{"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=6&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=with_response","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":739490,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/739490.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Pause UK offshore CO₂ storage projects and conduct full safety and legal review","background":"We ask the Government to pause all UK offshore CO₂ storage projects until a full independent safety, environmental and legal assessment is completed. Some research suggests that injecting impure CO₂ can risk acid formation, toxic metal release, and long-term damage to marine ecosystems and aquifers.","additional_details":"The Public Accounts Committee, Parliament’s own spending watchdog has already warned that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is untested at scale in the UK and has a mixed record globally. We think large-scale CCS is being advanced at speed despite major gaps in transparency, regulation, and public consultation.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16731,"created_at":"2025-08-29T11:51:03.414Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:47:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-19T11:55:16.735Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-30T07:37:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T00:22:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-06T13:37:33.320Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Mark Fleming","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"There are no plans to pause the development of UK Offshore CO₂ storage projects. Government works with regulators and the public to ensure CO2 storage regulations support the safe deployment of CCUS.","details":"Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) enables CO2 produced across the economy to be stored safely and permanently deep beneath the seabed typically at depths greater than 800 metres, either in depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers. At these depths, CO2 is stored in offshore rock formations known as reservoirs, which are structured like a sponge and sealed by impermeable cap rock above. A typical geological storage site can permanently hold tens of million tonnes of CO2. (1) Geological CO₂ storage has been in operation globally for decades; although not yet deployed at scale within the UK, there are many examples globally of secure CO₂ storage. Norway, for example, has been storing CO2 offshore since 1996, with over 20 million tonnes of CO2 stored.(2)\r\n\r\nTo unlock sufficient CO2 storage capacity to meet Carbon Budget and Net Zero targets (3), potential CO2 storage sites will need to go through extensive appraisal, permitting and development activities. These activities increase confidence that a store can permanently and safely store CO2. If exploration and appraisal activity demonstrate that a site is suitable for CO2 storage, this site can then be permitted, developed and used pending commercial agreements.\r\n\r\nIndependent technical analysis commissioned by Government shows very high long-term containment confidence (4) with a typical project expected to retain over 99.9% of injected CO₂ over a 125-year period. Minor leak rates have a low probability of occurring whereas major leak rates have a very low probability of occurring. Therefore, the likelihood of damage to the marine ecosystem is considered to be very low. This is a central reassurance for the public and a key consideration in site selection and operational oversight. These assessments also consider risks associated with onshore and offshore CO₂ pipelines, which are regulated to the same high standards as other major hazard pipelines.\r\n\r\nThe UK has a comprehensive, multi-regulator regime overseeing the safe deployment of CCUS. The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) is the technical regulator for offshore CO₂ storage and has granted permits for the HyNet and East Coast Cluster projects (5), issuing permits only where there is no significant risk of leakage or harm to the environment or human health. Before any permit is approved, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED), on behalf of the Secretary of State, undertakes the required Environmental Impact Assessment, including public consultation, which takes into account any potential environmental impact of the proposals including any impacts on marine protected areas. The NSTA cannot issue a permit without the Secretary of State’s agreement to OPRED’s assessment. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the national regulator for workplace health and safety, covering offshore activities and the operation of pipelines, and regulates the health and safety of CCUS operations both onshore and offshore. Duty holders must identify and control risks, and HSE applies a goalsetting, targeted, proportionate and evidence based regulatory approach under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, with interventions that support duty holders to meet their legal responsibilities. Alongside these controls, environmental regulators in England and the Devolved Administrations issue environmental permits for onshore activities ensuring robust environmental protection across all onshore elements of CCUS projects.\r\n\r\nStorage site operators are subject to strict legal obligations to monitor stored CO2 and report on storage performance throughout the operational lifetime of a project and after sites are closed. The NSTA assesses proposed monitoring plans, which must, include monitoring during the operational lifetime of the project and the 20-year post-closure period once operations have ceased. In accordance with UK legislation, offshore CCUS infrastructure must be removed when decommissioned at the end of its operational lifetime, further reinforcing confidence in CO₂ containment for storage sites that receive a storage permit.\r\n\r\nThe UK does not plan to pause the development of CCUS, as full independent safety, environmental and legal assessments are already carried out for each storage site, and the UK has a strong regulatory environment to deploy CCUS safely. \r\n\r\nFootnotes:\r\n\r\n(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018)\r\n(2) Equinor, Sleipner CO₂ Storage Project Overview\r\n(3) The Seventh Carbon Budget - Climate Change Committee\r\n(4) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deep-geological-storage-of-carbon-dioxide-co2-offshore-uk-containment-certainty\r\n(5) Under Chapter 3, Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008, Ministers in the Devolved Administrations are the licensing authorities for CO₂ storage activities that fall within devolved competence, including onshore storage and, in Scotland, the territorial sea, while the NSTA remains the licensing authority for storage on the UK Continental Shelf.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero","created_at":"2026-03-06T13:37:33.315Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T13:39:33.804Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"ESNZ","name":"Department for Energy Security and Net Zero","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":743337,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/743337.json"},"attributes":{"action":" Fund free dental care for head & neck cancer patients  ","background":"We want the Government to fund free dental care for head and neck cancer patients both during and after treatment to address the significant oral health challenges that survivors may face, and to improve their overall quality of life.","additional_details":"Head and neck cancer treatments, such as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, can result in long-term oral health issues, including dry mouth, tooth decay and infections. These conditions can severely affect survivors' quality of life, their self-esteem and ability to eat, speak. Providing free dental care could ensure patients have access to essential treatments, improve their health outcomes, and reduce the financial burden, similar to other cancer types already covered by healthcare services.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11053,"created_at":"2025-09-26T10:06:31.621Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:06:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-30T10:02:43.012Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-28T10:12:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T09:42:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.998Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Christopher Curtis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-05","summary":"We understand the importance of oral care for cancer patients. There are no current plans to extend free care to cancer patients, although those struggling with NHS dental costs can apply for help.","details":"The Government recognises that patients with cancer, especially those with diagnoses of head or neck cancer, may be more vulnerable to oral health problems during and following their treatment. We are working across the system to ensure that patients who have a diagnosis of cancer receive timely, safe, and effective dental care.\r\n\r\nIntegrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for commissioning primary care services, including NHS dentistry, to meet the needs of local populations and to determine the priorities for investment. NHS England has published guidance for ICBs to help ensure patients with a diagnosis of cancer can access oral healthcare in a timely manner. This guidance is available at the following link: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/oral-healthcare-provision-for-cancer-pathways/. The guidance outlines an “oral health in cancer pathway” for patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer, patients awaiting chemotherapy or immunotherapy for any cancer type, and patients that will undergo bone marrow transplantation. This pathway could include oral health assessments, prevention, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in primary (NHS or independent), community, secondary, or tertiary care settings. This would be provided as part of a multi-disciplinary team care plan. Ongoing oral health management for the duration of the cancer therapy would take place.\r\n\r\nWhilst there are currently no plans to extend free dental care to those with a diagnosis of head or neck cancer, for those who are struggling with NHS dental charges, there is a range of help available. This includes full exemptions from dental charges and, for those not eligible for exemption, support through the NHS Low Income Scheme.\r\n\r\nExemptions are currently available for those who meet the following criteria:\r\n•\tpeople aged under 18, or under 19 and in full-time education\r\n•\tpeople who are pregnant or have had a baby in the last 12 months\r\n•\tpeople who have had a stillbirth in the past 12 months\r\n•\tpeople receiving treatment in an NHS hospital from a hospital dentist (although these patients may still need to pay for dentures or bridges)\r\n•\tpeople receiving War Pension Scheme payments, or Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments, and for whom the treatment is for their accepted disability\r\n•\tpeople in receipt of certain benefits\r\n\r\nFor those who are not eligible for a full exemption, either full or partial support with the costs of NHS dental treatment is available through the NHS Low Income Scheme, information about which is available at the following link: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/nhs-low-income-scheme.\r\n\r\nFurther information on the help available can be found at the following link: https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/dentists/get-help-with-dental-costs/.\r\n\r\nIn addition, in the 10 Year Health Plan, the Government committed to providing more readily accessible, good quality care to those most in need. In line with this, we are working to transform NHS dentistry so it provides high quality care at the right time, and so nobody goes without because they cannot afford it.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.993Z","updated_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.993Z"},"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":743021,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/743021.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cut VAT for local hospitality – for Pubs, Cafes & Restaurants ","background":"Across the UK, our cafes, pubs and restaurants are more than just businesses. They are the beating heart of our communities, the places where we celebrate milestones, share a quiet pint or coffee with a friend and create lifelong memories. And they're struggling to stay afloat.","additional_details":"We simply can't afford to lose another one of our favourite local spots.\r\n \r\nCutting VAT for hospitality could provide a desperately needed lifeline.\r\n \r\nWith the Autumn Budget approaching, we call on the Government to act now. Support the sector that brings our towns and villages to life and give our local hospitality a fighting chance.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":14106,"created_at":"2025-09-24T15:45:45.322Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:47:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-16T10:52:54.765Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-24T15:53:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T21:06:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-05T09:21:53.464Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sorcha Eastwood MP","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-05","summary":"The Government recognises the importance of the hospitality sector across the UK. The Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events in the context of the public finances. ","details":"The Government recognises the significant contribution made by hospitality businesses to economic growth and social life in the UK. Pubs, cafes, and restaurants are at the heart of so many communities, and this Government wants to back them.\r\n\r\nSince taking office the Government has taken a number of decisions on tax, welfare, and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services, and restore economic stability. This stability is critical to boosting investment and growth, and to making people across the UK better off.\r\n\r\nOver 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers from April. This support is worth almost £1 billion per year.\r\n\r\nAt Budget, the Government announced a business rates support package worth £4.3 billion to protect against ratepayers seeing large overnight increases in bills. This means most properties seeing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest.\r\n\r\nIn January 2026, the Government also announced that, from April, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill on top of the support announced at Budget, ahead of their bills being frozen in real terms for a further two years. The new relief is worth £1,650 for the average pub next year and means that three-quarters of pubs will see bills flat or falling next year. \r\n\r\nTo consider the regulatory burden of alcohol licensing on hospitality venues, the Government has worked with the hospitality sector to announce the first National Licensing Policy Framework which sets a new strategic direction for licensing authorities and encourages them to have more regard to growth when reviewing licensing applications and decisions. Building on this, we are working with the sector to ensure local authorities are using it to ease licensing decisions ‘on the ground'.\r\nIn another show of our commitment to the sector, we are pressing ahead with further licensing reform. All pubs and hospitality venues will be allowed to extend opening hours for Home Nation games in the later stages of the Men’s Football World Cup this summer. We will also legislate to increase the number of Temporary Events pubs and other hospitality venues can hold, whether that is to help them screen other national moments, or host community and cultural events. The Government will also explore further loosening of the planning rules to benefit pubs, helping them add new guest rooms or expand their main room without local the need for planning applications. We will continue to engage with the sector to ensure other retail, leisure and hospitality premises also have sufficient planning flexibilities.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Government is more than doubling the Hospitality Support Fund, with £10m of further funding over three years. This fund will aim to help over 1000 pubs to diversify their business models, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector; and support people who are furthest from the labour market to move into jobs in hospitality. To support this, we are also bringing forward a new High Streets Strategy, to reinvigorate our communities. We will work with businesses and representative bodies to pull this Strategy together. It will be a cross-government strategy, and we will be look at what more government can do to support our high streets.\r\n\r\nTurning to the ask to cut VAT for hospitality, the 20 per cent standard rate applies to most goods and services. Exceptions to the standard rate have always been limited and balanced against affordability considerations. VAT is the UK’s third largest tax, forecast to raise £180 billion in 2025/26, which pays for our public services. Tax breaks reduce the revenue available for those public services.\r\n\r\nA reduced rate of VAT for pubs, cafes and restaurants would come at significant cost. The VAT relief for tourism and hospitality during the Covid-19 pandemic cost over £8 billion, and was introduced given the exceptional circumstances for the sector.  \r\n\r\nThe Government makes decisions on tax at fiscal events in the context of the overall public finances. \r\n\r\nHM treasury\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-05T09:21:53.461Z","updated_at":"2026-03-05T09:22:38.977Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750566,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750566.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish Ground Rent for Existing Residential Leasehold Properties","background":"We ask the Government to abolish ground rent for all existing residential leasehold properties in England and Wales. Ground rent is an outdated and, we believe, unfair charge that provides no service or benefit to leaseholders.","additional_details":"Millions of homeowners continue to pay ground rent, often under clauses that increase every 10 to 25 years, making homes harder to sell, re-mortgage, or mortgage. Although it has been abolished for most new leases, existing leaseholders remain liable, creating an unequal system where similar homeowners are treated differently solely based on when their lease began.\r\n \r\nWe believe ending ground rent could remove an unjust financial burden, improve market fairness, and support a fairer, more transparent home ownership system.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15071,"created_at":"2025-11-13T03:08:09.316Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:47:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-06T08:58:46.537Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T10:29:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T22:00:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.864Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rikesh Patel","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"To deliver on our manifesto commitment to “tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges”, government will cap ground rent at £250 per year, before changing to a peppercorn after 40 years.","details":"This government is determined to succeed where its predecessors failed and reform existing ground rents. In its manifesto, the government committed itself to tackling “unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges.” We will honour this commitment through provisions in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that cap ground rent at £250 per year, before changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. \r\n\r\nThis measure will apply to most long residential leases not already covered by existing legislation. It will directly address cost of living pressures for existing leaseholders, and issues with buying, selling and mortgaging properties with high ground rents. By making it easier for leaseholders to take ownership of their buildings, with conversions to commonhold made both cheaper and simpler, it is also integral to delivering on the government’s manifesto commitment to “finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.” \r\n\r\nThere are approximately 3.8 million leasehold properties with a ground rent obligation across England and Wales. We estimate around 770,000 to 900,000 leaseholders pay over £250 per year. In total, last year alone we estimate that leaseholders paid over £600m in ground rents. As a result of the proposed measures in the draft Bill, we estimate that leaseholders will save a total of between £10 and 12.7 billion. \r\n\r\nThe government will not be increasing anyone’s ground rent as a result of this measure. If your lease has a ground rent under £250 you will only pay that amount. Your ground rent may still increase under the terms of your lease, but it cannot be more than £250. The £250 will not increase over time. \r\n\r\nA cash cap is simple and will provide certainty to leaseholders, freeholders and property professionals. Leaseholders will know that for 40 years they can only ever be charged up to £250 per year in ground rent, without the need for complex calculations or valuation of individual properties. This is crucial to delivering a fair and effective modern housing market on which our broader economic prosperity relies.\r\n\r\nThe cap will also address issues faced by leaseholders in respect of securing mortgages and buying and selling properties. The point at which ground rents exceed either 0.1% of property value or £250 is a common standard at which mortgage lenders have traditionally started imposing additional checks. They can therefore slow, delay and derail people’s ability to move house and limit their access to competitive mortgage finance. This undermines the housing market, reduces UK labour mobility and creates additional cost and stress for consumers. \r\n\r\nBy setting a ground rent cap at £250 (approximately 0.1% of the value of a typical flat in England and Wales) leaseholders will be protected from facing ground rent-related difficulties when it comes to moving home. This means hundreds of thousands of people with high ground rents will find it easier to move home and potentially millions of people will be free from the risk of ground rents collapsing their chain. \r\n\r\nThe measure will, over time, end the vast majority of residential ground rents, supporting our commitment to end the feudal leasehold system. Ground rents are not necessary and have already been eliminated for new leases entered into after the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 (GRA 2022) came into force. Changing the cap to a peppercorn after 40 years will ensure there is no longer a two-tier market between new and older leases. This will also support our goal of moving towards commonhold as the default model of ownership, with conversions to commonhold both cheaper and simpler.\r\n\r\nThe government believe that a ground rent cap at £250 per year, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years, is the most just and proportionate way of addressing unregulated and unaffordable ground rent terms. While we recognise that the preference of most leaseholders is a peppercorn cap, fully eliminating ground rents outright, we judged that this approach would carry significant risks, including some which might impact upon leaseholders. These include significant market disruption and an unacceptably high risk of freeholder insolvency. Our policy strikes a fair balance between leaseholders, freeholders and those invested in ground rents. It will allow investors to retain some of the value from their investments, whilst providing immediate cost of living relief to leaseholders and ultimately bringing ground rents to an end, thus ensuring a fair and efficient housing market.\r\n\r\nThe changes to ground rent are measures in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.  When implemented, the Bill will deliver the government’s manifesto commitments to reinvigorate and reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold, and banning the use of leasehold for most new flats. The Bill will give homeowners security and control over their homes through access to fit for purpose and modern commonhold ownership.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.862Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.862Z"},"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":739014,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/739014.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fix Our Roads: National Plan on Dangerous Potholes Now","background":"The Government must step in with a national plan: a dedicated pothole repair fund, strict repair deadlines for local councils, investment in more durable surfacing technology, and more transparency on spending. Safe roads are essential for communities, businesses, and daily life.","additional_details":"We believe it is long past time for the Government to step up and help local councils deliver lasting solutions to what we see as a pothole crisis. We think that for too many years, this issue has been left to drag on without sufficient action, leaving communities across the country frustrated and suffering the consequences.\r\n \r\nWe feel that residents are fed up with facing endless repair bills for tyres, wheels, and suspensions damaged by crumbling roads, and that it is also a serious safety concern.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":18110,"created_at":"2025-08-24T13:39:21.900Z","updated_at":"2026-03-05T19:19:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-04T09:05:22.339Z","closed_at":"2026-03-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-24T14:11:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-17T09:01:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T13:40:30.543Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The Government is committed to tackling the poor state of local roads and has provided a record £7.3 billion for local highways over the next four years.","details":"The Government recognises the importance of safe, well maintained local roads for residents, communities and businesses. We understand the frustration caused by potholes and other road defects, and the impact this can have on people’s daily lives, on the need for vehicle repairs, and on confidence in the local road network.\r\n\r\nWe also recognise that historic underfunding has meant local authorities have not always had the resources or tools they would want in order to maintain their roads to the standard we all expect. That is why this Government has taken significant steps to strengthen the funding, transparency and support available to local highway authorities.\r\n\r\nThis financial year, the Government has made available an additional £500 million for local highways maintenance. For the next four financial years, we have also confirmed a record £7.3 billion investment, providing the long-term certainty councils have consistently said they need to plan and deliver more durable and cost-effective highway maintenance programmes.\r\n\r\nTo support improvement, 25% of this financial year’s uplift is conditional on local authorities demonstrating compliance with clear criteria designed to encourage best practice in maintenance and asset management.\r\n\r\nIn January, the Government launched a new rating system for every local highway authority in England. Each authority has been assessed as red, amber or green. These ratings reflect factors such as the condition of their roads, how effectively they use the record Government funding available, and the extent to which they are applying best practice.\r\n\r\nWe acknowledge that some authorities face more challenging starting points due to historic underinvestment, and a lower rating does not necessarily indicate a lack of ambition or effort locally. Where authorities face particular difficulties, the Government will provide targeted support, including peer reviews carried out by sector experts.\r\n\r\nThis is complemented by wider resources to help authorities improve the durability and efficiency of their networks. We have extended the Live Labs 2 highways innovation programme into 2026/27 to support the adoption of new technologies and materials. We are also updating the Code of Practice for Well Managed Highways, to be published later this year, which will provide refreshed guidance on risk-based asset management and long-term planning.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-03-04T13:40:30.540Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T13:40:30.540Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757233,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757233.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not ban social media for under 16s","background":"I think the government shouldn’t ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think the government shouldn’t ban it.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":61480,"created_at":"2026-01-15T16:02:06.325Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:19:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-11T15:24:24.063Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T20:43:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-18T15:25:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.581Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Leo Rhodes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this important issue. The government is committed to harnessing the benefits of technology to shape a future that works for us all, particularly for children. To do this, people must have confidence that their children are protected online.\r\n\r\nThe Online Safety Act (the ‘Act’) is one of the toughest regimes globally in protecting people from illegal content and activity, and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Since the Act has come into effect, the government has ensured keeping children safe online remains a priority and have always said we will take further action as necessary.