{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=all","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=532","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=3","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json"},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":700765,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700765.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a compensation scheme for WASPI women","background":"We call on the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women affected by the increases to their State Pension age and the associated failings in DWP communications.","additional_details":"We want the Government to urgently respond to PHSO report and set up a compensation scheme by 21 March 2025.\r\n \r\nIn March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said 1950s-born women were owed financial redress and an apology due to DWP maladministration.\r\n \r\nThe Ombudsman’s findings were backed by the cross-party Work and Pensions Select Committee, hundreds of MPs and, according to our polling, 68% of the public. However, only the Government has the power to put this injustice right.\r\n \r\nWe have calculated that with one affected woman dying every 13 minutes, there is no time for further delay.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":161788,"created_at":"2024-11-04T19:50:41.856Z","updated_at":"2026-01-22T10:18:30.348Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-21T19:15:01.127Z","closed_at":"2025-05-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-04T20:14:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-22T10:00:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-10T14:40:47.557Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-30T11:37:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-02-14","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-17","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-01T11:04:57.649Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-09","summary":"The Government is reviewing the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report and once this work has been undertaken, will be in a position to outline its approach.","details":"Changes to the State Pension age were made over a series of Acts, starting with the Pensions Act 1995 to equalise State Pension age. The Pensions Act 2007 brought forward recommendations of the Pensions Commission that the State Pension age should be increased to reflect increases in life expectancy and legislated to increase State Pension age to 68 over a thirty-year period. The Pensions Act 2011 and 2014 accelerated these timetables. In addition, the Pensions Act 2014 legislated to introduce periodic reviews of State Pension age. Each Act followed detailed consideration of the issues through public consultations.\n\nThe Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report is not about changes to the State Pension age. The PHSO have been investigating the way DWP communicated State Pension age changes from 1995 onwards impacting 1950s-born women. The Ombudsman published their report on 21 March 2024, the culmination of almost 6 years’ work.\n\nThe PHSO has laid the report before Parliament and Government is carefully considering the report. It is a serious report that requires serious consideration and the Government recognises it is important to do so as quickly as possible. In addition, there have been a number of recent debates and questions in Parliament on the issue.\n\nAs part of its consideration, the Government is listening respectfully to the women involved.  The Minister for Pensions recently met representatives from WASPI Ltd, the first Minister to do so for 8 years, and has also met with the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Inequality for Women and with the interim Ombudsman. \n\nGovernment respects the work of the Ombudsman and it is actively considering the report. Once this work has been undertaken, it will be in a position to outline its approach.\n\nThis Government is absolutely committed to supporting pensioners and giving them the dignity and security they deserve. The State Pension provides the foundation income for people in retirement.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2024-12-10T14:40:47.555Z","updated_at":"2024-12-10T14:41:14.925Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-17","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-17/debates/F7CE8F38-4762-43C3-AF9C-716F38D66A7A/Women%E2%80%99SChangedStatePensionAgeCompensation","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/ds-osLbggb0?si=Ecsxbr5wFViOnFNS&t=270","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9967/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701963,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701963.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all forms of 'geo-engineering' affecting the environment illegal","background":"We want all forms of geo-engineering to be illegal in the UK. We do not want any use of technologies to intervene in the Earth's natural systems.","additional_details":"We think there is a potential for this to negatively impact humanity, flora and fauna in the future. It has previously been said that Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) is essential to meet climate targets. We believe that this, and all other forms of geo-engineering, should be made illegal in the UK.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":160631,"created_at":"2024-11-16T13:19:25.009Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.123Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-23T11:13:28.616Z","closed_at":"2025-06-23T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-18T14:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-24T08:51:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-05-21T15:31:39.097Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-29T08:07:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-05-23","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-06-23","debate_outcome_at":"2025-06-24T09:44:29.929Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-05-21","summary":"Greenhouse Gas Removals are important for achieving net zero emissions. The Government is not in favour of using Solar Radiation Modification and has no plans for deployment. ","details":"Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government — delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy. The government’s priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.\n\nGeo-engineering is a term commonly used to refer to two types of technologies: Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).\n\nGGR technologies will be important for reaching net zero – balancing residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonise sectors, as recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee. There are commercial scale GGR projects operating and being planned around the world.\n\nGGR approaches fall broadly into two categories: 1) nature-based approaches, such as afforestation, and soil carbon sequestration, and 2) engineering-based approaches, such as Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, carbon in building materials, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering. Nature-based methods can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale while delivering a range of additional environmental benefits such as biodiversity gain, air quality and soil health. However, due to factors such as land constraints and timescales for sequestration, the evidence demonstrates that nature-based GGRs must be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale needed to meet our targets.\n\nIn February, the government announced an Independent Review to consider how GGRs can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets out to 2050. The review is not centred on any particular project and will consider all GGRs, with a focus on engineered GGR approaches. The review’s findings will be published.\n\nThe government supports the deployment of high integrity removals, and has committed to ensuring that GGRs provide measurable and verifiable removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. The government is currently working with the British Standards Institution to develop GGR methodologies. Some GGR technologies may use sustainable biomass and relevant GGR standards will also include biomass sustainability criteria. These criteria will build on the existing sustainability criteria for biomass to ensure they are based on the latest evidence base. The government plan to consult on the details of the sustainability actions set out in the Biomass Strategy published in 2023. \n\nIn March 2023, the government committed to launch a process to expand the Track-1 Carbon Capture Usage and Storage clusters: HyNet and East Coast Clusters. As of spring 2024, the Track-1 expansion HyNet process allows GGR and Power Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage projects to apply to the expansion of the HyNet cluster in the North West.  Applicants for Track-1 expansion HyNet were expected to complete an Environment Agency Guidance annex, as per the application guidance published in December 2023. This annex provides environmental considerations likely to be relevant to projects and steps they may need to take in relation to obtaining permits and consents. The Environment Agency Guidance aids the identification of key environmental risks associated with proposals and helps applicants to demonstrate awareness of potential control measures and environmental standards and regulations for the areas of risk that may be relevant to proposals.\n\nSRM describes a set of technologies that could theoretically cool the Earth by reflecting some of the Sun’s energy back into space. However, the wider consequences of SRM are poorly understood, with significant uncertainty around the possible risks and impacts of deployment. As such, the government’s position is that it is not deploying SRM and has no plans in place to do so.\n\nThe government acknowledges that the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), an independent research agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, are funding some SRM research projects through their Exploring Climate Cooling Programme. This research aims to begin gathering critical missing scientific data to better understand potential Earth cooling approaches, conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving understanding of the risks and impacts associated with cooling technologies. The programme does not fund deployment. None of the approved ARIA projects involve the release of toxic materials to the environment. This research into cooling technologies in no way alleviates the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. \n\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero","created_at":"2025-05-21T15:31:39.094Z","updated_at":"2025-05-21T15:33:50.394Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-06-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-23/debates/E84045B1-C0C7-4E08-82DE-D7CBD31AB607/Geo-EngineeringAndTheEnvironment","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/aSXuI4PaZ0o?feature=shared","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0135/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"ESNZ","name":"Department for Energy Security and Net Zero","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":747234,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/747234.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove power to cancel local government elections\r\n","background":"Change the law to remove the power of the Secretary of State to cancel any further forthcoming local government, metropolitan borough, London borough or any other elections, for example, but not limited to, those due in May 2026.","additional_details":"Ever since 1918, the right to vote is sacred and inalienable. 2025 Elections in some areas were cancelled this year. We believe any further cancellations would be voter suppression and undemocratic. The will of the people of the nation must be heard.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":154701,"closing_date":"2026-05-25","created_at":"2025-10-17T13:47:26.613Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T07:08:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-25T09:23:40.451Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-17T14:29:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-04T13:21:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-06T14:04:16.696Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-12T07:31:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-01-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:19:41.848Z","creator_name":"Dr Chris Barnes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-05","summary":"The Secretary of State’s powers in this area are set out in legislation made by Parliament and used only with strong justification. The Government has no plans to amend these powers.","details":"Parliament has conferred powers on the Secretary of State to postpone local elections under the Local Government Act 2000. While these powers sit with the Secretary of State, Parliament retains an oversight role through the statutory instrument process, ensuring democratic accountability. These powers are used infrequently.