{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=3&state=open","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=88&state=open","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=4&state=open","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=open"},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":766919,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/766919.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the law on unfit to plead & reform it to protect victims & public safety","background":"Government to review and reform the law on unfitness to plead, including the judicial powers following a \"trial of facts\" with the aim to ensuring that victims' rights and public protection are central to outcomes. This review should consider mandatory public safety measures (such as driving bans).","additional_details":"In our view, current laws on defendants \"unfit to plead\" are outdated and fail to protect the public or deliver justice. Even when a jury finds someone caused serious harm or death, courts have limited powers and may impose no meaningful sanction. We believe that this legal gap denies justice to victims, restricts judges, and risks public safety. Reform is urgently needed.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12606,"closing_date":"2026-11-08","created_at":"2026-04-09T21:50:01.121Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T20:41:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-08T10:35:45.376Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-09T22:43:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-07T14:38:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-21T10:52:35.540Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Bianca Francis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-21","summary":"The Government agrees that the law needs updating and is considering reforms, including a wider range of court disposals and more effective powers to protect victims and the public. ","details":"The law on unfitness to plead applies where a defendant cannot effectively participate in their trial because of a mental or physical condition. Where a defendant is found unfit to plead, the criminal trial does not proceed in the usual way. Instead, the court holds a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the defendant did the act or made the omission alleged. \n\nWhere it is found the defendant did the act, the court may impose one of the statutory protective disposals available under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order, with or without a restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983, a supervision order, or an absolute discharge. The appropriate disposal is a matter for the independent judiciary, informed by the facts of the case and relevant expert evidence. The sentencing framework is designed to protect the public while recognising the rights of a vulnerable defendant and the interests of those affected by the alleged offence.\n\nThe Law Commission has recommended reform of the unfitness to plead framework, including a revised test for unfitness to plead, changes to the hearing process, and more effective powers for the court where allegations are proved. The Government has accepted the majority of these recommendations and is considering how best to take forward these changes. Given the close relationship between unfitness to plead and the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility currently being reviewed by the Law Commission, we are mindful of the need to take a coherent and evidence-based approach so that any future reforms are workable, avoid piecemeal change, reduce the risk of inconsistency or uncertainty in the law, and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. \n\nAs part of these reforms, the Government will consider the concerns raised by this petition. Although sentencing and disposal decisions are a matter for the independent judiciary, the Government recognizes that the current statutory framework limits the disposals available. We will consider whether courts should have a broader and more flexible set of disposals available to them in these cases, including a wider range of ancillary orders to strengthen supervision and allow more tailored arrangements to enhance public protection.\n\nRecognizing that unfitness to plead cases can be especially difficult to understand because they do not follow the ordinary trial and sentencing route, the Government will also consider how the court procedure can be made clearer and more supportive for victims and their families. \n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-08-21T10:52:35.529Z","updated_at":"2026-08-21T10:52:35.529Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":766093,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/766093.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove the grey belt planning rules","background":"The grey belt was introduced as a measure to enable building on poor quality Green Belt such as old car parks, abandoned petrol stations and scrub. We are concerned the planning rules are framed in such a way that high quality Green Belt can be lost to development. ","additional_details":"We think the grey belt policy needs to be revoked.\r\n\r\nWe are concerned high quality Green Belt is being lost to development and that the grey belt policy is causing great harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12582,"closing_date":"2026-10-30","created_at":"2026-03-31T20:27:11.806Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:45:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-30T14:52:50.983Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-01T05:39:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-24T05:06:20.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Timothy Copsey","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":760799,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760799.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide a legal pathway to “de-exempt” XL Bully dogs exempted as a precaution","background":"In October 2023, DEFRA and the Chief Veterinary Officer advised owners unsure of their dog’s breed type to “take a precautionary approach” & obtain a certificate of exemption “to be safe.” As ordinary owners are not trained breed assessors, thousands complied in good faith to avoid criminalisation.","additional_details":"Many of these dogs may not meet the legal “type”, yet two years later there is still no pathway or reassessment to allow de-exemption.\r\nAs a result, we believe dogs' welfare is unfairly compromised by lifelong restrictions imposed solely because their owners followed Government advice. The Secretary of State and DEFRA must now prioritise establishing a clear and fair de-exemption process.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12536,"closing_date":"2026-10-07","created_at":"2026-02-11T15:57:09.344Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T02:07:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-07T08:18:32.583Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-11T19:35:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-20T15:01:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Catherine Mcdonagh","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":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":12486,"closing_date":"2026-10-08","created_at":"2026-02-13T20:04:09.403Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T16:16:00.000Z","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":"2026-05-25T07:57:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-16T15:11:36.404Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"natalie kearney","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-16","summary":"The 15-minute cities concept is not national policy. Local authorities can set planning and transport policies locally through the normal democratic process. The Government has no plans to intervene.","details":"The 15-minute cities concept is not national policy. The Government does not direct places to use the 15-minute city concept.\n\nThe term ‘15-minute city’ has become incorrectly associated with traffic management measures such as low-traffic neighbourhoods.  Low-traffic neighbourhoods aim to restrict through traffic, or rat-running, from an area but do not prevent vehicle access to any premises within the area. Access by car may require an alternative route. These types of schemes do not seek to restrict people’s ability to travel in the way claimed.\n\nLocal authorities are able to develop planning and transport initiatives, including traffic management measures, to benefit residents and businesses, on which local people are able to give their views in response to consultations. Local authorities are not able to limit residents’ ability to travel in ways which contravene Human Rights. They can however encourage more sustainable / active travel and better access to local services.\n\nUnder long standing devolved arrangements, local highway authorities are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. They are responsible for ensuring that their actions are within the law and are accountable to local people for their decisions and their performance. Local councillors are responsible for ensuring that local decisions about street infrastructure take account of the needs and opinions of local people.\n\nThe National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) set out the Government’s planning policies for England. The NPPF is clear that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. It also sets out that local planning policies and decisions should aim to promote social interaction, for example, through ensuring a mix of development types, strong neighbourhood centres, street layouts allowing for easy cycle and pedestrian connections and active street frontages\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-06-16T15:11:36.394Z","updated_at":"2026-06-16T15:12:31.309Z"},"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":762993,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762993.