{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=1&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=17&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=with_response","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":770872,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770872.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review access to NHS treatment for Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction ","background":"We want the Government to review the adequacy of recognition of, and NHS treatment access for, people with Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction (R-CPD).","additional_details":"We believe too many sufferers are dismissed or misdiagnosed before paying privately for treatment - patients deserve better awareness and NHS access to care.\r\n\r\nWe want the Government to work towards improving recognition and NHS treatment access for Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction (R-CPD), a condition that prevents sufferers from being able to burp. R-CPD can cause severe bloating, pain and major impacts on daily life. We believe patients deserve better awareness, referral pathways and NHS access to treatment.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12089,"closing_date":"2026-12-22","created_at":"2026-05-26T19:43:22.079Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:36:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-22T16:03:04.180Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-26T20:01:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-25T09:57:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-15T10:48:14.834Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gemma Renwick","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-15","summary":"The Government supports better awareness and diagnosis of, and research on, R-CPD. Botox may be prescribed off-label, with NHS access determined locally based on clinical need.","details":"The Government recognises that living with retrograde cricopharyngeal dysfunction (R-CPD) can have a significant impact on quality of life. Sometimes referred to as “no burp syndrome”, the condition causes symptoms such as painful bloating, chest and abdominal discomfort, excessive gurgling noises and nausea, which can limit the ability to eat, drink or socialise comfortably. Many people also report frustration at delays in receiving a diagnosis or accessing appropriate treatment, particularly given the relatively low awareness of the condition.\n\nThe Government understands the importance of ensuring that people experiencing distressing symptoms receive timely assessment and access to appropriate care. R-CPD is a relatively recently recognised condition and awareness among healthcare professionals is continuing to develop.\n\nThe Government supports efforts to improve awareness of rare and less well-recognised conditions among healthcare professionals. Patients who experience persistent symptoms that affect their health and wellbeing should be assessed by appropriate healthcare professionals and, where necessary, referred to specialist services for further investigation and management.\n\nWhilst the Government supports improvements in the diagnosis and management of all conditions through professional education and development, decisions on clinical training and service provision are primarily matters for the NHS, including service commissioners, and relevant professional bodies. Healthcare professionals are expected to keep their knowledge and skills up to date in line with developments in clinical practice.\n\nThe Government expects NHS services to provide timely access to appropriate care for all patients based on clinical need. Decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients are made by clinicians, taking account of the best available evidence and the specific circumstances of each patient.\n\nThe main treatment for R-CPD is, where clinically appropriate, a botulinum toxin (Botox) injection into the cricopharyngeal muscle, to relieve symptoms and restore the ability to burp. Botox is not currently authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the treatment of R-CPD. However, clinicians may prescribe licensed medicines ‘off label’ where they judge this to be clinically appropriate, and in a patient's best interests, taking account of the available evidence and the individual's circumstances. As a result, while some specialist NHS services may offer Botox treatment for R-CPD, there is no national commissioning policy and access to treatment is determined locally by NHS commissioners and providers.\n\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) develops evidence-based guidance where there is sufficient evidence and a clear need to support decision-making in the NHS. While Botox is commonly used in the treatment of R-CPD, NICE has not developed guidance specifically on its use for the condition. As it operates independently of government, decisions on whether NICE develops new guidance are a matter for NICE, based on its assessment of the available evidence and clinical need. In the absence of NICE guidance, clinicians are expected to use their professional judgement, taking account of the available evidence and the individual circumstances of their patients.\n\nResearch into R-CPD is important because it can help to strengthen the evidence base, improve understanding of its causes and long-term impacts, and support the development of safe and effective treatments. As knowledge of R-CPD grows, research may help clinicians identify the condition more quickly, reduce delays in diagnosis, and inform decisions on the most appropriate care and support for patients. High-quality evidence is also important in supporting the consideration of new interventions by regulators, guideline developers, and the NHS, helping to improve outcomes and quality of life for people living with R-CPD.\n\nThe Department of Health and Social Care funds research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). While NIHR is not currently funding research specifically into R-CPD, it does support related research into swallowing and upper oesophageal disorders, persistent throat symptoms and the inability to belch after surgery. This includes clinical trials on treatments for reflux and oesophageal motility disorders, studies to improve diagnosis, and work to assess and manage patients’ symptoms. Findings from this wider research may help improve understanding and care of people with conditions that share features with R-CPD.\n\nThe NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including R-CPD. Its approach to funding research is through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals, most likely to deliver real impact for patients, are funded without imposing financial targets or limits.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-10-15T10:48:14.824Z","updated_at":"2026-10-15T10:48:14.824Z"},"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":771401,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/771401.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Permanent driving ban on intoxicated drivers guilty of causing death","background":"I urge Parliament to take decisive action by implementing a lifetime driving ban on those guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and killing innocent people while under influence. Other countries have set precedents by enforcing stringent penalties.","additional_details":"We feel the current legal framework fails to deter repeat offenders and adequately protect innocent people. endangering more lives and communities.\r\n \r\nWe believe implementing a lifetime driving ban is about ensuring public safety, deterring repeat offenses, and sending a powerful message that our society refuses to tolerate such negligence. For the families affected, this legal change could offer a measure of justice and a chance to prevent others from enduring a similar tragedy.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":42174,"closing_date":"2027-01-06","created_at":"2026-06-01T21:45:40.778Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:38:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-06T08:15:08.621Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-02T11:47:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-23T21:09:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-14T14:56:03.684Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tracy Elizabeth venison","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-14","summary":"The Government does not propose to introduce an automatic lifetime driving ban. Courts can already impose one where justified and are best placed to decide what is appropriate in each case.","details":"I thank Tracy Elizabeth Venison and everyone who has supported this petition. Every death caused by drink or drug driving is a tragedy, and I recognise the lasting impact on families and communities.\n\nThe Government does not propose to introduce an automatic lifetime driving ban for everyone convicted of causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs. Sentencing in individual cases is for the independent courts. They have the evidence before them and are best placed to decide the appropriate period of disqualification, taking account of the circumstances of the offence. Courts can already impose a lifetime disqualification where justified. The relevant sentencing guidance (https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/driving-disqualification/) says this will generally be inappropriate, but recognises that it may be considered where the evidence indicates that the offender would pose a danger to the public indefinitely.\n\nThe law already provides substantial penalties. In England and Wales, causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs can each carry a life sentence for offences committed on or after 28 June 2022. Disqualification is normally required for at least five years, although a court may depart from that requirement if it finds special reasons. For a repeat conviction for causing death by careless driving while under the influence, the minimum rises to six years. These are minimum periods, not the default length of a ban: courts may impose longer disqualifications where the case warrants it. An extended driving test is also required.\n\nThere is a separate safeguard for certain drink-driving offenders. Under the high-risk offenders scheme (https://www.gov.uk/driving-disqualifications/disqualification-for-drink-driving) people who have repeatedly committed drink-driving offences, had a particularly high alcohol reading or refused an alcohol test must satisfy the DVLA that they are medically fit to drive before a new licence can be issued. This applies after the court-imposed disqualification and is not itself a criminal lifetime ban.\n\nThe Government published its Road Safety Strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-safety-strategy) in January 2026 to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain. Effective enforcement is an important part of that strategy. As part of this work, the Government consulted from January to May 2026 on proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-changes-to-penalties-for-motoring-offences).\n\nThere was a call for evidence (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624c56938fa8f5277c016a0c/protecting-the-public-from-repeat-drug-driving-offenders-call-for-evidence.pdf) on a proposed high risk offender scheme for drug drivers in 2022. A detailed response to that call for evidence will be included in the Government’s response to the motoring offences consultation. \n\nThe motoring offences consultation closed on 11 May 2026. We are considering the responses before announcing next steps, to ensure the motoring offences framework remains appropriate and effective. The Government’s response will be published in the usual way once that work is complete. I am grateful to everyone who has raised concerns about the safety of our roads, including through this petition.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-10-14T14:56:03.674Z","updated_at":"2026-10-14T14:56:03.674Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762214,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762214.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Pause housebuilding targets imposed on councils, review and identify local need","background":"We ask the government to pause housebuilding targets and consult local communities to identify where substantial house building is needed, not where developers prefer to build. We worry about developers appealing rejected applications and councils and communities often having no funds for a defence.","additional_details":"We are concerned that villages are being overwhelmed by inappropriate planning applications from land banking developers despite the lack of employment, infrastructure, and services in rural areas – outdated water/sewage pipes, inadequate public transport, limited health services. We feel that local housing needs do not require high end houses nor anything like the numbers of houses proposed. \r\n \r\nIn Mickleton, applications for hundreds of new houses have been submitted, representing a significant increase in village size. A local survey indicated a preference amongst many residents for accepting no more than 50 new homes over the next 5 years.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":20402,"created_at":"2026-02-23T12:06:43.125Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T11:50:36.259Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:37:56.574Z","closed_at":"2026-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-24T07:12:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-26T07:17:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-13T11:50:16.552Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-13","summary":"Housing targets are an important tool to ensure housing is directed to where it is most needed and least affordable. Local authorities should plan positively for infrastructure and service provision.","details":"In December 2024, the government introduced a new standard method for assessing housing needs that better directs new homes to where they are most needed and least affordable.\n\nTo identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for, the new standard method uses a formula that incorporates a baseline of local housing stock, which is adjusted upwards to reflect local affordability pressures. Areas where unaffordability is most acute see the largest adjustment.\n\nThe new method strikes a balance between meeting the scale of need right across the country and focusing additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability pressures. It is based on a more objective assessment of need and supports a more strategic approach to housing, distributing growth across wider city regions, not just to the largest urban authority within our largest cities.\n\nThe standard method is used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should then calculate the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified by evidence on land availability and constraints on development, such as National Landscapes and areas at risk of flooding, and any other relevant matters. \n\nIt is for local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to set out the most appropriate strategy to meet their housing needs. The government expects local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need – maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities, and, where necessary, reviewing Green Belt.\n\nIn rural areas, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances. This includes supporting housing development that reflects local needs, locating housing where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, and identifying opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. \n\nOn 17 August 2026, the government published a new NPPF, which includes measures designed to promote greater clarity and certainty on expected contributions from development, such as necessary supporting infrastructure. The new NPPF is available on gov.uk here (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework).