{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=1&state=open","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=46&state=open","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=open","prev":null},"data":[{"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":750050,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750050.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","background":"On July 4 2024, Sir Keir Starmer was elected as Prime Minister. Since then, his Government has introduced measures that were not included in the Labour Party's manifesto.","additional_details":"We believe we were misled and the obfuscation has only got worse since Starmer took power. It is time for action. We believe the Government has failed to defend our borders from the small boats. We have no confidence in the way this Government has acted. Pensioners and farmers have been directly affected by policies that were not included in Labour's manifesto.\r\n \r\nOur country cannot go on like this. Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":204253,"created_at":"2025-11-08T22:55:44.097Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:44:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-10T16:12:30.998Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-08T23:27:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-29T07:03:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.700Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-03T22:20:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-16T14:38:48.150Z","creator_name":"Robert JF Barnes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"The Government holds office by virtue of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the public. There are no plans to change these arrangements.","details":"The Prime Minister can call a general election at a time of their choosing by requesting a dissolution of Parliament from the Sovereign within the five-year life of a Parliament. The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election.\r\n\r\nThis Government remains focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last General Election. Since coming into office, we have restored stability across government; and secured £340 billion of investment into our country.\r\n\r\nWages under this Government have increased more during our first year in office than under the previous 10 years of the last government. We have reduced NHS waiting lists by 225,000 and rolled out thousands of free breakfast clubs across the country. We have also increased the National Minimum Wage and our manifesto pledge to introduce an Employment Rights Act has now been passed into law.\r\n\r\nWe recognise people across the country want to see change in their everyday lives. As a result of the decisions this Government has taken, families will see £150 come off their energy bills this year, rail fares will remain frozen for the first time in 30 years and NHS prescription charges will be capped below £10.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that this petition has received. However, the issue raised by this petition has recently been discussed by MPs in a petitions debate on this topic.\r\n\r\nA debate took place on 12 January 2026 on e-petition 727309, “Call an immediate general election” (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727309).\r\n\r\nWatch the debate: \r\nhttps://www.youtube.com/live/9A_Mm9hZO4o\r\n\r\nRead a transcript of the debate:\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-12/debates/49F4AFFB-2D48-44D4-AE24-1DC5262CD9C7/a \r\n"},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756036,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756036.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge","background":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Currently, fees can reach thousands, creating a \"paywall\" for justice. All legal records should be public property to help ensure transparency, allow for fair appeals, and support victims. Access to the law should not depend on wealth.","additional_details":"High transcription costs can create a prohibitive paywall for justice. Private companies can charge thousands for transcriptions, which can effectively bar small-claims litigants from pursuing fair appeals or accessing their own trials. Full transcriptions of the longest trials can cost £20k. Access to the law mustn't be a luxury for the wealthy. We ask the Government to end the private-pay model and provide free digital access to all transcripts to help ensure transparency and equality.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":202724,"created_at":"2026-01-05T15:44:31.884Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:22:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-05T12:46:37.363Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-05T15:55:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T10:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.037Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T19:04:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Daniel ShenSmith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government is already increasing transparency in the courts, including expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks.  Going further now would place even more pressure on the system.","details":"The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.\r\n\r\nIn the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks. These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge's sentencing remarks: Form EX107H (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-transcript-of-a-judges-sentencing-remarks). From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme. The Government's ongoing reform of the criminal courts will further enhance transparency by making sure all hearings in magistrates courts are recorded.\r\n\r\nIn the family court, the Government has also been working to support the judiciary to increase the number of family court judgments that are published in anonymised form, while ensuring the privacy and protection of children and families involved in proceedings.  On more targeted transparency measures, the Government is working with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders across England and Wales, providing a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing. Since 29 September 2025, provisions relating to Transparency Orders have applied to all children’s cases. \r\n\r\nIn civil proceedings, litigants in England and Wales do not need to pay for the written order or judgment relating to their own case; this is sent to all parties involved, setting out the court’s reasoning for the decision, which parties can refer to if they wish to appeal that decision.\r\n\r\nIn tribunal proceedings, any judicial decision and the reasons will be provided to the parties unless there has been an order restricting that. Many of the major tribunal chambers also allow parties to proceedings to request fuller written reasons for tribunal decisions for no additional cost. \r\n\r\nThe Ministry of Justice is also working with the judiciary and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to consider the procedural, operational and resource requirements of implementing the publishing of written reasons for decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, to improve transparency and public understanding.\r\n\r\nWhile the Government remains committed to continuing to improve transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Making all court and tribunal transcripts available for free would create significant financial and operational pressure at a time when we are focused on rolling out free sentencing remarks for all victims, and when the wider justice system is under considerable pressure. Producing an accurate court or tribunal transcript is a resource-intensive process. Full hearing or trial transcripts are particularly expensive due to their length and the level of quality assurance required to ensure they are accurate and safeguard personal data. Ensuring compliance with reporting restrictions is also central to the release of any court transcript, including vulnerable parties are protected and sensitive details are not inadvertently released.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to upholding the principle of open justice, including embracing AI and exploring the opportunities it offers to produce court and tribunal transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively, while still meeting the necessary accuracy and safeguarding standards. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.033Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:29.587Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759385,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759385.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office","background":"Introduce a new legal disqualification so people convicted of terrorism offences (in the UK or abroad) cannot stand as candidates or hold elected office, including local councils.","additional_details":"This is needed because current local election disqualification rules focus mainly on recent imprisonment thresholds (for example, being sentenced to 3 months or more within the last 5 years) and therefore may not prevent individuals with serious historic convictions from standing today. The Electoral Commission notes that the returning officer cannot confirm whether a candidate is disqualified and candidates self-declare their eligibility when submitting nomination papers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":194032,"created_at":"2026-01-30T15:04:00.665Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:19:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-06T11:41:36.948Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T15:26:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-06T15:32:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.657Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-08T02:39:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Richard James Donaldson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-01","summary":"Anyone sentenced to 3 months or more in prison is disqualified for 5 years from local government. We keep the broader counter terrorism framework under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.","details":"Currently anyone who has received a custodial sentence of 3 months or more, suspended or not, is disqualified for 5 years from standing or sitting as a member of a local authority. Councillors and candidates must declare anything that might disqualify them from standing for or holding local office. Not doing so is potentially a criminal offence.\r\n\r\nFor the role of Police and Crime Commissioner, an individual is disqualified from standing for, and holding office, if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.\r\n\r\nAs regards Members of Parliament, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Representation of the People Act 1981 set out the criteria which disqualify an individual from membership of the UK Parliament.\r\n\r\nThe UK has one of the strongest counter terrorism frameworks in the world. This includes a range of specialised counter terrorism powers which support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon their release.  We always keep this framework under review to ensure it is fit for purpose in the context of emerging threats. This is supported through independent scrutiny provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.655Z","updated_at":"2026-04-01T15:55:34.118Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759783,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759783.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make a public animal abuser register & automatically ban ownership","background":"Create a public register of all offenders convicted of animal abuse and introduce an automatic, lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal neglect or abuse. This register should be searchable by vets, breeders, charities and the public to prevent repeat offending.","additional_details":"I clean homes for free for people in need and regularly witness animals suffering under owners with a history for animal neglect or abuse. Currently, bans are discretionary and there is no public register. Abusers can continue acquiring animals. A mandatory ban and register could prevent repeat cruelty and break cycles of harm. Additionally, an immediate automatic lifetime ban could prevent animal ownership being at a judge’s discretion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":180111,"created_at":"2026-02-03T12:04:15.845Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:45:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-12T17:01:57.173Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-03T12:51:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-02T17:17:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-03T22:06:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Bea Elton","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":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":154037,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:39:40.000Z","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":755980,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the evidence and fund the addition of SMA to the Newborn Screening Test","background":"We urge the UK Government to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test. SMA is a rare genetic condition with devastating consequences if not treated early. Every baby should be screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.","additional_details":"SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality: up to 90% of untreated babies either died before age two or required permanent ventilation. It is now treatable, but treatment is most effective before symptoms appear. Early diagnosis can give babies the chance at a life without severe disability. Without screening, many babies are diagnosed too late. The damage already caused to their mobility, breathing and swallowing cannot be reversed. Scotland has committed to piloting SMA newborn screening this year. All babies should have the same chance. No child should suffer avoidable harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":149205,"created_at":"2026-01-04T20:34:00.006Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:21:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-09T11:05:19.553Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-04T20:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T12:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.880Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T18:48:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jesy Nelson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The NHS is planning an in-service evaluation offering SMA screening to newborn babies in England. This will inform a decision on whether to extend the NHS newborn blood spot screening programme.","details":"The Government is grateful to campaigners who have made a powerful case for doing more on screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We are committed to seeing more children with SMA not just surviving but thriving.\r\n\r\nMinisters and the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom are advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the Committee is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme. Ministers in each of the four nations then make a decision on whether to accept the recommendation.\r\n\r\nAs recommended by the UK NSC, we are working at pace to roll out an In-Service Evaluation (ISE) in NHS screening services in England. An ISE is used where a change in screening policy is justified by strong evidence, but important evidence gaps still remain that can only reasonably be filled by evaluation in a live NHS setting. The UK NSC uses ISEs to support its screening recommendation process and inform wider policy decisions about screening.\r\n\r\nThere are a number of areas where evidence gaps exist which an ISE of newborn screening for SMA will help to fill:\r\n\r\n1.\tFeasibility\r\nThe ISE will test the optimum clinical pathway and test methodology within the context of a nationally delivered newborn blood spot programme in the NHS, ensuring the safe movement of babies through the screening pathway. This includes testing the logistics of administering a programme that is delivered consistently by multiple geographically separated and commissioned screening and genetics laboratories, treatment referral centres and IT systems, including the establishing of sustainable data collection systems for longer-term outcomes.\r\n\r\n2.\tAcceptability\r\nWork is required to understand the acceptability and experience of families of screened babies and the healthcare professionals involved in the screening pathway, for example with regard to the timing and mode of delivery of results. This will support future decision making on the optimal screening pathway.\r\n\r\n3.\tEffectiveness\r\nScreening for SMA aims to screen, diagnose and treat babies before they have symptoms. The ISE will evaluate the timescales that can be met by UK services at important stages of the screening pathway, such as for result availability, clinical referral and the start of any treatment. The performance of SMA tests in an NHS environment needs to be evaluated to ensure the screening programme demonstrates test characteristics, such as accuracy, reproducibility, resilience and operational utility.\r\n\r\nAs the drugs to treat the underlying biology of SMA are quite new, there is no evidence on their long-term clinical effectiveness, so evaluating this within the context of the NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme is important. Gaining more data on short-term outcomes will contribute evidence as to how clinically effective screening in the UK is.\r\n\r\nAs the long-term effectiveness of novel treatments is currently unknown, the ISE will allow for sustainable longer-term health outcome monitoring systems to be established. This will provide an essential capability for assessing the effectiveness of the screening programme. This includes metrics such as health states, quality of life, mortality and psychosocial outcomes.\r\n\r\n4.\tCost-effectiveness\r\nThe economic model commissioned by the UK NSC estimates that SMA screening in the UK is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective. However, there are important uncertainties that could affect the accuracy and conclusions of the model. The ISE will therefore identify further information to allow both clinical and cost-effectiveness to be assessed, using real world UK data. This includes:\r\n\r\n•\tcosts involved in screening \r\n•\tclinical effectiveness of presymptomatic and symptomatic treatment and the impact of diagnostic delay on presymptomatic babies\r\n•\tlong-term effectiveness of treatment\r\n•\thow accurate the screening tests are \r\n•\twhich treatments patients receive and how effective these treatments are \r\n•\tincidence of SMA in the UK\r\n\r\nThe research component of the ISE is being commissioned via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. A decision on funding is expected in spring 2026.  The Secretary of State has asked NHSE to look at what can be done to move faster on the rollout of the ISE, and whether it would be feasible to extend the ISE to the whole of England.\r\n\r\nThe planning and development of the ISE is being overseen by a partnership board that includes:\r\n\r\n•\tscreening experts from the four UK governments and from the NHS\r\n•\tstakeholder organisations interested in newborn screening for SMA\r\n•\tclinicians\r\n•\tacademics\r\n•\tgenomic experts\r\n•\tpatient and public voice representatives\r\n\r\nSMA can have a devastating impact on individuals and families, and we are committed to working with all our stakeholders to progress this work in the UK.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\r\n\r\nThis is a revised response submitted by the Government. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980 ","created_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.878Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T17:26:11.952Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751839,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751839.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children","background":"The government is aware of the potential irreversible impact (physical and emotional) of puberty blockers, having acknowledged an 'unacceptable safety risk’ following the Cass Review. Yet, hundreds of children are about to be given puberty blockers under a government-sanctioned trial.","additional_details":"We want this trial to be cancelled. We believe that the answer for children feeling dis-ease in their bodies (many of whom are autistic) is the passage of time and natural progression of puberty, coupled with explorative therapy. We believe that the answer is never medicalisation that can harm brain development, bone growth, sexual functioning, and lead to infertility, and that to put children on a path towards such harm is the antithesis of safeguarding.\r\nLet us not be written into history as the country that knowingly harmed vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":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":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":736578,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736578.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use","background":"Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans.","additional_details":"Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval.\r\n \r\nIn 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":118626,"created_at":"2025-08-07T21:10:12.188Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:24:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-31T10:22:59.264Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-07T21:53:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-02T14:09:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.743Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T19:54:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-27","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Maria Iriart","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-13","summary":"The use of animals for development of products for human use remains necessary. The Government therefore does not agree to end testing on dogs and other animals for testing and research purposes.","details":"Our published Replacing Animals in Science strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/replacing-animals-in-science-strategy) will accelerate the roll out of safe and effective alternatives to phase out animal testing in all but exceptional circumstances, delivering on our manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing\". By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use, while continuing to support crucial research and innovation.\r\n\r\nScientific advances make the prospects for change better than they have ever been, and we are supporting the acceleration of advances in biomedical science and technologies, to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. This includes stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling and AI techniques based on very large data sets.\r\n\r\nThe strategy is backed by £75m of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30m for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM) – a new centre to make the path to regulatory approval for new alternatives as straightforward as possible. It also includes £30m for a preclinical translational models hub – an institute that will bring together data, technology and expertise to promote collaboration between researchers.\r\n\r\nThe strategy includes a target that aims to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic (PK) studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. The strategy also sets a target to aim to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.\r\n\r\nThe strategy builds on our current approach, to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs), and to ensure that the UK continues to have a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards. The UK has a world leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides core funding for the National Centre for 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to support the appropriate use of animals where reliable and effective alternatives are not yet available. Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). However, we are determined to work with regulators and scientists as we move towards phasing out the use of animals. Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment.\r\n\r\nThe argument claiming over 90% of drugs fail in human trials, despite being tested on animals, disregards drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable for use in human clinical trials. Drugs fail for a variety of reasons and animals are used for safety screening as well as efficacy modelling. Moreover, not all types of drugs fail at the same rate. Many do better and success rates vary widely by treatment type.\r\n\r\nThe welfare of animals in science is ensured by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (ASPA, 1986) and enforced by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). The use of animals in science is highly regulated, including a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. The UK Home Office regulator conducts an integrated assessment of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections. The Government has published and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.\r\n\r\nASPA mandates the development and application of alternative methods, including non-animal methods, as part of implementation of the 3Rs (the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animals used in research). Under ASPA, research which uses animals is only conducted where there is no alternative available, using the fewest number of animals and procedures. Until full replacement of the use of animals in science is possible, the UK’s support of refinement approaches, led by the NC3Rs, works to reduce animal suffering as much as possible.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology ","created_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z"},"debate":null,"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":752646,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752646.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.","additional_details":"We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":113983,"created_at":"2025-11-29T09:25:32.301Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:25:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-28T13:17:00.515Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T22:08:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T14:14:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.261Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-01T10:27:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andy Kalil","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"The Government does not support a public inquiry, but takes the issue of foreign influence from any country and lobbying in UK politics very seriously and is already taking action to address this.","details":"The Government does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence, and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally. However, the Government takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this. \r\n\r\nThere is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House. As part of open governance, ministers meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of government policy. \r\n\r\nGoing further, the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. This includes looking at whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient. In Parliament, the Government has asked the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct to consider whether the rules relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. \r\n\r\nMost recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft. The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026. \r\n\r\nThe Government responded immediately to the review with two measures via amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations and regulated transactions made by British citizens living abroad, and a moratorium on political donations made using cryptocurrency of any amount. These measures build upon existing measures in the Bill to introduce tougher rules on political interference in the UK’s elections. The Government will consider all of the other recommendations of the Rycroft review and respond to them in due course. \r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752673,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752673.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Act to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament","background":"We want the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that when bills are supported by MPs & the public, they have the time to complete all their stages in Parliament. We believe this is important to uphold democracy.","additional_details":"We believe the decision of MPs must be respected, especially on matters of social change, and that unelected Lords have a responsibility to scrutinise bills, not block them. With over 1,000 amendments tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, most by just a handful of Lords, we are concerned that it will run out of time. MPs have voted for it and a poll has found over 70% of the public back it. While the Government is neutral, it must uphold democracy. We believe it must act so the Bill can progress.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":112627,"created_at":"2025-11-29T11:57:32.414Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:45:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-04T10:31:36.517Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T12:22:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T17:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.427Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-16T19:35:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sophie Blake","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in the UK and is responsible for making law. A Bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament to become law.","details":"Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitutional settlement. This means that it is Parliament, not the Government, that holds the power to make or repeal any law. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons as a Private Member’s Bill (PMB), and on the question of assisted dying, the Government has remained neutral on the Bill throughout its parliamentary stages.\r\n\r\nThe primacy of the House of Commons, as the elected House, is an established constitutional principle, and is reflected in the provisions of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which reduced the House of Lords’ power to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. \r\n\r\nThe House of Lords is independent of both the House of Commons and the Government. The Government respects the important role played by the Lords in scrutinising legislation according to the conventions and procedures of the Lords. \r\n\r\nAs the Leader of the House of Commons has said, once the House of Lords have completed their scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Government will, if necessary, find time in this current session for the House of Commons to consider any amendments they propose.\r\n\r\nOffice of the Leader of the House of Commons ","created_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754432,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754432.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Urge Israeli Government to stop law allowing execution of Palestinian prisoners","background":"The UK Government must act urgently to urge the Israeli Government to stop the proposed law which would permit the execution of Palestinian Prisoners, past, present and future.","additional_details":"We believe that such a law would constitute complete violation of the Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Law. UN experts have called for these proposals to be dropped.\r\n\r\nWe call on the UK Government apply considerable and substantial political pressure and the leverage of its international obligations to prevent the Israeli Government from passing this law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":112359,"created_at":"2025-12-13T18:32:30.130Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-04T16:54:54.678Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-13T20:50:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-31T15:08:20.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-05T20:22:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Katharina Amanda Adler","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":746640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/746640.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate crimes motivated by misogyny are hate crimes, fund support & training","background":"The Government should amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes and introduce tougher laws for online abuse, and fund the training of police and prosecutors, and support for survivors in education. ","additional_details":"We want the Government to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. Many young women, especially students, face harassment, assault, and online abuse. Misogyny can fuel this violence, yet we believe current laws fail to address it directly. Recognising misogyny as a hate crime could protect victims, deter offenders, and send a clear message that gender-based hostility is unacceptable. It could also validate survivors’ experiences and help create safer environments in education and online, where young people are most vulnerable.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":111398,"created_at":"2025-10-12T15:42:56.121Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:35:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-02T11:13:31.266Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-12T15:49:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-27T14:54:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-11T19:41:40.661Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-19T10:49:00.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Amara Relf","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-11","summary":"The Government has tabled an amendment at Lords Report Stage of the Crime and Policing Bill to extend the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.","details":"Hate crime legislation in England and Wales covers five protected characteristics: race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability. Sex, or presumed sex, has not previously been covered, meaning that ‘misogyny’ currently falls outside the scope of the hate crime legislative framework.\r\n\r\nUnder the proposed amendment, sex will be added to the list of protected characteristics under the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ensuring that offences motivated by hostility towards someone’s sex or presumed sex can be charged as aggravated where the evidence supports it. This amendment delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to level up protections by expanding the aggravated offence framework so that hostility based on sexual orientation, disability, transgender identity, or sex or presumed sex attracts the same penalties as offences motivated by racist or religious hatred, thereby creating parity across protected characteristics.\r\n\r\nAggravated offences are crime types such as assault, criminal damage, harassment, stalking and certain public order offences where it can be proven that the offender was motivated by hostility towards a protected characteristic. These offences carry higher maximum sentences than their non‑aggravated equivalents. The offences mirror the (non‑hate crime) equivalents already covered under sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. No new criminal offences are being created; the amendment simply extends the existing aggravated versions to additional protected characteristics.\r\n\r\nThe Government keeps hate crime legislation under review, strengthening it where necessary to protect those most at risk. As part of this ongoing commitment to ensuring the framework remains robust the Home Secretary announced the Independent Review of Public Order and Hate Crime following the terrorist attack at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester in October 2025. \r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Review is to test whether public order and hate crime law remains fit for purpose, assess whether thresholds and safeguards are right and effective, and recommend reforms that improve consistency, protect rights and reassure affected communities. The Review is due to report its findings by the end of March.\r\n\r\nTackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a top priority for this Government. “Freedom from Violence and Abuse: a cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls”, published on 18th December 2025, sets out the strategic direction and concrete actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators, and support victims, and to deliver our unprecedented commitment to halve VAWG in a decade.\r\n\r\nPrevention and early intervention are fundamental to our approach. We will tackle the root causes of these crimes instead of only responding to the impacts, including supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent.\r\n\r\nWe recognise the destructive role that misogynistic attitudes can play in society, including the impact they can have on men and boys. Tackling entrenched societal issues like misogyny requires a whole society approach, and we are working across government, public services, the private sector and charities to achieve our ambitions. \r\n\r\nThe commitments made by the Government through the strategy to tackle the root causes of these crimes can be found in “Freedom from Violence and Abuse: a cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls Vol 2.”, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697c7e21aacd0dc9777b502a/31.260_VAWG_02_Action_Plan_Slip_FINAL_v3_WEB_290126.pdf \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-03-11T19:41:40.659Z","updated_at":"2026-03-11T19:41:40.659Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751929,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751929.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Government apology and compensation for 1950s Women affected by pension changes","background":"We ask Government to deliver a fair, timely, fully transparent apology that reflects ALL evidence based on what we think constitutes maladministration and discrimination; and addresses the financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes.","additional_details":"Many 1950s-born women have faced lifelong and historic discrimination, compounded by the Government’s failure to properly communicate State Pension Age changes. DWP Ministers have listened only to a group representing a fraction of those affected, leaving others feeling ignored. As many campaign groups unite, we think it is unacceptable that the Government continues to silence the majority. After decades of inequality, accountability and action are long overdue.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":70518,"created_at":"2025-11-25T11:47:53.488Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:03:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T10:44:53.835Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-25T13:48:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T13:43:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.836Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Kay Ann Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"We apologised for not sending State Pension age letters sooner. Deciding not to pay compensation and the Ombudsman’s report relate to that, not the petition’s “hardship...caused by pension changes”.","details":"The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigated the way State Pension age changes were communicated to women born in the 1950s and whether within a specific time period there was maladministration and injustice and if so, whether it warrants compensation. They did not examine the “financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes” that the petition focuses on and which relate to the decision, first taken by Parliament in 1995, to equalise the State Pension age for men and women nor that to accelerate the increases in 2011 taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition. \r\n\r\nThe PHSO’s findings relate narrowly to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period. The Ombudsman found that the Department’s communications met expected standards between 1995 and 2004. But that between 2005 and 2007 there was a 28 month delay in sending personalised letters to women affected and that this was maladministration. \r\n\r\nOn 29 January the Secretary of State announced the Government’s new decision on the Ombudsman’s investigation. He accepted that individual letters about changes to the State Pension age could have been sent earlier. He apologised for that maladministration in the House of Commons and in the document explaining his decision which has been published. \r\n\r\nThe Secretary of State recognised the importance that decisions on the State Pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives the need for government to weigh carefully any future changes. The Department is developing an Action Plan for the future.\r\n\r\nThe Secretary of State has set out the Government’s position in detail to Parliament, which can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsmans-investigation-into-womens-state-pension-age-communications-and-associated-issues. \r\n\r\nThere are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the State Pension age. In particular, whether the decision taken to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do or not. But this is not the issue the Ombudsman or the Government has been considering. Changes to State Pension age to equalise it to 65 and increase it to 66, 67 and 68 were agreed by Parliament and have been tested in the Courts. \r\nIn relation to the PHSO’s investigation, the Government took account of the views of 1950s women and people representing them, including Members of Parliament. \r\n\r\nIn the decision-making process, the Government considered the relevant evidence, including the PHSO's comprehensive report which itself drew on extensive testimony from affected women. The views and experiences of 1950s women were therefore part of the evidence base considered.\r\n\r\nWe are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes have a better life in retirement. The Government are now ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up of Pension Credit, which saw tens of thousands more Pension Credit awards in the year up to November than the previous 12 months.\r\n\r\nIn addition, our commitment to the Triple Lock for the entirety of this Parliament means that pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the State Pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. \r\n\r\nWe are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z","updated_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757233,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757233.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not ban social media for under 16s","background":"I think the government shouldn’t ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think the government shouldn’t ban it.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":64055,"created_at":"2026-01-15T16:02:06.325Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:08:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-11T15:24:24.063Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T20:43:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-18T15:25:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.581Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Leo Rhodes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this important issue. The government is committed to harnessing the benefits of technology to shape a future that works for us all, particularly for children. To do this, people must have confidence that their children are protected online.\r\n\r\nThe Online Safety Act (the ‘Act’) is one of the toughest regimes globally in protecting people from illegal content and activity, and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Since the Act has come into effect, the government has ensured keeping children safe online remains a priority and have always said we will take further action as necessary.\r\n\r\nWe know parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when to give them a phone, what they are seeing online, and the impact all of this is having. We also know there are growing concerns among parents, carers and those that work with children about AI, including children forming relationships with chatbots as if they were real people.\r\n\r\nEvery child deserves the strongest possible start in life, full of love, learning and play. Technology can open up huge opportunities for young people and social media can help children communicate with friends and feel part of a wider community. However, in the age of smartphones, children’s lives are changing rapidly – sometimes faster than families, schools or support services can respond.\r\n\r\nThere are calls from across the UK for the government to take action, including calls from many to enforce a social media ban for under 16s. However, as is evident from this petition, opinions on a possible social media ban are divided – with some of the most prominent voices believing that social media ban is not the right answer. This demonstrates that, while there are calls for the government to take action, there is still no consensus on how.\r\n\r\nThe government firmly believes that policy making must give proper consideration to a range of views and be rooted in the best available evidence. That is why, on the 2 March 2026, the government launched a consultation to seek further evidence and views on these issues and possible solutions, including on whether there should be a minimum age for social media, and if so, what age would be right. The responses to this consultation will also help shape decisions on:\r\n•\tWhether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features that keep children hooked late into the night - like infinite scrolling and autoplay;\r\n•\tWhether mandatory overnight curfews would help children sleep better and what age they should apply to;\r\n•\tHow age verification and age assurance technologies can support effective implementation and;\r\n•\tWhether the use of mobile phones in schools should be put on a statutory footing.\r\n\r\nThis will be a short, sharp consultation of three months, closing on 26 May 2026, allowing us to hear all perspectives, build consensus where we can, and then act decisively. There will be no delay, and government will explain our next steps by the summer.\r\n\r\nWe welcome views from all those with an interest in this issue, including parents, children’s organisations, bereaved families, industry, and children themselves. Alongside the consultation, today we are launching a child‑ and parent‑friendly version to ensure voices in this debate are properly heard. To access the consultation, consultation survey, and child and parent friendly versions of the consultation survey, please follow this link: Growing up in the online world: a national consultation - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation).\r\n\r\nAlongside the consultation, we are launching a wide-ranging national conversation and piloting potential interventions to ensure future decisions are informed by real-world evidence. We will also look closely at the experience in Australia and their ban for under 16s.\r\n\r\nThis consultation is the next step in the government’s work to ensure children’s experiences online are safe and enriching. Together, we are shaping a digital world that reflects our values and protects our children while preparing them for the future in an age of digital technologies and rapid technological change.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology ","created_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.578Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T11:09:33.971Z"},"debate":null,"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":749128,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/749128.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Apply to Rejoin the EU as soon as possible to increase growth in the UK","background":"We believe Brexit's not working. The OBR judges that the UK economy is smaller and trade is weaker because of Brexit, and it will just get worse. 