{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=3&state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=14&state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=4&state=with_response","prev":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=with_response"},"data":[{"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":11261,"closing_date":"2026-08-27","created_at":"2026-01-25T02:22:40.482Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T20:05:30.000Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":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\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-and-accountable-local-government-plain-english-guide \n\npromotes the use of clear language and recommends that formal local authority meetings should not be conducted in foreign languages to facilitate public scrutiny.\n\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.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","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":752646,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752646.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics & democracy","background":"We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.","additional_details":"We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":119186,"closing_date":"2026-07-28","created_at":"2025-11-29T09:25:32.301Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T16:36:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-28T13:17:00.515Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T22:08:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T14:14:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.261Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-01T10:27:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-05-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-06-22","debate_outcome_at":"2026-06-23T09:47:40.452Z","creator_name":"Andy Kalil","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"The Government does not support a public inquiry, but takes the issue of foreign influence from any country and lobbying in UK politics very seriously and is already taking action to address this.","details":"The Government does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence, and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally. However, the Government takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this. \n\nThere is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House. As part of open governance, ministers meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of government policy. \n\nGoing further, the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. This includes looking at whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient. In Parliament, the Government has asked the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct to consider whether the rules relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. \n\nMost recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft. The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026. \n\nThe Government responded immediately to the review with two measures via amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations and regulated transactions made by British citizens living abroad, and a moratorium on political donations made using cryptocurrency of any amount. These measures build upon existing measures in the Bill to introduce tougher rules on political interference in the UK’s elections. The Government will consider all of the other recommendations of the Rycroft review and respond to them in due course. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-06-22","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-06-22/debates/4A98124D-73A6-4CD6-B5AD-DF1DE6C2C114/UKPoliticsPro-IsraelInfluence","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN-qenChUO8","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10904/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":19828,"closing_date":"2026-08-03","created_at":"2025-12-01T11:34:49.345Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T21:29:40.000Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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. \n\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.\n\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":758008,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/758008.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban atmospheric geoengineering in UK","background":"Prohibit all atmospheric geoengineering and weather-modification in the UK. These practices could raise environmental and public health concerns and lack transparency. We call for independent research, democratic oversight, and clear law.","additional_details":"Atmospheric geoengineering and weather-modification may pose serious risks to public health, air quality, ecosystems, agriculture, and weather stability. The public deserves clarity about activities that could affect the environment and well-being. Precautionary action is needed to prevent harm, protect public trust, and ensure environmental decisions are evidence-based, accountable, and safe.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":43041,"closing_date":"2026-08-24","created_at":"2026-01-21T09:24:37.229Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T17:12:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-24T12:39:25.209Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-21T09:45:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-27T02:06:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-16T17:27:25.251Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jessica Mapson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-16","summary":"The UK does not undertake any form of weather modification. The Government is not in favour of deploying Solar Radiation Modification and has no plans to do so. ","details":"Weather modification typically refers to deliberate actions taken to influence local weather conditions over short timeframes. The UK does not undertake any form of weather modification. Atmospheric geoengineering, also referred to as solar radiation modification (SRM), describes a set of technologies that could theoretically cool the Earth largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. The Government is not in favour of deploying SRM and has no plans to do so. \n\nOur focus is on tackling the underlying causes of climate change by delivering a clean energy transition and raising international climate mitigation ambition. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. \n\nThe Government recognises the need to understand the risks and impacts of SRM. We support independent research that is responsible and transparent, complies with domestic and international regulations, and strengthens the evidence base on atmospheric geoengineering. \n\nDepartment for Energy Security and Net Zero","created_at":"2026-04-16T17:27:25.248Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T17:33:48.845Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"ESNZ","name":"Department for Energy Security and Net Zero","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751443,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751443.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep the 5-Year ILR route for refugees. Do not extend it to 10 or 20 years","background":"We call on the UK Government to preserve the current 5-year route (ILR) for refugees and people with humanitarian protection.","additional_details":"We believe that proposals to extend this period to 10 or even 20 years would create severe, long-term hardship for millions of people including children who call the UK their only home.\r\n\r\nMany refugees have already suffered war, violence, persecution, and trauma. We think keeping them in temporary status for 10–20 years, without a stable path to settlement, is inhumane, and it could prevent families from healing, integrating, and contributing fully to society.\r\n \r\nWe urge the Government to protect the existing 5-year ILR route and ensure that refugees can rebuild their lives in safety, stability, and dignity. Finally, for many of us, this is not just about rules, we walk under a sky that offers no safety and upon a ground that gives no stability.\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":53155,"created_at":"2025-11-21T21:12:24.666Z","updated_at":"2026-06-22T23:00:02.462Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-22T14:22:40.033Z","closed_at":"2026-06-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T01:44:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-02T21:01:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-14T12:11:34.254Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-14","summary":"As set out in the Restoring Order & Control paper, those eligible for protection will be on a 20-year route to settlement. We will introduce a new route where refugees may ‘earn’ settlement sooner.","details":"The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who genuinely need it. Protecting them for as long as it is needed, is in accordance with our international obligations. This will not change. The principle that people genuinely fleeing persecution should be welcomed is one this Government will always defend.\n\nHowever, the system we inherited was broken. Since 2021, over 425,000 people have claimed asylum in the UK. Just a decade before (2011-2015), that figure was around 150,000.  Rising arrivals and falling removals has placed considerable strain on the country and the taxpayer. \n\nWe must tackle the factors that incentivise people to come to the UK. Today, seeking asylum in Britain is more attractive than in other countries in Europe. A 5-year initial period of leave leads, almost automatically, to settled status. This means refugee status is, in effect, permanent from day one. This encourages asylum-seekers to pass through other safe countries in pursuit of asylum here.\n\nCurrently, refugees, some of whom arrive illegally, get more generous entitlements than other migrants. This is unfair to people who follow the rules of the managed migration system including British citizens. We want to make the system fairer for the British public and migrants who play by the rules.\n\nThe statement sets out a fair and firm approach to restoring order to the system, which is essential for building community cohesion. By increasing public confidence in the integrity of the asylum system, the reforms will help build trust and reduce tensions within communities.\n\nAt the same time, these reforms support successful integration for those granted protection, enabling them to contribute positively to society. Integration brings significant benefits for individuals, taxpayers, and communities. It is wholly right that we strive to achieve these goals as they are essential to secure public confidence. It is only by operating a fair, effective and functioning system that we can maintain this country's long tradition of helping those fleeing peril. \n\nAs such, the statement sets out a new approach to refugee protection in the UK, which marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection, and towards a more basic, temporary protection which we call ‘core protection’.