\n\nIn meeting housing need, achieving sustainable development sits at the heart of the planning system. Local planning authorities are responsible for identifying sites in their plans to guide development to the most suitable locations, supported by the right infrastructure. In doing so, local authorities must carry out robust consultation with local communities, making local plans the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the development their areas need. Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. \n\nContributions from developers, secured through section 106 planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), play an important role in delivering much-needed affordable homes and the infrastructure to support new development and mitigate its impacts. The government recognises how important this is to local communities, which is why we are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions. \n\nIf a planning application is refused, it is possible to appeal to the Secretary of State. In deciding appeals, planning inspectors, who are appointed to decide appeals on behalf of the Secretary of State, take decisions on the basis of the local plan in place for the area. While they may come to a different view from the local planning authority, this does not mean that they have disregarded the views of the local authority or local residents – rather that they have attributed different weight to the issues. Currently around two-thirds of appeals are refused, so the decision of the local authority is upheld in most cases. \n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-10-13T11:50:16.548Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T11:50:16.548Z"},"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":780269,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/780269.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the state pension age to 65 for all","background":"Reduce the state pension age to 65. We believe this could mean people can retire with dignity and avoid hardship. We also think it could free up jobs for younger workers entering the labour market.","additional_details":"Many aged 65–67 face poor health, caring pressures, and limited work options, which we think is unfair.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":89551,"closing_date":"2027-03-16","created_at":"2026-08-23T11:46:16.594Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:37:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-09-16T09:27:37.805Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-23T16:59:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-10-01T11:34:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-13T11:41:08.449Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Michelle Gill","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-13","summary":"The Government has no plans to lower the State Pension age.","details":"There are no plans to reduce State Pension age to 65.\n\nWe are fortunate today that more people are reaching older ages: life expectancy has risen rapidly over the past century, driven by breakthroughs in medical treatments and generally healthier lifestyles. Office for National Statistics life expectancy projections show that in 2026, men aged 66 in the UK can be expected to live on average a further 19.3 years, and women aged 66 a further 21.9 years; by 2046, it is projected that this will have increased by an additional 1.6 years. State Pension age policy takes account of the fact that people are living longer and our society is ageing. \n\nState Pension age is now gradually rising from 66 to 67. This increase began in April 2026 and will complete in March 2028. Increases to State Pension age have been in legislation since the Pensions Act 1995. As longevity has increased and our society aged, State Pension age rises have maintained fairness between generations and protected the public finances. \n\nThe Third State Pension age Review is underway and will decide what State Pension age is appropriate for future decades, balancing considerations of fairness and sustainability. It will consider a wide range of evidence, including ONS life expectancy projections, findings from the Government Actuary, independent reports from Dr. Suzy Morrissey and the Pensions Commission, and lessons from previous increases.\n\nThe Government recognises people aged 50 and over can face a range of barriers to entering, remaining in, or returning to work, including ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, menopause, and outdated skills or qualifications.\n\nAs part of plans to create a new Jobs and Careers Service, we are reforming employment support to make it more inclusive and better tailored to individuals. This includes improving support for people aged 50 and over to help them move into good, meaningful work and progress in work.\n\nThe Department supports older workers through a range of measures, including dedicated 50PLUS Champions, who work collaboratively to drive local activity and improve support for customers over 50; Additional Work Coach Time for new customers over 50 on Universal Credit; and Midlife MOTs delivered in Jobcentres, helping Universal Credit claimants aged 50 and over review their health, finances and skills and access appropriate support.\n\nThe digital Midlife MOT can be accessed at: https://jobhelp.campaign.gov.uk/midlifemot/home-page/\n\nFurther support is available through JobHelp's Finding Work at 50 Plus page: https://jobhelp.campaign.gov.uk/older-workers-support/\n\nWe are also providing personalised support for disabled people and people with health conditions through Pathways to Work, including voluntary one-to-one support and Support Conversations to help customers access employment, health, skills, housing and debt support.\n\nIn regards to younger people entering the labour market, this Government will not leave an entire generation behind. With around one million young people not in education, employment and training, the Government is investing an additional £2.5 billion by 2029 into the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy.  \n\nThis investment will support almost one million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn, including through expanded network of Youth Hubs, earlier intensive support in Jobcentres through a new Youth Guarantee Gateway, additional work experience and training opportunities, a £3,000 Youth Jobs Grant and £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment for employers, and a fully funded six-month job for long-term unemployed 18–24-year-olds.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-10-13T11:41:08.439Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T11:41:08.439Z"},"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":760799,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760799.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide a legal pathway to “de-exempt” XL Bully dogs exempted as a precaution","background":"In October 2023, DEFRA and the Chief Veterinary Officer advised owners unsure of their dog’s breed type to “take a precautionary approach” & obtain a certificate of exemption “to be safe.” As ordinary owners are not trained breed assessors, thousands complied in good faith to avoid criminalisation.","additional_details":"Many of these dogs may not meet the legal “type”, yet two years later there is still no pathway or reassessment to allow de-exemption.\r\nAs a result, we believe dogs' welfare is unfairly compromised by lifelong restrictions imposed solely because their owners followed Government advice. The Secretary of State and DEFRA must now prioritise establishing a clear and fair de-exemption process.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":12541,"created_at":"2026-02-11T15:57:09.344Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T08:41:48.867Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-07T08:18:32.583Z","closed_at":"2026-10-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-11T19:35:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-20T15:01:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-13T08:41:31.788Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-13","summary":"Owners with a Certificate of Exemption for an XL Bully dog can now apply to withdraw it if they no longer believe it is an XL Bully.","details":"Defra recognises that some owners applied for Certificates of Exemption during the transition period as a precaution, particularly where they were unsure whether their dog met the XL Bully type standard. Defra understands that there are some dog owners who now believe that their dog is not an XL Bully type and that wish to withdraw their dog’s Certificate of Exemption. \n\nThat is why Defra has launched a service for dog owners in England and Wales to apply to withdraw their dog if they are satisfied, having reviewed the XL Bully conformation standard, that it is not an XL Bully type. The application process is simple and can be done through a dedicated website on GOV.UK. Owners can also apply using a paper form if required. Full information on how to apply to withdraw a dog’s Certificate of Exemption can be found on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-to-withdraw-a-certificate-of-exemption-for-a-dog. The withdrawal process fulfils a commitment made to owners when the XL Bully exemption scheme was introduced.\n\nIt is up to the owner or keeper to identify whether they think their dog may be in scope of the ban. Owners and keepers should refer to Defra guidance on how to check if a dog is an XL Bully, where Defra have provided photographic examples of XL Bully breed types. The guidance can be found by searching for “XL Bully conformation standard” on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/official-definition-of-an-xl-bully-dog/xl-bully-conformation-standard). \n\nTo be considered a type ‘known as the XL Bully’, a dog must meet the minimum height measurements set out in the guidance. If an owner thinks their dog meets the minimum height measurements and has a substantial amount of the physical characteristics set out in the guidance, the dog may be in scope of the ban. Defra recommends taking a cautious approach. If owners are unsure if your dog is a XL Bully, they should comply with the relevant requirements and restrictions and not withdraw the dog’s Certificate of Exemption.  \n\nPolice may carry out some checks and owners should be satisfied that their dog does not meet the standard before applying to withdraw a Certificate of Exemption. Withdrawing a Certificate of Exemption for a dog which is found to be an XL Bully is a criminal offence.  The dog may be seized, and the owner will have to go through the courts to keep the dog.\n\nOwners can access the most up to date information on the XL Bully ban by searching “Ban on XL Bully Dogs” on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ban-on-xl-bully-dogs).\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-10-13T08:41:31.776Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T08:41:31.776Z"},"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":762405,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762405.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make one-to-one mentoring a statutory right for children in care & care leavers","background":"Introduce a statutory right to trauma-informed one-to-one mentorship and guaranteed mental health support for every child in care and after care leavers up to age 25, funded by the Government.","additional_details":"Some children enter the care system due to trauma, abuse, and neglect, yet too many leave without stable emotional support. In our view, high rates of self-harm, suicide attempts, homelessness and criminalisation show the system is failing to deliver on its corporate parenting duties. We believe early, trauma-informed mentorship prevents crisis, reduces long-term public cost, and saves lives. This reform is preventative, not reactive.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10230,"created_at":"2026-02-24T21:39:12.803Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T08:24:55.426Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T17:01:46.714Z","closed_at":"2026-10-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T08:05:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-24T11:24:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-13T08:24:48.933Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-12","summary":"As part of the Enduring Relationships Programme, DfE continues to keep the role of mentoring, including any legislative implications, and opportunities to increase mental health support under review.","details":"Preventative support to children in care and care leavers is essential to help improve life outcomes, including health and homelessness.\n\nDfE recognises the value of mentoring in helping young people to achieve improved life outcomes and the impact mentoring can have to build supportive relationships, confidence, self-belief and skills needed for improved housing, health, education and employment outcomes. \n\nMentoring for children in care and care leavers has been supported through departmental initiatives such as the Family Finding, Befriending and Mentoring programme, which helps young people develop relationships and build key skills. \n\nLooked-after children attract Pupil Premium Plus funding. This funding supports evidence-based interventions to improve educational attainment and wider educational outcomes, including activities such as one-to-one tutoring, enrichment activities and mentoring where effective.   \n\nUnder the Children Act 1989, looked-after children are entitled to an Independent Visitor, who provides friendship, support and opportunities to develop skills and trusted relationships. \n\nThe Department for Culture, Media and Sport has also announced £10 million for creative mentoring for care-experienced young people, providing one-to-one support from creative practitioners. \n\nDfE are committed to supporting the life outcomes of children in care and care leavers, by embedding the Enduring Relationships Strategy which aims to ensure children leave care with supportive, loving relationships with trusted adults. \n\nIn August, DfE published a review which explored the circumstances around the tragic deaths of young people leaving care. In response, DfE are investing £25 million to roll out the Staying Close programme across the country. This investment will provide dedicated support for care leavers up to age 25, strengthening and increasing access to mental health support for young people.\n\nThe government is expanding NHS Talking Therapies, funding Early Support Hubs for 11 to 25-year-olds, and a new mental health strategy for England will be published later this year.\n\nThe government are also piloting integrated mental health support for children in care, and developing a toolkit to help local authorities and health partners work together to provide mental health services for care-experienced young people. \n\nIn Autumn 2027, corporate parenting duties will be extended to relevant public bodies. These duties will ensure children in care and care leavers are considered during policy making and delivery, and that services are more joined-up in their response to the needs of this cohort. \n\nDfE continues to keep the role of mentoring, including any legislative implications, and opportunities to increase mental health support under review, as part of the Enduring Relationships Programme. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-10-13T08:24:48.921Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T08:24:48.921Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762304,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762304.