10 years after the Brexit vote, let's apply to rejoin the EU, reverse the damage, boost growth, increase tax revenues and restore opportunities in the UK","additional_details":"The OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) March 2025 economic forecasts show the Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement will reduce long-run productivity by 4% due mainly to the increase in non-tariff barriers on trade with both imports and exports 15% lower, and that new trade deals will not have a material impact to offset this. Also that savings on payments to the EU have been absorbed by increased Government spending.\r\n\r\nIt's time to seek to rejoin the EU, remove those barriers and boost the economy.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":63006,"created_at":"2025-11-02T22:25:01.511Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:28:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-08T16:33:22.767Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-02T22:44:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T19:08:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:11.829Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert McMaster","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-07","summary":"The UK will not be rejoining the EU, but this Government has reset its relationship with the EU with a new strategic partnership: A deal that is good for UK bills, borders, jobs and growth.","details":"The Government was elected in July 2024 with a clear mandate to strengthen our relationship with the EU without rejoining the Single Market, Customs Union or returning to freedom of movement. \r\n\r\nSince taking office, we have reset our relations with European partners in order to improve our diplomatic, economic, and security cooperation.\r\n\r\nOn 19 May 2025, at the first ever Summit between the UK and the EU, the Prime Minister announced a deal with the EU that will deliver on what the British public voted for last year. It’s good for bills, good for our borders, and good for jobs.\r\n\r\nThe deal we have struck will reduce trade barriers through the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, increase energy efficiency through cooperation on electricity trading, and allow a cheaper transition to net zero through linking our Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS). These measures reduce costs for businesses, meaning better prices and more choice to consumers, and they will support British jobs and livelihoods.\r\n\r\nThrough this deal, the UK has unprecedented access to the EU market – the best of any country outside the EU or EFTA. The SPS and ETS linking measures alone are set to add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040, in a significant boost for growth.\r\n\r\nOur focus for 2026 is all about driving forward. Negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027 have concluded  and we are now working to conclude negotiations on the Youth Experience Scheme, establishing a common Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)  Area and linking our Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) by the time of the next EU-UK Summit, so that businesses and consumers can benefit from the impacts of these agreements as soon as possible. \r\n\r\nThis Government is seizing the flexibility of Brexit - making the best choices for business and citizens from its position outside the EU, through significant deals with the US and India, and now a new partnership with the EU - each decision taken to support UK growth. This is making a Brexit that works for Britain.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:11.824Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:47.312Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751472,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751472.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a screening programme for prostate cancer, starting with high-risk men","background":"We are calling on the Government to reassess the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) draft recommendation not to offer prostate cancer screening to anyone except men with BRCA1/2 genetic variants, and to introduce screening for all high-risk men.","additional_details":"Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men yet has no screening programme.\r\n\r\nWe disagree with the UK NSC’s analysis of the evidence and the weight it has placed on avoiding unintended harms. We believe the Committee has fixated on potential harms that have already dramatically reduced, while under-weighting the very real benefits of early detection. The analysis has not kept pace with modern practice or acknowledged how this would be an improvement on the current inefficient and inequitable system.\r\n\r\nTargeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. Early diagnosis saves lives.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":61921,"created_at":"2025-11-22T09:01:51.375Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:38:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-13T11:30:15.340Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T09:47:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T20:52:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.935Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David James","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"The UK National Screening Committee consulted on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation and will make a final recommendation soon. The Government will then consider whether to accept it.","details":"The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) makes recommendations to ministers and the NHS across the four nations of the United Kingdom, based on an assessment of high-quality, peer reviewed evidence on whether screening for a certain condition would do more good than harm at reasonable cost. The UK NSC considered the current diagnostic and treatment pathways and consulted on their findings. The evidence package can be found at https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/11/28/uk-nsc-opens-consultation-on-draft-prostate-cancer-screening-recommendation/ \r\n\r\nScreening is specifically for people without symptoms or a diagnosis. The process must therefore minimise harm, such as unnecessary treatment or anxiety resulting from false positive test results. This level of caution is less relevant for people with diagnosed conditions or already in clinical care. They have sought clinical care or advice for a problem. They are in direct contact with a clinician so they can discuss the merits or otherwise of tests and treatments, rather than simply being provided with generic information to read. They have symptoms or a reason for concern. This means their test is much more likely to represent a true positive result, unlike in screening when people have a greater chance of receiving a false positive result. People in clinical care expect follow-up and face a smaller risk of harm from predictive tests. The ethical position, the ability of an individual to discuss issues with a clinician, and the likelihood of having a condition, all therefore differ significantly between clinical management and screening. Screening can do harm, as well as good (benefit). It is also possible for someone to experience both the harms and benefits of screening at the same time. For example, a man may live longer due to their prostate cancer being identified and treated but also live with serious side effects of treatment.\r\n\r\nThe aim of prostate cancer screening would be to detect prostate cancer early to prevent death and reduce suffering from the disease. For men with aggressive and/or advanced prostate cancer, early intervention and treatment can allow them to live longer by preventing prostate cancer death. It can also reduce the chances of serious complications such as prostate cancer spreading to other parts of the body. Prostate cancer can spread to the area just outside the prostate (locally advanced or locally invasive cancer), and cause symptoms such as erectile dysfunction, difficulties emptying the bladder and pain. It can also spread further (metastatic cancer), most commonly to the bones and spine, where it can cause severe pain, fractures, or spinal cord compression. Just over one in ten (12% of) men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England have metastatic prostate cancer at the time of their diagnosis. These are important, serious outcomes that screening and treatment would try to prevent.\r\n\r\nThere have been very large research trials of population screening in England and the United States of America. These studies show that there is a very small reduction in deaths after 15 years from prostate cancer in screened men (two out of one thousand). There are also several harms associated with screening. These arise from the additional tests that men go through to get a prostate cancer diagnosis (including a biopsy of the prostate) and the treatment they may then receive. Harms can arise as early as two weeks after beginning treatment, and can persist for a very long time (six years or more, or possibly a lifetime). For example, after six months:\r\n\r\n•\tFor men undergoing prostate surgery:\r\no\t19% (almost one in five) will be unable to control their bladder (moderate to severe urinary incontinence)\r\no\t3% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\r\no\t66% (two thirds) will experience moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\r\n\r\n•\tFor men undergoing radiotherapy:\r\no\t38% (nearly two in every five) will find it difficult to control their bladder\r\no\t6% will have moderate to severe urinary incontinence\r\no\t5% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\r\no\t48% (nearly half) will have moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\r\n\r\nThe majority of men (c.80%) whose prostate cancers would be identified through screening would not benefit in terms of preventing prostate cancer deaths and metastasis. Many of these men would receive treatment they do not need and the harms of screening would quickly outweigh any benefits at a population level. The challenge is how to identify those men who have aggressive prostate cancer while minimising the risks of serious and long-lasting side effects for many other men. More information on how the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening were considered within the prostate cancer screening model can be found in the UK NSC evidence papers.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC will make a final recommendation soon, after which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will consider whether to accept and implement the recommendation.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z"},"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":762640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762640.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum to bring the water industry into public ownership","background":"Hold a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership. Water is a basic human necessity; we believe our privatised system has failed, so the public should decide who owns and controls it.","additional_details":"Private water companies have about 62 million captive customers whose bills have delivered over £85 Bn to shareholders; money that in public ownership could have been spent on fixing our infrastructure. No other country in the world has privatised water like this. We believe that proposed government reforms to regulation show that water company owners are being favoured over the public, and this is not right in a democracy. A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":60736,"created_at":"2026-02-27T11:05:06.660Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:46:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T17:05:47.359Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-27T11:32:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-08T17:19:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashley Paul Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751443,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751443.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the 5-Year ILR route for refugees. Do not extend it to 10 or 20 years","background":"We call on the UK Government to preserve the current 5-year route (ILR) for refugees and people with humanitarian protection.","additional_details":"We believe that proposals to extend this period to 10 or even 20 years would create severe, long-term hardship for millions of people including children who call the UK their only home.\r\n\r\nMany refugees have already suffered war, violence, persecution, and trauma. We think keeping them in temporary status for 10–20 years, without a stable path to settlement, is inhumane, and it could prevent families from healing, integrating, and contributing fully to society.\r\n \r\nWe urge the Government to protect the existing 5-year ILR route and ensure that refugees can rebuild their lives in safety, stability, and dignity. Finally, for many of us, this is not just about rules, we walk under a sky that offers no safety and upon a ground that gives no stability.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":52682,"created_at":"2025-11-21T21:12:24.666Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:39:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-22T14:22:40.033Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T01:44:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-02T21:01:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-14T12:11:34.254Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"S Babar","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-14","summary":"As set out in the Restoring Order & Control paper, those eligible for protection will be on a 20-year route to settlement. We will introduce a new route where refugees may ‘earn’ settlement sooner.","details":"The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who genuinely need it. Protecting them for as long as it is needed, is in accordance with our international obligations. This will not change. The principle that people genuinely fleeing persecution should be welcomed is one this Government will always defend.\r\n\r\nHowever, the system we inherited was broken. Since 2021, over 425,000 people have claimed asylum in the UK. Just a decade before (2011-2015), that figure was around 150,000.  Rising arrivals and falling removals has placed considerable strain on the country and the taxpayer. \r\n\r\nWe must tackle the factors that incentivise people to come to the UK. Today, seeking asylum in Britain is more attractive than in other countries in Europe. A 5-year initial period of leave leads, almost automatically, to settled status. This means refugee status is, in effect, permanent from day one. This encourages asylum-seekers to pass through other safe countries in pursuit of asylum here.\r\n\r\nCurrently, refugees, some of whom arrive illegally, get more generous entitlements than other migrants. This is unfair to people who follow the rules of the managed migration system including British citizens. We want to make the system fairer for the British public and migrants who play by the rules.\r\n\r\nThe statement sets out a fair and firm approach to restoring order to the system, which is essential for building community cohesion. By increasing public confidence in the integrity of the asylum system, the reforms will help build trust and reduce tensions within communities.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, these reforms support successful integration for those granted protection, enabling them to contribute positively to society. Integration brings significant benefits for individuals, taxpayers, and communities. It is wholly right that we strive to achieve these goals as they are essential to secure public confidence. It is only by operating a fair, effective and functioning system that we can maintain this country's long tradition of helping those fleeing peril. \r\n\r\nAs such, the statement sets out a new approach to refugee protection in the UK, which marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection, and towards a more basic, temporary protection which we call ‘core protection’.\r\n\r\nThis government will never step back from our responsibility to provide protection to those fleeing war and persecution. But we will now restore this to the intention of the 1951 Convention. That refugee status is a temporary sanctuary. A safe haven until a return home is possible. This is entirely in accordance with our international obligations but does not exceed them.\r\n\r\nRefugees will receive 30 months’ permission to stay instead of 5 years. Protection needs will be regularly reassessed, and they will not have an automatic right to bring family members to the UK. They will be on a 20-year route to settlement rather than being able to apply after 5 years. \r\n\r\nThe Government does not believe that refugees should remain on core protection long-term. We want to encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary and rebuild their lives. To address this, we will encourage refugees to switch out of the core protection route wherever possible. We will introduce a new, in-country Protection Work and Study route. A person granted protection will be eligible to apply if they obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee. Once on this route, individuals will be able to access family reunion rights and become eligible to ‘earn’ settlement sooner than under core protection alone.\r\n\r\nThis Government has never operated a policy of automatic settlement for refugees granted limited permission. We will carefully manage the transition into the new system to ensure the offer remains clear and fair.\r\n\r\nAll settlement applications will continue to be carefully considered on their individual merits. This includes assessing whether there have been significant changes in country conditions or personal circumstances, which means that an individual no longer needs our protection. We will not remove anyone to their own or any other country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution or are at risk of serious harm. \r\n\r\nImpacts on vulnerable individuals are at the front and centre of our work. Under our new offer, those who remain at risk will continue to remain in the UK for as long as necessary. \r\n\r\nWe are considering the appropriate pathways for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, families with children, and other vulnerable asylum seekers, taking into account their needs and vulnerabilities.\r\n\r\nThe Government has consulted on settlement requirements as part of a review on earned settlement. The feedback is being analysed, and the Home Office will publish a response in due course. Further details on the proposals can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-04-14T12:11:34.251Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T12:12:22.361Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":753568,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/753568.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 5yr Minimum Sentence for unlawfully carrying a Knife 3yrs Juveniles","background":"We've a knife crime epidemic with too many people carrying knives in public; As a serving police officer I tackled many offenders carrying a knife & once almost lost my life when stabbed in chest arresting a burglar; too many parents are planning funerals instead of bright futures for their children","additional_details":"We want the GOVT to introduce minimum sentences in order to act as a deterrent for carrying knives & blades in public; Knife homicides far outnumber gun homicides; yet carry a gun there is a 5 year Minimum sentence but carrying a Knife its often a community sentence. We believe communities live in fear of Knife crime & it has become a scourge on society and needs to be dealt with as a serious Health issue and a National Emergency as it is affecting the fabric of society & too often involving children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":52371,"created_at":"2025-12-05T15:32:44.861Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:06:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-16T14:55:53.096Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-05T17:49:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-31T12:21:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.609Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Norman Steven Brennan","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-16","summary":"The Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences for carrying a knife. The law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and threatening with a weapon.","details":"Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives. That is why, as part of the Safer Streets mission, this Government is working to halve knife crime within a decade. We have a comprehensive, data-led and Government-wide approach to this goal.\r\n\r\nThe Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences of 5 years for adults and 3 years for young people aged under 18, for carrying a knife. \r\n\r\nMinimum sentences are rare in England and Wales. It is the function of the court to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant sentencing guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must also be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. \r\n\r\nThe maximum penalty for carrying a knife is 4 years imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, the law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a four-month Detention and Training Order.\r\n\r\nWhere someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that they may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences, up to life imprisonment. Murder is a very serious crime which carries a mandatory life sentence. This is the same for any murder, including those involving knives or guns. \r\n\r\nIn recognition of the importance of tackling knife crime, the Government’s manifesto committed to ensuring that every young person caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a Youth Justice Service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. We are taking a significant step towards delivering this manifesto commitment and will shortly be publishing tough new guidance that sets out our expectations on how the police and Youth Justice Services should respond to knife possession offences committed by children.\r\n\r\nOn 24 September 2024, we implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, and it is now illegal to sell, manufacture or possess these weapons. We also introduced new legislation to ban ninja swords, and since 1 August 2025, it has been illegal to sell or own these weapons.\r\n\r\nIn October 2024, the then Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to conduct a review into the online sale and delivery of knives. The Independent End-To-End Review of Online Knife Sales was published on 19 February 2025. We are taking forward the most pressing recommendations and have announced “Ronan’s Law,” a range of measures which will include stricter rules for online sellers of knives. These include strengthening age verification controls and checks through a two-stage age verification system at the point of purchase and on delivery. \r\n\r\nWith measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through Parliament,  we are increasing the penalties for illegal sales of knives, creating a new offence of possessing a knife with the intention to commit unlawful violence, creating a duty on sellers to report bulk sales, and giving the police new power to seize knives when they believe they are likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence.\r\n\r\nIn February 2025, the Government committed to consult on plans to introduce a comprehensive licensing scheme for those who sell knives or other bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers, making them subject to strict regulations and conditions. A public consultation was launched on 16 December 2025 to gather views on these proposals and consider impacts before making any legislative changes that would be required to introduce such licensing. The consultation is open until 24 February 2026 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/licensing-for-knife-sales\r\n\r\nWe have also introduced new legislation to provide the police with the power to require social media, marketplace, and search services to take down illegal knife and offensive weapon content. Failure to remove this material could result in significant penalties for both the company and a designated senior executive. This meets the Government’s manifesto commitment to hold the senior executives of online companies accountable for flouting rules around online knife sales.