\n\nMost recently they were used in February 2025 when a statutory instrument was made to postpone the ordinary local elections due to take place in May 2025 in East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex. The instrument was made using statutory powers, laid before Parliament and debated and voted on by both Houses. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum to the 2025 statutory instrument sets out the reasons for the decision: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/137/pdfs/uksiem_20250137_en_001.pdf\n\nOn 18 December 2025, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness updated Parliament (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-18/hcws1215) that she had written to councils going through local government reorganisation that have elections scheduled for May 2026. She invited council leaders to set out their views on the postponement of local elections in their area and if they consider that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. No decisions have been made at this stage; all evidence and representations will be considered individually before any final decision. Any subsequent legislation would be subject to Parliament. The majority of local elections in 2026 are unaffected by local government reorganisation.\n\nParliament has also conferred powers on the Secretary of State to implement proposals for unitary local government under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. These powers include provision for electoral matters. Again, while these powers sit with the Secretary of State, Parliament retains an oversight role through the statutory instrument process, ensuring democratic accountability. When these powers are used, it is typical to provide for elections to the new councils and to cancel any scheduled elections to predecessor councils that otherwise would take place at the same time. We have set out our intention to use these powers to implement the proposal for two new unitary councils in Surrey. We will bring to the House, for approval, a Structural Changes Order, which will establish East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council.\n\nOn December 4 2025, the Government announced it is minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that areas will have completed the local government reorganisation, and establish the strategic authority before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations and moving forward we will want to ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas access mayoral devolution.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2026-01-06T14:04:16.694Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T14:11:15.451Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-02/debates/7B0237DD-38DA-4B1B-88B1-5D5CE04FB352/PowerToCancelLocalElections","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxSHRnfUDVU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10507/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751174.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Appoint a Maternity Commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies","background":"A 2024 parliamentary birth trauma inquiry recommended a Maternity Commissioner be appointed alongside a National Maternity Strategy to ensure mums and their babies were safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion.","additional_details":"As mothers affected by birth trauma, we believe the government should make this appointment to help restore confidence in maternity services which is why we are launching this petition.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":154633,"closing_date":"2026-07-07","created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T08:01:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T18:31:24.854Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-19T13:11:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T18:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-28T11:38:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-20","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-21T15:27:53.917Z","creator_name":"Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-28","summary":"The Government has commissioned an independent Investigation into maternity and neonatal care, which makes recommendations this spring. There are no current plans to appoint a Maternity Commissioner.","details":"While the vast majority of births in England are safe, the Government recognises that there are failings in care, including failure to learn from mistakes and provide accountability to families. These issues, coupled with stark inequalities in maternity outcomes and experience for women and babies from ethnic backgrounds and those living in more deprived areas, demonstrate that there are deep-rooted issues across maternity and neonatal services.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z","updated_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-20/debates/FD803B26-6F84-45B6-8FFF-7E8E6AB29318/MaternityCommissioner","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/DcD2XNoNtss","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10447/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700138,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700138.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Don't change inheritance tax relief for working farms","background":"We think that changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property. We urge the government to keep the current exemptions for working farms.","additional_details":"We feel that passing farms through generations is essential to UK farming. Until now, inheritance tax exemptions have made this possible by allowing farmland to pass without taxation. We think that changes to inheritance tax will harm UK farming deeply, with some farmers predicting their families will be forced out within two generations.\r\n \r\nWe think the government is framing the policy around the targeting of rich landowners, but we believe this policy will affect farming families of all sizes.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":154006,"created_at":"2024-10-31T08:23:32.044Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.193Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-13T15:43:45.501Z","closed_at":"2025-05-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-31T09:09:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-20T10:15:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.246Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-25T20:25:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-02-10","debate_outcome_at":"2025-02-25T10:40:45.253Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-05","summary":"The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. There is also an urgent need to repair the public finances in as fair a way as possible. The reform of the reliefs strikes the right balance.","details":"At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government took a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare, and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances, and support public services. These were tough decisions given the situation inherited by the Government, but it has done so in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.  \n\nInheritance tax is paid on the estate (the property, money, and possessions) of someone who has died. The most recent four years’ worth of data show that amongst agricultural property relief claims, including those that also claimed business property relief, 47 per cent of the total Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top seven per cent of claims. It is not fair to maintain such a significant relief for a very small number of claimants, when this money could better be used to fund our public services. \n\nThat is why from 6 April 2026, the full 100 per cent relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above this amount, there will be 50 per cent relief so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate up to 20 per cent, rather than the standard 40 per cent. The new system remains more generous than it has been in the past: the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50 per cent on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. \n\nThis is on top of the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax too. This means that a couple with farmland, depending on their circumstances, can typically pass on up to £3 million to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax. \n\nFull exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners continue to apply. This means that any agricultural and business assets left to a spouse or civil partner will be tax free.  \n\nAny transfers to individuals more than 7 years before death as gifts will continue to fall fully outside the scope of inheritance tax. Any tax related to these assets can be paid in instalments over 10 years interest free and it means landowners will not necessarily need to sell land or other assets. \n\nThe reforms are expected to result in up to around 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim for business property relief, paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. This means almost three-quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim for business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27.  \n\nThese are projections based on HMRC inheritance tax administrative data relating to previous years, which illustrate the distribution of claims where 100 per cent relief has been available on agricultural and business property. It is not possible to accurately infer a future inheritance tax liability from data on farm asset values. The number and value of affected estates, meaning how many estates making relief claims that would pay more inheritance tax as a result of the change, is affected by who the owners are, how many owners there are, any borrowing they have, and how they plan their affairs. \n\nThese reforms should also be seen in the broader context of the significant existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. This includes the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels, and the exemption from the plastic packaging tax for the plastic film used by farmers to produce silage bales. Furthermore, farmers are able to add together their profits from farming for two years or five years and be taxable on the average of those profits, building flexibility into their tax arrangements for difficult years.\n\nMore broadly, the Government’s decisions at Autumn Budget 2024 provide £5 billion over two years for farming and land management in England which will restore stability and confidence in the sector, strengthening food security alongside nature’s recovery. This includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our country’s history. Despite the difficult fiscal inheritance, £60 million of funding has also been prioritised for the Farm Recovery Fund to support farmers with the impact of severe wet weather over the last year. \n\nThe Government’s commitment to farmers and the vital role they play in feeding our nation remains steadfast. There is also an urgent need to repair the public finances, but the Government has maintained very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others. The Government believes the approach to reform strikes the right balance between providing significant tax relief to farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.241Z","updated_at":"2024-12-05T09:10:39.241Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-02-10","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-02-10/debates/94821BE4-8215-4D8D-93E1-77F786B3ABD4/InheritanceTaxReliefFarms","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/g6bSH3jCJ48?t=282s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10181/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755980,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the evidence and fund the addition of SMA to the Newborn Screening Test","background":"We urge the UK Government to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test. SMA is a rare genetic condition with devastating consequences if not treated early. Every baby should be screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.","additional_details":"SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality: up to 90% of untreated babies either died before age two or required permanent ventilation. It is now treatable, but treatment is most effective before symptoms appear. Early diagnosis can give babies the chance at a life without severe disability. Without screening, many babies are diagnosed too late. The damage already caused to their mobility, breathing and swallowing cannot be reversed. Scotland has committed to piloting SMA newborn screening this year. All babies should have the same chance. No child should suffer avoidable harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":149385,"closing_date":"2026-08-09","created_at":"2026-01-04T20:34:00.006Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T08:01:30.000Z","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","debate_scheduled_on":null,"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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\nThere are a number of areas where evidence gaps exist which an ISE of newborn screening for SMA will help to fill:\n\n1. Feasibility\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.