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Pass house building reforms for construction of 1.4 million approved houses","background":"We ask the Government to introduce mandatory build-out timeframes for approved sites, apply stronger penalties at sites where there has not been progress, pass “use it or lose it” planning permissions, strengthen compulsory purchase powers, and greater support to tackle long-term empty homes.","additional_details":"This is for the 1.4 million houses, that according IPPR analysis, have been granted permission since 2007 but remain unbuilt. We believe communities should not be asked to release further countryside while previously approved sites remain stalled. Despite this, local authorities are being required under the NPPF to allocate additional land, including greenfield and green belt sites, to meet housing targets. We believe housing needs should be met through delivery, not increasing land supply.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10201,"created_at":"2026-02-23T22:48:14.536Z","updated_at":"2026-10-13T15:29:44.351Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:41:15.503Z","closed_at":"2026-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-24T08:56:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-04T11:18:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-12T12:17:11.795Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-12","summary":"The Government is taking action to speed up build out, bring empty homes back into use and strengthen compulsory purchase powers to support faster housing delivery. ","details":"To significantly boost housing delivery, we must close the gap between the amount of land allocated and permissioned and the number of homes being completed. The Competition and Markets Authority and others have concluded that most homes in England are not built as fast as they can be constructed, once permission is granted, but only as fast as the developer expects to sell them at local second-hand market prices. This leads to a build out rate for large sites which can take decades to complete. While it is commercially rational for developers to operate in this way, the systemic impact is a lower level of housebuilding than is needed. That is why the government is taking action to speed up built out.\n\nIn May 2025, we published a Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out inviting views on further action the government should take to speed up homes being built. It can be found on gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-reform-working-paper-speeding-up-build-out/planning-reform-working-paper-speeding-up-build-out. \nOn the same day, we launched a technical consultation on implementing measures from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve the transparency of build rates from new residential developments, including commencement notice and development progress reports as well as the power to decline to determine applications where build out has been unreasonably slow. That consultation can be found on gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/implementing-measures-to-improve-build-out-transparency-technical-consultation . \n\nOur new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework\nwas published on 17 August 2026, and includes a new policy encouraging faster build out, alongside strengthened expectations for mixed tenure development and greater support for small and medium sites in the planning system. \n\nWe also highlighted in the government response to the NPPF consultation https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system  \nthat this policy forms part of a wider package of measures to support faster housing delivery, including the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act powers. \n\nWe want to see more empty homes brought back into use. The new NPPF makes clear that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the benefits of making better use of vacant or under-utilised land and buildings, such as by bringing back into residential use empty homes and other buildings. \n\nLocal authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to them to tackle empty homes, including charging additional council tax on properties left empty and unfurnished for a year or more; access to grant funding to bring homes back into use; and levers to enforce an empty property’s sale or take ownership or management of a property. \n\nThe government is strengthening the ability of councils’ to bring empty properties back into use by reforming Empty Dwelling Management Orders. We are reducing the period a property must be empty before it becomes eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months, and removing the evidential requirements for local authorities to provide to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Together, these changes will simplify the EDMO process, empower local authority empty homes officers to act more decisively and with greater speed, and accelerate the return of empty homes to use. \n\nCompulsory purchase is an important tool for ensuring land required to facilitate development is brought forward in a timely manner.  A factor contributing to the failure of local authorities to purchase land by agreement is where landowners have alternative proposals. To support use of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) on these types of sites, the government has commenced a new power which allows CPOs to be conditionally confirmed. This provides for the compelling case for use of a CPO to be established earlier in the land assembly process on sites where alternative proposals have been put forward but are not guaranteed to be delivered. Previously, if a CPO was rejected on the basis that an alternative proposal could be delivered and this was later not built out, the local authority would have to re-establish the case for use of a CPO. This has led to delays in bringing forward development on stalled sites, increased costs for public sector authorities and frustration for communities.\n\nCPOs can also be used by authorities to acquire empty properties where attempts to purchase by negotiation have failed. To speed-up the acquisition of empty properties by use of CPOs, the government has introduced reforms via the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to ensure quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of the process are reduced and home loss payment compensation can be excluded where owners of sub-standard properties fail to take action to improve their properties. This Act also includes a power which allows authorities to take earlier possession of empty dwellings by CPOs.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-10-12T12:17:11.793Z","updated_at":"2026-10-12T12:17:11.793Z"},"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":770977,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770977.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Lower the State Pension age to free up jobs for young adults","background":"Lower the State Pension age for workers so young adults that don't currently work have more chance of getting a job.","additional_details":"The longer people are having to work the fewer jobs there are out there for young adults. If the Government lowered the State Pension age we believe it could encourage retirement so that employers might take on a young adult to fill the space – that would help young people get jobs and also help the older generation that have done their bit for society and get to enjoy the last few years of their life.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":17818,"closing_date":"2026-12-25","created_at":"2026-05-28T10:07:09.048Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:36:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-25T14:53:00.352Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-28T17:25:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-25T09:06:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-12T09:44:02.202Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Helen Grice","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-12","summary":"The Government has no plans to lower the State Pension age.","details":"There are no plans to reduce State Pension age.\n\nWe are fortunate today that more people are reaching old age: life expectancy has risen rapidly over the past century, driven by breakthroughs in medical treatments and generally healthier lifestyles. In 2026, for example, men aged 66 in the UK can be expected to live on average a further 19.3 years, and women aged 66 a further 21.9 years. State Pension age policy takes account of the fact that people are living longer and our society is ageing, with some rises being necessary to maintain fairness between generations, protect the public finances, and strengthen the State Pension by ensuring it will be there for decades to come.\n\nThe Third State Pension age Review is currently underway and will decide what State Pension age is appropriate for future decades, balancing considerations of fairness and sustainability. It will consider a wide range of evidence, including an independent report from Dr. Suzy Morrissey.\n\nWith around one million young people not in education, employment and training, this Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. The Government is investing an additional £2.5 billion by 2029 into the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy. \n\nThis investment will support almost one million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn, including through expanded network of Youth Hubs, earlier intensive support in Jobcentres through a new Youth Guarantee Gateway, additional work experience and training opportunities, a £3,000 Youth Jobs Grant and £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment for employers, and a fully funded six-month job for long-term unemployed 18–24-year-olds.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-10-12T09:44:02.199Z","updated_at":"2026-10-12T09:44:02.199Z"},"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":768378,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/768378.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop a single Minister having the final say on national infrastructure projects","background":"Amend the Planning Act 2008 to end the system where one Minister makes final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). We want this power transferred to an independent panel of experts or decided by a vote in Parliament ensuring transparent and collective decision-making.","additional_details":"One politician can currently approve huge projects like pylons, solar farms or motorways, even if an independent inquiry recommends refusal. We believe this creates a risk of political bias and undermines public trust. These projects affect the environment and communities for generations; they are too significant for one person to decide alone. We feel that moving to a panel or Parliamentary vote ensures decisions are expert-led and carry a stronger democratic mandate for the nation’s future infrastructure.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15801,"closing_date":"2026-11-26","created_at":"2026-04-26T13:24:55.483Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T12:21:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-26T08:29:57.320Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-26T15:47:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-07T14:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-12T09:28:11.433Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"catherine Makinson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-12","summary":"The Secretary of State’s decision-making functions for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects are set out in the Planning Act 2008. The government has no plans to amend these functions.","details":"The government does not intend to introduce new primary legislation to amend the Planning Act 2008 to transfer decision-making powers for NSIPs from Secretaries of State to an independent panel or to a vote in Parliament.\n\nParliament has conferred responsibility for determining applications for development consent under the Planning Act 2008 to the relevant Secretary of State. This includes decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) such as major train lines and power stations.\n\nWhile this function sits with the Secretary of State, it must be exercised in accordance with the statutory framework passed by Parliament, following an examination by an appointed Examining Authority. Ministerial decisions are subject to transparency requirements and can be legally challenged.\n\nThe Planning Act 2008 establishes a system that combines independent examination with Ministerial decision-making that is accountable. Before a decision is made, applications are subject to detailed examination by an independent Examining Authority appointed by the Planning Inspectorate (acting on behalf of the Secretary of State). Local communities, local authorities, statutory bodies and other interested parties have opportunities to submit evidence and make representations during this process. The Examining Authority then produces a recommendation report for the relevant Secretary of State.\n\nThe government considers it appropriate that final decisions on nationally significant infrastructure remain with Ministers. Within the legal and policy framework, these projects often require the balancing of a range of considerations of national importance, including economic growth, energy security, transport connectivity, environmental protection, local impacts and the infrastructure need.\n\nTo provide greater transparency about how decisions are made, in July 2026 the government published guidance on the decision-making stage of NSIP applications. This guidance sets out that decisions must be taken in accordance with the statutory framework in the Planning Act 2008 (and secondary legislation). It also explains the role of the Secretary of State, the safeguards that apply where Ministers differ from the Examining Authority's recommendation and the routes available for legal challenge.\n\nPlanning propriety guidance sets out that decisions must be approached with an open mind, be fair and unbiased, and avoid conflicts of interest or any appearance of impropriety.\n\nWhere a National Policy Statement has effect, the Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with that relevant national policy statement, subject to limited statutory exceptions. In all cases, the Secretary of State must also have regard to any local impact reports, and any other matters that are important and relevant to the decision.\n\nWhile the Secretary of State is not required to follow the Examining Authority's recommendation, there are important safeguards where a different conclusion is reached. If the Secretary of State proposes to disagree with the Examining Authority on a material matter of fact or wishes to rely on new evidence, interested parties must be notified (with reasons) and given an opportunity to make written representations before a final decision is taken.\n\nThe Secretary of State is also required to prepare and publish a statement of reasons explaining why development consent has been granted or refused. The Examining Authority's recommendation report, the decision letter and other key documents are published, providing transparency about how decisions have been reached.\n\nFurthermore, decisions remain subject to challenge through the courts. Any person with sufficient interest may apply for judicial review within the statutory time limits.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-10-12T09:28:11.419Z","updated_at":"2026-10-12T09:28:55.588Z"},"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":764882,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764882.