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Invest in and support insulin production in the UK to ensure self-sufficiency","background":"The UK is too reliant on insulin production from other countries. People with diabetes must be able to rest assured that the supply cannot be disrupted by global uncertainties. The UK must increase its own manufacture of insulin.","additional_details":"Every time global affairs such as the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East etc are in the news,families with relatives with Type 1 Diabetes live with anxiety around the production chain for insulin being disrupted. Although we get most of our insulin from Europe , since Brexit we can’t rely on being the first priority should there be a shortage in supplies. It is vital we produce our own supplies of this life saving substance.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":12036,"closing_date":"2026-10-07","created_at":"2026-03-02T23:22:37.009Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:54:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-07T11:04:19.959Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T15:58:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-29T22:04:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Judith Hoffman","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":767644,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/767644.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make seizure training mandatory in all child and vulnerable adult work settings","background":"Our family have been through a lot due to epilepsy. We want the government to change the law so that anyone working in a child or vulnerable adult care setting goes through seizure training as part of their training, before starting the job.","additional_details":"Currently there is no requirement for all staff to receive seizure‑specific training and many settings provide little or no training. We are concerned that this puts children and adults who suffer from seizures at risk. Seizures can be extremely dangerous. Simple training at the start of a new job could save lives. We are asking for this to be mandatory for all nursery, school and care setting staff.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11851,"closing_date":"2026-11-14","created_at":"2026-04-18T13:01:22.299Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T20:23:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-14T16:13:17.271Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-18T13:13:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-06T07:04:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-30T08:00:05.042Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gillian Cardwell","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-29","summary":"The Government supports staff training, including skills to respond to seizures. Child and vulnerable adult settings must ensure their staff are trained to meet the needs of the people they support.","details":"The Government recognises the importance of children and vulnerable adults who experience seizures receiving care and support that is safe, responsive and tailored to their individual needs. \n\nEnhancing the skills of staff working in adult social care is vital to ensuring that care provided is good quality and personalised to an individual. This includes equipping staff with the skills and confidence to support people who may experience seizures. \n\nThe Department of Health and Social Care launched the Adult Social Care Learning and Development Support Scheme in September 2024, providing funding for eligible care staff to complete training courses and qualifications, including the Level 2 Adult Social Care Certificate.  \n\nThe Level 2 Adult Social Care Certificate includes training on areas such as health and safety, basic life support, medication management, and recognising changes in an individual’s condition. These core competencies help care workers to identify and respond appropriately to a wide range of health needs, including seizure activity, and to take action where necessary. In addition to the Level 2 certificate, the Learning and Development Support Scheme also provides funding for more specialist training, including the Level 3 Award in Epilepsy and the Administration of Buccal Midazolam, supporting staff to develop the skills needed to respond safely and effectively to more complex conditions. \n\nThe Care Workforce Pathway sets out the knowledge, skills, values and behaviours expected across adult social care roles, and is supported by the Care Certificate standards, which define the baseline training expected for staff who are new to care. The Level 2 Adult Social Care Certificate builds on these standards and provides a recognised qualification aligned to the “new to care” role category in the Pathway, establishing the core knowledge that staff should have at the start of their careers.\n\nThe Government will continue to support a person-centred approach to adult social care, underpinned by a skilled workforce able to deliver tailored and responsive care focused on the needs of an individual.\n\nImproving the support for children and young people with medical conditions is also a key priority for the Government. Staff training should be suitable to the role and level of responsibility expected of staff. The Department for Education recently consulted on revised statutory guidance on Supporting children and young people with medical conditions and allergy (https://consult.education.gov.uk/medical-conditions-at-school/medical-conditions-at-school-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/supporting-children-and-young-people-with-medical-conditions-and-allergypdf) which will reinforce the expectation in our current statutory guidance (Supporting pupils with medical conditions at school - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions--3) that staff in schools, colleges and early years settings should have training and awareness of medical conditions and know how to respond in an emergency. We are considering the responses to the consultation and will respond and publish the revised guidance in due course.\n\nProvision of continuous professional development for employed social workers is a matter for their employer. The regulator for the social work profession, Social Work England, sets the professional standards which all social workers must meet. Social workers complete initial education and training courses which are approved by the regulator against the education and training standards. Course providers must update and design their courses as a result of developments in research, legislation, government policy and best practice.\n\nChildren’s homes providers must ensure that staff have the relevant skills and knowledge to be able to respond to the individual health needs of children, including those arising from chronic conditions or other complex needs. At least one person on duty at any given time in a children’s home must have a suitable first aid qualification. We are undertaking a review of professional development (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-professional-development-for-the-childrens-homes-workforce-terms-of-reference) to ensure staff have the right skills, qualifications and training. Supported accommodation providers must ensure young people receive appropriate support and staff understand the health needs of young people, including responding to specific conditions in line with care or support plans.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-06-30T08:00:05.035Z","updated_at":"2026-06-30T08:03:09.364Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":763785,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763785.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require accessible changing benches for disabled children in public venues","background":"Introduce requirements for large public venues such as supermarkets and family attractions to provide accessible changing benches so disabled children who outgrow baby changing tables can be safely changed in public places","additional_details":"Many disabled children outgrow baby changing tables by around 2–3 years old but still require continence or medical care. Without suitable facilities, families are often forced to change children on toilet floors, in public spaces, or leave venues early. Some families avoid going out entirely. Accessible changing benches would allow disabled children to be cared for safely and with dignity in public places.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":11757,"closing_date":"2026-10-09","created_at":"2026-03-09T18:34:08.848Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T10:37:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-09T12:02:25.954Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-09T18:52:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-30T13:28:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-22T13:04:14.282Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Miss Ella Bess Dean","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-22","summary":"Provision for Changing Places toilets in larger public buildings is made through Building Regulations; we will keep standards under review but have no plans for regulatory change at this time.","details":"Statutory guidance in Approved Document M (Volume 2: Access to and use of buildings) of the Building Regulations 2010 sets out provision for Changing Places facilities in new buildings other than dwellings (or those undergoing major redevelopment) which fall above a certain size threshold. This includes certain types of large public buildings, such as places of assembly, recreation and entertainment, plus larger retail, shopping malls, sport and leisure buildings, and in hospitals, primary care, crematoria and cemetery buildings. \n\nChanging Places toilets are larger accessible toilets for individuals with complex and multiple disabilities and includes equipment such as hoists, curtains, adult-sized changing benches and space for carers. \n\nThe government works closely with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to review building standards across England, including requirements for safe and accessible changing facilities.