{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=open","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=96&state=open","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2&state=open","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":759783,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/759783.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make a public animal abuser register & automatically ban ownership","background":"Create a public register of all offenders convicted of animal abuse and introduce an automatic, lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal neglect or abuse. This register should be searchable by vets, breeders, charities and the public to prevent repeat offending.","additional_details":"I clean homes for free for people in need and regularly witness animals suffering under owners with a history for animal neglect or abuse. Currently, bans are discretionary and there is no public register. Abusers can continue acquiring animals. A mandatory ban and register could prevent repeat cruelty and break cycles of harm. Additionally, an immediate automatic lifetime ban could prevent animal ownership being at a judge’s discretion.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":232990,"closing_date":"2026-09-12","created_at":"2026-02-03T12:04:15.845Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:15:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-12T17:01:57.173Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-03T12:51:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-02T17:17:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-19T14:22:00.374Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-03T22:06:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-06-09","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-06-29","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Bea Elton","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-19","summary":"The government has no plans to introduce an animal abuse register, or an automatic lifetime ban for animal abusers because we already have similar provisions in place.","details":"The government does not think it would be appropriate to introduce a publicly accessible animal cruelty register. The majority of the population comply with our high animal welfare laws. In the upsetting and unacceptable instances where these laws are violated or repeatedly violated, we already have these offences recorded.  \n\nAll prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations. In cases of concern, the information may be shared with the public when requested, at the Police’s discretion. \n\nIt is important that access to this information is restricted, to protect the information from misuse while ensuring it is available for organisations with a justified need to access the information. This is consistent with the government’s approach to the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme and Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme.\n\nThe government does not think it is appropriate to introduce an automatic lifetime ban for animal abusers. Post conviction sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already include disqualification orders, which can include a lifetime ban, which prevent individuals convicted of animal cruelty from owning, keeping, or participating in the care of animals. Where police or local authorities have concerns that a person subject to a disqualification order may be breaching it, they are able to carry out checks and take appropriate enforcement action.\n\nWhile we note the frustration that disqualification orders are discretionary, it is important that justice is reviewed on a case-by-case basis to remain fair. This is the responsibility of our independent courts and judiciary. The Sentencing Council provides guidelines to support these decisions.\n\nThe government does recognise that there is a disparity in the law between penalties for cruelty to wildlife and similar incidents that involve pet or companion animals and livestock abuse offences. To address this, in the government’s Animal Welfare Strategy, published in December 2025, we committed to review and look to strengthen penalties for cruelty against wildlife so that they are consistent with the higher levels of sentencing available for animal welfare offences against pets and livestock.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-05-19T14:22:00.371Z","updated_at":"2026-05-19T14:22:52.450Z"},"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":756036,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756036.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge","background":"Make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Currently, fees can reach thousands, creating a \"paywall\" for justice. All legal records should be public property to help ensure transparency, allow for fair appeals, and support victims. Access to the law should not depend on wealth.","additional_details":"High transcription costs can create a prohibitive paywall for justice. Private companies can charge thousands for transcriptions, which can effectively bar small-claims litigants from pursuing fair appeals or accessing their own trials. Full transcriptions of the longest trials can cost £20k. Access to the law mustn't be a luxury for the wealthy. We ask the Government to end the private-pay model and provide free digital access to all transcripts to help ensure transparency and equality.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":203575,"closing_date":"2026-08-05","created_at":"2026-01-05T15:44:31.884Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:07:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-05T12:46:37.363Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-05T15:55:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T10:50:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.037Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-10T19:04:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":"2026-05-12T12:12:08.110Z","creator_name":"Daniel ShenSmith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-03","summary":"The Government is already increasing transparency in the courts, including expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks.  Going further now would place even more pressure on the system.","details":"The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.\n\nIn the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks. These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge's sentencing remarks: Form EX107H (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-transcript-of-a-judges-sentencing-remarks). From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme. The Government's ongoing reform of the criminal courts will further enhance transparency by making sure all hearings in magistrates courts are recorded.\n\nIn the family court, the Government has also been working to support the judiciary to increase the number of family court judgments that are published in anonymised form, while ensuring the privacy and protection of children and families involved in proceedings.  On more targeted transparency measures, the Government is working with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders across England and Wales, providing a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing. Since 29 September 2025, provisions relating to Transparency Orders have applied to all children’s cases. \n\nIn civil proceedings, litigants in England and Wales do not need to pay for the written order or judgment relating to their own case; this is sent to all parties involved, setting out the court’s reasoning for the decision, which parties can refer to if they wish to appeal that decision.\n\nIn tribunal proceedings, any judicial decision and the reasons will be provided to the parties unless there has been an order restricting that. Many of the major tribunal chambers also allow parties to proceedings to request fuller written reasons for tribunal decisions for no additional cost. \n\nThe Ministry of Justice is also working with the judiciary and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to consider the procedural, operational and resource requirements of implementing the publishing of written reasons for decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, to improve transparency and public understanding.\n\nWhile the Government remains committed to continuing to improve transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Making all court and tribunal transcripts available for free would create significant financial and operational pressure at a time when we are focused on rolling out free sentencing remarks for all victims, and when the wider justice system is under considerable pressure. Producing an accurate court or tribunal transcript is a resource-intensive process. Full hearing or trial transcripts are particularly expensive due to their length and the level of quality assurance required to ensure they are accurate and safeguard personal data. Ensuring compliance with reporting restrictions is also central to the release of any court transcript, including vulnerable parties are protected and sensitive details are not inadvertently released.\n\nThe Government is committed to upholding the principle of open justice, including embracing AI and exploring the opportunities it offers to produce court and tribunal transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively, while still meeting the necessary accuracy and safeguarding standards. \n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:03.033Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T20:54:29.587Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-23/debates/7F5059FE-61DE-4D0E-B895-9884D2533331/CourtAndTribunalTranscripts","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SoPyKyqh9o","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10592/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"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":202202,"closing_date":"2026-09-06","created_at":"2026-01-30T15:04:00.665Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:09:00.000Z","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":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"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":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":750612,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750612.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to require drivers to report collisions with cats","background":"It is legal in the UK to hit a cat when driving and not need to stop or report collisions, leaving them scared, alone, and in pain. Cats are important, loved, valued family members for many and we believe the law should reflect this.","additional_details":"We want the Government to legislate to require drivers to stop, check and report any road collisions with cats if they’re injured on the road, and holds drivers accountable if they fail to stop and report a collision involving a cat on the basis they left a cat to unnecessarily suffer. We believe asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable & simple ask.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":179343,"closing_date":"2026-06-17","created_at":"2025-11-13T14:11:41.146Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:15:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-17T09:04:32.079Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-13T14:31:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-11T19:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.976Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-07T21:52:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Carlie Power","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-03","summary":"The Government has no current plans to require drivers to report collisions with cats. However, the Road Safety Strategy will improve road safety for all road users, including cats and other animals.","details":"Improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities.\n\nOn 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. The Strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. This target will focus the efforts of road safety partners across Britain, with measures to improve road design, protect vulnerable road users, and review motoring offences. All of this will be supported and monitored by a new Road Safety Board chaired by the Minister for Local Transport.\n\nRoad safety is a shared responsibility, and this strategy reflects that. It considers action needed by government, local authorities, industry, emergency services and communities to tackle the causes of collisions and save lives. By investing in infrastructure, education, and enforcement, we are taking decisive steps to make our roads safer for everyone, which will in turn reduce the risk to all animals.\n\nThis is a compassionate country and although there is no obligation to report all animal deaths on roads, drivers should, if possible, make enquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals, such as cats, and advise them of the situation.\n\nUnder section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a driver is required to stop and report an accident involving specified animals including horses, cattle, ass, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats or wild animals. This requirement arises from their status as working animals rather than as domestic pets. To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170, would require primary legislation. (Note that certain legislation still uses the word ‘accident’, although the preferred terms are collision or crash.)\n\nBecause cats are much smaller than other specified animals, and often most active at dawn or dusk, in many cases drivers may not be aware they’ve hit them – particularly with larger vehicles. Because of that, it would be difficult to prosecute drivers if the law was changed.