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop megasheds being built & operated 24/7 close to homes and communities ","background":"We want the government to include in its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the building of B8 warehouses and the 24/7 operation of such megasheds will not be permitted within 500 metres of residential properties.","additional_details":"Megasheds are typically at least 20m/65ft high (equal to 5 double decker buses). They can increase flood risk and the associated traffic causes huge increases in air, noise, light, vibration, dust and water pollution, plus higher carbon dioxide emissions. They often operate 24/7 giving no respite for local communities who can suffer financial, mental and physical health impacts. Although megasheds have a role to play in UK logistics, we believe they should not be allowed to destroy the lives of local communities.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11589,"closing_date":"2026-10-20","created_at":"2026-03-20T11:49:56.187Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T13:20:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-20T10:03:40.810Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-20T14:25:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-23T12:44:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-12T08:56:03.217Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Lesley Ann Allman","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-12","summary":"The new National Planning Policy Framework introduces specific considerations for freight and logistics proposals.","details":"On 17 August the government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is available on gov.uk here  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework\n\nThe NPPF includes a new policy (E3: Freight and Logistics) which sets out planning considerations specific to freight and logistics development and associated infrastructure, including access to transport networks, parking provision, and potential impacts on the environment, local residents, and neighbouring uses. \n\nA policy specific to this sector has been introduced because of the physical and locational characteristics of logistics developments, which in some cases will involve particularly large structures, and because of the particular importance of access to suitable transport links for these operations. \n\nThe NPPF also includes policies relating to achieving well-designed places, managing flood risk, sustainable transport, securing clean energy and water and pollution, public protection and security.  \n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-10-12T08:56:03.215Z","updated_at":"2026-10-12T12:59:18.528Z"},"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":769805,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769805.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum on abolishing the Scottish Parliament & Government","background":"We call on the UK Government to legislate on holding a referendum in Scotland to decide whether the Scottish Parliament & Government should be abolished.","additional_details":"We believe it has become clear that the Scottish Parliament is not representative of the views of the Scottish electorate, even more so in the recent election, which saw the SNP and Greens receive 57% of the seats but only 41% of the votes cast.\r\n \r\nWe feel the over-representation of nationalist parties in Holyrood has been to the detriment of public services and the wellbeing of the population. We believe there is a growing voice for the dismantling of devolution in Scotland and the return of local, more accountable democracy.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":17615,"closing_date":"2026-12-12","created_at":"2026-05-13T08:56:27.266Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T15:40:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-12T09:39:38.048Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-13T17:27:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-24T09:04:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-09T15:06:50.698Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Georgina Sparrow","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-09","summary":"The UK Government is a strong supporter of devolution and of the Scottish Parliament.  The UK Government's focus is on delivering for people across Scotland and on making devolution work effectively.","details":"The UK Government is clear in our respect for devolution and commitment to make existing devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland work effectively to deliver on people’s priorities. The Government does not support introducing legislation for a referendum on abolishing the Scottish Parliament.\n\nThe more we focus on substantive delivery such as investment in industry, energy security and public services and less on constitutional wrangling, the more we can achieve for the people of Scotland.  As the Prime Minister has set out to the First Minister, on the subject of a referendum on independence, this would only serve as a distraction to the vital work of growing the economy and helping to give families breathing space with the cost of living.\n\nOf course, the UK Government wants to see the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Government used to the best effect to get the basics right, from the ferries to our NHS and helping people with the cost of living. \n\nThe UK Government is committed to working with all levels of government on the shared purpose of ensuring regions and communities across the whole of the United Kingdom benefit.\n\nThe UK Government strongly believes that we need further decentralisation in Scotland and that power and funding must move out of Holyrood to strengthen Scotland's regional economies. Decentralisation should drive innovation by empowering local leaders to trial different approaches, and learn from what works to ultimately deliver more for citizens.\n\nThe evidence from England is clear that enabling coordinated policy action across regional economies can lead to better outcomes and a more efficient use of resources. Local leaders across Scotland should have the power and resources to connect communities, back young people and revive our high streets.\n\nScotland can be an engine room of UK growth and the UK Government will leave no stone unturned to unleash that potential. But delivering economic growth for Scotland is not something either of Scotland’s governments can do alone. It requires partnership and co-operation. The vast majority of Scots want their two governments to work together to increase living standards and improve public services.\n\nIf we want to build a better Scotland in the years ahead, uniting around our shared values and focusing on practical solutions offers a better route than division and grievance. Creating a country that works for working people is our goal. The UK Government wants to work in cooperation with the Scottish Government to achieve that, creating growth, opportunities and prosperity in every post code across our country.\n\nWhile there will inevitably be areas where the UK and Scottish Governments take different positions, we remain committed to constructive engagement and practical cooperation wherever that can improve outcomes for people in Scotland and build a fairer country for everyone.\n\nScotland Office","created_at":"2026-10-09T15:06:50.696Z","updated_at":"2026-10-09T15:06:50.696Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SO","name":"Scotland Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-secretary-of-state-for-scotland"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":779259,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/779259.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make statutory maternity pay 90% of wage for first 12 weeks & minimum wage after","background":"We believe mothers should never be forced back to work because maternity leave is unaffordable. UK SMP is among Europe’s least generous, falling to around 41% of minimum wage after 6 weeks. The Government should fix this and give mothers 12 weeks of Statutory Maternity Pay at 90% of their salary. ","additional_details":"It is estimated that between 2023-26, SMP rose by just 12.7%, whilst the National Living Wage rose by 22%. We are concerned the gap is widening. It was estimated that the proportion of mothers returning earlier to work for financial reasons rose from 42% in 2022 to 58% in 2023. \r\n  \r\nPublic research links maternity leave under 12 weeks to greater depression, poorer maternal wellbeing & lower sensitivity to a baby’s needs. Low SMP can hit low-income families hardest, forcing mothers back before they’re ready. We feel Statutory Maternity Leave for 12 weeks at 90% of salary, and the National Minimum Wage for the remainder, are the absolute minimum families deserve. ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":72740,"closing_date":"2027-03-14","created_at":"2026-08-10T12:22:13.932Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:33:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-09-14T09:11:41.598Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-10T19:00:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-19T07:33:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-09T12:32:28.228Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Joeli Brearley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-09","summary":"Maternity pay provides a measure of financial support to help mothers take time off work following birth. It is not intended to replace earnings. Pay is in scope of the Parental Leave and Pay Review.","details":"The Government recognises the importance of ensuring new parents have the time and support they need when welcoming a new child into their family. It understands that many families face financial pressures during the first year of a child’s life, and that the level of maternity pay is an important issue for many working parents.\n\nMaternity pay is intended to provide a measure of financial support while a mother takes time away from work to recover from childbirth and care for her child. It supports her during this time whilst maintaining her attachment to the labour market so that she can return to work when appropriate. Maternity pay is not intended to replace earnings in full.\n\nEligible women may receive either Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) or Maternity Allowance (MA). SMP is paid by employers, while MA is paid by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to eligible women, including self-employed women and some employed women who do not qualify for SMP. Entitlement to both payments is based on a woman’s recent employment and earnings.\n\nBoth SMP and MA are paid for up to a maximum of 39 weeks. For SMP, the first six weeks are paid at a weekly rate equal to 90 per cent of the woman's average weekly earnings, with no upper limit, followed by up to 33 weeks at the lower of either the standard rate or 90 per cent of the woman's average weekly earnings. MA is paid at either the standard rate or 90 per cent of the woman’s average weekly earnings, whichever is the lower, for a maximum of 39 weeks.\n\nThe Government recognises the financial pressures facing many new parents and has measures in place to support them and their families. Maternity Pay is just one element of the support available. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support, for example, Universal Credit, Child Benefit, the Sure Start Maternity Grant (a lump sum payment of £500) and Healthy Start vouchers are also available to support new parents.  More information about benefits and financial support available to pregnant women and their families can be found on www.gov.uk via the Childcare and Parenting link on the home page.\n\nThe petition proposes that part of SMP should be paid at the national minimum wage, however it is important to note the distinction between a National Living Wage and maternity pay. The former is a minimum hourly rate for work, whereas maternity pay provides financial support during an absence from work. They serve different purposes and are not directly comparable. \n\nThe Government understands the importance of ensuring statutory payments are set at the right level. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and State Pensions, including statutory pay. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. From April 2026 these payments were uprated in line with the Consumer Prices Index of 3.8 per cent, with their standard rates increasing from £187.18 to £194.32 per week. This means that the payments retain their value against inflation.\n\nHowever, Government knows there is more it can do to support working families. That is why it is undertaking a Review of the Parental Leave and Pay system, exploring how it can better support families, reflect the realities of modern work and childcare, and balance the needs of parents, employers and the Exchequer. The Review launched on 1 July 2025 and is due to conclude in early 2027. The Review is considering evidence on existing parental pay entitlements, including how any future reforms could best meet the needs of parents, employers and taxpayers. \n\nThe petition cites research linking maternity leave length and maternal health. Supporting mothers' health and wellbeing is a key objective of the Review. Government has engaged (and continues to engage) with maternity advocacy groups, who have shared their concerns about the level of maternity pay and the impact this can have on mothers’ health and wellbeing, and on family finances. \n\nThe Government is also committed to learning from international experience; however, cross-national comparisons must be made carefully given differences in labour markets and the wider package of support available to families.\n\nThe Review will conclude with a set of findings in which Government will outline next steps for taking any potential reforms forward to implementation. While the Review is considering whether changes may be needed in future, the current maternity pay system continues to provide support for eligible mothers during pregnancy and the first year following the birth of a child. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-10-09T12:32:28.220Z","updated_at":"2026-10-09T12:32:28.220Z"},"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":766482,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/766482.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require tracking of companion animal euthanasia to prevent unnecessary deaths","background":"Every day healthy and treatable companion animals are put to sleep not because they are old or because they are beyond help but because there are limited places for them to go\r\n\r\nTheir lives end quietly in pounds, commercial kennels, veterinary practices and rescues, often unseen and unrecorded.","additional_details":"Stray dogs can be PTS after 7 days\r\n\r\nStray cats rely on charities not councils\r\n\r\nHealthy/treatable animals are euthanised with no record, no transparency, no opportunity for reform \r\n\r\nWe call on Government to:\r\n\r\n* Record when healthy/treatable animals are euthanised\r\n* Publish annual data\r\n* Introduce a nationwide system to protect stray cats\r\n* Scan microchips for Rescue Back Up and registered keeper\r\n\r\nWithout this data preventable deaths will continue\r\n\r\nEvery animal deserves the chance to live\r\n\r\nTuks Law","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":10323,"closing_date":"2026-11-01","created_at":"2026-04-04T19:39:32.538Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T14:57:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-01T13:52:45.210Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-05T11:53:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-18T12:54:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-09T08:16:43.305Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dawn Ashley and Sue Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-09","summary":"The vast majority of pet euthanasia cases are for health and welfare reasons to relieve suffering. There is no indication of systemic issues that would necessitate new reporting obligations.","details":"Decisions around euthanising an animal are often complex and emotionally sensitive, particularly when the animal is a cherished family pet. Veterinary surgeons play a central role in these considerations, especially in relation to companion animals.  