\n\nFurther details can be found in paragraphs 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 of Approved Document M, Volume 2: Access to and use of buildings. This can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-to-and-use-of-buildings-approved-document-m \n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-06-22T13:04:14.279Z","updated_at":"2026-06-22T13:04:14.279Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":765464,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/765464.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect raced greyhounds from exports by introducing spay/neuter laws","background":"Make it law to spay and neuter all raced greyhounds once they finish racing on licensed race tracks to protect them from being shipped around the world to breeding/racing kennels.","additional_details":"There is strong evidence that raced greyhounds can be sold in the guise of pets to countries where there are little to no welfare laws. British raced greyhounds are found in China at breeding/racing kennels. Some rescued and returned to Britain have been found to be emaciated and bred from up until very old age, over 11yrs old. Many are confined to cages for their whole lives. \r\n \r\nI am concerned that the public are led to believe that almost all greyhounds are safely retired into loving homes. Shipping data exists showing the ongoing shipment of greyhounds to breeding facilities in Pakistan where we are concerned that there are outdated welfare laws.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11625,"closing_date":"2026-10-24","created_at":"2026-03-26T14:26:18.573Z","updated_at":"2026-10-04T22:49:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-24T12:53:32.484Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-26T15:28:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-08T17:46:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-09T08:36:03.194Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Margaret Rita Jones","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-09","summary":"The government’s animal welfare priorities to 2030 are set in the Animal Welfare Strategy published in December 2025. Defra is not currently considering changes to the neutering or spaying of dogs.","details":"Defra provides advice to dog owners in the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs, which can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ac78152ed915d76a04b2da6/pb13333-cop-dogs-091204.pdf. \nThe code recommends that owners of dogs that do not intend to breed their dog can consult their vet to discuss the benefits of neutering.  \n\nMore specifically, the main regulatory body for greyhound racing in Great Britain (the Greyhound Board of Great Britain - GBGB) has a homing policy that requires that where a greyhound is being placed in the care of a homing charity or in a new pet home, the greyhound should be neutered or spayed prior to being transferred to its retirement destination. Furthermore, where a greyhound leaves racing for breeding, GBGB requires the full details of the new kennel/breeding establishment. As with all retirement placements, GBGB requires trainers or owners to carry out due diligence on the breeder and must be confident that they will provide suitable welfare standards. GBGB also works with Greyhound Racing Ireland and the Irish Coursing Club to monitor GBGB-registered greyhounds that travel to Ireland for breeding.\n\nThe government does not believe it necessary to legislate to require dogs to be neutered or spayed in general, or for all racing greyhounds to be neutered or spayed once they leave racing.  There would be several potentially complex welfare issues to consider, such as the impact on the British breeding of greyhounds as well as any effect on inbreeding in greyhounds. The Government’s priorities for animal welfare till 2030 have been set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy published in December 2025. Defra currently has no plans to consider changes to the neutering and spaying of greyhounds or of dogs more generally. \n\nDefra also has very few records of applications for export health certificates to export greyhounds directly to Pakistan or China. Although we are unable to account for any movements of greyhounds abroad that may have transited through a third country first, or have not involved a certificate, there is no reason to suspect that there is significant demand for former racing greyhounds from Great Britain in Pakistan or China\n\nIf further intelligence or evidence emerges that this is a widespread issue, and if there is suspicion that offences related to facilitating this trade are being committed in this country, we would engage immediately with enforcement partners and ensure that appropriate and robust investigations are carried out.\n\nGBGB has stated that it is similarly concerned about any retired greyhounds being exported abroad and it does not support the export of greyhounds to countries where welfare standards cannot be verified.  GBGB have said they will take disciplinary action against anyone licensed with GBGB found knowingly supplying greyhounds to such countries.  \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-06-09T08:36:03.190Z","updated_at":"2026-06-09T08:36:45.539Z"},"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":764706,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764706.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it illegal to walk dogs during extreme heat to prevent suffering and death.","background":"Introduce legislation to make it an offence to walk or exercise dogs during dangerously high temperatures (i.e. 25°C and above), to protect them from heatstroke and burned paws.","additional_details":"Every year in the UK, dogs suffer and die from preventable heat-related illnesses. Many owners are unaware that dogs cannot regulate their body temperature effectively and can overheat within minutes.\r\n \r\nHot pavements can also cause severe burns to dogs’ paws. When air temperatures reach 25°C, pavement temperatures can be significantly higher and dangerous.\r\n \r\nAnimal welfare organisations warn against walking dogs in hot weather.\r\n \r\nWe believe this legislation would help prevent unnecessary suffering, raise awareness, and hold owners accountable for avoidable harm.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11621,"closing_date":"2026-10-24","created_at":"2026-03-18T17:56:31.203Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T23:07:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-24T14:41:31.237Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-18T19:40:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-14T17:01:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-31T12:31:58.982Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sarah Jane Derbyshire","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-31","summary":"Legislation and guidance already protects pets during extreme heat. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause any animal unnecessary suffering or fail to provide for its welfare.","details":"The government agrees that particular attention needs to be paid to the health and welfare of pets in periods of extreme weather. \n\nAnyone caring for an animal is required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by providing for their welfare needs, including the need for a suitable environment and protecting them from pain, suffering or injury. This duty includes protection from extreme temperatures.\n\nThe 2006 Act is supported by Defra’s Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs,(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ac78152ed915d76a04b2da6/pb13333-cop-dogs-091204.pdf)  which advises that dogs are vulnerable to heat stress and that owners should, where possible, avoid exercising them in extreme heat. Breach of a provision of the Code is not an offence in itself. However, if proceedings are brought against a person for an offence under the 2006 Act, the court will consider whether they have complied with the relevant Code when deciding whether an offence has been committed.\n\nFailing to comply with the 2006 Act is punishable up to imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the 2006 Act and will often work in close partnership with others, including welfare charities such as the RSPCA, to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected.\n\nOwners are supported to understand their pets’ needs, which will vary according to factors such as breed, age and health. Organisations such as the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and British Veterinary Association also provide helpful advice on how to look after dogs in hot weather. Advice includes keeping dogs in the shade where possible, keeping dogs hydrated, testing the temperature of pavements with one’s hand before walks and encouraging safe, supervised play with water. This advice is often promoted online and through media outlets during periods of hot weather.\n\nA blanket ban on walking dogs during periods of hot weather could, in some circumstances, be detrimental to their welfare. For example, some dogs may still benefit from a short period outside to meet their toileting needs, provided that it can be undertaken safely, for example on a cool surface or shaded area. It is therefore important for owners to consider the needs of individual dogs, and legal protections are already in place to ensure the welfare needs of animals are considered.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-07-31T12:31:58.980Z","updated_at":"2026-07-31T12:32:45.403Z"},"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":761652,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761652.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Mandatory 15-year minimum sentence for all child sexual offences","background":"We urge the government to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to introduce a mandatory minimum 15 year custodial sentence for all sexual offences against children including grooming, exploitation and rape. Current sentencing does not reflect the lifelong trauma caused to victims.","additional_details":"Child sexual abuse is one of the most serious crimes, yet many offenders receive sentences below 15 years. Mandatory minimums would ensure justice for victims, act as a stronger deterrent, and protect the public by keeping predators off the streets longer.