{"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=93&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":245147,"closing_date":"2026-09-12","created_at":"2026-02-03T12:04:15.845Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:18:00.000Z","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":"2026-06-30T16:05:28.105Z","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":{"debated_on":"2026-06-29","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-06-29/debates/5EFB5392-372C-41C5-AA65-E6EE5FD09A08/AnimalAbusers","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/VNOGB13OKDk","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10902/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"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":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":204544,"closing_date":"2026-10-01","created_at":"2026-02-27T11:05:06.660Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:39:10.000Z","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":"2026-07-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-09-14","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":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":132318,"closing_date":"2026-09-24","created_at":"2026-02-14T19:43:01.396Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:35:50.000Z","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":"2026-08-13T20:16:20.000Z","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":767687,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/767687.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a UK-wide briefing on climate and nature risks","background":"The UK faces growing risks from climate and nature breakdown - from extreme weather to economic disruption and national security threats. Yet the public has never been given a clear national briefing on the scale of these risks. Government should hold an emergency briefing from leading experts.","additional_details":"These risks could have serious consequences across UK society, with threats to health and food supply - which could become irreversible if without urgent action. Many people are unclear how these risks may affect them, and information in the public domain is often misleading.\r\n \r\nA credible national briefing from independent experts would give people clear, trusted guidance on what these risks mean in practice, and what we can do - both together and individually - to prepare and respond.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":121185,"closing_date":"2026-11-20","created_at":"2026-04-18T21:09:56.887Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:40:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-20T08:54:04.640Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-19T09:38:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-21T12:08:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-15T10:54:01.418Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-16T09:55:20.000Z","debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Christopher Packham","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-15","summary":"We recognise the growing risks from climate and nature breakdown, and are committed to speaking clearly about the scale of the crisis and providing reliable sources for information and advice.","details":"The UK government recognises the growing risks from climate and nature breakdown. Nature and a stable climate underpin our health, economy, national security and critical services.\n\nThe National Emergency Briefing campaign is right to highlight climate change as a major threat for the UK and the world as set out in our ‘National security assessment on global ecosystems’ in January 2026.\n\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-security-assessment-on-global-biodiversity-loss-ecosystem-collapse-and-national-security\n\nThe government welcomes their work and we are committed to speaking clearly about the scale of the crisis.\n\nIn July 2025, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband MP, alongside the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed MP, gave the first-ever statement on the State of Climate and Nature.\n\nThe statement provided an honest appraisal of the state of climate and nature in the UK and the action being taken to benefit people now, as well as future generations, demonstrating how the choices we make as a country influence the course of global action. To promote the statement, the Energy Secretary spoke to national broadcasters and newspapers about the threat of climate change to our British way of life, securing widespread coverage across print, online and broadcast.\n\nWe intend to undertake a second statement this summer to demonstrate the scale of the challenge and emphasise the steps that the government and UK citizens are taking to prepare and respond to the climate and nature crisis.\n\nWe recognise that climate risks are increasing in urgency across sectors and we need to go further and faster to ensure that our country, communities and natural environment are resilient to climate change. We have committed to strengthening our approach and are working together across government to deliver actions to improve our resilience.  We will set out stronger adaptation objectives for a more ambitious fourth National Adaptation Programme (NAP4) in 2028.\n\nWe already communicate with the public about the urgency of these issues and provide reliable sources for information and advice. The Adverse Weather and Health Plan (AWHP), which forms part of the Third National Adaptation Programme, brings together the Weather-Health Alerting System (in collaboration with the Met Office) and practical guidance to reduce health impacts from events such as heat, flooding and drought. The AWHP adopts a whole-of-society approach, aiming to strengthen public and organisational communication, enhance resilience, and support both preparedness and effective response to protect health across society now and in the future.\n\nAt the same time, we are restoring and protecting nature. In December 2025, we published the revised Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). The EIP is the government’s long-term plan for improving the natural environment and the enjoyment of it. It clearly describes the actions we need to take and who is responsible for delivering them. This will help us to restore nature, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature.\n\nWe are also taking action to reduce the impact of climate change on food production and to support the continued production and supply of food for UK citizens. We rely upon a combination of strong domestic production from the UK’s agricultural and food manufacturing sectors and a diverse range of overseas supply sources to ensure a consistent supply of food. We are providing support through our farming schemes to improve sector resilience and through innovation. For example, Defra’s Crop Genetic Improvement Networks funds research to develop crop varieties that are more productive, sustainable, and more resilient to climate change.