\r\n\r\nWe know parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when to give them a phone, what they are seeing online, and the impact all of this is having. We also know there are growing concerns among parents, carers and those that work with children about AI, including children forming relationships with chatbots as if they were real people.\r\n\r\nEvery child deserves the strongest possible start in life, full of love, learning and play. Technology can open up huge opportunities for young people and social media can help children communicate with friends and feel part of a wider community. However, in the age of smartphones, children’s lives are changing rapidly – sometimes faster than families, schools or support services can respond.\r\n\r\nThere are calls from across the UK for the government to take action, including calls from many to enforce a social media ban for under 16s. However, as is evident from this petition, opinions on a possible social media ban are divided – with some of the most prominent voices believing that social media ban is not the right answer. This demonstrates that, while there are calls for the government to take action, there is still no consensus on how.\r\n\r\nThe government firmly believes that policy making must give proper consideration to a range of views and be rooted in the best available evidence. That is why, on the 2 March 2026, the government launched a consultation to seek further evidence and views on these issues and possible solutions, including on whether there should be a minimum age for social media, and if so, what age would be right. The responses to this consultation will also help shape decisions on:\r\n•\tWhether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features that keep children hooked late into the night - like infinite scrolling and autoplay;\r\n•\tWhether mandatory overnight curfews would help children sleep better and what age they should apply to;\r\n•\tHow age verification and age assurance technologies can support effective implementation and;\r\n•\tWhether the use of mobile phones in schools should be put on a statutory footing.\r\n\r\nThis will be a short, sharp consultation of three months, closing on 26 May 2026, allowing us to hear all perspectives, build consensus where we can, and then act decisively. There will be no delay, and government will explain our next steps by the summer.\r\n\r\nWe welcome views from all those with an interest in this issue, including parents, children’s organisations, bereaved families, industry, and children themselves. Alongside the consultation, today we are launching a child‑ and parent‑friendly version to ensure voices in this debate are properly heard. To access the consultation, consultation survey, and child and parent friendly versions of the consultation survey, please follow this link: Growing up in the online world: a national consultation - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation).\r\n\r\nAlongside the consultation, we are launching a wide-ranging national conversation and piloting potential interventions to ensure future decisions are informed by real-world evidence. We will also look closely at the experience in Australia and their ban for under 16s.\r\n\r\nThis consultation is the next step in the government’s work to ensure children’s experiences online are safe and enriching. Together, we are shaping a digital world that reflects our values and protects our children while preparing them for the future in an age of digital technologies and rapid technological change.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology ","created_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.578Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T11:09:33.971Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755980,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the evidence and fund the addition of SMA to the Newborn Screening Test","background":"We urge the UK Government to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test. SMA is a rare genetic condition with devastating consequences if not treated early. Every baby should be screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.","additional_details":"SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality: up to 90% of untreated babies either died before age two or required permanent ventilation. It is now treatable, but treatment is most effective before symptoms appear. Early diagnosis can give babies the chance at a life without severe disability. Without screening, many babies are diagnosed too late. The damage already caused to their mobility, breathing and swallowing cannot be reversed. Scotland has committed to piloting SMA newborn screening this year. All babies should have the same chance. No child should suffer avoidable harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":148193,"created_at":"2026-01-04T20:34:00.006Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:22:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-09T11:05:19.553Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-04T20:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T12:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.880Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T18:48:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jesy Nelson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The NHS is planning an in-service evaluation offering SMA screening to newborn babies in England. This will inform a decision on whether to extend the NHS newborn blood spot screening programme.","details":"The Government is grateful to campaigners who have made a powerful case for doing more on screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We are committed to seeing more children with SMA not just surviving but thriving.\r\n\r\nMinisters and the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom are advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the Committee is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme. Ministers in each of the four nations then make a decision on whether to accept the recommendation.\r\n\r\nAs recommended by the UK NSC, we are working at pace to roll out an In-Service Evaluation (ISE) in NHS screening services in England. An ISE is used where a change in screening policy is justified by strong evidence, but important evidence gaps still remain that can only reasonably be filled by evaluation in a live NHS setting. The UK NSC uses ISEs to support its screening recommendation process and inform wider policy decisions about screening.\r\n\r\nThere are a number of areas where evidence gaps exist which an ISE of newborn screening for SMA will help to fill:\r\n\r\n1.\tFeasibility\r\nThe ISE will test the optimum clinical pathway and test methodology within the context of a nationally delivered newborn blood spot programme in the NHS, ensuring the safe movement of babies through the screening pathway. This includes testing the logistics of administering a programme that is delivered consistently by multiple geographically separated and commissioned screening and genetics laboratories, treatment referral centres and IT systems, including the establishing of sustainable data collection systems for longer-term outcomes.\r\n\r\n2.\tAcceptability\r\nWork is required to understand the acceptability and experience of families of screened babies and the healthcare professionals involved in the screening pathway, for example with regard to the timing and mode of delivery of results. This will support future decision making on the optimal screening pathway.\r\n\r\n3.\tEffectiveness\r\nScreening for SMA aims to screen, diagnose and treat babies before they have symptoms. The ISE will evaluate the timescales that can be met by UK services at important stages of the screening pathway, such as for result availability, clinical referral and the start of any treatment. The performance of SMA tests in an NHS environment needs to be evaluated to ensure the screening programme demonstrates test characteristics, such as accuracy, reproducibility, resilience and operational utility.\r\n\r\nAs the drugs to treat the underlying biology of SMA are quite new, there is no evidence on their long-term clinical effectiveness, so evaluating this within the context of the NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme is important. Gaining more data on short-term outcomes will contribute evidence as to how clinically effective screening in the UK is.\r\n\r\nAs the long-term effectiveness of novel treatments is currently unknown, the ISE will allow for sustainable longer-term health outcome monitoring systems to be established. This will provide an essential capability for assessing the effectiveness of the screening programme. This includes metrics such as health states, quality of life, mortality and psychosocial outcomes.\r\n\r\n4.\tCost-effectiveness\r\nThe economic model commissioned by the UK NSC estimates that SMA screening in the UK is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective. However, there are important uncertainties that could affect the accuracy and conclusions of the model. The ISE will therefore identify further information to allow both clinical and cost-effectiveness to be assessed, using real world UK data. This includes:\r\n\r\n•\tcosts involved in screening \r\n•\tclinical effectiveness of presymptomatic and symptomatic treatment and the impact of diagnostic delay on presymptomatic babies\r\n•\tlong-term effectiveness of treatment\r\n•\thow accurate the screening tests are \r\n•\twhich treatments patients receive and how effective these treatments are \r\n•\tincidence of SMA in the UK\r\n\r\nThe research component of the ISE is being commissioned via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. A decision on funding is expected in spring 2026.  The Secretary of State has asked NHSE to look at what can be done to move faster on the rollout of the ISE, and whether it would be feasible to extend the ISE to the whole of England.\r\n\r\nThe planning and development of the ISE is being overseen by a partnership board that includes:\r\n\r\n•\tscreening experts from the four UK governments and from the NHS\r\n•\tstakeholder organisations interested in newborn screening for SMA\r\n•\tclinicians\r\n•\tacademics\r\n•\tgenomic experts\r\n•\tpatient and public voice representatives\r\n\r\nSMA can have a devastating impact on individuals and families, and we are committed to working with all our stakeholders to progress this work in the UK.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\r\n\r\nThis is a revised response submitted by the Government. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980 ","created_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.878Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T17:26:11.952Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756036,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756036.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge","background":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Currently, fees can reach thousands, creating a \"paywall\" for justice. All legal records should be public property to help ensure transparency, allow for fair appeals, and support victims. Access to the law should not depend on wealth.","additional_details":"High transcription costs can create a prohibitive paywall for justice. Private companies can charge thousands for transcriptions, which can effectively bar small-claims litigants from pursuing fair appeals or accessing their own trials. Full transcriptions of the longest trials can cost £20k. Access to the law mustn't be a luxury for the wealthy. We ask the Government to end the private-pay model and provide free digital access to all transcripts to help ensure transparency and equality.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":200693,"created_at":"2026-01-05T15:44:31.884Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:44:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-05T12:46:37.363Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-05T15:55:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T10:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.037Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T19:04:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Daniel ShenSmith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government is already increasing transparency in the courts, including expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks.  Going further now would place even more pressure on the system.","details":"The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.\r\n\r\nIn the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks. These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge's sentencing remarks: Form EX107H (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-transcript-of-a-judges-sentencing-remarks). From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme. The Government's ongoing reform of the criminal courts will further enhance transparency by making sure all hearings in magistrates courts are recorded.\r\n\r\nIn the family court, the Government has also been working to support the judiciary to increase the number of family court judgments that are published in anonymised form, while ensuring the privacy and protection of children and families involved in proceedings.  On more targeted transparency measures, the Government is working with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders across England and Wales, providing a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing. Since 29 September 2025, provisions relating to Transparency Orders have applied to all children’s cases. \r\n\r\nIn civil proceedings, litigants in England and Wales do not need to pay for the written order or judgment relating to their own case; this is sent to all parties involved, setting out the court’s reasoning for the decision, which parties can refer to if they wish to appeal that decision.\r\n\r\nIn tribunal proceedings, any judicial decision and the reasons will be provided to the parties unless there has been an order restricting that. Many of the major tribunal chambers also allow parties to proceedings to request fuller written reasons for tribunal decisions for no additional cost. \r\n\r\nThe Ministry of Justice is also working with the judiciary and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to consider the procedural, operational and resource requirements of implementing the publishing of written reasons for decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, to improve transparency and public understanding.\r\n\r\nWhile the Government remains committed to continuing to improve transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Making all court and tribunal transcripts available for free would create significant financial and operational pressure at a time when we are focused on rolling out free sentencing remarks for all victims, and when the wider justice system is under considerable pressure. Producing an accurate court or tribunal transcript is a resource-intensive process. Full hearing or trial transcripts are particularly expensive due to their length and the level of quality assurance required to ensure they are accurate and safeguard personal data. Ensuring compliance with reporting restrictions is also central to the release of any court transcript, including vulnerable parties are protected and sensitive details are not inadvertently released.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to upholding the principle of open justice, including embracing AI and exploring the opportunities it offers to produce court and tribunal transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively, while still meeting the necessary accuracy and safeguarding standards. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.033Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:29.587Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751009,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751009.json"},"attributes":{"action":"NHS funding for egg freezing, for those suffering from endometriosis.","background":"I want the Government to fund or subsidise egg freezing for people with endometriosis, ensure early fertility discussions at diagnosis, and create clear NHS pathways so patients can preserve their fertility before the condition causes lasting damage.","additional_details":"Endometriosis can harm fertility long before someone is ready to have children, yet egg freezing is often unaffordable and not supported by the NHS. We urge the UK Government and NHS leaders to recognise egg freezing as essential care for endometriosis patients. Making it accessible and affordable would protect future family choices and support the wellbeing of those living with this painful and often misunderstood condition.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":12480,"created_at":"2025-11-17T10:32:05.670Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:42:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-16T10:31:39.100Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-17T11:02:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T22:45:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:00.626Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sian McCauley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government acknowledges the challenges faced by women with endometriosis. We are committed to improving the diagnosis, treatment and care for gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.","details":"Funding decisions for health services in England are made by integrated care boards (ICBs) and are based on the clinical needs of their local population. We expect ICBs to commission fertility services in line with NICE guidelines, ensuring equal access to fertility treatment across England.\r\n\r\nNICE fertility guidelines currently only recommend oocyte or embryo cryopreservation to women of reproductive age who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile.\r\n\r\nHowever, NICE are currently reviewing the guidelines and the evidence on fertility preservation for populations beyond those with cancer. A consultation on the draft revised guidelines was published on 10 September and closed on 21 October 2025. The draft guideline widened the recommendation for cryopreservation to those people who have a medical condition that is likely to make them infertile, which would include endometriosis. We expect NICE to publish the final updated guidelines in spring 2026.\r\n\r\nThe Government acknowledges the challenges faced by women with endometriosis and the impact it has on their lives, their relationships and their participation in education and the workforce. We are committed to improving the diagnosis, treatment and ongoing care for gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis. It is unacceptable that women can wait so long for an endometriosis diagnosis, and we have already taken action to address this.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guidelines on endometriosis in November 2024. Research has led to new treatments being made available, including the NICE approval of two pills to treat endometriosis this year: Relugolix and Linzagolix. Both are estimated to help around 1,000 women with severe endometriosis for whom other treatment options have not been effective.\r\n\r\nAs announced in September, we will establish an “online hospital” – NHS Online – which will give people on certain pathways the choice of getting the specialist care they need from their home. It will connect patients with clinicians across the country through secure, online appointments accessed through the NHS App. In January 2026 we announced the nine conditions that NHS Online will initially focus on. Menstrual problems which may be a sign of endometriosis will be among the conditions available for referral to NHS Online from 2027.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:00.623Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:43.115Z"},"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":751177,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751177.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban Government bodies from describing taxpayer-funded services as “free”","background":"Ban Government departments and public bodies from describing all tax-payer funded services as “free” and require clearer terms such as “tax-payer funded” or “publicly funded” in all official communications, guidance, and campaigns.","additional_details":"We believe Government communications label tax-payer funded services as “free”, which can mislead the public about who pays for them. We believe more accurate language could improve transparency, strengthen trust, and ensure people understand how public services are financed. Clear, honest wording could help accountability.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12603,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:56:49.234Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T00:51:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-18T17:01:20.060Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T17:29:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-22T11:47:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-02T15:59:20.693Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ed Lewis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-02","summary":"Decisions about language in communications is the responsibility of individual departments to ensure messages are clear and easily understood by their intended audiences","details":"The Government understands the need for transparency in how publicly funded services are described and is committed to clear, accurate and honest communication with the public.\r\n\r\nGovernment communications are guided by the principles set out in the Government Communication Service (GCS) Propriety Guidance, Marketing Guidance and the Civil Service Code, which require communications to be truthful and factually accurate.\r\n\r\nSpecific language used in communications is the responsibility of individual government departments and public bodies to ensure organisations can tailor their communications to their specific audiences and contexts. This ensures messages are clear and easily understood by the people they are intended to reach.\r\n\r\nWhen services are described as \"free\", this typically refers to the fact that they are free at the point of use – meaning the individual accessing the service does not pay a direct charge at the time they use it.\r\nThis is a widely understood convention, particularly in relation to services such as the National Health Service, state education and public libraries. The Government does not consider that this terminology misleads the public, as there is broad public awareness that such services are funded through taxation.\r\n\r\nMandating specific terminology across all government communications would be impractical and could, in some cases, reduce clarity rather than enhance it. Different contexts may call for different approaches to ensure that information is communicated as effectively as possible.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to ensure that its communications are clear  accessible and honest, and will keep its guidance under review to reflect best practice.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-03-02T15:59:20.690Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T16:00:25.713Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754639,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754639.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require faster eviction process, and improve protections for landlords in PRS","background":"We petition the Government to amend the law for landlords by instituting a 6-week expedited court process for Mandatory Grounds s8/7A (arrears/Anti-Social Behaviour), creating a registered-landlord database of court-evicted tenants, and raising the deposit cap to adequately cover severe damage.","additional_details":"The abolition of Section 21 under the Renters' Rights Act means evicting bad tenants relies solely on Section 8. Current MoJ data shows the average eviction takes over 27 weeks (6+ months). We believe this delay punishes law-abiding landlords via irrecoverable arrears and damage. We urgently need an expedited court process for mandatory grounds (ASB/arrears), a vetting database for repeat offenders, and a higher deposit cap to help sustain the rental market.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15326,"created_at":"2025-12-16T08:02:37.441Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:14:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-26T11:41:12.803Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T08:33:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T22:00:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-02T14:22:14.971Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Craig Littlejohn","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-02","summary":"Government does not support these proposals. From 1 May 2026, the Renters’ Rights Act will ensure landlords can continue to gain possession when necessary, while offering more security to tenants. ","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce an expedited court possession process for mandatory possession grounds, a tenant vetting database, or to raise the cap on tenancy deposits.\r\n\r\nWe value the contribution made by responsible landlords, who provide quality homes to their tenants and understand that landlords must have robust possession grounds where there is a good reason to take their property back.\r\n \r\nThe Renters’ Rights Act (RRA) will introduce a new tenancy system from 1 May 2026. These reforms will clarify and expand grounds for possession, allowing landlords to regain possession when necessary, for example to sell or move in. Where a tenant is at fault, landlords will be able to seek possession using relevant grounds, including where a tenant commits anti-social behaviour, is damaging the property, or falls into significant arrears. While we recommend landlords and tenants work together to address issues, these possession grounds are sufficient to take action when this is not possible.\r\n \r\nMost tenancies end amicably without the need for landlords to take possession action in the county court. However, the Government recognises that landlords need a smooth and efficient process when taking possession action if needed. Currently, the median average time from landlord claim to a possession order being issued is 7.3 weeks, below the HM Courts and Tribunal Service target of 8 weeks. Of those landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only a minority (28%) required enforcement by bailiffs, meaning that most cases take less than 27 weeks to resolve.\r\n \r\nThe Government considers it important that tenants have the opportunity to attend a possession hearing if they wish to challenge an eviction. Vital statutory protections for tenants are built into the possession process, such as time available before a hearing to seek legal advice and reasonable notice before an eviction date. Safeguarding these tenant protections within the RRA is a key aspect of the Government's approach to ensuring landlords can reclaim their property when necessary, while ensuring tenants can challenge unfair evictions. A shorter ‘expedited’ process would not allow sufficient time for these protections.\r\n \r\nWe are working closely with HM Courts and Tribunal Service to develop a new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the County Courts in England and Wales. The service will offer an online route for making and responding to possession claims, filing documents, and receiving updates and outcomes, offering improved user experience through guided journeys. \r\n\r\nThe Government does not believe that it is proportionate to create a database for tenants who have previously been evicted by a bailiff following a court possession order. Private landlords and letting agents already have a range of tools available to them to obtain references from their tenants, and may consider various factors when deciding to let to a tenant, including previous or outstanding rent arrears and credit checks. \r\n  \r\nWith regards to increasing tenancy deposits, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 limits tenancy deposits to no more than five weeks’ rent where the total annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent where the total annual rent is £50,000 or above. This is in addition to a refundable holding deposit (to reserve a property) capped at no more than one week’s rent. We believe that this strikes the right balance between providing security for landlords and maintaining affordability for tenants. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-02T14:22:14.968Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T14:27:21.650Z"},"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":751472,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751472.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a screening programme for prostate cancer, starting with high-risk men","background":"We are calling on the Government to reassess the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) draft recommendation not to offer prostate cancer screening to anyone except men with BRCA1/2 genetic variants, and to introduce screening for all high-risk men.","additional_details":"Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men yet has no screening programme.\r\n\r\nWe disagree with the UK NSC’s analysis of the evidence and the weight it has placed on avoiding unintended harms. We believe the Committee has fixated on potential harms that have already dramatically reduced, while under-weighting the very real benefits of early detection. The analysis has not kept pace with modern practice or acknowledged how this would be an improvement on the current inefficient and inequitable system.\r\n\r\nTargeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. Early diagnosis saves lives.