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11597,"closing_date":"2026-11-13","created_at":"2026-02-19T07:59:18.383Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T21:43:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-13T14:55:13.191Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-19T09:17:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-12T02:35:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-03T11:59:49.648Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jade Findley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-03","summary":"The Government considers tackling all forms of child sexual abuse to be one of its highest priorities and is committed to ensuring a strong and effective response across the criminal justice system.","details":"Child sexual abuse is a particularly abhorrent crime and the Government takes such matters seriously to protect children from harm, and support victims and survivors. \n\nChild sex offences already carry significant maximum penalties and most offenders committing serious sexual offences against children such as rape and assault by penetration, which can carry a maximum penalty of a life sentence, receive lengthy custodial terms. Where an individual is convicted of a child sex offence, which covers a wide range of behaviours and harms, it is important that the courts retain discretion so that they can ensure that the sentence reflects the severity of the crime. The court is required to take into account all the circumstances of each case, including the physical and psychological harm caused to the child and the culpability of the offender, to ensure that sentencing is proportionate to the offence committed. That is why our sentencing framework generally sets maximum penalties but not minimum penalties.\n\nMinimum sentences are rare in England and Wales and there are currently no minimum sentences for child sex offences. It is the function of the independent courts to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant sentencing guidelines published by the Sentencing Council.\n\nIn recognising the seriousness of this type of offending, the government introduced a range of provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 including a statutory aggravating factor for grooming behaviour in the sentencing of child sexual offences, to ensure that sentences fully reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.  This Act also creates new offences covering rape and other penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16 by an adult.  The maximum penalty for these offences is a life sentence. \n\nThe criminal law provides a range of offences to deal with the scourge of child sexual abuse and provides robust sentences that reflect the seriousness of this offending.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-07-03T11:59:49.637Z","updated_at":"2026-07-03T11:59:49.637Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":775393,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/775393.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Dedicated funding for Epidermolysis Bullosa and rare skin conditions research","background":"Increase dedicated, ring-fenced Government funding for research into rare skin conditions, including all forms of Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB), to accelerate the development of effective treatments and support UK clinical trials.","additional_details":"We call on the Government to provide dedicated, ring-fenced funding for research into EB and other rare skin conditions. Children with conditions such as EB experience severe, painful blistering from birth. Promising gene and cell therapies offer real hope, yet research remains significantly underfunded. We urge the Government to ring-fence funding, support clinical trials, and prioritise these conditions within the UK Rare Diseases Framework.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":11587,"closing_date":"2027-01-27","created_at":"2026-06-28T14:18:01.476Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T22:48:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-27T14:33:53.804Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-28T14:37:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-11T21:49:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.840Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ciara Burnside","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-28","summary":"While funding for research into specific conditions is not usually ring-fenced, we have committed over £108 million for research into skin conditions between 2021/22 and 2025/26 through the NIHR.","details":"The Government recognises the significant impact that Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) and other rare skin conditions can have on patients and families, and the importance of research in improving diagnosis, care and treatment. The Department of Health and Social Care funds health and care research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which invests around £1.8 billion each year across clinical, public health and social care research.\n\nThe NIHR does not usually ring-fence funding for specific conditions. Instead, it welcomes applications on any aspect of human health and care, including EB and other rare skin conditions. Applications compete through open, transparent peer review and are assessed on scientific quality, value for money, importance to patients and the public, and relevance to health and care services. This approach is intended to ensure that the strongest proposals with the greatest potential to benefit patients are funded, whilst allowing researchers to respond to emerging evidence and priorities.\n\nThe Government is supporting research in this area. Between 2021/22 and 2025/26, the Department committed £108.16 million through the NIHR to new research projects and support for infrastructure within the health research category covering skin conditions. This included £1.075 million for projects and infrastructure specifically related to EB.\n\nNIHR-supported EB research covers advanced treatments, symptom management, supportive care and better care co-ordination. Studies have tested cell treatments for recessive dystrophic EB. Researchers are also looking at ways to repair the faulty COL7A1 gene and use patients’ own genetically corrected cells to treat EB. Other research aims to improve daily life by developing gloves to help prevent tightening of the hands, nutritional products that are gentler on the mouth, longer-lasting eye drops, and better treatments for severe itching and skin damage. The NIHR also supports research into new genetic and other treatments for several other rare skin conditions.\n\nThe NIHR also supports research infrastructure that enables high-quality translational, clinical and applied studies to be developed and delivered. Wider Government investment includes the £14 million Rare Disease Research UK Platform, jointly funded by the NIHR and the Medical Research Council, and UK participation in the European Rare Diseases Research Alliance. These initiatives strengthen collaboration, give UK researchers access to international projects and trials, and help promising discoveries progress towards improved diagnosis and treatment.\n\nResearch priorities are also informed by patients, carers and clinicians. In April 2026, the James Lind Alliance published its top 10 research priorities for EB. The NIHR provides core funding for the Alliance’s infrastructure and offers funding opportunities for research addressing priorities identified through this process. Patients, carers and professionals may also suggest research topics directly to the NIHR.\n\nThe UK Rare Diseases Framework supports improvements in diagnosis, professional awareness, co-ordinated care and access to specialist treatment. Research into EB and other rare skin conditions can contribute to each of these priorities. The Government will therefore continue to support the research environment, welcome high-quality funding applications and work with patients, researchers, charities and other partners to advance understanding and develop better treatments and care. However, it does not plan routinely to set condition-specific funding targets, as competitive assessment remains the best means of directing public funding to research with the strongest evidence and greatest potential patient benefit.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.838Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T12:17:51.838Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":780004,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/780004.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review & amend immigration rules for Hongkongers with political convictions","background":"We want the Government to review and amend immigration rules that include but are not limited to SUI 5.1(a) and BN(O) suitability provisions, regarding Hongkongers with politically motivated criminal convictions.","additional_details":"This is to ensure the sentence does not become an unreasonable barrier to enter and stay in the UK, and that political context is properly considered. An offence name or sentence alone may not reflect the conduct, political context or fair-trial concerns. This can leave Hongkongers affected by political prosecutions without a viable route to protection.\r\n\r\nWe believe the BN(O) route should remain true to its purpose: providing a viable pathway for Hongkongers facing political persecution, including those imprisoned or facing imprisonment in political cases. We believe politically related convictions should not become a barrier to BN(O) protection.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11585,"closing_date":"2027-03-28","created_at":"2026-08-19T11:03:02.800Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:25:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-09-28T15:22:47.125Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-19T11:39:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-10-03T21:05:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tsz Kin Kwok","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":765130,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/765130.