\n\nIn June 2024, the Government introduced compulsory cat microchipping to help reunite lost and stray cats. All cats in England over 20 weeks of age must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless exempt or free-living. The legislation is intended to improve pet welfare by increasing the likelihood of reuniting lost or stray pet cats with their keepers. Defra works closely with stakeholders to communicate pet microchipping requirements to the public.\n\nDefra has also commissioned a research project to understand the operational challenges that currently prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision. The project will provide an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities and is due to report later this year.\n\nAs set out in the Animal welfare strategy for England, DEFRA will work with the pet microchip database industry to develop improvements to the way the microchipping regime currently operates to make it easier for vets and other users to access records digitally and improve the accuracy of data. DEFRA will also continue to support the roll out of cat microchipping.\n\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:02.973Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T15:00:25.431Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751174,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751174.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Appoint a Maternity Commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies","background":"A 2024 parliamentary birth trauma inquiry recommended a Maternity Commissioner be appointed alongside a National Maternity Strategy to ensure mums and their babies were safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion.","additional_details":"As mothers affected by birth trauma, we believe the government should make this appointment to help restore confidence in maternity services which is why we are launching this petition.\r\n\r\n","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":155126,"closing_date":"2026-07-07","created_at":"2025-11-19T12:29:46.985Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:53:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T18:31:24.854Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-19T13:11:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T18:26:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-28T11:38:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-12","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-04-20","debate_outcome_at":"2026-04-21T15:27:53.917Z","creator_name":"Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-01-28","summary":"The Government has commissioned an independent Investigation into maternity and neonatal care, which makes recommendations this spring. There are no current plans to appoint a Maternity Commissioner.","details":"While the vast majority of births in England are safe, the Government recognises that there are failings in care, including failure to learn from mistakes and provide accountability to families. These issues, coupled with stark inequalities in maternity outcomes and experience for women and babies from ethnic backgrounds and those living in more deprived areas, demonstrate that there are deep-rooted issues across maternity and neonatal services.\n\nTo help the Government understand the systemic issues behind why so many women, babies and families experience unacceptable care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appointed Baroness Amos to lead a rapid, independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services in June 2025. The investigation is looking into the maternity and neonatal system nationally and will bring together the findings of past reviews into one clear national set of recommendations.\n\nThe investigation will aim to understand the lived experiences of women, babies and families in England at all stages of the maternity and neonatal care pathway, which includes postnatal care and psychological support. It will also aim to understand the experiences of staff and healthcare professionals delivering care at all stages of the pathway, and how they can best be supported in providing high-quality, safe and compassionate care. To support this work, the investigation launched a Call for Evidence on 20 January 2026, which has been developed following extensive insight and feedback from families. This is a survey that is open for eight weeks, until 17 March 2026.\n\nIn December 2025, Baroness Amos published reflections on what she has heard so far as part of the investigation, following engagement with women and families. Her reflections highlighted ongoing issues experienced by women and families during their care, including a lack of communication, a lack of compassion and support when things go wrong, discrimination, and significant pressure on staff. The Secretary of State has agreed with Baroness Amos that the investigation will publish its final report and recommendations in spring 2026.\n\nGiven the investigation’s ongoing work to understand the systemic issues within maternity and neonatal services and to then make recommendations about how we should tackle this, the Government does not currently plan to appoint a Maternity Commissioner at this time.\n\nThe Government will shortly be launching a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. The taskforce will take forward the recommendations of the investigation to develop a new national action plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. The taskforce will also hold the system to account for improving outcomes and experiences for women and babies.\n\nFamilies’ voices will be central to the taskforce. The Secretary of State, as Chair, will allow for direct accountability – to ensure actions are implemented and issues can be raised directly with Government. The taskforce is being set up now so that it can be fully prepared to act once the investigation reports in spring.\n\nThe Government is not waiting for the investigation to report to ensure maternity and neonatal services deliver high quality care to women and babies. Immediate action is being taken to boost accountability and safety as part of the Government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future. This includes the publication of a maternal care bundle which sets out best practice standards to reduce rates of maternal mortality and morbidity, as well as a postnatal toolkit to improve the care and support offered to women after birth. These are in addition to other programmes to tackle discrimination and racism and avoidable brain injuries.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z","updated_at":"2026-01-28T12:00:40.345Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-04-20","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-20/debates/FD803B26-6F84-45B6-8FFF-7E8E6AB29318/MaternityCommissioner","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/DcD2XNoNtss","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10447/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":755980,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the evidence and fund the addition of SMA to the Newborn Screening Test","background":"We urge the UK Government to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test. SMA is a rare genetic condition with devastating consequences if not treated early. Every baby should be screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.","additional_details":"SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality: up to 90% of untreated babies either died before age two or required permanent ventilation. It is now treatable, but treatment is most effective before symptoms appear. Early diagnosis can give babies the chance at a life without severe disability. Without screening, many babies are diagnosed too late. The damage already caused to their mobility, breathing and swallowing cannot be reversed. Scotland has committed to piloting SMA newborn screening this year. All babies should have the same chance. No child should suffer avoidable harm.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":149711,"closing_date":"2026-08-09","created_at":"2026-01-04T20:34:00.006Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:20:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-09T11:05:19.553Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-04T20:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-12T12:56:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.880Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-13T18:48:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-05-21","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-06-22","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jesy Nelson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The NHS is planning an in-service evaluation offering SMA screening to newborn babies in England. This will inform a decision on whether to extend the NHS newborn blood spot screening programme.","details":"The Government is grateful to campaigners who have made a powerful case for doing more on screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We are committed to seeing more children with SMA not just surviving but thriving.\n\nMinisters and the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom are advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the Committee is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme. Ministers in each of the four nations then make a decision on whether to accept the recommendation.\n\nAs recommended by the UK NSC, we are working at pace to roll out an In-Service Evaluation (ISE) in NHS screening services in England. An ISE is used where a change in screening policy is justified by strong evidence, but important evidence gaps still remain that can only reasonably be filled by evaluation in a live NHS setting. The UK NSC uses ISEs to support its screening recommendation process and inform wider policy decisions about screening.\n\nThere are a number of areas where evidence gaps exist which an ISE of newborn screening for SMA will help to fill:\n\n1. Feasibility\nThe ISE will test the optimum clinical pathway and test methodology within the context of a nationally delivered newborn blood spot programme in the NHS, ensuring the safe movement of babies through the screening pathway. This includes testing the logistics of administering a programme that is delivered consistently by multiple geographically separated and commissioned screening and genetics laboratories, treatment referral centres and IT systems, including the establishing of sustainable data collection systems for longer-term outcomes.\n\n2. Acceptability\nWork is required to understand the acceptability and experience of families of screened babies and the healthcare professionals involved in the screening pathway, for example with regard to the timing and mode of delivery of results. This will support future decision making on the optimal screening pathway.\n\n3. Effectiveness\nScreening for SMA aims to screen, diagnose and treat babies before they have symptoms. The ISE will evaluate the timescales that can be met by UK services at important stages of the screening pathway, such as for result availability, clinical referral and the start of any treatment. The performance of SMA tests in an NHS environment needs to be evaluated to ensure the screening programme demonstrates test characteristics, such as accuracy, reproducibility, resilience and operational utility.\n\nAs the drugs to treat the underlying biology of SMA are quite new, there is no evidence on their long-term clinical effectiveness, so evaluating this within the context of the NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme is important. Gaining more data on short-term outcomes will contribute evidence as to how clinically effective screening in the UK is.\n\nAs the long-term effectiveness of novel treatments is currently unknown, the ISE will allow for sustainable longer-term health outcome monitoring systems to be established. This will provide an essential capability for assessing the effectiveness of the screening programme. This includes metrics such as health states, quality of life, mortality and psychosocial outcomes.\n\n1. Cost-effectiveness\nThe economic model commissioned by the UK NSC estimates that SMA screening in the UK is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective. However, there are important uncertainties that could affect the accuracy and conclusions of the model. The ISE will therefore identify further information to allow both clinical and cost-effectiveness to be assessed, using real world UK data. This includes:\n\n• costs involved in screening \n• clinical effectiveness of presymptomatic and symptomatic treatment and the impact of diagnostic delay on presymptomatic babies\n• long-term effectiveness of treatment\n• how accurate the screening tests are \n• which treatments patients receive and how effective these treatments are \n• incidence of SMA in the UK\n\nThe research component of the ISE is being commissioned via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. A decision on funding is expected in spring 2026.  The Secretary of State has asked NHSE to look at what can be done to move faster on the rollout of the ISE, and whether it would be feasible to extend the ISE to the whole of England.\n\nThe planning and development of the ISE is being overseen by a partnership board that includes:\n\n• screening experts from the four UK governments and from the NHS\n• stakeholder organisations interested in newborn screening for SMA\n• clinicians\n• academics\n• genomic experts\n• patient and public voice representatives\n\nSMA can have a devastating impact on individuals and families, and we are committed to working with all our stakeholders to progress this work in the UK.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care\n\nThis is a revised response submitted by the Government. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755980","created_at":"2026-03-03T21:55:10.878Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T17:26:11.952Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762640,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762640.