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.595Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T09:25:27.819Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756814,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756814.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce Vehicle Excise Duty by 50% for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years","background":"Introduce a 50% VED reduction for cars aged 20–39. High taxes force functional vehicles to be scrapped, creating a \"disposable\" culture. Keeping existing cars is greener than building new ones, as it preserves embedded carbon. This \"Young-Timer\" bracket supports the circular economy and UK heritage.","additional_details":"Manufacturing a new car creates massive carbon debt. We must move from a \"disposable\" car culture to a circular economy. Keeping a functional 20-year-old car on the road is often greener than building a new one, as it preserves the embedded carbon already spent. Current VED rates force many well-maintained cars to be scrapped prematurely. We call for a 50% \"Transition to Historic\" tax discount to encourage repair, support the UK heritage industry, and reflect the low mileage of modern classics.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":49496,"created_at":"2026-01-12T13:25:01.230Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:46:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-06T16:23:23.747Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T14:39:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T15:00:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.681Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Heitor Mazzotti","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"The Government has no plans to reduce Vehicle Excise Duty liabilities for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years. The Government keeps all taxes under review and the Chancellor makes decisions at fiscal events.","details":"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax on vehicles used or kept on public roads. Different rates apply to cars, vans, and motorcycles, and the rate for each vehicle is calculated according to a range of factors, such as its date of first registration, weight, or CO2 emissions.\r\n  \r\nCars registered before 1 March 2001 pay VED annually based on engine size. Since 2001, the tax system has encouraged the uptake of cars with low carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to help meet the UK's legally binding climate targets. Cars first registered between 1 March 2001 and 31 March 2017 pay VED annually according to CO2 emissions.  From 1 April 2017, a reformed VED system was introduced for new cars. The changes in April 2017 were applied to new cars only, meaning that the tax treatment of existing cars was not impacted.\r\n\r\nThe majority of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle's emissions come from fuel production and tailpipe emissions. The Department for Transport's 2022 lifecycle analysis shows that the manufacturing emissions for a medium sized petrol or diesel car are estimated to be less than 20% of the lifetime emissions of the vehicle (2020-2030 scenarios). The lifecycle analysis can be found here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lifecycle-analysis-of-uk-road-vehicles.\r\n \r\nAt Budget 2014 the Government at the time announced that it would introduce a rolling 40-year exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for classic cars. This means that currently vehicles constructed before 1 January 1985 are exempt from paying VED. From 1 April 2026 vehicles constructed before 1 January 1986 will become exempt from VED.\r\n\r\nThe law does not specifically define a vehicle as historic or classic for registration purposes, and it is widely recognised that there are many factors other than age which influence whether a car is considered classic. The Government at the time therefore set 40 years as being a fair cut-off date to distinguish classic cars from older cars.\r\n \r\nRevenue from motoring taxes helps ensure we can continue to fund the vital public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect. For example, by 2029/30, the government will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair, renew and fix potholes on their roads – doubling funding since coming into office. This record level of funding will enable the government to exceed its manifesto commitment to fix an additional 1 million potholes per year by the end of the Parliament.\r\n  \r\nWhile there are no current plans to reduce VED for cars aged 20 to 39 years, the Government keeps all taxes under review, and the Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury \r\n","created_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.679Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T12:13:44.033Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":764785,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764785.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support the Ceramics Industry and protect British manufacturing jobs and skills","background":"Apply energy intensive industry relief (Supercharger scheme) to the ceramics industry to help cut soaring industrial energy costs & support ceramics businesses, which are at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention, as seen with Denby Pottery registering for administration support.","additional_details":"Urgently review the British Industrial Supercharger and expand it to include the ceramics industry within its remit, and produce a policy statement about the Government’s policy to protect and support industry and jobs.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":49489,"created_at":"2026-03-19T10:58:30.234Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:44:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-17T10:31:36.749Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-19T11:11:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-17T19:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Hayley Baddiley","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"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":744237,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744237.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it an offence to carry a catapult in public without lawful defence","background":"Change the law so catapult possession in public is an offence. Currently, police must prove intent or use to cause harm. We propose it becomes an absolute offence, like air rifles, without lawful defence. Rising attacks on people, animals, and wildlife show stronger powers are needed.","additional_details":"Catapults are increasingly linked to assaults, criminal damage, and rising wildlife attacks. Making public possession an absolute offence like air rifles with age checks, and a licensing scheme for legitimate uses like angling, would give police stronger powers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":41118,"created_at":"2025-09-29T11:28:19.203Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:07:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-23T14:17:08.000Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-29T12:53:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-27T18:35:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-16T15:52:10.202Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Christopher Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-16","summary":"There are laws that can already be used against individuals who use catapults as a weapon, but the Government understands the concerns and is actively looking at this issue.","details":"The Government shares the concerns raised by the petitioners over the misuse of catapults, whether against people, property or wildlife.\r\n\r\nThere are a wide range of laws in place to punish those who misuse catapults. For example, under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, if a person carries an offensive weapon in a public place or threatens a person with an offensive weapon, they may face up to 4 years in prison. An offensive weapon is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by another person. The definition may include a catapult depending on the circumstances and facts of the case. \r\n\r\nWhere a catapult is used to harm a person, under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, it could be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment, However, depending on the gravity of the attack and the seriousness of the injury caused by the catapult, the offence of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent could be committed, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. \r\n\r\nUnder the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the police have powers to deal with offences concerning deliberate attempts to kill, injure or inflict harm on wildlife, and this would include cases where catapults have been used. It is also an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause an animal any unnecessary suffering. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increases the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty to, for example, pets and livestock by increasing the maximum penalty for this offence to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.\r\n\r\nThe Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 also provides the police, local authorities and other local agencies with a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond to anti-social behaviour including that involving catapults. This includes Community Protection Warnings and Notices (CPWs and CPNs), and Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) which can be used to prevent behaviour that is having, or likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. Through the Crime and Policing Bill we will also ensure that the police, local authorities, and other agencies have the tools and powers they need to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour and crime that is plaguing our communities. This includes increasing the maximum penalty for breach of a CPN or PSPO from £100 to £500, and the introduction of Respect Orders. Respect Orders will enable courts to ban adult offenders from engaging in harmful anti-social behaviours. This could, for example, see offenders banned from entering certain public places, where they have been behaving anti-socially.  \r\n\r\nThis Government is focussed on putting neighbourhood policing at the heart of plans to reform policing, to both enforce existing laws and those that this Government is bringing forward. The Government has committed to delivering an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles by the end of this Parliament and made £200 million available this year to support the first steps towards delivering this significant boost to neighbourhood policing.  \r\n\r\nThe Home Office is providing funding this financial year for the National Rural Crime Unit as well as continuing its funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit. This will help the units tackle those crimes that predominantly affect our rural communities.\r\n\r\nThere are a range of offences and powers that can therefore be used to prevent the misuse of catapults, but the Government is aware of continuing concerns about the problems caused by catapults. We are actively considering what more might be done, especially around enforcement. \r\n\r\nWe do not intend to accept the petitioners’ proposal at this time. However, public safety is a Government priority, and in view of the continuing concerns, we are actively looking at what more can be done to address the misuse of catapults.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-12-16T15:52:10.199Z","updated_at":"2025-12-16T15:52:10.199Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":758008,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758008.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban atmospheric geoengineering in UK","background":"Prohibit all atmospheric geoengineering and weather-modification in the UK. These practices could raise environmental and public health concerns and lack transparency. We call for independent research, democratic oversight, and clear law.","additional_details":"Atmospheric geoengineering and weather-modification may pose serious risks to public health, air quality, ecosystems, agriculture, and weather stability. The public deserves clarity about activities that could affect the environment and well-being. Precautionary action is needed to prevent harm, protect public trust, and ensure environmental decisions are evidence-based, accountable, and safe.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":38767,"created_at":"2026-01-21T09:24:37.229Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:46:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-24T12:39:25.209Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-21T09:45:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-27T02:06:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-16T17:27:25.251Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jessica Mapson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-16","summary":"The UK does not undertake any form of weather modification. The Government is not in favour of deploying Solar Radiation Modification and has no plans to do so. ","details":"Weather modification typically refers to deliberate actions taken to influence local weather conditions over short timeframes. The UK does not undertake any form of weather modification. Atmospheric geoengineering, also referred to as solar radiation modification (SRM), describes a set of technologies that could theoretically cool the Earth largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. The Government is not in favour of deploying SRM and has no plans to do so. \r\n\r\nOur focus is on tackling the underlying causes of climate change by delivering a clean energy transition and raising international climate mitigation ambition. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. \r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the need to understand the risks and impacts of SRM. We support independent research that is responsible and transparent, complies with domestic and international regulations, and strengthens the evidence base on atmospheric geoengineering. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero","created_at":"2026-04-16T17:27:25.248Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T17:33:48.845Z"},"debate":null,"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":752400,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752400.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop proposed changes to the Motability Scheme","background":"The recent budget has announced taxes on advanced payments and a decrease in mileage allowances. We believe this is unfair to the most vulnerable in society and could affect their independence.","additional_details":"Many disabled people earn considerably less than average and a cost increase could mean they struggle to get a car.\r\n \r\nMany disabled people also need to use their car for short journeys, where others may be able to walk, and mileage soon adds up because of this.\r\n \r\nWhile those living in big cities could potentially rely on public transport, public transport is often rare in rural areas, which may potentially take people's independence away.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":36913,"created_at":"2025-11-27T18:17:55.254Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:46:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-15T10:17:44.161Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-05T02:11:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-28T18:30:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-13T09:44:02.113Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dave Walton","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-13","summary":"The Government and Motability have worked in partnership to develop reforms which strike the right balance between delivering a key service for disabled people and fairness to the taxpayer. ","details":"The Motability Scheme is a lifeline for many disabled people and families, supporting their independence by enabling them to lease a car, a wheelchair accessible vehicle, scooter or powered wheelchair in exchange for an eligible disability benefit allowance.\r\n\r\nThe Government and Motability have worked in partnership to develop a suite of reforms which strikes the right balance between delivering a key service for disabled people and fairness to the taxpayer, saving over £1 billion by financial year 2030/31. These reforms will not affect eligibility for the Motability Scheme or disability benefits. \r\n\r\nThe VAT relief for Advanced Payments – a one-off payment made to lease more expensive vehicles – will be removed and Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) will apply to leases at the standard rate, bringing tax treatment in line with commercial leasing firms. These changes will only apply to customers taking out new leases with Motability and will not apply to current leases or to wheelchair accessible vehicles in recognition of the additional costs associated with these vehicles. VAT reliefs on weekly lease costs and vehicle resale will remain in place.\r\n\r\nMotability has also confirmed it will continue to offer a broad range of vehicles available without an Advance Payment, ensuring that people can access vehicles suited to their needs, whether that’s a larger vehicle or extra boot space to carry wheelchairs, using only their disability benefit.\r\n\r\nOn 26 March 2026, Motability announced changes to the leasing package that will affect new leases taken out from 1 July 2026. For new leases, mileage will be 10,000 miles a year. This is consistent with standard mileage allowances for car leases, and three out of four current customers drive fewer than 10,000 miles a year. Motability recognises that some customers may need to drive more miles for a variety of reasons. They will be introducing an exceptions process for very limited situations and will share an update before 1 July.\r\n\r\nStandard leases will continue to include insurance, servicing, maintenance and breakdown cover, protecting the core package of support available to customers.\r\n\r\nIn determining these changes, Motability have taken careful steps to ensure the Scheme remains good value and accessible for disabled people. This includes engaging with Scheme customers about prospective changes, the feedback from which has informed the changes. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions\r\n","created_at":"2026-04-13T09:44:02.112Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T09:45:56.071Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750999,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750999.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund cardiac screening at age 14 years and cardiac awareness programme","background":"Fund population cardiac screening for every young person when they reach age 14 years. The screening should be undertaken with a review of family history and electrocardiogram (ECG) followed up where necessary with echocardiogram (heart scan).","additional_details":"12 people aged 35 and under die suddenly from heart conditions in the UK every week. Many show no symptoms and many could be saved by screening. We urge the Government and UKNSC to introduce ECG screening at age 14 and launch a national awareness campaign to stop these needless deaths.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":36241,"created_at":"2025-11-17T05:45:27.655Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:25:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-14T08:43:10.342Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-17T14:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T18:15:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.231Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Stephen Anthony Ayling","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-13","summary":"The Government is guided by the UK National Screening Committee which is re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening in young people and will open a public consultation in the spring.","details":"It is vital that screening policy is based on scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.\r\n\r\nThe Government is advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the UK NSC is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC last reviewed screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death in people under the age of 39 years old in 2019 and concluded that population screening should not be offered.\r\n\r\nResearch showed that it was unclear whether available tests could accurately detect heart conditions in young people without symptoms. The current evidence suggests that introducing population-level screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death would cause harm by misdiagnosing some people, potentially leading them to make life-changing decisions, such as giving up exercise, which could have a negative long-term impact on their health.\r\n\r\nReceiving a false diagnosis could also lead to some people being prescribed medication or undergoing medical procedures that they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted. It could lead to people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not at risk.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, screening could provide false reassurance to others who are at risk of sudden cardiac death but whose risk would not be picked up by screening tests. Footballers seen having cardiac arrests on the pitch have often been screened, but the test did not show anything unusual – there are many causes of sudden cardiac death which might not be detectable as part of screening.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the 2019 review did not find any research comparing the effectiveness of screening with no screening in the prevention of sudden cardiac death.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC is currently re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in the spring.\r\n\r\nTo reduce the risks of sudden cardiac death, NHS England has a published national service specification for Inherited Cardiac Conditions that covers patients who often present as young adults with previously undiagnosed cardiac disease, or families requiring follow up due to a death caused by this. This describes the service model and guidance that should be followed to support diagnosis and treatment of patients or family members. It also includes the requirement for specialised Inherited Cardiac Conditions services to investigate suspected cases.\r\n\r\nNHS England also runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care’s Community Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Fund delivered 3,080 new AEDs to local communities between September 2023 and February 2025. These AEDs were prioritised for areas of greatest need. This included remote communities with extended ambulance response times, places with high footfall and high population densities, hotspots for cardiac arrest including sporting venues and venues with vulnerable people, and deprived areas.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, since 2014 the NHS has run quality assured antenatal and newborn screening programmes through which babies are screened for congenital heart disease antenatally, and in the newborn period.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England currently have no specific ongoing campaigns, or plans to conduct a campaign, to raise awareness of sudden cardiac death.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z"},"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":752501,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752501.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise Bereavement Support Payment and extend beyond 18 months","background":"Reform Bereavement Support Payment so families with and without dependent children receive help beyond 18 months, with annual uprating to reflect cost of living. ","additional_details":"BSP ends after 18 months and is not uprated, which can leave widowed families in financial hardship for years. I lost my husband in May 2025, gave up my career to care for him, and now earn less than 25% of our previous income while raising two young children. Previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance lasted until Child Benefit ended, offering stability. We feel that BSP ignores long-term income loss and emotional strain.