\n\n2. Acceptability\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.\n\n3. Effectiveness\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\n1. Cost-effectiveness\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:\n\n• costs involved in screening \n• clinical effectiveness of presymptomatic and symptomatic treatment and the impact of diagnostic delay on presymptomatic babies\n• long-term effectiveness of treatment\n• how accurate the screening tests are \n• which treatments patients receive and how effective these treatments are \n• incidence of SMA in the UK\n\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.\n\nThe planning and development of the ISE is being overseen by a partnership board that includes:\n\n• screening experts from the four UK governments and from the NHS\n• stakeholder organisations interested in newborn screening for SMA\n• clinicians\n• academics\n• genomic experts\n• patient and public voice representatives\n\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.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\n\nThis is a revised response submitted by the Government. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980","created_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.878Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T17:26:11.952Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751839,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751839.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children","background":"The government is aware of the potential irreversible impact (physical and emotional) of puberty blockers, having acknowledged an 'unacceptable safety risk’ following the Cass Review. Yet, hundreds of children are about to be given puberty blockers under a government-sanctioned trial.","additional_details":"We want this trial to be cancelled. We believe that the answer for children feeling dis-ease in their bodies (many of whom are autistic) is the passage of time and natural progression of puberty, coupled with explorative therapy. We believe that the answer is never medicalisation that can harm brain development, bone growth, sexual functioning, and lead to infertility, and that to put children on a path towards such harm is the antithesis of safeguarding.\r\nLet us not be written into history as the country that knowingly harmed vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":147629,"closing_date":"2026-07-08","created_at":"2025-11-24T21:03:09.099Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T08:14:30.000Z","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","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":"2026-05-12T12:08:58.976Z","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.\n\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.\n\nThe study protocol is available on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) website: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR167530\n\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. \n\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.\n\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. \n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.266Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T13:22:52.439Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-23/debates/D6758513-7EB3-45DF-B0D9-E3C3BE3A3A97/PubertyBlockersClinicalTrial","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHa3B2PiX60&t=22s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10534/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":707189,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/707189.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Tighten the rules on political donations","background":"We want the government to:\r\nRemove loopholes that allow wealthy foreign individuals to make donations into UK political parties (e.g. by funnelling through UK registered companies).\r\n\r\nCap all donations to a reasonable amount.\r\n\r\nReview limits on the fines that can be levied for breaking the rules","additional_details":"We think that ultra-rich individuals or foreign state actors should not be able to use their money to give unfair advantage to a political party in order to further their own agenda.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":144783,"created_at":"2024-12-02T10:01:56.641Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T16:30:48.949Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-01-22T10:51:59.451Z","closed_at":"2025-07-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-02T21:13:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-25T22:37:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-02-26T17:21:11.949Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-28T17:20:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-02-27","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-31","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-02T10:39:37.385Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-26","summary":"The Government is committed to protecting our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties and is currently developing proposals to give effect to this commitment.","details":"The UK has a strong political finance framework which makes it clear that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations. Foreign donations are not permitted, with the exception of donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Irish political parties. This recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence.\n\nWhile it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognises the continued risk posed by actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. We do not think the current rules are strong enough. That is why we made the commitment in our manifesto to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties.\n\nThere are currently no plans to put a cap on donations. Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they are able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate. By law it is already the responsibility of political parties to take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible.  The Government will take any necessary steps to ensure those requirements are tightened and abided by.\n\nThe Electoral Commission plays an important role in the UK’s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for promoting public confidence in democratic processes, ensuring their integrity, and combatting the threat of foreign interference. As part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we are also reviewing whether any changes are required to the role and powers of the regulator to ensure enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law whilst remaining proportionate.\n\nThe Government is currently developing proposals to give effect to these commitments and will introduce legislative measures in due course. In doing so, we are carefully considering evidence from a range of stakeholders, including recommendations from parliamentary committees and the Electoral Commission.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","created_at":"2025-02-26T17:21:11.939Z","updated_at":"2025-02-26T17:23:51.559Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-31","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-31/debates/9423D9DE-9B8F-453B-B92B-DA0C40758AC9/PoliticalDonations","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/Au9ERa9wE1c?si=U9p72hCgQGsctZrn&t=200","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0052/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700005,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700005.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible","background":"I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability & freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn't brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.","additional_details":"I think the Single Market would bring inward investment, frictionless trade and economic growth benefiting industry and consumers alike.\r\n\r\nFull membership could also amplify the UK’s voice on the global stage, allowing it to influence EU policy and regulations, including trade, security and environment.\r\n\r\nJoining the EU could provide access to science & research projects and give UK citizens the right to live, work & study across member states, enhancing cultural exchange & personal opportunities.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":136650,"created_at":"2024-10-30T14:28:44.914Z","updated_at":"2025-09-17T17:13:14.611Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-10-31T17:46:29.187Z","closed_at":"2025-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T14:52:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-07T02:09:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-11-19T14:28:18.247Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-11T17:25:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-02-27","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-24","debate_outcome_at":"2025-04-17T17:46:46.227Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-11-19","summary":"The Government was elected on a manifesto that made clear there will be no return to EU membership. However, we are determined to reset the UK-EU relationship, putting it on a more solid footing.","details":"Since taking office this Government has been working to reset the relationship with our European friends. As part of this, the Government aims to strengthen ties, secure a broad-based security pact and tackle barriers to trade with the EU.\n\nThe President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister have met several times and have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and UK. This is not about renegotiating or relitigating Brexit, but about looking forward and realising the potential of the UK-EU relationship.\n\nIn particular, we want to work closely to address wider global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices, which pose fundamental challenges to the shared values of the United Kingdom and the European Union and provide the strategic driver for stronger cooperation.\n\nThere will be issues which are difficult to resolve, as well as areas on which we will stand firm. We have been clear we are not going back to the arguments of the past; we are not rejoining the single market or customs union and we will not return to freedom of movement. But we are committed to finding constructive ways to work together and deliver for the British people. This means we will respect international law and shared institutions. We are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. And we are committed to staying in the ECHR.\n\nWe will now work with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen cooperation for mutual benefit, such as the economy, energy, security and resilience. We have been clear that the trading relationship can be improved. We have already said we will seek to negotiate a veterinary/SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food and will work to help our touring artists and aim to secure mutual recognition for professional qualifications to help open up new markets for UK service exporters.\n\nWe are working with the higher education sector to ensure our world leading universities continue to attract the brightest and best and support our economy. Having associated to Horizon Europe, the UK wants its scientists, researchers and businesses to continue to work together with partners in Europe and elsewhere.\n\nThis is about turning the page – reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past. We will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. And we will strengthen co-operation to keep our people safe.