\n\nThis government will never step back from our responsibility to provide protection to those fleeing war and persecution. But we will now restore this to the intention of the 1951 Convention. That refugee status is a temporary sanctuary. A safe haven until a return home is possible. This is entirely in accordance with our international obligations but does not exceed them.\n\nRefugees will receive 30 months’ permission to stay instead of 5 years. Protection needs will be regularly reassessed, and they will not have an automatic right to bring family members to the UK. They will be on a 20-year route to settlement rather than being able to apply after 5 years. \n\nThe Government does not believe that refugees should remain on core protection long-term. We want to encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary and rebuild their lives. To address this, we will encourage refugees to switch out of the core protection route wherever possible. We will introduce a new, in-country Protection Work and Study route. A person granted protection will be eligible to apply if they obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee. Once on this route, individuals will be able to access family reunion rights and become eligible to ‘earn’ settlement sooner than under core protection alone.\n\nThis Government has never operated a policy of automatic settlement for refugees granted limited permission. We will carefully manage the transition into the new system to ensure the offer remains clear and fair.\n\nAll settlement applications will continue to be carefully considered on their individual merits. This includes assessing whether there have been significant changes in country conditions or personal circumstances, which means that an individual no longer needs our protection. We will not remove anyone to their own or any other country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution or are at risk of serious harm. \n\nImpacts on vulnerable individuals are at the front and centre of our work. Under our new offer, those who remain at risk will continue to remain in the UK for as long as necessary. \n\nWe are considering the appropriate pathways for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, families with children, and other vulnerable asylum seekers, taking into account their needs and vulnerabilities.\n\nThe Government has consulted on settlement requirements as part of a review on earned settlement. The feedback is being analysed, and the Home Office will publish a response in due course. Further details on the proposals can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement \n\nHome Office","created_at":"2026-04-14T12:11:34.251Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T12:12:22.361Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"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":"closed","signature_count":10355,"created_at":"2025-10-05T10:18:29.476Z","updated_at":"2026-05-04T23:00:00.518Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-04T17:41:42.580Z","closed_at":"2026-05-04T22:59:59.999Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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. \n\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. \n\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. \n\nImportantly, individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period to settlement based on contributions to the UK economy and society.\n\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. \n\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. \n\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. \n\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. \n\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.\n\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. \n\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. \n\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. \n\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":754331,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754331.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Commission a full Independent Review of Council Tax and Stamp Duty","background":"We call on the Government to commission a full, independent review of Council Tax and Stamp Duty to deliver the fundamental, evidence-based reform the UK’s housing market urgently needs.","additional_details":"Council Tax arrears have risen to £8.3 billion, with more than two million households struggling to keep up. We believe a tax based on 1990s property values no longer reflects today’s homes or people’s ability to pay — and it fails to provide a stable way to fund essential local services.\r\n \r\nWe believe Stamp Duty remains a narrow, one-off tax that distorts the housing market and traps families in unsuitable homes.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":90258,"closing_date":"2026-07-23","created_at":"2025-12-12T13:04:51.915Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T21:37:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-23T15:08:20.482Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-13T18:46:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-20T10:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-13T14:49:55.734Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andrew Dixon","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-13","summary":"Council Tax and Stamp Duty are important Government revenue sources, raising £60 billion a year to fund essential services. Government is committed to a fair system and supporting home ownership.","details":"Council tax is a tax on properties, where property bands are used as a proxy for relative ability to pay. For 2026-27, the system accounts for 53% of the local government core spending power, which local authorities need in order to provide local services. Councils are directly accountable to their local communities for how they raise and spend council tax.\n\nIn England, homes are put into one of eight valuation bands based on their capital value in April 1991. The purpose of banding is to arrive at relative values of homes rather than assessing the actual value of each one. The valuation of all properties in England is carried out by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) who undertake this role independently of ministers. While properties are banded by VOA, the local authority is responsible for determining the level of council tax in their area. This reflects the service needs of each area having taken account of the council’s other sources of income, as well as historic council tax decisions taken by the local authority over several decades.  \n\nCouncil tax is a settled tax which is understood by taxpayers, and which has a high collection rate (95.9% in 2024-25). As such, the taxbase remains broadly stable and the revenues are relatively predictable which means that local authorities have a degree of certainty in their financial planning. To ensure fairness, the council tax system includes a range of reliefs and exemptions, with 34.3% of all dwellings subject to a discount. These range from a single person discount and student discount to a severely mentally impaired disregard. The Government requires local authorities to provide a council tax reduction scheme to support low-income households, with 3.6 million claimants in England. Support for pension-age households is centrally prescribed by the Government and working-age support is designed locally, reflecting the needs and circumstances of local communities. Local authorities also have discretionary powers to offer further support to those they feel are in hardship or financial difficulties.\n\nThe enforcement of council tax should be proportionate and sympathetic to those in hardship, whilst striking a fair balance by ensuring councils retain tools to recover council tax they are owed. In 2025 the Government published a council tax administration and enforcement consultation on council tax administration. We are grateful to everyone who engaged with the consultation and are currently reviewing the consultation responses. The Government will publish a response in the coming months.\n\nWe recognise that owners of the most valuable homes in England pay proportionately far less tax on their properties compared to those in lower value homes. That is why at the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a new High Value Council Tax Surcharge that will be introduced in 2028/29. This will apply a £2,500 surcharge for properties worth over £2m and a £7,500 surcharge for properties worth over £5m to be collected alongside council tax. Revenue will be used to support funding for local government services, with further detail set to be set out at the next Spending Review. Current council tax bands will not be affected and will still apply. \n\nWe want the council tax system to be fair for taxpayers and local authorities and will continue to keep it under review.\n\nStamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) is payable when purchasing a property or land over a certain price in England and Northern Ireland. SDLT continues to be an important source of Government revenue, raising around £14 billion each year to help pay for the essential services the Government provides. In addition, it is an efficient tax to administer and collect, as most payments are made on behalf of taxpayers by professional conveyancers as part of the purchase process. The structure of SDLT ensures that those buying the most expensive properties contribute the most.\n\nThe SDLT system already works to support home ownership. First-time buyers benefit from paying no SDLT up to £300,000 and can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. At Autumn Budget 2024, the higher rates of SDLT for additional dwellings were increased by two percentage points from three per cent to five per cent. This will ensure that those looking to move home, or purchase their first property, have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing residential property. This change will raise £310 million by 2029-30, which will be used to balance the public finances and support public services.\n\nThe Government is taking action to support those who wish to own their own home. The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes and is reforming the National Planning Policy Framework to get Britain building, including by reintroducing mandatory housing targets.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2026-04-13T14:49:55.733Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T14:51:24.238Z"},"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":737761,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737761.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce product-specific safety regulations for tampons","background":"Call for tampons to be subject to product-specific safety regulations while retaining VAT-free status. These safety regulations should require ingredient labelling, rigorous safety testing, and post-market monitoring.","additional_details":"We believe introducing product-specific regulations could help ensure robust safety testing, transparent labelling, and ongoing monitoring protecting public health and enabling informed consumer choices about products used in the body.