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund permanent, 24-hour police patrols in Jewish communities","background":"In the face of a significant rise of antisemitism across the UK, we ask the Government to fund permanent 24-hour police patrols in Jewish communities.","additional_details":"Following the antisemitic attacks, including on voluntary run ambulances that serve the Golders Green Community, we ask that the Government do more than offer what we feel are empty words of solidarity and shock. We believe our community needs a visible and permanent police presence that is on patrol 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We feel closing police stations and reducing police patrols by foot and car play their part in creating a breeding ground where antisemitic attacks are more likely to take place.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11509,"closing_date":"2026-10-29","created_at":"2026-03-23T14:47:41.201Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T17:53:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-29T12:00:14.671Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-23T15:13:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-30T18:24:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-05T10:08:38.977Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Hannah Messham","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-03","summary":"On 13 July, we announced over £250m to increase policing in Jewish communities, in addition to the £25m announced in April. Operational decisions, such as 24/7 police patrols, are for police forces.","details":"On 13 July, the Government announced an uplift of £251.1 million to increase policing in Jewish communities, following a series of antisemitic attacks and the raising of the national terror threat level from Substantial to Severe. This will deliver over 500 FTE across England and Wales, boost police presence in Jewish neighbourhoods and around schools, synagogues and community centres, while strengthening national counter-terrorism capabilities.\n\nThis includes a further £86 million for the Metropolitan Police, which will fund around 300 additional personnel to support policing in Jewish communities in London. Over £22 million will go to Greater Manchester Police to sustain the enhanced policing response following the attack at Heaton Park last year. Around £43 million will be distributed across seven other forces with significant Jewish communities: Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. This will provide a sustained and visible uplift in neighbourhood policing in these communities.\n\nThe package also provides £41 million for national policing coordination and increased antisemitism capabilities. This will fund antisemitism training for all officers in England and Wales, strengthen investigations and ensure surge resources are available to all forces to protect Jewish communities, wherever they live. Counter-Terrorism Policing will receive £59 million to bolster protective security and counter state threats. \n\nThis longer-term policing package builds on measures already announced to protect Jewish communities, including the £25 million package announced on 30 April following the Golders Green attack to bolster policing and protective security, and £33.4 million already committed in 2026-27 for protective security and Project Servator. \n\nThe April package included £20 million for increased police patrols, including £18 million for the Metropolitan Police Service and £2 million made available nationally through the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It also provided an additional £4 million for protective security at synagogues, Jewish educational establishments and other communal sites, and a further £1 million for Project Servator to expand the role of specialist and plain-clothes officers in communities trained to spot suspicious activity and deter crime.\n\nBy making this longer-term commitment, police forces will be able to deliver more high-visibility patrols and stronger local engagement in areas with significant Jewish populations, including around synagogues and schools over the next three years. Patrols will be increased at times of heightened vulnerability, offering visible reassurance and helping to deter hate crime and antisemitic incidents. Officers will also work more closely with Jewish communities through a permanent presence in significant Jewish communities across the country, strengthening relationships with representative groups and places of worship.\n\nThe Government will continue to work closely with policing and Jewish community stakeholders to ensure this investment delivers enhanced protection and reassurance for Jewish communities. The deployment of policing resources remains a decision for police forces, who are best placed to determine the workforce structures and operational model needed in their area. This includes determining how that permanent uplift in policing presence is delivered and whether 24/7 patrols are the most appropriate way to protect Jewish communities, alongside other measures such as visible patrols, local engagement, intelligence-led deployment, national surge resources and specialist capabilities. \n\nThe Government remains committed to rebuilding neighbourhood policing across England and Wales and restoring the vital link between police forces and the communities they serve. By the end of February 2026, forces had delivered more than 3,100 additional police officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood roles since March 2025, strengthening neighbourhood teams as part of our Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee to deliver 13,000 more by the end of this Parliament. Every neighbourhood has named, and contactable officers dedicated to providing visible policing and responding to community concerns. Forces have increased patrols in town centres and other key locations, acting on community intelligence, to prevent harm and tackle crime. \n\nHome Office\n\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response on the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/765130)","created_at":"2026-06-05T10:08:38.967Z","updated_at":"2026-08-06T13:18:56.210Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":770872,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770872.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review access to NHS treatment for Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction ","background":"We want the Government to review the adequacy of recognition of, and NHS treatment access for, people with Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction (R-CPD).","additional_details":"We believe too many sufferers are dismissed or misdiagnosed before paying privately for treatment - patients deserve better awareness and NHS access to care.\r\n\r\nWe want the Government to work towards improving recognition and NHS treatment access for Retrograde Cricopharyngeal Dysfunction (R-CPD), a condition that prevents sufferers from being able to burp. R-CPD can cause severe bloating, pain and major impacts on daily life. We believe patients deserve better awareness, referral pathways and NHS access to treatment.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11486,"closing_date":"2026-12-22","created_at":"2026-05-26T19:43:22.079Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T23:38:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-22T16:03:04.180Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-26T20:01:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-25T09:57:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gemma Renwick","rejection":null,"government_response":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":764882,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764882.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop megasheds being built & operated 24/7 close to homes and communities ","background":"We want the government to include in its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the building of B8 warehouses and the 24/7 operation of such megasheds will not be permitted within 500 metres of residential properties.","additional_details":"Megasheds are typically at least 20m/65ft high (equal to 5 double decker buses). They can increase flood risk and the associated traffic causes huge increases in air, noise, light, vibration, dust and water pollution, plus higher carbon dioxide emissions. They often operate 24/7 giving no respite for local communities who can suffer financial, mental and physical health impacts. Although megasheds have a role to play in UK logistics, we believe they should not be allowed to destroy the lives of local communities.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11429,"closing_date":"2026-10-20","created_at":"2026-03-20T11:49:56.187Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T21:08:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-20T10:03:40.810Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-20T14:25:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-23T12:44:10.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Lesley Ann Allman","rejection":null,"government_response":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":779299,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/779299.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reinstate mandatory warning before seizing a vehicle for anti-social driving","background":"Amend Section 59 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to reinstate the mandatory warning before seizing a vehicle for anti-social driving. The Government should instead introduce strict statutory guidelines and body-worn video requirements for officers before immediate seizure to protect due process.","additional_details":"We believe the 2026 removal of mandatory warnings allow police to immediately seize vehicles based on subjective judgment. We feel this change will result in a lack of due process, creates inconsistent enforcement, and imposes severe financial penalties on motorists without prior notification or an independent tribunal appeal. \r\n \r\nReverting to a 'two-strike' system or mandating strict body-cam evidence could ensure transparency, protect innocent drivers from unfair seizures, and balance anti-social behaviour enforcement with basic legal rights.