Euthanasia serves as a key safeguard for animal welfare by alleviating suffering, where necessary, while surgeons must also consider the owner’s wishes and circumstances.\n\nThe requirements within the veterinary profession already provide safeguards against unnecessary euthanasia. Advice about euthanasia is laid out in the guidance underpinning the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, which all veterinary surgeons practising in the UK must adhere to. Where a veterinary surgeon considers a request for euthanasia is not in the best interest of the animal, they can challenge this.  \n\nIn 2021, Defra worked closely with the veterinary profession to provide greater assurance that alternatives to euthanasia are explored before a healthy dog or cat is put down. Following these discussions, the RCVS agreed to incorporate the principle of microchip scanning before euthanasia into the guidance that underpins their Code of Professional Conduct. Checking the details on the relevant microchip database can alert the vet to anyone else who may have an interest in the animal, such as a rescue centre. This information can help inform consideration of alternatives to euthanasia. The Code of Professional Conduct also provides guidance on obtaining consent before euthanasia. The person presenting the animal is required to sign a consent form attesting to the fact they are the owner or are authorised by the owner. \n\nEarlier this year, Defra concluded an exercise involving campaigners, the veterinary profession and animal welfare stakeholders, to consider how the new scanning requirements prior to euthanasia have been embedded. Defra intends to issue a response to this exercise later in the year. \n\nIn addition, Defra maintains regular contact with key animal welfare stakeholders, including the Canine and Feline Sector Group, which brings together leading welfare charities, veterinary bodies, and trade associations. Through this forum, Defra receives up-to-date intelligence on emerging issues and operational challenges.  \n\nWe have not seen any evidence that unnecessary euthanasia is occurring on a scale that would justify further research or the introduction of an additional reporting requirement.\n\nFor stray dogs, local authorities are expected to keep records on stray dog outcomes, including euthanasia. Clear and consistent data helps to identify trends and provide assurance that decisions are made with regard to animal welfare.\n\nIn addition, Defra has updated and published its guidance on stray dogs, following engagement with stakeholders and local authority representatives. The updated guidance, published on 22 September, provides clear, practical advice to support the consistent handling of stray dogs by local authorities and makes clear that euthanasia should be considered only as a last resort in exceptional circumstances. \n\nIn relation to stray cats, the government has no plans to introduce a nationwide system for stray cats. Defra welcomes the work of animal welfare organisations who provide trap, neuter and return (TNR) programmes in communities to help limit the spread of disease and control the size of colonies. For example, the specialist cat welfare charity, Cats Protection is working to address issues related to stray and feral cats through their community neutering programmes. This scheme aims to improve understanding of the unowned cat population nationwide and works with local authorities and local communities to improve cat welfare and support TNR services. Defra will continue to monitor feline welfare through its regular engagement with the sector.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-10-09T08:16:43.303Z","updated_at":"2026-10-09T08:16:43.303Z"},"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":761984,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761984.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Detain, detect and deport all illegal immigrants","background":"We believe our country is facing a crisis with regards to illegal immigration and it is time to introduce a detect, detain and deport policy.","additional_details":"We think people have had enough of the soft pedalling by successive governments and this is the only way to deal with this crisis.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":13005,"created_at":"2026-02-20T21:34:16.504Z","updated_at":"2026-10-08T07:17:16.060Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-26T10:27:01.228Z","closed_at":"2026-09-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-20T21:52:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-01T01:58:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-10-08T07:16:57.011Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-07","summary":"This Government is making substantial progress in restoring order and control to the asylum and immigration system by maximising the return of people with no right to remain in the UK.","details":"The Government is clear that individuals who have no legal basis to remain in the United Kingdom should leave and we remain resolute in our commitment to increasing returns, as set out in our asylum and returns policy statement on ‘Restoring Order and Control over the Immigration System’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement). This statement underpins the Government’s objectives and system-wide efforts to doing so, outlining our reforms to reduce arrivals, increase returns, and restore control, fairness and public confidence.\n\nThe Government is bringing the full force of our laws to bear on these issues. Those with no right to be in the UK, including foreign criminals, will be returned as quickly as possible, and through effective enforcement action in instances where individuals refuse to depart voluntarily. \n\nA systematic programme of work is focused on delivering this major surge in immigration enforcement and returns activity. Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) colleagues are dedicated to making arrests, driving through decisions on individual cases, detaining people where appropriate and getting them onto returns flights in the highest numbers seen for many years.\n\nTo achieve these ambitions, Immigration Enforcement's budget will have nearly doubled by 2028/29 when compared to 2023/24, enabling Immigration Enforcement to invest further in their capacity, people and technology. Reforms are already under way to increase the volume, speed and efficiency of returns. This includes strengthening arrangements through new and expanded international co-operation routes and transforming voluntary returns. \n\nThese significant efforts are already having a demonstrable impact. The return of foreign criminals, immigration offenders and individuals illegally in the UK has reached the highest level since 2016 – with more than 80,000 returned since the general election to July 2026. The two years since the election have seen returns increase by 52% when compared to the two years directly before the 2024 election, as the Government restores order at the border and fairness to the migration system. \n\nImmigration enforcement activity is at record levels. As an example, between 1 January and 30 June 2026, 7,270 illegal working visits were carried out resulting in 4,756 arrests, a 31% increase in visits and a 20% increase in arrests compared to the same period in 2025, making this the most successful start to a year on record for illegal working enforcement activity. Increased enforcement supported by a range of sanctions, including civil penalties, business closure orders and potential prosecution, demonstrates that the Home Office is taking effective action against those employing illegal workers.\n\nThe Home Office is expanding immigration detention capacity, increasing voluntary and family returns, making greater use of technology to support enforcement and investigation activity, enhancing contact management and introducing digital reporting for those in the community, and maximising early removal powers for foreign national offenders – doing so with respect, following internal safeguards and guidance, and applying the learning from Windrush.\n\nThe Government is also pursuing new legislation that will more swiftly return those here illegally. Through the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Government will overhaul the immigration appeals process, providing a new Independent Appeals Authority to take through cases more quickly and work through the backlog. It will also bring about important reforms to the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Modern Slavery regime, providing robust legal protections while tackling abuses of human rights law.\n\nMore broadly, the Government intends to stop those attempting to enter the UK by clandestine means and disrupt organised criminal networks. The Government is investing heavily in upstream disruption, working with international partners to target organised immigration crime long before it reaches our borders. Through intelligence sharing, joint investigations and operational co-operation we are identifying routes, disrupting logistics, targeting criminal finances, and dismantling the networks that profit from exploiting vulnerable people. \n\nWhile challenges can frustrate removal efforts for those individuals who are already in the UK illegally, the Government remains resolute in its commitment to overcoming these obstacles and increasing returns.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-10-08T07:16:57.008Z","updated_at":"2026-10-08T07:16:57.008Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762177,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762177.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce same pension age for ambulance workers as for Police and Firefighters","background":"Lower the pension age for ambulance service workers under the NHS scheme to 60, in line with the Police and Firefighters. Ambulance staff have the stresses and face the same dangers as police and fire fighters. They do not have the privilege of lower pension ages despite being front line workers.","additional_details":"We believe it is the duty of Parliamentarians to bring ALL emergency service staff in line regarding pensions and pay more widely. We rely on all of these people in times of accident, major incidents and all manner of health and urgent needs.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":19787,"created_at":"2026-02-22T22:53:08.738Z","updated_at":"2026-10-03T09:55:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-02T15:39:54.207Z","closed_at":"2026-10-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-02T15:50:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-09T18:51:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-30T16:45:41.698Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-30","summary":"Government has no plans to reduce the pension age for ambulance service workers. The NHS Pension Scheme provides valuable benefits and multiple options for members to retire before normal pension age.","details":"The normal pension age in the NHS Pension Scheme, including for ambulance staff, is 60 in the 1995 Section, 65 in the 2008 Section, and linked to State Pension age in the 2015 Scheme.\n\nThe NHS Pension Scheme is widely regarded as one of the most valuable workplace pension schemes available. In the current career average schemes, NHS Pension Scheme members generally benefit from lower contribution rates and more generous accrual rates than members of the Police and Firefighters' Pension Schemes, alongside a range of retirement flexibilities. Reducing the normal pension age for ambulance staff would result in significant additional costs which would need to be met by scheme members, employers, taxpayers, or a combination of all three.\n\nThere is a common misconception that NHS staff are expected or required to work to normal pension age, or that this is necessary to receive a good pension. Normal pension age is the age used to calculate unreduced NHS Pension Scheme benefits. The generosity and flexibilities of the NHS Pension Scheme mean that members have options to retire earlier than their normal pension age. When doing so, their pension will have an actuarial reduction. This means that the member will receive their pension from a younger age, so will receive a lower annual pension for a longer period of time.\n\nEven with an actuarial reduction, NHS Pension Scheme benefits can provide for a comfortable retirement. For instance, a paramedic who joined the NHS now at 25, worked full time throughout their career and saw minimal career progression could retire as early as 62 with a pension equivalent to just over half of their pay. They will have built this up having paid lower pension contributions than a police or firefighter counterpart during their working life.\n\nFurthermore, the minimum retirement age in the NHS Pension Scheme, including for ambulance staff, is between 50 and 55 depending on when the member joined the NHS Pension Scheme. For members who joined the scheme after 3 November 2021, the minimum retirement age will rise to 57 in 2028.\n\nSince 1 April 2016, ambulance staff have had access to an Early Retirement Reduction Buy Out option, where members can pay additional pension contributions during their working life in order to retire up to three years earlier than normal pension age in the 2015 NHS Pension Scheme without a financial reduction to their retirement benefits. This unique ambulance service arrangement enables these members to split the cost between themselves and their employer, subject to the employer’s agreement.\n\nMembers are also now able to retire, have their pension benefits paid, then decide to return to NHS employment and re-join the NHS Pension Scheme to accrue more pension. Where members are unable to continue within their role until normal pension age because of illness, then ill-health retirement is available at any age.\n\nFinally, partial retirement was introduced from 1 October 2023. This allows staff to receive their pension benefits while also continuing to work and build up further pension.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-30T16:45:41.684Z","updated_at":"2026-09-30T16:45:41.684Z"},"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":761287,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761287.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Return Royal Mail to public ownership","background":"We are concerned that Royal Mail has made profits for years while having repeated industrial disputes with loyal postal workers. Letter delivery has failed time and again. We believe privatisation has clearly failed — the Government should restore Royal Mail to public ownership","additional_details":"We believe Royal Mail has generated profits for years while its dedicated postal workers have faced worsening conditions, triggering repeated industrial disputes. Letter delivery standards have failed time and time again, and we feel that the public is paying the price. We think privatisation has clearly failed. The Government should purchase Royal Mail and return this essential service to public ownership.