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2024-11-19T14:28:18.240Z","updated_at":"2024-11-19T14:30:19.687Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-24/debates/843E0908-311C-4791-BB00-997E88C5665B/EuropeanUnionUKMembership","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdFBSAvAhU","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0067/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":711021,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/711021.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Retain legal right to assessment and support in education for children with SEND","background":"Support in education is a vital legal right of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We ask the government to commit to maintaining the existing law, so that vulnerable children with SEND can access education and achieve their potential.","additional_details":"It has been reported that the government is considering making changes to The Children and Families Act 2014, which sets out the legal rights to assessment and statutory support in education for disabled children. We believe that these rights do not only help vulnerable children and their families - they also reduce costs to the state in adulthood. We think that removing statutory obligations on local authorities could mean many children do not get the support they need to reach their potential.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":132789,"created_at":"2024-12-22T17:55:09.795Z","updated_at":"2025-10-15T11:27:42.401Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-09T13:48:17.393Z","closed_at":"2025-10-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-22T18:30:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-18T20:13:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-06-04T14:48:16.778Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-11T20:55:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-07-28","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-09-15","debate_outcome_at":"2025-10-15T11:27:42.401Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-05","summary":"There will always be a legal right to additional support for children with SEND. No decisions have been made on changes to legislation. We are engaging with families on improvements to SEND provision.","details":"As part of our Plan for Change, we are determined to improve the system of support for children with SEND and their families. We are working to restore families’ trust by ensuring early years, schools and post-16 settings have the tools to better identify and meet need earlier and ensure more children and young people can receive their education in inclusive mainstream settings with their peers.\n\nWe are committed to:\n\n• ensuring a legal right to additional support for children and young people with SEND;\n• ensuring all children and young people have the support they need to achieve and thrive;\n• improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensuring swift access to special schools for children and young people with the most complex needs; and\n• restoring confidence in the system of support for children and young people with SEND so that they all get the chance to achieve and thrive in their education.    \n\nAny changes we make will improve support for families, stop parents from having to fight for support, and protect effective support currently in place. \n\nDetails of the government's intended approach to strengthening the SEND system will be set out in a Schools White Paper in the autumn. \n\nAs part of developing our approach, we are working with parents and young people, organisations which represent parents, local authorities, SEND organisations and education settings across the country, as well as sector experts. \n\nWe share the widespread view that improvements to the SEND system are badly needed. The forthcoming consultation on the White Paper will be key to shaping the reforms to the SEND system, so that every child and young person can achieve and thrive and we continue to break down barriers to opportunity.\n\nDepartment for Education\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/711021)","created_at":"2025-06-04T14:48:16.776Z","updated_at":"2025-09-03T13:55:46.761Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-09-15","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-09-15/debates/E7A26973-7F7B-41E0-8A02-689BEA99F336/ChildrenWithSENDAssessmentsAndSupport","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TymDgNxR8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07020/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":700086,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700086.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 16 as the minimum age for children to have social media","background":"We believe social media companies should be banned from letting children under 16 create social media accounts.","additional_details":"We think this would help:\r\n1. Stop online bullying\r\n2. Stop children being influenced by false posts\r\n3. Stop children seeing content that encourages violence/could be harmful for their future.\r\n\r\nWe believe social media is having more of a negative impact to children than a positive one. We think people should be of an age where they can make decisions about their life before accessing social media applications. We believe that we really need to introduce a minimum age of 16 to access social media for the sake of our children’s future along with their mental and physical health.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":132102,"created_at":"2024-10-30T21:01:09.426Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T15:29:43.842Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-11-07T18:15:53.449Z","closed_at":"2025-05-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-30T21:18:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-10T10:35:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-11-26T08:48:50.831Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-19T09:50:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-02-24","debate_outcome_at":"2025-02-26T16:48:21.496Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-17","summary":"The government is aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones and access to social media. The government is not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this incredibly important issue. It is right that tech companies should take responsibility to ensure their products are safe for UK children, and the Online Safety Act 2023 is a crucial tool in holding them to account for this. \n\nThe government is aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones and access to social media; however, the government is not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16. Children face a significant risk of harm online and we understand that families are concerned about their children experiencing online bullying, encountering content that encourages violence, or other content which may be harmful. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online. However, this is a complicated issue. We live in a digital age and must strike the right balance so that children can access the benefits of being online and using smartphones while we continue to put their safety first. Furthermore, we must also protect the right of parents to make decisions about their child’s upbringing.  \n\nThe current evidence on screentime is mixed and a systematic review by the UK Chief Medical Officers in 2019 does not show a causal link between screen-based activities and mental health problems, though some studies have found associations with increased anxiety or depression. Therefore, the government is focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action. Last month, the government commissioned a feasibility study into future research to understand the ongoing impact of smartphones and social media on children, to grow the evidence base in this area. \n\nThe government’s priority is working with Ofcom to effectively implement the Online Safety Act 2023, so social media users, especially children, can benefit from the Act’s protections as soon as possible. Additionally, the DSIT Secretary of State has outlined the government’s five online safety priorities through a draft Statement of Strategic Priorities. These priorities, which include safety by design, focus on delivering the safest online experiences for all users, in particular children, through the Act. \n\nThe Act puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety, with the strongest provisions in the Act for children. \n\nSocial media platforms, other user-to-user services and search services that are likely to be accessed by children will have a duty to take steps to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content that has been designated as ‘primary priority’ content. This includes pornography and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide. Online services must also put in place age-appropriate measures to protect children from ‘priority’ content that is harmful to children, including bullying, abusive or hateful content and content that encourages or depicts serious violence. Under the Act, where services have minimum age limits, they must specify how these are enforced and do so consistently. Ofcom’s draft proposals would mean that user-to-user services which do not ban primary priority or priority harmful content should introduce highly effective age checks to prevent children from accessing the entire site or app, or age-restrict areas of the service hosting such harmful content. \n\nFinally, companies in scope of the Act must take steps to protect all users from illegal content and criminal activity on their services.   \n\nIn her letter to parliamentarians on 17 October, Ofcom’s CEO, Melanie Dawes, stressed that Ofcom’s codes are iterative. The letter also noted that Ofcom is seeking to strike a balance between speed and comprehensiveness with its initial codes and stated that Ofcom is seeking to do more work on minimum age limits in the future. \n\nIn addition, the Act also updated Ofcom’s statutory duty to promote media literacy. Media literacy can also help tackle a wide variety of online safety issues for all internet users, including children. Additionally, Ofcom is required to raise awareness of the nature and impact of misinformation and disinformation, and to take steps to build the public's capability in establishing the reliability, accuracy, and authenticity of content found on regulated services. These duties are already in force. \n\nThe steps Ofcom has set out will represent a positive shift for how children and young people experience the online world. We expect that Ofcom's finalised Children’s Safety Codes of Practice will come into effect by the summer of 2025. However, the Act is designed so it can keep up with evolving areas, and Ofcom has been clear that the Children’s Codes of Practice will be updated as the evidence base of new and existing online harms grows. \n\nWe will continue to work with stakeholders to balance important considerations regarding the safety and privacy of children. \n\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700086)","created_at":"2024-11-26T08:48:50.826Z","updated_at":"2025-01-07T18:05:12.135Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-02-24","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-02-24/debates/E10FCC57-9169-4D7A-A90A-76FE1BD9309E/SocialMediaUseMinimumAge","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyVw4-cvZ2s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0036/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/pet-age-social-media/index.html?utm_source=petitioners&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=[pet-age-social-media]","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737660,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"By-elections to be called automatically when MPs defect to another party","background":"When an MP decides they want to defect to another party a by-election should be automatically triggered to allow the constituents the opportunity have their democratic right to agree or not with their elected official.","additional_details":"Regardless of political views I believe you vote for both the individual candidates and their stance on issues and the more general direction and policies of the party they stand for. When an MP decides that they no longer wish to be a member of the party they stood for when you voted for them the electorate should have the opportunity to also change their mind by voting in a by-election.