{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=open","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=46&state=open","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=3&state=open","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open"},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":752959,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752959.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the use of netting on roofs and outdoor structures","background":"Thousands of birds are reported to get trapped in netting yearly, and many may die in pain and fear from the horrific injuries sustained trying to free themselves e.g. breaking their entangled limbs. Others may die of dehydration and starvation and rescuers are too late.","additional_details":"We believe Parliament can stop this by banning the netting causing it. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 places responsibility for maintenance on Property Owners. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gives trapped wildlife the same protection as domestic animals if trapped after 25 hours. We believe neither are being observed nor enforced.\r\n \r\nSpecialist equipment is often required to free the birds. Most Organisations/Individuals responsible do not want to pay the cost. Under the Animal Sentience Act 2022, birds are sentient beings that should not be tortured.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":16043,"created_at":"2025-12-01T11:34:49.345Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:06:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-03T15:25:32.236Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-01T14:56:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-24T18:51:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-17T10:19:49.957Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Denise Glee Theophilus","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"Anyone using bird netting as a deterrent has a responsibility to check and maintain it to prevent trapping and unnecessary suffering.","details":"Wildlife management is a devolved matter, and the response provided therefore relates to England only.\r\n\r\nAll wild birds are protected by law. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to deliberately hurt or kill wild birds or damage their eggs and nests. They can only be removed for a very good reason, such as if they pose a risk to public health and safety.\r\n\r\nBefore taking action to remove birds, people will sometimes try to deter them by using bird netting to prevent nesting in certain places. These nets are not designed to deliberately kill or injure wildlife and, if installed correctly, they should not do so.\r\n\r\nAnybody using a net to deter birds should monitor and maintain it to prevent harm. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not mandate checks every 25 hours; it makes it illegal to allow or cause unnecessary suffering to wild or companion animals that are being restrained, permanently or temporarily, by their actions. This includes animals that have been caught in a net. \r\n\r\nWhile we understand that there are concerns that the use of netting to deter birds can cause harm, Defra has no plans to introduce new legislation to prohibit this. Existing protections are already in place and we would encourage anyone who has concerns about the welfare of a trapped animal to report it to the police.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-04-17T10:19:49.956Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T10:19:49.956Z"},"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":754639,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754639.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require faster eviction process, and improve protections for landlords in PRS","background":"We petition the Government to amend the law for landlords by instituting a 6-week expedited court process for Mandatory Grounds s8/7A (arrears/Anti-Social Behaviour), creating a registered-landlord database of court-evicted tenants, and raising the deposit cap to adequately cover severe damage.","additional_details":"The abolition of Section 21 under the Renters' Rights Act means evicting bad tenants relies solely on Section 8. Current MoJ data shows the average eviction takes over 27 weeks (6+ months). We believe this delay punishes law-abiding landlords via irrecoverable arrears and damage. We urgently need an expedited court process for mandatory grounds (ASB/arrears), a vetting database for repeat offenders, and a higher deposit cap to help sustain the rental market.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15766,"created_at":"2025-12-16T08:02:37.441Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:21:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-26T11:41:12.803Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T08:33:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T22:00:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-02T14:22:14.971Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Craig Littlejohn","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-02","summary":"Government does not support these proposals. From 1 May 2026, the Renters’ Rights Act will ensure landlords can continue to gain possession when necessary, while offering more security to tenants. ","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce an expedited court possession process for mandatory possession grounds, a tenant vetting database, or to raise the cap on tenancy deposits.\r\n\r\nWe value the contribution made by responsible landlords, who provide quality homes to their tenants and understand that landlords must have robust possession grounds where there is a good reason to take their property back.\r\n \r\nThe Renters’ Rights Act (RRA) will introduce a new tenancy system from 1 May 2026. These reforms will clarify and expand grounds for possession, allowing landlords to regain possession when necessary, for example to sell or move in. Where a tenant is at fault, landlords will be able to seek possession using relevant grounds, including where a tenant commits anti-social behaviour, is damaging the property, or falls into significant arrears. While we recommend landlords and tenants work together to address issues, these possession grounds are sufficient to take action when this is not possible.\r\n \r\nMost tenancies end amicably without the need for landlords to take possession action in the county court. However, the Government recognises that landlords need a smooth and efficient process when taking possession action if needed. Currently, the median average time from landlord claim to a possession order being issued is 7.3 weeks, below the HM Courts and Tribunal Service target of 8 weeks. Of those landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only a minority (28%) required enforcement by bailiffs, meaning that most cases take less than 27 weeks to resolve.\r\n \r\nThe Government considers it important that tenants have the opportunity to attend a possession hearing if they wish to challenge an eviction. Vital statutory protections for tenants are built into the possession process, such as time available before a hearing to seek legal advice and reasonable notice before an eviction date. Safeguarding these tenant protections within the RRA is a key aspect of the Government's approach to ensuring landlords can reclaim their property when necessary, while ensuring tenants can challenge unfair evictions. A shorter ‘expedited’ process would not allow sufficient time for these protections.\r\n \r\nWe are working closely with HM Courts and Tribunal Service to develop a new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the County Courts in England and Wales. The service will offer an online route for making and responding to possession claims, filing documents, and receiving updates and outcomes, offering improved user experience through guided journeys. \r\n\r\nThe Government does not believe that it is proportionate to create a database for tenants who have previously been evicted by a bailiff following a court possession order. Private landlords and letting agents already have a range of tools available to them to obtain references from their tenants, and may consider various factors when deciding to let to a tenant, including previous or outstanding rent arrears and credit checks. \r\n  \r\nWith regards to increasing tenancy deposits, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 limits tenancy deposits to no more than five weeks’ rent where the total annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent where the total annual rent is £50,000 or above. This is in addition to a refundable holding deposit (to reserve a property) capped at no more than one week’s rent. We believe that this strikes the right balance between providing security for landlords and maintaining affordability for tenants. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-02T14:22:14.968Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T14:27:21.650Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":749752,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/749752.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an independent appeals panel for school absences","background":"As it stands, the decision whether a school absence is authorised or not lies solely with the headteacher or designated attendance officer. If this person deems the absence as not \"exceptional\" enough, or marks an illness absence as unauthorised, there is no formal right of appeal for parents.","additional_details":"I'm proposing that the Government sets up an independent national appeals panel to allow parents to appeal a heads decision. This will prevent bias, ensure transparency, and put a stop to blanket policies within schools. Often, the nature of the absence means it should either be marked as authorised under code 'I', or authorised under code 'C' which is leave for exceptional circumstances. If a FPN is issued, parents are forced to risk court and a criminal conviction or accept liability by paying the FPN.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15544,"created_at":"2025-11-06T19:52:50.025Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:53:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-08T16:35:56.871Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-06T20:23:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T09:59:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-11T13:01:42.308Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Natalie Elliott","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-11","summary":"The Government has no plans to introduce an independent national appeals panel for school absences and believes there are already sufficient routes for parents to challenge inaccurate absence coding.","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce an independent national appeals panel for school absences.  When determining the most appropriate attendance or absence code, teachers and headteachers should use their professional judgement of each pupil’s individual circumstances, context and educational needs, alongside the ‘Working together to improve school attendance’ guidance and information provided by the parent or guardian.  Existing processes including informal conversations, use of the school’s complaints procedure, local authority complaints procedures, Ofsted inspections and escalation routes to DfE and to the Local Government Ombudsman provide appropriate channels for oversight and raising concerns, negating the need for a separate appeals structure.\r\n\r\nParents have a legal duty under the Education Act 1996 to ensure that their child of compulsory school age (5-16) receives a full‑time education, either by attending school or otherwise. Where a child is registered at a school, parents must ensure they attend regularly. Parents can be penalised if their child is absent from school without authorisation.\r\n\r\nWe recognise there are situations in which a pupil is unable to attend school for a legally recognised reason. The Education Act 1996 sets out these situations in which an absent pupil will not be taken to have failed to attend school regularly. These include illness or other unavoidable circumstances, religious observance, where the school has given prior permission for absence, or where the local authority has not fulfilled any duty it has to help the child attend.\r\n\r\nSchools must record attendance in line with the School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024 and with regard to the DfE’s statutory guidance ‘Working together to improve school attendance’. Decisions about how an absence should be recorded depend on the individual facts of each case. Headteachers and school staff know their pupils well and are therefore best placed to decide how an absence should be recorded. In the vast majority of cases, a parent’s notification that their child is ill should be sufficient for the school to authorise the absence using code I (illness). Schools also have discretion to grant a leave of absence in exceptional circumstances and parents should speak to their headteacher and present their case where they feel that such an absence is required.\r\n\r\nThe Department has however made clear in statutory guidance that, generally, a need or desire for a holiday or other absence for the purpose of leisure and recreation would not constitute an exceptional circumstance. The majority of penalty notices (93% in the 2024-25 academic year) are issued for term-time holidays.\r\n\r\nIntroducing an independent appeals panel would be inappropriate, given the ‘Working Together To Improve School Attendance’ guidance states that parents, schools and local authorities hold responsibility for pupils’ attendance.  It would also create a bureaucratic process for thousands of routine attendance decisions made every day. This would generate significant administrative burden for schools, local authorities and any central appeals body, which would need funding, diverting time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils.\r\n\r\nThe Government believes that existing routes already provide clear and fair ways for parents to raise concerns. Where a parent believes an absence has been wrongly recorded, they should discuss this with the school in the first instance. If they remain dissatisfied, they can make a formal complaint through the school’s complaints procedure. If they believe the school has acted unlawfully, they can also escalate their complaint to the Department for Education or, where relevant, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.\r\n\r\nLocal authorities also have established processes for reviewing evidence before issuing a penalty notice for unauthorised absence. Although there is no separate legal right of appeal, parents can challenge a penalty notice with the issuing local authority if they believe it was wrongly issued. Parents may provide evidence to support their case, and the authority must consider it carefully. If parents do not pay the notice and wish to contest it, the case may proceed to court, where they can present their arguments before magistrates. This provides an additional safeguard for parents who believe they have been treated unfairly.