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":11182,"closing_date":"2027-03-14","created_at":"2026-08-10T15:35:50.038Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:53:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-09-14T09:49:59.211Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-10T16:06:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-10-05T11:46:40.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ty R Crosby","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":771102,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/771102.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Start negotiations now to Rejoin the EU","background":"10 years after the Brexit referendum and 6 years after leaving the EU, it is clear to us that Brexit isn't working. We believe any benefits have been dwarfed by loss of influence, extra costs and the inefficiencies it has created. ","additional_details":" We think it is time for the Government to Apply to Rejoin the European Union.\r\n\r\nWhile we might not get the same deal as before we nonetheless believe that it would reduce the damage caused by Brexit and help restore our influence by becoming a full member of the EU again. The UK is a large country but is still small in world terms. We feel that improving cooperation with our neighbours will help increase economic stability and strengthen international influence, since relying on distant partners alone is not sufficient. We firmly believe that our future is best secured as part of a strong, united and democratic Europe.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10831,"closing_date":"2026-12-24","created_at":"2026-05-29T15:21:15.706Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:48:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-24T15:15:39.972Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-29T15:35:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-10-03T08:08:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert McMaster","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":764510,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764510.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a public inquiry to review the use of dopamine agonists ","background":"Hold an inquiry into the use of dopamine agonists covering: impulse control disorders; potential physical harms & misdiagnosis of vascular dementia; & any lessons from past & current criminal proceedings involving dopamine agonist patients. This could lead to concrete reforms to prevent future harm.","additional_details":"It has been reported that some people with Parkinson’s, RLS and related conditions taking dopamine agonists have faced ruined finances, family breakdown, dangerous impulse control disorders, physical decline, misdiagnosis of vascular dementia and, in some cases, criminal proceedings. Many were never warned or properly reviewed. The media have been investigating the issue, but an inquiry could examine the evidence in full, review prescribing and warning standards, and help protect patients in future.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10827,"closing_date":"2026-10-22","created_at":"2026-03-16T18:11:47.098Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T05:34:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-22T08:36:41.723Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-17T13:06:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-05T07:54:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:00.436Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David Craig Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-25","summary":"The Government is not planning a public inquiry. The medicines regulator is reviewing the side effects of dopamine agonists and whether further action is needed.","details":"The Government recognises the understandable concern about the potential side effects of dopamine agonists, particularly impulse control disorders, and the significant effect these can have on patients and their families.\n\nPatient safety is our first priority when medicines are prescribed and regulated.\n\nThe doctor or other healthcare professional responsible for a patient’s care decides whether to prescribe a medicine and remains accountable for that decision.\n\nPrescribers should explain a medicine’s benefits, risks, possible side effects and other consequences. They should also make sure there are suitable arrangements to monitor the patient and review their treatment.\n\nPrescribers must follow relevant national guidance on effective treatment and consider safety alerts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).\nGuidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says that people with Parkinson’s disease, and their families and carers, should receive spoken and written information about important risks, including impulse control disorders.\n\nThe MHRA licenses medicines and checks that they meet the required standards of safety, quality and effectiveness. It also makes sure that clear information is available about how approved medicines should be used.\n\nThis includes the Patient Information Leaflet for patients and the Summary of Product Characteristics for healthcare professionals, which contains the relevant information to use the approved medicines.\n\nAs part of this responsibility, and given recent concerns raised by stakeholders, the MHRA is currently assessing whether additional regulatory action is required to further raise awareness of the side effects associated with dopamine agonist medications. The Agency has engaged a range of stakeholders, including Parkinson’s UK and RLS-UK, to ensure that patient and carer perspectives are appropriately considered in the review.\n\nThe MHRA expects to complete its review in 2027. The Government will then consider the findings, take any necessary action and make sure relevant information is shared with healthcare professionals and patients.\n\nWhile this review is under way, the Government does not believe that a separate public inquiry would add value.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:00.433Z","updated_at":"2026-09-28T08:19:45.644Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":768480,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/768480.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund culturally appropriate retirement support for Polish veterans and families","background":"We call on the Government to fund the continued operation of culturally appropriate retirement provision to Polish veterans and their families. Such homes provide culturally specific care for elderly residents. The last home of its kind, Ilford Park Polish Home, is due to be closed.","additional_details":"We call on the Government to provide funding to ensure there is culturally appropriate retirement provision for Polish veterans, such as the Ilford Park Polish Home.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10780,"closing_date":"2026-11-27","created_at":"2026-04-27T19:39:26.252Z","updated_at":"2026-10-04T20:06:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-27T15:38:48.463Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-27T20:49:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-26T18:27:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-14T13:45:51.601Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jerry Bird","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-14","summary":"The Government continues to deliver 'Churchill's Promise' to integrate Polish communities into the UK following their upheaval from Poland due to war, as part of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.","details":"Ilford Park Polish Home (IPPH) – affectionally known as ‘Little Poland’ – provides residential and nursing care to former members of the Polish Forces who served under British command during the Second World War and were subsequently displaced from Poland, or to their spouses. The Home fulfils a wartime promise made by Sir Winston Churchill to the Polish people. The Home seeks to ‘recreate’ elements of Poland for its residents, for example by employing Polish-speaking care workers, a Polish priest, celebrating Polish holidays and events, and ensuring Polish foods are served to residents.\n\nThe Government remains committed to honour that enduring commitment and retain the Home for as long as there are sufficient residents. If ever the size of the community becomes too small to be beneficial to the residents, the Government will take steps to ensure that any alternative accommodation provider recreates the Poland-specific nature of the IPPH within a wider community.\n\nIn spring 2026, the Government sought views from stakeholders on recommendations and proposed adjustments from the 2023 Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans relating to IPPH. The consultation ran for nine weeks from 7 April 2026 until 6 June 2026. This consultation was aimed at:\n\n• Existing residents, their families and representatives.\n• Individuals who may be eligible for a place at IPPH and their families. \n• Stakeholders with an interest in post war Polish Resettlement and care home provision\n\nThe IPPH is based near Newton Abbot, Devon and is registered with the Care Quality Commission to house up to 95 residents, although currently houses 41.  To qualify to live at IPPH, would-be residents need to meet strict eligibility criteria as set out in the 1947 Act.\n\nIn parallel to the recent consultation, the MOD has run a series of publicity events to increase general awareness of the Home, which has already generated six new applications for a place in the Home which are warmly welcomed.  Details on how to apply for a place at IPPH are available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-residential-and-nursing-care-at-ilford-park-polish-home\n\nThe government is currently considering its response to the consultation.