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":46650,"created_at":"2025-11-22T09:01:51.375Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:49:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-13T11:30:15.340Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T09:47:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T20:52:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.935Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David James","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"The UK National Screening Committee consulted on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation and will make a final recommendation soon. The Government will then consider whether to accept it.","details":"The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) makes recommendations to ministers and the NHS across the four nations of the United Kingdom, based on an assessment of high-quality, peer reviewed evidence on whether screening for a certain condition would do more good than harm at reasonable cost. The UK NSC considered the current diagnostic and treatment pathways and consulted on their findings. The evidence package can be found at https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/11/28/uk-nsc-opens-consultation-on-draft-prostate-cancer-screening-recommendation/ \r\n\r\nScreening is specifically for people without symptoms or a diagnosis. The process must therefore minimise harm, such as unnecessary treatment or anxiety resulting from false positive test results. This level of caution is less relevant for people with diagnosed conditions or already in clinical care. They have sought clinical care or advice for a problem. They are in direct contact with a clinician so they can discuss the merits or otherwise of tests and treatments, rather than simply being provided with generic information to read. They have symptoms or a reason for concern. This means their test is much more likely to represent a true positive result, unlike in screening when people have a greater chance of receiving a false positive result. People in clinical care expect follow-up and face a smaller risk of harm from predictive tests. The ethical position, the ability of an individual to discuss issues with a clinician, and the likelihood of having a condition, all therefore differ significantly between clinical management and screening. Screening can do harm, as well as good (benefit). It is also possible for someone to experience both the harms and benefits of screening at the same time. For example, a man may live longer due to their prostate cancer being identified and treated but also live with serious side effects of treatment.\r\n\r\nThe aim of prostate cancer screening would be to detect prostate cancer early to prevent death and reduce suffering from the disease. For men with aggressive and/or advanced prostate cancer, early intervention and treatment can allow them to live longer by preventing prostate cancer death. It can also reduce the chances of serious complications such as prostate cancer spreading to other parts of the body. Prostate cancer can spread to the area just outside the prostate (locally advanced or locally invasive cancer), and cause symptoms such as erectile dysfunction, difficulties emptying the bladder and pain. It can also spread further (metastatic cancer), most commonly to the bones and spine, where it can cause severe pain, fractures, or spinal cord compression. Just over one in ten (12% of) men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England have metastatic prostate cancer at the time of their diagnosis. These are important, serious outcomes that screening and treatment would try to prevent.\r\n\r\nThere have been very large research trials of population screening in England and the United States of America. These studies show that there is a very small reduction in deaths after 15 years from prostate cancer in screened men (two out of one thousand). There are also several harms associated with screening. These arise from the additional tests that men go through to get a prostate cancer diagnosis (including a biopsy of the prostate) and the treatment they may then receive. Harms can arise as early as two weeks after beginning treatment, and can persist for a very long time (six years or more, or possibly a lifetime). For example, after six months:\r\n\r\n•\tFor men undergoing prostate surgery:\r\no\t19% (almost one in five) will be unable to control their bladder (moderate to severe urinary incontinence)\r\no\t3% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\r\no\t66% (two thirds) will experience moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\r\n\r\n•\tFor men undergoing radiotherapy:\r\no\t38% (nearly two in every five) will find it difficult to control their bladder\r\no\t6% will have moderate to severe urinary incontinence\r\no\t5% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\r\no\t48% (nearly half) will have moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\r\n\r\nThe majority of men (c.80%) whose prostate cancers would be identified through screening would not benefit in terms of preventing prostate cancer deaths and metastasis. Many of these men would receive treatment they do not need and the harms of screening would quickly outweigh any benefits at a population level. The challenge is how to identify those men who have aggressive prostate cancer while minimising the risks of serious and long-lasting side effects for many other men. More information on how the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening were considered within the prostate cancer screening model can be found in the UK NSC evidence papers.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC will make a final recommendation soon, after which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will consider whether to accept and implement the recommendation.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752855,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752855.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an NHS data opt-out & require a consultation for system expansions","background":"Introduce a clear national opt-out for NHS data processed in the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) and require a full public consultation before any further expansion of these systems.","additional_details":"The NHS is planning to move from multiple, separate systems to a new national data architecture. Technical documents show national processing of identifiable data, while public explanations may describe only anonymous or aggregate use. As these systems are still being rolled out, we believe the public should have transparency, a clear opt-out and the chance to respond before further expansion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":17566,"created_at":"2025-11-30T14:18:07.855Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:49:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-14T15:52:20.354Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-01T07:12:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T09:47:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.503Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gemma Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"The National Data Opt-Out does not apply to the NDIT or FDP as data use supports direct care, is legally required or is anonymised. National public engagement is shaping changes to the opt-out system.","details":"The National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) and Federated Data Platform (FDP)\r\n\r\nHealth and care providers already submit personal data daily that enables the NHS to run and manage services. NHS England is simplifying and strengthening that national data collection to support better care.\r\n\r\nThe National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) is NHS England’s secure platform for collecting and managing national health and care data. It replaces multiple legacy systems with one unified, secure process, reducing burden for NHS teams while ensuring the right data is available at the right time to support faster decisions and safer care. Data is pseudonymised using Privacy Enhancing Technologies and then routed to the National NHS Federated Data Platform where it is used for analysis, insights and decision-making.\r\n\r\nThe Federated Data Platform (FDP) enables NHS England and NHS organisations to meet statutory duties for data processing, information sharing, planning and service delivery. Its legal basis for processing is set out in the Overarching Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), which underwent extensive external review (including by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and National Data Guardian (NDG) to ensure lawful, fair and transparent processing.\r\n\r\nDPIAs define the legal basis for each data flow and are assessed by the NHS FDP Data Governance Group (DGG) to ensure lawful processing. NHS England’s wider statutory responsibilities for data under the Health and Care Act 2022 require transparency, safe-haven standards, robust governance and public accountability.\r\n\r\nTransparency and Public Involvement in the NDIT and FDP\r\n\r\nThe FDP programme demonstrates substantial, ongoing patient and public involvement, including around NDIT. Governance includes bodies established to embed public voice and provide challenge:\r\n\r\n•\tFDP Check and Challenge Group – strategic advice on transparency, ethics and public context.\r\n•\tHealth and Social Care Data Public Panel – ensuring clear, accessible public materials.\r\n•\tNHS FDP DGG – national oversight of data processing and protection, ensuring lawful use.\r\n•\tA public engagement portal enabling questions, feedback and participation opportunities, which can be accessed via the following link: https://fdp.england.nhs.uk.\r\n\r\nThe programme has a highly coordinated programme of engagement with a wide range of system stakeholders, including:\r\n\r\n•\tTrusts and integrated care boards through briefings, implementation support and proactive communications.\r\n•\tMembers of Parliament, national bodies and Arm’s-Length Bodies, kept updated throughout delivery.\r\n•\tClinical, operational and digital leaders via conferences, webinars and communities of practice.\r\n•\tEthics and regulatory bodies (ICO, NDG), through consultations and repeated DPIA review cycles with the DGG.\r\n\r\nThis intensive and diverse engagement helps ensure the FDP evolves with continuous feedback, scrutiny and co‑design across the health and care system.\r\n\r\nIn the future, user organisations may agree that FDP can be used to meet other use cases. NHS England has agreed to consult with patient groups and other organisations, including the NDG and the ICO, before any other Use Cases are agreed.\r\n\r\nPatient Choice regarding the NDIT and FDP\r\n\r\nThe National Data Opt-Out (NDOO) prevents confidential patient information being used for research and planning purposes. It does not apply to direct care (i.e. patient care, for example when you are being treated by a doctor). It also does not apply where data is anonymised, or where the information is required by law. The public are able to make their choice online, or through non-digital channels. Further information on the NDOO is available on the NHS website at the following link: https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/opt-out-of-sharing-your-health-records/. Public engagement recommendations delivered in 2025 will shape changes to the NDOO.\r\n\r\nNHS England carefully assesses all data processing within NDIT and the FDP. The use of patient data within the NHS FDP will always respect the NDOO and opt-outs will be applied in line with the policy.\r\n\r\nThe NDOO does not apply to NDIT processing because NHS England is legally required, under a direction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to process this data to create national insights and dashboards. There is, therefore, no specific opt-out for the NDIT, or plans to introduce one, as the data processing occurs under a legal requirement.\r\n\r\nThe NDOO does not apply to the FDP because:\r\n\r\n•\tNo confidential patient information is processed by any product in the national platform of FDP to which the NDOO would apply.\r\n•\tConfidential patient information that is being used in a local platform of the FDP is only being used for the purposes of direct care, and therefore the NDOO does not apply.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.501Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T15:56:39.501Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752673,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752673.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Act to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament","background":"We want the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that when bills are supported by MPs & the public, they have the time to complete all their stages in Parliament. We believe this is important to uphold democracy.","additional_details":"We believe the decision of MPs must be respected, especially on matters of social change, and that unelected Lords have a responsibility to scrutinise bills, not block them. With over 1,000 amendments tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, most by just a handful of Lords, we are concerned that it will run out of time. MPs have voted for it and a poll has found over 70% of the public back it. While the Government is neutral, it must uphold democracy. We believe it must act so the Bill can progress.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":85424,"created_at":"2025-11-29T11:57:32.414Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:48:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-04T10:31:36.517Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T12:22:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T17:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.427Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sophie Blake","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in the UK and is responsible for making law. A Bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament to become law.","details":"Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitutional settlement. This means that it is Parliament, not the Government, that holds the power to make or repeal any law. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons as a Private Member’s Bill (PMB), and on the question of assisted dying, the Government has remained neutral on the Bill throughout its parliamentary stages.\r\n\r\nThe primacy of the House of Commons, as the elected House, is an established constitutional principle, and is reflected in the provisions of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which reduced the House of Lords’ power to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. \r\n\r\nThe House of Lords is independent of both the House of Commons and the Government. The Government respects the important role played by the Lords in scrutinising legislation according to the conventions and procedures of the Lords. \r\n\r\nAs the Leader of the House of Commons has said, once the House of Lords have completed their scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Government will, if necessary, find time in this current session for the House of Commons to consider any amendments they propose.\r\n\r\nOffice of the Leader of the House of Commons ","created_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":736164,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736164.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund a National Endometriosis Registry and Audit to Help Improve NHS Care","background":"We call for a National Endometriosis Registry to record, track and annually audit data on diagnosis, treatment & outcomes. We think this could help to:\r\nHold services to account; Reduce postcode inequality; Ensure endometriosis is treated as a chronic condition with more timely, effective care","additional_details":"Leading charities estimate it takes almost 9 years on average in the UK to be diagnosed with endometriosis, which can cause avoidable pain and mental health struggles, and is linked to fertility problems. We believe that systems to track diagnosis, treatment, or outcomes are inadequate, and that there are limited ways to see where care may be failing or to measure improvement. We think other countries have proven that registries and audits can improve care, shorten delays, and drive research.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10644,"created_at":"2025-08-04T20:34:25.806Z","updated_at":"2026-02-28T11:41:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-27T07:23:28.825Z","closed_at":"2026-02-27T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-05T08:00:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-01T21:47:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-25T15:23:57.485Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-25","summary":"There are no current plans to develop an endometriosis registry, but the Government acknowledges the challenges and has made progress towards improving endometriosis diagnosis, treatment and care.","details":"It is unacceptable that women can wait so long for an endometriosis diagnosis, and the Government is taking urgent action to address this.\r\n\r\nImproving Diagnosis and Care\r\n\r\nThrough our 10 Year Health Plan (10YHP), we are committed to prioritising women’s health as we build an NHS fit for the future. Women's Health Hubs (WHH) were established through a pilot to improve care for gynaecological conditions, with care for endometriosis outlined as a core service. WHH aim to address gaps in provision and long waiting times, specifically for those from low socio-economic or ethnic minority backgrounds. The 10YHP neighbourhood delivery of care model will bring together teams of health care professionals, reducing the need for secondary care referrals and ensuring a holistic approach. The Government is supporting integrated care boards to use the learning from WHH pilots to improve local delivery of services to women.\r\n\r\nAnother key part of the Government’s mission is reducing waiting lists. We are committed to cutting waiting times across all specialities, including gynaecology, and have delivered 5.2 million additional appointments between July 2024 and June 2025. We have confirmed over £6 billion additional capital investment to expand capacity across diagnostics, electives and urgent care. This includes expanding the number of surgical hubs, which provide valuable and protected capacity across elective specialties. Surgical hubs are designed to deliver high-volume, low-complexity elective surgeries, including gynaecological procedures. As of January 2026, over half of the 124 operational elective surgical hubs in England provide gynaecology services. At the end of November 2025, the number of pathways on the gynaecology waiting list was 575,986, a reduction of nearly 20,000 (-3.4%) since the start of July 2024.\r\n\r\nIn September 2025, we announced an “online hospital” – NHS Online – which will give people the choice of getting the specialist care they need from their home. NHS Online will help to reduce patient waiting times, delivering the equivalent of up to 8.5 million appointments and assessments in its first three years, four times more than an average trust, while enhancing patient choice and control over their care. Menstrual problems which may be a sign of endometriosis will be among the first conditions available for referral to NHS Online from 2027.\r\n\r\nIn November 2024 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its guideline on endometriosis. This makes firmer recommendations for healthcare professionals on referral and investigations for women with suspected diagnosis, and will help the estimated 1 in 10 women with endometriosis receive a diagnosis faster.\r\n\r\nNHS England is updating the service specification for severe endometriosis. This will improve the standards of care for women with severe endometriosis by ensuring specialist services have access to the most up-to-date evidence and advice.\r\n\r\nImproving Research\r\n\r\nThe Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), has commissioned a number of studies focused on endometriosis diagnosis, treatment and patient experience. NIHR is currently funding 5 active research awards totalling an investment of approximately £5.5 million. A further £2.3 million on the effectiveness of pain management for endometriosis is due to commence in March 2026.\r\n\r\nResearch has led to new treatments being made available, including the recent NICE approval of two pills to treat endometriosis – Relugolix and Linzagolix. NICE will be working with NHS systems to ensure adoption of this best practice endometriosis care including access to approved medicines. Research into non-hormonal drugs that may modify the severity and progression of endometriosis is currently under way in the UK.\r\n\r\nImproving awareness\r\n\r\nLast year the Department for Education published revised relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education statutory guidance. This emphasises a comprehensive understanding of women’s health topics. The guidance stipulates that secondary school RSE and health education lessons should cover menstrual and gynaecological health, including aspects such as endometriosis and when to seek help from healthcare professionals.\r\n\r\nThe General Medical Council has introduced the Medical Licensing Assessment to encourage a better understanding of common women’s health problems, including endometriosis, among all doctors. Women's health is also included the Royal College of General Practitioners’ curriculum for trainee GPs. This will encourage a better understanding of common women’s health problems among all doctors and trainee GPs as they start their careers in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe Government acknowledges the challenges faced by women with endometriosis and the impact it has on their lives. Although we have no plans for an endometriosis registry, we know that women deserve better, which is why we are placing women’s equality at the heart of our mission.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-25T15:23:57.483Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T15:23:57.483Z"},"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":738923,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/738923.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Increase funding for PMDD, PME and menopause screening in mental health services","background":"Increase funding to help ensure menstrual and menopausal health is included in mental health assessments, including crisis, talking therapies, specialist care & Mental Health Act assessments","additional_details":"We believe services should have adequate funding to track symptoms and create clear treatment pathways for PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder) & menopause.\r\n \r\nPMDD affects 1 in 20 women & people who menstruate, with some sources citing that almost a third attempt suicide. PMDD, PME (Premenstrual Exacerbation) & menopause can mimic psychiatric illness, leading to misdiagnosis, unsafe treatment, & preventable harm. There is no dedicated mental health pathway for PMDD. Neurodivergent women are disproportionately affected. Menopause will impact nearly all women. We think that including menstrual and menopausal health in assessments could reduce suicide risk, improve diagnosis, & ensure safer, more effective care.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11972,"created_at":"2025-08-23T16:42:31.844Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T00:51:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-26T12:12:03.390Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-09T11:25:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-04T22:12:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-24T15:05:47.797Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Elizabeth Burn","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-24","summary":"We have provided an extra £688 million this year for mental health and are expanding NHS Talking Therapies, which are available to women experiencing mental health issues and conditions such as PMDD.","details":"The Government is committed to prioritising women’s health, and we are clear that women’s health, including mental health, will never be neglected again. We are taking steps to improve diagnosis and ensure safer and more effective care.\r\n\r\nThe nation’s mental health has deteriorated over the last decade. Lord Darzi’s investigation found that people accessing NHS mental health services are waiting too long, receive variable quality of care, and suffer from entrenched inequalities. We have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS mental health services. Total mental health spending for the 2025/26 financial year is expected to be £15.6 billion, an increase of £688 million from the previous year. Almost 8,000 extra mental health workers have been recruited since July 2024, against our target of 8,500 by the end of this Parliament.\r\n\r\nWe are expanding NHS Talking Therapies which provide psychological support for people with a common mental health condition like stress, anxiety, and depression. More than 670,000 people completed a course of Talking Therapies treatment last year, and through the 10 Year Health Plan, 915,000 people are expected to complete a course of treatment by March 2029. Women experiencing common mental health conditions and issues such as Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD), Premenstrual Exacerbation (PME) and menopause can self-refer to NHS Talking Therapies or be referred by their GP.\r\n\r\nWhile menopause is a natural stage of a woman’s life course, symptoms are common, and for some women, menopause can have a significant impact on mental health. Low mood and anxiety are two possible symptoms of the menopause. In 2025, we announced that menopause questions will be included in routine NHS health checks for over-40s, raising awareness of symptoms and giving women the confidence to seek help. We are working with experts, including GPs, to design this content, to ensure women receive appropriate support for menopause symptoms.\r\n\r\nIn September 2025, we announced an “online hospital” – NHS Online – which will give people the choice of getting the specialist care they need from their home. Both menopause and menstrual problems will be among the first conditions available for referral to NHS Online from 2027. It will connect patients with clinicians across the country through secure, online appointments accessed through the NHS App. NHS Online will help to reduce patient waiting times, delivering the equivalent of up to 8.5 million appointments and assessments in its first three years, four times more than an average NHS trust, while enhancing patient choice and control over their care.\r\n\r\nNHS England is also working on menopause workforce support packages for employees and developing a range of tools and interventions that will help to upskill more GPs in menopause care. This includes awareness of mental health symptoms during menopause and improved access to treatments.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published their updated guidelines on menopause in November 2024 and recommended more treatment choices for symptoms. The updated guidelines support healthcare professionals by providing them with information they need to support evidence-based decisions about treatment choices, as well as information and support about menopause.\r\n\r\nMenopause treatment options, including Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), can be used to treat symptoms including mood problems and anxiety. NICE recommends that, for most women, HRT is a safe and effective treatment option. It is important that women are provided with accurate information and are able to make informed choices about their care, including treatment options such as HRT. The NICE guidelines also recommend that healthcare professionals should consider menopause-specific cognitive behavioural therapy as an option for symptoms associated with menopause in addition to HRT.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-24T15:05:47.795Z","updated_at":"2026-02-24T15:05:47.795Z"},"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":748648,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/748648.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a Central Microchip Portal to help reunite missing pets without delay","background":"In March 2024, the previous Government said it would make scanning, checking & reuniting lost & abducted pets more effective by introducing a central portal for approved users-vets, local authorities & police-to search all records instantly, instead of contacting databases individually.","additional_details":"This has not happened.\r\n\r\nThere are currently 23 government-compliant databases and cross-checking them is seen by many as an 'administrative burden. A central portal could reunite lost & abducted pets with families in minutes. The portal could make registrations easier to access, increase scanning & checking rates, and lead to more reunites. We believe this is a vital step to make pet microchipping work. We call on the government to deliver the central portal now to make chips count.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16757,"created_at":"2025-10-30T12:31:55.176Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:48:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-05T09:26:46.141Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-30T12:39:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-02T18:52:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.635Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Debbie Matthews & Dr Daniel Allen","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"Defra is currently working with the Association of Microchip Database Operators to develop commercial solutions that will provide easier access to microchip records for authorised users. ","details":"Since the introduction of compulsory dog microchipping in 2016, the number of compliant database operators has risen from 4 to 24. Whilst the growth in the number of database operators has resulted in more choice for consumers, it has made it harder for approved users such as vets to access records quickly.  \r\n\r\nTo address this, as set out in the Animal welfare strategy for England, \r\n\r\n(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england)\r\n \r\nDefra is working with the Association of Microchip Database Operators (AMDO) to develop improvements to the way the microchipping regime currently operates.  