\r\n\r\nFor these reasons, the Government does not believe that a new national appeals panel is necessary or appropriate. The current system already allows schools to apply professional judgement, gives parents clear ways to raise concerns or challenge decisions, and ensures that local authorities act carefully and proportionately in enforcing school attendance. This approach helps maintain consistency while keeping decision‑making close to the pupils and families who are directly affected.\r\n \r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-03-11T13:01:42.305Z","updated_at":"2026-03-11T13:02:20.191Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750566,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750566.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish Ground Rent for Existing Residential Leasehold Properties","background":"We ask the Government to abolish ground rent for all existing residential leasehold properties in England and Wales. Ground rent is an outdated and, we believe, unfair charge that provides no service or benefit to leaseholders.","additional_details":"Millions of homeowners continue to pay ground rent, often under clauses that increase every 10 to 25 years, making homes harder to sell, re-mortgage, or mortgage. Although it has been abolished for most new leases, existing leaseholders remain liable, creating an unequal system where similar homeowners are treated differently solely based on when their lease began.\r\n \r\nWe believe ending ground rent could remove an unjust financial burden, improve market fairness, and support a fairer, more transparent home ownership system.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":15418,"created_at":"2025-11-13T03:08:09.316Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T10:02:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-06T08:58:46.537Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T10:29:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T22:00:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.864Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rikesh Patel","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"To deliver on our manifesto commitment to “tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges”, government will cap ground rent at £250 per year, before changing to a peppercorn after 40 years.","details":"This government is determined to succeed where its predecessors failed and reform existing ground rents. In its manifesto, the government committed itself to tackling “unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges.” We will honour this commitment through provisions in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that cap ground rent at £250 per year, before changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. \r\n\r\nThis measure will apply to most long residential leases not already covered by existing legislation. It will directly address cost of living pressures for existing leaseholders, and issues with buying, selling and mortgaging properties with high ground rents. By making it easier for leaseholders to take ownership of their buildings, with conversions to commonhold made both cheaper and simpler, it is also integral to delivering on the government’s manifesto commitment to “finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.” \r\n\r\nThere are approximately 3.8 million leasehold properties with a ground rent obligation across England and Wales. We estimate around 770,000 to 900,000 leaseholders pay over £250 per year. In total, last year alone we estimate that leaseholders paid over £600m in ground rents. As a result of the proposed measures in the draft Bill, we estimate that leaseholders will save a total of between £10 and 12.7 billion. \r\n\r\nThe government will not be increasing anyone’s ground rent as a result of this measure. If your lease has a ground rent under £250 you will only pay that amount. Your ground rent may still increase under the terms of your lease, but it cannot be more than £250. The £250 will not increase over time. \r\n\r\nA cash cap is simple and will provide certainty to leaseholders, freeholders and property professionals. Leaseholders will know that for 40 years they can only ever be charged up to £250 per year in ground rent, without the need for complex calculations or valuation of individual properties. This is crucial to delivering a fair and effective modern housing market on which our broader economic prosperity relies.\r\n\r\nThe cap will also address issues faced by leaseholders in respect of securing mortgages and buying and selling properties. The point at which ground rents exceed either 0.1% of property value or £250 is a common standard at which mortgage lenders have traditionally started imposing additional checks. They can therefore slow, delay and derail people’s ability to move house and limit their access to competitive mortgage finance. This undermines the housing market, reduces UK labour mobility and creates additional cost and stress for consumers. \r\n\r\nBy setting a ground rent cap at £250 (approximately 0.1% of the value of a typical flat in England and Wales) leaseholders will be protected from facing ground rent-related difficulties when it comes to moving home. This means hundreds of thousands of people with high ground rents will find it easier to move home and potentially millions of people will be free from the risk of ground rents collapsing their chain. \r\n\r\nThe measure will, over time, end the vast majority of residential ground rents, supporting our commitment to end the feudal leasehold system. Ground rents are not necessary and have already been eliminated for new leases entered into after the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 (GRA 2022) came into force. Changing the cap to a peppercorn after 40 years will ensure there is no longer a two-tier market between new and older leases. This will also support our goal of moving towards commonhold as the default model of ownership, with conversions to commonhold both cheaper and simpler.\r\n\r\nThe government believe that a ground rent cap at £250 per year, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years, is the most just and proportionate way of addressing unregulated and unaffordable ground rent terms. While we recognise that the preference of most leaseholders is a peppercorn cap, fully eliminating ground rents outright, we judged that this approach would carry significant risks, including some which might impact upon leaseholders. These include significant market disruption and an unacceptably high risk of freeholder insolvency. Our policy strikes a fair balance between leaseholders, freeholders and those invested in ground rents. It will allow investors to retain some of the value from their investments, whilst providing immediate cost of living relief to leaseholders and ultimately bringing ground rents to an end, thus ensuring a fair and efficient housing market.\r\n\r\nThe changes to ground rent are measures in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.  When implemented, the Bill will deliver the government’s manifesto commitments to reinvigorate and reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold, and banning the use of leasehold for most new flats. The Bill will give homeowners security and control over their homes through access to fit for purpose and modern commonhold ownership.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.862Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T15:23:03.862Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760517,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760517.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Increase funding for veteran-led organisation supporting veterans into work","background":"We call on the Government to fund and support veteran-led organisations delivering training and employment for veterans who have fallen outside transition support, enabling them to move into sustainable work and reducing long-term reliance on welfare and crisis services across the UK.","additional_details":"We believe many veterans miss or fall outside existing transition support and later face unemployment or instability. In our view, veteran-led organisations provide structured training and direct employment pathways but struggle to access funding due to rigid commissioning systems. Increased government funding could allow these programmes to expand nationally, helping veterans into long-term work while reducing reliance on welfare, housing and crisis services.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":14750,"created_at":"2026-02-09T10:01:27.642Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:51:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-17T12:26:36.909Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T10:18:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-27T12:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Leon Braithwaite Pestana","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoD","name":"Ministry of Defence","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760485,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760485.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require all emergency services to record staff suicides","background":"There is no mandatory system for recording suicides among emergency service staff, which could lead to underreporting and opportunities for prevention. Mandatory recording could reveal the true scale of the problem and enable effective, evidence-based support to protect those who protect the public.","additional_details":"I want the government to do this because without mandatory recording, I believe the true scale of suicides among emergency service staff is hidden, patterns are missed, and opportunities to prevent deaths are lost. I believe accurate data is essential to create effective mental health support, policies, and protections for those who risk their lives to protect the public.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":13752,"created_at":"2026-02-08T21:46:00.106Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T09:54:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-24T09:36:34.732Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T22:35:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-10T19:02:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Hannah Cooper","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"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":751635,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751635.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the use of AI for image, video and audio creation","background":"Legislate to ban the AI generation of images, videos and audio to protect the British public from misinformation, harmful and harassing content, and to protect jobs in the creative sectors.","additional_details":"This ban should include AI tools from being used in the UK, as well as any foreign AI content to be banned on social media and television. This could help protect against things like false advertisement and fake or misleading content.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":13721,"created_at":"2025-11-23T14:02:31.232Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:10:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-19T16:03:11.228Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-23T14:21:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T22:16:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-16T11:25:59.220Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ash Martienssen","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-16","summary":"The Government is focused on enabling the safe use of AI. We are taking steps to address harms, while recognising the positive ways in which AI can drive growth and improve lives.","details":"The development of AI offers an opportunity to grow the UK economy and improve public services. It also poses risks – from the generation of misinformation and harmful content to the potential disruption of the labour market. The Government takes these risks seriously.\r\n\r\nAI is already regulated in the UK through existing laws such as data protection, competition, and equalities legislation, and through forms of sectoral regulation. For example, services regulated under the Online Safety Act are required to have systems in place to address fraudulent advertising, illegal content and content harmful to children, including AI-generated content. Internet-based generative AI services that allow users to share content with one another, that search live websites to provide search results, or which produce pornographic content are regulated under the Online Safety Act.\r\n\r\nThe Government does not have any plans to legislate to ban the AI generation of images, videos and audio. Such a ban would block the UK from accessing the benefits that AI offers to people’s daily lives, public services and the economy.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Government is committed to strengthening protections where required. Where existing laws are not enough to ensure safety, the Government will take action. We have already legislated to create new offences where needed, such as the a new offence covering the creation of non-consensual intimate images. The Government has also announced that it will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill to ban ‘nudification’ tools – tools that use AI to turn normal images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their consent.\r\n \r\nThe Technology Secretary confirmed in Parliament that the Government is exploring how emerging services, such as AI chatbots, interact with the Online Safety Act and what further measures may be required.\r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the concerns of our world-leading creative industries. We are looking at how we can unlock the extraordinary potential of AI in this sector, while protecting the unique and important contribution human creativity makes to our economy and quality of life.\r\n\r\nAI is transforming the world of work more generally. The Government is committed to ensuring that AI drives opportunity, not insecurity, for working people. We have established the AI and the Future of Work Unit which uses cutting-edge research and expert insight to stay ahead of risks and act early to support workers. The Unit works across government but is based in DSIT. It will help prepare the UK for AI-driven labour market transformation by researching and monitoring AI’s economic and labour market impacts, and providing advice on new policies to be implemented.