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":129335,"created_at":"2025-08-14T18:20:00.840Z","updated_at":"2026-03-17T10:04:59.350Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-04T09:00:28.450Z","closed_at":"2026-03-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-19T19:49:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-17T14:35:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.802Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-22T23:06:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-02-06","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-16","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-17T09:39:09.032Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"There are no plans to make changes to the current constitutional arrangements, whereby voters elect individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.","details":"It is an established constitutional principle that at UK General Elections, voters cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent.\n\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. \n\nThere are no plans to make changes to the current arrangements.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-02-10T08:22:10.799Z","updated_at":"2026-02-10T08:23:06.700Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-16","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-16/debates/3369EB1A-E60E-4478-9299-BEF08EA9AA30/MemberDefectionsAutomaticBy-Elections","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/f6d6zJOGBww?si=mQxyXm69EIxawd1a&t=268","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10527/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701159,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701159.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow transgender people to self-identify their legal gender.","background":"We believe the government should change legislation to make it easier for trans people of all ages to change their legal gender without an official diagnosis of gender dysphoria.","additional_details":"Transgender people have a history of major discrimination in the UK and around the world. Major studies in reputable journals have shown a positive correlation between allowing trans people to live as their gender, rather than their sex assigned at birth in regards to positive mental and physical health outcomes.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":128749,"created_at":"2024-11-07T19:47:01.793Z","updated_at":"2025-09-15T09:45:21.071Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-12T15:27:26.042Z","closed_at":"2025-06-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-07T19:53:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-28T13:44:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.647Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-04-22T14:42:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-05-02","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-05-19","debate_outcome_at":"2025-05-20T08:52:49.451Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-03-19","summary":"The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation that reflects the seriousness of changing a person’s legal gender. The Government will not be introducing self-identification.","details":"The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad.\n\nThis Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the rights it affords to transgender people in this country. The GRA has operated for 20 years and has allowed trans people to be recognised in law. The Act enables trans people to live, work and die in their acquired gender and this is important in ensuring that trans people can live with dignity and respect.\n\nThe Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex. The Government is committed to modernising, simplifying and reforming the legal gender recognition process to remove indignities for trans people whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We believe this strikes the right balance, and the Government will not introduce self-identification as part of these reforms.\n\nThe government is committed to ensuring trans people can live their lives as they wish. In line with the King’s Speech, this Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.\n\nWe are also working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime to make them aggravated offences.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.644Z","updated_at":"2025-03-19T14:27:40.644Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-05-19","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-05-19/debates/2801067E-044C-4628-A022-FC405ABBA9DA/GenderSelf-Identification","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/P3Pap46rD9s?feature=shared&t=247","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0103/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727514,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727514.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the school week to four days a week","background":"We urge the Government to require all schools to reduce the school week to four instead of five days by making each school day one hour longer whilst requiring the school week to be four instead of five days.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":126014,"created_at":"2025-05-14T09:44:32.926Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T16:54:56.582Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-04T10:13:43.683Z","closed_at":"2025-12-04T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-14T10:01:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-18T06:28:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-10-10T12:00:38.659Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-20T13:29:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-12-04","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-01-05","debate_outcome_at":"2026-01-06T10:12:33.567Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-10-10","summary":"The government has no plans to reduce the school week to four days. Regular attendance at school is vital for children’s education, well-being and long-term development as well as parental employment.","details":"The government has no plans to require schools to reduce the length of the school week from five days to four by adding an additional hour to each of the four days.\n\nTo ensure children across the country have sufficient time in school to enable them to achieve and thrive, the Government has set a minimum expectation that all state-funded, mainstream schools will deliver a minimum school week of 32 hours and 30 minutes. Consistency in the length of the school week is essential for providing equal learning opportunities that will enable children and young people to achieve and thrive. While most state funded schools already meet this requirement, schools that don’t are encouraged to move towards doing so as soon as possible. \n\nReducing the school week to four days whilst still delivering the minimum expectation would mean a minimum school day of over 8 hours. Schools would have to deliver an additional 1 hour and 38 minutes per day across the four days to meet the weekly minimum requirement. \n\nReducing the school week would also have a damaging impact on parents, many of whom would need to make additional arrangements for childcare, reduce their working hours or potentially leave the workforce altogether. This would in turn put families under financial strain and have a damaging effect on the country’s economy.\n\nBeing in school, enjoying a broad and balanced education and achieving academically are key protective factors that help to promote mental health and well-being. Considering the wider benefits of time in school, the government therefore has no plans to reduce the school week from five days to four.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2025-10-10T12:00:38.656Z","updated_at":"2025-10-13T12:40:29.512Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-01-05","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-05/debates/19F9E3C3-4B57-4221-BC1F-38C236441355/LengthOfTheSchoolWeek","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/JJDrsAcGzHY","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07148/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/length-school-week/index.html","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750236,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750236.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not merge section 1 & 2 regulations on firearms licenses","background":"Keep section 1 firearm & section 2 shotgun licensing separate. I think this would help to protect law-abiding owners, the shooting industry, & rural communities. Policies should focus on real public safety issues without burdening responsible citizens or damaging heritage & livelihoods.","additional_details":"I want Parliament to keep Section 1 and 2 licensing separate. I think this would help to protect law-abiding owners, the shooting trade, and rural communities. I think merging licenses would create delays, higher costs, and bureaucracy without improving public safety. Policies should focus on what I think are more real threats like illegal weapons and knife crime, while helping to preserve heritage, livelihoods, and participation in shooting sports.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":122789,"closing_date":"2026-06-11","created_at":"2025-11-10T13:58:45.843Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T05:42:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-11T12:12:43.647Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-10T14:36:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-12T00:41:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.717Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-21T21:48:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-01-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-23","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:22:38.626Z","creator_name":"Lisa Amers","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-06","summary":"The Government has committed to a public consultation on strengthening licensing controls on shotguns. We will consider all views submitted during the consultation before deciding on further action. ","details":"The Government recognises that shotguns and firearms are used for a range of legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and hunting, and the vast majority are used safely and responsibly. We also recognise that shooting contributes to the rural economy.\n\nThe Government is, however, mindful that legally held shotguns have been used in a number of homicides and other incidents in recent years including the fatal shootings in Keyham, Plymouth, in August 2021.  It is for this reason that we committed to having a public consultation on strengthening the licensing controls on shotguns, to bring them more into line with controls on other firearms in the interests of public safety.  We announced this on 13 February 2025 when we published the Government response to the 2023 firearms licensing consultation which had been run by the previous Government.  \n\nRecommendations relating to strengthening shotgun controls had been made to the Government by the Coroner in his preventing future deaths report issued in May 2023 and followed the inquest into the deaths of those who were shot and killed in Plymouth in August 2021. Similar recommendations on shotgun controls were also made in the report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following its investigation into the Plymouth shootings, and by the Scottish Affairs Committee in its report following a fatal shooting with a shotgun in Skye in August 2022.  \n\nWe intend to publish the consultation shortly.  No decisions have yet been made on whether and what changes might be necessary. We will consider carefully the views put forward during the consultation once it is completed, before deciding what further action to take. We will also provide an impact assessment in relation to any changes that the Government intends to bring forward after the consultation, in the normal way.     \n\nPublic safety is our priority, and our focus on shotguns and other firearms sits alongside the Government’s aim to halve knife crime in the next decade, which forms a part of the Government’s Safer Street Mission.  We are driving an ambitious programme of work focusing on prevention and enforcement, as well as strengthening knife legislation.  This includes banning weapons that have no place on our streets, targeting irresponsible sellers, giving the police more powers to deal with those supplying and owning weapons for violent purposes, intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime, and bringing together experts through the Knife-Enabled Robbery Taskforce and the Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.714Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T16:27:15.714Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-23/debates/7FA45CF2-9295-474B-9597-FA185FE366AF/FirearmsLicensing","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/fURXLFk0e7Q","debate_pack_url":"","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":736578,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736578.