AMDO is currently testing industry-led solutions that will enable authorised users to access information contained on the databases digitally through a single point of search.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.633Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:35:43.633Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750741,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750741.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review and reform legal status of pets, and rules on animal control equipment","background":"I ask the Government to review and reform the status of pets to recognise them in all cases as sentient family members and relatives, not chattel. Set out specific strict rules on using animal-control equipment like catch poles and strong penalties if negligence or force cause harm or death to pets.","additional_details":"Losing a pet can cause the same pain as losing a family member, but the law still treats them as property. My dog, Bronson, died in a tragic incident, and I don’t want any other family to experience this. I believe clear rules on catch pole use and strong legal recognition and protections for pets could help prevent avoidable harm and ensure proper accountability in the future. These reforms could be named Bronson's Law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10757,"created_at":"2025-11-14T13:30:16.095Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T23:55:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T10:04:16.853Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-14T16:06:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-29T10:51:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.668Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Marcus Sean flaherty","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"We are sorry to hear of Bronson’s death. Where dogs pose a risk to others, restraint poles are an important tool. We continue to support police to embed animal welfare in enforcement practice. ","details":"Thank you for supporting this petition and for raising your concerns about the tragic incident involving Bronson. We understand how painful it is to lose a much‑loved pet, and we offer our deepest sympathies to Bronson’s owner and all those affected. Pets are an important part of family life, and we recognise the strong feelings behind this petition.\r\n\r\nAnimal welfare remains a key government priority. We expect all public bodies, including police forces, to take animal welfare into account when carrying out their duties. Police officers often have to make rapid decisions in challenging and unpredictable situations, and while incidents of this nature are rare, they can require swift action to protect people and other animals. Equipment such as dog‑restraint poles are intended to help officers manage these moments safely, though it is essential that such tools are used responsibly and appropriately.\r\n\r\nPolice forces in England and Wales operate independently. Individual Chief Constables are responsible for decisions on training, operational procedures and equipment, and for ensuring officers follow national guidance, uphold professional standards and consider animal welfare in their responses.\r\n\r\nThe government continues to work with policing partners, animal welfare organisations and experts to ensure welfare considerations are embedded across enforcement practice. We expect forces to review their policies, learn from incidents and make improvements where needed.\r\n\r\nWe are grateful to everyone who signed this petition and shared their views. The government remains committed to promoting high standards of animal care and ensuring that the public and their pets feel safe, protected and treated fairly.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.665Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.665Z"},"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":736720,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736720.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review and centrally Record Pet Euthanasia Data","background":"With some reports suggesting a rise in euthanasia rates, we think research must be undertaken by government and relevant bodies to centrally record how many dogs and cats are being euthanised: where, why, age, breed, gender and microchip status. All veterinarians must be required to report this data","additional_details":"A potential upcoming loss of rescue spaces could place a greater burden of abandonment on local authorities. Any new restrictions on rehoming from UK rescues and restricted rescuing from abroad could lead to more demand for purchased pups and encourage back street breeding with no Rescue Back Up. We want Government to centralise data as currently there is no obligation to provide accurate euthanasia numbers outside of local authorities. We believe transparency is needed from all stakeholders","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12962,"created_at":"2025-08-08T18:42:18.548Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T20:14:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-07T15:53:20.942Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-10T17:48:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-03T16:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:15:54.028Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dawn Ashley and Sue Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","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.\r\n\r\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.  \r\n\r\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 RVCS 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 about 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.\r\n \r\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. The responses will now be analysed and aggregated findings shared with key stakeholders.\r\n\r\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.  \r\n\r\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.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:15:54.026Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:16:42.116Z"},"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":755534,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755534.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce prison sentences for deliberate cruelty to wild birds including pigeon","background":"We call on the UK Government to amend existing wildlife and animal welfare legislation to introduce custodial prison sentences for any individual who deliberately goes out with the intention of injuring or killing wild bird, specifically including pigeons, using catapults or similar weapons.","additional_details":"Under current law, deliberately killing or injuring a wild bird is already a criminal offence, yet penalties often fail to reflect the seriousness of the act or act as a sufficient deterrent. Deliberate acts of cruelty carried out for amusement or gratification demonstrate a clear disregard for animal life, public safety and the law. Despite the protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 1(1)(a) individuals who target and kill pigeons face minimal or zero consequences.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":20466,"created_at":"2025-12-29T21:51:43.851Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:09:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-30T16:31:55.785Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-29T22:49:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-01T09:37:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.843Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alice Pryor","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"There are existing laws to prohibit killing or injuring wild birds, including pigeons, which can carry a custodial sentence. The government is actively considering the issue of misuse of catapults.","details":"Pigeons, like all wild birds, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill or injure them, including with the use of a catapult. \r\n\r\nSignificant sanctions are already available for judges to hand down to those convicted of wildlife crimes. Anyone who commits an offence under existing legislation, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, could face up to a six-month custodial sentence and/or an unlimited fine. \r\n\r\nSentencing of those convicted of wildlife crimes remains a matter for judges, and these decisions are rightly taken independently of government.\r\n\r\nIt is also an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause an animal any unnecessary suffering. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty to pets, livestock and wild animals under human control by increasing the maximum penalty for this offence to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.\r\n\r\nIn the government’s Animal Welfare Strategy published in December 2025, a commitment was made to review and look to strengthen penalties for cruelty against wildlife more generally so that a disparity is addressed and they are consistent with the higher levels of sentencing available for animal welfare offences against pets and livestock. \r\n\r\nWildlife crime is unacceptable. Defra supports the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), which helps prevent and detect wildlife crime (including crimes involving misuse of catapults) by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis which highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations. Defra is providing £494,000 for NWCU in the financial year 2025-2026.\r\n\r\nThe NWCU attended the first of a new series of “Operation Lakeshot” meetings in January 2026. Operation Lakeshot is a working group which meets quarterly to bring together police and charities to raise awareness of the problem of wildlife crimes being carried out with catapults and will be working with partner agencies to prevent people from engaging in this crime and to support law enforcement. \r\n\r\nThe government recognises that misuse of catapults is causing great concern to some local communities whether the targets are wild or domestic animals, other people, or property. The government is clear that catapults should not be used against wildlife, property or people and is, for example, convening a roundtable to understand the problem better and to identify what more can be done.\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that certain birds, including pigeons, may be killed by an authorised person in certain licensed circumstances (such as to prevent serious damage or to preserve public health and safety) but this should not involve the use of catapults. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.841Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:06:36.841Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756814,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756814.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce Vehicle Excise Duty by 50% for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years","background":"Introduce a 50% VED reduction for cars aged 20–39. High taxes force functional vehicles to be scrapped, creating a \"disposable\" culture. Keeping existing cars is greener than building new ones, as it preserves embedded carbon. This \"Young-Timer\" bracket supports the circular economy and UK heritage.","additional_details":"Manufacturing a new car creates massive carbon debt. We must move from a \"disposable\" car culture to a circular economy. Keeping a functional 20-year-old car on the road is often greener than building a new one, as it preserves the embedded carbon already spent. Current VED rates force many well-maintained cars to be scrapped prematurely. We call for a 50% \"Transition to Historic\" tax discount to encourage repair, support the UK heritage industry, and reflect the low mileage of modern classics.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":43527,"created_at":"2026-01-12T13:25:01.230Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:26:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-06T16:23:23.747Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T14:39:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T15:00:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.681Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Heitor Mazzotti","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"The Government has no plans to reduce Vehicle Excise Duty liabilities for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years. The Government keeps all taxes under review and the Chancellor makes decisions at fiscal events.","details":"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax on vehicles used or kept on public roads. Different rates apply to cars, vans, and motorcycles, and the rate for each vehicle is calculated according to a range of factors, such as its date of first registration, weight, or CO2 emissions.\r\n  \r\nCars registered before 1 March 2001 pay VED annually based on engine size. Since 2001, the tax system has encouraged the uptake of cars with low carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to help meet the UK's legally binding climate targets. Cars first registered between 1 March 2001 and 31 March 2017 pay VED annually according to CO2 emissions.  From 1 April 2017, a reformed VED system was introduced for new cars. The changes in April 2017 were applied to new cars only, meaning that the tax treatment of existing cars was not impacted.\r\n\r\nThe majority of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle's emissions come from fuel production and tailpipe emissions. The Department for Transport's 2022 lifecycle analysis shows that the manufacturing emissions for a medium sized petrol or diesel car are estimated to be less than 20% of the lifetime emissions of the vehicle (2020-2030 scenarios). The lifecycle analysis can be found here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lifecycle-analysis-of-uk-road-vehicles.\r\n \r\nAt Budget 2014 the Government at the time announced that it would introduce a rolling 40-year exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for classic cars. This means that currently vehicles constructed before 1 January 1985 are exempt from paying VED. From 1 April 2026 vehicles constructed before 1 January 1986 will become exempt from VED.\r\n\r\nThe law does not specifically define a vehicle as historic or classic for registration purposes, and it is widely recognised that there are many factors other than age which influence whether a car is considered classic. The Government at the time therefore set 40 years as being a fair cut-off date to distinguish classic cars from older cars.\r\n \r\nRevenue from motoring taxes helps ensure we can continue to fund the vital public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect. For example, by 2029/30, the government will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair, renew and fix potholes on their roads – doubling funding since coming into office. This record level of funding will enable the government to exceed its manifesto commitment to fix an additional 1 million potholes per year by the end of the Parliament.\r\n  \r\nWhile there are no current plans to reduce VED for cars aged 20 to 39 years, the Government keeps all taxes under review, and the Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events.\r\n\r\nHM Treasury \r\n","created_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.679Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T12:13:44.033Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":732869,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/732869.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require public consultation before airfields and aerodromes can be closed","background":"Airfields and aerodromes play a vital role in the UK's transportation network, economic growth, emergency services, and heritage. However, some sites may be closed and redeveloped, often without sufficient public consultation or long-term strategic consideration.","additional_details":"We urge Parliament to legislate or amend laws such that no airfield/aerodrome is closed & redeveloped without formal consultation involving public, industry, and government. Each site’s strategic value should be assessed, with DfT input required. We think airfields should be recognised as critical infrastructure supporting aviation, emergency services, military, and economic growth. We think preserving them is vital for the UK’s role in the Advanced Air Mobility Revolution and emerging sustainable air transport.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10783,"created_at":"2025-07-10T06:08:22.860Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T19:43:40.932Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-01T08:52:09.908Z","closed_at":"2026-02-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-10T07:31:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-28T07:08:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-18T19:43:35.772Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-18","summary":"The Government recognises the importance of General Aviation and aerodromes, but decisions on a site's future use rest with the landowner and planning authorities through the planning system.","details":"The Government recognises the important contribution that General Aviation aerodromes make to the UK’s economy, emergency services, skills base and aviation heritage.\r\n\r\nHowever, most aerodromes and airfields are privately owned and decisions around their future use, including whether to continue aviation operations, are a matter for landowners, subject to the planning system. The National Planning Policy Framework already requires planning authorities to consider the role of airports and airfields in connectivity and economic growth and strategic infrastructure when considering development proposals.\r\n\r\nWhile the Government values the role of General Aviation, it considers that the current balance between private property rights, local decision making, and national aviation policy remains appropriate. We will continue to support general aviation as part of our wider aviation approach.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-02-18T19:43:35.767Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T19:43:35.767Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750545,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750545.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it a crime to abandon someone in immediate danger without seeking help","background":"My sister Danielle died from asphyxiation during a domestic incident. She was locked in a property & died as result of being alone. There is currently no law requiring someone to take action when a life is at risk.","additional_details":"This petition is inspired by Danielle Haggerty’s tragic death. Other countries have “duty to rescue” laws that protect vulnerable people and encourage intervention to save lives. Introducing a similar law in the UK would prevent future tragedies and ensure that anyone in immediate danger has someone legally required to try to save them so that no-one would ever be knowingly left alone to die.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16566,"created_at":"2025-11-12T20:58:44.531Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:09:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-22T16:18:15.349Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-12T21:40:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-25T13:35:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-17T10:27:30.355Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jonathan Haggerty","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"Currently, the Government has no plans to legislate to make it a crime for a person to leave someone on their own who may be vulnerable, in danger and in need help.  ","details":"The Government recognises the concerns raised by the petitioner, who seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to abandon a person who may be in immediate danger without seeking help. \r\n\r\nIn England and Wales, there is ordinarily no liability for failing to act. There is therefore no legal requirement for any person to intervene in a situation where medical assistance (or any other emergency assistance) could be required, unless they have a duty to do so. \r\n\r\nA duty of care may arise under specific circumstances. For example, between a parent and a child or between a care giver and an elderly person. In circumstances where it can be established that an individual owed the victim a duty of care and there was a serious breach of that duty which led to the death of the victim, that person may be liable to criminal prosecution. It would be the responsibility of the independent Crown Prosecution Service to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether to prosecute and select the appropriate charge. \r\n\r\nWe acknowledge that there may be cases in which not doing ‘the right thing’ seems reprehensible. However, the Government has no current plans to create a new offence in this area, as creating such a law would present considerable challenges, particularly in terms of its scope and nature. In effect, even a limited offence could unfairly penalise individuals who, without medical knowledge or other expertise in responding to emergencies, may find themselves unable to act in such situations. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice\r\nThis response was received on 9th February 2026\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-17T10:27:30.354Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T10:38:21.036Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":753568,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/753568.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 5yr Minimum Sentence for unlawfully carrying a Knife 3yrs Juveniles","background":"We've a knife crime epidemic with too many people carrying knives in public; As a serving police officer I tackled many offenders carrying a knife & once almost lost my life when stabbed in chest arresting a burglar; too many parents are planning funerals instead of bright futures for their children","additional_details":"We want the GOVT to introduce minimum sentences in order to act as a deterrent for carrying knives & blades in public; Knife homicides far outnumber gun homicides; yet carry a gun there is a 5 year Minimum sentence but carrying a Knife its often a community sentence. We believe communities live in fear of Knife crime & it has become a scourge on society and needs to be dealt with as a serious Health issue and a National Emergency as it is affecting the fabric of society & too often involving children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":47176,"created_at":"2025-12-05T15:32:44.861Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:28:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-16T14:55:53.096Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-05T17:49:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-31T12:21:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.609Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Norman Steven Brennan","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-16","summary":"The Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences for carrying a knife. The law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and threatening with a weapon.","details":"Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives. That is why, as part of the Safer Streets mission, this Government is working to halve knife crime within a decade. We have a comprehensive, data-led and Government-wide approach to this goal.\r\n\r\nThe Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences of 5 years for adults and 3 years for young people aged under 18, for carrying a knife. \r\n\r\nMinimum sentences are rare in England and Wales. It is the function of the court to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant sentencing guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must also be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. \r\n\r\nThe maximum penalty for carrying a knife is 4 years imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, the law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a four-month Detention and Training Order.\r\n\r\nWhere someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that they may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences, up to life imprisonment. Murder is a very serious crime which carries a mandatory life sentence. This is the same for any murder, including those involving knives or guns. \r\n\r\nIn recognition of the importance of tackling knife crime, the Government’s manifesto committed to ensuring that every young person caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a Youth Justice Service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. We are taking a significant step towards delivering this manifesto commitment and will shortly be publishing tough new guidance that sets out our expectations on how the police and Youth Justice Services should respond to knife possession offences committed by children.\r\n\r\nOn 24 September 2024, we implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, and it is now illegal to sell, manufacture or possess these weapons. We also introduced new legislation to ban ninja swords, and since 1 August 2025, it has been illegal to sell or own these weapons.\r\n\r\nIn October 2024, the then Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to conduct a review into the online sale and delivery of knives. The Independent End-To-End Review of Online Knife Sales was published on 19 February 2025. We are taking forward the most pressing recommendations and have announced “Ronan’s Law,” a range of measures which will include stricter rules for online sellers of knives. These include strengthening age verification controls and checks through a two-stage age verification system at the point of purchase and on delivery. \r\n\r\nWith measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through Parliament,  we are increasing the penalties for illegal sales of knives, creating a new offence of possessing a knife with the intention to commit unlawful violence, creating a duty on sellers to report bulk sales, and giving the police new power to seize knives when they believe they are likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence.\r\n\r\nIn February 2025, the Government committed to consult on plans to introduce a comprehensive licensing scheme for those who sell knives or other bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers, making them subject to strict regulations and conditions. A public consultation was launched on 16 December 2025 to gather views on these proposals and consider impacts before making any legislative changes that would be required to introduce such licensing. The consultation is open until 24 February 2026 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/licensing-for-knife-sales\r\n\r\nWe have also introduced new legislation to provide the police with the power to require social media, marketplace, and search services to take down illegal knife and offensive weapon content. Failure to remove this material could result in significant penalties for both the company and a designated senior executive. This meets the Government’s manifesto commitment to hold the senior executives of online companies accountable for flouting rules around online knife sales.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.595Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T09:25:27.819Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751635,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751635.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the use of AI for image, video and audio creation","background":"Legislate to ban the AI generation of images, videos and audio to protect the British public from misinformation, harmful and harassing content, and to protect jobs in the creative sectors.","additional_details":"This ban should include AI tools from being used in the UK, as well as any foreign AI content to be banned on social media and television. This could help protect against things like false advertisement and fake or misleading content.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12792,"created_at":"2025-11-23T14:02:31.232Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T22:50:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-19T16:03:11.228Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-23T14:21:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T22:16:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-16T11:25:59.220Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ash Martienssen","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-16","summary":"The Government is focused on enabling the safe use of AI. We are taking steps to address harms, while recognising the positive ways in which AI can drive growth and improve lives.","details":"The development of AI offers an opportunity to grow the UK economy and improve public services. It also poses risks – from the generation of misinformation and harmful content to the potential disruption of the labour market. The Government takes these risks seriously.\r\n\r\nAI is already regulated in the UK through existing laws such as data protection, competition, and equalities legislation, and through forms of sectoral regulation. For example, services regulated under the Online Safety Act are required to have systems in place to address fraudulent advertising, illegal content and content harmful to children, including AI-generated content. Internet-based generative AI services that allow users to share content with one another, that search live websites to provide search results, or which produce pornographic content are regulated under the Online Safety Act.\r\n\r\nThe Government does not have any plans to legislate to ban the AI generation of images, videos and audio. Such a ban would block the UK from accessing the benefits that AI offers to people’s daily lives, public services and the economy.