\r\n\r\nThe Government is committed to supporting a free, sustainable and plural media landscape, as the best way to maintain a shared understanding of facts, and protect against the spread of disinformation. The government is taking steps to support a healthy news and information environment in the UK and strengthen and maintain a plural, thriving and trusted media sector.\r\n\r\nThe Government continues to work with a wide range of stakeholders to gather evidence, understand emerging issues and develop policy that carefully balances both the risks and opportunities of AI.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-16T11:25:59.217Z","updated_at":"2026-02-16T11:26:59.865Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751315,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751315.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call for Parliamentary inquiry into potential systemic discrimination of BNOs ","background":"We believe that the British National (Overseas) visa is only a partial remedy as it fails to correct historic injustice that stripped Hong Kong British nationals of the right of abode.","additional_details":"Parliament must amend nationality law so BNO holders and their descendants are treated as full British citizens, not as second-class nationals.\r\n\r\nWe believe that legal changes from 1962–2002 have resulted in the majority of British nationals who remain without full citizenship being predominantly of Hong Kong origin.  Parliament must investigate the backgrounds of those remaining without full citizenship to see if they are now predominantly of a single ethnicity. If so, this systemic exclusion may represent a profound injustice and risks another historic betrayal.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":13015,"created_at":"2025-11-20T19:18:05.869Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:04:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-09T11:32:08.790Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-21T01:29:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-27T21:28:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-25T10:34:57.035Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Simon Wong","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-25","summary":"There are no plans to amend British nationality law so that British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)) can become British citizens automatically, nor to conduct an inquiry.","details":"The BN(O) route reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BN(O) status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997.\r\n\r\nHolders of BN(O) status can access consular assistance and protection provided by UK embassies, high commissions and consulates. We take the protection of Hong Kongers’ rights, freedoms, and safety in the UK very seriously and work closely across Government to ensure that the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. \r\n\r\nThe Government remains fully committed to the BN(O) route and to supporting BN(O) status holders to come to the UK through the BN(O) route. Since its launch, we have granted over 185,000 entry clearance visas and 172,00 people have arrived in the UK. \r\n\r\nThe BN(O) route enables individuals with BN(O) status, along with their eligible family members, to build a new life in the UK and progress towards British citizenship. The route allows them to apply to come to the UK to live, study, and work in almost any capacity, providing a clear pathway to citizenship.\r\n\r\nWe recently announced that the route will be expanded from 8 April 2026 to include BN(O) status holders’ adult children who were under-18 at the point of Hong Kong’s handover in 1997.  This expansion will close a gap in eligibility that has led to unfair outcomes within families, with some children eligible for the route and others not.  It demonstrates our continuing commitment to BN(O)s in light of the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.\r\n\r\nRecognising the unique position of BN(O) status holders, we have also confirmed that those on the BN(O) route will retain a five-year route to settlement under the proposed earned settlement reforms.\r\n\r\nThe continuance of BN(O) status in its current form, without a right of abode in the UK, is in accordance with the commitments that the UK made as part of the Sino British Joint Declaration in 1984, and it is important that the UK upholds these commitments. There are therefore no plans to change nationality law so as to automatically confer British citizenship on BN(O)s.  \r\n\r\nThere are routes available for BN(O)s to become British citizens in certain circumstances:\r\n\r\n\tIf a person lives in the United Kingdom for a continuous period, and meets the specified residence requirements, they can apply for registration under section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. \r\n\r\n\tThe British Nationality Hong Kong Act 1997 also provides for the registration of British nationals who would otherwise be stateless and are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong. \r\n\r\nBN(O)s may also apply for registration under section 4B of the 1981 Act if they do not possess any other citizenship or nationality.  They will not qualify if they have lost another nationality through their own action, or lack of action, such as by renouncing another citizenship.\r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2026-03-25T10:34:57.032Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T10:36:28.025Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751009,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751009.json"},"attributes":{"action":"NHS funding for egg freezing, for those suffering from endometriosis.","background":"I want the Government to fund or subsidise egg freezing for people with endometriosis, ensure early fertility discussions at diagnosis, and create clear NHS pathways so patients can preserve their fertility before the condition causes lasting damage.","additional_details":"Endometriosis can harm fertility long before someone is ready to have children, yet egg freezing is often unaffordable and not supported by the NHS. We urge the UK Government and NHS leaders to recognise egg freezing as essential care for endometriosis patients. Making it accessible and affordable would protect future family choices and support the wellbeing of those living with this painful and often misunderstood condition.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":12919,"created_at":"2025-11-17T10:32:05.670Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:55:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-16T10:31:39.100Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-17T11:02:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T22:45:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:00.626Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sian McCauley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government acknowledges the challenges faced by women with endometriosis. We are committed to improving the diagnosis, treatment and care for gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.","details":"Funding decisions for health services in England are made by integrated care boards (ICBs) and are based on the clinical needs of their local population. We expect ICBs to commission fertility services in line with NICE guidelines, ensuring equal access to fertility treatment across England.\r\n\r\nNICE fertility guidelines currently only recommend oocyte or embryo cryopreservation to women of reproductive age who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile.\r\n\r\nHowever, NICE are currently reviewing the guidelines and the evidence on fertility preservation for populations beyond those with cancer. A consultation on the draft revised guidelines was published on 10 September and closed on 21 October 2025. The draft guideline widened the recommendation for cryopreservation to those people who have a medical condition that is likely to make them infertile, which would include endometriosis. We expect NICE to publish the final updated guidelines in spring 2026.\r\n\r\nThe Government acknowledges the challenges faced by women with endometriosis and the impact it has on their lives, their relationships and their participation in education and the workforce. We are committed to improving the diagnosis, treatment and ongoing care for gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis. It is unacceptable that women can wait so long for an endometriosis diagnosis, and we have already taken action to address this.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guidelines on endometriosis in November 2024. Research has led to new treatments being made available, including the NICE approval of two pills to treat endometriosis this year: Relugolix and Linzagolix. Both are estimated to help around 1,000 women with severe endometriosis for whom other treatment options have not been effective.\r\n\r\nAs announced in September, we will establish an “online hospital” – NHS Online – which will give people on certain pathways the choice of getting the specialist care they need from their home. It will connect patients with clinicians across the country through secure, online appointments accessed through the NHS App. In January 2026 we announced the nine conditions that NHS Online will initially focus on. Menstrual problems which may be a sign of endometriosis will be among the conditions available for referral to NHS Online from 2027.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:00.623Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T10:32:43.115Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751177,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751177.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban Government bodies from describing taxpayer-funded services as “free”","background":"Ban Government departments and public bodies from describing all tax-payer funded services as “free” and require clearer terms such as “tax-payer funded” or “publicly funded” in all official communications, guidance, and campaigns.","additional_details":"We believe Government communications label tax-payer funded services as “free”, which can mislead the public about who pays for them. We believe more accurate language could improve transparency, strengthen trust, and ensure people understand how public services are financed. Clear, honest wording could help accountability.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12887,"created_at":"2025-11-19T12:56:49.234Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T08:53:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-18T17:01:20.060Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T17:29:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-22T11:47:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-02T15:59:20.693Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ed Lewis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-02","summary":"Decisions about language in communications is the responsibility of individual departments to ensure messages are clear and easily understood by their intended audiences","details":"The Government understands the need for transparency in how publicly funded services are described and is committed to clear, accurate and honest communication with the public.\r\n\r\nGovernment communications are guided by the principles set out in the Government Communication Service (GCS) Propriety Guidance, Marketing Guidance and the Civil Service Code, which require communications to be truthful and factually accurate.\r\n\r\nSpecific language used in communications is the responsibility of individual government departments and public bodies to ensure organisations can tailor their communications to their specific audiences and contexts. This ensures messages are clear and easily understood by the people they are intended to reach.\r\n\r\nWhen services are described as \"free\", this typically refers to the fact that they are free at the point of use – meaning the individual accessing the service does not pay a direct charge at the time they use it.\r\nThis is a widely understood convention, particularly in relation to services such as the National Health Service, state education and public libraries. The Government does not consider that this terminology misleads the public, as there is broad public awareness that such services are funded through taxation.\r\n\r\nMandating specific terminology across all government communications would be impractical and could, in some cases, reduce clarity rather than enhance it. Different contexts may call for different approaches to ensure that information is communicated as effectively as possible.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to ensure that its communications are clear  accessible and honest, and will keep its guidance under review to reflect best practice.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-03-02T15:59:20.690Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T16:00:25.713Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":746707,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/746707.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund pay for student nurses and midwives for placement hours","background":"Student nurses and midwives are the heart of our NHS doing work for free. Many of us are unable to financially support ourselves.\r\n","additional_details":"When on placement, we are limited to just 8 paid hours a week. The NMC says we can work a paid job only 8 hours a week. Anything over, this we can be asked to leave our course. This is because we are working 40 hours a week unpaid. Anything over the 48 hours, we can be seen to be endangering patients. \r\n\r\nWe work so hard and do so many hours to obtain our PIN and registration.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12743,"created_at":"2025-10-13T12:07:52.701Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:50:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-20T14:43:37.244Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-13T13:07:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-02T13:56:40.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Grace Roberts","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"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":760546,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760546.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Investigate the failures in the administration of Civil Service Pensions","background":"We call on Parliament to investigate the ongoing and systemic failures in the administration of civil service pensions. These failures have left thousands of current and former civil servants in limbo, waiting excessive periods for pension payments they are entitled to.","additional_details":"The delays have caused significant financial hardship, emotional distress, and insecurity for individuals who have planned their retirements in good faith.\r\n\r\nParliament should scrutinise Capita’s handling of pension administration, the government’s oversight of the contract, and what immediate action is required to resolve outstanding cases, prevent further harm, and provide redress to those affected.