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":17662,"created_at":"2025-08-15T09:22:34.456Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T14:20:59.401Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-18T15:47:36.849Z","closed_at":"2026-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-15T09:39:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-11T15:17:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-13T14:19:39.166Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-13","summary":"The Government is conducting a consultation to inform whether additional measures are necessary to ensure the safety of period products sold in the UK.","details":"The Government is dedicated to ensuring that every period product sold in the UK meets safety standards. These products are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, which state that only items considered safe for normal or expected use can be offered on the market. During the passage of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 we committed to consult and consider whether and what further action is required to ensure period products are safe for consumers.\n\nIn keeping with this commitment, the Government now seeks to engage with businesses, consumer groups and representative organisations through the Product Safety Framework Reform Consultation, published on the 31st March to gather evidence from a broad range of stakeholders and the public regarding relevant issues and their impacts. This is being considered alongside broader proposals to update the general product safety framework.\n\nThe government is also reviewing the existing academic and scientific research base concerning the safety of period products including single use disposable tampons. Existing safety and testing standards are being reviewed and we are collaborating with other government departments, stakeholders and other experts to consider the need for any further research in this area to complement the consultation.\n\nWe will continue to support current safety standards, such as enhanced use of the UK Tampon Code of Practice. Leading UK manufacturers have adopted this Code, which sets manufacturing safety and labelling standards for tampons, including information about Toxic Shock Syndrome, a rare risk linked to tampon use. The Government is also engaged in the development of ISO 25130 (Menstrual Products), a new international standard that will include the harmonisation of risk assessments and testing for menstrual products by 2028.\n\nConsumer safety and women's health will guide decisions on regulating period products. \n\nDepartment for Business and Trade","created_at":"2026-04-13T14:19:39.162Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T14:20:34.251Z"},"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":752400,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752400.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop proposed changes to the Motability Scheme","background":"The recent budget has announced taxes on advanced payments and a decrease in mileage allowances. We believe this is unfair to the most vulnerable in society and could affect their independence.","additional_details":"Many disabled people earn considerably less than average and a cost increase could mean they struggle to get a car.\r\n \r\nMany disabled people also need to use their car for short journeys, where others may be able to walk, and mileage soon adds up because of this.\r\n \r\nWhile those living in big cities could potentially rely on public transport, public transport is often rare in rural areas, which may potentially take people's independence away.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":62749,"closing_date":"2026-07-15","created_at":"2025-11-27T18:17:55.254Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T20:25:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-15T10:17:44.161Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-05T02:11:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-28T18:30:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-13T09:44:02.113Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dave Walton","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-13","summary":"The Government and Motability have worked in partnership to develop reforms which strike the right balance between delivering a key service for disabled people and fairness to the taxpayer. ","details":"The Motability Scheme is a lifeline for many disabled people and families, supporting their independence by enabling them to lease a car, a wheelchair accessible vehicle, scooter or powered wheelchair in exchange for an eligible disability benefit allowance.\n\nThe Government and Motability have worked in partnership to develop a suite of reforms which strikes the right balance between delivering a key service for disabled people and fairness to the taxpayer, saving over £1 billion by financial year 2030/31. These reforms will not affect eligibility for the Motability Scheme or disability benefits. \n\nThe VAT relief for Advanced Payments – a one-off payment made to lease more expensive vehicles – will be removed and Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) will apply to leases at the standard rate, bringing tax treatment in line with commercial leasing firms. These changes will only apply to customers taking out new leases with Motability and will not apply to current leases or to wheelchair accessible vehicles in recognition of the additional costs associated with these vehicles. VAT reliefs on weekly lease costs and vehicle resale will remain in place.\n\nMotability has also confirmed it will continue to offer a broad range of vehicles available without an Advance Payment, ensuring that people can access vehicles suited to their needs, whether that’s a larger vehicle or extra boot space to carry wheelchairs, using only their disability benefit.\n\nOn 26 March 2026, Motability announced changes to the leasing package that will affect new leases taken out from 1 July 2026. For new leases, mileage will be 10,000 miles a year. This is consistent with standard mileage allowances for car leases, and three out of four current customers drive fewer than 10,000 miles a year. Motability recognises that some customers may need to drive more miles for a variety of reasons. They will be introducing an exceptions process for very limited situations and will share an update before 1 July.\n\nStandard leases will continue to include insurance, servicing, maintenance and breakdown cover, protecting the core package of support available to customers.\n\nIn determining these changes, Motability have taken careful steps to ensure the Scheme remains good value and accessible for disabled people. This includes engaging with Scheme customers about prospective changes, the feedback from which has informed the changes. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-04-13T09:44:02.112Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T09:45:56.071Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":16979,"closing_date":"2026-07-13","created_at":"2025-08-20T19:05:30.226Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T18:50:20.000Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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. \n\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":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":10458,"closing_date":"2026-08-19","created_at":"2026-01-19T18:59:15.038Z","updated_at":"2026-07-05T19:33:20.000Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":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.\n\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. \n\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.\n\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":733380,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/733380.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect babies lives once heartbeat detectable, except in extreme cases","background":"Introduce a bill to protect babies in the womb once a heartbeat is detected. It bans abortion of healthy babies beyond this point, with exceptions for rape, to save the mother’s life, or if the child has a fatal foetal abnormality.","additional_details":"Science makes it clear that the tiny being developing in the womb is genetically and biologically human. In 2022 over 250,000 of these human unborn babies were aborted in the UK. Several studies show abortion can harm women emotionally and physically. Therefore, to protect both mother and baby, we believe it is time we reviewed and reformed our abortion law.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10827,"created_at":"2025-07-15T18:46:29.584Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T10:31:01.416Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-19T14:44:18.808Z","closed_at":"2026-03-19T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-15T19:05:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-19T21:40:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-07T10:30:44.428Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-07","summary":"The Government adopts a neutral stance on abortion and has no plans to introduce a bill that would limit abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. This would be a matter for Parliament to decide.","details":"The Government has no plans to introduce a bill to limit abortion to once a fetal heartbeat is detected.\n\nAs with other matters of conscience, abortion is an issue on which the Government adopts a neutral stance. Parliament decides the circumstances under which abortion can legally be undertaken. It is therefore for Parliament to decide whether to make any changes to the law on abortion. Proposals for change are brought forward by backbench members and decisions made through a free vote in both Houses of Parliament, with members voting according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.\n\nAll women in England and Wales can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. In accordance with the 1967 Abortion Act, abortion is permitted up until 24 weeks’ gestation when two doctors agree that the termination would meet one of the grounds in the Act, and there must be agreement as to which ground that is. Abortions at or after 24 weeks are permitted in certain circumstances, for example, if the woman’s life is in danger, or if a severe fetal abnormality has been identified.\n\nWhen the time limit for most abortion was last lowered in 1990, Parliament decided to link the gestational time limit for abortion with fetal viability. At that time, there was a clear consensus from the medical profession that the age of viability had reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. There is currently no clear clinical consensus that viability is less than 24 weeks.