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Government is committed to strengthening protections where required. Where existing laws are not enough to ensure safety, the Government will take action. We have already legislated to create new offences where needed, such as the a new offence covering the creation of non-consensual intimate images. The Government has also announced that it will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill to ban ‘nudification’ tools – tools that use AI to turn normal images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their consent.\r\n \r\nThe Technology Secretary confirmed in Parliament that the Government is exploring how emerging services, such as AI chatbots, interact with the Online Safety Act and what further measures may be required.\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the concerns of our world-leading creative industries. We are looking at how we can unlock the extraordinary potential of AI in this sector, while protecting the unique and important contribution human creativity makes to our economy and quality of life.\r\n\r\nAI is transforming the world of work more generally. The Government is committed to ensuring that AI drives opportunity, not insecurity, for working people. We have established the AI and the Future of Work Unit which uses cutting-edge research and expert insight to stay ahead of risks and act early to support workers. The Unit works across government but is based in DSIT. It will help prepare the UK for AI-driven labour market transformation by researching and monitoring AI’s economic and labour market impacts, and providing advice on new policies to be implemented.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to supporting a free, sustainable and plural media landscape, as the best way to maintain a shared understanding of facts, and protect against the spread of disinformation. The government is taking steps to support a healthy news and information environment in the UK and strengthen and maintain a plural, thriving and trusted media sector.\r\n\r\nThe Government continues to work with a wide range of stakeholders to gather evidence, understand emerging issues and develop policy that carefully balances both the risks and opportunities of AI.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-16T11:25:59.217Z","updated_at":"2026-02-16T11:26:59.865Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750999,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750999.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund cardiac screening at age 14 years and cardiac awareness programme","background":"Fund population cardiac screening for every young person when they reach age 14 years. The screening should be undertaken with a review of family history and electrocardiogram (ECG) followed up where necessary with echocardiogram (heart scan).","additional_details":"12 people aged 35 and under die suddenly from heart conditions in the UK every week. Many show no symptoms and many could be saved by screening. We urge the Government and UKNSC to introduce ECG screening at age 14 and launch a national awareness campaign to stop these needless deaths.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":32938,"created_at":"2025-11-17T05:45:27.655Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:42:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-14T08:43:10.342Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-17T14:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T18:15:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.231Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Stephen Anthony Ayling","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-13","summary":"The Government is guided by the UK National Screening Committee which is re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening in young people and will open a public consultation in the spring.","details":"It is vital that screening policy is based on scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.\r\n\r\nThe Government is advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the UK NSC is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC last reviewed screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death in people under the age of 39 years old in 2019 and concluded that population screening should not be offered.\r\n\r\nResearch showed that it was unclear whether available tests could accurately detect heart conditions in young people without symptoms. The current evidence suggests that introducing population-level screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death would cause harm by misdiagnosing some people, potentially leading them to make life-changing decisions, such as giving up exercise, which could have a negative long-term impact on their health.\r\n\r\nReceiving a false diagnosis could also lead to some people being prescribed medication or undergoing medical procedures that they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted. It could lead to people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not at risk.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, screening could provide false reassurance to others who are at risk of sudden cardiac death but whose risk would not be picked up by screening tests. Footballers seen having cardiac arrests on the pitch have often been screened, but the test did not show anything unusual – there are many causes of sudden cardiac death which might not be detectable as part of screening.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the 2019 review did not find any research comparing the effectiveness of screening with no screening in the prevention of sudden cardiac death.\r\n\r\nThe UK NSC is currently re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in the spring.\r\n\r\nTo reduce the risks of sudden cardiac death, NHS England has a published national service specification for Inherited Cardiac Conditions that covers patients who often present as young adults with previously undiagnosed cardiac disease, or families requiring follow up due to a death caused by this. This describes the service model and guidance that should be followed to support diagnosis and treatment of patients or family members. It also includes the requirement for specialised Inherited Cardiac Conditions services to investigate suspected cases.\r\n\r\nNHS England also runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care’s Community Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Fund delivered 3,080 new AEDs to local communities between September 2023 and February 2025. These AEDs were prioritised for areas of greatest need. This included remote communities with extended ambulance response times, places with high footfall and high population densities, hotspots for cardiac arrest including sporting venues and venues with vulnerable people, and deprived areas.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, since 2014 the NHS has run quality assured antenatal and newborn screening programmes through which babies are screened for congenital heart disease antenatally, and in the newborn period.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England currently have no specific ongoing campaigns, or plans to conduct a campaign, to raise awareness of sudden cardiac death.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":729708,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/729708.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the non-stun slaughter of animals","background":"Ban non-stun slaughter. We think it is cruel and causes unnecessary harm to the animals being slaughtered/butchered.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":31900,"created_at":"2025-06-07T15:40:06.420Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T22:05:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-01T12:37:21.021Z","closed_at":"2026-03-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-08T14:03:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-27T13:22:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-10T17:01:55.758Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-10","summary":"The government prefers all animals to be stunned before slaughter. The law established in 1933 respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.","details":"The government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. The government, therefore, has no plans to ban slaughter without stunning.\r\n\r\nThe first national legislative requirement for stunning before slaughter in England and Wales was the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933. The Act also introduced an exception from the requirement to stun when animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for the food of Muslims and Jews.\r\n\r\nOver the years, the rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide additional protection to animals slaughtered without stunning. These rules ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering or distress during the slaughter process. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ","created_at":"2026-02-10T17:01:55.756Z","updated_at":"2026-02-10T17:01:55.756Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737660,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"By-elections to be called automatically when MPs defect to another party","background":"When an MP decides they want to defect to another party a by-election should be automatically triggered to allow the constituents the opportunity have their democratic right to agree or not with their elected official.","additional_details":"Regardless of political views I believe you vote for both the individual candidates and their stance on issues and the more general direction and policies of the party they stand for. When an MP decides that they no longer wish to be a member of the party they stood for when you voted for them the electorate should have the opportunity to also change their mind by voting in a by-election.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":129335,"created_at":"2025-08-14T18:20:00.840Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T11:56:04.896Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-04T09:00:28.450Z","closed_at":"2026-03-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-19T19:49:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-17T14:35:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.802Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-22T23:06:50.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-16","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"There are no plans to make changes to the current constitutional arrangements, whereby voters elect individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.","details":"It is an established constitutional principle that at UK General Elections, voters cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.\r\n\r\nWhen a Member of Parliament (MP) decides to change their party affiliation, it is for the MP to decide whether to continue to sit in the House of Commons (as a representative of their new political party or as an independent MP) or to stand down from their seat to trigger a by-election and, if they wish, seek re-election. \r\n\r\nThere are no plans to make changes to the current arrangements.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.799Z","updated_at":"2026-02-10T08:23:06.700Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751929,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751929.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Government apology and compensation for 1950s Women affected by pension changes","background":"We ask Government to deliver a fair, timely, fully transparent apology that reflects ALL evidence based on what we think constitutes maladministration and discrimination; and addresses the financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes.","additional_details":"Many 1950s-born women have faced lifelong and historic discrimination, compounded by the Government’s failure to properly communicate State Pension Age changes. DWP Ministers have listened only to a group representing a fraction of those affected, leaving others feeling ignored. As many campaign groups unite, we think it is unacceptable that the Government continues to silence the majority. After decades of inequality, accountability and action are long overdue.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":68398,"created_at":"2025-11-25T11:47:53.488Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:48:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T10:44:53.835Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-25T13:48:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T13:43:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.836Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Kay Ann Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"We apologised for not sending State Pension age letters sooner. Deciding not to pay compensation and the Ombudsman’s report relate to that, not the petition’s “hardship...caused by pension changes”.","details":"The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigated the way State Pension age changes were communicated to women born in the 1950s and whether within a specific time period there was maladministration and injustice and if so, whether it warrants compensation. They did not examine the “financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes” that the petition focuses on and which relate to the decision, first taken by Parliament in 1995, to equalise the State Pension age for men and women nor that to accelerate the increases in 2011 taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition. \r\n\r\nThe PHSO’s findings relate narrowly to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period. The Ombudsman found that the Department’s communications met expected standards between 1995 and 2004. But that between 2005 and 2007 there was a 28 month delay in sending personalised letters to women affected and that this was maladministration. \r\n\r\nOn 29 January the Secretary of State announced the Government’s new decision on the Ombudsman’s investigation. He accepted that individual letters about changes to the State Pension age could have been sent earlier. He apologised for that maladministration in the House of Commons and in the document explaining his decision which has been published. \r\n\r\nThe Secretary of State recognised the importance that decisions on the State Pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives the need for government to weigh carefully any future changes. The Department is developing an Action Plan for the future.\r\n\r\nThe Secretary of State has set out the Government’s position in detail to Parliament, which can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsmans-investigation-into-womens-state-pension-age-communications-and-associated-issues. \r\n\r\nThere are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the State Pension age. In particular, whether the decision taken to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do or not. But this is not the issue the Ombudsman or the Government has been considering. Changes to State Pension age to equalise it to 65 and increase it to 66, 67 and 68 were agreed by Parliament and have been tested in the Courts. \r\nIn relation to the PHSO’s investigation, the Government took account of the views of 1950s women and people representing them, including Members of Parliament. \r\n\r\nIn the decision-making process, the Government considered the relevant evidence, including the PHSO's comprehensive report which itself drew on extensive testimony from affected women. The views and experiences of 1950s women were therefore part of the evidence base considered.\r\n\r\nWe are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes have a better life in retirement. The Government are now ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up of Pension Credit, which saw tens of thousands more Pension Credit awards in the year up to November than the previous 12 months.\r\n\r\nIn addition, our commitment to the Triple Lock for the entirety of this Parliament means that pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the State Pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. \r\n\r\nWe are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z","updated_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":734493,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/734493.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require service stations to provide motorhome waste and water facilities","background":"We are calling on the Government to update guidance for Motorway Service Areas (MSAs), requiring they provide essential facilities for campervans and motorhomes: toilet (black waste), grey water disposal, and fresh water refill.","additional_details":"Many service stations lack waste and water facilities for campervans and motorhomes, making responsible travel difficult. Without proper disposal points, some travellers resort to dumping toilet or grey water waste in hedgerows, lay-bys or drains, harming the environment and public health. With the growing use of campervans, motorhomes, and domestic tourism each year, we feel the country must improve its infrastructure to support cleaner, safer, and more responsible travel.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":13145,"created_at":"2025-07-25T13:10:28.662Z","updated_at":"2026-02-12T00:00:21.462Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-11T08:25:15.711Z","closed_at":"2026-02-11T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-25T14:44:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-22T07:40:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-09T16:43:56.789Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"Black and grey waste disposal facilities are outside of the core safety function of motorway service areas: to provide opportunities for road users to stop and take a break during their journey.","details":"All roadside service stations in England are privately operated. The primary function of these roadside facilities is to support the safety and welfare of road users.  Roadside facilities perform an important safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break during their journey. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every 2 hours. To facilitate this the network of signed roadside facilities on the SRN is intended to provide opportunities to stop at intervals of approximately half an hour.\r\n\r\nThe minimum requirements for roadside facilities to be eligible for signing from the strategic road network are set out in Department for Transport Planning Circular 01/2022 ‘Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development’. \r\n\r\nThe minimum requirements for motorway service areas set out there are: \r\n•\tAvailable 24 hours a day throughout the year.\r\n•\tFree parking for a minimum of 2 hours for all vehicles permitted to use the facility\r\n•\tProvision of security monitoring equipment including appropriate lighting and CCTV systems\r\n•\tFree-to-use toilets with hand washing facilities, and at least 1 changing places toilet and 1 for people with disabilities, and no need to make a purchase during opening hours\r\n•\tShower and washing facilities for HGV drivers (separate provision for men and women), including secure lockers in the shower/washing area\r\n•\tProvision of fuel for petrol and diesel vehicles and EV chargepoints\r\n•\tHot drinks and cooked hot food available for purchase during all opening hours for consumption on the premises\r\n•\tAccess to a free-of-charge telephone for emergency use, Wi-Fi and power points available for device charging\r\n\r\nThe purpose of these minimum requirements is to ensure road users can access amenities necessary for their safety and welfare at frequent intervals on the strategic road network. MSAs should be well-designed to serve passing traffic and not be destinations in their own right. \r\n\r\nThe Department for Transport recognises that some campervan and motorhome users feel there is a lack of suitable toilet (black waste), grey water disposal, and fresh water refill facilities nationally, and that more widespread provision of these facilities could support responsible waste management and reduce the likelihood of environmentally harmful disposal elsewhere. However, additional provision might be better placed at locations that are destinations in their own right for motorhome and campervan users, rather than on the strategic road network. \r\n\r\nThe Department will invite the views of motorhome and campervan users when we next review the minimum standards for motorway service areas. In the meantime the Department encourages motorhome and campervan users to plan ahead and identify facilities for disposing of their waste before travelling.  \r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-02-09T16:43:56.787Z","updated_at":"2026-02-09T16:46:04.739Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":732726,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/732726.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review protections for important trees: amend Forestry Act & list heritage trees","background":"Review and strengthen protections. Amend the Forestry Act 1967 to explicitly define and set a higher evidence bar for exempting any ancient tree felling from licences. Publish and maintain a list of heritage trees with protected status as proposed in the Heritage Trees Private Members Bill 2023-24.","additional_details":"We'd also like the Government to formally commit to implementing the recommendations of a DEFRA-commissioned report from the Tree Council (April 2025), which amongst other recommendations called for engaging key stakeholders within 12 months of publication, and the development of an ‘action plan’ for important trees. \r\n \r\nAncient trees are irreplaceable habitats, and we believe they need better protection. The Forestry Act currently allows some to be felled without felling licences; we think there must be a more rigorous licensing requirement.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":11714,"created_at":"2025-07-08T17:30:27.664Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T14:24:20.548Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-04T13:23:57.054Z","closed_at":"2026-02-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-09T06:09:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-03T18:00:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-05T14:24:14.177Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-05","summary":"Ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodlands are irreplaceable habitats in national planning policies. Tree Preservation Orders also prevent some trees from being felled or significantly modified.","details":"As announced in the Spending Review, Defra is making the largest investment in nature in history, with over £7 billion directed into nature’s recovery, including our ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees. Ancient and veteran trees are listed as one of the eight ‘irreplaceable habitats’ by The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodland as irreplaceable habitats. We will continue to improve their protections.\r\n\r\nSince January 2024, councils must consult the MHCLG Secretary of State if they are considering developments that might impact ancient woodland.  Local Authorities have the power to place Tree Preservation Orders, which prevent trees from being felled or significantly modified. The Ancient Woodland Inventory is being updated and is mapping smaller ancient woodland sites of 0.25 hectares. These updates, to be published by the end of Summer 2027, will increase the level of ancient woodlands identified, allowing them to benefit from their protected status as irreplaceable habitats.  \r\n\r\nWe have reviewed the implementation and effectiveness of the NPPF for safeguarding ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodland. Whilst these habitats are strongly protected, the review identified implementation challenges. We are committed to finding ways to ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected in practice as well as policy. \r\n\r\nFelling trees is a crucial part of woodland management. However, this doesn’t apply to ancient trees except in cases of overriding public interest, such as danger to life that can’t be mitigated. Done well, felling of non-ancient trees can let more light onto the woodland floor, encouraging ground flora and associated insect and bird communities to flourish. It can also support increased diversity within woodland canopies, supporting wildlife.  Felling licences under the Forestry Act 1967 are generally conditional on the owner maintaining woodland cover on site in the long term.  The Forestry Commission can refuse an application to fell growing trees for several reasons, including where they believe that the application fails to meet the interests of good forestry practice. This power may be used to protect ancient trees in woodlands from felling. As the criminal case for the Sycamore Gap tree has shown, our judicial system takes illegal tree felling seriously: those that cause illegal damage to trees, woodlands and the environment will be brought to justice.\r\n\r\nThe Defra-funded report led by the Tree Council and Forest Research provides a range of recommendations for improving the protection and stewardship of ‘important’ trees. The Government is carefully considering its recommendations, including their feasibility and potential impacts, balancing our approach with our existing priorities and statutory obligations. We will set out actions to protect important trees in the new Trees Action Plan, to be published in 2026. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-02-05T14:24:14.174Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T14:24:14.174Z"},"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":752501,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752501.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise Bereavement Support Payment and extend beyond 18 months","background":"Reform Bereavement Support Payment so families with and without dependent children receive help beyond 18 months, with annual uprating to reflect cost of living. ","additional_details":"BSP ends after 18 months and is not uprated, which can leave widowed families in financial hardship for years. I lost my husband in May 2025, gave up my career to care for him, and now earn less than 25% of our previous income while raising two young children. Previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance lasted until Child Benefit ended, offering stability. We feel that BSP ignores long-term income loss and emotional strain.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":28475,"created_at":"2025-11-28T11:07:21.722Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:49:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T15:25:55.294Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-28T11:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-20T23:20:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.764Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"CAROLINE ANNE BOOTH","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-04","summary":"Bereavement Support Payment provides valuable short-term help after a death. While we are not able to increase BSP at this time, longer-term support is available from other social security benefits.","details":"The Government recognises the profound emotional and financial impact that losing a spouse, civil partner, or cohabiting partner with dependent children can have on families. We are grateful to the petitioner for sharing their experience, and we understand the challenges bereaved families can face during an already extremely difficult time.\r\n\r\nBereavement Support Payment (BSP) is designed to provide short‑term financial support to help with the immediate additional costs associated with a death. It consists of an initial lump sum followed by 18 monthly payments, with higher rates paid to those with dependent children. BSP is not taxed, does not count towards the benefit cap, and is paid in addition to any income‑related benefits the bereaved may be entitled to.\r\n\r\nThe petition asks the Government to extend BSP beyond 18 months for all families, and to uprate its value annually in line with the cost of living. BSP is not intended as an ongoing income‑replacement benefit, nor is it designed to match the duration of a family’s grief. The 18‑month duration reflects the policy intent to provide support during the acute period following a bereavement, when people may face sudden costs or short‑term disruption. Longer‑term financial support is instead available through income‑replacement benefits such as Universal Credit, which are usually uprated annually in line with inflation and designed to provide continuing support with everyday living costs.\r\n\r\nWe also recognise the comparison made in the petition to the previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA), which could be paid until Child Benefit ended. WPA formed part of a complex system of bereavement benefits which the previous Government reformed in 2017 to create a single, simpler, and more modern benefit. BSP was introduced to ensure a clearer, fairer, and more consistent approach across households.\r\n\r\nOn eligibility, BSP is currently available to surviving spouses and civil partners, and to cohabiting partners with dependent children. In 2023 the Government changed the law to extend eligibility to cohabitees with children following court judgments that found the previous rules discriminated against children on the basis of their parents’ marital status. This extension focused on families with children, to ensure they get the financial support they need.\r\n\r\nOn uprating, BSP is reviewed each year on a discretionary basis as part of the annual uprating process. In doing so we need to take into account the broader fiscal position and prioritise where government can most effectively deploy public money. Following this year’s review, it is proposed that BSP will stay at the current rate for 2026/27. Claimants on the standard rate will continue to receive an initial payment of £2,500 and 18 payments of £100, while those on the higher rate will receive £3,500 followed by 18 payments of £350. This allows BSP to help with the immediate costs of bereavement. There is a wide range of other financial support available to the bereaved, including Universal Credit where needed and Funeral Expenses Payments for eligible people arranging a funeral.