\n\nThe Simpler Recycling reforms ensure that across England, people are able to recycle the same materials, whether at home, work or school.  In particular, collecting food waste separately from residual waste allows us to send it for anaerobic digestion or composting. This reduces the amount of food waste going to landfill, where it releases harmful greenhouse gases, helping to achieve our Net Zero strategy target to eliminate biodegradable waste sent to landfill from 2028.\n\nWe recognise we will only succeed if we take people with us and act together. That is why we are ensuring the public has a voice in how we create a more sustainable and more prosperous society. We published Energising Britain, the UK’s first public participation plan. This plan sets out how we will work to ensure people have the facts and understand the scale, pace of change and benefits of climate and nature action, and the benefits to their local communities. It includes working with businesses and communities to ensure everyone can benefit from our mission, including through policies that are responsive to people's needs and views. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-06-15T10:54:01.415Z","updated_at":"2026-06-15T10:58:26.161Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-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":113103,"closing_date":"2026-10-10","created_at":"2026-03-04T14:47:30.231Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T12:11:00.000Z","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":"2026-07-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-09-07","debate_outcome_at":"2026-09-08T12:03:41.812Z","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":{"debated_on":"2026-09-07","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-09-07/debates/1DE05B16-B467-48D0-B6E7-6B7AD7F8B921/SurrogacyLawAndLegalParenthood","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBXRBulB5o4","debate_pack_url":"https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0761/","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":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":110950,"closing_date":"2026-10-17","created_at":"2026-03-19T10:58:30.234Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T11:00:50.000Z","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":"2026-06-18","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-07-06","debate_outcome_at":"2026-07-07T15:51:07.776Z","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":{"debated_on":"2026-07-06","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-07-06/debates/F440907D-DDB1-478E-8238-572A6A863070/CeramicsIndustry","video_url":"https://www.youtube.com/live/krG9tsSXbls?si=S9IuG6xv4hjWLCiy&t=263","debate_pack_url":"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10932/","public_engagement_url":"","debate_summary_url":"","overview":""},"departments":[{"acronym":"DBIST","name":"Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":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":105425,"closing_date":"2026-10-21","created_at":"2026-03-17T07:09:07.101Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:02:10.000Z","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":"2026-07-16","scheduled_debate_date":"2026-10-19","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":762815,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762815.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise the personal tax allowance to £18,000","background":"Since 2021 personal tax allowance has been frozen at £12,570.  This freeze was due to expire this year but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has extended it to 2031.\r\nWe want to keep some more of our own money.\r\n","additional_details":"If you are earning minimum wage then you may soon be paying tax because of fiscal drag. Some higher earners pay little or no tax due to clever use of accounting rules. We think this is so wrong.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":68483,"closing_date":"2026-09-30","created_at":"2026-03-01T12:07:01.306Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:40:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-31T14:11:37.574Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-02T19:43:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-21T23:21:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-05T11:00:21.371Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Mike Haynes","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-05","summary":"The Government currently has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £18,000. Increasing the Personal Allowance to £18,000 would come at a significant fiscal cost of over £40 billion per year. ","details":"The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while investing in public services and not taking risks with the economy.\n\nThe previous government froze the main income tax thresholds from 2021/22 until 2027/28 – this means the Personal Tax allowance was not due to rise until April 2028 at the earliest. \n\nTo ensure that the Government can deliver on the public’s priorities, at Budget 2025 it was announced that the personal tax thresholds, including the Personal Allowance, would be maintained at their current levels for a further three years to the end of this decade.\n\nThe Government currently has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £18,000. Increasing the Personal Allowance to £18,000 would come at a significant fiscal cost of over £40 billion per year. This would also benefit higher earners more than basic-rate taxpayers on average. \n\nRaising the Personal Allowance to £18,000 would reduce tax receipts substantially, decreasing funds available for the UK’s hospitals, schools, and other essential public services that we all rely on. A £40 billion cut in public services is equivalent to slashing roughly a fifth of the NHS Budget in England, or around two thirds of defence spending.\n\nThe income tax system is highly progressive, with different rates of tax sitting above an internationally high Personal Allowance.\n\nThe Government is making these fair and necessary choices on tax so it can deliver on the public’s priorities. Alongside this, the Government is keeping the contribution as low as possible by pursuing a programme of reform to fix longstanding issues in the tax system. \n\nTo support the lowest paid workers in our economy, the Government has asked the Low Pay Commission to account for the cost of living when making each of their recommendations on the minimum wage rates that have applied since April 2025. The government is also supporting families through the universal offer of 15 hours of government-funded childcare for all parents of 3- and 4-year-olds and eligible working parents of children aged 9 months and above can access 30 hours a week in free childcare.