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":33998,"created_at":"2025-11-28T11:07:21.722Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:58:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T15:25:55.294Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-28T11:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-20T23:20:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.764Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"CAROLINE ANNE BOOTH","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-04","summary":"Bereavement Support Payment provides valuable short-term help after a death. While we are not able to increase BSP at this time, longer-term support is available from other social security benefits.","details":"The Government recognises the profound emotional and financial impact that losing a spouse, civil partner, or cohabiting partner with dependent children can have on families. We are grateful to the petitioner for sharing their experience, and we understand the challenges bereaved families can face during an already extremely difficult time.\r\n\r\nBereavement Support Payment (BSP) is designed to provide short‑term financial support to help with the immediate additional costs associated with a death. It consists of an initial lump sum followed by 18 monthly payments, with higher rates paid to those with dependent children. BSP is not taxed, does not count towards the benefit cap, and is paid in addition to any income‑related benefits the bereaved may be entitled to.\r\n\r\nThe petition asks the Government to extend BSP beyond 18 months for all families, and to uprate its value annually in line with the cost of living. BSP is not intended as an ongoing income‑replacement benefit, nor is it designed to match the duration of a family’s grief. The 18‑month duration reflects the policy intent to provide support during the acute period following a bereavement, when people may face sudden costs or short‑term disruption. Longer‑term financial support is instead available through income‑replacement benefits such as Universal Credit, which are usually uprated annually in line with inflation and designed to provide continuing support with everyday living costs.\r\n\r\nWe also recognise the comparison made in the petition to the previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA), which could be paid until Child Benefit ended. WPA formed part of a complex system of bereavement benefits which the previous Government reformed in 2017 to create a single, simpler, and more modern benefit. BSP was introduced to ensure a clearer, fairer, and more consistent approach across households.\r\n\r\nOn eligibility, BSP is currently available to surviving spouses and civil partners, and to cohabiting partners with dependent children. In 2023 the Government changed the law to extend eligibility to cohabitees with children following court judgments that found the previous rules discriminated against children on the basis of their parents’ marital status. This extension focused on families with children, to ensure they get the financial support they need.\r\n\r\nOn uprating, BSP is reviewed each year on a discretionary basis as part of the annual uprating process. In doing so we need to take into account the broader fiscal position and prioritise where government can most effectively deploy public money. Following this year’s review, it is proposed that BSP will stay at the current rate for 2026/27. Claimants on the standard rate will continue to receive an initial payment of £2,500 and 18 payments of £100, while those on the higher rate will receive £3,500 followed by 18 payments of £350. This allows BSP to help with the immediate costs of bereavement. There is a wide range of other financial support available to the bereaved, including Universal Credit where needed and Funeral Expenses Payments for eligible people arranging a funeral.\r\n\r\nThe Government keeps all benefits, including BSP under review. We recognise the significant impact of bereavement on individuals and families and remain committed to supporting people through the immediate period following the death of a loved one.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions ","created_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761127,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761127.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to ban FPNs and prosecutions related to school attendance","background":"We believe school fines & prosecutions do not help to improve school attendance. They are a blunt, ineffective tool & they do not tackle the root cause of attendance difficulties. I'm proposing the law is changed to ban FPNs & prosecutions. This will encourage collaboration rather than punishment.","additional_details":"FPNs were at a record high in the last full academic year (2024-25) which we believe evidences that they are ineffective and punish families and have become a stealth tax. We feel that the attendance legislation is being abused. It was introduced to tackle persistent absenteeism when parents refused to engage with support. We are seeing schools marking absences which should already be marked as authorised as unauthorised. This includes absences for illness, SEND & family emergencies. The attendance drive is driving a wedge between school and home.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":33997,"created_at":"2026-02-14T19:43:01.396Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:36:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-24T17:25:51.085Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-14T20:04:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-29T20:59:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.054Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Natalie Elliott","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-21","summary":"Government has no plans to ban fixed penalty notices or prosecutions for non-attendance. Both influence parental behaviour, where support has been exhausted, not engaged with or is inappropriate.","details":"The Government has no plans to ban fixed penalty notices (FPNs) or prosecutions for non-attendance. Both measures are important in influencing parental behaviour in cases where support has been exhausted, not engaged with or is not appropriate, such as in the case of term-time holidays. \r\n\r\nAttendance data for unauthorised absence in the 2024-25 academic year showed our approach is having a positive impact, as the proportion of absence due to unauthorised holiday fell from 0.53% in 2023/24 to 0.48% in 2024/25 and the overall rate of absence fell by 0.37 percentage points.\r\n\r\n93% of penalty notices issued in 2024-25 were for unauthorised term-time holidays, which shows that FPNs are being used primarily in circumstances where support is not appropriate, as intended by the national framework introduced in August 2024. \r\n\r\nThe Department’s Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance is clear that legal intervention tools such as FPNs and prosecutions, should be used only as a last resort. Schools are expected to pursue a ‘support first’ approach to tackle underlying causes of non-attendance. The guidance emphasises the importance of schools and local authorities working together with children and their parents to address barriers to attendance and to build strong, trusting relationships. Legal interventions such as fixed penalty notices and prosecutions should be considered only where this support has not been effective or is not appropriate. \r\n\r\nParents have a legal duty under the Education Act 1996 to ensure that their child of compulsory school age (5-16) receives a full‑time education, either by attending school or otherwise. Where a child is registered at a school, parents must ensure they attend regularly. Parents can be penalised if their child is absent from school without authorisation.\r\nThe Government recognises that there are circumstances in which a pupil is unable to attend school for a legally recognised reason. The Education Act 1996 sets out the situations in which an absent pupil will not be taken to have failed to attend school regularly, including illness or other unavoidable circumstances, religious observance, where the school has given prior permission for absence, or where the local authority has not fulfilled any duty it has to help the child attend. \r\n\r\nSchools must record attendance in line with the School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024 and with regard to the DfE’s statutory guidance ‘Working together to improve school attendance’. Decisions about how an absence should be recorded depend on the individual facts of each case. Headteachers and school staff know their pupils well and are therefore best placed to decide how an absence should be recorded. In the majority of cases, a parent’s notification that their child is ill should be sufficient for the school to authorise the absence using code I (illness). Schools also have discretion to grant a leave of absence in exceptional circumstances, such as family emergencies, and parents should speak to their headteacher and present their case where they feel that such an absence is required. \r\n\r\nWhere pupils are not attending school due to unmet needs, the Department’s guidance sets out clear expectations on how schools, local authorities and wider services work together with parents to provide the right support to improve attendance.\r\n\r\nFor these reasons, the government does not believe that banning fixed penalty notices and prosecutions will be in the best interests of addressing school non-attendance and upholding a child’s right to a full-time education. The current system expects schools, trusts and local authorities to work with parents to provide support first and where this fails or is not appropriate, to consider the full range of legal interventions. It is for individual schools and local authorities to decide whether to use them in an individual case after considering the individual circumstances of a family. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Education ","created_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.051Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.051Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":748695,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/748695.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold an inquiry into CAMHS and NHS children’s mental health delays","background":"Establish an inquiry into reported failures in CAMHS and NHS delays affecting children’s mental health, school attendance, and welfare outcomes.","additional_details":"Many children face long waits for CAMHS and NHS mental health support, which can leave families without help and pupils unable to attend school. Access to care and GP prescribing of SSRIs can vary by postcode, which can create unfair treatment gaps. These failures can harm education and drive rising welfare costs. EHCP's are also being affected as we feel the H (Health) parts are not being addressed. This can cause further costs to cash strapped local authorities. An inquiry is needed now.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":33636,"created_at":"2025-10-30T19:11:07.016Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:40:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-03T10:58:51.707Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-30T20:54:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-08T04:54:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-19T16:09:23.237Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Thomas Tunney","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-19","summary":"The Government has no current plans to establish an inquiry. Multiple actions are in place to improve and reform NHS mental health services and provide children with timely access to appropriate care.","details":"The nation’s mental health has deteriorated over the past decade. Lord Darzi’s investigation highlighted that people accessing NHS mental health services — including children and young people — face long waits, variable quality of care and persistent inequalities.\r\n\r\nThis Government has already taken important steps to stabilise and improve mental health services, but we recognise that much more needs to be done. Transforming the system will take time, but we are committed to delivering a fundamentally new approach to mental health care.\r\n\r\nProgress is already being made. In the first 12 months of this Government, nearly 40,000 more children and young people accessed NHS mental health support compared with the previous year. This has been supported by the recruitment of over 7,000 additional mental health workers since July 2024, putting us on track to meet our target of 8,500 by the end of this Parliament.\r\n\r\nWe are also investing in innovation and evidence-based improvement. Since July 2024, more than £100 million has been awarded through National Institute for Health and Care Research mental health research programmes to improve treatments and care pathways. This includes £1.5 million awarded in October to 17 innovative health technology projects aimed at reducing waiting times for children and young people.\r\n\r\nThe NHS 10 Year Health Plan sets out an ambitious programme of reform to make the NHS fit for the future. Building on this, we will go further to ensure mental health services consistently deliver timely, high-quality care. It is clear that ‘more of the same’ will not suffice. We will continue to reform how mental health support is delivered, reducing waits, improving quality and embedding a whole-of-society approach focused on prevention and early intervention.\r\n\r\nBy spring 2026, up to 900,000 additional children and young people will have access to an NHS-funded Mental Health Support Team in their school or college. As part of our shift from treatment to prevention, we will accelerate rollout to achieve full national coverage by 2029. We will also strengthen workforce capability to better support young people with complex needs, including trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating. To support this, we are investing £13 million to pilot enhanced staff training, informing future phases of the programme.\r\n\r\nOn 15 July, the Prime Minister set out plans to open 50 Young Futures Hubs over the next four years. Hubs will bring together services to improve access to opportunities and support for young people at community level, promoting positive outcomes and enabling them to thrive. The first eight Young Futures Hubs will launch by the end of this financial year, backed by a £2 million investment and targeted in areas with high levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, offering a lifeline to vulnerable young people. Work with these early adopters will inform the longer-term development of the programme, including how quickly we move to a greater number of hubs. We will set out more details in due course.\r\n\r\nThe Medium Term Planning Framework sets out how reforms from the 10 Year Health Plan will be delivered, including reducing the longest waits for children and young people’s community mental health services, improving productivity and tackling local inequalities and unwarranted variation in access.\r\n\r\nAlongside this, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has launched an independent review into the prevalence of, and support for, mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. We are deeply concerned that too many adults, children and young people have been let down by services and are not receiving timely or appropriate support.\r\n\r\nThe review will inform our future approach to mental health, ensuring people receive the right support, at the right time and in the right place. It will also shape how we support people with ADHD and autistic people to live well in their communities. The review will examine prevalence, early intervention, treatment pathways and the challenges facing clinical services, as well as the evidence on diagnosis, medicalisation and outcomes.\r\n\r\nIt will also identify opportunities for alternative models of support and pathways, both within and beyond the NHS, that strengthen prevention and early intervention alongside clinical care. The review will be led by Professor Peter Fonagy, supported by vice-chairs Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Professor Gillian Baird, and guided by an Advisory Working Group of academics, clinicians, charities, epidemiological experts and people with lived experience.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2025-12-19T16:09:23.235Z","updated_at":"2025-12-19T16:09:23.235Z"},"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":750545,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750545.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a crime to abandon someone in immediate danger without seeking help","background":"My sister Danielle died from asphyxiation during a domestic incident. She was locked in a property & died as result of being alone. There is currently no law requiring someone to take action when a life is at risk.","additional_details":"This petition is inspired by Danielle Haggerty’s tragic death. Other countries have “duty to rescue” laws that protect vulnerable people and encourage intervention to save lives. Introducing a similar law in the UK would prevent future tragedies and ensure that anyone in immediate danger has someone legally required to try to save them so that no-one would ever be knowingly left alone to die.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":28967,"created_at":"2025-11-12T20:58:44.531Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:35:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-22T16:18:15.349Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-12T21:40:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-25T13:35:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-17T10:27:30.355Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jonathan Haggerty","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"Currently, the Government has no plans to legislate to make it a crime for a person to leave someone on their own who may be vulnerable, in danger and in need help.  ","details":"The Government recognises the concerns raised by the petitioner, who seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to abandon a person who may be in immediate danger without seeking help. \r\n\r\nIn England and Wales, there is ordinarily no liability for failing to act. There is therefore no legal requirement for any person to intervene in a situation where medical assistance (or any other emergency assistance) could be required, unless they have a duty to do so. \r\n\r\nA duty of care may arise under specific circumstances. For example, between a parent and a child or between a care giver and an elderly person. In circumstances where it can be established that an individual owed the victim a duty of care and there was a serious breach of that duty which led to the death of the victim, that person may be liable to criminal prosecution. It would be the responsibility of the independent Crown Prosecution Service to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether to prosecute and select the appropriate charge. \r\n\r\nWe acknowledge that there may be cases in which not doing ‘the right thing’ seems reprehensible. However, the Government has no current plans to create a new offence in this area, as creating such a law would present considerable challenges, particularly in terms of its scope and nature. In effect, even a limited offence could unfairly penalise individuals who, without medical knowledge or other expertise in responding to emergencies, may find themselves unable to act in such situations. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice\r\nThis response was received on 9th February 2026\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-17T10:27:30.354Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T10:38:21.036Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750612,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750612.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to require drivers to report collisions with cats","background":"It is legal in the UK to hit a cat when driving and not need to stop or report collisions, leaving them scared, alone, and in pain. Cats are important, loved, valued family members for many and we believe the law should reflect this.","additional_details":"We want the Government to legislate to require drivers to stop, check and report any road collisions with cats if they’re injured on the road, and holds drivers accountable if they fail to stop and report a collision involving a cat on the basis they left a cat to unnecessarily suffer. We believe asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable & simple ask.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":27773,"created_at":"2025-11-13T14:11:41.146Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:28:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-17T09:04:32.079Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T14:31:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-11T19:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.976Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Carlie Power","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-03","summary":"The Government has no current plans to require drivers to report collisions with cats. However, the Road Safety Strategy will improve road safety for all road users, including cats and other animals.","details":"Improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities.\r\n\r\nOn 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. The Strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. This target will focus the efforts of road safety partners across Britain, with measures to improve road design, protect vulnerable road users, and review motoring offences. All of this will be supported and monitored by a new Road Safety Board chaired by the Minister for Local Transport.\r\n\r\nRoad safety is a shared responsibility, and this strategy reflects that. It considers action needed by government, local authorities, industry, emergency services and communities to tackle the causes of collisions and save lives. By investing in infrastructure, education, and enforcement, we are taking decisive steps to make our roads safer for everyone, which will in turn reduce the risk to all animals.\r\n\r\nThis is a compassionate country and although there is no obligation to report all animal deaths on roads, drivers should, if possible, make enquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals, such as cats, and advise them of the situation.\r\n\r\nUnder section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a driver is required to stop and report an accident involving specified animals including horses, cattle, ass, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats or wild animals. This requirement arises from their status as working animals rather than as domestic pets. To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170, would require primary legislation. (Note that certain legislation still uses the word ‘accident’, although the preferred terms are collision or crash.)\r\n\r\nBecause cats are much smaller than other specified animals, and often most active at dawn or dusk, in many cases drivers may not be aware they’ve hit them – particularly with larger vehicles. Because of that, it would be difficult to prosecute drivers if the law was changed.\r\n\r\nIn June 2024, the Government introduced compulsory cat microchipping to help reunite lost and stray cats. All cats in England over 20 weeks of age must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless exempt or free-living. The legislation is intended to improve pet welfare by increasing the likelihood of reuniting lost or stray pet cats with their keepers. Defra works closely with stakeholders to communicate pet microchipping requirements to the public.\r\n\r\nDefra has also commissioned a research project to understand the operational challenges that currently prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision. The project will provide an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities and is due to report later this year.