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10325,"created_at":"2026-02-16T22:53:31.895Z","updated_at":"2026-09-29T13:34:23.085Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-25T15:17:16.071Z","closed_at":"2026-09-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-17T12:50:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-03T20:57:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T14:05:20.248Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-28","summary":"The Government has no current plans to return Royal Mail to public ownership. Our priority is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service that does not compete for public funds. ","details":"Royal Mail is a critical part of our national infrastructure, providing crucial services for millions across the UK, and is an iconic part of UK national life.  Privatisation was necessary to ensure this critical institution continues and that there is a consistent provision of a universal postal service that does not compete for public funds, which should be used to fund the NHS and other public services. The designated universal service provider remaining within the private sector with access to the capital needed to transform the business and ensure its long-term financial sustainability, is therefore the most appropriate option at this time. \n\nRecognising the importance of this service in advance of the takeover, the government secured, from Royal Mail’s parent company EP Group, significant commitments to protect UK customers. This included the Government’s Golden Share in Royal Mail, securing a veto against the movement of Royal Mail’s tax and HQ residency out of the UK, and we secured a commitment to prevent dividend payments until Royal Mail’s quality of service has improved.  This ensures that profits are not being diverted from this critical service being delivered to the UK.\n\nHowever, the government do recognise that Royal Mail’s quality of service has not been good enough. Ministers have regularly met Royal Mail’s leadership to discuss ongoing performance issues following reports of issues in a number of areas and will continue to make representations where service levels fall short.  Most recently the Minister for the Future of Work met with the Chief Executive of Royal Mail on 21 September 2026 to reinforce the importance of postal deliveries to constituents and to reinforce that the company needs to continue to improve its performance. Quality of Service figures published for Q1 26/27 show some positive improvement with First Class performance up 9% to 85.0% and second class up by 2.1% to 91.4% whilst an improvement this still does not meet statutory targets, and we will continue to push Royal Mail to improve.\n\nTo support improvements in both quality of service and staff retention Royal Mail published its improvement plan on 21 April. The plan identifies a primary cause of service issues as the non-completion of delivery routes, and it sets out the measures and timeframes for improvement so that more routes are completed each day and constituents see fewer delays. The business has also committed to investing £500 million to increase its frontline resourcing, and the availability of average weekly working hours for part-time employees will increase.\n\nThese measures, alongside the agreement reached with the CWU, will help to alleviate pressures on postal workers while also contributing to improved service quality for users. Further information on the plan is available on the website of Royal Mail’s parent company, International Distribution Services (IDS): \nwww.internationaldistributionservices.com/en/press-centre/press-releases/international-distribution-services/royal-mail-publishes-universal-service-improvement-plan/.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","created_at":"2026-09-28T14:05:20.247Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T14:06:48.818Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":775393,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/775393.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Dedicated funding for Epidermolysis Bullosa and rare skin conditions research","background":"Increase dedicated, ring-fenced Government funding for research into rare skin conditions, including all forms of Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB), to accelerate the development of effective treatments and support UK clinical trials.","additional_details":"We call on the Government to provide dedicated, ring-fenced funding for research into EB and other rare skin conditions. Children with conditions such as EB experience severe, painful blistering from birth. Promising gene and cell therapies offer real hope, yet research remains significantly underfunded. We urge the Government to ring-fence funding, support clinical trials, and prioritise these conditions within the UK Rare Diseases Framework.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":11820,"closing_date":"2027-01-27","created_at":"2026-06-28T14:18:01.476Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:36:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-27T14:33:53.804Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-28T14:37:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-11T21:49:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.840Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ciara Burnside","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-28","summary":"While funding for research into specific conditions is not usually ring-fenced, we have committed over £108 million for research into skin conditions between 2021/22 and 2025/26 through the NIHR.","details":"The Government recognises the significant impact that Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) and other rare skin conditions can have on patients and families, and the importance of research in improving diagnosis, care and treatment. The Department of Health and Social Care funds health and care research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which invests around £1.8 billion each year across clinical, public health and social care research.\n\nThe NIHR does not usually ring-fence funding for specific conditions. Instead, it welcomes applications on any aspect of human health and care, including EB and other rare skin conditions. Applications compete through open, transparent peer review and are assessed on scientific quality, value for money, importance to patients and the public, and relevance to health and care services. This approach is intended to ensure that the strongest proposals with the greatest potential to benefit patients are funded, whilst allowing researchers to respond to emerging evidence and priorities.\n\nThe Government is supporting research in this area. Between 2021/22 and 2025/26, the Department committed £108.16 million through the NIHR to new research projects and support for infrastructure within the health research category covering skin conditions. This included £1.075 million for projects and infrastructure specifically related to EB.\n\nNIHR-supported EB research covers advanced treatments, symptom management, supportive care and better care co-ordination. Studies have tested cell treatments for recessive dystrophic EB. Researchers are also looking at ways to repair the faulty COL7A1 gene and use patients’ own genetically corrected cells to treat EB. Other research aims to improve daily life by developing gloves to help prevent tightening of the hands, nutritional products that are gentler on the mouth, longer-lasting eye drops, and better treatments for severe itching and skin damage. The NIHR also supports research into new genetic and other treatments for several other rare skin conditions.\n\nThe NIHR also supports research infrastructure that enables high-quality translational, clinical and applied studies to be developed and delivered. Wider Government investment includes the £14 million Rare Disease Research UK Platform, jointly funded by the NIHR and the Medical Research Council, and UK participation in the European Rare Diseases Research Alliance. These initiatives strengthen collaboration, give UK researchers access to international projects and trials, and help promising discoveries progress towards improved diagnosis and treatment.\n\nResearch priorities are also informed by patients, carers and clinicians. In April 2026, the James Lind Alliance published its top 10 research priorities for EB. The NIHR provides core funding for the Alliance’s infrastructure and offers funding opportunities for research addressing priorities identified through this process. Patients, carers and professionals may also suggest research topics directly to the NIHR.\n\nThe UK Rare Diseases Framework supports improvements in diagnosis, professional awareness, co-ordinated care and access to specialist treatment. Research into EB and other rare skin conditions can contribute to each of these priorities. The Government will therefore continue to support the research environment, welcome high-quality funding applications and work with patients, researchers, charities and other partners to advance understanding and develop better treatments and care. However, it does not plan routinely to set condition-specific funding targets, as competitive assessment remains the best means of directing public funding to research with the strongest evidence and greatest potential patient benefit.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.838Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.838Z"},"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":777325,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/777325.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund second stem cell transplants on NHS for relapse within 12 months","background":"We want the UK Government to provide funding to the NHS so that patients with blood cancer who relapse within one year from their first transplant, and whose clinical team feel they would benefit from a second transplant, are not denied a potentially lifesaving transplant.","additional_details":"For some people whose blood cancer returns after a stem cell transplant, a second transplant can be lifesaving. NHS England’s policy states patients are not eligible for a second stem cell transplant if the cancer returns within 12 months of their first transplant. Anthony Nolan, DKMS and Leukaemia UK are calling on the UK Government to fund and enable NHS England to change its policy, so that no patient is denied a potentially lifesaving stem cell transplant just because they can’t afford it.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":33014,"closing_date":"2027-02-12","created_at":"2026-07-16T16:31:12.907Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:36:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-08-12T12:13:10.655Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-16T18:47:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-10T11:55:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T08:32:01.780Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Faith Hinitt","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-25","summary":"NHS policy should be guided by the latest clinical evidence. An independent evidence review into the case for a second stem cell transplant if there is a relapse within 12 months is underway.","details":"The Government recognises the concerns raised by patients, families and charities regarding access to a second allogeneic stem cell transplant for people whose disease relapses within 12 months of a first transplant.\n\nNHS England commissions specialised treatments in line with evidence-based clinical commissioning policies. Under the current commissioning policy (https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clin-comms-policy-16068p.pdf) a second transplant is routinely funded where relapse occurs more than 12 months after the initial transplant. Patients whose disease relapses within 12 months are not currently eligible under the existing policy.\n\nNHS policy should be guided by the latest clinical evidence, which is why an independent evidence review into the case for a second allogeneic stem cell transplant has already been commissioned.\n\nThe ongoing review will consider the latest peer-reviewed clinical evidence, alongside clinical benefit, patient safety, affordability and the opportunity cost of any new investment. Any changes to commissioning arrangements will be considered through NHS England's established policy development process (https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/nhs-england-specialised-commissioning-service-development-policy/), which includes an independent evidence review, expert clinical input, patient and public involvement, and stakeholder testing. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on the draft policy through a formal stakeholder testing process (anticipated for early 2027) before any final decisions are made. \n\nDetails of the current policy and how to stay up to date with the review are available on the NHS England website (https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/blood-and-infection-group-f/blood-and-marrow-transplantation/).\n\nWhile the independent evidence review is under way, any patients who have concerns or questions about their treatment options should speak to their local clinical team for support.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-28T08:32:01.777Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T08:32:35.205Z"},"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":764510,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764510.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a public inquiry to review the use of dopamine agonists ","background":"Hold an inquiry into the use of dopamine agonists covering: impulse control disorders; potential physical harms & misdiagnosis of vascular dementia; & any lessons from past & current criminal proceedings involving dopamine agonist patients. This could lead to concrete reforms to prevent future harm.","additional_details":"It has been reported that some people with Parkinson’s, RLS and related conditions taking dopamine agonists have faced ruined finances, family breakdown, dangerous impulse control disorders, physical decline, misdiagnosis of vascular dementia and, in some cases, criminal proceedings. Many were never warned or properly reviewed. The media have been investigating the issue, but an inquiry could examine the evidence in full, review prescribing and warning standards, and help protect patients in future.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10875,"closing_date":"2026-10-22","created_at":"2026-03-16T18:11:47.098Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T14:19:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-22T08:36:41.723Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-17T13:06:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-05T07:54:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:00.436Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David Craig Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-25","summary":"The Government is not planning a public inquiry. The medicines regulator is reviewing the side effects of dopamine agonists and whether further action is needed.","details":"The Government recognises the understandable concern about the potential side effects of dopamine agonists, particularly impulse control disorders, and the significant effect these can have on patients and their families.\n\nPatient safety is our first priority when medicines are prescribed and regulated.\n\nThe doctor or other healthcare professional responsible for a patient’s care decides whether to prescribe a medicine and remains accountable for that decision.\n\nPrescribers should explain a medicine’s benefits, risks, possible side effects and other consequences. They should also make sure there are suitable arrangements to monitor the patient and review their treatment.\n\nPrescribers must follow relevant national guidance on effective treatment and consider safety alerts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).\nGuidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says that people with Parkinson’s disease, and their families and carers, should receive spoken and written information about important risks, including impulse control disorders.\n\nThe MHRA licenses medicines and checks that they meet the required standards of safety, quality and effectiveness. It also makes sure that clear information is available about how approved medicines should be used.\n\nThis includes the Patient Information Leaflet for patients and the Summary of Product Characteristics for healthcare professionals, which contains the relevant information to use the approved medicines.\n\nAs part of this responsibility, and given recent concerns raised by stakeholders, the MHRA is currently assessing whether additional regulatory action is required to further raise awareness of the side effects associated with dopamine agonist medications. The Agency has engaged a range of stakeholders, including Parkinson’s UK and RLS-UK, to ensure that patient and carer perspectives are appropriately considered in the review.\n\nThe MHRA expects to complete its review in 2027. The Government will then consider the findings, take any necessary action and make sure relevant information is shared with healthcare professionals and patients.\n\nWhile this review is under way, the Government does not believe that a separate public inquiry would add value.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:00.433Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:45.644Z"},"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":775071,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/775071.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review and reform laws on keeping wild animals as pets","background":"Wild animals are inherently unsuited to life as pets, yet millions are kept in UK homes in conditions that fail to meet their complex welfare needs, with a growing trade and weak oversight. We call for urgent review and reform of laws on the keeping and trade of wild animals as pets.","additional_details":"The current legal framework is fragmented and outdated, failing to protect animal welfare, biodiversity and public health. Online trade and weak regulation are driving growth in the wild pet trade. We call on the Government to review and reform laws in England and Wales, introducing evidence-based measures to prevent harm, close loopholes, strengthen enforcement and meet UK commitments to animal welfare, biosecurity, conservation and public health.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":13842,"closing_date":"2027-01-27","created_at":"2026-06-25T14:20:12.346Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T12:00:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-27T14:43:29.547Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-29T11:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-15T08:49:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-24T09:12:36.124Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Samara P. El-Haddad","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-24","summary":"The government takes the keeping of wild animals seriously. Effective legislation is in place and we are working with the sector and local authorities to promote better welfare and enforcement.","details":"The government published its Animal Welfare Strategy for England in December 2025, setting out its priorities for animal welfare until 2030.  The government takes the keeping of wild animals seriously and is proud that the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. \n\nIn England, wild animals are protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) as well as other separate pieces of legislation. The 2006 Act makes it an offence to cause an animal, including a kept wild animal, unnecessary suffering, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. It is also an offence for a person to fail to take reasonable steps to meet the welfare needs of a kept wild animal, punishable by up to six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Following a conviction, the court may also ban the offender from keeping animals and may order that their animals are removed from them.  \n\nFurther to the general provisions of the 2006 Act, wild animals that are recognised as being dangerous to the general public must also be licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (the DWAA). Owners of animals listed in the Schedule to the DWAA must get a licence for that animal from their local authority. A local authority must only grant a licence if it is satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person; the animal's accommodation is suitable for the animal, clean and secure; and the animal is supplied with suitable food, drink and bedding, and visited at suitable intervals. \n\nIn addition, all primates kept privately in England are further protected by the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024. Under the Regulations, which came into force on 6 April this year, private keepers require a specialist licence to keep a primate. Licences will be valid for a maximum of three years, with at least one inspection per licensing period. Local authorities will enforce the standards and ensure welfare standards are being maintained. Licence holders must also undergo reassessment if they wish to renew their licence.  Where a primate is also listed in the Schedule to the DWAA, the keeper is required to get both a DWAA licence and a primate licence. As outlined in the government’s Animal Welfare Strategy for England, we will work with local authorities and support them to effectively implement and enforce the primate licensing scheme. \n\nThe Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 also require that anyone in the business of selling animals as pets, including exotic or wild animals, needs a valid licence from their local authority. Licensees must meet strict statutory minimum welfare standards which are enforced by local authorities who have powers to issue, refuse or revoke licences. The regulations also require that pet shops must provide prospective buyers with information on how to care for the animal. \n\nAs set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy for England, we will continue to work with the sector, animal welfare organisations and local authorities to protect the welfare of animals across regulated and unregulated sales. We will do this by promoting consistent and effective enforcement through working with local authorities and supporting work that is already underway in the sector to encourage responsible sourcing practices by prospective owners.  \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-09-24T09:12:36.117Z","updated_at":"2026-09-24T09:12:36.117Z"},"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":773633,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/773633.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Launch a public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK","background":"We call on the Government to launch a full-scale public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK. The inquiry should investigate the effectiveness of UK border control, the financial cost on taxpayers, and the deportation system.","additional_details":"Thousands of people illegally migrate to the UK each year. We believe this has negatively impacted the UK to a significant extent and resulted in some people feeling unsafe walking the streets. Furthermore, we believe it has brought a great burden onto taxpayers as the Government has had to pay for more support for illegal migrants.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":83584,"closing_date":"2027-01-15","created_at":"2026-06-17T16:29:16.669Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:35:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-15T14:48:11.761Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-17T18:40:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-23T16:40:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-22T10:03:29.674Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Simon Worley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-21","summary":"The Government is subject to ongoing scrutiny here through parliament, and by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The Government doesn’t consider a public inquiry necessary.","details":"The Government recognises the scale of the challenges inherited across the immigration and asylum system. Since taking office, the Government has publicly committed to reducing illegal migration and restoring public confidence in the immigration system and has put in place a wide-ranging programme of reform to restore order and control, including strengthened border security measures, increased enforcement activity, faster decision-making and higher levels of removals. Further changes are being developed and implemented through the Government’s wider immigration and asylum reform programme.\n\nThe Government is investing heavily in border security and international cooperation. Through the Border Security Command, law enforcement agencies are working alongside international partners to disrupt organised immigration crime, dismantle people-smuggling networks and strengthen enforcement activity across the migration route. In addition, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31) has provided law enforcement with stronger powers to tackle organised immigration crime and further protect the UK's borders.\n\nWe are also transforming the asylum system through the Restoring Order and Control policy statement, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement/restoring-order-and-control-a-statement-on-the-governments-asylum-and-returns-policy, and Immigration and Asylum Bill (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4254) which was introduced on 30 June 2026. These reforms will create a firmer and fairer system by simplifying decision-making, reducing legal challenges, increasing removals, and reducing the incentives that drive illegal migration. The Government is committed to ensuring that protection is available to those who genuinely need it, while making it harder for the system to be abused and easier to remove those with no right to remain in the UK. \n\nSince July 2024, we have arrested 1,900 criminals involved in organised immigration gangs, disrupted criminal smuggling activity at record levels, and with France, prevented more than 46,000 attempted Channel crossings. We have removed over 78,000 people (an increase of 52%) with no right to be here and delivered returns of small boat arrivals at record levels. We are continuing to exit asylum hotels, with fewer than 160 now remaining, reduced from 400 in use at the peak of 2023. Record numbers of asylum decisions have been made, and the introduction of a new 24-week target for deciding asylum and immigration appeals for those in accommodation and foreign national offenders will cut delays further from the current average wait of 67 weeks. Overall, asylum costs have fallen by £1 billion since the 2024 general election.\n\nThe Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) is a government appointed official responsible for providing independent scrutiny of the UK's border and immigration functions. More information on current, and close, inspection reports can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/independent-chief-inspector-of-borders-and-immigration\n\nThe Government is regularly publicly scrutinised through several channels to monitor the effectiveness of its policies. The Home Affairs Committee is a cross-party committee of MPs responsible for scrutinising the work of the Home Office and its associated bodies. It examines government policy, spending and the law, in areas including immigration. You can find current inquiries, information on members, publication, and news here: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/.\n\nThe Home Office recognises the public interest in illegal migration and, as such, regularly provides policy updates including consultation papers here: https://www.gov.uk/entering-staying-uk/refugees-asylum-human-rights#policy_and_engagement.\n\nFurthermore, the National Audit Office (NAO) is the UK’s independent public spending watchdog. They are responsible for supporting Parliament in holding the Government to account by providing high-quality audits. The Home Office is subject to such audits, and information on the work being undertaken can be obtained here: https://www.nao.org.uk/. Recent reports in 2025 include an analysis of the asylum system, and a report on the Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts to support the Home Affairs Committee inquiry. \n\nTherefore, the Government is already subject to extensive public and parliamentary scrutiny to monitor the effectiveness of such policies and delivery. This, combined with the substantial package of work already underway and existing oversight mechanisms, the Government does not consider that a public inquiry is necessary to identify these challenges or determine how they should be addressed.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-09-22T10:03:29.659Z","updated_at":"2026-09-22T10:03:29.659Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762149,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762149.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Set up a National Commission on Electoral Reform to review the electoral system","background":"I ask the Government to set up a National Commission on Electoral Reform, as advocated by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections. It should be an independent, time limited, expert led review to build consensus for changing the electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.","additional_details":"Along with 60% of the British public, according to some data, I believe it is time to change the voting system for the Westminster Parliament and review alternatives. I believe that too many people feel their votes do not count, and that under the First Past the Post system millions of votes are wasted and representation bears little resemblance to votes cast. In my view, a more proportional voting system would help ensure that representation reflected votes cast and that voters would be treated with respect.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":27036,"created_at":"2026-02-22T16:43:35.676Z","updated_at":"2026-10-01T18:20:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T08:05:13.154Z","closed_at":"2026-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-25T10:59:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-03T13:07:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-22T09:58:34.734Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-21","summary":"The Prime Minister has been clear about his commitment to electoral reform and welcomes a national debate about how our democratic system can best serve voters across the United Kingdom.","details":"The Government recognises the strength of feeling about the operation of our democracy and understands concerns that have been raised about public trust and confidence in the electoral system by a range of stakeholders, including the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections and those who have signed this petition.\n\nTrust is fundamental to the relationship between elected representatives and the public: without it, our democracy could not function. Electors should be able to participate with confidence that the system is secure, accessible and responsive to their concerns. \n\nA politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places, is this Government’s priority. The Prime Minister has been clear about his commitment to electoral reform and welcomes a national debate about how our democratic system can best serve voters across the United Kingdom. This is an important constitutional issue, and one which naturally attracts a wide range of views across political parties and from people throughout the UK.