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12571,"created_at":"2026-02-09T14:50:06.524Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:16:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-20T14:08:55.014Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T15:19:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-13T20:10:40.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Nigel Heckford","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750576,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750576.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Halt proposed NHS redundancies affecting 18,000 staff pending impact assessment","background":"Halt NHSE, CSU & ICB closures until government publishes: impact assessment on service continuity, cost-benefit analysis proving genuine savings, evidence the 10 Year Health Plan is deliverable with reduced workforce, & transition plans for services supporting NHS trusts and GPs","additional_details":"Up to 18k NHS staff face redundancy with no published impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis. When private companies propose mass layoffs, government intervenes - why not with the NHS? Before potentially losing expertise needed to deliver the 10 Year Health Plan, the Government needs to prove benefits to patients not consultancies and real savings. The Government risks a loss of knowledge that consultancies will cost far more to replace. We demand transparency before possibly irreversible damage takes place.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12018,"created_at":"2025-11-13T09:14:45.619Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T18:04:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-16T12:21:51.374Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T09:30:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T10:41:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.969Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert Spearing","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-22","summary":"Initial impact assessment shows proposed cuts will deliver £1bn per annum in savings that can be channelled to the frontline. We cannot deliver NHS reform without a more efficient, streamlined centre.","details":"Upon taking office, this Government organised the biggest national conversation about the future of the NHS in its history, with events involving over 4,000 staff and members of the public and 1.9 million visits to our Change NHS website, where 250,000 experiences and ideas for change were shared. We heard a unanimous message: no-one defends the status quo. Staff and patients are crying out for desperately needed change. Since the 2012 reorganisation of the NHS we have seen worse care for patients, at soaring costs, leaving taxpayers paying more but getting less. In 2010, we spent below the OECD average on healthcare and achieved above-average outcomes. Today we spend the average and achieve worse outcomes. The size of the centre has doubled over this same period. The NHS today accounts for 38 per cent of day-to-day Government spending – a figure projected to rise to 40 per cent by the end of the decade – crowding out investment which could tackle the wider social determinants of ill health. That is unsustainable. As Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS in England found, the NHS is in a ‘critical condition’. Public satisfaction is the lowest it has ever been, millions are waiting for treatment, and the health of the nation is deteriorating. The NHS stands at a historic crossroads and the choice is stark: continue like this, making tweaks to an increasingly unsustainable model, or take a new course and reinvent the NHS through transformational change that will guarantee its sustainability for generations to come.\r\n\r\nThis Government is serious about delivering this transformational change for staff and patients through the ambitious shifts set out in the 10 Year Health Plan. A key component of this change is a more efficient and effective centre. We will simplify the NHS and remove layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, which will allow us to reinvest more into the frontline, so patients receive safe, timely care and are heard and listened to. This change is no reflection on the tireless work of professionals across the centre who have had to battle against this red tape for too long – the new leaner, more efficient, more focused centre we are building will not just work better for patients and NHS staff, but for employees of the new centre as well.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s ambition is to reduce staff numbers by up to 50 per cent across the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England (NHSE) and integrated care boards (ICBs). These reductions will be made by March 2028, with around 18,000 posts abolished and more than £1 billion per annum saved by the end of the Parliament. This is enough to fund an extra 116,000 hip and knee operations.\r\n\r\nWe are looking to remove duplication, cut bureaucracy and fundamentally change the role of the centre in the health and care system to empower the frontline. This will mean that posts that are removed are ones that are no longer needed. As such, there is no intention to cover these roles with consultants as they will no longer exist. For staff that will be impacted by this reduction in posts we are offering support in each respective organisation.\r\n\r\nOne of the core rationales for this transformation programme is to better fund and support the NHS. We know that many staff currently working in DHSC, NHSE and ICBs have relevant experience, many of them having formerly held clinical and care roles. We would encourage staff to continue to bring their expertise to bear in supporting the NHS through direct frontline roles.\r\n\r\nWe will not directly be cutting any investment to the NHS or frontline services but will give more power and autonomy to local leaders and systems. The savings made will more than offset the cost of redundancy payments. We will make every penny count from the £29 billion funding boost for the NHS announced at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the Spending Review.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, these reductions are only part of our wider programme to reform healthcare and deliver the 10 Year Health Plan. Alongside this transformation we are:\r\n•\treinventing the NHS foundation trust model, enabling some trusts to take on responsibility for a wider range of services as integrated health organisations\r\n•\ttransforming the role of ICBs so they are fully focused on strategic commissioning and building a Neighbourhood Health Service in their areas\r\n•\tdevolving responsibility for directly commissioning services out into ICBs so decisions are made closer to the communities they serve\r\n\r\nAs such, the Government cannot halt the financial and service changes needed to reform the NHS. However, it is only right that with such significant reform, we commit to carefully assessing and understanding the potential impacts. Ongoing assessment is part of the reform programme and will help ensure our decisions focus on improving patient care. The Government is committed to transparency and will consider how best to ensure the public and parliamentarians are kept informed as the programme progresses.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.967Z","updated_at":"2026-01-22T15:39:11.967Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750121,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750121.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make assaulting a security worker a standalone offence","background":"Security workers play a vital role in maintaining public safety, but can face violence and abuse while performing their duties. Despite their critical role in protecting businesses, venues, and the public, security workers lack the legal protections afforded to emergency workers and shop workers.","additional_details":"We think the government must address this by enacting specific legislation making assaulting a security worker a standalone offence.\r\n\r\nSecurity are often first responders to incidents of crime and violence, yet, we feel they get little recognition or statutory protection, leaving them vulnerable. A dedicated offence could serve as a deterrent and an acknowledgment of their role in protecting public safety. We would want legal protections in line with those for emergency and retail staff.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":11674,"created_at":"2025-11-09T14:36:02.181Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:20:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-09T14:22:25.853Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-10T15:54:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-28T13:27:20.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Daniel Garnham","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":743337,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/743337.json"},"attributes":{"action":" Fund free dental care for head & neck cancer patients  ","background":"We want the Government to fund free dental care for head and neck cancer patients both during and after treatment to address the significant oral health challenges that survivors may face, and to improve their overall quality of life.","additional_details":"Head and neck cancer treatments, such as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, can result in long-term oral health issues, including dry mouth, tooth decay and infections. These conditions can severely affect survivors' quality of life, their self-esteem and ability to eat, speak. Providing free dental care could ensure patients have access to essential treatments, improve their health outcomes, and reduce the financial burden, similar to other cancer types already covered by healthcare services.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11650,"created_at":"2025-09-26T10:06:31.621Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:20:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-30T10:02:43.012Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-28T10:12:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T09:42:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.998Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Christopher Curtis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-05","summary":"We understand the importance of oral care for cancer patients. There are no current plans to extend free care to cancer patients, although those struggling with NHS dental costs can apply for help.","details":"The Government recognises that patients with cancer, especially those with diagnoses of head or neck cancer, may be more vulnerable to oral health problems during and following their treatment. We are working across the system to ensure that patients who have a diagnosis of cancer receive timely, safe, and effective dental care.\r\n\r\nIntegrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for commissioning primary care services, including NHS dentistry, to meet the needs of local populations and to determine the priorities for investment. NHS England has published guidance for ICBs to help ensure patients with a diagnosis of cancer can access oral healthcare in a timely manner. This guidance is available at the following link: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/oral-healthcare-provision-for-cancer-pathways/. The guidance outlines an “oral health in cancer pathway” for patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer, patients awaiting chemotherapy or immunotherapy for any cancer type, and patients that will undergo bone marrow transplantation. This pathway could include oral health assessments, prevention, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in primary (NHS or independent), community, secondary, or tertiary care settings. This would be provided as part of a multi-disciplinary team care plan. Ongoing oral health management for the duration of the cancer therapy would take place.\r\n\r\nWhilst there are currently no plans to extend free dental care to those with a diagnosis of head or neck cancer, for those who are struggling with NHS dental charges, there is a range of help available. This includes full exemptions from dental charges and, for those not eligible for exemption, support through the NHS Low Income Scheme.\r\n\r\nExemptions are currently available for those who meet the following criteria:\r\n•\tpeople aged under 18, or under 19 and in full-time education\r\n•\tpeople who are pregnant or have had a baby in the last 12 months\r\n•\tpeople who have had a stillbirth in the past 12 months\r\n•\tpeople receiving treatment in an NHS hospital from a hospital dentist (although these patients may still need to pay for dentures or bridges)\r\n•\tpeople receiving War Pension Scheme payments, or Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments, and for whom the treatment is for their accepted disability\r\n•\tpeople in receipt of certain benefits\r\n\r\nFor those who are not eligible for a full exemption, either full or partial support with the costs of NHS dental treatment is available through the NHS Low Income Scheme, information about which is available at the following link: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/nhs-low-income-scheme.\r\n\r\nFurther information on the help available can be found at the following link: https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/dentists/get-help-with-dental-costs/.\r\n\r\nIn addition, in the 10 Year Health Plan, the Government committed to providing more readily accessible, good quality care to those most in need. In line with this, we are working to transform NHS dentistry so it provides high quality care at the right time, and so nobody goes without because they cannot afford it.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.993Z","updated_at":"2026-03-05T11:08:00.993Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757758,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757758.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Disregard compensation paid to injured service personnel from UC calculation","background":"Introduce legislation to disregard any payments made to ex-service personnel in the form of injury or income compensation from Universal Credit (UC) calculations, no matter in which manner this payment has been paid out (lump sum or ongoing payments) indefinitely.","additional_details":"Some service members and ex-service personnel who are permanently injured lose Universal Credit after 12 months because their Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) payments, and War Pensions are treated as capital. We believe this is disproportionate, forcing some families to spend money meant to cover long-term injury, illness, or loss of independence just to survive.