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use","background":"Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans.","additional_details":"Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval.\r\n \r\nIn 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":121854,"created_at":"2025-08-07T21:10:12.188Z","updated_at":"2026-05-12T16:32:55.323Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-31T10:22:59.264Z","closed_at":"2026-04-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-07T21:53:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-02T14:09:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.743Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T19:54:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-27","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-29T09:09:44.258Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-13","summary":"The use of animals for development of products for human use remains necessary. The Government therefore does not agree to end testing on dogs and other animals for testing and research purposes.","details":"Our published Replacing Animals in Science strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/replacing-animals-in-science-strategy) will accelerate the roll out of safe and effective alternatives to phase out animal testing in all but exceptional circumstances, delivering on our manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing\". By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use, while continuing to support crucial research and innovation.\n\nScientific advances make the prospects for change better than they have ever been, and we are supporting the acceleration of advances in biomedical science and technologies, to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. This includes stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling and AI techniques based on very large data sets.\n\nThe strategy is backed by £75m of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30m for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM) – a new centre to make the path to regulatory approval for new alternatives as straightforward as possible. It also includes £30m for a preclinical translational models hub – an institute that will bring together data, technology and expertise to promote collaboration between researchers.\n\nThe strategy includes a target that aims to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic (PK) studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. The strategy also sets a target to aim to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.\n\nThe strategy builds on our current approach, to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs), and to ensure that the UK continues to have a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards. The UK has a world leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides core funding for the National Centre for 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.\n\nThe Government will continue to support the appropriate use of animals where reliable and effective alternatives are not yet available. Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). However, we are determined to work with regulators and scientists as we move towards phasing out the use of animals. Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment.\n\nThe argument claiming over 90% of drugs fail in human trials, despite being tested on animals, disregards drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable for use in human clinical trials. Drugs fail for a variety of reasons and animals are used for safety screening as well as efficacy modelling. Moreover, not all types of drugs fail at the same rate. Many do better and success rates vary widely by treatment type.\n\nThe welfare of animals in science is ensured by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (ASPA, 1986) and enforced by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). The use of animals in science is highly regulated, including a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. The UK Home Office regulator conducts an integrated assessment of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections. The Government has published and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.\n\nASPA mandates the development and application of alternative methods, including non-animal methods, as part of implementation of the 3Rs (the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animals used in research). Under ASPA, research which uses animals is only conducted where there is no alternative available, using the fewest number of animals and procedures. Until full replacement of the use of animals in science is possible, the UK’s support of refinement approaches, led by the NC3Rs, works to reduce animal suffering as much as possible.\n\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology","created_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T17:10:59.741Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-27","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-27/debates/E58B5F78-ACDD-4354-9FD6-CBAB8F3115C3/AnimalTesting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/VemDcod-F3E?si=WTR6QKGy_Rsl2Zny&t=253","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10644/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":728677,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/728677.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Funding so all infants are offered Type 1 Diabetes Testing in routine care","background":"Fund mandatory offer of testing for Type 1 Diabetes in babies, toddlers, and young children as a routine part of medical assessments at the point of care.","additional_details":"We believe that lives could be saved by doing this. Too many children are misdiagnosed, and this can tragically lead to loss of life.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":121152,"created_at":"2025-05-27T11:22:47.229Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T10:15:49.601Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-20T12:20:25.312Z","closed_at":"2025-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-27T11:31:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-04T08:16:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.718Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-02T23:34:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-02-06","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-09","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:15:49.601Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-17","summary":"NHS England provides diabetes care in children. Due to insufficient evidence supporting routine mandatory testing for paediatric type 1 diabetes it has no plans to introduce this at the current time.","details":"Type 1 diabetes is diagnosed with a blood test that checks blood glucose (sugar) levels. It is the responsibility of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to provide guidance and quality standards on the treatment and care of diabetes in England. NICE NG18 guideline for type 1 and 2 diabetes provides clinical guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and care of children and young people. It states that clinicians should be aware of the signs of type 1 diabetes in children and young people, including:\n\n• hyperglycaemia\n• polyuria (passing urine more often)\n• polydipsia (excess thirst)\n• weight loss\n• excessive tiredness.\n\nNG18 also recommends that children and young people with suspected type 1 diabetes are referred immediately (on the same day) to a multidisciplinary paediatric diabetes team with the competencies needed to confirm diagnosis and provide immediate care.\n\nNHS England is not aware of there being any evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of the mandatory offer of testing for type 1 diabetes in babies, toddlers, and young children as a routine part of medical assessments.\n\nNHS England works closely with research charity Diabetes UK which has worked to raise public and health care professional awareness of the common symptoms of type 1 diabetes, known as the 4Ts: Toilet, Thirsty, Tired and Thinner. Further information of this campaign can be found here:https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-diabetes/type-1-diabetes/symptoms\n\nEarly identification of type 1 diabetes through screening for antibodies prior to the onset of physical symptoms can provide clinical benefits, including helping to prevent diagnosis at the point of diabetic keto-acidosis (DKA). However, there is not currently a national screening programme in England.\n\nThe UK National Screening Committee advises the NHS on screening programmes and, in 2019 concluded that more research and evidence for the benefits of screening for autoimmune type 1 diabetes was required.\n\nA National Institute for Healthcare Research-funded study called ELSA (EarLy Surveillance for Autoimmune diabetes) is currently underway in England exploring the feasibility and benefits of screening in children aged 3 to 13. NHS England is working closely with researchers and leading experts in this field to ensure that emerging evidence is considered in the development of future national guidance and is reviewed ahead of further decisions on the availability of screening.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.711Z","updated_at":"2025-07-17T13:51:00.711Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-03-09/debates/140525A1-26CC-48A6-8FB9-E2E91CB67807/Type1DiabetesInfantTesting","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqh0F62e-Q","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0046/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":734311,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/734311.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give the British Public the Right to Vote No Confidence in the Government","background":"We call on Parliament to pass a law giving the British public the power to trigger a vote of no confidence in the ruling government.\r\nCurrently, only MPs can do this. We believe the public should also have the democratic right to express when they’ve lost trust in those elected to lead.","additional_details":"We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened. \r\n \r\nWe think being given this right would strengthen accountability, uphold democratic values, and ensure the government remains answerable not just to Parliament, but to the people it serves.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":120817,"created_at":"2025-07-23T20:55:57.496Z","updated_at":"2026-03-10T10:17:37.823Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-06T13:53:48.538Z","closed_at":"2026-02-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-24T06:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-16T20:07:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.512Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-01T00:30:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-01-30","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-02","debate_outcome_at":"2026-03-10T10:17:37.823Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-09-04","summary":"The Government holds office by virtue of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the public. There are no plans to change these arrangements.","details":"In our parliamentary democracy, a government holds office by virtue of its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, the membership of which is chosen by the electorate in a general election. It is through their votes, and through their Members of Parliament, that the voice of the electorate can be heard.\n\nVoters are able to make representations to their MPs, who in turn represent the views and interests of their constituents in Parliament. There are no plans to change these arrangements.\n\nThis Government is focused on renewing Britain’s future. We know that for working people that means more money in their pockets, rebuilding our NHS, and strengthening our borders. That’s why, through our Plan for Change, we’ve kick-started the economic growth needed to turn these commitments into reality. We know there’s plenty more to do, but with the foundations fixed, the work of securing Britain’s future can begin.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.509Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T08:08:11.509Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-02","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-02/debates/DC5D1535-7685-45F4-BFBE-3E1EFAD284C3/PublicRightToAVoteOfNoConfidence","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XUGkwalP08","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2026-0038/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762640.