\n\nAt Budget 2025, the Government also announced a package of measures that will bear down on prices and help ease cost of living pressures for working people, targeting everyday expenses. This includes cutting energy bills and freezing rail fares and NHS prescription fees.\n\nThe Government keeps all taxes under review as part of the policy making process. \n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2026-05-05T11:00:21.366Z","updated_at":"2026-05-05T11:00:57.784Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":773633,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/773633.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Launch a public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK","background":"We call on the Government to launch a full-scale public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK. The inquiry should investigate the effectiveness of UK border control, the financial cost on taxpayers, and the deportation system.","additional_details":"Thousands of people illegally migrate to the UK each year. We believe this has negatively impacted the UK to a significant extent and resulted in some people feeling unsafe walking the streets. Furthermore, we believe it has brought a great burden onto taxpayers as the Government has had to pay for more support for illegal migrants.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":66000,"closing_date":"2027-01-15","created_at":"2026-06-17T16:29:16.669Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:37:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-07-15T14:48:11.761Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-17T18:40:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-23T16:40:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Simon Worley","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HO","name":"Home Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":769589,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769589.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End the mandatory fortification of white flour with folic acid immediately","background":"We call on the Government to stop the fortification of flour with synthetic folic acid. Folic acid is a medicine not a food. We believe it is unethical to mass medicate the entire population without their knowledge or consent in the hope that a minority group of people might see a benefit.","additional_details":"The NHS website lists sections of the population (including people with cancer, a stent or low vitamin B12 levels) who should avoid folic acid exposure because of possible detrimental health impacts. Even if these people are aware of the issue, it is becoming harder to avoid as wholemeal and gluten free products are voluntarily adding folic acid. ","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":62951,"closing_date":"2026-12-08","created_at":"2026-05-11T11:31:25.296Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:35:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-08T14:36:09.331Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-11T11:47:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-12T15:02:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-29T12:21:00.293Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Dr Clare Craig","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-29","summary":"Folic acid fortification is an evidenced public health measure, not a medical intervention. The policy applies to non-wholemeal flour, reflecting the flour-type already subject to fortification.","details":"The UK Government is mandating fortification of non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid with the primary objective to increase folic acid intake among women of childbearing age, thereby improving blood folate levels and reducing the risk of neural tube defects (NTDs) during pregnancy. The policy is projected to prevent around 200 NTD-affected pregnancies annually—approximately 20 per cent of UK cases. The population-level policy will have the wider benefit of increasing the intake of folic acid and improving folate status across the whole population. Folate, including folic acid, plays an important role in forming healthy red blood cells and maintaining brain health.\n\nPrevious efforts through public health campaigns to promote supplementation, as well as voluntary fortification by manufacturers, have had limited success. Despite longstanding UK public health advice recommending a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid before conception and during early pregnancy, uptake remains suboptimal, particularly among younger women and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Since almost half of pregnancies in the UK are unplanned, many women may not take supplements during the critical early weeks of gestation.\n\nThe policy has been carefully designed to be proportionate, targeting non-wholemeal wheat flour because it is widely consumed across the population and is the most effective vehicle for delivering the intended public health benefits. This approach is consistent with long-standing UK fortification requirements for wheat flour, including the mandatory addition of calcium, iron, niacin and thiamine, which also apply to non-wholemeal wheat flour produced to organic standards. Not fortifying wider than the type of flour that is presently fortified, means that individuals can avoid fortified flour if they choose to or need to. This includes wholemeal flour, gluten-free products and other flour types such as soya or spelt flour.\n\nTo ensure people can easily identify products that are suitable for them, added vitamins and minerals, including folic acid, must be labelled in the product’s ingredients list. This must also be declared when fortified flour is used as an ingredient.\n\nThe decision to fortify non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid has a long history and has been considered both by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), which advises the four UK governments on nutrition-related matters, and its predecessor, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy. Folic acid fortification was recommended by the SACN in 2006, after an extensive review of the evidence on folate and health, which is available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-folate-and-disease-prevention-report. Since then, there have been several further evidence reviews and modelling work (for example: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/science-and-evidence/stochastic-modelling-to-estimate-the-potential-impact-of-fortification-of-flour-with-folic-acid-in-the-uk) to establish the level of folic acid to be added to flour, as well as to address concerns about potential adverse effects.