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum to bring the water industry into public ownership","background":"Hold a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership. Water is a basic human necessity; we believe our privatised system has failed, so the public should decide who owns and controls it.","additional_details":"Private water companies have about 62 million captive customers whose bills have delivered over £85 Bn to shareholders; money that in public ownership could have been spent on fixing our infrastructure. No other country in the world has privatised water like this. We believe that proposed government reforms to regulation show that water company owners are being favoured over the public, and this is not right in a democracy. A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":148737,"closing_date":"2026-10-01","created_at":"2026-02-27T11:05:06.660Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:15:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-01T17:05:47.359Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-27T11:32:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-08T17:19:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.962Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-30T11:38:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ashley Paul Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-23","summary":"Nationalisation would take years and involve complex legal processes, diverting effort from cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. We are taking action now through stronger regulation and enforcement.","details":"The government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of the water industry. Water is a vital public service, and people rightly expect clean rivers, reliable services and greater accountability from water companies.\n\nSome campaigners have called for a binding referendum on returning the water industry to public ownership. However, the government has no intention of nationalising the water sector currently and does not believe that a national referendum would deliver faster improvements for customers or the environment. Any move to nationalisation would take many years to implement, involve significant legal and operational complexity, and risk prolonged uncertainty and disruption across the sector. That would divert time, energy and attention away from the urgent work needed now to tackle sewage pollution, protect public health and improve water quality.\n\nThat is why the government is delivering the most significant reform of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are introducing a single, more powerful regulator for the water sector, bringing together existing bodies and giving it the authority and expertise needed to hold water companies properly to account. A Chief Engineer will sit at the heart of the new regulator, ending the days of water companies marking their own homework and ensuring that regulators can independently assess the condition of pipes, pumps and treatment works.\n\nThe new system will introduce MOT style checks on water companies’ infrastructure, with tougher consequences for those that fail, alongside no notice inspections so there will be nowhere and no chance to hide poor performance. Dedicated supervisory teams and stronger intervention powers will allow regulators to act earlier and more decisively where companies are falling short.\n\nWe are also improving transparency so both the public and regulators can see what is happening in near real time. Water companies are required to publish detailed data on sewage discharges, and reforms will go further to make performance information clearer, more accessible and easier to understand. This transparency will support better public awareness, enable communities to scrutinise performance locally, and strengthen links between environmental protection and public health, including through the Chief Medical Officer’s Public Health Taskforce.\n\nThe government has already acted to strengthen accountability and enforcement. We have banned over £4 million in bonuses for executives at polluting water companies, introduced prison sentences for executives who cover up pollution incidents, and backed the Environment Agency with a record £153 million budget for water enforcement this financial year. This has enabled a record 10,000 inspections of water company sites and more than 177 criminal investigations into suspected wrongdoing.\n\nThe government is focused on securing the fastest and most effective improvements for customers, communities and the environment. We believe this is best achieved through decisive regulatory reform and enforcement, rather than a referendum that would delay progress and distract from delivering real change on the ground.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z","updated_at":"2026-04-23T15:09:10.953Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751839,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751839.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children","background":"The government is aware of the potential irreversible impact (physical and emotional) of puberty blockers, having acknowledged an 'unacceptable safety risk’ following the Cass Review. Yet, hundreds of children are about to be given puberty blockers under a government-sanctioned trial.","additional_details":"We want this trial to be cancelled. We believe that the answer for children feeling dis-ease in their bodies (many of whom are autistic) is the passage of time and natural progression of puberty, coupled with explorative therapy. We believe that the answer is never medicalisation that can harm brain development, bone growth, sexual functioning, and lead to infertility, and that to put children on a path towards such harm is the antithesis of safeguarding.\r\nLet us not be written into history as the country that knowingly harmed vulnerable children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":148215,"closing_date":"2026-07-08","created_at":"2025-11-24T21:03:09.099Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:07:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T10:02:29.663Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-24T21:14:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-09T12:25:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.268Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T07:34:10.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-03-05","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-03-23","debate_outcome_at":"2026-05-12T12:08:58.976Z","creator_name":"James Esses","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-02","summary":"We are following the expert advice of the Cass Review to establish a clinical trial to determine the relative benefits and harms of puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence.","details":"It is essential for the Government and the NHS to be guided by expert clinical advice and act with caution and care when it comes to supporting children and young people living with gender incongruence. The independent Cass Review concluded that the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, and that there is not enough clinical evidence for the safe and effective routine use of puberty suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence in under-18s. For that reason, this Government supported and extended indefinitely the ban on their use outside of research. Despite these restrictions, some young people are going to great lengths to source these drugs from unregulated providers, in the absence of scientific evidence.\n\nThe Cass Review recommended that a programme of research be established to underpin the design and delivery of NHS gender care. It specifically recommended this include a clinical trial into puberty suppression in young people with gender incongruence. This recommendation addresses the lack of evidence about the relative benefits and harms of this treatment option, particularly when provided alongside an updated model of NHS care incorporating holistic assessment and a comprehensive and tailored package of psychosocial support.\n\nThe study protocol is available on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) website: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR167530\n\nThe bar for a UK clinical trial to be approved is extremely high, with the PATHWAYS trial going through rigorous rounds of scientific, clinical, ethical and regulatory review. It was approved by an independent NIHR funding committee. The final protocol was subject to rigorous approval processes through both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority – including review by an independent Research Ethics Committee. \n\nThe Commission on Human Medicines also considered information on the trial in detail and made recommendations that were considered and adopted by the study team. With the strongest safeguards possible, a trial of this kind is the only way to build a sufficiently high-quality evidence base to inform decisions on the future use of this treatment option for this vulnerable and distressed group of young people.\n\nProtecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is the primary concern and there are strict eligibility criteria in place to join the PATHWAYS clinical trial. Parental consent is an integral component, with the parent needing to not only agree to their child’s involvement but also demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, and what is currently known and unknown about its effects. Informed assent from the child will also be required. This will include the young person explaining in their own words to the clinician what the risks are and what they understand by those risks. \n\nThe only children to get to that stage will have already been diagnosed with gender incongruence for at least two years, will have received tailored psychosocial support, and will have been deemed clinically appropriate, within the context of the study, by both their NHS care team and the National Multi-Disciplinary Team. They will also have had to be assessed as being in stable physical and mental health.\n\nThose young people receiving (or not receiving) puberty suppressing hormones will continue to receive other elements of routine support and treatment provided as part of newly established NHS Children and Young People’s Gender Services, whose practices have been shaped by the recommendations of the Cass Review. Participants can leave the trial at any time, at which point they would receive support in their withdrawal from puberty suppression as well as ongoing psychosocial support from NHS services.\n\nHealthcare must always be led by evidence. Puberty suppression has been provided in the past with insufficient evidence, and young people have been left to go without the support and care that they need. This Government is determined to change that, and it is only through evidence-based research that we can determine the most effective way to support these young people. We believe that children and young people with gender incongruence have the same right to participate in ethically-approved research, and to receive evidence-based care, as any other group of individuals seeking the support of the NHS.\n\nFinally, it is important to reiterate that gender incongruence is an internationally recognised disorder. It is defined in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision as “a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex”. It does not describe girls and boys experimenting with gender norms, which for many children is a normal part of growing up. These important differences are properly understood and reflected in the new model of care being provided by the NHS.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-02T13:19:45.266Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T13:22:52.439Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-03-23","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-23/debates/D6758513-7EB3-45DF-B0D9-E3C3BE3A3A97/PubertyBlockersClinicalTrial","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHa3B2PiX60&t=22s","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10534/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":757233,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757233.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not ban social media for under 16s","background":"I think the government shouldn’t ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think the government shouldn’t ban it.","additional_details":"","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":123156,"closing_date":"2026-08-11","created_at":"2026-01-15T16:02:06.325Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:15:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-11T15:24:24.063Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T20:43:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-18T15:25:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.581Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-15T19:03:00.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Leo Rhodes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-03-04","summary":"The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.","details":"I would like to thank all those who signed the petition on this important issue. The government is committed to harnessing the benefits of technology to shape a future that works for us all, particularly for children. To do this, people must have confidence that their children are protected online.\n\nThe Online Safety Act (the ‘Act’) is one of the toughest regimes globally in protecting people from illegal content and activity, and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Since the Act has come into effect, the government has ensured keeping children safe online remains a priority and have always said we will take further action as necessary.\n\nWe know parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when to give them a phone, what they are seeing online, and the impact all of this is having. We also know there are growing concerns among parents, carers and those that work with children about AI, including children forming relationships with chatbots as if they were real people.