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11596,"created_at":"2026-01-19T15:21:38.109Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:10:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-26T13:13:50.255Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T15:40:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-05T15:07:20.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Lucy Tattingham","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoD","name":"Ministry of Defence","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761186,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761186.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Add gynaecological conditions e.g. Endometriosis to Equality Act 2010 Guidance","background":"We call on the UK government to include gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, PCOS, PMDD, menopause & menstrual disorders as “impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects” in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance on the definition of disability (published in May 2011)","additional_details":"We think gynaecological conditions must be listed as impairments in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance on Disability. We believe this will ensure employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as Endometriosis are supported with reasonable adjustments and protected against disability discrimination in the workplace by law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11592,"created_at":"2026-02-15T17:01:38.003Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:46:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-27T10:09:53.151Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-15T19:45:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-01T21:13:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sanju Pal","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750741,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750741.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review and reform legal status of pets, and rules on animal control equipment","background":"I ask the Government to review and reform the status of pets to recognise them in all cases as sentient family members and relatives, not chattel. Set out specific strict rules on using animal-control equipment like catch poles and strong penalties if negligence or force cause harm or death to pets.","additional_details":"Losing a pet can cause the same pain as losing a family member, but the law still treats them as property. My dog, Bronson, died in a tragic incident, and I don’t want any other family to experience this. I believe clear rules on catch pole use and strong legal recognition and protections for pets could help prevent avoidable harm and ensure proper accountability in the future. These reforms could be named Bronson's Law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10964,"created_at":"2025-11-14T13:30:16.095Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:48:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T10:04:16.853Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-14T16:06:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-29T10:51:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.668Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Marcus Sean flaherty","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"We are sorry to hear of Bronson’s death. Where dogs pose a risk to others, restraint poles are an important tool. We continue to support police to embed animal welfare in enforcement practice. ","details":"Thank you for supporting this petition and for raising your concerns about the tragic incident involving Bronson. We understand how painful it is to lose a much‑loved pet, and we offer our deepest sympathies to Bronson’s owner and all those affected. Pets are an important part of family life, and we recognise the strong feelings behind this petition.\r\n\r\nAnimal welfare remains a key government priority. We expect all public bodies, including police forces, to take animal welfare into account when carrying out their duties. Police officers often have to make rapid decisions in challenging and unpredictable situations, and while incidents of this nature are rare, they can require swift action to protect people and other animals. Equipment such as dog‑restraint poles are intended to help officers manage these moments safely, though it is essential that such tools are used responsibly and appropriately.\r\n\r\nPolice forces in England and Wales operate independently. Individual Chief Constables are responsible for decisions on training, operational procedures and equipment, and for ensuring officers follow national guidance, uphold professional standards and consider animal welfare in their responses.\r\n\r\nThe government continues to work with policing partners, animal welfare organisations and experts to ensure welfare considerations are embedded across enforcement practice. We expect forces to review their policies, learn from incidents and make improvements where needed.\r\n\r\nWe are grateful to everyone who signed this petition and shared their views. The government remains committed to promoting high standards of animal care and ensuring that the public and their pets feel safe, protected and treated fairly.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\r\n","created_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.665Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T16:24:34.665Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":758752,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758752.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review and increase expense rates for employees traveling outside the UK","background":"HMRC sets scale rate expenses for subsistence paid to employees who travel outside the UK, such as Cabin Crew. We feel the rates are not reflective or the real costs for people whose work takes them abroad, and that the way they are put into blocks of 5/10 or 24 hour blocks is completely unfair.","additional_details":"We want these rates to be reviewed by HMRC so they are up to date with the current cost of living. If a flight is delayed by an hour this can mean dropping from the 24 hour payment down to the 10 hour payment so essentially working 12 hours without a payment, this is a common occurrence in air travel, hence crew being penalised for something out of their control. We believe the scale rates need to provide a wider range of rates and time blocks so that if you fall between rates you are not penalised.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10937,"created_at":"2026-01-25T13:26:28.529Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:17:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-27T16:40:00.237Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-25T16:23:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-16T09:07:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"GEMMA LOUISE CRANE","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":738567,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/738567.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change laws regarding abuse of multiple animals","background":"We believe each animal’s suffering deserves justice. For those who abuse multiple animals, we want separate charges to be required for each animal abused, rather than a single charge. We think strong consistent sentences will deter mass animal abuse cases.","additional_details":"We want Parliament to ensure that people who abuse or kill multiple animals cannot escape with light punishments. We think each animal should be treated as a separate offence, with sentences applied for every case. We believe this would deliver justice for every animal and act as a strong deterrent against future cruelty.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10932,"created_at":"2025-08-20T19:05:30.226Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:11:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-13T09:54:55.317Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-21T08:14:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-20T10:23:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-10T07:52:06.029Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"tracey whatmore","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-10","summary":"The Government is firmly committed to improving animal welfare. Any incident of unnecessary suffering is unacceptable, and such cases are treated with the utmost seriousness.","details":"The Government agrees that serious animal cruelty must carry meaningful consequences. The Government is determined to ensure that those responsible for causing animal suffering are held fully accountable.\r\n\r\nCausing unnecessary suffering to an animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In recognition of the seriousness of this crime, the maximum penalty was increased from six months’ imprisonment to five years and an unlimited fine. Following a conviction for animal cruelty or welfare offences, the court may also ban the offender from keeping certain types of animals and order that their animals are removed from them.\r\n\r\nGuidance on the proper application of the law in cases involving multiple animals is already in place. The Crown Prosecution Service provides dedicated charging guidance for offences under section 4, and the Sentencing Council’s Animal Cruelty Guidelines recognise that cases involving multiple animal victims may increase the seriousness of the offence. Where multiple animals are harmed under a single charge, judges have the discretion to impose more severe penalties, up to the five‑year maximum.\r\n\r\nProportionate sentencing and judicial discretion remain essential to our justice system, and the current framework enables courts to fully reflect the seriousness of offences involving harm to multiple animals. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ","created_at":"2026-04-10T07:52:06.026Z","updated_at":"2026-04-10T07:52:06.026Z"},"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":758713,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758713.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legally require all councillors & mayors to speak proficient English","background":"There’s no legal requirement for councillors/mayors to be proficient in English. This can lead to communication barriers in meetings and with constituents. This petition calls for mandatory English fluency for these roles.","additional_details":"In recent years, viral media clips have raised concerns about English proficiency among some ceremonial mayors and councillors. Discussions question if limited fluency impairs public communication. These cases support calls for mandatory English proficiency and English-only official meetings for clarity and accessibility.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10519,"created_at":"2026-01-25T02:22:40.482Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:15:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-27T11:10:56.973Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-26T07:30:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-29T21:02:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-20T09:10:40.435Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jake Harris","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-20","summary":"Government expects local authority public meetings not to be conducted in foreign languages. Local authorities are already empowered to offer training for their members where they feel it necessary.","details":"Local democracy depends on meetings being open, transparent and accessible. Councillors and mayors, as elected representatives, are expected to communicate clearly so that local authority decisions can be understood, scrutinised and reported on by the public. The government guidance, Open and accountable local government: plain English guide\r\n\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-and-accountable-local-government-plain-english-guide \r\n\r\npromotes the use of clear language and recommends that formal local authority meetings should not be conducted in foreign languages to facilitate public scrutiny.\r\n\r\nQualification for local government membership is already set out in legislation, and it is not the government’s intention to introduce additional requirements. Local authorities are independent of central government and, subject to the Local Government Act 1972, are best placed to regulate their own proceedings through standing orders and to provide training for members where appropriate. The public’s ability to hold councils to account relies on decisions being taken openly at local level.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government\r\n","created_at":"2026-04-20T09:10:40.434Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T09:11:57.067Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757792,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757792.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do Not Scrap the 1265 Directed Time Provision for Teachers","background":"We are concerned about reports that the 1265 directed time policy for teachers may be scrapped. We feel teachers have faced real terms pay cuts, and view 1265 as the only thing protecting staff from even more unpaid and excessive workload. Recruitment and retention is already critical. We say no.","additional_details":"Our school staff and young people deserve better. We oppose trying to run state schools on the cheap. There is a cost of living crisis and many teachers and support staff have 2nd/3rd jobs, which they wont be able to commit to. Scrapping 1265 in favour of unregulated and unpaid hours will lead to more poverty and burnout of staff. This will not help our young people. We want to attract people into the profession, not expect them to be 'on call' at the whim of CEO's/ Leadership - unpaid.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10406,"created_at":"2026-01-19T18:59:15.038Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T08:19:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-19T15:06:45.851Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-20T08:20:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-22T14:22:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-08T11:55:52.208Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"REBECCA LINDY PARTINGTON-JENKINS","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-08","summary":"We have not proposed the removal, or a specific change, to the current 1265 directed hours limit, which is a key teacher protection.","details":"To be clear, the Department for Education (DfE) has not proposed the removal, or a specific change, to the current 1265 directed hours limit, which is a key teacher protection.\r\n\r\nThis year’s remit asked the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) for their views on the benefits and challenges of current working hours arrangements within the ‘School teachers’ pay and conditions’ document, considering both directed time and non-directed time for teachers and the working hours of leaders. \r\n\r\nWe know that many teachers are working significantly more than 1265 hours and we want to build a comprehensive picture on how working hours arrangements interact and impact on workload before considering any changes.