\n\nThe safety of women accessing abortion services is of paramount importance. Abortion is recognised by the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to be a safe procedure when carried out in line with clinical best practice.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-04-07T10:30:44.426Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T10:30:44.426Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":730757,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730757.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the Chagos Deal ","background":"We believe the Chagos Deal is a terrible disaster, and we find the cost unaffordable. We have concerns that it could harm the indigenous Chagossian people, and our national interests. We urge the House of Commons to block any legislation relating to this deal. We think MPs should stop it, all of it.","additional_details":"We are concerned that the United Kingdom could pay billions of pounds over decades, which we find alarming at a time when there have been cuts to services for the vulnerable. We are deeply saddened that people across the United Kingdom are suffering economically. We oppose any increases in taxation, as well as cuts to expenditure, until this Treaty is cancelled. We find it unfair to suffer the cost of the Treaty, especially as many of the indigenous people oppose it. We cannot afford this Deal.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10560,"created_at":"2025-06-18T10:10:16.526Z","updated_at":"2026-04-01T15:56:15.683Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-18T12:22:40.544Z","closed_at":"2026-03-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-20T21:35:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-28T07:40:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-01T15:54:59.937Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-01","summary":"The Diego Garcia military base deal is vital for our defence and intelligence. The deal protects our national security for generations and ensures that the UK maintains unique defence capabilities.","details":"This Government is deeply committed to the national security of this country. The Diego Garcia Military Base was at risk, and we acted to protect our national interests and prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold in a location of exceptional, and unique, strategic importance.\n\nThe Diego Garcia Military Base is vital to our defence and intelligence capabilities, and therefore to the safety and security of the British people. The Base is essential not only to UK national security but also to the security of our key allies. As the world grows more dangerous, so too does the importance of the base for our national security.\n\nInternational courts were already making decisions in favour of Mauritius, threatening the continued operation of the Base, and its security.  If Mauritius were to take us to court, we are unlikely to be successful in defending the UK’s position on sovereignty. Such a scenario would cause real-world operational impacts on the base. We would also have no basis to prevent China or other nations setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises near the base.\n\nThe Government has published the full forecasted costs of the Treaty and laid them in the House. The costs consist of a direct annual payment to Mauritius, a development fund, and a trust fund to benefit Chagossians. The forecast average cost per year was set out as £101 million.\n\nThe costs of this deal compare favourably to other international basing agreements, and other UK bases abroad.\n\nThe Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. We have been clear in our regret for the manner in which Chagossians were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 70s. We recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians as well as the different views amongst Chagossians - including several groups that welcome the deal.\n\nThe only viable path to resettlement on the Archipelago is through the Agreement with Mauritius. This permits Mauritius to undertake a programme of resettlement except on Diego Garcia, and subject to security measures to protect the operation of the Diego Garcia base.\n\nWe have also worked hard to ensure that the Diego Garcia treaty reflects the interests of all Chagossians. We have agreed a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians and the resumption of visits to the Chagos Archipelago. Separate to the agreement, we will support Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects.\n\nTo ensure that the Chagossians’ views are properly reflected, the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians, by Chagossians. The Fund will be overseen by a Management Board with a Chagossian majority, including a UK based representative and a Chagossian Chair.\n\nThe first duty of any government is to keep its people safe. The UK–Mauritius Agreement meets that duty whilst ensuring that both countries remain committed to supporting Chagossians, in the UK and around the world.\n\nForeign, Commonwealth & Development Office","created_at":"2026-04-01T15:54:59.935Z","updated_at":"2026-04-01T15:56:15.681Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":759385,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759385.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office","background":"Introduce a new legal disqualification so people convicted of terrorism offences (in the UK or abroad) cannot stand as candidates or hold elected office, including local councils.","additional_details":"This is needed because current local election disqualification rules focus mainly on recent imprisonment thresholds (for example, being sentenced to 3 months or more within the last 5 years) and therefore may not prevent individuals with serious historic convictions from standing today. The Electoral Commission notes that the returning officer cannot confirm whether a candidate is disqualified and candidates self-declare their eligibility when submitting nomination papers.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":204060,"closing_date":"2026-09-06","created_at":"2026-01-30T15:04:00.665Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T20:56:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-06T11:41:36.948Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-30T15:26:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-06T15:32:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.657Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-08T02:39:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-06-18","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-07-06","debate_outcome_at":"2026-07-07T13:33:41.480Z","creator_name":"Richard James Donaldson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-06","summary":"We currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for these offences. We keep the UK’s broader counter terrorism framework under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.","details":"We currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for these offences.\n\nCurrently anyone who has been convicted of any offence in the UK and receives a custodial sentence of three months or more, suspended or not, is disqualified for five years from standing or sitting as a member of an English local authority. Candidates must declare that they are not disqualified from standing for or holding local office. Making a false statement is potentially a criminal offence.\n\nOther disqualification criteria applying to councillors in England include:\n• Those under certain bankruptcy restrictions.\n• Those disqualified for illegal or corrupt election practices. \n• Those subject to certain notification requirements or a relevant order relating to sexual offences.\n• Those disqualified when convicted of certain intimidatory criminal offences against certain persons, including candidates of a relevant elective office.\n\nThe UK has one of the strongest counter terrorism frameworks in the world. This includes a range of specialised counter terrorism powers which support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon their release.  We always keep this framework under review to ensure it is fit for purpose in the context of emerging threats. This is supported through independent scrutiny provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.\n\nMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local Government\nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759385)","created_at":"2026-04-01T14:09:15.655Z","updated_at":"2026-05-20T09:23:55.577Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-07-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-07-06/debates/741511B8-2691-42B4-AC0B-209D4F60A838/details","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90nA0yH6b4","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10929/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757426,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757426.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Nationalise water companies to make water a non profit publicly owned asset","background":"To make water a non profit making national asset that ensures we have a secure water infrastructure that ensures our water security for future generations.","additional_details":"We believe it has become very clear that funding capital infrastructure improvements has been a lower priority than shareholder profit and CEO salaries and bonuses by all the privatised water companies. Therefore, to ensure that our citizens water needs are met, now and in the future, water companies should be re-nationalised to ensure our country's water security in the future.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":29461,"closing_date":"2026-08-25","created_at":"2026-01-16T19:09:03.592Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T19:34:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-25T15:35:23.735Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-16T19:50:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-03T21:45:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.223Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alan Edward Dean","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-31","summary":"Nationalisation would take years, involve a lengthy legal process, and divert time, energy and resources from working on the quickest and most effective way to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.","details":"The Government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of water companies, including pollution incidents, infrastructure failures, and the need for stronger environmental protection. We are clear that standards must improve and that water companies must be held fully to account.\n\nSome campaigners have called for nationalisation of the water industry or a move to not for profit public ownership. However, the Government does not believe that nationalisation is the answer. The reality is that it would take many years to unpick the current ownership model, would be extremely complex, and would likely result in prolonged legal challenges, with years spent in the courts rather than fixing the problems people rightly care about.