\n\nHowever, the Government's immediate priority is to deliver the important reforms currently before Parliament in the Representation of the People Bill. These measures will strengthen participation in our democracy by extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds, making voter registration more accessible, and protecting elections from foreign interference and other threats to their integrity. We have been clear that the current Bill is not intended to determine wider questions about electoral systems or proportional representation, and that the reforms it contains are not the totality of the Government's wider ambitions for democratic renewal.\n\nThe Government notes the petition’s proposal for an independent, time-limited and expert-led commission to examine questions relating to electoral reform and build consensus. These are questions which must be approached deliberately and carefully, taking account of the potential implications for electors, electoral administrators, political parties, candidates, as well as for the effective and accountable operation of government. \n\nThe Prime Minister is open to different ways of taking forward a national conversation about how every vote and every voice can be better reflected in our democracy, and the Government will set out its approach in due course.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-09-22T09:58:34.731Z","updated_at":"2026-09-22T09:58:34.731Z"},"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":776949,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/776949.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce urgent moratorium on AI Data Centres and BESS outside AI Growth Zones","background":"Introduce: (1) an immediate moratorium on planning approvals for BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) and Data Centres outside designated AI Growth Zones; (2) mandatory Rural Impact Assessments conducted at local level; and (3) mandatory comprehensive investigation into financing of all proposals.","additional_details":"We believe robust evaluation is needed as to: (i) the cost-benefit analysis of each BESS/Data Centre; and (ii) all financing, including non-UK-based funds. Proposals outside AI Growth Zones can be highly problematic, because they may seek to evade regulation and Government scrutiny. Rural areas are especially vulnerable. There are reports of farmers being threatened with compulsory purchase. Loss of farmland could endanger UK food security. Irreparable harm may be caused to heritage, landscapes, ecology, public health and wellbeing.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":40203,"closing_date":"2027-02-17","created_at":"2026-07-13T16:08:22.844Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T17:33:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-08-17T15:35:51.602Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-13T17:06:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-24T17:48:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-17T08:52:15.835Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-10-06","summary":"We have no plans to pause data centre or BESS approvals. Projects will continue to be assessed under robust local and national planning rules.","details":"The government has no plans to introduce a moratorium on planning approvals for data centres or BESS projects or introduce mandatory Rural Impact Assessments or mandatory comprehensive investigation into financing of all proposals.\n\nGrid-scale batteries are essential for delivering a decarbonised power sector by 2030 and net zero by 2050. They balance the electricity system at lower cost, maximise the use of renewable generation such as wind and solar, reduce the need for new generation and network upgrades, and provide rapid-response services to maintain system frequency and security of supply from milliseconds to several hours. The Government's Clean Power Plan aims to increase grid-scale battery storage capacity from 8.1GW today to 23-27GW by 2030 in the UK. \n\nData centres are a critical part of the UK’s digital infrastructure. They underpin everyday services and provide the computing capacity needed for scientific research, advancing innovation, and economic growth. The government has designated data centres as Critical National Infrastructure, reflecting their importance to the UK’s economy and security.\n\nThe government recognises that data centre developments and battery facilities can raise concerns for local communities, including in relation to land use and environmental impacts. Data centre proposals inside and outside AI Growth Zones, as well as BESS, remain subject to the same planning scrutiny and regulatory requirements as all other developments. As part of the planning process, decision-makers are required to consider a wide range of relevant factors, including impacts on the environment, heritage assets, landscapes, ecology and local communities.\n\nIn most cases, planning applications are determined by local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The National Planning Policy Framework (2026) requires planning policies and decisions to take into account the quality of agricultural land, including land classified as best and most versatile, and where significant development of such land is necessary, to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to higher quality land. \n\nFor particularly large data infrastructure projects, developers may choose to seek consent through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, where the relevant Secretary of State decides on granting development consent, rather than local authorities acting as decisionmaker. The criteria for direction into the NSIP regime and approval to grant development consent will be outlined in the National Policy Statement (NPS) for data centres, which is due to be published shortly. The NPS suggests an indicative threshold for capacity for new projects to be directed into NSIP, and criteria for development consent to be granted including issues such as grid connection, water usage, environmental impacts, and local benefits. Development consent may be refused where significant adverse impacts cannot be appropriately managed or mitigated. The government seeks to support sustainable growth while ensuring impacts on communities and the environment are properly considered.\n\nThe government welcomes investment that supports economic growth, innovation and technological development in the UK for both data infrastructure and battery facilities. Alongside this, safeguarding the security and resilience of critical infrastructure remains a key priority. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 provides powers to scrutinise and, where necessary, intervene in acquisitions in Data Centres and BESS that may pose risks to national security.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade\n\nThis is a corrected response. The Government requested to update the response to rectify inaccuracies in the original response, to which the Petitions Committee agreed.\n\nYou can find the original response, with details of the inaccuracies in it, towards the bottom of the petition page. (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/776949)","created_at":"2026-09-17T08:52:15.820Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T17:01:54.769Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":763011,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763011.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Public Vote Required on Overseas Aid Spending","background":"We call on the Government to consult the British public and hold a vote before sending taxpayer money overseas. The people should decide whether funds are prioritised for foreign aid or invested in our own National Health Service, Armed Forces, and essential services at home.","additional_details":"Across the United Kingdom, many citizens believe it is unfair that their hard-earned taxes support other nations while communities at home face declining services, stretched resources, and rising costs of living. Schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and defence require urgent attention. The public deserves a direct say in how their money is spent and whether domestic stability and recovery should come before international financial commitments. MPs are not reflecting the will of the people!","committee_note":null,"state":"closed","signature_count":22576,"created_at":"2026-03-03T10:22:12.063Z","updated_at":"2026-10-02T07:26:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T10:01:01.126Z","closed_at":"2026-10-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T13:10:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-18T22:51:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-16T11:55:51.852Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-16","summary":"The Government does not support a public vote on overseas aid. Spending decisions, including on overseas aid, are made by Government and scrutinised by Parliament on behalf of the public.","details":"The Government recognises that taxpayers expect public money to be spent responsibly and that many people have strong views on how public spending should be prioritised. Parliament provides democratic oversight of these decisions through debates, legislation and scrutiny of Government spending plans.\n\nThe UK is a representative democracy. Decisions on public spending, including Official Development Assistance (ODA), are made by elected Governments and are scrutinised and approved by Parliament through established constitutional and budgetary processes.\n\nAt the Spring Statement 2025, the Government took the decision to reduce Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 to support increased investment in defence and security spending at a time of heightened global instability.  Despite this reduction, the UK remains committed to international development and will continue to focus ODA on humanitarian crises, climate and nature, global health and economic development. By helping to reduce poverty, strengthen economies and address the drivers of conflict and instability, ODA supports a more stable and prosperous world, with positive benefits for the UK’s own security and prosperity.\n\nParliament has legislated for the UK’s approach to aid spending. Under the International Development Act 2015, the Government is required to assess each year whether fiscal conditions allow a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. The Office for Budget Responsibility's latest forecast shows that the fiscal tests for returning to 0.7% are not expected to be met within this Parliament. The Government will continue to review this position each year against the latest fiscal forecasts.\n\nThe Government has also prioritised investment in public services, infrastructure and national security through Spending Review 2025. The Spending Review set departmental budgets for day-to-day spending to 2028-29 and capital investment to 2029-30, supporting the Government's priorities of strengthening Britain's security, improving public services and growing the economy.\n\nCompared with plans set out in Spring 2024, the Government increased planned day-to-day departmental spending by more than £50 billion by 2028-29 and capital investment by more than £120 billion over the Parliament. This includes significant investment in schools, the NHS, infrastructure and defence. Further information on Spending Review 2025 is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2025-document. \n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2026-09-16T11:55:51.845Z","updated_at":"2026-09-16T11:55:51.845Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":764909,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764909.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban default service charges and pre-set digital tip screens in hospitality","background":"Prohibit hospitality businesses from automatically adding \"discretionary\" service charges to bills, and ban digital card readers from prompting customers with pre-set tip percentages before payment. We believe all tipping must be 100% voluntary and initiated by the customer.","additional_details":"In our view, the current tipping culture has become coercive and stressful as some restaurants routinely use \"drip pricing,\" adding a 12.5% charge at the end of a meal, forcing customers to awkwardly ask to remove it. We think digital payment screens with pre-set tipping suggestions use psychological pressure to guilt people into tipping for basic counter service. We think this creates a hostile environment and anxiety for consumers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10614,"closing_date":"2026-10-22","created_at":"2026-03-20T15:56:31.408Z","updated_at":"2026-10-16T12:19:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-22T08:20:22.926Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-21T13:17:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-25T00:10:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.422Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alicia Jesatova","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-16","summary":"The government does not plan to prohibit hospitality businesses from adding optional service charges to bills or from offering pre-set tip options. Existing consumer law prohibits unfair practices. ","details":"The government does not intend to prohibit hospitality businesses from adding optional service charges to bills or offering customers pre-set tipping options.\n\nThe Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) prohibits drip pricing practices, which is when consumers are shown an initial headline price for a product or service and then are shown additional mandatory charges as they proceed with the transaction. Furthermore, the DMCCA prohibits traders from engaging in aggressive commercial practices, including high pressure-selling techniques.\n\nThe Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance  to help businesses understand and comply with their obligations under the Act.\nBusinesses must always make it clear on the bill or in communication with the consumer whether any tip automatically added to the bill is optional or mandatory for the consumer to pay. Similarly, if a business provides pre-set tipping prompts on digital payment screens, there should be an option for consumers to choose not to tip or to choose a custom amount. If the tip is optional, there should be no pressure to agree it. \n\nUnder the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act, all qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges must be allocated fairly and passed on in full to the workers who have earned them, rather than being retained by employers.  \n\nWhile the government recognises that automatic service charges and tipping prompts can leave some consumers feeling uncomfortable or under pressure to include the additional cost, we believe the protections in place are sufficient. \nProhibiting hospitality businesses from using automatic or prompted charges would create an additional burden on businesses and could disadvantage employees who rely on tips. The way that a business presents tipping options to consumers is a commercial decision, as long as they comply with consumer law. \nThe government will continue to support compliance with consumer law across all sectors.\n\nGiven the existing provisions that are in place, the government does not consider that a further statutory prohibition is necessary at this time as consumer law already protects consumers from misleading and aggressive commercial practices.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","created_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.418Z","updated_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.418Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}}]}