A9F2-021F-4675-BDA1-F7710613DB9A/BovineTuberculosisControlAndBadgerCulling","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/n4cjB_CMl4U?si=FoSJxmweFxItCQaQ","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0189/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/TB-badger-cull/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":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":[]}},{"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":700024,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700024.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship","background":"Advertisements encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation & creates a social licence of trust & acceptability. In 2003 a ban on all tobacco advertising was introduced and has arguably worked. I believe continued fossil fuel usage will kill more people than smoking.","additional_details":"Fossil fuel advertising has a history of ‘greenwashing’ and a recent report identifies £4bn+ spent by FF companies on 205 active sports sponsorship deals. There is plenty of evidence that FF must be rapidly phased out to mitigate the worst impacts of climate breakdown. I think that preventing the companies’ efforts to enhance their social capital and normalise their activities would proactively help address the climate crisis and mitigate future harm to human health.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":110519,"created_at":"2024-10-30T15:38:16.620Z","updated_at":"2025-09-15T05:24:32.827Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-12T10:44:59.936Z","closed_at":"2025-05-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T16:02:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-26T17:33:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-18T12:35:20.734Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-08T21:30:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-07-07","debate_outcome_at":"2025-07-08T09:06:42.883Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-18","summary":"The government is committed to reducing emissions from high carbon products and will continue to bring forward proposals to do so. There are currently no plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising.","details":"The government is committed to reducing emissions from high carbon products and will continue to bring forward proposals to do so. [For example, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is assessing the potential for voluntary ecolabels. Ecolabels provide information on the carbon intensity and environmental impact of products and services, to help inform consumers’ purchasing decisions.]\r\n\r\nThe Committees of Advertising Practice and Advertising Standards Authority regulate the content and targeting of advertising in the UK, and the advertising codes include rules on environmental claims. The ASA system operates independently of the government. The government does not currently have any plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero ","created_at":"2024-12-18T12:35:20.732Z","updated_at":"2024-12-18T12:35:20.732Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-07-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-07-07/debates/92D5F061-A1E9-4396-BEE9-3A5CF6462981/FossilFuelAdvertisingAndSponsorship","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9UgNNblhc","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0151/","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":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":160632,"created_at":"2024-11-16T13:19:25.009Z","updated_at":"2025-10-24T14:26:57.648Z","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":706302,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/706302.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals","background":"We think the UK Government must ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible.\r\n\r\nWe think it should also ban the use of all cage and crates for all farmed animals including:\r\n• farrowing crates for sows\r\n• individual calf pens\r\n• cages for other birds, including partridges, pheasants and quail","additional_details":"Every year in the UK, millions of farmed animals experience huge suffering confined in cages. From millions of laying hens unable to express their natural behaviours to mother pigs nursing their piglets confined in narrow crates, to calves, quail and game birds.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":108277,"created_at":"2024-11-29T09:07:55.158Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T10:24:31.362Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-24T11:23:12.221Z","closed_at":"2025-07-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-29T13:23:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-24T15:42:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-19T14:01:14.825Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-22T16:05:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-16","debate_outcome_at":"2025-06-17T14:25:14.913Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-17","summary":"This Government was elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation. The use of cages and crates is an issue we are now considering very carefully.","details":"The Government is aware of the strong public feeling on keeping farm animals in cages and the recent campaigns urging the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched ‘colony’ cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. The use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals is an issue we are currently considering very carefully. \r\n\r\nFor laying hens, we are encouraged that the sector is moving away from the use of enriched ‘colony’ cages to free-range and barn production. The transition to cage free systems is being supported by this Government through grants for laying hen and pullet farmers in England with flocks of 1,000 birds or more, to refurbish or replace existing housing including those looking to make the transition from colony cages to high-welfare non-cage systems.\r\n\r\nThis transition has also been supported by the major supermarkets - who have pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by the end of 2025 - with some retailers also extending their 2025 pledge to processed egg, such as powdered or liquid. This shift by retailers has accelerated the move away from colony cage systems. Eggs produced from hens in colony cage systems accounted for just over 44% of the total egg throughput in the UK in 2018, but by the end of 2024, this had reduced to 20%. Free-range eggs now account for 69% of the total egg throughput in the UK. \r\n\r\nWe already have a significant outdoor pig sector: 50% of the national sow breeding herd give birth freely on outdoor units, with no option for confinement. The statutory Welfare Code of Practice for Pigs states that the aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets - (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pigs-on-farm-welfare).  \r\n\r\nAs with cages for laying hens, ending the use of farrowing crates is an issue that not only affects the UK industry, but is also something that our European trading partners are also considering and, as with any change to our farming systems, we need to carefully consider the implications for trade. When considering changes to welfare standards at home, it is crucial that we consider the potential for simply moving low-welfare production overseas. Replacing a UK egg with an imported caged egg would be bad for the consumer, bad for producers, and bad for animal welfare.