\r\n\r\nThe Government keeps all benefits, including BSP under review. We recognise the significant impact of bereavement on individuals and families and remain committed to supporting people through the immediate period following the death of a loved one.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions ","created_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":747448,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/747448.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill immediately","background":"Government to withdraw the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill immediately, because it downgrades education for all children, undermines educators and parents. We think it will cause harm to children, with their details being digitally stored for anyone to use without permission.","additional_details":"We think the Bill is poorly drafted and is not supported by robust evidence. The impact assessments are inadequate. It will damage all children's educational opportunities. The Bill is silent on children’s voice and children's right to education. It undermines parents and school leaders. We think it forces a digital ID on children which is unethical and morally wrong. We do not want our children's personal and private details stored for anyone to use. This Bill is another form of control.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":22481,"created_at":"2025-10-19T10:32:27.924Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:51:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-25T09:28:29.949Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-19T10:50:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T22:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-04T14:48:27.604Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jason Read","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-04","summary":"The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on manifesto promises and will make progress towards the Opportunity Mission to break the link between young people’s background and future success.","details":"This Bill is driven by the belief that every child deserves a safe, secure start in life and the opportunity to succeed. The Bill will reform both children’s social care and education to break down the barriers that hold children back, ensuring that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive. \r\n\r\nKeeping children safe is a priority for this government. Practitioners supporting children and families must find, receive, and share relevant information to assess risks effectively. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces provision in law, paving the way for a consistent identifier to be specified and the organisations required to use it via regulations. The Department has initiated a series of pilots so we can establish how a consistent identifier can be implemented effectively and securely. \r\n\r\nUpholding children’s rights, particularly in relation to respect for private and family life, are critical and that’s why all these measures operate in compliance with data protection legislation. The Department takes its data protection obligations seriously and is committed to ensuring high standards of information security, privacy and transparency. We have formally consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office  (ICO) on all Bill measures that will involve the use of personal data to ensure full alignment with data protection legislation and established best practice for safeguarding children’s information. We continue to engage with the ICO on the Information Sharing Duty and the Single Unique Identifier, as well as with multi‑agency safeguarding organisations, sector representatives and practitioners, to support the ongoing development of these measures. Separately, we are engaging with the ICO on the data protection impact assessment related to Children Not in School measures. This engagement helps ensure that all proposals are underpinned by appropriate lawful bases, clear limitations on access, and strict requirements for necessity and proportionality.\r\n\r\nAll data obtained or processed by the Department will be handled strictly in accordance with UK‑GDPR principles, including lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, and security. Access to data will be tightly controlled through Role‑Based Access Control, ensuring that only those with an operational need can view or use personal information. \r\n\r\nRegarding evidence and impact assessments, the government has published Impact Assessments setting out the potential effects of the Bill and all its measures. These include regulatory impact assessments following the Better Regulation Framework for those measures that are in scope. These are published on gov.uk Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: impact assessments - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-wellbeing-and-schools-bill-impact-assessments). The department welcomes the Regulatory Policy Committee’s ‘Green’ rating for the Bill’s Impact Assessment, meaning that they have assessed it as being fit for purpose. The department has also conducted and published an equalities impact assessment, in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. As with all legislation, these assessments are periodically reviewed and updated throughout the Bill’s passage considering any new evidence and feedback from stakeholders. \r\n\r\nIn addition to these, the department has also conducted and published a Child’s Rights Impact Assessment (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695d3d1b4b69d216c438a137/Children_s_Wellbeing_and_Schools_Bill_-_Child_s_rights_impact_assessment.pdf), identifying where children are directly affected by policy and where certain groups of children and young people are more likely to be affected than others. \r\n\r\nThe Bill will create a floor for standards across our education system but no ceiling on innovation to bring all schools to the level of the very best. We are continuing to engage extensively with leaders from across the school system to ensure we drive collaboration and enable best practice to be shared up and down the country. For Children Not in School, the measures support local authorities to identify these children in their areas, so they can intervene in cases where a child is not receiving a suitable education or is at risk of harm. The government has tabled several amendments at Report stage to reduce the burden on parents of giving information for Children Not in School registers, improve the support package for families, and add touchpoints before or shortly after children leave school rolls to support early identification of children’s needs.\r\n\r\nThe government notes the issues outlined in this petition on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We welcome views and engagement from the public, and continued parliamentary scrutiny, and are committed to working closely with stakeholders to ensure that the Bill improves outcomes for children and families.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-02-04T14:48:27.601Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T14:49:13.955Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750612,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750612.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to require drivers to report collisions with cats","background":"It is legal in the UK to hit a cat when driving and not need to stop or report collisions, leaving them scared, alone, and in pain. Cats are important, loved, valued family members for many and we believe the law should reflect this.","additional_details":"We want the Government to legislate to require drivers to stop, check and report any road collisions with cats if they’re injured on the road, and holds drivers accountable if they fail to stop and report a collision involving a cat on the basis they left a cat to unnecessarily suffer. We believe asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable & simple ask.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16912,"created_at":"2025-11-13T14:11:41.146Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:47:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-17T09:04:32.079Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T14:31:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-11T19:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.976Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Carlie Power","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-03","summary":"The Government has no current plans to require drivers to report collisions with cats. However, the Road Safety Strategy will improve road safety for all road users, including cats and other animals.","details":"Improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities.\r\n\r\nOn 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. The Strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. This target will focus the efforts of road safety partners across Britain, with measures to improve road design, protect vulnerable road users, and review motoring offences. All of this will be supported and monitored by a new Road Safety Board chaired by the Minister for Local Transport.\r\n\r\nRoad safety is a shared responsibility, and this strategy reflects that. It considers action needed by government, local authorities, industry, emergency services and communities to tackle the causes of collisions and save lives. By investing in infrastructure, education, and enforcement, we are taking decisive steps to make our roads safer for everyone, which will in turn reduce the risk to all animals.\r\n\r\nThis is a compassionate country and although there is no obligation to report all animal deaths on roads, drivers should, if possible, make enquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals, such as cats, and advise them of the situation.\r\n\r\nUnder section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a driver is required to stop and report an accident involving specified animals including horses, cattle, ass, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats or wild animals. This requirement arises from their status as working animals rather than as domestic pets. To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170, would require primary legislation. (Note that certain legislation still uses the word ‘accident’, although the preferred terms are collision or crash.)\r\n\r\nBecause cats are much smaller than other specified animals, and often most active at dawn or dusk, in many cases drivers may not be aware they’ve hit them – particularly with larger vehicles. Because of that, it would be difficult to prosecute drivers if the law was changed.\r\n\r\nIn June 2024, the Government introduced compulsory cat microchipping to help reunite lost and stray cats. All cats in England over 20 weeks of age must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless exempt or free-living. The legislation is intended to improve pet welfare by increasing the likelihood of reuniting lost or stray pet cats with their keepers. Defra works closely with stakeholders to communicate pet microchipping requirements to the public.\r\n\r\nDefra has also commissioned a research project to understand the operational challenges that currently prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision. The project will provide an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities and is due to report later this year.\r\n\r\nAs set out in the Animal welfare strategy for England, DEFRA will work with the pet microchip database industry to develop improvements to the way the microchipping regime currently operates to make it easier for vets and other users to access records digitally and improve the accuracy of data. DEFRA will also continue to support the roll out of cat microchipping.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.973Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:25.431Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751839,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751839.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children","background":"The government is aware of the potential irreversible impact (physical and emotional) of puberty blockers, having acknowledged an 'unacceptable safety risk’ following the Cass Review. Yet, hundreds of children are about to be given puberty blockers under a government-sanctioned trial.","additional_details":"We want this trial to be cancelled. We believe that the answer for children feeling dis-ease in their bodies (many of whom are autistic) is the passage of time and natural progression of puberty, coupled with explorative therapy. We believe that the answer is never medicalisation that can harm brain development, bone growth, sexual functioning, and lead to infertility, and that to put children on a path towards such harm is the antithesis of safeguarding.\r\nLet us not be written into history as the country that knowingly harmed vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":145587,"created_at":"2025-11-24T21:03:09.099Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:45:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T10:02:29.663Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-24T21:14:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T12:25:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T07:34:10.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"James Esses","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-02","summary":"We are following the expert advice of the Cass Review to establish a clinical trial to determine the relative benefits and harms of puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence.","details":"It is essential for the Government and the NHS to be guided by expert clinical advice and act with caution and care when it comes to supporting children and young people living with gender incongruence. The independent Cass Review concluded that the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, and that there is not enough clinical evidence for the safe and effective routine use of puberty suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence in under-18s. For that reason, this Government supported and extended indefinitely the ban on their use outside of research. Despite these restrictions, some young people are going to great lengths to source these drugs from unregulated providers, in the absence of scientific evidence.\r\n\r\nThe Cass Review recommended that a programme of research be established to underpin the design and delivery of NHS gender care. It specifically recommended this include a clinical trial into puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence. This recommendation addresses the lack of evidence about the relative benefits and harms of this treatment option, particularly when provided alongside an updated model of NHS care incorporating holistic assessment and a comprehensive and tailored package of psychosocial support.\r\n \r\nThe study protocol is available on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) website: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR167530\r\n\r\nThe bar for a UK clinical trial to be approved is extremely high, with the PATHWAYS trial going through rigorous rounds of scientific, clinical, ethical and regulatory review. It was approved by an independent NIHR funding committee. The final protocol was subject to rigorous approval processes through both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority – including review by an independent Research Ethics Committee. \r\n\r\nThe Commission on Human Medicines also considered information on the trial in detail and made recommendations that were considered and adopted by the study team. With the strongest safeguards possible, a trial of this kind is the only way to build a sufficiently high-quality evidence base to inform decisions on the future use of this treatment option for this vulnerable and distressed group of young people.\r\n\r\nProtecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is the primary concern and there are strict eligibility criteria in place to join the PATHWAYS clinical trial. Parental consent is an integral component, with the parent needing to not only agree to their child’s involvement but also demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, and what is currently known and unknown about its effects. Informed assent from the child will also be required. This will include the young person explaining in their own words to the clinician what the risks are and what they understand by those risks. \r\n\r\nThe only children to get to that stage will have already been diagnosed with gender incongruence for at least two years, will have received tailored psychosocial support, and will have been deemed clinically appropriate, within the context of the study, by both their NHS care team and the National Multi-Disciplinary Team. They will also have had to be assessed as being in stable physical and mental health.\r\n\r\nThose young people receiving (or not receiving) puberty suppressing hormones will continue to receive other elements of routine support and treatment provided as part of newly established NHS Children and Young People’s Gender Services, whose practices have been shaped by the recommendations of the Cass Review. Participants can leave the trial at any time, at which point they would receive support in their withdrawal from puberty suppression as well as ongoing psychosocial support from NHS services.\r\n\r\nHealthcare must always be led by evidence. Puberty suppression has been provided in the past with insufficient evidence, and young people have been left to go without the support and care that they need. This Government is determined to change that, and it is only through evidence-based research that we can determine the most effective way to support these young people. We believe that children and young people with gender incongruence have the same right to participate in ethically-approved research, and to receive evidence-based care, as any other group of individuals seeking the support of the NHS.\r\n\r\nFinally, it is important to reiterate that gender incongruence is an internationally recognised disorder. It is defined in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision as “a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex”. It does not describe girls and boys experimenting with gender norms, which for many children is a normal part of growing up. These important differences are properly understood and reflected in the new model of care being provided by the NHS.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.266Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T13:22:52.439Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":731574,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/731574.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund mandatory neurodevelopmental screening for all children","background":"Screening could take place in primary care, including GP appointments, health visitor reviews, and school entry health at key developmental stages. It should involve early, trauma-informed, and identity-safe screening tools, with clear referral pathways, follow-up support, and outcomes monitored.","additional_details":"We think mandatory neurodevelopmental screening could mean:\r\n• Earlier recognition of children who need support\r\n• Better outcomes in school, home, and mental health\r\n• A shift from crisis response to prevention.\r\n\r\nWe believe Parliament must act now to protect future generations from preventable harm. Neurodivergent children deserve to be seen — not after a crisis, but from the start.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":29405,"created_at":"2025-06-26T00:29:08.357Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T21:29:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-01T15:11:34.254Z","closed_at":"2026-02-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-29T07:47:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-30T10:33:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-28T16:35:44.345Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-28","summary":"The government recognises the need for early intervention and support for children. At present the evidence does not support neurodevelopmental screening for all children.","details":"We know many people, including children and young people, with suspected neurodevelopmental conditions experience severe delays in accessing services, including assessments and support. We want to move to earlier identification and support. The government’s 10 Year Health Plan recognises the need for early intervention and support.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) ADHD guidelines (NG87) recommend that ‘universal screening for ADHD should not be undertaken in nursery, primary and secondary schools’. Evidence underpinning the recommendation concludes that there is little to no effect in introducing a universal screening programme in educational settings on children’s ADHD symptoms. Similarly, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) published a review of screening for autism in pre-school children under the age of five in February 2023. They concluded, based on the available evidence, that ‘the UK NSC does not currently recommend screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in pre-school children under 5 years’, due to concerns about the accuracy of current screening tools and a lack of evidence that children diagnosed through universal screening have better long-term health or social outcomes than those identified through clinical pathways.\r\n\r\nWe recognise that demand for neurodevelopment assessments has increased significantly in England, which means people of all ages are experiencing delays in accessing the help they need. Through the NHS Medium Term Planning Framework, published 24 October 2025, NHS England has set clear expectations for local integrated care boards and trusts to improve access, experience and outcomes for autism and ADHD services over the next three years, focusing on improving quality and productivity.\r\n\r\nThe government is currently carefully considering the recommendations made by the report of the independent ADHD taskforce, commissioned by NHS England in 2024. The report recommended improvements in the early identification of neurodivergent children and young people so that personalised support can be implemented to prevent escalating needs. The report is available at the following link: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/report-of-the-independent-adhd-taskforce/ \r\n\r\nBuilding on the work of the taskforce, the government is also working to better understand why demand is rising and how to make sure people get the right support at the right time. On 4 December 2025, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care launched an Independent Review into Prevalence and Support for Mental Health Conditions, ADHD and Autism. This independent review will inform our approach to enabling people with ADHD and autistic people of all ages to have the right support in place to enable them to live well in their communities. The final report will be published in the summer.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-28T16:35:44.342Z","updated_at":"2026-01-28T16:35:44.342Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751174.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Appoint a Maternity Commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies","background":"A 2024 parliamentary birth trauma inquiry recommended a Maternity Commissioner be appointed alongside a National Maternity Strategy to ensure mums and their babies were safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion.","additional_details":"As mothers affected by birth trauma, we believe the government should make this appointment to help restore confidence in maternity services which is why we are launching this petition.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":146750,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:39:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T18:31:24.854Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-19T13:11:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T18:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-28T11:38:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-28","summary":"The Government has commissioned an independent Investigation into maternity and neonatal care, which makes recommendations this spring. There are no current plans to appoint a Maternity Commissioner.","details":"While the vast majority of births in England are safe, the Government recognises that there are failings in care, including failure to learn from mistakes and provide accountability to families. These issues, coupled with stark inequalities in maternity outcomes and experience for women and babies from ethnic backgrounds and those living in more deprived areas, demonstrate that there are deep-rooted issues across maternity and neonatal services.\r\n\r\nTo help the Government understand the systemic issues behind why so many women, babies and families experience unacceptable care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appointed Baroness Amos to lead a rapid, independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services in June 2025. The investigation is looking into the maternity and neonatal system nationally and will bring together the findings of past reviews into one clear national set of recommendations.\r\n\r\nThe investigation will aim to understand the lived experiences of women, babies and families in England at all stages of the maternity and neonatal care pathway, which includes postnatal care and psychological support. It will also aim to understand the experiences of staff and healthcare professionals delivering care at all stages of the pathway, and how they can best be supported in providing high-quality, safe and compassionate care. To support this work, the investigation launched a Call for Evidence on 20 January 2026, which has been developed following extensive insight and feedback from families. This is a survey that is open for eight weeks, until 17 March 2026.\r\n\r\nIn December 2025, Baroness Amos published reflections on what she has heard so far as part of the investigation, following engagement with women and families. Her reflections highlighted ongoing issues experienced by women and families during their care, including a lack of communication, a lack of compassion and support when things go wrong, discrimination, and significant pressure on staff. The Secretary of State has agreed with Baroness Amos that the investigation will publish its final report and recommendations in spring 2026.\r\n\r\nGiven the investigation’s ongoing work to understand the systemic issues within maternity and neonatal services and to then make recommendations about how we should tackle this, the Government does not currently plan to appoint a Maternity Commissioner at this time.\r\n\r\nThe Government will shortly be launching a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. The taskforce will take forward the recommendations of the investigation to develop a new national action plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. The taskforce will also hold the system to account for improving outcomes and experiences for women and babies.\r\n\r\nFamilies’ voices will be central to the taskforce. The Secretary of State, as Chair, will allow for direct accountability – to ensure actions are implemented and issues can be raised directly with Government. The taskforce is being set up now so that it can be fully prepared to act once the investigation reports in spring.\r\n\r\nThe Government is not waiting for the investigation to report to ensure maternity and neonatal services deliver high quality care to women and babies. Immediate action is being taken to boost accountability and safety as part of the Government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future. This includes the publication of a maternal care bundle which sets out best practice standards to reduce rates of maternal mortality and morbidity, as well as a postnatal toolkit to improve the care and support offered to women after birth. These are in addition to other programmes to tackle discrimination and racism and avoidable brain injuries.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z","updated_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z"},"debate":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":710283,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/710283.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban social media for under-16s to protect children","background":"Ban social media access for under-16s. We think this could protect their mental health and childhood. Evidence shows it can cause harm, exposing children to bullying, addiction and inappropriate content. Follow Australia’s lead to prioritise their well-being. Social media can wait—childhood cannot.","additional_details":"We think the government could introduce strict age verification, legislation holding platforms accountable, and promote real-world activities and digital literacy in schools. We believe social media can harm children's development. By acting now, we think the government can protect childhood, encourage healthier habits, and ensure children are ready to navigate social media as adults.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":83242,"created_at":"2024-12-17T10:43:39.095Z","updated_at":"2026-03-01T20:28:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-29T11:10:08.929Z","closed_at":"2026-02-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-16T20:47:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T06:23:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-26T15:40:30.767Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-26","summary":"The government is launching a consultation and a national conversation to gather views and drive action to keep children safe online, including seeking views on a social media ban for children.