\n\nDuring that period, billions of pounds of vital private investment needed to repair leaking pipes, upgrade infrastructure, and improve environmental performance would be put at risk or delayed. Nationalisation would also create a significant hole in the public finances, diverting funding away from key public priorities such as hospitals and schools, without delivering faster or better outcomes for customers or the environment.\n\nIndependent analysis by the Independent Water Commission found no evidence that ownership models—whether public or private—determine performance. What matters is strong regulation, effective enforcement, and sustained investment. That is why the Government is focused on reforming how the sector is regulated, rather than pursuing disruptive and costly structural change.\n\nThis is why we are delivering the most far reaching overhaul of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are strengthening the powers of regulators, introducing tougher oversight, enabling no notice inspections, and taking a prevention first approach to pollution. We are also increasing accountability by banning bonuses for senior executives when performance falls short, introducing swift and automatic penalties for pollution incidents, and creating new criminal sanctions for those who obstruct investigations. Nationalisation is not the answer—tougher regulation is—and we are giving regulators the teeth they need to act quickly and decisively.\n\nThe Water White Paper is also clear that where a water company proposes a transition to a different ownership model, such as a not for profit structure, the new regulator will assess whether this should go ahead and ensure that the interests of customers are properly protected and reflected in any decision.\n\nThe Government remains focused on ensuring water companies meet the high standards the public expects, invest in resilient infrastructure, protect bill payers, and restore the environment for future generations—delivering real improvements without the delay, disruption, and cost that nationalisation would bring.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.217Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T10:27:57.217Z"},"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":736891,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/736891.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review CMS safeguards to prevent financial abuse and coercive control","background":"Review how the CMS detects and acts on concerns of financial abuse. We believe survivors need better access to support to navigate systems that could enable continued abuse after separation.","additional_details":"We believe the Child Maintenance Service and family courts are outdated and could enable ongoing abuse. There are concerns that abusers may be able to use legal processes like Child Arrangement Orders and financial control via CMS to continue coercive behaviour post-separation. We feel these systems lack adequate safeguards to protect survivors and children from harm. We feel a review is needed to ensure the CMS is trauma-informed, survivor-centred, and doesn't enable abuse.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10720,"created_at":"2025-08-10T05:39:38.981Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T10:28:18.902Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-24T14:51:39.843Z","closed_at":"2026-03-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-10T06:56:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-17T18:39:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-31T10:11:12.575Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-30","summary":"The Government takes financial abuse and coercive control seriously. The CMS has a range of safeguards in place and continues to strengthen support so survivors can access maintenance safely.","details":"The Government recognises the serious harm caused by domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, and is committed to ensuring that public services do not inadvertently enable further harm following separation. While child maintenance is intended to support children’s day-to‑day living costs, we understand concerns that contact or financial arrangements can be misused to continue controlling behaviour, and we take these concerns seriously.\n\nThe Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has a comprehensive set of safeguards to support parents who may be at risk of domestic abuse. All CMS caseworkers receive specialist training to help them recognise a wide range of abusive behaviours, including coercive and controlling behaviour. This training reflects Home Office statutory guidance and is reviewed every six months to ensure staff remain fully equipped to support parents in vulnerable situations.\n\nIn addition to training, caseworkers have access to a Domestic Abuse Plan which sets out clear operational steps for responding to disclosures of abuse. This is supported by a regularly reviewed list of external specialist organisations to ensure parents are signposted to appropriate support. These tools help CMS staff to identify concerns early, respond appropriately, and support parents to navigate the service safely, with adjustments made where abuse is disclosed.\n\nThe CMS can also take practical measures to reduce the risk of ongoing coercive control. In some Direct Pay cases, the CMS may act as an intermediary to minimise the need for direct contact between parents. Caseworkers can also provide advice on measures such as setting up bank accounts with a centralised sort code to help prevent a parent’s location from being traced. For parents with the most complex needs, a specialist casework team provides targeted support, works closely with families to ensure safeguarding concerns are fully considered, and helps prevent victims from having to repeat stories of abuse.\n\nThe Government also recognises that concerns about coercive control can extend beyond child maintenance and into wider legal processes following separation, including proceedings in the family courts. This Government is committed to ensuring that the family court system fully supports survivors of domestic abuse and delivers the right outcomes for them and their children. The family court should never be a tool for perpetrators to continue abuse, and there are protections in place to help prevent this. Working with partners across the family justice system, the Government is delivering long‑term reform to ensure the system is fair, accessible and firmly focused on the welfare of the child.\n\nAs part of this work, on 17 March 2026 the Deputy Prime Minister announced the national rollout of the Child Focused Model by the end of the current Spending Review period. The Government press release can be found here: Children to get swifter justice as new family court approach expands nationally - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/children-to-get-swifter-justice-as-new-family-court-approach-expands-nationally). The model is designed to improve the experience of children and families in private law proceedings by strengthening the early identification of risk, increasing children’s participation, and providing specialist support for domestic abuse survivors. The model currently operates in 10 of 43 family court areas across England and Wales, and the Government has committed £17 million to support further expansion in 2026/27.\n\nThe Department for Work and Pensions has also committed, through the cross-government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, to upskill all frontline staff to intervene early on VAWG including the CMS workforce. \n\nFurthermore, the Government intends to legislate to remove the CMS Direct Pay service when Parliamentary time allows. Moving to a single streamlined service will benefit victims and survivors of domestic abuse in several ways, such as by preventing unwanted contact between parents, and removing an opportunity for perpetrators of economic control and coercion to use those behaviours in the context of the service. It also removes the need for the receiving parent to report non-compliance as is currently the case on Direct Pay, which some parents may not feel comfortable doing because of the risk of provoking retaliation. Ahead of those legislative changes, we are strengthening support by streamlining the process of moving parents from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay where appropriate, and by improving the clarity of our communication about the support available for victims and survivors of domestic abuse and how they can access it.\n\nThe Department continues to engage with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and specialist stakeholders to ensure the CMS evolves and improves its safeguarding approach. Policies and processes are kept under review to ensure survivors can safely access child maintenance and receive the support they need with confidence. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-03-31T10:11:12.572Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T10:11:48.506Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755123,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755123.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the ban on trail hunting","background":"Stop the plan to ban trail hunting!","additional_details":"We believe trail hunting is a way of life and it generates so many jobs and helps rural communities and businesses. We therefore think that banning it will be a disaster.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":24024,"closing_date":"2026-08-02","created_at":"2025-12-22T08:20:07.021Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T12:56:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-02T15:20:48.543Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-22T08:49:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-14T12:13:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-27T12:58:11.338Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"William Rowley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-27","summary":"On 26 March 2026 Defra launched a consultation seeking views on how to deliver a ban in England and Wales which can be accessed here: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/defra/trail-hunting-consultation.","details":"This Government is committed to enacting an effective, enforceable ban on trail hunting, that protects our countryside, wildlife and rural communities. On 26 March 2026 Defra launched a consultation seeking views on how to deliver a ban in England and Wales. The consultation can be accessed on Citizen Space: \n\nhttps://consult.defra.gov.uk/defra/trail-hunting-consultation. \n\nThe consultation lasts for 12 weeks and will close on 18 June 2026.