\r\n\r\nAs set out in the Animal welfare strategy for England, DEFRA will work with the pet microchip database industry to develop improvements to the way the microchipping regime currently operates to make it easier for vets and other users to access records digitally and improve the accuracy of data. DEFRA will also continue to support the roll out of cat microchipping.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.973Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:25.431Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757426,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757426.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Nationalise water companies to make water a non profit publicly owned asset","background":"To make water a non profit making national asset that ensures we have a secure water infrastructure that ensures our water security for future generations.","additional_details":"We believe it has become very clear that funding capital infrastructure improvements has been a lower priority than shareholder profit and CEO salaries and bonuses by all the privatised water companies. Therefore, to ensure that our citizens water needs are met, now and in the future, water companies should be re-nationalised to ensure our country's water security in the future.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":27292,"created_at":"2026-01-16T19:09:03.592Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-25T15:35:23.735Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-16T19:50:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T21:45:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alan Edward Dean","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-31","summary":"Nationalisation would take years, involve a lengthy legal process, and divert time, energy and resources from working on the quickest and most effective way to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.","details":"The Government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of water companies, including pollution incidents, infrastructure failures, and the need for stronger environmental protection. We are clear that standards must improve and that water companies must be held fully to account.\r\n\r\nSome campaigners have called for nationalisation of the water industry or a move to not for profit public ownership. However, the Government does not believe that nationalisation is the answer. The reality is that it would take many years to unpick the current ownership model, would be extremely complex, and would likely result in prolonged legal challenges, with years spent in the courts rather than fixing the problems people rightly care about.\r\n\r\nDuring that period, billions of pounds of vital private investment needed to repair leaking pipes, upgrade infrastructure, and improve environmental performance would be put at risk or delayed. Nationalisation would also create a significant hole in the public finances, diverting funding away from key public priorities such as hospitals and schools, without delivering faster or better outcomes for customers or the environment.\r\n\r\nIndependent analysis by the Independent Water Commission found no evidence that ownership models—whether public or private—determine performance. What matters is strong regulation, effective enforcement, and sustained investment. That is why the Government is focused on reforming how the sector is regulated, rather than pursuing disruptive and costly structural change.\r\n\r\nThis is why we are delivering the most far reaching overhaul of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are strengthening the powers of regulators, introducing tougher oversight, enabling no notice inspections, and taking a prevention first approach to pollution. We are also increasing accountability by banning bonuses for senior executives when performance falls short, introducing swift and automatic penalties for pollution incidents, and creating new criminal sanctions for those who obstruct investigations. Nationalisation is not the answer—tougher regulation is—and we are giving regulators the teeth they need to act quickly and decisively.\r\n\r\nThe Water White Paper is also clear that where a water company proposes a transition to a different ownership model, such as a not for profit structure, the new regulator will assess whether this should go ahead and ensure that the interests of customers are properly protected and reflected in any decision.\r\n\r\nThe Government remains focused on ensuring water companies meet the high standards the public expects, invest in resilient infrastructure, protect bill payers, and restore the environment for future generations—delivering real improvements without the delay, disruption, and cost that nationalisation would bring.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ","created_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.217Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.217Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752855,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752855.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an NHS data opt-out & require a consultation for system expansions","background":"Introduce a clear national opt-out for NHS data processed in the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) and require a full public consultation before any further expansion of these systems.","additional_details":"The NHS is planning to move from multiple, separate systems to a new national data architecture. Technical documents show national processing of identifiable data, while public explanations may describe only anonymous or aggregate use. As these systems are still being rolled out, we believe the public should have transparency, a clear opt-out and the chance to respond before further expansion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":26305,"created_at":"2025-11-30T14:18:07.855Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:01:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-14T15:52:20.354Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-01T07:12:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T09:47:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.503Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gemma Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"The National Data Opt-Out does not apply to the NDIT or FDP as data use supports direct care, is legally required or is anonymised. National public engagement is shaping changes to the opt-out system.","details":"The National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) and Federated Data Platform (FDP)\r\n\r\nHealth and care providers already submit personal data daily that enables the NHS to run and manage services. NHS England is simplifying and strengthening that national data collection to support better care.\r\n\r\nThe National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) is NHS England’s secure platform for collecting and managing national health and care data. It replaces multiple legacy systems with one unified, secure process, reducing burden for NHS teams while ensuring the right data is available at the right time to support faster decisions and safer care. Data is pseudonymised using Privacy Enhancing Technologies and then routed to the National NHS Federated Data Platform where it is used for analysis, insights and decision-making.\r\n\r\nThe Federated Data Platform (FDP) enables NHS England and NHS organisations to meet statutory duties for data processing, information sharing, planning and service delivery. Its legal basis for processing is set out in the Overarching Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), which underwent extensive external review (including by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and National Data Guardian (NDG) to ensure lawful, fair and transparent processing.\r\n\r\nDPIAs define the legal basis for each data flow and are assessed by the NHS FDP Data Governance Group (DGG) to ensure lawful processing. NHS England’s wider statutory responsibilities for data under the Health and Care Act 2022 require transparency, safe-haven standards, robust governance and public accountability.\r\n\r\nTransparency and Public Involvement in the NDIT and FDP\r\n\r\nThe FDP programme demonstrates substantial, ongoing patient and public involvement, including around NDIT. Governance includes bodies established to embed public voice and provide challenge:\r\n\r\n•\tFDP Check and Challenge Group – strategic advice on transparency, ethics and public context.\r\n•\tHealth and Social Care Data Public Panel – ensuring clear, accessible public materials.\r\n•\tNHS FDP DGG – national oversight of data processing and protection, ensuring lawful use.\r\n•\tA public engagement portal enabling questions, feedback and participation opportunities, which can be accessed via the following link: https://fdp.england.nhs.uk.\r\n\r\nThe programme has a highly coordinated programme of engagement with a wide range of system stakeholders, including:\r\n\r\n•\tTrusts and integrated care boards through briefings, implementation support and proactive communications.\r\n•\tMembers of Parliament, national bodies and Arm’s-Length Bodies, kept updated throughout delivery.\r\n•\tClinical, operational and digital leaders via conferences, webinars and communities of practice.\r\n•\tEthics and regulatory bodies (ICO, NDG), through consultations and repeated DPIA review cycles with the DGG.\r\n\r\nThis intensive and diverse engagement helps ensure the FDP evolves with continuous feedback, scrutiny and co‑design across the health and care system.\r\n\r\nIn the future, user organisations may agree that FDP can be used to meet other use cases. NHS England has agreed to consult with patient groups and other organisations, including the NDG and the ICO, before any other Use Cases are agreed.\r\n\r\nPatient Choice regarding the NDIT and FDP\r\n\r\nThe National Data Opt-Out (NDOO) prevents confidential patient information being used for research and planning purposes. It does not apply to direct care (i.e. patient care, for example when you are being treated by a doctor). It also does not apply where data is anonymised, or where the information is required by law. The public are able to make their choice online, or through non-digital channels. Further information on the NDOO is available on the NHS website at the following link: https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/opt-out-of-sharing-your-health-records/. Public engagement recommendations delivered in 2025 will shape changes to the NDOO.\r\n\r\nNHS England carefully assesses all data processing within NDIT and the FDP. The use of patient data within the NHS FDP will always respect the NDOO and opt-outs will be applied in line with the policy.\r\n\r\nThe NDOO does not apply to NDIT processing because NHS England is legally required, under a direction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to process this data to create national insights and dashboards. There is, therefore, no specific opt-out for the NDIT, or plans to introduce one, as the data processing occurs under a legal requirement.\r\n\r\nThe NDOO does not apply to the FDP because:\r\n\r\n•\tNo confidential patient information is processed by any product in the national platform of FDP to which the NDOO would apply.\r\n•\tConfidential patient information that is being used in a local platform of the FDP is only being used for the purposes of direct care, and therefore the NDOO does not apply.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.501Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.501Z"},"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":756775,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756775.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Sever UK-Iran ties, withdraw recognition of Iran’s regime & expel all diplomats","background":"We urge Parliament to severe all diplomatic ties with Iran, withdraw recognition of the regime as the legitimate government of Iran, and expel any Iranian diplomats from the UK, in the wake of recent events and reported human rights abuses that have been committed there.","additional_details":"We believe the Islamic Republic of Iran has neglected the needs and will of its people for 47 years. Now, people are in the streets demonstrating against the regime and calling for a transition to democracy. Rather than listening and accepting their demand, the regime has decided to cut internet access, phone lines, and other means of communication with the outside world, and are reported to be suppressing protesters with live ammunition, which have killed thousands.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":25927,"created_at":"2026-01-11T23:23:16.416Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:10:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-10T15:18:00.641Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T14:58:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T11:08:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-10T21:29:48.832Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Amir Sabbaghi","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-10","summary":"The Government condemns Iran’s destabilising actions, but believes relations are essential to protecting British nationals, holding Iran to account, reducing escalation and supporting diplomacy.","details":"For decades, Iran’s behaviour across the region has caused instability, fear and suffering. Its nuclear programme remains of significant concern. The regime has used violence to suppress the Iranian people and also pursued activities that endanger peace beyond its border.\r\n\r\nIn the UK, a number of Iran-backed plots have been disrupted over the past year.   We are clear about the seriousness of the domestic threat and are taking the necessary actions to counter it. Iran’s ongoing reckless attacks on countries in the region are unacceptable, and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We have been clear to Iran: it must put an end to these activities.\r\n\r\nThe petition calls for the UK to sever ties, withdraw recognition and expel Iran’s diplomats. We understand why people might support these steps. However, the Government’s responsibility is to protect British lives and interests while working for a safer and more stable Middle East. \r\nOur priorities remain: preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; supporting regional stability and protecting UK economic and security interests; protecting the UK against state threats from Iran; providing support for British Nationals; and preventing the regime from using violence to suppress its people.\r\n\r\nWe believe that maintaining our diplomatic relations, and the ability to apply firm and coordinated pressure on Iran, is essential to pursuing these objectives. Our relationship allows us to deliver clear messages directly to the regime. We still believe that a negotiated outcome is the best way to address the nuclear issue and reduce wider regional risks. Keeping channels open preserves important diplomatic leverage. Cutting ties would narrow the options available to us.\r\n\r\nThis also applies in the context of the current conflict. The UK has not been involved in the strikes on Iran. We have taken the decision to accept the US request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, thereby helping to prevent attacks that could kill innocent civilians, put British lives at risk and hit countries that have not been involved. We urge Iran to urgently choose a different course, cease its reckless attacks, and demonstrate willingness to reengage in a diplomatic process. The Government will continue to press for diplomacy.\r\n\r\nIran currently poses an unacceptable level of threat to people in the UK. These threats stem from the activities of the Iranian Intelligence Services, including of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the criminal proxies and enablers they use to carry out their work. Maintaining diplomatic relations enables us to deliver robust messaging directly to the regime to stress that this behaviour is unacceptable.\r\n\r\nConsular support and crisis response rely on having channels of communication. Withdrawing recognition and expelling diplomats would severely limit our ability to assist British nationals in Iran or respond to urgent issues affecting their safety. Even when relations are strained, having a channel to demand access, raise concerns and work with partners can be critical. Ending diplomatic ties would weaken our ability to support British nationals in Iran and advocate for those at risk.\r\n\r\nThe UK condemned Iran’s deliberate and appalling use of violence and brutal killing of protestors, arbitrary detention, and the use of intimidation tactics by security forces against demonstrators. We have demanded the Iranian authorities respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens.\r\n\r\nMaintaining diplomatic relations strengthens the UK’s ability to hold Iran to account for its treatment of its people. It enables direct and unambiguous communication with those in power, allows the UK to raise concerns about the treatment of protesters and minorities, and supports coordinated pressure with international partners.  Our actions at the UN Human Rights Council in January to highlight these abuses – together with the targeted sanctions imposed on 2 February on those responsible for human rights violations – carries greater weight when we are able to engage directly with the Iranian authorities.\r\n\r\nThe UK’s position is firm. Iran’s regime is responsible for appalling actions and must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. The Government will remain engaged, apply pressure, and work closely with allies to constrain Iran’s dangerous activities. We will continue to condemn reckless attacks, promote civilian protection, support the security of partners across the region, and take all possible steps to keep British nationals safe. The future of Iran should be for the Iranian people.\r\n\r\nFor these reasons, the Government does not intend to sever diplomatic ties with Iran. Maintaining relations – while being firm, coordinated and clear about our objectives – offers the best prospect of advancing British interests, supporting stability, holding Iran to account, and preserving the possibility of a diplomatic solution.\r\n\r\nForeign, Commonwealth & Development Office ","created_at":"2026-03-10T21:29:48.830Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T21:30:20.248Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757251,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757251.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it compulsory for children to wear gloves ice skating\r\n","background":"I'd like to for the law to be changed so children are only permitted to ice skate if wearing protective gloves to protect their hands. The blades are so sharp.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":25805,"created_at":"2026-01-15T17:14:15.397Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T19:56:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-17T15:21:13.560Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T17:43:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-19T22:08:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-12T14:58:12.844Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Chloe Lewis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-12","summary":"The safety and welfare of those taking part in ice skating is absolutely paramount. We have no plans to change the law. The terms and conditions for ice skating are decided on a venue-by-venue basis. ","details":"The safety and welfare of everyone taking part in sport and recreational activities is absolutely paramount. The Government understands the concerns of those who wish to ensure that recreational activities are as safe as possible for participants, including children and young people.\r\n\r\nTemporary and permanent ice rinks are vital attractions that pull diverse audiences into the heart of our high streets. These ice rinks go beyond providing recreation; they ignite the local ecosystem, fueling secondary spend in nearby restaurants, shops, and hotels. By enriching a destination’s visitor offer, they turn a simple visit into a memorable experience, sustaining the vitality of our regions.\r\n\r\nThe Health and Safety Executive advises people to not take part in a recreational activity if it is believed that activity is not safe. However, individuals have the right to make their own choices, and parents and guardians are free to exercise that right on behalf of the children and young people they are responsible for where appropriate.\r\n\r\nThe terms and conditions for ice skating are decided on a venue-by-venue basis. The Government has no plans to change the law to make it compulsory for children to wear gloves while ice skating.\r\n\r\nThe majority of ice skating activity does not take place in a structured sporting environment. However, for sport skating, participants should refer to safety guidance issued by the relevant national governing body. British Ice Skating is the national governing body for ice skating within the United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to discuss participant safety with sports and other stakeholders to ensure that everyone, including children and young people, can take part in sport as safely as possible.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2026-03-12T14:58:12.838Z","updated_at":"2026-03-12T14:58:12.838Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DCMS","name":"Department for Culture, Media and Sport","url":""}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":758497,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758497.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Improve funding, pay & professional recognition for the Early Years workforce","background":"Increase government funding of Early Years settings, and introduce national frameworks related to pay, career progression and professional recognition to ensure greater alignment with educators and teachers in wider educational settings. ","additional_details":"Early Years Teachers and practitioners support children’s learning, development, wellbeing, safeguarding and school readiness, requiring specialist skills and knowledge. Many in private and independent settings face low pay, limited progression and poor recognition due to insufficient funding. Improved funding, a national pay framework, and formal recognition as educators would support staff retention and quality outcomes for children especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":25759,"created_at":"2026-01-23T21:56:55.488Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:15:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-06T13:49:57.980Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-23T22:41:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-13T07:07:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ellie Hull","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":747448,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/747448.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill immediately","background":"Government to withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill immediately, because it downgrades education for all children, undermines educators and parents. We think it will cause harm to children, with their details being digitally stored for anyone to use without permission.","additional_details":"We think the Bill is poorly drafted and is not supported by robust evidence. The impact assessments are inadequate. It will damage all children's educational opportunities. The Bill is silent on children’s voice and children's right to education. It undermines parents and school leaders. We think it forces a digital ID on children which is unethical and morally wrong. We do not want our children's personal and private details stored for anyone to use. This Bill is another form of control.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":23592,"created_at":"2025-10-19T10:32:27.924Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T18:50:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-25T09:28:29.949Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-19T10:50:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T22:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-04T14:48:27.604Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jason Read","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-04","summary":"The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on manifesto promises and will make progress towards the Opportunity Mission to break the link between young people’s background and future success.","details":"This Bill is driven by the belief that every child deserves a safe, secure start in life and the opportunity to succeed. The Bill will reform both children’s social care and education to break down the barriers that hold children back, ensuring that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive. \r\n\r\nKeeping children safe is a priority for this government. Practitioners supporting children and families must find, receive, and share relevant information to assess risks effectively. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces provision in law, paving the way for a consistent identifier to be specified and the organisations required to use it via regulations. The Department has initiated a series of pilots so we can establish how a consistent identifier can be implemented effectively and securely. \r\n\r\nUpholding children’s rights, particularly in relation to respect for private and family life, are critical and that’s why all these measures operate in compliance with data protection legislation. The Department takes its data protection obligations seriously and is committed to ensuring high standards of information security, privacy and transparency. We have formally consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office  (ICO) on all Bill measures that will involve the use of personal data to ensure full alignment with data protection legislation and established best practice for safeguarding children’s information. We continue to engage with the ICO on the Information Sharing Duty and the Single Unique Identifier, as well as with multi‑agency safeguarding organisations, sector representatives and practitioners, to support the ongoing development of these measures. Separately, we are engaging with the ICO on the data protection impact assessment related to Children Not in School measures. This engagement helps ensure that all proposals are underpinned by appropriate lawful bases, clear limitations on access, and strict requirements for necessity and proportionality.\r\n\r\nAll data obtained or processed by the Department will be handled strictly in accordance with UK‑GDPR principles, including lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, and security. Access to data will be tightly controlled through Role‑Based Access Control, ensuring that only those with an operational need can view or use personal information. \r\n\r\nRegarding evidence and impact assessments, the government has published Impact Assessments setting out the potential effects of the Bill and all its measures. These include regulatory impact assessments following the Better Regulation Framework for those measures that are in scope. These are published on gov.uk Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: impact assessments - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-wellbeing-and-schools-bill-impact-assessments). The department welcomes the Regulatory Policy Committee’s ‘Green’ rating for the Bill’s Impact Assessment, meaning that they have assessed it as being fit for purpose. The department has also conducted and published an equalities impact assessment, in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. As with all legislation, these assessments are periodically reviewed and updated throughout the Bill’s passage considering any new evidence and feedback from stakeholders. \r\n\r\nIn addition to these, the department has also conducted and published a Child’s Rights Impact Assessment (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695d3d1b4b69d216c438a137/Children_s_Wellbeing_and_Schools_Bill_-_Child_s_rights_impact_assessment.pdf), 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. \r\n\r\nThe Bill will create a floor for standards across our education system but no ceiling on innovation to bring all schools to the level of the very best. We are continuing to engage extensively with leaders from across the school system to ensure we drive collaboration and enable best practice to be shared up and down the country. For Children Not in School, the measures support local authorities to identify these children in their areas, so they can intervene in cases where a child is not receiving a suitable education or is at risk of harm. The government has tabled several amendments at Report stage to reduce the burden on parents of giving information for Children Not in School registers, improve the support package for families, and add touchpoints before or shortly after children leave school rolls to support early identification of children’s needs.\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 continued parliamentary scrutiny, and are committed to working closely with stakeholders to ensure that the Bill improves outcomes for children and families.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-02-04T14:48:27.601Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T14:49:13.955Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":746353,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/746353.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow charities to rescue dogs with docked tails under the Animal Welfare Bill","background":"We ask Parliament to include an exemption in the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill for registered charities and approved, responsible rescue organisations to rehome adult, disease tested dogs, who were previously docked as working hunting dogs abroad.","additional_details":"Without an exemption, we can no longer rescue Italian Spinoni, and organisations cannot help many other working breeds like pointers, spaniels and griffons.\r\n \r\nThese dogs have sadly lost their tails, docked for working purposes, not fashion, and are often treated abroad as disposable hunting tools. We support this Bill and ask to help improve it in crafting legislation that protects welfare while preventing loopholes. Please involve us, and let us continue to help these dogs.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":23164,"created_at":"2025-10-10T09:56:09.952Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-17T14:33:36.068Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-10T11:35:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-07T20:05:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-06T14:15:01.899Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sarah-Jane Newton","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-06","summary":"We will work with stakeholders to consider appropriate exemptions as we deliver the relevant regulations. Exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes.","details":"As outlined in our manifesto, the government is committed to ending puppy smuggling. That is why we were pleased to support the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025.\r\n\r\nThe Act will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules that are abused by unscrupulous traders. It also gives the government powers to prevent the supply of low-welfare pets to the United Kingdom. This includes the power to make regulations prohibiting dogs and cats being brought into Great Britain with non-exempted mutilations, such as docked tails and cropped ears, and the power to specify appropriate exemptions in future regulations. \r\n\r\nThese prohibitions and any appropriate exemptions will be delivered via secondary legislation at a later date. We will continue to work with stakeholders and consider their feedback – for example, on the impact of the regulations on rescue and rehoming – to help shape these exemptions. The government is clear, however, that any exemptions to these measures will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited by bad actors.\r\n\r\nIn the meantime, owners and importers can find up to date guidance on bringing dogs to Great Britain on the gov.uk website, available at: https://www.gov.uk/bring-pet-to-great-britain.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural ","created_at":"2026-01-06T14:15:01.896Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T14:15:01.896Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755123,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755123.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the ban on trail hunting","background":"Stop the plan to ban trail hunting!","additional_details":"We believe trail hunting is a way of life and it generates so many jobs and helps rural communities and businesses. We therefore think that banning it will be a disaster.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":22321,"created_at":"2025-12-22T08:20:07.021Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:19:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-02T15:20:48.543Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-22T08:49:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-14T12:13:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-27T12:58:11.338Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"William Rowley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-27","summary":"On 26 March 2026 Defra launched a consultation seeking views on how to deliver a ban in England and Wales which can be accessed here: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/defra/trail-hunting-consultation.","details":"This Government is committed to enacting an effective, enforceable ban on trail hunting, that protects our countryside, wildlife and rural communities. On 26 March 2026 Defra launched a consultation seeking views on how to deliver a ban in England and Wales. The consultation can be accessed on Citizen Space: \r\n\r\nhttps://consult.defra.gov.uk/defra/trail-hunting-consultation. \r\n\r\nThe consultation lasts for 12 weeks and will close on 18 June 2026.\r\n\r\nThis consultation seeks views on how an effective ban on trail hunting might best be accomplished, including with regard to: \r\n·\tHow trail hunting should be defined for the purposes of a ban\r\n·\tHow to ensure that the ban on trail hunting will not inadvertently affect other activities which we intend should remain lawful such as drag hunting or ‘clean boot’ hunting\r\n·\tWhether it should remain lawful to use animal-based scent trails when training dogs for specific purposes\r\n·\tConsiderations relevant to the timing of introducing the ban \r\n·\tThe potential community, social, business, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed approach to banning trail hunting\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the importance of rural pursuits and wants to protect them for future generations. Alternative practices, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, which do not use animal-based scents, are intended to remain unaffected under the plans.\r\n\r\nDefra welcomes views from all those with an interest and all responses to the consultation will be considered carefully in developing proposals for a ban. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-03-27T12:58:11.336Z","updated_at":"2026-03-27T13:00:09.756Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756832,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756832.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish interest charges on student loans","background":"Cancel interest charges on all student loans. We believe placing this burden on the backs of those that want to succeed in life is abhorrent and short-sighted. These charges penalise our brightest and best, the very people that contribute the most to society.","additional_details":"Charging interest on student loans burdens graduates with growing debt, often £50k+ while many never fully repay due to income-contingent terms.\r\nWe believe that abolishing interest would make higher education truly accessible, without a lifelong financial penalty and also boost social mobility and productivity by freeing young people from debt drag. Education benefits society; taxpayers already subsidise it—we want to remove this unfair tax on ambition.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":21576,"created_at":"2026-01-12T16:12:41.405Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T22:57:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-11T13:59:03.574Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T08:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-02T06:17:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-23T09:53:39.477Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Paul Kane","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-23","summary":"Student loans are heavily subsidised by government. To be fair to taxpayers and low earners, those who financially benefit should contribute to the cost. Adding interest to loans is one way to do this","details":"The student finance system removes upfront financial barriers for students entering higher education and remains a deliberate investment in our young people. The Government does not make a profit on the student loan system, rather the student loan system is heavily subsidised by government.\r\n\r\nTo ensure that the taxpayer, many of whom have not gone to university, are not subsidising an unfair proportion of the cost of student loans, and to protect borrowers  who do not go on to be high earners, the student loan system is designed to ensure that those who financially benefit most from their education make a fair contribution towards its cost. Applying interest to student loans is one way that we manage this.\r\n\r\nApplying interest in line with inflation ensures that student loans maintain the real value of the loan over the loan term. Removing interest completely would mean that borrowers who go on the repay all, or nearly all of their loan, would repay less, in real terms, than they borrowed.\r\n\r\nWhile interest rates impact the overall amount borrowed and therefore the length of time spent in repayment for borrowers who go on to repay all, or nearly all, of their loan in full, they do not alter the monthly repayment amount for borrowers. Most borrowers are not forecast to repay their loans in full and therefore do not repay the interest accrued on their loan balance. For example, for undergraduate borrowers starting in academic year 2024/25, the average loan balance at the point the borrower becomes eligible to make repayments is £45,600. The estimated average lifetime repayment in real terms is £28,000. Interest rates typically only affect the total amount repaid by mid to high earning borrowers and those with small balances, who will pay back more of their student loans.\r\n\r\nThis is a conscious decision in the design of the student loan system.\r\n\r\nIt means that if a borrower goes on to be a high earner, they will contribute more to the cost of their education, while low earners are protected by calculating repayments based on their income and cancelling any outstanding debt, with no detriment to the borrower or their family, at the end of the loan term.\r\n\r\nRemoving interest rates from student loans would mean that the taxpayer had to subsidise a greater portion of the student loan costs while those who have benefited most from higher education pay less towards its cost.\r\n\r\nWe inherited the student loans system, which was devised by previous Governments, and we are looking for ways to make it fairer.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-23T09:53:39.474Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T09:59:37.603Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755534,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755534.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce prison sentences for deliberate cruelty to wild birds including pigeon","background":"We call on the UK Government to amend existing wildlife and animal welfare legislation to introduce custodial prison sentences for any individual who deliberately goes out with the intention of injuring or killing wild bird, specifically including pigeons, using catapults or similar weapons.","additional_details":"Under current law, deliberately killing or injuring a wild bird is already a criminal offence, yet penalties often fail to reflect the seriousness of the act or act as a sufficient deterrent. Deliberate acts of cruelty carried out for amusement or gratification demonstrate a clear disregard for animal life, public safety and the law. Despite the protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 1(1)(a) individuals who target and kill pigeons face minimal or zero consequences.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":21087,"created_at":"2025-12-29T21:51:43.851Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-30T16:31:55.785Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-29T22:49:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-01T09:37:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.843Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alice Pryor","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"There are existing laws to prohibit killing or injuring wild birds, including pigeons, which can carry a custodial sentence. The government is actively considering the issue of misuse of catapults.","details":"Pigeons, like all wild birds, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill or injure them, including with the use of a catapult. \r\n\r\nSignificant sanctions are already available for judges to hand down to those convicted of wildlife crimes. Anyone who commits an offence under existing legislation, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, could face up to a six-month custodial sentence and/or an unlimited fine. \r\n\r\nSentencing of those convicted of wildlife crimes remains a matter for judges, and these decisions are rightly taken independently of government.\r\n\r\nIt is also an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause an animal any unnecessary suffering. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty to pets, livestock and wild animals under human control by increasing the maximum penalty for this offence to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.\r\n\r\nIn the government’s Animal Welfare Strategy published in December 2025, a commitment was made to review and look to strengthen penalties for cruelty against wildlife more generally so that a disparity is addressed and they are consistent with the higher levels of sentencing available for animal welfare offences against pets and livestock. \r\n\r\nWildlife crime is unacceptable. Defra supports the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), which helps prevent and detect wildlife crime (including crimes involving misuse of catapults) by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis which highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations. Defra is providing £494,000 for NWCU in the financial year 2025-2026.\r\n\r\nThe NWCU attended the first of a new series of “Operation Lakeshot” meetings in January 2026. Operation Lakeshot is a working group which meets quarterly to bring together police and charities to raise awareness of the problem of wildlife crimes being carried out with catapults and will be working with partner agencies to prevent people from engaging in this crime and to support law enforcement. \r\n\r\nThe government recognises that misuse of catapults is causing great concern to some local communities whether the targets are wild or domestic animals, other people, or property. The government is clear that catapults should not be used against wildlife, property or people and is, for example, convening a roundtable to understand the problem better and to identify what more can be done.\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that certain birds, including pigeons, may be killed by an authorised person in certain licensed circumstances (such as to prevent serious damage or to preserve public health and safety) but this should not involve the use of catapults. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.841Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.841Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754843,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754843.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not remove the 10% wear and tear allowance for childminders from April 2026","background":"Retain the 10% wear and tear allowance for childminders, or introduce an equivalent alternative that reflects the additional household costs of providing regulated childcare from home and helps ensure childminding remains financially sustainable.","additional_details":"Childminders provide essential home-based childcare for families, including babies, siblings, children with additional needs, and parents needing flexible or wraparound care. They work from their own homes, so their workplace is also their family home. We believe the 10% wear and tear allowance recognises unavoidable household costs such as utilities, cleaning, equipment use, and general wear. We think removing it risks making childminding financially unsustainable and reducing childcare availability for families.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":19893,"created_at":"2025-12-18T08:25:56.801Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T23:08:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-27T13:09:07.560Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-18T08:37:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-29T14:52:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-18T16:09:52.793Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashleigh Crouch","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-18","summary":"Childminders, like any other business, can continue to get full tax relief on the business proportion of their expenses.","details":"The Government is aware that childminders are concerned about changes to administrative arrangements from April 2026 in connection with Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax.\r\n\r\nMTD for Income Tax, through digital record-keeping, aims to reduce errors and simplify tax returns. From April 2026, self-employed childminders with qualifying income over £50,000 must use MTD for Income Tax. The Government expects only a small proportion of childminders to use MTD for Income Tax from April 2026.\r\n\r\nAll childminders currently have the option to use alternative methods for some of their expenses and record-keeping responsibilities. In particular, all childminders can currently deduct 10% of their childminding income to cover wear and tear of furniture and household items, instead of deducting the actual costs of purchasing, repairing and replacing these items.\r\n\r\nChildminders using MTD for Income Tax from April 2026 must use normal rules for expenses and record-keeping and so should deduct actual business costs for these items, in the same way as other businesses do. If an item is for both business and personal use the business proportion of the cost can be claimed, using a reasonable estimate if necessary. For example, if a childminder needs to replace kitchen equipment they use for meals for both their own household and the children they look after, and they estimate that 60% of the use relates to childminding, then they can claim 60% of the replacement cost.\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises childminders’ concerns about this method and so we will actively engage with childminders and stakeholders in the 2026 to 2027 tax year to review the impacts of moving from the 10% deduction to actual costs for wear and tear expense claims.\r\n\r\nThere are about 30,600 self-employed childminders in the tax system in the UK. About 2,500 of these will be required to use MTD for Income Tax from April 2026. In 2026-27, all other childminders can continue to use the alternative methods including the 10% deduction and are unaffected by these changes.\r\n\r\nThe 10% deduction only covers wear and tear of furniture and household items, not other costs including utilities, cleaning and non-domestic equipment. The actual business costs of these and any other expenses can be deducted, as well as the 10% deduction if applicable to those not in MTD. This is an important principle that the Government is aware may not have been fully appreciated by some childminders and childminding organisations. Childminders who have not been deducting these costs separately may get more tax relief by doing so, instead of only using the 10% deduction.\r\n\r\nFor utilities and other household costs, there is an alternative method to allow childminders to claim a proportion of their bills based solely on the number of hours of childcare provided per week. Childminders within MTD for Income Tax can also claim a deduction for a proportion of their bills, using the same rules that apply to all businesses based at home. The amount to claim is based on their own individual circumstances of how much of the property is used, and for how long. This ensures that childminders with exceptionally high household costs can get all the tax relief due to them.