\n\nEvery child deserves the strongest possible start in life, full of love, learning and play. Technology can open up huge opportunities for young people and social media can help children communicate with friends and feel part of a wider community. However, in the age of smartphones, children’s lives are changing rapidly – sometimes faster than families, schools or support services can respond.\n\nThere are calls from across the UK for the government to take action, including calls from many to enforce a social media ban for under 16s. However, as is evident from this petition, opinions on a possible social media ban are divided – with some of the most prominent voices believing that social media ban is not the right answer. This demonstrates that, while there are calls for the government to take action, there is still no consensus on how.\n\nThe government firmly believes that policy making must give proper consideration to a range of views and be rooted in the best available evidence. That is why, on the 2 March 2026, the government launched a consultation to seek further evidence and views on these issues and possible solutions, including on whether there should be a minimum age for social media, and if so, what age would be right. The responses to this consultation will also help shape decisions on:\n• Whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features that keep children hooked late into the night - like infinite scrolling and autoplay;\n• Whether mandatory overnight curfews would help children sleep better and what age they should apply to;\n• How age verification and age assurance technologies can support effective implementation and;\n• Whether the use of mobile phones in schools should be put on a statutory footing.\n\nThis will be a short, sharp consultation of three months, closing on 26 May 2026, allowing us to hear all perspectives, build consensus where we can, and then act decisively. There will be no delay, and government will explain our next steps by the summer.\n\nWe welcome views from all those with an interest in this issue, including parents, children’s organisations, bereaved families, industry, and children themselves. Alongside the consultation, today we are launching a child‑ and parent‑friendly version to ensure voices in this debate are properly heard. To access the consultation, consultation survey, and child and parent friendly versions of the consultation survey, please follow this link: Growing up in the online world: a national consultation - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation).\n\nAlongside the consultation, we are launching a wide-ranging national conversation and piloting potential interventions to ensure future decisions are informed by real-world evidence. We will also look closely at the experience in Australia and their ban for under 16s.\n\nThis consultation is the next step in the government’s work to ensure children’s experiences online are safe and enriching. Together, we are shaping a digital world that reflects our values and protects our children while preparing them for the future in an age of digital technologies and rapid technological change.\n\nDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology","created_at":"2026-03-04T11:01:47.578Z","updated_at":"2026-03-04T11:09:33.971Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"SIT","name":"Department for Science, Innovation and Technology","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":117802,"closing_date":"2026-07-28","created_at":"2025-11-29T09:25:32.301Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:10:30.000Z","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":null,"creator_name":"Andy Kalil","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-17","summary":"The Government does not support a public inquiry, but takes the issue of foreign influence from any country and lobbying in UK politics very seriously and is already taking action to address this.","details":"The Government does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence, and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally. However, the Government takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this. \n\nThere is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House. As part of open governance, ministers meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of government policy. \n\nGoing further, the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. This includes looking at whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient. In Parliament, the Government has asked the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct to consider whether the rules relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. \n\nMost recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft. The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026. \n\nThe Government responded immediately to the review with two measures via amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations and regulated transactions made by British citizens living abroad, and a moratorium on political donations made using cryptocurrency of any amount. These measures build upon existing measures in the Bill to introduce tougher rules on political interference in the UK’s elections. The Government will consider all of the other recommendations of the Rycroft review and respond to them in due course. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T11:43:36.258Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752673,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752673.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Act to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament","background":"We want the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that when bills are supported by MPs & the public, they have the time to complete all their stages in Parliament. We believe this is important to uphold democracy.","additional_details":"We believe the decision of MPs must be respected, especially on matters of social change, and that unelected Lords have a responsibility to scrutinise bills, not block them. With over 1,000 amendments tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, most by just a handful of Lords, we are concerned that it will run out of time. MPs have voted for it and a poll has found over 70% of the public back it. While the Government is neutral, it must uphold democracy. We believe it must act so the Bill can progress.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":114642,"closing_date":"2026-08-04","created_at":"2025-11-29T11:57:32.414Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:07:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-04T10:31:36.517Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-29T12:22:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T17:00:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.427Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-16T19:35:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":"2026-05-01","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-06-08","debate_outcome_at":"2026-06-09T09:55:45.254Z","creator_name":"Sophie Blake","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in the UK and is responsible for making law. A Bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament to become law.","details":"Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitutional settlement. This means that it is Parliament, not the Government, that holds the power to make or repeal any law. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons as a Private Member’s Bill (PMB), and on the question of assisted dying, the Government has remained neutral on the Bill throughout its parliamentary stages.\n\nThe primacy of the House of Commons, as the elected House, is an established constitutional principle, and is reflected in the provisions of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which reduced the House of Lords’ power to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. \n\nThe House of Lords is independent of both the House of Commons and the Government. The Government respects the important role played by the Lords in scrutinising legislation according to the conventions and procedures of the Lords. \n\nAs the Leader of the House of Commons has said, once the House of Lords have completed their scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Government will, if necessary, find time in this current session for the House of Commons to consider any amendments they propose.\n\nOffice of the Leader of the House of Commons","created_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T15:48:54.423Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2026-06-08","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-06-08/debates/F026BFC6-0114-40D7-9C6F-B5E334D9224F/ProgressionOfBillsThroughParliament","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/8c94trngkB8?si=iaSsyEPzcj4pcq-U&t=260","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10863/","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":754432,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/754432.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Urge Israeli Government to stop law allowing execution of Palestinian prisoners","background":"The UK Government must act urgently to urge the Israeli Government to stop the proposed law which would permit the execution of Palestinian Prisoners, past, present and future.","additional_details":"We believe that such a law would constitute complete violation of the Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Law. UN experts have called for these proposals to be dropped.\r\n\r\nWe call on the UK Government apply considerable and substantial political pressure and the leverage of its international obligations to prevent the Israeli Government from passing this law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":113817,"closing_date":"2026-08-04","created_at":"2025-12-13T18:32:30.130Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:00:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-04T16:54:54.678Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-13T20:50:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-31T15:08:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-23T12:06:32.346Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-05T20:22:30.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Katharina Amanda Adler","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-23","summary":"The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. The Government has raised concerns with the Government of Israel and will continue to do so. ","details":"The Death Penalty for Terrorists bill introduces a mandatory death sentence for terrorism-related murders, with no right of appeal. The powers would in practice apply almost exclusively to military courts trying Palestinians in the West Bank.\n\nThe UK has expressed our deep concern about the bill, as it would significantly expand the possibilities to impose the death penalty in Israel. We have been clear, publicly and privately, that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. The death penalty has not been used in Israel for over 60 years, and this legislation risks being a regressive step enabling its use.\n\nFollowing its passage at second and third readings in the Knesset the bill is now law subject to legal challenge via Israel’s independent judicial system. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister and called for further plans to introduce this bill to be abandoned.\n\n On 29 March, the UK issued a joint statement with Foreign Ministers of Australia, Germany, France, Italy and New Zealand urging the Government of Israel to abandon plans for the death penalty bill.  The statement can be found here: Joint statement on Israel's Death Penalty Bill: 29 March 2026 - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-on-israels-death-penalty-bill-29-march-2026).  As set out in the statement, the UK and other signatories oppose the death penalty, reflecting a long-standing and shared commitment to abolition.  The UK Government believes that the death penalty’s use undermines human dignity, that there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value, and that any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable. We particularly deplore any failure to observe the relevant international standards, defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.\n\nMore broadly, the UK Government continues to call on the Government of Israel to uphold international law and human rights. This includes respecting the fundamental rights of detainees and prisoners, ensuring due process, and refraining from actions that risk further exacerbating tensions or inflaming an already fragile situation.\n\nThe UK continues to support international efforts to reduce violence, protect civilians, and promote respect for the rule of law. We firmly believe that lasting security for Israelis and Palestinians can only be achieved through progress on the Gaza ceasefire and the 20-point plan, an end to the annexation threats and settler violence in the West Bank, and a realistic political horizon for the two-state solution.  \n\nWe will continue to work closely with international partners, including the United Nations and civil society, to promote human rights, accountability, and oppose the death penalty worldwide. We will keep developments under close review and continue to raise our concerns where legislation or policy risks undermining international legal norms.\n\nThe Government is grateful to those who have engaged through the petitions process. Public engagement on issues of human rights helps inform and strengthen the UK’s foreign policy, and we remain committed to advancing these values internationally.\n\nForeign, Commonwealth & Development Office","created_at":"2026-04-23T12:06:32.341Z","updated_at":"2026-04-23T12:07:58.811Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"FCDO","name":"Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":763161,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763161.