\n\nThis consultation seeks views on how an effective ban on trail hunting might best be accomplished, including with regard to: \n·  How trail hunting should be defined for the purposes of a ban\n·  How to ensure that the ban on trail hunting will not inadvertently affect other activities which we intend should remain lawful such as drag hunting or ‘clean boot’ hunting\n·  Whether it should remain lawful to use animal-based scent trails when training dogs for specific purposes\n·  Considerations relevant to the timing of introducing the ban \n·  The potential community, social, business, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed approach to banning trail hunting\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of rural pursuits and wants to protect them for future generations. Alternative practices, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, which do not use animal-based scents, are intended to remain unaffected under the plans.\n\nDefra welcomes views from all those with an interest and all responses to the consultation will be considered carefully in developing proposals for a ban. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-03-27T12:58:11.336Z","updated_at":"2026-03-27T13:00:09.756Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":10684,"closing_date":"2026-08-10","created_at":"2026-01-01T22:22:10.634Z","updated_at":"2026-07-10T15:19:20.000Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":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. \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.\n\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. \n\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.\n\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.\n\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":738976,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/738976.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require female CPR manikins in all certified first aid training programs","background":"The Government should implement minimum standards for first aid training providers to ensure every trainee practises CPR and first aid on a manikin with female anatomy. All training providers should be required to include anatomically accurate female manikins alongside standard male manikins.","additional_details":"A recent study found fear of inappropriate touching is a key reason people hesitate to help women. CPR manikins often have flat, male chests, so trainees are less likely to practise on female bodies. We believe mandating anatomically female dummies could build confidence, reduce hesitation, and help close this potentially deadly gender gap.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10660,"created_at":"2025-08-24T09:10:57.540Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T12:45:41.614Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-09-10T10:36:32.471Z","closed_at":"2026-03-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-24T09:27:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-10T20:07:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-25T11:47:02.739Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-25","summary":"HSE is not responsible for approving or certifying all first aid qualifications. They will present the petition to the First Aid Quality Partnership industry body to consider and respond. ","details":"The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the responsible authority for enforcement of workplace health and safety legislation in Great Britain. This legislation includes the Health and Safety (First – Aid) Regulations 1981 and the Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (First-Aid) Regulations 1989, which require employers to provide adequate and appropriate first aid equipment and facilities to employees who are injured or become ill at work.\n\nThe regulations are not prescriptive on how this is achieved, but require employers to undertake a needs assessment, taking account of all of the circumstances of their business to ensure they have the level of first aid provision that is right for them.\n\nHSE is not responsible for the approval of first aid qualifications or training providers except for in offshore oil and gas installations within the United Kingdom Continental Shelf or for regulating first aid provision outside of work environments.\n\nThere is no single Government body responsible for approval of the content or equipment used in all first aid training courses.\n\nThe First Aid Quality Partnership (FAQP) is an industry forum, on which HSE is represented but is not a member. The membership includes first aid standard setters, such as St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, representatives of training providers regulated by national qualifications regulators, representatives of independent training providers and providers of emergency medicine. Leading experts in CPR, the Resuscitation Council UK, are also members.\n\nHSE will present the petition to the FAQP, requesting that they consider the request made, and respond as appropriate. FAQP members will reasonably need time to discuss the petition request and potentially to consult with wider organisations they represent. Once HSE has presented the petition to them, we will request that they provide an approximate timeframe for their response and will update the Committee accordingly. \n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-03-25T11:47:02.737Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T12:45:41.612Z"},"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":742843,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/742843.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require online platforms to remove misinformation targeting bereaved families","background":"Introduce Jay’s Law: specific legislation obliging platforms to remove organised misinformation that targets grieving families after tragic deaths; require platforms to act on speculative, malicious content likely to cause serious harm; and work with Ofcom on enforcement and sanctions.","additional_details":"Families who have suffered tragic deaths are being subjected to organised misinformation and malicious speculation online. This targets grieving families at their most vulnerable, causing severe additional trauma, distress, and emotional pain. Jay’s Law would place clear legal duties on platforms, backed by Ofcom enforcement and sanctions, to ensure all speculative, organised, and malicious content is swiftly removed, protecting grieving families’ privacy, dignity, and safety.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":18804,"created_at":"2025-09-23T14:31:15.246Z","updated_at":"2026-05-20T09:50:21.140Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-11-04T09:25:06.372Z","closed_at":"2026-05-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-24T12:56:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-07T21:01:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-25T11:02:52.971Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-14","summary":"DSIT are acting to removing this content. We are doing this through the approach set out in the OSA.","details":"Legally platforms must tackle disinformation that’s illegal or abusive to children. Duties coming into effect mean large services must also remove content against their terms of service; including where they ban organised misinformation that targets grieving families after tragic deaths. \n\nThe government would like to thank those who have signed the petition on this important issue. The strength of feeling reflected in the petition underlines the seriousness of the harm caused when misinformation and abuse are directed at bereaved families. \n\nThe government recognises the devastating impact abuse and misinformation can have on an individual, especially during the loss of a loved one. This is why the government will continue to engage with platforms on this issue, discussing their actions to combat illegal content. \n\nThe Online Safety Act\n\nThe Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) introduces duties on platforms to tackle illegal content and protect users from harm. And, in March 2025, Ofcom’s illegal harms codes of practice came into effect, requiring platforms to implement robust measures to reduce the likelihood of users engaging in illegal activity, including harassment and abuse. Under the OSA, for content which does not cross the criminal threshold, large platforms that host user-generated content, and search services, have duties for the safety of their users. Taken together, these measures are designed to empower users against malicious content whilst holding platforms to a greater level of accountability: \n\nFirstly, platforms will have to have accessible terms of service which set out what kinds of legal content they allow on their platforms and in what circumstances they might suspend or ban a user. The services must have systems and processes in place to enforce those terms of service consistently, including where these terms of service relate to mis- and disinformation falling below the illegal threshold. \n\nSecondly, they will need to offer all adult users of the service the option to verify their identity. This will allow users of a platform to filter out non-verified users, helping to reduce abuse and harassment originating from anonymous profiles.\n\nLastly, the user empowerment duties within the OSA will allow adult users of large user-to-user services, known as Category 1 services, to choose whether or not to engage with particular categories of content. This includes content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, and content that is abusive, or incites hate. Together, these measures require platforms to take active steps to reduce harmful behaviour on their services, including where it does not meet the criminal threshold. \n\nThe OSA also introduced false and threatening communications offences, strengthening the criminal law response where content is knowingly false or intended to cause harm. Companies will therefore need to mitigate the risk arising from the use of anonymous profiles to facilitate illegal activity, on their services. \n\nWe are looking at where we can go further. In March, MHCLG published Protecting What Matters, which sets out government’s response to growing pressures on social cohesion. This includes a range of actions such as giving adults greater control over their algorithms, reducing risks that harmful content is monetised, and considering how trustworthy sources can be made more available and prominent during crisis period to address online content that can destabilise our communities, such as online hate, and mis/disinformation.\n\nOfcom and enforcement\nUnder the OSA, platforms are required to have systems and processes in place to enable and respond to content reporting and provide for users to make complaints to the service. These will be enforceable duties. In addition, individuals can also submit complaints to Ofcom where they think a provider is failing to comply with their duties. Complaints regarding illegal online content can be made directly to Ofcom. While Ofcom cannot respond to or investigate individual complaints, this action helps them assess whether regulated services are doing enough to protect their users – and if Ofcom should take any action. These complaints are an essential part of Ofcom’s horizon-scanning, research, supervision and enforcement activity. \nOfcom use the powers parliament has made available to it. These include the power to issue fines of up to 10% of a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue. In the most serious of cases Ofcom can also apply for a court order to impose business disruption measures - stopping UK users accessing the site. \n\nSeparately, Ofcom must produce a report assessing the measures taken or in use by providers of user-to-user and search services to enable users and others to report content and make complaints to providers of such services. \n\nOfcom’s approach and timeline for implementation is here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/roadmap-to-regulation/.