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this important issue. This government is determined to seize the opportunities of technology and AI, so that we can shape a future that works for us all. Especially our children. But to do so, people must feel that their children are safe online. The Online Safety Act is one of the toughest regimes globally - it requires in-scope services to tackle illegal content and activity, and to protect children from harmful and age-appropriate content.\r\n\r\nWe have always said that the Act is the foundation of our approach to protecting children’s online wellbeing and safety. We know there are further concerns, and that up and down the country, parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone, what they’re seeing online and the impact this can have. We know that many parents are worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children - consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, ability to learn, and to explore the online world.\r\n\r\nWe are determined to help parents, children and young people deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing, and prepares them for the future.\r\n\r\nThat is why on the 20 January, the government announced a short, swift consultation on further measures to keep children safe online, accompanied by a national conversation.\r\n\r\nThis will include the option of banning social media for children under 16 and raising the digital age of consent – to stop companies using children’s data without their or their parents' consent.\r\n\r\nThe consultation will include a range of other options, such as whether there should be curfews overnight, breaks to stop excessive use or doom scrolling, how we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification, and action to address concerns about the use of VPNs to get around important protections.\r\n\r\nWe will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, technology companies, and – crucially – with children and young people themselves, as well as those with lived experience with these issues. This will be an evidence-based consultation, with input from independent experts.\r\n\r\nWe will also look closely at the experience in Australia and their ban on social media for under 16s.\r\n\r\nIn addition, we are also bringing forward work on broader screen time. We are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April of this year, and developing evidence-based screen time guidance for parents of children aged 5 to 16.\r\n\r\nThere is a clear consensus that there are issues to tackle in regard to children’s use of social media, however there is a difference of opinion in how children’s relationship with social media and screentime should be further tackled. This is shown by some of the most prominent voices in this field believing that a social media ban is not the right answer. This is exactly why we are consulting.\r\nThe government’s position is clear: we are acting swiftly to address the concerns that have been raised via this petition.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology","created_at":"2026-01-26T15:40:30.764Z","updated_at":"2026-01-26T15:41:19.559Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DCMS","name":"Department for Culture, Media and Sport","url":""}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":730062,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730062.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund a National Climate Resilience Plan: protect communities from climate impact","background":"From floods to extreme temperatures, climate impacts risk damaging homes, health, businesses, services, and the economy. We want Government to prioritise adaptation; fund a new Resilience Plan that works with nature and includes public education, infrastructure standards, and local funding.","additional_details":"We believe Government plans are failing us: what we see as a lack of preparation puts the UK’s life-support systems at risk and a focus on short-term fixes like concrete flood walls distract from deeper threats. We think a joined-up national strategy must include local funding, upland & urban flood prevention, community resilience, ecologically sound infrastructure, housing, health, food & water security. We believe that as risks grow, without strategic action, communities face devastation, so adaptation isn’t optional and must be a policy priority.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10850,"created_at":"2025-06-11T11:59:02.341Z","updated_at":"2026-01-26T10:37:50.707Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-02T12:05:38.427Z","closed_at":"2026-01-02T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-11T12:30:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-27T11:33:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-26T10:35:09.010Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-26","summary":"The government recognises the accelerating impacts of climate change, and is preparing to publish its National Adaptation Programme in 2028.","details":"The impacts of climate change are accelerating, and the need to strengthen the UK’s resilience is more urgent than ever. Under the Climate Change Act (2008) , the government must complete a Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) every five years, which is followed by a National Adaptation Programme (NAP), outlining how identified risks will be addressed.\r\n\r\nThe NAP provides a comprehensive framework to continually and proactively address climate risks and improve the UK’s resilience to climate impacts through effective climate adaptation interventions across sectors. These include climate impacts to nature, the built environment, infrastructure, education, health and the economy. \r\nThe government also published the Resilience Action Plan in July 2025, which set out the government’s strategic vision for a stronger and more robust UK and the steps being taken to deliver this, adopting an ‘all hazards approach’ including climate change. We do not consider a separate National Climate Resilience Plan to be necessary in addition to these frameworks. \r\n\r\nThis government is taking decisive action to improve the nation’s climate resilience. In its response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2025 Adaptation Progress Report, the government set out actions that it is taking across multiple sectors. For example, we are investing more than £2.7bn a year in this parliament in farming and nature recovery.  The government is building resilience into its foundational strategies for the environment, food and farming, it is also providing substantial investment in nature recovery schemes and flood defences. \r\n\r\nThrough Environmental Land Management schemes, we are funding actions to enhance climate resilience, soil health and sustainable food production. The government has also updated planning guidance to support Local Nature Recovery Strategies and is implementing actions on wildfire resilience and soil monitoring.\r\n \r\nWe are investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences – this record investment will benefit nearly 900,000 properties. This includes least £300 million for natural flood management – the highest figure to date for the floods programme. \r\nIn June 2025, the government published new national standards for Sustainable Drainage which encourage design to cope with changing climatic conditions.\r\n\r\nWhile significant steps have been taken to adapt to climate risks, we agree that further action is needed to meet the scale of the challenge. That is why the government has committed to setting stronger adaptation objectives to improve preparedness for climate impacts, supporting an ambitious fourth National Adaptation Programme in 2028.\r\n \r\nIn Summer 2025, Defra wrote to the Climate Change Committee (CCC) to request guidance on a minimum climate scenario and timeframe against which objectives should be developed. The government is considering the CCC’s advice, which was provided in October 2025. The government also committed in UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy (June 2025) to review existing resilience standards across critical national infrastructure sectors. Resilience standards will be considered, where appropriate, as part of setting objectives and delivery plans for the fourth NAP.\r\n\r\nClimate adaptation is a policy priority for this government, which is why the it is taking action to improve the nation’s climate resilience, safeguarding people, livelihoods and nature.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs \r\n","created_at":"2026-01-26T10:35:09.007Z","updated_at":"2026-01-26T10:36:49.506Z"},"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":750576,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750576.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Halt proposed NHS redundancies affecting 18,000 staff pending impact assessment","background":"Halt NHSE, CSU & ICB closures until government publishes: impact assessment on service continuity, cost-benefit analysis proving genuine savings, evidence the 10 Year Health Plan is deliverable with reduced workforce, & transition plans for services supporting NHS trusts and GPs","additional_details":"Up to 18k NHS staff face redundancy with no published impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis. When private companies propose mass layoffs, government intervenes - why not with the NHS? Before potentially losing expertise needed to deliver the 10 Year Health Plan, the Government needs to prove benefits to patients not consultancies and real savings. The Government risks a loss of knowledge that consultancies will cost far more to replace. We demand transparency before possibly irreversible damage takes place.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11922,"created_at":"2025-11-13T09:14:45.619Z","updated_at":"2026-03-06T16:33:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-16T12:21:51.374Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T09:30:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T10:41:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.969Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert Spearing","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-22","summary":"Initial impact assessment shows proposed cuts will deliver £1bn per annum in savings that can be channelled to the frontline. We cannot deliver NHS reform without a more efficient, streamlined centre.","details":"Upon taking office, this Government organised the biggest national conversation about the future of the NHS in its history, with events involving over 4,000 staff and members of the public and 1.9 million visits to our Change NHS website, where 250,000 experiences and ideas for change were shared. We heard a unanimous message: no-one defends the status quo. Staff and patients are crying out for desperately needed change. Since the 2012 reorganisation of the NHS we have seen worse care for patients, at soaring costs, leaving taxpayers paying more but getting less. In 2010, we spent below the OECD average on healthcare and achieved above-average outcomes. Today we spend the average and achieve worse outcomes. The size of the centre has doubled over this same period. The NHS today accounts for 38 per cent of day-to-day Government spending – a figure projected to rise to 40 per cent by the end of the decade – crowding out investment which could tackle the wider social determinants of ill health. That is unsustainable. As Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS in England found, the NHS is in a ‘critical condition’. Public satisfaction is the lowest it has ever been, millions are waiting for treatment, and the health of the nation is deteriorating. The NHS stands at a historic crossroads and the choice is stark: continue like this, making tweaks to an increasingly unsustainable model, or take a new course and reinvent the NHS through transformational change that will guarantee its sustainability for generations to come.\r\n\r\nThis Government is serious about delivering this transformational change for staff and patients through the ambitious shifts set out in the 10 Year Health Plan. A key component of this change is a more efficient and effective centre. We will simplify the NHS and remove layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, which will allow us to reinvest more into the frontline, so patients receive safe, timely care and are heard and listened to. This change is no reflection on the tireless work of professionals across the centre who have had to battle against this red tape for too long – the new leaner, more efficient, more focused centre we are building will not just work better for patients and NHS staff, but for employees of the new centre as well.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s ambition is to reduce staff numbers by up to 50 per cent across the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England (NHSE) and integrated care boards (ICBs). These reductions will be made by March 2028, with around 18,000 posts abolished and more than £1 billion per annum saved by the end of the Parliament. This is enough to fund an extra 116,000 hip and knee operations.\r\n\r\nWe are looking to remove duplication, cut bureaucracy and fundamentally change the role of the centre in the health and care system to empower the frontline. This will mean that posts that are removed are ones that are no longer needed. As such, there is no intention to cover these roles with consultants as they will no longer exist. For staff that will be impacted by this reduction in posts we are offering support in each respective organisation.\r\n\r\nOne of the core rationales for this transformation programme is to better fund and support the NHS. We know that many staff currently working in DHSC, NHSE and ICBs have relevant experience, many of them having formerly held clinical and care roles. We would encourage staff to continue to bring their expertise to bear in supporting the NHS through direct frontline roles.\r\n\r\nWe will not directly be cutting any investment to the NHS or frontline services but will give more power and autonomy to local leaders and systems. The savings made will more than offset the cost of redundancy payments. We will make every penny count from the £29 billion funding boost for the NHS announced at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the Spending Review.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, these reductions are only part of our wider programme to reform healthcare and deliver the 10 Year Health Plan. Alongside this transformation we are:\r\n•\treinventing the NHS foundation trust model, enabling some trusts to take on responsibility for a wider range of services as integrated health organisations\r\n•\ttransforming the role of ICBs so they are fully focused on strategic commissioning and building a Neighbourhood Health Service in their areas\r\n•\tdevolving responsibility for directly commissioning services out into ICBs so decisions are made closer to the communities they serve\r\n\r\nAs such, the Government cannot halt the financial and service changes needed to reform the NHS. However, it is only right that with such significant reform, we commit to carefully assessing and understanding the potential impacts. Ongoing assessment is part of the reform programme and will help ensure our decisions focus on improving patient care. The Government is committed to transparency and will consider how best to ensure the public and parliamentarians are kept informed as the programme progresses.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.967Z","updated_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.967Z"},"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":750050,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750050.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","background":"On July 4 2024, Sir Keir Starmer was elected as Prime Minister. Since then, his Government has introduced measures that were not included in the Labour Party's manifesto.","additional_details":"We believe we were misled and the obfuscation has only got worse since Starmer took power. It is time for action. We believe the Government has failed to defend our borders from the small boats. We have no confidence in the way this Government has acted. Pensioners and farmers have been directly affected by policies that were not included in Labour's manifesto.\r\n \r\nOur country cannot go on like this. Dissolve Parliament and call a General Election now!","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":193521,"created_at":"2025-11-08T22:55:44.097Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:49:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-10T16:12:30.998Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-08T23:27:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-29T07:03:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.700Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-03T22:20:40.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-16T14:38:48.150Z","creator_name":"Robert JF Barnes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"The Government holds office by virtue of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the public. There are no plans to change these arrangements.","details":"The Prime Minister can call a general election at a time of their choosing by requesting a dissolution of Parliament from the Sovereign within the five-year life of a Parliament. The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election.\r\n\r\nThis Government remains focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last General Election. Since coming into office, we have restored stability across government; and secured £340 billion of investment into our country.\r\n\r\nWages under this Government have increased more during our first year in office than under the previous 10 years of the last government. We have reduced NHS waiting lists by 225,000 and rolled out thousands of free breakfast clubs across the country. We have also increased the National Minimum Wage and our manifesto pledge to introduce an Employment Rights Act has now been passed into law.\r\n\r\nWe recognise people across the country want to see change in their everyday lives. As a result of the decisions this Government has taken, families will see £150 come off their energy bills this year, rail fares will remain frozen for the first time in 30 years and NHS prescription charges will be capped below £10.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T15:19:31.697Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":"The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Committee recognised the support that this petition has received. However, the issue raised by this petition has recently been discussed by MPs in a petitions debate on this topic.\r\n\r\nA debate took place on 12 January 2026 on e-petition 727309, “Call an immediate general election” (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727309).\r\n\r\nWatch the debate: \r\nhttps://www.youtube.com/live/9A_Mm9hZO4o\r\n\r\nRead a transcript of the debate:\r\nhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-12/debates/49F4AFFB-2D48-44D4-AE24-1DC5262CD9C7/a \r\n"},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":731994,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/731994.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to mandate offer of electronic pension transfers and higher standards","background":"You can switch banks in a week and send money instantly, so why should pension transfers take months and be so stressful? Only the government has the power to change this, so we’re asking them to take action and set clear, enforceable standards for faster, electronic pension transfers.","additional_details":"63% of savers believe delays in pension transfers hinder effective retirement planning. Yet we think some providers persist with outdated, paper-based processes. At best, we think this may cause stress and confusion. At worst, we think it may deter people from moving their money, trapping them in poor-value, or unsuitable funds.\r\n \r\nSome providers already offer secure, electronic transfers. We think it’s time to mandate this across the industry for fairer, efficient retirement savings.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":16729,"created_at":"2025-06-30T14:31:35.678Z","updated_at":"2026-01-25T00:00:17.692Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-24T15:53:03.947Z","closed_at":"2026-01-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-30T14:42:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-08T12:06:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T11:29:45.334Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"The Government recognises the importance of efficiency in the pension transfers system and is considering how to improve the pension transfer process while maintaining strong member protection. ","details":"The Government’s approach is guided by two objectives, supporting efficient transfers, and crucially, ensuring strong member protections, not least against scams. We acknowledge the calls for faster transfers, and we are exploring operational improvements to streamline processes, including the use of electronic processes which can drive real improvements.\r\n \r\nChanges driven by mandation across the market, would however, require changes to Primary legislation. We would also need to be satisfied that any changes do not weaken existing member protections or present a heightened risk of pensions fraud. Ensuring there are robust safeguards to enable members to make informed transfer choices that lead to good retirement outcomes is essential.\r\n \r\nThe last government, in November 2021, introduced the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021. The regulations were intended to better protect pension savers against the threat of pension scams by placing conditions on the statutory right to transfer, through a series of red and amber flags.\r\n\r\nA review of the regulations was published in June 2023, as agreed with the Work and Pensions Select Committee. The review concluded that although the original policy intent remains appropriate, feedback from the pensions industry suggests that the practical application of some of the provisions may have contributed to delays in certain circumstances.\r\n \r\nIn response, the Government has been working with the pensions industry to consider changes that seek to provide a smoother transfer process and proactively respond to any developing risks. DWP is planning to consult on the outcome of this work in the coming months. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-01-21T11:29:45.332Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T11:29:45.332Z"},"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":737105,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737105.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce offshore detention/mass deportation for illegal migrants","background":"The Government should seek to establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation.\r\n \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"The UK is facing unprecedented levels of illegal migration, particularly through small boat crossings. We believe current use of hotels and temporary accommodation is unsustainable, costly and dangerous.\r\n\r\nWe believe that establishing offshore detention centres would act as a strong deterrent, prevent absconding, and allow for the swift processing and removal of those who enter illegally.\r\n \r\nWe consider the detention and mass deportation of all illegal migrants in the UK is a necessity.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":717885,"created_at":"2025-08-11T15:09:44.204Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:49:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-12T15:58:14.530Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-11T15:38:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-15T09:19:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.426Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-15T14:50:20.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rupert Lowe","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-21","summary":"This Government is doing whatever it takes to secure our borders; though offshore detention is costly and impractical, the most sweeping asylum reforms in a generation are being introduced. ","details":"We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders. We believe the number of small boat crossings are shameful and the British people deserve better. To restore order and control to our borders, on 17 November 2025, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in decades, removing incentives that bring illegal migrants to the UK and scaling up and easing the return of those with no right to be here. More information on these major changes can be found here - \r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement. \r\n\r\nThese reforms will end the UK’s asylum ‘golden ticket’ which has drawn migrants from safe countries across Europe. We are taking a new approach to refugee protection in the UK, which marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection, and towards a more basic, and temporary protection, which we call ‘core protection’ lasting only until a refugee can safely return home. Refugee status will become temporary, reviewed every 30 months, with a 20-year path to settlement, ensuring long-term commitment and integration. \r\n\r\nTo reduce other pull factors, we have increased illegal working arrests and raids to the highest level in British history, so that there is nowhere to hide. The number of raids has soared by 77% in the UK since the Government came to power, with 17,400 raids made to dodgy businesses - such as nail bars or barbers – leading to an 83% rise in arrests (July 2024 to end of 2025). This major uplift and over 12,300 arrests were made possible by a £5 million funding boost last year for Immigration Enforcement, to pursue this criminality. The crackdown builds on other work to reduce the lure of illegal working that gangs use to sell spaces on small boats.\r\n\r\nOn small boats, our partnership with France led to 20,000 fewer crossings in 2025, and this Government’s landmark UK-France returns agreement means those arriving risk immediate detention and removal. Since this pilot was introduced over 150 people have been removed in this way. To further reduce arrivals, we are giving police new stronger powers to act earlier to disrupt and take down the operations of criminal smuggling gangs.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, 50,000 illegal migrants have been removed or deported from British soil since July 2024 - a 23% increase compared to the previous 16-month period before July 2024. We shall go further by returning people to countries that are now safe – eg Syria – and by returning families with no right to be here. As part of this, we are reforming human rights laws so that in deportation cases involving ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the British public interest is given an appropriate weight. We are working closely with international partners to reform interpretation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) so it is limited to the most serious forms of ill-treatment in the first place. \r\n\r\nTo ease removals, this Government will stop at nothing to secure cooperation from all countries to ensure swift and efficient return of those with no right to be in the UK. Where countries fail to cooperate, action will follow, including, where necessary, the use of visa penalties. The UK has already threatened such action on Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Namibia, due to historical poor cooperation. This has already resulted in improvements to cooperation from Namibia and Angola, while the UK has imposed a first set of visa measures on DRC targeting VIPs and diplomatic passport holders. The UK keeps such cooperation under constant review, and will not hesitate to take further such action, where required.\r\n\r\nThis Government is furious at the number of asylum hotels in this country. We will close every one by the end of this Parliament. Progress is already being made: from over 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, there are now fewer than 200 in use. We are working to move asylum seekers to more suitable sites such as disused military bases, to ease pressure on our communities. \r\n\r\nThis Government is restoring order and control to our borders.\r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.423Z","updated_at":"2026-01-21T09:39:01.423Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737608,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737608.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change law around box junctions to give drivers more leniency","background":"A report suggested that many yellow boxes are bigger than they need to be, on average by 50%. We believe the current rules may be abused by some authorities to raise revenue with no evidence of any benefits to traffic flow. Change law to give drivers more leniency with the suggestions below:","additional_details":"1) A 10sec grace period for PCNs\r\n2) An exemption for turning vehicles that are not causing an obstruction\r\n3) An amendment to the TSRGD to require yellow boxes to be no bigger than necessary & to only allow them at signalised junctions\r\n4) Require all existing and new yellow boxes to have traffic orders so they are subject to consultation\r\n5) Amend the highway code so the wording replicates the law ie the TSRGD.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12995,"created_at":"2025-08-14T14:20:58.281Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:37:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-06T12:39:52.823Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-17T18:14:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-03T00:02:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-19T12:03:19.098Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sam Wright","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-19","summary":"Local authorities determine the size of yellow box markings and road users can raise appeals against enforcement. The Government sees no need to change the regulations for these markings.","details":"Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide appropriate traffic management schemes for their roads including yellow box markings. They have detailed knowledge of their road junctions and are best placed to model traffic flow improvements for a given box junction design. \r\n\r\nThe Department has published guidance in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual on the design, layout and suitability of these markings. \r\nWhile this can assist with complying with the mandatory requirements, it cannot provide a definitive legal interpretation, nor can it override them. This remains the prerogative of the courts in relation to the appearance and use of specific road markings at specific locations. Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual is available here: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual. \r\n\r\nThe request for a 10 second grace period before a PCN is issued is a long period of time in traffic flow terms. This will inevitably delay opposing arm traffic from crossing the junction and prevent efficient queue clearance. In affect this grace period would undermine the purpose of the yellow box marking.\r\n\r\nIn relation to an exemption for turning vehicles that are not causing an obstruction, it would be difficult to determine when obstruction was not occurring given the dynamic nature of traffic movements and signal phasing at junctions. It is likely that a turning vehicle stopped in the box would obstruct flow in the same way as a vehicle making a straight-ahead manoeuvre.\r\n\r\nEvery junction is unique and only local authorities can assess how vehicle movements influence blocking back at a particular junction. Only they can determine what size constitutes necessary. It is therefore not possible to legislate for a minimum ‘necessary’ size. Half box markings are used at side road T-junctions which are not normally signalised. The request to only allow them at signalised junctions would prevent their use at these locations. This would have a detrimental effect on traffic turning in or out of the side road.\r\n\r\nYellow box markings are prescribed in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) which include the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This reduces bureaucracy for local authorities and cost to residents. The Department has no plans to change this arrangement and require local authorities to raise their own individual TROs. Reverting to this system would place undue burden on local authorities.\r\n\r\nThe Department has no plans to amend the wording in the Highway Code. The Highway Code is intended to provide clear guidance to road users in plain language, while TSRGD sets out the legal requirements for traffic signs. It uses precise legalese necessary for legislation and as a result uses different terminology to explain that a driver “must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction”. Whereas the Highway Code give guidance to achieve this by saying “do not enter the box unless your exit is clear”.\r\n\r\nConcerning a change to the law to give drivers more leniency; application of the law is a matter for the enforcing authority and any citizen that believes there is a case for lenient application should make their appeal to the authority and ultimately the courts. The Department does not have any involvement in this process. \r\n\r\nAuthorities must consider representations made on any grounds. If a formal representation is rejected, drivers have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator’s decision is final, and no further challenges can be made, except on a technical point of law, through an application to the High Court for judicial review. \r\nLocal authorities have discretionary powers and may cancel, refund or extend the penalty charge discount period at any stage of the appeal process (including after the adjudicator’s ruling). This consideration is, however, wholly a matter for the relevant local authority. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-01-19T12:03:19.096Z","updated_at":"2026-01-19T12:03:19.096Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":744215,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744215.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into Russian influence on UK politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK.","additional_details":"We believe recent events underscore the urgency of this issue.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":115234,"created_at":"2025-09-29T09:54:02.162Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T07:33:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-10T11:31:03.081Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-29T13:41:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-23T16:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.678Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T16:11:30.000Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-09","debate_outcome_at":"2026-02-10T09:28:07.173Z","creator_name":"Alexander Proctor","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-15","summary":"Russian interference threats to the UK will be examined as part of the Independent Review of Foreign Financial Interference. Review findings will be presented to the House for scrutiny in late March.","details":"The Government shares the public's concern regarding the threat from Russian interference to UK democracy. The Government will not tolerate attempts to interfere in our politics from any foreign actor and we will take all measures necessary to defend our democracy.\r\n\r\nThe UK Government has already announced an independent review, in light of the deeply concerning evidence of Russia’s attempt to influence democracy in the UK. In December 2025, the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to lead the independent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics, including efforts by Russia. The review will thoroughly assess current financial rules and safeguards, and provide recommendations to mitigate future interference risks. This will include an examination of recent cases of attempted interference in UK politics by a range of foreign actors, including events surrounding the conviction of Reform UK’s former Wales leader, Nathan Gill, for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian views. \r\n\r\nReview conclusions will directly inform the major reforms to protect our elections from foreign interference, which will be set out in a forthcoming elections and democracy bill, and support the Government’s Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan, which aims to make UK politics a harder target for foreign threat actors.\r\n\r\nLaunching a new, parallel inquiry at this time would be premature as it would risk prejudging the conclusions of the ongoing review and duplicating its efforts. However, the Government will present the findings of the report by the end of March providing an opportunity for further scrutiny and debate.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z","updated_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-09/debates/F9F28AFA-E1F3-449C-B18B-63DDCABC411E/RussianInfluenceOnUKPoliticsAndDemocracy","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/BXlk5ufZTDM?si=Fh9-aPCwUVHnhcBM&t=240","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/CDP-2026-0021/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727016,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727016.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide funding for a nationwide, nature-rich river corridor network.","background":"Support farmers and landowners to make space for water with more, easily accessible funding schemes. We call on government to commit to providing financial incentives to help farmers create & maintain connected land along all river corridors (with buffers, wetlands, riparian tree planting) at scale.","additional_details":"Many UK rivers are heavily altered from their natural state & can have difficulty handling our changing environment. This can have potentially disastrous consequences for people & nature. For rivers to provide us with essential benefits, we think they urgently need space to recover. Connected, natural areas of land along river corridors can offer this space, and could help to: restore rivers; improve water quality; offer flood/drought resilience; boost biodiversity and help safeguard food production.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10420,"created_at":"2025-05-08T12:48:29.051Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T14:43:54.882Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-04T09:23:53.204Z","closed_at":"2025-12-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-08T13:20:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-12T11:37:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-14T11:15:08.041Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-14","summary":"We are investing in ELM schemes, supporting buffers, wetlands, tree planting and river restoration. We are protecting or restoring 20,000 kilometres of watercourses and investing in flood protection.","details":"As a result of the June 2025 Spending Review, Defra secured a strong financial settlement. We are directing over £7 billion directed into nature’s recovery. This includes environmental farming schemes, tree planting, and peatland restoration. We recently published our revised Environmental Improvement Plan 2025, on Monday 1 December, which is backed by newly announced funding of £500 million for Landscape Recovery (LR) projects. These will make a significant contribution to the Environment Act and statutory net zero targets, including improving water quality, air quality, and spaces for wildlife so biodiversity can thrive, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\r\n\r\nOur Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes include the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier (CSHT), and LR. SFI includes an explicit action (BFS6) that pays for establishing and managing a minimum of 6 metres up to 12 metres wide strip beside watercourses. This has detailed rules on eligibility, management and evidence and with advice on establishment and ongoing maintenance. \r\n\r\nThe CSHT provides a number of grants which support farmers/land managers to enhance their environmental habitats, including watercourses. This includes actions such as: \r\n•\tCSW25, which directly supports the management of riparian and water edge habitats. \r\n•\tCSW12, which allows rivers to flow naturally across the floodplain to deliver benefits for biodiversity, flood and drought management and climate adaptation and wetland actions on fen, reedbed and wetland mosaics. \r\n•\tCWT13, which supports management and restoration of fen, reedbed and wetland mosaics. CWT14, which supports the creation of fen, reedbed or wetland mosaics. \r\n\r\nMore information about CSHT actions and how to apply can be found here.\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/countryside-stewardship-higher-tier-csht\r\n\r\nFor habitat strips next to watercourses, it is estimated that 550 kilometres of watercourse is protected by SFI action BFS6. A range of other buffering actions under schemes protects an additional 20,000 - 29,000 kilometres of watercourses.\r\n\r\nRound 1 of LR is taking forward 22 projects and providing funding for them to develop their proposals for the long-term restoration of nature within their respective landscapes. \r\n\r\nOne of the core aims of Round 1 is to restore England’s streams and rivers. It aims to improve water quality, biodiversity, and adapt to climate change. Through long-term, bespoke agreements projects will restore water bodies, rivers, and floodplains to a more natural state, reduce nutrient pollution, benefit aquatic species, and improve flood mitigation and resilience to climate change. At the start of the Project Development Phase, round 1 projects proposed to restore more than 700 kilometres of rivers in England.\r\n\r\nThe first project to enter into a long term agreement from round 1 was Boothby Wildland. Boothby signed their implementation agreement in June 2025, with works beginning on the ground shortly afterwards. They have already started work to convert unproductive arable land into a diverse mosaic of habitats, focusing on the reconnection of the West Glen River to its natural floodplain.\r\n\r\nFarming schemes are not the only way we are working to support rivers and tackle flooding. On 14 October, following consultation, the government announced major changes to its flood and coastal erosion funding policy. These reforms will simplify our funding rules, making it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood defences in the right places and to optimise funding between new flood projects and maintaining existing defence assets. The new approach will better support new schemes protecting rural communities by getting rid of the Partnership Funding calculator and by investing at least £300 million in natural flood management over ten years. Our upcoming White Paper will also form the basis of a new Water Bill, bringing in reforms which will secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-01-14T11:15:08.038Z","updated_at":"2026-01-14T11:17:02.974Z"},"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":730292,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730292.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change the DDA 1991 to stop breed bans and focus on behaviour","background":"We ask the Government to reform the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 by removing breed-specific legislation and replacing it with behaviour-based laws. We think legislation should focus on responsible ownership, training, and education to improve public safety without unfairly targeting certain dog breeds.","additional_details":"Evidence suggests breed-specific laws have not reduced dog attacks and we consider they unfairly punish dogs based on looks, not behaviour. Data shows aggression is linked to ownership and training. We believe we need effective, evidence-based laws that focus on behaviour, enforce accountability, and support public education to truly keep people safe.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":14405,"created_at":"2025-06-13T19:00:50.535Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:07:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-23T12:39:09.386Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-13T19:07:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-14T13:35:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-08T14:55:47.469Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Victoria J Marland","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-08","summary":"The ban on certain breed types under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is there to protect public safety. More broadly, the government remains committed to promoting responsible dog ownership for all dogs.","details":"The government recognises that some people are opposed to breed specific legislation. However, we must balance the views of those who want to repeal or amend breed specific legislation with our responsibility to ensure that the public is properly protected from dog attacks.\r\n\r\nSection 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits the ownership, breeding, gifting and sale of five types of dogs: the Pit Bull terrier, the Dogo Argentino, the Fila Brasileiro, the Japanese Tosa and the XL Bully. The ban of these dog breeds is there to protect public safety, and it is a criminal offence to be in possession of a banned breed type in England and Wales unless the dog is covered by a Certificate of Exemption. \r\n\r\nXL Bully type dogs were added to the list of prohibited breeds in February 2024. This decision followed an unacceptable increase in dog attacks in recent years and the disproportionate involvement of XL Bullies in this rise. This government is committed to ensuring that the ban on XL Bully dogs is fully implemented and enforced to ensure our communities are protected from dangerous dogs.\r\n\r\nIt is important to note that police and local authorities have a range of additional powers available to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, owners of any dog that is dangerously out of control are breaking the law, regardless of breed. Any dog that is dangerously out of control can be euthanised, and the owner could be put in prison for up to 14 years and banned from ever owning a dog. Community Protection Notices and Public Space Protection Orders can also be used to address anti-social behaviour involving dogs. \r\n\r\nOn wider responsible dog ownership, Defra is working with the police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks. We will do this together by encouraging responsible dog ownership, making sure dog control issues are addressed before they escalate, and using the full force of the law where needed. \r\nAs part of this work, the government has reconvened the Responsible Dog Ownership Taskforce to explore measures to promote responsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. Ministers will be receiving its findings and recommendations in due course. \r\n\r\nThis work includes considering the role of education and training, for both dogs and their owners, in reducing the risk of dog attacks. The Department is also looking at improving its data collection and recording so it is in a better position to take action. \r\n\r\nThe Department will continue this work and do its utmost to reduce the risk to people and communities from dangerous dogs.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ","created_at":"2026-01-08T14:55:47.466Z","updated_at":"2026-01-08T14:55:47.466Z"},"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":735586,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/735586.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not remove Sport England as a statutory consultee for planning applications","background":"For the Government to ensure strong safeguards for playing fields, pitches and community sports facilities by maintaining Sport England’s status as a statutory consultee for planning applications involving playing fields.","additional_details":"We think removing Sport England as a statutory consultee would remove vital safeguards which protect playing fields and pitches from development, reduce its' capability to advise/support local authorities, and secure adequate provision of essential community sports facilities. Research from the Sport and Recreation Alliance shows that playing fields and pitches deliver nearly £2bn in improved wellbeing every year and help nearly 4 million people to be active, of which at least 1 million are children.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":34281,"created_at":"2025-07-31T11:29:30.421Z","updated_at":"2026-02-22T21:05:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-21T14:28:59.513Z","closed_at":"2026-02-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-31T12:57:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-09T11:06:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-08T14:10:33.484Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-08","summary":"The government is consulting on reforms to the statutory consultee system. No decision will be made on Sport England’s role until feedback on the proposals has been fully reviewed.","details":"The government is committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended. Playing fields and community sports facilities are crucial to our ambitions to increase physical activity levels across the nation and build a healthy society.\r\n\r\nThe government is clear that the planning system should promote the creation of healthy and inclusive places. We are currently consulting on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including policies relating to playing fields. \r\n\r\nThe consultation proposes to retain strong policy safeguards against the loss of community facilities, including open space, sport and recreation facilities, and also seeks views on whether these protections should be extended to other formal and informal play space and allotments. \r\n\r\nThe consultation on changes to the NPPF is available here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system) and will remain open for responses until 10 March 2026.\r\n\r\nThe government recognise that Sport England play an important role in the planning application process and provide expert advice on sport and physical activity and supporting grassroot sport in communities.\r\n\r\nThe government is currently consulting on reforms to the statutory consultee system. This consultation relates specifically to those statutory consultees that are governed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The consultation asks for views on the impacts of removing the statutory consultee status of Sport England.\r\n\r\nNo decision will be made until we have fully considered feedback to the consultation. Regardless of the outcome of that process, Sport England will continue to engage through public consultation and targeted notifications in the planning process.\r\n\r\nOur consultation also proposes a new notification requirement, where local planning authorities would be required to notify Sport England where an application would result in the wholesale or substantial loss of playing fields.\r\n\r\nIt further outlines that the government will work with Sport England to develop updates to Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-Decision matters to ensure ‘agent of change’ issues are considered where relevant. These occur when new development may impact negatively on the existing use of playing fields. We also consider that there is a role for Sport England in developing guidance for local planning authorities, to support their consideration of planning applications and playing fields.\r\n\r\nThe consultation on reforms to the statutory consultee system is available here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforms-to-the-statutory-consultee-system) and will remain open for comments until 13 January 2026. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-01-08T14:10:33.479Z","updated_at":"2026-01-08T14:11:02.322Z"},"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":740004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740004.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Label ALL meat as Religiously Slaughtered or Non-Religiously Slaughtered","background":"We want the Government to create a law requiring all meat to have a label, such as a simple RS (Religiously Slaughtered) or NRS (Not religiously slaughtered), that states whether it has been religiously slaughtered or not.","additional_details":"We think that labelling meat as ‘stunned’ or ‘not stunned’ is not adequate because when meat has been subject to a ‘recoverable stun’, the throat is slit and the animal may wake up in excruciating pain to hear the religious blessing, unable to vocalise its distress.\r\n\r\nI am concerned that religiously slaughtered meat, using inhumane methods, is entering the food chain and is being sold to people who may object to the method of slaughter, without it being labelled.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":48622,"created_at":"2025-09-03T16:39:43.630Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T08:42:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-29T12:40:14.512Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-03T19:40:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-04T15:39:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-07T15:44:23.587Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Anthony Stacey","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-07","summary":"There are no requirements to label meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. Where information of this nature is provided it must be accurate and must not be misleading.","details":"The government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. \r\n\r\nThe first national legislative requirement for stunning before slaughter in England and Wales was the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933. The Act also introduced an exception from the requirement to stun when animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for the food of Muslims and Jews. A significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter.\r\n\r\nThere are detailed protections in legislation to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering when being slaughtered. Animals are stunned to make them unconscious and insensible to pain and slaughtermen are required to check that animals do not present any signs of consciousness in the period between being stunned and death.\r\n\r\nOfficial Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are present in all approved slaughterhouses to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. When the FSA identifies breaches, they are fully investigated, and appropriate and proportionate action is taken to protect animal welfare.\r\n\r\nThere are no regulations that require the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. However, where any information of this nature is provided it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. It is for religious authorities to decide if meat is halal or kosher. The Government has no plans to introduce requirements for meat to be labelled according to whether it comes from an animal which has been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.\r\n\r\nOn food labelling more generally, we recognise that while most consumers care about how their food is produced, the lack of consistency in food labelling makes it difficult for consumers to understand the animal welfare standards of their food and make informed purchasing decisions.\r\n\r\nAs set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, we are committed to ensuring that consumers have access to clear information on how their food was produced. To support this, we will continue working with relevant stakeholders, including the farming and food industry, scientists and NGOs to explore how improved animal welfare food labelling could provide greater consumer transparency, support farmers and promote better animal welfare.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ","created_at":"2026-01-07T15:44:23.582Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T15:44:23.582Z"},"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":749128,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/749128.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Apply to Rejoin the EU as soon as possible to increase growth in the UK","background":"We believe Brexit's not working. The OBR judges that the UK economy is smaller and trade is weaker because of Brexit, and it will just get worse. 10 years after the Brexit vote, let's apply to rejoin the EU, reverse the damage, boost growth, increase tax revenues and restore opportunities in the UK","additional_details":"The OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) March 2025 economic forecasts show the Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement will reduce long-run productivity by 4% due mainly to the increase in non-tariff barriers on trade with both imports and exports 15% lower, and that new trade deals will not have a material impact to offset this. Also that savings on payments to the EU have been absorbed by increased Government spending.\r\n\r\nIt's time to seek to rejoin the EU, remove those barriers and boost the economy.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":33777,"created_at":"2025-11-02T22:25:01.511Z","updated_at":"2026-03-07T06:32:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-08T16:33:22.767Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-02T22:44:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T19:08:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:11.829Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert McMaster","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-07","summary":"The UK will not be rejoining the EU, but this Government has reset its relationship with the EU with a new strategic partnership: A deal that is good for UK bills, borders, jobs and growth.","details":"The Government was elected in July 2024 with a clear mandate to strengthen our relationship with the EU without rejoining the Single Market, Customs Union or returning to freedom of movement. \r\n\r\nSince taking office, we have reset our relations with European partners in order to improve our diplomatic, economic, and security cooperation.\r\n\r\nOn 19 May 2025, at the first ever Summit between the UK and the EU, the Prime Minister announced a deal with the EU that will deliver on what the British public voted for last year. It’s good for bills, good for our borders, and good for jobs.\r\n\r\nThe deal we have struck will reduce trade barriers through the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, increase energy efficiency through cooperation on electricity trading, and allow a cheaper transition to net zero through linking our Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS). These measures reduce costs for businesses, meaning better prices and more choice to consumers, and they will support British jobs and livelihoods.\r\n\r\nThrough this deal, the UK has unprecedented access to the EU market – the best of any country outside the EU or EFTA. The SPS and ETS linking measures alone are set to add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040, in a significant boost for growth.\r\n\r\nOur focus for 2026 is all about driving forward. Negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027 have concluded  and we are now working to conclude negotiations on the Youth Experience Scheme, establishing a common Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)  Area and linking our Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) by the time of the next EU-UK Summit, so that businesses and consumers can benefit from the impacts of these agreements as soon as possible. \r\n\r\nThis Government is seizing the flexibility of Brexit - making the best choices for business and citizens from its position outside the EU, through significant deals with the US and India, and now a new partnership with the EU - each decision taken to support UK growth. This is making a Brexit that works for Britain.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:11.824Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T14:15:47.312Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}}]}