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-04-08T11:55:52.206Z","updated_at":"2026-04-08T11:55:52.206Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":745599,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/745599.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing ECAA visa holders","background":"We ask the UK Government to keep the 5-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain for former ECAA (Turkish Businessperson) visa holders. Extending it to 10 years breaks previous commitments and unfairly affects those who built lives and businesses in the UK.","additional_details":"Former ECAA visa holders came to the UK legally under the Ankara Agreement, investing, paying taxes, creating jobs, and contributing to the economy. After Brexit, we were promised fair treatment under the same terms. Extending ILR eligibility from 5 to 10 years breaks that promise, creates uncertainty, and punishes qualified people who have built their homes, families, and businesses in the UK in good faith. We call on the Government to honour its commitment and maintain the 5-year route to ILR.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":10342,"created_at":"2025-10-05T10:18:29.476Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T12:37:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-04T17:41:42.580Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-05T11:52:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-01T19:04:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-14T12:06:18.427Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Meftun Deniz","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-14","summary":"The Immigration White Paper set out that the default period to settlement will rise to 10 years. We ran a 12-week consultation seeking views on related proposals and transitional arrangements.","details":"Settlement in the UK is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen and brings lifelong benefits. It marks an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the wider country. It is a privilege and not a right.\r\n\r\nCurrently, individuals qualify for settlement primarily on the basis of the length of time they have spent in the UK alongside a knowledge of life test which is used to verify knowledge of British customs, history, traditions, laws and political system.\r\n\r\nThese criteria alone do not reflect our strong belief that people should contribute to the economy and society before gaining settled status in the UK. Moreover, they fail to promote integration, which limits the wider benefit from long term migration into the UK and increases pressure on public services.\r\n\r\nWe plan to fundamentally reform the settlement rules for the first time in over 50 years. The Immigration White Paper, published in May 2025, set out that the default qualifying period for settlement would be increased from five to ten years. \r\n\r\nFollowing that, in November 2025, we published ‘A Fairer Pathway to Settlement’ and launched a consultation alongside it. The Command Paper set out new mandatory requirements for settlement and proposed reductions and penalties. \r\n\r\nDue to the unprecedented level of migration to the UK in recent years, settlement grants are expected to increase considerably over the next five years. Around 1.6 million people are forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030. \r\n\r\nImportantly, individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period to settlement based on contributions to the UK economy and society.\r\n\r\nSpeaking English at a high level, earning a high salary and being employed in specific public service roles would result in a reduction. However, where a person has claimed public funds or committed immigration offences, they would face a penalty of extra years. \r\n\r\nWe understand how important these issues are to individuals, families and communities.  That is precisely why the Government ran a public consultation to gather views on the proposals. \r\n\r\nThe consultation, which ran for 12 weeks, opened on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026.  We are now reviewing and analysing the 200,000 responses received.  This analysis will help inform the development of the final earned settlement model. \r\n\r\nThe UK was previously a signatory to the European Communities Association Agreement (ECAA), also known as the ‘Ankara Agreement’, by virtue of its membership of the European Union (EU). The UK’s obligations under the ECAA ended on 31 December 2020, with Appendix ECAA (Extension of Stay) introduced in the Immigration Rules to enable those already in the UK under the ECAA to apply for further extensions of leave, with largely similar requirements and conditions. However, these post EU-exit commitments did not extend to future requirements for settlement applications. \r\n\r\nThe UK has provided a settlement route for ECAA workers, ECAA businesspersons and their family members since July 2018, with criteria that reflect the UK’s standard settlement rules. Appendix ECAA (Settlement) was introduced following the judgment of R (Aydogdu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 167 (IAC). This confirmed that the previous preferential arrangements for settlement for ECAA businesspersons were not necessary to give effect to the UK’s obligations under the ECAA.\r\n\r\nFor those who are on a pathway to settlement but have not yet been granted settled status, including ECAA visa holders, we consulted on transitional arrangements for these individuals. \r\n\r\nOnce the final model has been decided, the Government will communicate the outcome publicly.  As with all significant policy changes, the proposals will be subject to both economic impact assessments and equality impact assessments. \r\n\r\nWe appreciate the time taken by all those who contributed their views, and we remain committed to developing a fair and transparent system that reflects both the needs of the UK and the contributions of those who wish to build their lives here. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-04-14T12:06:18.425Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T12:07:18.596Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755755,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755755.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund a new government-backed animal cruelty policing unit","background":"Fund a government-backed Animal Cruelty Policing Unit that has legal authority to seize animals, enforce fines and force entry in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a protected animal has occurred under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.","additional_details":"Animal welfare charities, such as the RSPCA, have no legal powers to seize animals or force entry into properties, and we believe the police seldom act on cruelty cases due to being a low priority for them. This dedicated unit could effectively bridge the gap between animal welfare charities and the police by enforcing welfare laws without burdening police forces.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10305,"created_at":"2026-01-01T22:22:10.634Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T21:52:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-10T16:22:52.449Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-01T22:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-14T22:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-25T16:35:42.248Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sammie Wilkinson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-25","summary":"The Government is committed to improving animal welfare. A range of established forums and partnerships already support coordinated enforcement across animal welfare legislation.","details":"We do not support the proposal to establish a new government funded Animal Cruelty Policing Unit. Establishing a new organisation or repurposing an existing organisation would be costly and complex, without clear evidence that it would improve enforcement outcomes. \r\nAs set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy for England,(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england/animal-welfare-strategy-for-england) the Government’s focus is on improving compliance and enforcement outcomes to support high welfare, rather than on changing governance.\r\n\r\nThe Government encourages intelligence sharing through established groups, such as the National Animal Health and Welfare Panel, and will continue to work with the sector to drive up animal welfare standards. \r\n\r\nThe existing legislative framework already provides robust powers for investigating and responding to animal welfare concerns. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, local authorities, the police and the Animal & Plant Health Agency have clear authority to investigate cruelty allegations, enter premises and take necessary enforcement action. Section 18 of the Act enables inspectors or police officers to seize an animal if a veterinary surgeon certifies that it is suffering or likely to suffer and allows them to act without certification where delay would risk further harm. They may also take immediate steps to alleviate suffering, including arranging urgent veterinary treatment, and can apply to the courts for further orders where needed.\r\n\r\nThe Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 amended the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to increase the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty. Anyone who is cruel to an animal faces being sent to prison for up to five years, or receiving an unlimited fine, or both. Following a conviction for animal cruelty or welfare offences, the court may also ban the offender from keeping certain types of animal and order that their animals are removed from them.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-03-25T16:35:42.246Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T16:36:58.712Z"},"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":762116,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762116.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban non-stun & recoverable stun slaughter of animals","background":"Religious slaughter may require the animal to be slaughtered whilst alive, which is in line with their religious beliefs. In relation to this, stunning needs to be recoverable. Normal slaughter uses a bolt gun that renders the animal brain dead and unable to regain consciousness.","additional_details":"The Government has the power to ban non-stun religious slaughter in this country via legislation. Greece did this in 2021. Many argue that the labelling of meat products via supermarkets is insufficient and can’t be trusted, so we believe a blanket ban on non-stun and recoverable stun animal slaughter is needed. We feel people who disagree with these practices shouldn’t effectively have their rights diminished and shouldn’t be forced to eat meat that has not been stunned-to-kill, due to a lack of options.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10285,"created_at":"2026-02-22T09:22:07.864Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:21:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:42:41.248Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-22T09:35:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-19T23:18:00.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Philip Weston","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756424,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756424.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Create a national database of convicted animal abusers","background":"The database should be accessible to relevant authorities and regulated organisations, including local councils, animal welfare charities, veterinary professionals, licenced breeders, rescue centres, and organisations responsible for rehoming animals. Animal cruelty is a serious offence.","additional_details":"Its purpose would be to prevent convicted animal abusers from owning, working with, breeding, or having unsupervised access to animals. It would also improve enforcement of animal disqualification orders, support safeguarding efforts, enhance public and animal safety, and strengthen existing animal welfare legislation. Appropriate safeguards should be included to ensure compliance with privacy and human rights laws. At present enforcement relies on fragmented records and inconsistent checks.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":9786,"created_at":"2026-01-08T20:13:11.884Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:07:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-06T09:01:09.384Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T11:33:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Abbi Collins","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757502,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757502.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce national support standards for autistic children with PDA","background":"We urge the Government to recognise the growing cohort of autistic children with a Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) profile who are unable to attend school safely. ","additional_details":"We believe that in demand-heavy, compliance-led settings, they may face escalating crisis, including increased risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation.\r\n \r\nIn our view PDA is inconsistently supported across education, health and local authorities, resulting in many children experiencing preventable crisis. For some children, proximity to mainstream environments triggers crisis; without timely access to low-arousal or alternative learning pathways, risk increases. We ask the Government to strengthen partnerships through improved awareness of PDA-related needs, supported by training and accountability, so children are not required to fail first.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":9734,"created_at":"2026-01-17T13:52:23.142Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:22:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-20T10:51:06.952Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-17T17:33:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tatum Davis","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750817,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750817.