\r\n\r\nThe Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, Schedule 6, Paragraph 1, sets down requirements that apply to the accommodation of calves confined for rearing and fattening. It states that: “No calf may be confined in an individual stall or pen after the age of eight weeks unless a veterinary surgeon certifies that its health or behaviour requires it to be isolated in order to receive treatment”. In addition, the regulation requires the hutches to be of a specified size and individual stalls or pens (except for those isolating sick animals) must have perforated walls which allow calves to have direct visual and tactile contact with other calves. \r\n\r\nWe are pleased that the industry has already been moving towards pair housing of young calves and some farm assurance schemes require calves to be housed in groups or pairs from less than 8 weeks of age.\r\n\r\nDefra’s Code of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Purposes provides keepers with guidance on how to meet the welfare needs of their gamebirds as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 - (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-the-welfare-of-gamebirds-reared-for-sporting-purposes). It recommends that barren cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used, and that any system should be appropriately enriched.  \r\n\r\nThe UK is rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality British produce, and we will work to ensure we address low confidence and provide stability for the farming sector, while delivering high standards of farm animal welfare. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2025-02-19T14:01:14.820Z","updated_at":"2025-02-19T14:06:16.895Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-16/debates/6FFB5159-BC54-4321-BDC5-CB64FF9BF2E2/FarmedAnimalsCagesAndCrates","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q29dXKFMozo","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0121/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","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":700557,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700557.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban non-stun slaughter in the UK","background":"In modern society, we believe more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled.\r\n\r\nWe believe non-stun slaughter is barbaric and doesn't fit in with our culture and modern-day values and should be banned, as some EU nations have done.","additional_details":"In a landmark case, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the ECHR.\r\n\r\nThe Court considered that the protection of public morals, to which Article 9 of the Convention referred was not indifferent to the living environment of individuals covered by its protection and including animals.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":109019,"created_at":"2024-11-03T11:50:06.631Z","updated_at":"2025-10-08T09:18:33.159Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-21T13:57:34.071Z","closed_at":"2025-05-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-04T16:51:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-08T09:11:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-01-10T14:30:23.976Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-04T15:32:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-09","debate_outcome_at":"2025-06-10T09:10:01.540Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-01-10","summary":"The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.","details":"The Government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but it respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.\r\n\r\nThe ‘Demonstration of Life Protocol’, an industry-led initiative supported by the Government, provides assurance for Muslim consumers that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter requirements, while protecting the welfare of the animals involved. Therefore, a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter.\r\n\r\nLegislation sets out the main requirements to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. There are additional rules that apply when animals are slaughtered without stunning to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering, or distress during the slaughter process. Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses to monitor and enforce these animal welfare requirements.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2025-01-10T14:30:23.972Z","updated_at":"2025-01-10T14:30:23.972Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-09/debates/27E94862-93C7-4D29-B0DA-F77F92D14161/Non-StunSlaughterOfAnimals","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/R7Anv9XBSPE","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0117/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","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":700014,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700014.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Decriminalise Abortion","background":"I am calling on the UK government to remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion.","additional_details":"The U.K is out of step with World Health Organization who in 2022 recommended that barriers to abortion such as criminalisation, or approval of others or institutions should be removed. Amnesty International state that abortion is a human rights issue.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":103653,"created_at":"2024-10-30T15:10:26.956Z","updated_at":"2025-06-03T09:33:52.174Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-04T18:02:29.015Z","closed_at":"2025-05-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T15:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-30T21:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-24T10:28:09.288Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-05T13:32:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-02","debate_outcome_at":"2025-06-03T09:33:40.676Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-23","summary":"All women have a right to access to safe, legal abortions on the NHS.","details":"All women have access to safe, legal abortions on the NHS both in a medical setting and at home, where eligible. In England and Wales, the Abortion Act 1967 defines the criteria under which legal terminations can take place.  The criminal law in relation to procuring an abortion is contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in particular sections 58 and 59. At this moment the Government has no plans to make changes to these Acts.  \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2024-12-24T10:28:09.286Z","updated_at":"2024-12-24T10:28:09.286Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-02/debates/600E3036-7871-4198-BD43-467F710AC5E1/DecriminalisingAbortion","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/BGrkBwK2tiU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0113/","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":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":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":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":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":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":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":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":[]}}]}