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum to bring the water industry into public ownership","background":"Hold a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership. Water is a basic human necessity; we believe our privatised system has failed, so the public should decide who owns and controls it.","additional_details":"Private water companies have about 62 million captive customers whose bills have delivered over £85 Bn to shareholders; money that in public ownership could have been spent on fixing our infrastructure. No other country in the world has privatised water like this. We believe that proposed government reforms to regulation show that water company owners are being favoured over the public, and this is not right in a democracy. A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":119489,"closing_date":"2026-10-01","created_at":"2026-02-27T11:05:06.660Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T08:16:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T17:05:47.359Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-27T11:32:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-08T17:19:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.962Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-30T11:38:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashley Paul Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-23","summary":"Nationalisation would take years and involve complex legal processes, diverting effort from cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. We are taking action now through stronger regulation and enforcement.","details":"The government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of the water industry. Water is a vital public service, and people rightly expect clean rivers, reliable services and greater accountability from water companies.\n\nSome campaigners have called for a binding referendum on returning the water industry to public ownership. However, the government has no intention of nationalising the water sector currently and does not believe that a national referendum would deliver faster improvements for customers or the environment. Any move to nationalisation would take many years to implement, involve significant legal and operational complexity, and risk prolonged uncertainty and disruption across the sector. That would divert time, energy and attention away from the urgent work needed now to tackle sewage pollution, protect public health and improve water quality.\n\nThat is why the government is delivering the most significant reform of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are introducing a single, more powerful regulator for the water sector, bringing together existing bodies and giving it the authority and expertise needed to hold water companies properly to account. A Chief Engineer will sit at the heart of the new regulator, ending the days of water companies marking their own homework and ensuring that regulators can independently assess the condition of pipes, pumps and treatment works.\n\nThe new system will introduce MOT style checks on water companies’ infrastructure, with tougher consequences for those that fail, alongside no notice inspections so there will be nowhere and no chance to hide poor performance. Dedicated supervisory teams and stronger intervention powers will allow regulators to act earlier and more decisively where companies are falling short.\n\nWe are also improving transparency so both the public and regulators can see what is happening in near real time. Water companies are required to publish detailed data on sewage discharges, and reforms will go further to make performance information clearer, more accessible and easier to understand. This transparency will support better public awareness, enable communities to scrutinise performance locally, and strengthen links between environmental protection and public health, including through the Chief Medical Officer’s Public Health Taskforce.\n\nThe government has already acted to strengthen accountability and enforcement. We have banned over £4 million in bonuses for executives at polluting water companies, introduced prison sentences for executives who cover up pollution incidents, and backed the Environment Agency with a record £153 million budget for water enforcement this financial year. This has enabled a record 10,000 inspections of water company sites and more than 177 criminal investigations into suspected wrongdoing.\n\nThe government is focused on securing the fastest and most effective improvements for customers, communities and the environment. We believe this is best achieved through decisive regulatory reform and enforcement, rather than a referendum that would delay progress and distract from delivering real change on the ground.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z","updated_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":740671,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740671.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce new tax code for state pensioners with double the personal allowance","background":"We want the government to introduce a new tax code for state pensioners, set at double the basic threshold. If this was implemented, pensioners would receive a higher tax-exempt limit, but wealthier pensioners would still pay tax.","additional_details":"We think that people with small private or workplace pensions are currently being taxed unfairly.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":119206,"created_at":"2025-09-10T14:25:57.624Z","updated_at":"2026-04-02T16:46:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-01T12:27:17.567Z","closed_at":"2026-04-01T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-10T23:20:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-15T15:18:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.659Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-11T22:53:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-09","summary":"The State Pension is the foundation of support for pensioners. The Government is committed to a fair tax system but doubling the Personal Allowance for pensioners would be untargeted and costly.","details":"The State Pension is the foundation of support available to pensioners. The government is committed to the Triple Lock – one of the most generous State Pension uprating mechanisms in the world – for the duration of this Parliament. This will increase the basic and new State Pension by 4.8% next April, boosting pensioner incomes by up to £575 a year and strengthening retirement security. \n\nThe Personal Allowance is already the highest amongst G7 countries. Doubling this allowance for all pensioners would be costly and untargeted – disproportionately benefitting higher income pensioners.\n\nAs announced at the Budget, the government will ease the administrative burden for pensioners whose sole income is the basic or new State Pension without any increments so that they do not have to pay small amounts of tax via Simple Assessment from 2027-28, if the new or basic State Pension exceeds the Personal Allowance from that point. The government is exploring the best way to achieve this and will set out more detail next year.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.656Z","updated_at":"2025-12-09T17:56:16.656Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":737327,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737327.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require non-stunned and stunned meat to be labelled accordingly","background":"We think it should be required that the labelling of non-stunned and stunned meat be clearly labelled throughout the food chain. This includes shops, supermarkets, suppliers, fast food and restaurants","additional_details":"This would include labels on every product available to consumers\r\nWe think UK government should implement mandatory method of slaughter labelling for all meat products Stunned or Non-Stunned. For all industries linked to food, including but not limited to shops, supermarkets, schools, restaurants, fast food, cafes and suppliers\r\n\r\nWe think this promotes consumer choice, enhances transparency, especially for religion and ethics\r\n\r\nWe think no one should be forced to consume food which doesn't meet their ethical and religious choices, they should have the right to choose without prejudice","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115954,"created_at":"2025-08-12T21:54:34.983Z","updated_at":"2026-04-27T10:00:26.007Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-01T15:46:45.172Z","closed_at":"2026-03-01T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-12T22:46:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-17T23:25:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-11-10T16:01:22.926Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-24T10:11:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-12-22","summary":"Whilst there is no regulatory requirement for labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, any information of this nature must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer.","details":"The government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but the government respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. The first national legislative requirement for stunning before slaughter was – in England and Wales – the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933. The Act also introduced an exception from the requirement to stun when animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for the food of Muslims and Jews.\n\nWhilst currently there are no regulations that require the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, where any information of this nature is provided it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. Additionally, major retailers have sourcing policies requiring that fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. They may operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will be clearly labelled. Some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, require stunning before slaughter.\n\nA consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method of production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life which should be covered by the standards. The government’s response to this consultation is available on https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fairer-food-labelling. The government will consider the potential role of this labelling as part of the ongoing development of the government’s wider animal welfare strategy. This includes consideration of the period of life that could be covered by labelling standards, up to and including whether the animal is stunned before slaughter. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737327","created_at":"2025-11-10T16:01:22.924Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T15:46:40.358Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":744215,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744215.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into Russian influence on UK politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK.","additional_details":"We believe recent events underscore the urgency of this issue.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115853,"created_at":"2025-09-29T09:54:02.162Z","updated_at":"2026-05-10T23:00:09.699Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-10T11:31:03.081Z","closed_at":"2026-05-10T22:59:59.999Z","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","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-01-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-02-09","debate_outcome_at":"2026-02-10T09:28:07.173Z","creator_name":null,"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.\n\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. \n\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.\n\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.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z","updated_at":"2026-01-15T13:06:02.672Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-02-09","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-09/debates/F9F28AFA-E1F3-449C-B18B-63DDCABC411E/RussianInfluenceOnUKPoliticsAndDemocracy","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/BXlk5ufZTDM?si=Fh9-aPCwUVHnhcBM&t=240","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/CDP-2026-0021/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":701268,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701268.