\n\nDepartment for Science, Innovation and Technology \nThis is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/742843)","created_at":"2026-03-25T11:02:52.968Z","updated_at":"2026-05-20T09:49:29.011Z"},"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":"closed","signature_count":13055,"created_at":"2025-11-20T19:18:05.869Z","updated_at":"2026-07-09T23:00:04.578Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-09T11:32:08.790Z","closed_at":"2026-07-09T22:59:59.999Z","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,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"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.\n\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. \n\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. \n\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.\n\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.\n\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.\n\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.  \n\nThere are routes available for BN(O)s to become British citizens in certain circumstances:\n\n If 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. \n\n The 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. \n\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.\n\nHome Office","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":741293,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/741293.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow license holders to drive motorhomes up to 4250kg on UK Category B License ","background":"We want the UK to allow UK license holders to drive motorhomes up to 4250kg on UK Category B Licenses, in line with proposed changes from the EU. ","additional_details":"Current laws allow Category B car license holders to drive motorhomes up to 3,500 kg. We feel current laws restrict the size and weight of motorhomes, and many motorhomes just over 3500kg are automatic, which may be helpful for people with disabilities.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":11265,"created_at":"2025-09-16T20:24:42.209Z","updated_at":"2026-04-09T23:00:07.843Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-10-09T15:02:41.418Z","closed_at":"2026-04-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-09-16T20:48:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-24T13:57:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-23T15:32:45.621Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-23","summary":"The DfT keeps driving licence rules under review. The Government has not yet assessed the potential benefits of allowing Category B licence holders to drive motorhomes weighing up to 4,250kg.","details":"On 5 November 2025, the European Union published the final text of the Fourth Driving Licence Directive (2025/2205/EU). This replaced the Third Driving Licence Directive and updates driving licence rules across EU and EEA countries.\n\nThe new Directive includes a range of changes, such as introducing digital driving licences, extending photocard validity from 10 to 15 years, updating driving instruction rules, and making changes to licence categories. One proposed change would increase the maximum weight of vehicles that can be driven on a Category B licence.\n\nIn 2015, when the UK was still an EU Member State, countries began negotiating a temporary exemption to support the uptake of low  and zero emission vehicles. This allowed Category B licence holders to drive vans weighing up to 4,250kg (instead of 3,500kg), without needing a medical, a Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC), or to follow drivers’ hours rules. Drivers were required to complete five hours of training.\n\nIn June 2025, the UK Government extended these rules through the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. This change allowed all zero emission vehicles to be driven on a Category B licence, removed the training requirement, and permitted these vehicles to tow a trailer.\n\nUnder the Fourth Driving Licence Directive, EU countries will be able to allow Category B licence holders to drive motorhomes (referred to as “motor caravans” in the Directive) weighing up to 4,250kg. This would apply to petrol, diesel, and zero emission vehicles. This reflects the fact that many motorhomes exceed 3,500kg but weigh less than 4,250kg, and that some countries already allow heavier vans to be driven on a Category B licence.\n\nThis change would not be automatic. EU Member States must require either at least seven hours of training, a test (which does not have to be a full driving test), or both. Any training or test must cover key safety topics set out in the Directive. There is no requirement for drivers to have held their licence for a minimum number of years before driving a motorhome.\n\nThe Department for Transport published its Road Safety Strategy in January 2026. It was not possible to consider alignment with the new EU Directive before the Strategy was published.\n\nThe UK is already committed to introducing a digital driving licence. However, other changes in the Directive require careful consideration before decisions are made on whether to adopt them. The Government has not yet assessed the potential merits of changing Category B licence rules for motorhomes.\n\nAny future changes to driving licence law would be subject to public consultation and a full assessment of their impacts.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-03-23T15:32:45.618Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T15:32:45.618Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":756832,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756832.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish interest charges on student loans","background":"Cancel interest charges on all student loans. We believe placing this burden on the backs of those that want to succeed in life is abhorrent and short-sighted. These charges penalise our brightest and best, the very people that contribute the most to society.","additional_details":"Charging interest on student loans burdens graduates with growing debt, often £50k+ while many never fully repay due to income-contingent terms.\r\nWe believe that abolishing interest would make higher education truly accessible, without a lifelong financial penalty and also boost social mobility and productivity by freeing young people from debt drag. Education benefits society; taxpayers already subsidise it—we want to remove this unfair tax on ambition.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":23861,"closing_date":"2026-08-11","created_at":"2026-01-12T16:12:41.405Z","updated_at":"2026-07-12T20:12:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-11T13:59:03.574Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-13T08:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-02T06:17:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-23T09:53:39.477Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Paul Kane","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-23","summary":"Student loans are heavily subsidised by government. To be fair to taxpayers and low earners, those who financially benefit should contribute to the cost. Adding interest to loans is one way to do this","details":"The student finance system removes upfront financial barriers for students entering higher education and remains a deliberate investment in our young people. The Government does not make a profit on the student loan system, rather the student loan system is heavily subsidised by government.\n\nTo ensure that the taxpayer, many of whom have not gone to university, are not subsidising an unfair proportion of the cost of student loans, and to protect borrowers  who do not go on to be high earners, the student loan system is designed to ensure that those who financially benefit most from their education make a fair contribution towards its cost. Applying interest to student loans is one way that we manage this.\n\nApplying interest in line with inflation ensures that student loans maintain the real value of the loan over the loan term. Removing interest completely would mean that borrowers who go on the repay all, or nearly all of their loan, would repay less, in real terms, than they borrowed.\n\nWhile interest rates impact the overall amount borrowed and therefore the length of time spent in repayment for borrowers who go on to repay all, or nearly all, of their loan in full, they do not alter the monthly repayment amount for borrowers. Most borrowers are not forecast to repay their loans in full and therefore do not repay the interest accrued on their loan balance. For example, for undergraduate borrowers starting in academic year 2024/25, the average loan balance at the point the borrower becomes eligible to make repayments is £45,600. The estimated average lifetime repayment in real terms is £28,000. Interest rates typically only affect the total amount repaid by mid to high earning borrowers and those with small balances, who will pay back more of their student loans.\n\nThis is a conscious decision in the design of the student loan system.\n\nIt means that if a borrower goes on to be a high earner, they will contribute more to the cost of their education, while low earners are protected by calculating repayments based on their income and cancelling any outstanding debt, with no detriment to the borrower or their family, at the end of the loan term.\n\nRemoving interest rates from student loans would mean that the taxpayer had to subsidise a greater portion of the student loan costs while those who have benefited most from higher education pay less towards its cost.\n\nWe inherited the student loans system, which was devised by previous Governments, and we are looking for ways to make it fairer.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-03-23T09:53:39.474Z","updated_at":"2026-03-23T09:59:37.603Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":754843,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754843.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not remove the 10% wear and tear allowance for childminders from April 2026","background":"Retain the 10% wear and tear allowance for childminders, or introduce an equivalent alternative that reflects the additional household costs of providing regulated childcare from home and helps ensure childminding remains financially sustainable.","additional_details":"Childminders provide essential home-based childcare for families, including babies, siblings, children with additional needs, and parents needing flexible or wraparound care. They work from their own homes, so their workplace is also their family home. We believe the 10% wear and tear allowance recognises unavoidable household costs such as utilities, cleaning, equipment use, and general wear. We think removing it risks making childminding financially unsustainable and reducing childcare availability for families.