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow small pets to travel in the cabin on flights entering the UK","background":"Allow airlines, under DEFRA guidance, to offer an in-cabin travel option for small, fully documented pets on flights entering the UK, in line with international standards for other countries.","additional_details":"Many countries, including within the EU, USA, Canada, and Ireland, generally allow small, vaccinated, and microchipped pets to travel safely in the cabin, though requirements vary between different countries and airlines. The UK requires cargo travel even for very small animals, which can be stressful for the pets and costly for their owners. I believe allowing an in-cabin option would improve welfare and align the UK more closely with widely used global practices while maintaining biosecurity.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":9445,"created_at":"2025-11-15T09:53:34.595Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:22:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-02T08:31:19.684Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-03T01:02:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Eirini Zartaloudi","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759478,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759478.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish the Casey Commission into adult social care","background":"We believe the Casey Commission is a barrier to desperately needed social care reform, a delaying mechanism and a waste of taxpayer’s money. We want the Government to abolish the commission and instead focus on resolving the social care crisis, preferably on a cross-party basis.","additional_details":"Social care is in crisis. It is estimated that around 2 million people over 65 are not getting the support they need and estimates of around 11% of hospital beds filled with people ready for discharge. We feel the Commission was never needed, as there have been at least 25 other inquiries since 1997, with multiple public consultations. We feel all the options for reform and funding options are already in the public domain. The Government should abolish the Commission and act now.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":9284,"created_at":"2026-01-31T13:40:37.388Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:15:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-13T09:33:53.708Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-31T16:08:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dennis Reed","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"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":747281,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/747281.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require DBS Checks for Tattoo Artists in England","background":"We call on the government to introduce mandatory DBS checks for all licensed tattoo artists in England. Wales has shown this approach works. DBS checks will prevent those with violent or sexual criminal histories from working with clients, protecting public safety and ensuring trust in the industry.","additional_details":"Tattooing involves close, private contact, often with vulnerable clients, and current licensing does not screen for criminal history. Without DBS checks, dangerous individuals could gain access to clients. Wales has already implemented mandatory checks successfully. Requiring DBS in England will prevent harm, safeguard the public from violent or sexual offenders, increase accountability, and restore confidence in the tattoo industry nationwide.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":9189,"created_at":"2025-10-17T20:48:16.350Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T06:40:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-21T10:14:10.066Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-17T20:52:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gemma-may Farrimond","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"BT","name":"Department for Business and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":763401,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763401.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop pilot scheme giving up to £40,000 to failed asylum seeker families","background":"The UK government should stop its pilot scheme offering failed asylum seekers our hard earned money for them to leave the UK.","additional_details":"We feel it is not fair to the UK people to provide our money to failed asylum seekers to get them to leave.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8800,"created_at":"2026-03-06T12:28:47.423Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:01:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-10T14:19:59.670Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-06T14:53:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alison Dean-Norman","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754152,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754152.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Create one-off amnesty with extra tax obligation for undocumented people","background":"Introduce a one-off amnesty for undocumented people currently living in the UK without a legal right to remain, granting them legal status to work. As part of this process those who are given the right to remain in the UK could pay a temporary additional tax to support the economy & public services","additional_details":"We believe that a scheme like this, combined with a temporary extra tax contribution, would bring people into the formal workforce, increase revenue for the Treasury, reduce exploitation, and promote community safety. In our view, countries that have introduced similar schemes have seen economic and social benefits and we believe this would create a fair, practical, and compassionate solution for the UK.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8664,"created_at":"2025-12-10T20:43:00.924Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:41:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-23T08:36:40.960Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-10T21:30:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Amr Moheb","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":743406,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/743406.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Rescind recognition of a Palestinian state and respect the Montevideo Convention","background":"The UK should rescind its recognition of a Palestinian state, which we believe does not meet the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. We believe recognition rewards terrorism, undermines peace, and falls short of longstanding international norms. ","additional_details":"Parliament must act to reverse this dangerous and premature decision.\r\n\r\nUnder the Montevideo Convention, a state must have a defined territory, permanent population, government and capacity to enter into relations with others. We consider that a Palestinian state would currently satisfy none of these criteria. We believe recognition thus defies international norms, rewards terrorism and obstructs peace, and that the Government should rescind recognition to uphold these standards, protect the UK’s integrity in foreign policy, and ensure Britain does not embolden extremists at home or abroad.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8476,"created_at":"2025-09-26T13:04:09.519Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T06:17:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-10T13:25:16.409Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-29T08:44:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gideon Falter","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751480,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751480.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not remove trial by jury for certain cases","background":"The MoJ plans to remove the right to trial by jury for either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less. We believe it is an ancient right allowing us to be judged by our peers and this right must never be lost.","additional_details":"The Magna Carta (1215) states:\r\n\r\n“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”.\r\n\r\nWe believe that losing this right would be to break British Justice completely.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8415,"created_at":"2025-11-22T09:34:21.506Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T09:39:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-18T16:00:11.351Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T16:10:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David Boulding","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761058,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761058.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban and stop the “15 minute cities” initiative in the UK","background":"Ban the “15 minute cities” initiative which is happening in places such as Oxford immediately and stop all councils immediately from implementing such schemes for which there is no national mandate.","additional_details":"We believe the initiative is a restriction on individual freedom of movement & restricts people’s ability to choose where they live, work or travel, contravening both the Human Rights Act & ECHR (primarily through Article 2 of Protocol #4) which guarantees the right to move freely & choose their residence in the territory they live in, ensuring that individuals can live, work & travel domestically without arbitrary restriction. In our view there are no valid or proven reasons for this initiative to go ahead.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8347,"created_at":"2026-02-13T20:04:09.403Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:22:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-08T09:03:01.209Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-14T18:04:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"natalie kearney","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757624,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757624.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce roadside littering: penalty points, increase fines, fund litter picks","background":"Allow authorities to impose penalty points on drivers for discarding litter from a vehicle. Increase minimum on the spot fines for littering and awareness through TV/online campaigns. Insist businesses take more responsibility in anti-litter campaigns. Increase budget for highways litter picks.","additional_details":"Roads are increasingly becoming covered in litter. This is no longer just an urban problem - it affects all roads from motorways to rural country lanes. The issue appears to be worsening, and it seems little is being done to stop it. The problem not only blights our country, but also poses a danger to wildlife and, on occasion, other road users. The visual pollution negatively impacts citizens but also presents our country unfavourably to overseas visitors.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8271,"created_at":"2026-01-18T12:39:41.349Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:06:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-23T12:58:44.641Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-18T16:14:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jamie Mayland","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"},{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":748841,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/748841.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give UK citizens legal ownership of their face, voice, and likeness","background":"We urge the Government to introduce a law giving all UK citizens legal ownership of their face, voice, and likeness. This would protect people from unauthorised use in AI, media, or advertising and allow individuals to control and license their own identity.","additional_details":"Every UK citizen should legally own their identity — face, voice, and likeness. AI can now clone voices and create fake images without consent, yet UK law offers little protection. Denmark is already legislating to safeguard these rights. The UK must act to ensure dignity, consent, and control over our own image and voice.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":8093,"created_at":"2025-11-01T10:40:04.188Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T09:17:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-03T15:37:38.607Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-01T11:18:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Craig Magee","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":744396,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744396.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban publication of police officer names in misconduct hearings if not sacked","background":"When police officers face misconduct hearings, their names are routinely published by their force and reported in the press — even in cases where they are not dismissed. ","additional_details":"This can cause harm, including an enduring negative digital footprint, damage to their reputation, and significant personal trauma.\r\n\r\nOther sectors do not publish their outcomes. The publishing of names can be deeply damaging to individuals and to families.  We call on the government to amend the legislation allowing the publication of these details. ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7921,"created_at":"2025-09-29T22:13:47.034Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T22:45:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-17T09:35:07.456Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-30T08:11:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"BEN NEWMAN","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761287,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761287.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Return Royal Mail to public ownership","background":"We are concerned that Royal Mail has made profits for years while having repeated industrial disputes with loyal postal workers. Letter delivery has failed time and again. We believe privatisation has clearly failed — the Government should restore Royal Mail to public ownership","additional_details":"We believe Royal Mail has generated profits for years while its dedicated postal workers have faced worsening conditions, triggering repeated industrial disputes. Letter delivery standards have failed time and time again, and we feel that the public is paying the price. We think privatisation has clearly failed. The Government should purchase Royal Mail and return this essential service to public ownership.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7837,"created_at":"2026-02-16T22:53:31.895Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T10:01:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-25T15:17:16.071Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-17T12:50:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Adam mancey","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"BT","name":"Department for Business and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751919,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751919.