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change surrogacy law to recognise intended parents from birth","background":"The law must change so intended parents in surrogacy arrangements are recognised as their child’s legal parents from birth. Families should not have to go through months of court proceedings and social worker visits to be recognised as the parents of a child they planned and love.","additional_details":"When our daughter was born through surrogacy, we became dads the moment we held her. But under current law, the surrogate is automatically recognised as the legal mother (and if she is married, her spouse is recorded as the legal father) even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.\r\nIntended parents must then go through a lengthy court process to become their child’s legal parents. In 2026 we believe this is outdated. The law needs to recognise intended parents from birth.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":111215,"closing_date":"2026-10-10","created_at":"2026-03-04T14:47:30.231Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:02:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-10T09:37:34.074Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-04T16:24:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-26T08:40:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-20T08:24:22.405Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-28T16:53:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Adam Frisby","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-20","summary":"We acknowledge delays to legal parenthood can cause uncertainty. The Government has no current plans to review surrogacy laws but will look to consider this in the future as time and capacity allows.","details":"The Government supports surrogacy as a part of assisted conception options, and recognises the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. Parliament has decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements are legally allowed to take place under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.\n\nWe recognise that surrogacy is a complex and sensitive policy issue, where detail matters to all those involved in a surrogacy arrangement, in particular the important issue of legal parenthood. We know that surrogacy is a crucial route to family formation for many LGBTQ+ people, particularly male same-sex couples, and that the current pathway and delay to legal parenthood can cause uncertainty.\n\nLegal parenthood at birth rests with the surrogate (and their spouse/partner, if applicable). The intended parent(s) must apply to the court for a parental order after birth to become the child’s legal parents, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008. This framework applies equally to heterosexual couples, same‑sex couples, and single intended parents.\n\nThe Department of Health and Social Care supported a multi-year joint project of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to review the current surrogacy laws. The Law Commissions consulted widely on this topic, which generated a wide diversity of views, and we welcome their comprehensive report. The Government does not intend to put forward the Law Commissions’ legislative proposals at this time, owing to the limited time available to introduce new legislation. We will publish a Government response as time and capacity allows and will look to consider this issue in the future.\n\nAnyone considering surrogacy in the United Kingdom should read and consider Department of Health and Social Care guidance, which is available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/having-a-child-through-surrogacy/the-surrogacy-pathway-surrogacy-and-the-legal-process-for-intended-parents-and-surrogates-in-england-and-wales\n\nThe Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has published advice for those considering surrogacy overseas, which is available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/surrogacy-overseas/surrogacy-overseas. This clearly sets out the possible risks and the processes for returning to the United Kingdom with a child born through an international surrogacy arrangement.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-05-20T08:24:22.401Z","updated_at":"2026-05-20T08:25:00.470Z"},"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":764785,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764785.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support the Ceramics Industry and protect British manufacturing jobs and skills","background":"Apply energy intensive industry relief (Supercharger scheme) to the ceramics industry to help cut soaring industrial energy costs & support ceramics businesses, which are at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention, as seen with Denby Pottery registering for administration support.","additional_details":"Urgently review the British Industrial Supercharger and expand it to include the ceramics industry within its remit, and produce a policy statement about the Government’s policy to protect and support industry and jobs.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":108942,"closing_date":"2026-10-17","created_at":"2026-03-19T10:58:30.234Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:14:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-17T10:31:36.749Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-19T11:11:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-17T19:42:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-11T14:11:06.936Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-07T07:20:50.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Hayley Baddiley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-11","summary":"The Government intends to publicly consult on the eligibility of the British Industry Supercharger this year. However, consultation outcomes, including future sector inclusion, cannot be pre-empted.","details":"The British Industry Supercharger delivers targeted relief to eligible energy-intensive industries (EIIs) for their electricity policy and network costs on the basis of their high exposure to carbon leakage, the offshoring of production and jobs to overseas competitors who do not face equivalent climate change policy controls.\n\nThe current list of eligible sectors is set out in secondary legislation under the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015 (as amended), the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) (Amended and Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2024, and the Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy Regulations 2024) (as amended).\n\nThe Department for Business and Trade (DBT) intends to review the eligibility criteria for the British Industry Supercharger this year, as referred to in the Minister for Industry’s response to a parliamentary question (UIN 128253) tabled on 20 April 2026, to ensure that current government policy remains targeted, effective and proportionate. However, any changes to eligibility criteria under the scheme are subject to public consultation, and approval from the UK Parliament and government ministers. While an exact date has not been provided as to when this consultation will begin, DBT encourages the ceramics sector to engage with this review and submit all relevant evidence when the opportunity arises.\n\nThe Government has set out its actions to support UK industry and boost economic growth in our Modern Industrial Strategy. Through targeted support to IS-8 and frontier industries, the Government will improve resilience of supply chains, increase trading opportunities, and reduce regulatory burdens. Support to these strategic sectors will not only improve economic growth but also create jobs up and down the country. However, all industries will have a role to play in revitalising our economy.\n\nThe Government recognises the importance of the ceramics sector to many communities, particularly the deep importance of the tableware industry to Stoke-on-Trent. The ceramics industry has faced difficult economic circumstances, exacerbated by an uncertain geopolitical environment. The Government will continue to engage with the industry, trade unions and the sector’s main trade association, Ceramics UK, to better understand their challenges and explore how they can best be supported.\n\nDepartment for Business and Trade","created_at":"2026-05-11T14:11:06.933Z","updated_at":"2026-05-11T14:11:06.933Z"},"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":764553,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764553.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive cases","background":"I want the Government to introduce legislation so that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour cannot receive a sentencing reduction for a guilty plea entered after initially pleading not guilty. This should be known as Paris’s Law.","additional_details":"Victims of coercive control often wait months or years for trial, reliving trauma while preparing evidence. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive a reduced sentence. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging distress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reductions, as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":103764,"closing_date":"2026-10-21","created_at":"2026-03-17T07:09:07.101Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:26:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-21T08:18:36.628Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-17T07:44:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-27T11:43:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-11T12:23:00.347Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-18T17:43:40.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Paris Shears","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-11","summary":"Guilty pleas given later in the process can still benefit victims and the administration of justice but are reflected by a substantially lower reduction in sentence.","details":"Controlling or coercive behaviour is a particularly insidious form of domestic abuse and we recognise the long-term emotional and psychological distress it can cause.  In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring policing have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of VAWG. In February 2025, the Home Office announced £13.1 million funding to launch a new National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection (NCVPP) to act on this. The Centre will improve the response to violence against women and girls, creating a change in policing attitudes to ensure that officers respond effectively to VAWG crimes, including controlling or coercive behaviour, and offer victims consistent protection. \n\nAs of 3 February 2025, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour, and sentenced to 12 months or longer, are now automatically managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). MAPPA requires cooperative working between the police, probation, and prison services to manage the risks posed by the most serious offenders. This change recognises the significant harm this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling or coercive behaviour, on par with other forms of domestic abuse. \n\nWe also recognise that understanding of controlling or coercive behaviour has evolved significantly since the statutory guidance was published in 2023. As part of the recently published Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy, the government has committed to updating the controlling or coercive behaviour statutory guidance by the end of 2026. This will reflect the latest policy and practice, as well as new and emerging issues. \n\nIn relation to reductions in sentencing, it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence where a defendant pleads guilty. A guilty plea avoids the need for a trial (enabling cases to be dealt with quickly), shortens the gap between charge and sentence, and, in the case of an early plea, saves victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence.\n\nThe Sentencing Guidelines set by the Sentencing Council provide a sliding scale of reductions depending on the point at which the plea is made. The maximum reduction for a plea at the first stage of proceedings is a third. The discount falls to a maximum of a tenth when the offender pleads on the first day of the trial. The reduction will normally be decreased further, even to zero, if the guilty plea is entered during the course of the trial.\n\nWe recognise that guilty pleas made earlier in the process can save victims and witnesses from the concern of having to give evidence, particularly in cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour. However, even if an offender pleads later in the process, this can still save victims from giving potentially highly traumatic evidence, but the later plea is reflected by a substantially lower reduction in the sentence. \n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-05-11T12:23:00.341Z","updated_at":"2026-05-11T12:23:40.112Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751472,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751472.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a screening programme for prostate cancer, starting with high-risk men","background":"We are calling on the Government to reassess the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) draft recommendation not to offer prostate cancer screening to anyone except men with BRCA1/2 genetic variants, and to introduce screening for all high-risk men.","additional_details":"Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men yet has no screening programme.\r\n\r\nWe disagree with the UK NSC’s analysis of the evidence and the weight it has placed on avoiding unintended harms. We believe the Committee has fixated on potential harms that have already dramatically reduced, while under-weighting the very real benefits of early detection. The analysis has not kept pace with modern practice or acknowledged how this would be an improvement on the current inefficient and inequitable system.\r\n\r\nTargeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. Early diagnosis saves lives.