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Don't apply VAT to independent school fees, or remove business rates relief.","background":"Prevent independent schools from having to pay VAT on fees and incurring business rates as a result of new legislation.","additional_details":"We think the Government needs to understand that not all independent school parents are wealthy, appreciate the benefits of independent schools and do better due diligence.\r\nIndependent schools have supported Ukrainian refugees, children with SEN, sharing facilities with public schools and supporting less fortunate families with bursaries. \r\nWe think this policy will split children from established friend networks, familiar environments and place the burden and cost on public schools.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":115560,"created_at":"2024-11-09T10:07:29.270Z","updated_at":"2025-06-02T23:00:02.605Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-02T11:30:15.141Z","closed_at":"2025-06-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-09T11:12:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-04T21:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.419Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-12T06:53:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-01-17","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-03-03","debate_outcome_at":"2025-03-12T16:58:56.691Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-20","summary":"The Government will remove tax breaks for private schools. This will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to deliver the Government’s commitments for children in state schools.","details":"From 1 January 2025, all education services, vocational training, and boarding services provided by private schools for a charge will be subject to 20% VAT. This will apply to any fees charged on or after 29 July 2024 for terms starting 1 January 2025 onwards. Alongside ending the VAT exemption, private schools that are charities in England will no longer be able to claim charitable rate relief. This is intended to take effect from April 2025, subject to Parliamentary passage. Together, these policies are expected to raise c.£1.8 billion a year by 2029/30.\n\nAround 94% of school children in the UK attend state schools. Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget in 2025/26 in England, increasing per pupil funding in real terms.\n\nThe Government has carefully considered the likely impacts of these policies, and the Government's costings have been scrutinised and certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. On the VAT policy, the Government has published a detailed costing note and Tax Impact and Information Note, which are viewable online. The Government also conducted a technical consultation, which received over 17,000 responses, all of which were carefully considered before the final policy design was confirmed. The Government’s response to this consultation is also viewable online. \n\nEnding the VAT break for private schools does not mean that schools must increase fees by 20%. On average, the Government expects fees to rise by 10%. However, some schools have already said that they will cap fee increases at 5%, or indeed, absorb the full VAT cost themselves. The number of pupils in private schools has remained steady despite a 75% real terms increase in average private school fees since 2000. The Government is confident that the vast majority of parents will be able to keep their child in private school, even if fees increase. \n\nThe Government recognises, however, that some parents may not be able, or willing, to pay higher fees. The Government estimates that, in the long-term, 37,000 pupils will leave or never enter the UK private school sector as a result of the VAT change. The Government estimates that approximately 3,100 additional pupils in England will leave or never enter the private school sector in England as a result of the business rates policy. \n\nMany of the resulting moves into state schools are expected to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of exam courses. Furthermore, some parents will be opting not to send their child to private school when they otherwise might have done, rather than removing their child from a private school. \n\nThese policies will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs.  Where a pupil’s place in a private school is funded by a Local Authority or Devolved Government because their needs cannot be met in the state sector, Local Authorities and Devolved Governments will be compensated for the VAT they pay on these pupils’ fees. Furthermore, private schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan will remain eligible for charitable rate relief. The Government therefore expects that most special schools will not be affected by the business rates policy.   \n\nThe Government is committed to taking a community-wide approach to children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a £1 billion uplift in high needs funding in financial year 2025/26, providing additional support and improving outcomes for the more than a million children in the state sector with SEND. This is in addition to a £740 million capital investment to create more specialist places in mainstream schools. This new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, and create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit pupils’ needs. This will start to pave the way for the Government’s wide-ranging long-term plans for reform to help more pupils with SEND to have their needs met in mainstream schools. \n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.415Z","updated_at":"2024-12-20T14:32:40.415Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-03-03","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-03/debates/91A910E1-456A-44DA-AB1A-AD36CAA02706/IndependentSchoolsVATAndBusinessRatesRelief","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c0367db8-6dfe-490d-99c9-7d422c75c586","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10125/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752646,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752646.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.","additional_details":"We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":115124,"closing_date":"2026-07-28","created_at":"2025-11-29T09:25:32.301Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T08:05:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-28T13:17:00.515Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T22:08:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T14:14:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.261Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-01T10:27:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andy Kalil","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"The Government does not support a public inquiry, but takes the issue of foreign influence from any country and lobbying in UK politics very seriously and is already taking action to address this.","details":"The Government does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence, and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally. However, the Government takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this. \n\nThere is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House. As part of open governance, ministers meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of government policy. \n\nGoing further, the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. This includes looking at whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient. In Parliament, the Government has asked the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct to consider whether the rules relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. \n\nMost recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft. The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026. \n\nThe Government responded immediately to the review with two measures via amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations and regulated transactions made by British citizens living abroad, and a moratorium on political donations made using cryptocurrency of any amount. These measures build upon existing measures in the Bill to introduce tougher rules on political interference in the UK’s elections. The Government will consider all of the other recommendations of the Rycroft review and respond to them in due course. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":727356,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727356.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep 5-year ILR terms to Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visas","background":"We urge the Government to exempt BN(O) visa for Hongkongers from the proposed immigration reforms. We think the current ILR terms must remain unchanged:\r\n \r\n1. Five years of UK residency\r\n2. B1 level English proficiency\r\n3. Passing the Life in the UK Test\r\n","additional_details":"Many Hongkongers on the BN(O) visa, including retired seniors, have started a new life in the UK after the imposition of the National Security Law. They followed the rules with the understanding that after five years, they could settle permanently if they met the English and civic knowledge requirements. We think changing these terms would break the UK's promises and cause stress and uncertainty for those who trusted in this humanitarian route. We urge the Government to honour its original commitment.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":114605,"created_at":"2025-05-12T14:38:59.382Z","updated_at":"2025-12-26T00:00:19.784Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-25T09:49:33.469Z","closed_at":"2025-12-25T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-12T17:40:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-26T07:41:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:20.235Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-04T21:46:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2025-07-18","scheduled_debate_date":"2025-09-08","debate_outcome_at":"2025-09-09T09:44:32.234Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2025-07-11","summary":"We are firmly committed to the existing Hong Kong community in the UK and all those who will arrive in future. Further details of measures in the Immigration White Paper will be set out in due course.","details":"Settlement in the UK is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen and brings lifelong benefits. Settlement is also an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the wider country.\n\nAs stated in the Immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, we therefore intend to reform the current rules around settlement so that individuals must earn their right to that privileged immigration status in the UK through the long-term contribution they bring to our country. It is also important that those coming to the UK are able to integrate into society. English language requirements along with the Life in the UK test are essential in supporting that integration.\n\nThe reforms to earned settlement set out in the White Paper will be set out in detail later this year, and there will be an opportunity for everyone to contribute to the consultation on those changes. We recognise how important this issue is to the Hong Kong community, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us in that consultation before taking any final decisions on how the new rules will operate, which immigration routes they will affect, and when the changes will take effect. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BN(O) route will continue to apply. \n\nThe detail of the new English Language requirements in relation to specific routes will be set out in due course when changes to the Immigration Rules introducing the new requirements are brought forward, as well as any further details about changes to the Life in the UK Test. Again, we will take all views submitted to the Home Office by the Hong Kong community into account as part of that process.\n\nWe thank the petitioners for sharing their views ahead of the consultation and look forward to hearing from them again once they have had the chance to review the final proposals in detail. We will also continue to engage regularly with representatives of the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK on any other issues related to the BN(O) visa as part of our ongoing commitment to support that community.\n\nHome Office","created_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:20.233Z","updated_at":"2025-07-11T07:55:50.508Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2025-09-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-08/debates/25EC2767-BBFF-4FE8-8F52-65B2C28CED10/IndefiniteLeaveToRemain","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/sGBlfyO5VhI?si=qz7pcnWmcaYyv4CI","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0172/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}}]}