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Recognise ‘Veteran’ as a protected characteristic in law.","background":"Make ‘Veteran’ a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 to help ensure veterans aren't disadvantaged and that Armed Forces Covenant objectives are consistently applied. Require organisations to enable recording of veteran status with safeguards and prevent discrimination or disadvantage.","additional_details":"We are concerned that, without a clear legal duty to recognise and act on veteran status, avoidable disadvantage may continue across healthcare, housing, employment and the justice system. The Armed Forces Covenant sets important expectations, but without Equality Act protection there is not the same legal compulsion on public bodies and other organisations as exists for recognised protected characteristics. We believe recognising ‘Veteran’ as a protected characteristic would strengthen early intervention, fair treatment and better outcomes, in line with the aims of the Equality Act 2010.\r\n \r\nFor the purposes of this petition, ‘veteran’ is defined in line with the UK Government definition: anyone who has served at least one day in the UK Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve).","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7643,"created_at":"2025-11-25T10:41:30.245Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T13:31:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-06T17:09:32.426Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-25T12:15:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Stuart Fawcett","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoD","name":"Ministry of Defence","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":758408,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758408.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Write law that a referendum is required for the UK to be able to leave the ECHR","background":"The European Convention on Human Rights enshrines our basic human rights, gives us the right to a fair trial, right to privacy and helps protect us from things like torture, unlawful killing, slavery but also punishment without law and freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more.","additional_details":"I want the government to write into law that in order for any future government to be able to leave the European Convention of Human Rights, which is separate to the European Union, a referendum must take place in order to force politicians to put the case to the people so the pros and cons can have a proper public debate and such a fundamental change be directly decided by the people.\r\n \r\nWe believe this kind of change is something that only the people should be able to decide","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7514,"created_at":"2026-01-23T16:53:56.784Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T03:49:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-24T16:07:49.485Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-23T22:47:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Neil Lomas","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756494,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756494.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Publish a decision on the Park Home Sales Commission in 2026","background":"We call on the Government to publish a final decision in 2026 on the future of the 10% sales commission charged to park home residents.","additional_details":"Over a decade of delay in Governments making a decision on this matter leaves older and vulnerable homeowners unable to plan their finances, move home, or pass on assets.\r\n \r\nWe urge the Government to:\r\nPublish a clear decision in 2026 on whether the 10% commission will remain, be reduced, or be abolished\r\nSet out a timetable for any legislative changes\r\nExplain how consultation evidence has been assessed\r\nPark home residents deserve certainty, fairness, and action, not more delay.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7498,"created_at":"2026-01-09T14:16:50.215Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:49:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-13T09:57:28.013Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-11T09:52:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David Iles","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760827,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760827.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require NHS to offer routine third trimester pregnancy ultrasound scan","background":"As a mother of a baby born via emergency c-section due to missed foetal compromise I urge the Government to require the NHS to offer a routine third trimester ultrasound scan. I think this could reduce emergency c-sections, stillbirths and lifelong disabilities due to missed foetal complications. ","additional_details":"Currently the NHS offers two routine scans, one at 12 weeks and one at 20 weeks. After this the baby's health is relied upon fundal height, parent blood pressure, dipstick urine tests, and a minutes-worth of doppler use every 2-4 weeks. I believe that not only are these methods outdated, but can also miss growth restrictions, reduced foetal heart rate and placental issues. I therefore call for the NHS to offer routine third trimester scans, which could detect issues earlier, medical intervention can be involved sooner and emergency c-sections reduced.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7388,"created_at":"2026-02-11T20:33:34.977Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:07:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-23T11:33:55.062Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T12:05:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Louise Thornton","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"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":762815,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762815.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise the personal tax allowance to £18,000","background":"Since 2021 personal tax allowance has been frozen at £12,570.  This freeze was due to expire this year but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has extended it to 2031.\r\nWe want to keep some more of our own money.\r\n","additional_details":"If you are earning minimum wage then you may soon be paying tax because of fiscal drag. Some higher earners pay little or no tax due to clever use of accounting rules. We think this is so wrong.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7029,"created_at":"2026-03-01T12:07:01.306Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:22:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-31T14:11:37.574Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-02T19:43:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Mike Haynes","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":763034,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763034.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ratify the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989 (ILO Convention 169)","background":"We ask the Government to ratify ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and consider whether it would be appropriate to formally recognise the English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, and Manx as the indigenous peoples of Great Britain and its isles.","additional_details":"We believe this would affirm their ancient cultural, linguistic, and genetic continuity. Britain's native peoples have inhabited these islands continuously since post-Ice Age times, with many recent genetic studies showing deep ancestry predating known major migrations. Recognition under ILO 169, and UNDRIP principles which the UK endorsed, would we believe protect distinct identities, languages, and heritage without exclusion. Comparable cases exist, e.g., Māori (arrived ~13th century, recognised in NZ) and Sámi (Bronze Age presence, recognised in Scandinavia). We believe this is about historical truth and cultural equity.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":7025,"created_at":"2026-03-03T13:28:26.447Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:14:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T16:48:01.139Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T17:39:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jonathan Wong","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":742673,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/742673.json"},"attributes":{"action":" Legalise pepper spray in England","background":"We call on the UK Government to:\r\n \r\n•       Legalise and regulate pepper spray for self-defence\r\n•       Restrict sales to over-18s and approved formulations only\r\n•       Impose tough penalties for misuse\r\n•       Provide clear guidelines on lawful self-defence","additional_details":"Every day across England, people – especially women, disabled people, and survivors of domestic abuse – are left vulnerable to harassment, assault, and violence.\r\nReports of harassment and sexual offences on public transport have surged.\r\nPeople are being threatened at bus stops and in public spaces.\r\nWe think domestic abuse is still at epidemic levels – and too many victims are left defenceless while waiting for help.\r\nPolice response times can stretch into hours, leaving victims exposed and unprotected.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":6712,"created_at":"2025-09-22T12:25:31.224Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T14:23:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-03T10:37:56.349Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-25T12:06:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sarah Wingfield","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762304,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762304.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Pass house building reforms for construction of 1.4 million approved houses","background":"We ask the Government to introduce mandatory build-out timeframes for approved sites, apply stronger penalties at sites where there has not been progress, pass “use it or lose it” planning permissions, strengthen compulsory purchase powers, and greater support to tackle long-term empty homes.","additional_details":"This is for the 1.4 million houses, that according IPPR analysis, have been granted permission since 2007 but remain unbuilt. We believe communities should not be asked to release further countryside while previously approved sites remain stalled. Despite this, local authorities are being required under the NPPF to allocate additional land, including greenfield and green belt sites, to meet housing targets. We believe housing needs should be met through delivery, not increasing land supply.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":6618,"created_at":"2026-02-23T22:48:14.536Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:17:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:41:15.503Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-24T08:56:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Danielle Belton","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":746674,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/746674.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Grant interim exemptions to all seized dogs with no prior history of aggression","background":"We would like for the Government to grant interim exemptions for all dogs seized from their owners under the XL Bully ban who have no history of aggression. This could allow for dogs to remain in the custody of their owners at home and not in kennels.","additional_details":"We believe dogs deserve to remain in safe and loving homes whilst waiting for a decision from the courts. Many beloved pets may be kept for long periods of time in kennels, which can cost the owners thousands of pounds. Many dogs get no satisfactory interaction, and many have been returned home underweight, scared and uncared for. Many owners are scared to lose their pets to kennels for an unknown amount of time and having the interim exemption in place could see more owners come forward.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":6562,"created_at":"2025-10-13T01:01:31.807Z","updated_at":"2026-04-19T00:19:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-17T09:17:08.501Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-14T09:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rochelle Watt","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757794,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757794.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund improvement to PCOS, Endometriosis, and Fertility Health care and treatment","background":"We believe PCOS, endometriosis, and other fertility conditions are poorly understood, often dismissed, and leave patients in chronic pain with little hope. We urge the government to fund improvements in medical training and research to ensure earlier diagnosis, and provide proper long-term support.","additional_details":"I’ve suffered from PCOS and other fertility conditions—heavy periods, hair loss, chronic pain—and felt dismissed by doctors. I help others by sharing my story online, but I shouldn’t have to. No one should feel scared, alone, or left without answers. I’m starting this petition to urge the government to fund research, improve diagnosis, and provide real support so people like us finally get the care we deserve.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":6531,"created_at":"2026-01-19T19:05:08.747Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T12:44:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-19T10:15:15.152Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T19:11:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sophie Ann Fowler","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"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":744650,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744650.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban 20mph speed limits with limited exceptions","background":"We believe anti car sentiment has become rife and 20mph speed limits are becoming commonplace in many towns and villages which just slows traffic and causes more congestion. There should be a national policy so 20mph limits are only used as the exception, e.g outside schools.","additional_details":"Because we believe that we are becoming a society where we are ever more controlled rather than punishing those that do not follow the standard 30mph speed limit. Instead of punishing dangerous driving we inconvenience everyone.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":6485,"created_at":"2025-09-30T22:54:48.197Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T15:10:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-24T16:30:33.505Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-01T08:22:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Richard Cottingham","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}}]}