\n\nMinistry of Defence","created_at":"2026-07-14T13:45:51.591Z","updated_at":"2026-07-14T13:46:10.991Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoD","name":"Ministry of Defence","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":764909,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764909.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban default service charges and pre-set digital tip screens in hospitality","background":"Prohibit hospitality businesses from automatically adding \"discretionary\" service charges to bills, and ban digital card readers from prompting customers with pre-set tip percentages before payment. We believe all tipping must be 100% voluntary and initiated by the customer.","additional_details":"In our view, the current tipping culture has become coercive and stressful as some restaurants routinely use \"drip pricing,\" adding a 12.5% charge at the end of a meal, forcing customers to awkwardly ask to remove it. We think digital payment screens with pre-set tipping suggestions use psychological pressure to guilt people into tipping for basic counter service. We think this creates a hostile environment and anxiety for consumers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10585,"closing_date":"2026-10-22","created_at":"2026-03-20T15:56:31.408Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T00:24:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-22T08:20:22.926Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-21T13:17:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-25T00:10:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.422Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alicia Jesatova","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-16","summary":"The government does not plan to prohibit hospitality businesses from adding optional service charges to bills or from offering pre-set tip options. Existing consumer law prohibits unfair practices. ","details":"The government does not intend to prohibit hospitality businesses from adding optional service charges to bills or offering customers pre-set tipping options.\n\nThe Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) prohibits drip pricing practices, which is when consumers are shown an initial headline price for a product or service and then are shown additional mandatory charges as they proceed with the transaction. Furthermore, the DMCCA prohibits traders from engaging in aggressive commercial practices, including high pressure-selling techniques.\n\nThe Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance  to help businesses understand and comply with their obligations under the Act.\nBusinesses must always make it clear on the bill or in communication with the consumer whether any tip automatically added to the bill is optional or mandatory for the consumer to pay. Similarly, if a business provides pre-set tipping prompts on digital payment screens, there should be an option for consumers to choose not to tip or to choose a custom amount. If the tip is optional, there should be no pressure to agree it. \n\nUnder the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act, all qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges must be allocated fairly and passed on in full to the workers who have earned them, rather than being retained by employers.  \n\nWhile the government recognises that automatic service charges and tipping prompts can leave some consumers feeling uncomfortable or under pressure to include the additional cost, we believe the protections in place are sufficient. \nProhibiting hospitality businesses from using automatic or prompted charges would create an additional burden on businesses and could disadvantage employees who rely on tips. The way that a business presents tipping options to consumers is a commercial decision, as long as they comply with consumer law. \nThe government will continue to support compliance with consumer law across all sectors.\n\nGiven the existing provisions that are in place, the government does not consider that a further statutory prohibition is necessary at this time as consumer law already protects consumers from misleading and aggressive commercial practices.\n\nDepartment for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","created_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.418Z","updated_at":"2026-09-16T09:50:17.418Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":770114,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770114.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Automatic extension for Non- Molestation order when it is breached","background":"The Government should change the law so that Non-Molestation Orders must be automatically extended where an abuser has breached the order and been convicted. Victims should not be forced to relive trauma through further statements and court hearings to prove an already established danger.","additional_details":"Victims seeking to extend a Non-Molestation Order can be forced to relive trauma, submit new statements, and attend hearings, even when an abuser has already breached the order and been convicted. This causes unnecessary stress on the victim and added pressure on the courts. Where a breach has led to conviction and for offences such as stalking and/or harassment or violence, Non-Molestation Orders should be automatically extended without victims having to repeatedly prove the danger they face.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10316,"closing_date":"2026-12-15","created_at":"2026-05-17T13:27:01.664Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T19:18:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-15T13:41:24.954Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-17T14:41:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-10T14:54:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-24T14:47:04.354Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Charlotte Marion Holtum","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-24","summary":"The Government does not support automatically extending non-molestation orders following a breach conviction. Courts are best placed to decide what protection is needed and for how long in each case.","details":"The Government recognises that returning to court after a breach of a non-molestation order (NMO) can be distressing and retraumatising for victims of domestic abuse. We understand the concerns raised in this petition and are committed to ensuring victims are protected and perpetrators are held to account.\n\nNMOs are made by the family court under the Family Law Act 1996 to protect victims, and where appropriate relevant children, from harm of abuse. Breach of a NMO is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to five years’ imprisonment or both.\n\nWhile the Government understands the intention behind this proposal, it does not support automatically extending all NMOs following a conviction for breach.\n\nDecisions about whether a protective order remains necessary, and how long it should remain in force, are matters for the independent courts. Judges are best placed to assess the circumstances of each case, including the level of risk to the victim, any changes in circumstances, the needs of any children involved, and the protection required going forward.\n\nAn automatic extension would remove the court’s ability to consider the individual facts of each case, and to assess whether the protection that is offered is sufficient in every case. It could also result in orders remaining in force for longer than is necessary in some cases, or for a period that does not reflect the particular circumstances of those involved. The Government believes that decisions about ongoing protection should continue to be made on a case-by-case basis by the courts.\n\nImportantly, NMOs do not automatically cease when they are breached. They remain in force until the expiry date is reached or they are varied or discharged by the court. Victims can apply to extend an order before it expires, and the family court can do so of its own motion in certain circumstances, for example if it is dealing with other family proceedings at the same time.\n\nWhere a breach results in criminal proceedings, criminal courts already have powers to make restraining orders where they consider this necessary to protect a victim from harassment or abuse. Restraining orders can be imposed following either conviction or acquittal and can provide long-term protection where appropriate. This means victims do not necessarily need to rely on extending an existing NMO to receive ongoing protection.\n\nThe Government also recognises the importance of ensuring that victims can access effective protection without having to navigate multiple court processes. This is one of the benefits of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), which the Government has committed to rolling out across England and Wales. Unlike existing protective orders, DAPOs will be available across the criminal, family and civil courts. Once fully rolled out, courts will be able to vary existing DAPOs when acting on their own motion, even where the original DAPO was made by another court. This is intended to provide a more seamless protective order framework and reduce the need for victims to seek separate orders in different courts. \n\nThe Government will continue to keep the operation of protective orders under review as part of our wider commitment to tackling domestic abuse and halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We remain committed to ensuring that victims receive effective protection while preserving the ability of the independent courts to determine what safeguards are necessary in individual cases.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-08-24T14:47:04.353Z","updated_at":"2026-08-24T14:48:44.020Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":767467,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/767467.