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":19973,"closing_date":"2026-07-27","created_at":"2025-12-18T08:25:56.801Z","updated_at":"2026-07-10T20:40:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-27T13:09:07.560Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-18T08:37:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-29T14:52:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-18T16:09:52.793Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashleigh Crouch","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-18","summary":"Childminders, like any other business, can continue to get full tax relief on the business proportion of their expenses.","details":"The Government is aware that childminders are concerned about changes to administrative arrangements from April 2026 in connection with Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax.\n\nMTD for Income Tax, through digital record-keeping, aims to reduce errors and simplify tax returns. From April 2026, self-employed childminders with qualifying income over £50,000 must use MTD for Income Tax. The Government expects only a small proportion of childminders to use MTD for Income Tax from April 2026.\n\nAll childminders currently have the option to use alternative methods for some of their expenses and record-keeping responsibilities. In particular, all childminders can currently deduct 10% of their childminding income to cover wear and tear of furniture and household items, instead of deducting the actual costs of purchasing, repairing and replacing these items.\n\nChildminders using MTD for Income Tax from April 2026 must use normal rules for expenses and record-keeping and so should deduct actual business costs for these items, in the same way as other businesses do. If an item is for both business and personal use the business proportion of the cost can be claimed, using a reasonable estimate if necessary. For example, if a childminder needs to replace kitchen equipment they use for meals for both their own household and the children they look after, and they estimate that 60% of the use relates to childminding, then they can claim 60% of the replacement cost.\n\nThe Government recognises childminders’ concerns about this method and so we will actively engage with childminders and stakeholders in the 2026 to 2027 tax year to review the impacts of moving from the 10% deduction to actual costs for wear and tear expense claims.\n\nThere are about 30,600 self-employed childminders in the tax system in the UK. About 2,500 of these will be required to use MTD for Income Tax from April 2026. In 2026-27, all other childminders can continue to use the alternative methods including the 10% deduction and are unaffected by these changes.\n\nThe 10% deduction only covers wear and tear of furniture and household items, not other costs including utilities, cleaning and non-domestic equipment. The actual business costs of these and any other expenses can be deducted, as well as the 10% deduction if applicable to those not in MTD. This is an important principle that the Government is aware may not have been fully appreciated by some childminders and childminding organisations. Childminders who have not been deducting these costs separately may get more tax relief by doing so, instead of only using the 10% deduction.\n\nFor utilities and other household costs, there is an alternative method to allow childminders to claim a proportion of their bills based solely on the number of hours of childcare provided per week. Childminders within MTD for Income Tax can also claim a deduction for a proportion of their bills, using the same rules that apply to all businesses based at home. The amount to claim is based on their own individual circumstances of how much of the property is used, and for how long. This ensures that childminders with exceptionally high household costs can get all the tax relief due to them.\n\nThese methods of deducting business costs together allow any childminder to reflect all the costs relating to providing childcare from their own home when calculating the profits of their business.\n\nThe Government is committed to supporting those childminders through the transition. HMRC has worked with the software industry to ensure there is free and low-cost software available to support smaller and simpler businesses. It is also taking comprehensive steps to raise awareness by writing to affected taxpayers and agents, engaging widely with industry and tax bodies and launching a marketing campaign through social media and radio.\n\nHMRC has recently published updated guidance on GOV.UK for all childminders, including those entering MTD for Income Tax, and giving full details of the alternative methods for wear and tear, household costs, food and drink and record-keeping. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-expenses-and-keeping-records-if-youre-a-childminder\n\nThe Government engaged with Coram PACEY prior to the announcement of the changes at Budget 2025, as the original agreement in 1986 introducing the alternative methods was made with their predecessor. We will continue to work with Coram PACEY, the Scottish Childminding Association (SCMA), the Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA) and other childminding organisations to help childminders with the transition.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2026-03-18T16:09:52.791Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T16:10:34.458Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":745717,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/745717.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect the Right to Live Without a Digital ID","background":"I want a legal safeguard in all digital-ID laws that guarantees no one can be denied work, healthcare, banking, housing, or any other service for not having a government digital ID. Use must remain voluntary, and non-digital alternatives must always be available to prevent exclusion or pressure..","additional_details":"Without legal protections, a voluntary digital ID system could become coercive if access to services or participation in daily life depends on it. There is currently no explicit legal safeguard to prevent digital ID from being over-relied on by either public or private organisations. Digital ID systems can shape access not only to essential services but also wider participation in society. Legal protections could ensure that people can choose without facing disadvantage or indirect compulsion.","committee_note":"","state":"closed","signature_count":23067,"created_at":"2025-10-05T23:26:47.002Z","updated_at":"2026-07-02T23:00:06.742Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-02T10:14:17.193Z","closed_at":"2026-07-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-06T08:45:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-19T18:30:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-17T16:15:48.452Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-17","summary":"The Government is introducing a Digital ID system and will legislate for it to be voluntary, and free to access for anyone who wants it. The Government is consulting on the design of that scheme. ","details":"The Government has announced that it will offer a new national Digital ID system, free to access for anyone who wants it by the end of the Parliament. The use of Digital ID will be optional and there are no plans to change that.\n\nOn 10 March we launched a comprehensive consultation about the design of the Digital ID scheme, which will be open until 5 May. The consultation asks about how we can make the Digital ID a secure, convenient way for people to prove who they are. This will help the government reduce bureaucracy and build the intuitive, efficient, and responsive public services the UK deserves.\n\nFollowing the consultation we will lead a national conversation about how Digital ID and digital tools can be used to make public services work better for you and to support innovation. The digitisation of government services by some estimates could save up to billions of pounds a year. Supermarkets, banks, retail companies have all chosen to move their services online to a greater degree because they believe it delivers better customer experience, and also because it provides better value for money.\n\nMore digital public services will also make them more efficient - because the status quo is expensive. There are costs of processing lots of paper forms, lots of manual payment systems, lots of duplication - every time you have to repeat your story to a different part of the state that’s a second, third or fourth cost to the taxpayer. The numbers across government are huge - the DVLA currently processes 45,000 letters a day, Defra uses 500 different paper forms, HMRC handles 100,000 phone calls a day.\n\nWe want you to help us build this, and we want people from all walks of life and from every part of the country to be involved. We want to hear from people about where we can make their lives easier and how we should design a Digital ID which works for them. The consultation on the national digital ID is open until 5 May, and you can complete it at\n\nhttp://gov.uk/digital-id-consultation.\n\nAs we build the new Digital ID system, we are doing it based on three principles: \n1. It must be useful: It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper-based system. \n2. It must be secure: It will use the latest security technology, like that used by your bank, will keep your data safer than traditional paper documents – all stored safely on your device, for you to use if you want.  \n3. It must be for everyone: We won’t leave people behind and will help you if you struggle with technology or can’t prove who you are with a passport, for example.  \nIt will also make everyday interactions easier; from collecting a parcel to going to the cinema. You’ll be able to use your digital proof of identity across the wider economy - including for Right to Work checks. Digital Right to Work checks will be required by the end of the Parliament, tightening up a system that currently allows use of a variety of paper-based documents. \n\nRobust digital checks will help challenge the perception amongst irregular migrants that it is possible to access work, services and benefits in the UK without lawful status. Anyone starting a new job will be able to use the new digital proof of identity for these right to work checks - or do a digital check of other documents such as your passport or eVisa if you prefer.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-03-17T16:15:48.448Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T12:05:21.705Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}}]}