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":75970,"closing_date":"2026-07-13","created_at":"2025-11-22T09:01:51.375Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:13:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-13T11:30:15.340Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-22T09:47:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-06T20:52:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.935Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David James","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-26","summary":"The UK National Screening Committee consulted on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation and will make a final recommendation soon. The Government will then consider whether to accept it.","details":"The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) makes recommendations to ministers and the NHS across the four nations of the United Kingdom, based on an assessment of high-quality, peer reviewed evidence on whether screening for a certain condition would do more good than harm at reasonable cost. The UK NSC considered the current diagnostic and treatment pathways and consulted on their findings. The evidence package can be found at https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/11/28/uk-nsc-opens-consultation-on-draft-prostate-cancer-screening-recommendation/ \n\nScreening is specifically for people without symptoms or a diagnosis. The process must therefore minimise harm, such as unnecessary treatment or anxiety resulting from false positive test results. This level of caution is less relevant for people with diagnosed conditions or already in clinical care. They have sought clinical care or advice for a problem. They are in direct contact with a clinician so they can discuss the merits or otherwise of tests and treatments, rather than simply being provided with generic information to read. They have symptoms or a reason for concern. This means their test is much more likely to represent a true positive result, unlike in screening when people have a greater chance of receiving a false positive result. People in clinical care expect follow-up and face a smaller risk of harm from predictive tests. The ethical position, the ability of an individual to discuss issues with a clinician, and the likelihood of having a condition, all therefore differ significantly between clinical management and screening. Screening can do harm, as well as good (benefit). It is also possible for someone to experience both the harms and benefits of screening at the same time. For example, a man may live longer due to their prostate cancer being identified and treated but also live with serious side effects of treatment.\n\nThe aim of prostate cancer screening would be to detect prostate cancer early to prevent death and reduce suffering from the disease. For men with aggressive and/or advanced prostate cancer, early intervention and treatment can allow them to live longer by preventing prostate cancer death. It can also reduce the chances of serious complications such as prostate cancer spreading to other parts of the body. Prostate cancer can spread to the area just outside the prostate (locally advanced or locally invasive cancer), and cause symptoms such as erectile dysfunction, difficulties emptying the bladder and pain. It can also spread further (metastatic cancer), most commonly to the bones and spine, where it can cause severe pain, fractures, or spinal cord compression. Just over one in ten (12% of) men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England have metastatic prostate cancer at the time of their diagnosis. These are important, serious outcomes that screening and treatment would try to prevent.\n\nThere have been very large research trials of population screening in England and the United States of America. These studies show that there is a very small reduction in deaths after 15 years from prostate cancer in screened men (two out of one thousand). There are also several harms associated with screening. These arise from the additional tests that men go through to get a prostate cancer diagnosis (including a biopsy of the prostate) and the treatment they may then receive. Harms can arise as early as two weeks after beginning treatment, and can persist for a very long time (six years or more, or possibly a lifetime). For example, after six months:\n\n• For men undergoing prostate surgery:\no   19% (almost one in five) will be unable to control their bladder (moderate to severe urinary incontinence)\no   3% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\no   66% (two thirds) will experience moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\n\n• For men undergoing radiotherapy:\no   38% (nearly two in every five) will find it difficult to control their bladder\no   6% will have moderate to severe urinary incontinence\no   5% will have moderate to severe impacts on their bowel habits\no   48% (nearly half) will have moderate or severe erectile dysfunction\n\nThe majority of men (c.80%) whose prostate cancers would be identified through screening would not benefit in terms of preventing prostate cancer deaths and metastasis. Many of these men would receive treatment they do not need and the harms of screening would quickly outweigh any benefits at a population level. The challenge is how to identify those men who have aggressive prostate cancer while minimising the risks of serious and long-lasting side effects for many other men. More information on how the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening were considered within the prostate cancer screening model can be found in the UK NSC evidence papers.\n\nThe UK NSC will make a final recommendation soon, after which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will consider whether to accept and implement the recommendation.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z","updated_at":"2026-02-26T16:02:12.928Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":751929,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751929.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Government apology and compensation for 1950s Women affected by pension changes","background":"We ask Government to deliver a fair, timely, fully transparent apology that reflects ALL evidence based on what we think constitutes maladministration and discrimination; and addresses the financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes.","additional_details":"Many 1950s-born women have faced lifelong and historic discrimination, compounded by the Government’s failure to properly communicate State Pension Age changes. DWP Ministers have listened only to a group representing a fraction of those affected, leaving others feeling ignored. As many campaign groups unite, we think it is unacceptable that the Government continues to silence the majority. After decades of inequality, accountability and action are long overdue.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":71096,"closing_date":"2026-07-07","created_at":"2025-11-25T11:47:53.488Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:12:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-07T10:44:53.835Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-25T13:48:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T13:43:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.836Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Kay Ann Clarke","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-09","summary":"We apologised for not sending State Pension age letters sooner. Deciding not to pay compensation and the Ombudsman’s report relate to that, not the petition’s “hardship...caused by pension changes”.","details":"The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigated the way State Pension age changes were communicated to women born in the 1950s and whether within a specific time period there was maladministration and injustice and if so, whether it warrants compensation. They did not examine the “financial, emotional and personal hardship experienced by 1950s women caused by pension changes” that the petition focuses on and which relate to the decision, first taken by Parliament in 1995, to equalise the State Pension age for men and women nor that to accelerate the increases in 2011 taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition. \n\nThe PHSO’s findings relate narrowly to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period. The Ombudsman found that the Department’s communications met expected standards between 1995 and 2004. But that between 2005 and 2007 there was a 28 month delay in sending personalised letters to women affected and that this was maladministration. \n\nOn 29 January the Secretary of State announced the Government’s new decision on the Ombudsman’s investigation. He accepted that individual letters about changes to the State Pension age could have been sent earlier. He apologised for that maladministration in the House of Commons and in the document explaining his decision which has been published. \n\nThe Secretary of State recognised the importance that decisions on the State Pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives the need for government to weigh carefully any future changes. The Department is developing an Action Plan for the future.\n\nThe Secretary of State has set out the Government’s position in detail to Parliament, which can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsmans-investigation-into-womens-state-pension-age-communications-and-associated-issues. \n\nThere are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the State Pension age. In particular, whether the decision taken to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do or not. But this is not the issue the Ombudsman or the Government has been considering. Changes to State Pension age to equalise it to 65 and increase it to 66, 67 and 68 were agreed by Parliament and have been tested in the Courts. \nIn relation to the PHSO’s investigation, the Government took account of the views of 1950s women and people representing them, including Members of Parliament. \n\nIn the decision-making process, the Government considered the relevant evidence, including the PHSO's comprehensive report which itself drew on extensive testimony from affected women. The views and experiences of 1950s women were therefore part of the evidence base considered.\n\nWe are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes have a better life in retirement. The Government are now ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up of Pension Credit, which saw tens of thousands more Pension Credit awards in the year up to November than the previous 12 months.\n\nIn addition, our commitment to the Triple Lock for the entirety of this Parliament means that pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the State Pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. \n\nWe are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z","updated_at":"2026-02-09T17:11:28.833Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":752501,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752501.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise Bereavement Support Payment and extend beyond 18 months","background":"Reform Bereavement Support Payment so families with and without dependent children receive help beyond 18 months, with annual uprating to reflect cost of living. ","additional_details":"BSP ends after 18 months and is not uprated, which can leave widowed families in financial hardship for years. I lost my husband in May 2025, gave up my career to care for him, and now earn less than 25% of our previous income while raising two young children. Previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance lasted until Child Benefit ended, offering stability. We feel that BSP ignores long-term income loss and emotional strain.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":62842,"closing_date":"2026-07-08","created_at":"2025-11-28T11:07:21.722Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:15:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-08T15:25:55.294Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-28T11:19:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-20T23:20:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.764Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"CAROLINE ANNE BOOTH","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-04","summary":"Bereavement Support Payment provides valuable short-term help after a death. While we are not able to increase BSP at this time, longer-term support is available from other social security benefits.","details":"The Government recognises the profound emotional and financial impact that losing a spouse, civil partner, or cohabiting partner with dependent children can have on families. We are grateful to the petitioner for sharing their experience, and we understand the challenges bereaved families can face during an already extremely difficult time.\n\nBereavement Support Payment (BSP) is designed to provide short‑term financial support to help with the immediate additional costs associated with a death. It consists of an initial lump sum followed by 18 monthly payments, with higher rates paid to those with dependent children. BSP is not taxed, does not count towards the benefit cap, and is paid in addition to any income‑related benefits the bereaved may be entitled to.\n\nThe petition asks the Government to extend BSP beyond 18 months for all families, and to uprate its value annually in line with the cost of living. BSP is not intended as an ongoing income‑replacement benefit, nor is it designed to match the duration of a family’s grief. The 18‑month duration reflects the policy intent to provide support during the acute period following a bereavement, when people may face sudden costs or short‑term disruption. Longer‑term financial support is instead available through income‑replacement benefits such as Universal Credit, which are usually uprated annually in line with inflation and designed to provide continuing support with everyday living costs.