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Urgently review & adjust steel import quota & tariff changes - effective 01/07","background":"Either, the timeline for these changes needs extending\r\nThe 60% quota reduction needs reducing\r\nThe 50% tariff applied after quarterly quota exhaustion needs significant reduction\r\nThe impacted commodity codes needs review & reduction\r\nOr a combination of some/all of the above","additional_details":"UK steel manufacture & infrastructure, is not immediately capable of satisfying the additional demand which the quota & tariff changes are intended to effect\r\nCurrent changes will have a profound impact on all UK industry, where they have any exposure to the commodity codes affected\r\nThousands of UK jobs directly jeopardised by current legislation ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10280,"closing_date":"2026-11-15","created_at":"2026-04-16T09:54:25.290Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T17:59:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-15T11:31:41.364Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-20T15:59:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-30T08:44:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-16T15:30:37.325Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Giles Throup","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-16","summary":"Following extensive engagement with industry, the Government reduced tariff-free steel imports from 60 to 51%. Transitional arrangements are in place, and we will monitor implementation closely.","details":"The Government notes the concerns raised by this petition about the steel trade measure that came into force on 1 July 2026, including its potential impact on steel-using industries, supply chains and jobs. We value the important role played by businesses across the steel supply chain and are committed to ensuring that the UK remains a competitive place to manufacture while maintaining a resilient domestic steel sector.\n\nHowever, the UK steel sector faces an existential and growing challenge from global steel overcapacity, which has placed significant pressure on domestic producers. In 2024, only 30% of UK steel demand was met by steel produced in the UK, despite domestic production capacity being available but under-utilised. Steel is a strategically important industry that underpins our critical national infrastructure, defence capabilities and wider manufacturing base. Maintaining steelmaking capability in the UK is manifestly vital to the national interest.\n\nCanada, the United States and the EU have already put in place similar toughened measures to protect their industries, including 50% tariff rates. If we do nothing, or if we delay the introduction of new measures, our market would quickly become flooded by excess global steel.\n\nAddressing the petition's points directly, the Government carefully considered the implementation timetable, quota volumes, tariff level and product scope before introducing the measure.\n\n• We engaged extensively with UK industry, including through a Call for Evidence in 2025 and ongoing discussions with producers, importers, distributors and steel users. \n\n• Following feedback received after the publication of provisional quotas in April 2026, the Government increased the final overall quota volume by 21% to 3.2 million tonnes, reducing the proposed quota cut from 60% to 51% relative to the steel safeguard, and reduced the scope of the measure from 190 to 181 commodity codes. This was intended to strike a balance between supporting UK steel production and managing impacts on businesses that rely on imported steel. The final measure will maintain a 50% out-of-quota tariff.\n\n• Quotas have been designed to allow for sufficient imports to ensure continued availability of these goods without unnecessary additional costs. Nearly three-quarters of UK steel imports by value (74%) and over half by volume (53%) fall outside of the measure’s scope. The quotas will continue to enable tariff-free imports for categories in scope of the measure.\n\n• If we set a lower tariff (under 50%) than comparable economies, particularly the EU, our market would quickly become flooded by excess global steel. That would attract surges of low-priced imports into the UK, putting further pressure on domestic producers and worsening the challenges facing our steel sector.\n\n• The Government also introduced a number of flexibilities to reduce short-term disruption. These include a transitional arrangement for goods contracted before 14 March 2026, the rollover of unused quotas within the quota year, and the removal of country cap restrictions.\n\n• The Government has additionally worked closely with the European Union to agree an approach that reflects our highly interconnected supply chains, while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade longer term.  \n\nSpecific arrangements are in place to facilitate the flow of steel to Northern Ireland.  These arrangements are set out in updated guidance on GOV.UK (The Steel Notice - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reference-document-for-the-customs-northern-ireland-eu-exit-regulations-2020/the-steel-notice). The Government will continue to provide guidance and support traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the Trader Support Service and work closely with the EU to ensure these arrangements operate effectively in practice.\n\nMore broadly, the Government's Steel Strategy sets out a wider plan to strengthen the competitiveness of the UK steel sector through procurement reforms, support for industrial energy costs, improved access to finance and measures to stimulate demand for UK-produced steel. These actions are intended to benefit not only steelmakers but also the wider supply chain that depends on a successful domestic steel industry.\n\nThe Government does not intend to suspend or reverse the measure. However, we will continue to engage closely with industry and monitor its impacts. \n\nDepartment for Business and Trade","created_at":"2026-07-16T15:30:37.316Z","updated_at":"2026-07-16T15:30:37.316Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":766482,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/766482.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require tracking of companion animal euthanasia to prevent unnecessary deaths","background":"Every day healthy and treatable companion animals are put to sleep not because they are old or because they are beyond help but because there are limited places for them to go\r\n\r\nTheir lives end quietly in pounds, commercial kennels, veterinary practices and rescues, often unseen and unrecorded.","additional_details":"Stray dogs can be PTS after 7 days\r\n\r\nStray cats rely on charities not councils\r\n\r\nHealthy/treatable animals are euthanised with no record, no transparency, no opportunity for reform \r\n\r\nWe call on Government to:\r\n\r\n* Record when healthy/treatable animals are euthanised\r\n* Publish annual data\r\n* Introduce a nationwide system to protect stray cats\r\n* Scan microchips for Rescue Back Up and registered keeper\r\n\r\nWithout this data preventable deaths will continue\r\n\r\nEvery animal deserves the chance to live\r\n\r\nTuks Law","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":10262,"closing_date":"2026-11-01","created_at":"2026-04-04T19:39:32.538Z","updated_at":"2026-10-05T23:04:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-01T13:52:45.210Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-05T11:53:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-09-18T12:54:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dawn Ashley and Sue Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":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":769206,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769206.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses","background":"The government should immediately ban the sale and promotion of glasses that contain recording capability. The government should explore using existing laws, such as RIPA, GDPR, DPA to take immediate action, whilst beginning the process of new legislation.","additional_details":"Smart glasses allow the recording of others without their knowledge or consent and the uploading of this content to the internet. We believe this violates GDPR law and the DPA 2018. There are already reported cases, including unsuspecting women being livestreamed to the internet.\r\n\r\nAI capabilities allow people to 'dox' others, in real time, to create an inhospitable environment in our towns and spaces, fostering a climate of fear and menace, especially for vulnerable groups, including children.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":10006,"closing_date":"2026-12-09","created_at":"2026-05-07T13:07:12.785Z","updated_at":"2026-10-06T01:12:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-09T15:18:56.212Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-09T16:57:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-10-05T19:35:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Guy Holder","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":766182,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/766182.json"},"attributes":{"action":"New legislation for ponds to have safety measures to prevent access by children","background":"Introduce legislation requiring all domestic garden ponds to have at least one appropriate safety measure in place to prevent accidental access by young children.\r\n - This could include:\r\n- Secure fencing or barriers\r\n- Rigid pond covers or metal grids\r\n- Raised or otherwise secured pond designs","additional_details":"This petition is inspired by the loss of our 18 month old son, Harry. Since this happened, I have become increasingly aware of incidents involving children drowning in the UK.\r\n \r\nChildren are losing their lives in preventable pond accidents. While parents and carers do everything they can, it is common for toddlers to wander. Risks must be minimised.\r\n \r\nOther countries have introduced safety laws for private water hazards.\r\n \r\nWe believe England should take steps to help prevent further tragedies.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":9763,"closing_date":"2026-10-30","created_at":"2026-04-01T12:39:15.907Z","updated_at":"2026-10-04T17:24:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-30T09:14:05.827Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-01T13:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sophie Wilson","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":[]}}]}