\r\n\r\nThese methods of deducting business costs together allow any childminder to reflect all the costs relating to providing childcare from their own home when calculating the profits of their business.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to supporting those childminders through the transition. HMRC has worked with the software industry to ensure there is free and low-cost software available to support smaller and simpler businesses. It is also taking comprehensive steps to raise awareness by writing to affected taxpayers and agents, engaging widely with industry and tax bodies and launching a marketing campaign through social media and radio.\r\n\r\nHMRC has recently published updated guidance on GOV.UK for all childminders, including those entering MTD for Income Tax, and giving full details of the alternative methods for wear and tear, household costs, food and drink and record-keeping. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-expenses-and-keeping-records-if-youre-a-childminder\r\n \r\nThe Government engaged with Coram PACEY prior to the announcement of the changes at Budget 2025, as the original agreement in 1986 introducing the alternative methods was made with their predecessor. We will continue to work with Coram PACEY, the Scottish Childminding Association (SCMA), the Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA) and other childminding organisations to help childminders with the transition.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-18T16:09:52.791Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T16:10:34.458Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":748648,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/748648.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a Central Microchip Portal to help reunite missing pets without delay","background":"In March 2024, the previous Government said it would make scanning, checking & reuniting lost & abducted pets more effective by introducing a central portal for approved users-vets, local authorities & police-to search all records instantly, instead of contacting databases individually.","additional_details":"This has not happened.\r\n\r\nThere are currently 23 government-compliant databases and cross-checking them is seen by many as an 'administrative burden. A central portal could reunite lost & abducted pets with families in minutes. The portal could make registrations easier to access, increase scanning & checking rates, and lead to more reunites. We believe this is a vital step to make pet microchipping work. We call on the government to deliver the central portal now to make chips count.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":19643,"created_at":"2025-10-30T12:31:55.176Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-05T09:26:46.141Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-30T12:39:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-02T18:52:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.635Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Debbie Matthews & Dr Daniel Allen","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"Defra is currently working with the Association of Microchip Database Operators to develop commercial solutions that will provide easier access to microchip records for authorised users. ","details":"Since the introduction of compulsory dog microchipping in 2016, the number of compliant database operators has risen from 4 to 24. Whilst the growth in the number of database operators has resulted in more choice for consumers, it has made it harder for approved users such as vets to access records quickly.  \r\n\r\nTo address this, as set out in the Animal welfare strategy for England, \r\n\r\n(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england)\r\n \r\nDefra is working with the Association of Microchip Database Operators (AMDO) to develop improvements to the way the microchipping regime currently operates.  AMDO is currently testing industry-led solutions that will enable authorised users to access information contained on the databases digitally through a single point of search.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.633Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.633Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754331,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754331.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Commission a full Independent Review of Council Tax and Stamp Duty","background":"We call on the Government to commission a full, independent review of Council Tax and Stamp Duty to deliver the fundamental, evidence-based reform the UK’s housing market urgently needs.","additional_details":"Council Tax arrears have risen to £8.3 billion, with more than two million households struggling to keep up. We believe a tax based on 1990s property values no longer reflects today’s homes or people’s ability to pay — and it fails to provide a stable way to fund essential local services.\r\n \r\nWe believe Stamp Duty remains a narrow, one-off tax that distorts the housing market and traps families in unsuitable homes.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":18965,"created_at":"2025-12-12T13:04:51.915Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:30:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-23T15:08:20.482Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-13T18:46:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-20T10:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-13T14:49:55.734Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andrew Dixon","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-13","summary":"Council Tax and Stamp Duty are important Government revenue sources, raising £60 billion a year to fund essential services. Government is committed to a fair system and supporting home ownership.","details":"Council tax is a tax on properties, where property bands are used as a proxy for relative ability to pay. For 2026-27, the system accounts for 53% of the local government core spending power, which local authorities need in order to provide local services. Councils are directly accountable to their local communities for how they raise and spend council tax.\r\n\r\nIn England, homes are put into one of eight valuation bands based on their capital value in April 1991. The purpose of banding is to arrive at relative values of homes rather than assessing the actual value of each one. The valuation of all properties in England is carried out by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) who undertake this role independently of ministers. While properties are banded by VOA, the local authority is responsible for determining the level of council tax in their area. This reflects the service needs of each area having taken account of the council’s other sources of income, as well as historic council tax decisions taken by the local authority over several decades.  \r\n\r\nCouncil tax is a settled tax which is understood by taxpayers, and which has a high collection rate (95.9% in 2024-25). As such, the taxbase remains broadly stable and the revenues are relatively predictable which means that local authorities have a degree of certainty in their financial planning. To ensure fairness, the council tax system includes a range of reliefs and exemptions, with 34.3% of all dwellings subject to a discount. These range from a single person discount and student discount to a severely mentally impaired disregard. The Government requires local authorities to provide a council tax reduction scheme to support low-income households, with 3.6 million claimants in England. Support for pension-age households is centrally prescribed by the Government and working-age support is designed locally, reflecting the needs and circumstances of local communities. Local authorities also have discretionary powers to offer further support to those they feel are in hardship or financial difficulties.\r\n\r\nThe enforcement of council tax should be proportionate and sympathetic to those in hardship, whilst striking a fair balance by ensuring councils retain tools to recover council tax they are owed. In 2025 the Government published a council tax administration and enforcement consultation on council tax administration. We are grateful to everyone who engaged with the consultation and are currently reviewing the consultation responses. The Government will publish a response in the coming months.\r\n\r\nWe recognise that owners of the most valuable homes in England pay proportionately far less tax on their properties compared to those in lower value homes. That is why at the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a new High Value Council Tax Surcharge that will be introduced in 2028/29. This will apply a £2,500 surcharge for properties worth over £2m and a £7,500 surcharge for properties worth over £5m to be collected alongside council tax. Revenue will be used to support funding for local government services, with further detail set to be set out at the next Spending Review. Current council tax bands will not be affected and will still apply. \r\n\r\nWe want the council tax system to be fair for taxpayers and local authorities and will continue to keep it under review.\r\n\r\nStamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) is payable when purchasing a property or land over a certain price in England and Northern Ireland. SDLT continues to be an important source of Government revenue, raising around £14 billion each year to help pay for the essential services the Government provides. In addition, it is an efficient tax to administer and collect, as most payments are made on behalf of taxpayers by professional conveyancers as part of the purchase process. The structure of SDLT ensures that those buying the most expensive properties contribute the most.\r\n\r\nThe SDLT system already works to support home ownership. First-time buyers benefit from paying no SDLT up to £300,000 and can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. At Autumn Budget 2024, the higher rates of SDLT for additional dwellings were increased by two percentage points from three per cent to five per cent. This will ensure that those looking to move home, or purchase their first property, have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing residential property. This change will raise £310 million by 2029-30, which will be used to balance the public finances and support public services.\r\n\r\nThe Government is taking action to support those who wish to own their own home. The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes and is reforming the National Planning Policy Framework to get Britain building, including by reintroducing mandatory housing targets.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government\r\n","created_at":"2026-04-13T14:49:55.733Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T14:51:24.238Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":744397,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744397.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Restore the Electoral Commission's Independence","background":"We want ministers stripped of any powers related to the Electoral Commission’s budget and strategy. Parliament must restore the independence the Commission had pre-2022, and guarantee it can operate free from any political influence.","additional_details":"The Electoral Commission exists to safeguard trust in elections. In 2022, the previous government introduced measures to allow ministers to direct the Commission. The current Government have not changed this. We view this as a betrayal, and feel it shows both main parties protecting their own interests. We think a greater degree of independence should be restored if the public are to have confidence that elections remain free and fair. ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":17050,"created_at":"2025-09-29T22:24:53.346Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-05T09:47:46.990Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-29T22:29:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-15T15:59:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-05T10:08:50.056Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"bruce hamill","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-05","summary":"The Government is taking decisive action to strengthen and protect the UK’s democracy and will continue to support the operational independence of the Electoral Commission.","details":"The Electoral Commission is the independent statutory body which oversees electoral administration and regulates political finance. It is accountable to – and funded by – the UK Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.\r\n\r\nThe Strategy and Policy Statement for the Electoral Commission sets out the Government’s priorities for electoral policy and the role and responsibilities of the Commission in enabling the Government to meet those priorities. The Electoral Commission are required to have regard to the Statement. The existing Statement (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electoral-commission-strategy-and-policy-statement/electoral-commission-strategy-and-policy-statement) was designated by the previous Government on 29 February 2024.\r\n\r\nThis Government is taking decisive action to strengthen and protect the UK’s democracy. Robust and proportionate enforcement of political finance rules is an essential part of this. That is why, as announced on 17 July in the Government’s Strategy for Elections (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restoring-trust-in-our-democracy-our-strategy-for-modern-and-secure-elections/restoring-trust-in-our-democracy-our-strategy-for-modern-and-secure-elections), we are committed to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s powers and extending its remit to ensure that it can effectively enforce the political finance framework.\r\n\r\nGiven these changes, the Strategy for Elections also set out the intention to designate a new Strategy and Policy Statement for the Electoral Commission that reflects this Government’s priorities for elections and the Commission’s increased roles and responsibilities.\r\n\r\nIn doing so, we are clear that the Electoral Commission will remain operationally independent, and we will continue to support it to act without fear or favour in upholding political finance rules and stamping out foreign interference. Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership remain responsible for determining how the Commission should discharge its duties, including its strategic priorities and day-to-day operations.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2025-12-05T10:08:50.054Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T10:09:24.136Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":742843,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/742843.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require online platforms to remove misinformation targeting bereaved families","background":"Introduce Jay’s Law: specific legislation obliging platforms to remove organised misinformation that targets grieving families after tragic deaths; require platforms to act on speculative, malicious content likely to cause serious harm; and work with Ofcom on enforcement and sanctions.","additional_details":"Families who have suffered tragic deaths are being subjected to organised misinformation and malicious speculation online. This targets grieving families at their most vulnerable, causing severe additional trauma, distress, and emotional pain. Jay’s Law would place clear legal duties on platforms, backed by Ofcom enforcement and sanctions, to ensure all speculative, organised, and malicious content is swiftly removed, protecting grieving families’ privacy, dignity, and safety.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16705,"created_at":"2025-09-23T14:31:15.246Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:41:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-04T09:25:06.372Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-24T12:56:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-07T21:01:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-25T11:02:52.971Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Debbie Duncan","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-25","summary":"The government recognises how devastating this content can be. The Online Safety Act has duties on platforms to protect users against illegal mis- and disinformation.","details":"The government would like to thank those who have signed the petition on this important issue.\r\n\r\nThe government recognises the devastating impact abuse and misinformation can have on an individual, especially during the loss of a loved one. The Government will continue to engage with platforms on this issue, discussing their actions to combat illegal content. The Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) introduces duties on platforms to tackle illegal content and protect users from harm. In March 2025, Ofcom’s illegal harms codes of practice came into effect, requiring platforms to implement robust measures to reduce the likelihood of users engaging in illegal activity, including harassment and abuse.\r\n\r\nThe OSA also introduced false and threatening communications offences.\r\n\r\nCompanies will therefore need to mitigate the risk arising from the use of anonymous profiles to facilitate illegal activity, on their services. In addition, the OSA states that Category 1 service providers must offer all adult users of the service the option to verify their identity. This will allow users of a platform to filter out non-verified users.\r\n\r\nBeyond duties on platforms to field users’ complaints, individuals can also submit complaints to Ofcom where they think a provider is failing to comply with their duties. Complaints regarding illegal online content can be made directly to Ofcom.  While Ofcom cannot respond to or investigate individual complaints, this action helps them assess whether regulated services are doing enough to protect their users – and if Ofcom should take any action. These complaints are an  essential part of Ofcom’s horizon-scanning, research, supervision and enforcement activity. They guide Ofcom in deciding where to focus their attention.\r\n\r\nOfcom use the powers parliament has made available to it. These include the power to issue fines of up to 10% of a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue. In the most serious of cases Ofcom can also apply for a court order to impose business disruption measures - stopping UK users accessing the site. \r\n\r\nSeparately, Ofcom must produce a report assessing the measures taken or in use by providers of user-to-user and search services to enable users and others to report content and make complaints to providers of such services.\r\n\r\nOfcom’s approach and timeline for implementation can be accessed here:  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/roadmap-to-regulation/. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology \r\n","created_at":"2026-03-25T11:02:52.968Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T11:05:14.218Z"},"debate":null,"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":745717,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/745717.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect the Right to Live Without a Digital ID","background":"I want a legal safeguard in all digital-ID laws that guarantees no one can be denied work, healthcare, banking, housing, or any other service for not having a government digital ID. Use must remain voluntary, and non-digital alternatives must always be available to prevent exclusion or pressure..","additional_details":"Without legal protections, a voluntary digital ID system could become coercive if access to services or participation in daily life depends on it. There is currently no explicit legal safeguard to prevent digital ID from being over-relied on by either public or private organisations. Digital ID systems can shape access not only to essential services but also wider participation in society. Legal protections could ensure that people can choose without facing disadvantage or indirect compulsion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16465,"created_at":"2025-10-05T23:26:47.002Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T23:43:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-02T10:14:17.193Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-06T08:45:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-19T18:30:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-17T16:15:48.452Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Scott Lock","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-17","summary":"The Government is introducing a Digital ID system and will legislate for it to be voluntary, and free to access for anyone who wants it. The Government is consulting on the design of that scheme. ","details":"The Government has announced that it will offer a new national Digital ID system, free to access for anyone who wants it by the end of the Parliament. The use of Digital ID will be optional and there are no plans to change that.\r\n  \r\nOn 10 March we launched a comprehensive consultation about the design of the Digital ID scheme, which will be open until 5 May. The consultation asks about how we can make the Digital ID a secure, convenient way for people to prove who they are. This will help the government reduce bureaucracy and build the intuitive, efficient, and responsive public services the UK deserves.\r\n  \r\nFollowing the consultation we will lead a national conversation about how Digital ID and digital tools can be used to make public services work better for you and to support innovation. The digitisation of government services by some estimates could save up to billions of pounds a year. Supermarkets, banks, retail companies have all chosen to move their services online to a greater degree because they believe it delivers better customer experience, and also because it provides better value for money.\r\n  \r\nMore digital public services will also make them more efficient - because the status quo is expensive. There are costs of processing lots of paper forms, lots of manual payment systems, lots of duplication - every time you have to repeat your story to a different part of the state that’s a second, third or fourth cost to the taxpayer. The numbers across government are huge - the DVLA currently processes 45,000 letters a day, Defra uses 500 different paper forms, HMRC handles 100,000 phone calls a day.\r\n  \r\nWe want you to help us build this, and we want people from all walks of life and from every part of the country to be involved. We want to hear from people about where we can make their lives easier and how we should design a Digital ID which works for them. The consultation on the national digital ID is open until 5 May, and you can complete it at\r\n \r\nhttp://gov.uk/digital-id-consultation.\r\n \r\nAs we build the new Digital ID system, we are doing it based on three principles: \r\n1. It must be useful: It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper-based system. \r\n2. It must be secure: It will use the latest security technology, like that used by your bank, will keep your data safer than traditional paper documents – all stored safely on your device, for you to use if you want.  \r\n3. It must be for everyone: We won’t leave people behind and will help you if you struggle with technology or can’t prove who you are with a passport, for example.  \r\nIt will also make everyday interactions easier; from collecting a parcel to going to the cinema. You’ll be able to use your digital proof of identity across the wider economy - including for Right to Work checks. Digital Right to Work checks will be required by the end of the Parliament, tightening up a system that currently allows use of a variety of paper-based documents. \r\n\r\nRobust digital checks will help challenge the perception amongst irregular migrants that it is possible to access work, services and benefits in the UK without lawful status. Anyone starting a new job will be able to use the new digital proof of identity for these right to work checks - or do a digital check of other documents such as your passport or eVisa if you prefer.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office  ","created_at":"2026-03-17T16:15:48.448Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T12:05:21.705Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}}]}