\n\nWe also recognise the comparison made in the petition to the previous Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA), which could be paid until Child Benefit ended. WPA formed part of a complex system of bereavement benefits which the previous Government reformed in 2017 to create a single, simpler, and more modern benefit. BSP was introduced to ensure a clearer, fairer, and more consistent approach across households.\n\nOn eligibility, BSP is currently available to surviving spouses and civil partners, and to cohabiting partners with dependent children. In 2023 the Government changed the law to extend eligibility to cohabitees with children following court judgments that found the previous rules discriminated against children on the basis of their parents’ marital status. This extension focused on families with children, to ensure they get the financial support they need.\n\nOn uprating, BSP is reviewed each year on a discretionary basis as part of the annual uprating process. In doing so we need to take into account the broader fiscal position and prioritise where government can most effectively deploy public money. Following this year’s review, it is proposed that BSP will stay at the current rate for 2026/27. Claimants on the standard rate will continue to receive an initial payment of £2,500 and 18 payments of £100, while those on the higher rate will receive £3,500 followed by 18 payments of £350. This allows BSP to help with the immediate costs of bereavement. There is a wide range of other financial support available to the bereaved, including Universal Credit where needed and Funeral Expenses Payments for eligible people arranging a funeral.\n\nThe Government keeps all benefits, including BSP under review. We recognise the significant impact of bereavement on individuals and families and remain committed to supporting people through the immediate period following the death of a loved one.\n\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T17:00:02.762Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DWP","name":"Department for Work and Pensions","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":61839,"closing_date":"2026-07-15","created_at":"2025-11-27T18:17:55.254Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:52:00.000Z","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":753568,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/753568.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 5yr Minimum Sentence for unlawfully carrying a Knife 3yrs Juveniles","background":"We've a knife crime epidemic with too many people carrying knives in public; As a serving police officer I tackled many offenders carrying a knife & once almost lost my life when stabbed in chest arresting a burglar; too many parents are planning funerals instead of bright futures for their children","additional_details":"We want the GOVT to introduce minimum sentences in order to act as a deterrent for carrying knives & blades in public; Knife homicides far outnumber gun homicides; yet carry a gun there is a 5 year Minimum sentence but carrying a Knife its often a community sentence. We believe communities live in fear of Knife crime & it has become a scourge on society and needs to be dealt with as a serious Health issue and a National Emergency as it is affecting the fabric of society & too often involving children.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":54847,"closing_date":"2026-07-16","created_at":"2025-12-05T15:32:44.861Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:58:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-16T14:55:53.096Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-05T17:49:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-31T12:21:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.609Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Norman Steven Brennan","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-16","summary":"The Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences for carrying a knife. The law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and threatening with a weapon.","details":"Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives. That is why, as part of the Safer Streets mission, this Government is working to halve knife crime within a decade. We have a comprehensive, data-led and Government-wide approach to this goal.\n\nThe Government is not planning to introduce minimum sentences of 5 years for adults and 3 years for young people aged under 18, for carrying a knife. \n\nMinimum sentences are rare in England and Wales. It is the function of the court to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant sentencing guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must also be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. \n\nThe maximum penalty for carrying a knife is 4 years imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, the law already provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a four-month Detention and Training Order.\n\nWhere someone is actually harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that they may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences, up to life imprisonment. Murder is a very serious crime which carries a mandatory life sentence. This is the same for any murder, including those involving knives or guns. \n\nIn recognition of the importance of tackling knife crime, the Government’s manifesto committed to ensuring that every young person caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a Youth Justice Service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. We are taking a significant step towards delivering this manifesto commitment and will shortly be publishing tough new guidance that sets out our expectations on how the police and Youth Justice Services should respond to knife possession offences committed by children.\n\nOn 24 September 2024, we implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, and it is now illegal to sell, manufacture or possess these weapons. We also introduced new legislation to ban ninja swords, and since 1 August 2025, it has been illegal to sell or own these weapons.\n\nIn October 2024, the then Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to conduct a review into the online sale and delivery of knives. The Independent End-To-End Review of Online Knife Sales was published on 19 February 2025. We are taking forward the most pressing recommendations and have announced “Ronan’s Law,” a range of measures which will include stricter rules for online sellers of knives. These include strengthening age verification controls and checks through a two-stage age verification system at the point of purchase and on delivery. \n\nWith measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through Parliament,  we are increasing the penalties for illegal sales of knives, creating a new offence of possessing a knife with the intention to commit unlawful violence, creating a duty on sellers to report bulk sales, and giving the police new power to seize knives when they believe they are likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence.\n\nIn February 2025, the Government committed to consult on plans to introduce a comprehensive licensing scheme for those who sell knives or other bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers, making them subject to strict regulations and conditions. A public consultation was launched on 16 December 2025 to gather views on these proposals and consider impacts before making any legislative changes that would be required to introduce such licensing. The consultation is open until 24 February 2026 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/licensing-for-knife-sales\n\nWe have also introduced new legislation to provide the police with the power to require social media, marketplace, and search services to take down illegal knife and offensive weapon content. Failure to remove this material could result in significant penalties for both the company and a designated senior executive. This meets the Government’s manifesto commitment to hold the senior executives of online companies accountable for flouting rules around online knife sales.\n\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2026-02-17T09:24:57.595Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T09:25:27.819Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":"open","signature_count":53098,"closing_date":"2026-06-22","created_at":"2025-11-21T21:12:24.666Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:09:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-22T14:22:40.033Z","closed_at":null,"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":"S Babar","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":756814,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756814.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce Vehicle Excise Duty by 50% for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years","background":"Introduce a 50% VED reduction for cars aged 20–39. High taxes force functional vehicles to be scrapped, creating a \"disposable\" culture. Keeping existing cars is greener than building new ones, as it preserves embedded carbon. This \"Young-Timer\" bracket supports the circular economy and UK heritage.","additional_details":"Manufacturing a new car creates massive carbon debt. We must move from a \"disposable\" car culture to a circular economy. Keeping a functional 20-year-old car on the road is often greener than building a new one, as it preserves the embedded carbon already spent. Current VED rates force many well-maintained cars to be scrapped prematurely. We call for a 50% \"Transition to Historic\" tax discount to encourage repair, support the UK heritage industry, and reflect the low mileage of modern classics.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":52000,"closing_date":"2026-08-06","created_at":"2026-01-12T13:25:01.230Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:48:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-02-06T16:23:23.747Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-12T14:39:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T15:00:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.681Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Heitor Mazzotti","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-23","summary":"The Government has no plans to reduce Vehicle Excise Duty liabilities for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years. The Government keeps all taxes under review and the Chancellor makes decisions at fiscal events.","details":"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax on vehicles used or kept on public roads. Different rates apply to cars, vans, and motorcycles, and the rate for each vehicle is calculated according to a range of factors, such as its date of first registration, weight, or CO2 emissions.\n\nCars registered before 1 March 2001 pay VED annually based on engine size. Since 2001, the tax system has encouraged the uptake of cars with low carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to help meet the UK's legally binding climate targets. Cars first registered between 1 March 2001 and 31 March 2017 pay VED annually according to CO2 emissions.  From 1 April 2017, a reformed VED system was introduced for new cars. The changes in April 2017 were applied to new cars only, meaning that the tax treatment of existing cars was not impacted.\n\nThe majority of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle's emissions come from fuel production and tailpipe emissions. The Department for Transport's 2022 lifecycle analysis shows that the manufacturing emissions for a medium sized petrol or diesel car are estimated to be less than 20% of the lifetime emissions of the vehicle (2020-2030 scenarios). The lifecycle analysis can be found here: \n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lifecycle-analysis-of-uk-road-vehicles.\n\nAt Budget 2014 the Government at the time announced that it would introduce a rolling 40-year exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for classic cars. This means that currently vehicles constructed before 1 January 1985 are exempt from paying VED. From 1 April 2026 vehicles constructed before 1 January 1986 will become exempt from VED.\n\nThe law does not specifically define a vehicle as historic or classic for registration purposes, and it is widely recognised that there are many factors other than age which influence whether a car is considered classic. The Government at the time therefore set 40 years as being a fair cut-off date to distinguish classic cars from older cars.\n\nRevenue from motoring taxes helps ensure we can continue to fund the vital public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect. For example, by 2029/30, the government will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair, renew and fix potholes on their roads – doubling funding since coming into office. This record level of funding will enable the government to exceed its manifesto commitment to fix an additional 1 million potholes per year by the end of the Parliament.\n\nWhile there are no current plans to reduce VED for cars aged 20 to 39 years, the Government keeps all taxes under review, and the Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2026-02-23T12:12:45.679Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T12:13:44.033Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfT","name":"Department for Transport","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761127,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761127.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legislate to ban FPNs and prosecutions related to school attendance","background":"We believe school fines & prosecutions do not help to improve school attendance. They are a blunt, ineffective tool & they do not tackle the root cause of attendance difficulties. I'm proposing the law is changed to ban FPNs & prosecutions. This will encourage collaboration rather than punishment.","additional_details":"FPNs were at a record high in the last full academic year (2024-25) which we believe evidences that they are ineffective and punish families and have become a stealth tax. We feel that the attendance legislation is being abused. It was introduced to tackle persistent absenteeism when parents refused to engage with support. We are seeing schools marking absences which should already be marked as authorised as unauthorised. This includes absences for illness, SEND & family emergencies. The attendance drive is driving a wedge between school and home.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":50673,"closing_date":"2026-09-24","created_at":"2026-02-14T19:43:01.396Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T21:10:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-24T17:25:51.085Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-14T20:04:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-29T20:59:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.054Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Natalie Elliott","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-04-21","summary":"Government has no plans to ban fixed penalty notices or prosecutions for non-attendance. Both influence parental behaviour, where support has been exhausted, not engaged with or is inappropriate.","details":"The Government has no plans to ban fixed penalty notices (FPNs) or prosecutions for non-attendance. Both measures are important in influencing parental behaviour in cases where support has been exhausted, not engaged with or is not appropriate, such as in the case of term-time holidays. \n\nAttendance data for unauthorised absence in the 2024-25 academic year showed our approach is having a positive impact, as the proportion of absence due to unauthorised holiday fell from 0.53% in 2023/24 to 0.48% in 2024/25 and the overall rate of absence fell by 0.37 percentage points.\n\n93% of penalty notices issued in 2024-25 were for unauthorised term-time holidays, which shows that FPNs are being used primarily in circumstances where support is not appropriate, as intended by the national framework introduced in August 2024. \n\nThe Department’s Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance is clear that legal intervention tools such as FPNs and prosecutions, should be used only as a last resort. Schools are expected to pursue a ‘support first’ approach to tackle underlying causes of non-attendance. The guidance emphasises the importance of schools and local authorities working together with children and their parents to address barriers to attendance and to build strong, trusting relationships. Legal interventions such as fixed penalty notices and prosecutions should be considered only where this support has not been effective or is not appropriate. \n\nParents have a legal duty under the Education Act 1996 to ensure that their child of compulsory school age (5-16) receives a full‑time education, either by attending school or otherwise. Where a child is registered at a school, parents must ensure they attend regularly. Parents can be penalised if their child is absent from school without authorisation.\nThe Government recognises that there are circumstances in which a pupil is unable to attend school for a legally recognised reason. The Education Act 1996 sets out the situations in which an absent pupil will not be taken to have failed to attend school regularly, including illness or other unavoidable circumstances, religious observance, where the school has given prior permission for absence, or where the local authority has not fulfilled any duty it has to help the child attend. \n\nSchools must record attendance in line with the School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024 and with regard to the DfE’s statutory guidance ‘Working together to improve school attendance’. Decisions about how an absence should be recorded depend on the individual facts of each case. Headteachers and school staff know their pupils well and are therefore best placed to decide how an absence should be recorded. In the majority of cases, a parent’s notification that their child is ill should be sufficient for the school to authorise the absence using code I (illness). Schools also have discretion to grant a leave of absence in exceptional circumstances, such as family emergencies, and parents should speak to their headteacher and present their case where they feel that such an absence is required. \n\nWhere pupils are not attending school due to unmet needs, the Department’s guidance sets out clear expectations on how schools, local authorities and wider services work together with parents to provide the right support to improve attendance.\n\nFor these reasons, the government does not believe that banning fixed penalty notices and prosecutions will be in the best interests of addressing school non-attendance and upholding a child’s right to a full-time education. The current system expects schools, trusts and local authorities to work with parents to provide support first and where this fails or is not appropriate, to consider the full range of legal interventions. It is for individual schools and local authorities to decide whether to use them in an individual case after considering the individual circumstances of a family. \n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.051Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T14:47:04.051Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":750999,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750999.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund cardiac screening at age 14 years and cardiac awareness programme","background":"Fund population cardiac screening for every young person when they reach age 14 years. The screening should be undertaken with a review of family history and electrocardiogram (ECG) followed up where necessary with echocardiogram (heart scan).","additional_details":"12 people aged 35 and under die suddenly from heart conditions in the UK every week. Many show no symptoms and many could be saved by screening. We urge the Government and UKNSC to introduce ECG screening at age 14 and launch a national awareness campaign to stop these needless deaths.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":49865,"closing_date":"2026-07-14","created_at":"2025-11-17T05:45:27.655Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:57:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-14T08:43:10.342Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-11-17T14:36:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T18:15:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.231Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Stephen Anthony Ayling","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-13","summary":"The Government is guided by the UK National Screening Committee which is re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening in young people and will open a public consultation in the spring.","details":"It is vital that screening policy is based on scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.\n\nThe Government is advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. Where the UK NSC is confident that to offer screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.\n\nThe UK NSC last reviewed screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death in people under the age of 39 years old in 2019 and concluded that population screening should not be offered.\n\nResearch showed that it was unclear whether available tests could accurately detect heart conditions in young people without symptoms. The current evidence suggests that introducing population-level screening for the conditions associated with sudden cardiac death would cause harm by misdiagnosing some people, potentially leading them to make life-changing decisions, such as giving up exercise, which could have a negative long-term impact on their health.\n\nReceiving a false diagnosis could also lead to some people being prescribed medication or undergoing medical procedures that they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted. It could lead to people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not at risk.\n\nAt the same time, screening could provide false reassurance to others who are at risk of sudden cardiac death but whose risk would not be picked up by screening tests. Footballers seen having cardiac arrests on the pitch have often been screened, but the test did not show anything unusual – there are many causes of sudden cardiac death which might not be detectable as part of screening.\n\nAdditionally, the 2019 review did not find any research comparing the effectiveness of screening with no screening in the prevention of sudden cardiac death.\n\nThe UK NSC is currently re-examining the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in the spring.\n\nTo reduce the risks of sudden cardiac death, NHS England has a published national service specification for Inherited Cardiac Conditions that covers patients who often present as young adults with previously undiagnosed cardiac disease, or families requiring follow up due to a death caused by this. This describes the service model and guidance that should be followed to support diagnosis and treatment of patients or family members. It also includes the requirement for specialised Inherited Cardiac Conditions services to investigate suspected cases.\n\nNHS England also runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools.\n\nThe Department of Health and Social Care’s Community Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Fund delivered 3,080 new AEDs to local communities between September 2023 and February 2025. These AEDs were prioritised for areas of greatest need. This included remote communities with extended ambulance response times, places with high footfall and high population densities, hotspots for cardiac arrest including sporting venues and venues with vulnerable people, and deprived areas.\n\nMore broadly, since 2014 the NHS has run quality assured antenatal and newborn screening programmes through which babies are screened for congenital heart disease antenatally, and in the newborn period.\n\nThe Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England currently have no specific ongoing campaigns, or plans to conduct a campaign, to raise awareness of sudden cardiac death.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T11:46:08.229Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DHSC","name":"Department of Health and Social Care","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762116,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762116.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban non-stun & recoverable stun slaughter of animals","background":"Religious slaughter may require the animal to be slaughtered whilst alive, which is in line with their religious beliefs. In relation to this, stunning needs to be recoverable. Normal slaughter uses a bolt gun that renders the animal brain dead and unable to regain consciousness.","additional_details":"The Government has the power to ban non-stun religious slaughter in this country via legislation. Greece did this in 2021. Many argue that the labelling of meat products via supermarkets is insufficient and can’t be trusted, so we believe a blanket ban on non-stun and recoverable stun animal slaughter is needed. We feel people who disagree with these practices shouldn’t effectively have their rights diminished and shouldn’t be forced to eat meat that has not been stunned-to-kill, due to a lack of options.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":44124,"closing_date":"2026-09-30","created_at":"2026-02-22T09:22:07.864Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T20:46:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:42:41.248Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-22T09:35:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-19T23:18:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-06T14:55:21.216Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Philip Weston","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-06","summary":"The government prefers all animals to be stunned before slaughter but respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.","details":"The government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. The government therefore has no plans to ban slaughter without stunning.\n\nThe key pieces of legislation which cover matters relating to the handling, stunning and slaughter of different species and other relevant operations are The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1782/contents\n\nand assimilated law Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing\nhttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/1099/introduction\n\nThe legislation sets out the permitted stunning methods for different species. Some of these, such as controlled atmospheric stunning, will kill the animal, and others, such as certain forms of electrical stunning, will make the animal unconscious (a “simple stun”). A simple stun must be followed as quickly as possible by a killing method, such as bleeding or pithing. \n\nBoth general slaughter and slaughter by the halal method use simple stunning methods. Annex D of the 2024 Slaughter Sector Survey\nhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c5cf0e750837d7604dbdbf/25-02-14_Slaughter_Sector_Survey_2024_REVISED.pdf \nsets out further details of the slaughter methods used during the relevant survey period and shows that, for example, the majority of sheep are electrically stunned whereas cattle are mainly killed by a captive bolt. \n\nFor all stunned slaughter, legislation requires checks to be made that animals do not present any signs of consciousness and sensibility between stunning and death. If animals are not properly stunned, appropriate measures such as a back-up stun must be taken.\n\nWhile there is an exception from stunning for meat for Jews and Muslims, a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter. The 2024 Slaughter Sector Survey showed for example that 88% of halal meat chickens in England and Wales were stunned prior to slaughter during the survey week. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-05-06T14:55:21.211Z","updated_at":"2026-05-06T14:57:00.906Z"},"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":[]}}]}