\n\nThe policy has been subject to public consultations, including the 2019 Department of Health and Social Care and devolved governments consultation (available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/adding-folic-acid-to-flour/outcome/proposal-to-add-folic-acid-to-flour-consultation-response) on the proposal to fortify flour with folic acid (including a question on the effect on small businesses), and the 2022 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)-led consultation on the Bread and Flour Regulations. These consultations allowed members of the public, industry and health professionals to provide feedback and were a key part of policy development. Feedback to the Defra consultation highlighted consumer choice as a key concern. Limiting mandatory fortification to non-wholemeal wheat flour helps preserve choice by maintaining the availability of unfortified wholemeal and non-wheat flours. In addition, the policy does not apply to flour produced by small mills (definition based on their limited production capacity).\n\nThe NHS provides guidance for individuals who may need to avoid folic acid, for example, due to specific medical conditions or interactions with medication. People in this situation are advised to seek advice from a healthcare professional. Foods in the UK have been voluntarily fortified with folic acid for many years, including products such as breakfast cereals and spreads, without evidence of adverse health effects.\n\nThe UK Government and devolved governments are exploring how we will evaluate the impact of the policy.\n\nDepartment of Health & Social Care","created_at":"2026-06-29T12:21:00.287Z","updated_at":"2026-06-29T12:21:52.418Z"},"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":58712,"closing_date":"2026-09-30","created_at":"2026-02-22T09:22:07.864Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:40:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T09:42:41.248Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-22T09:35:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-19T23:18:00.000Z","government_response_at":"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":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":769616,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769616.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide lifelong vet care and financial support for retired service animals","background":"We want the UK Government to create a national support scheme to provide lifelong veterinary care and financial assistance for retired service animals, including police dogs, military dogs, and police horses.","additional_details":"Service animals protect the public and support the emergency services and armed forces. Many retire with injuries or health conditions linked to their service. Ongoing care costs often fall to former handlers, adopters, or charities. \r\nWe want a national support scheme or pension to help fund lifelong veterinary care and welfare support for retired service animals.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":54619,"closing_date":"2026-12-12","created_at":"2026-05-11T16:52:32.448Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:05:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-12T09:43:26.177Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-11T19:30:20.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-16T08:51:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-27T15:20:37.656Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Kat Darcy","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-27","summary":"Whilst the government has no plans for a national support scheme for retired service animals, government is reviewing options to improve vet fee transparency and consumer choice.","details":"The government understands the strength of feeling on the welfare of service animals and recognises and greatly values the incredible and vital work service animals carry out alongside our police and military. The government believes these service animals, who often face risks to their own safety and wellbeing, should be able to have a comfortable and healthy retirement. Police forces are responsible for the welfare of their service animals throughout their service and into retirement. Their retirement can be a combination of local arrangements, such as charitable organisations and volunteers, the exact nature being a local decision for the force.\n\nThese animals can play a valuable role in protecting the public, supporting emergency services and assisting the Armed Forces, and it is right that their welfare should be taken seriously throughout their working lives and into retirement.\n\nThe UK government does not currently have any plans to introduce financial support or a national support scheme to cover veterinary fees for animals, including retired service animals. Arrangements for the care and rehoming of service animals vary depending on the organisation responsible for them, the role they have performed and the circumstances of retirement. Currently, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not cover ongoing fees for service animals following their retirement.  With regard to the police, this would come down to the individual police services and how they choose to spend their money – the government would not be able to dictate their funding. The MOD keeps its retirement arrangements under regular review to ensure they continue to deliver the best outcomes for the animals concerned.\n\nThe government currently has no plans to change the retirement process for police service animals, including the funding of veterinary care. All operational decisions on the retirement of service animals are made on a force-by-force basis under the responsibility of the Chief Constable.\n\nWe are, however, aware of the issue of rising costs for veterinary services and are actively reviewing options to improve price transparency and knowledge of options available for pet owners, including those who take on responsibility for retired service animals. \n\nBetween January and March 2026, Defra consulted on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA). This was developed in response to calls from the veterinary sector, stakeholders and the public highlighting the need for improvements to the regulatory framework. On 9 July 2026, Defra published a paper (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-vision-for-a-thriving-veterinary-sector) responding to the consultation and detailing government’s vision for a thriving veterinary sector through reform of the VSA.\n\nThe paper also sets out the government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA’s) market investigation into veterinary services for household pets, which has identified £1 billion overspend on vet fees over five years and lack of price transparency across the sector.(https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/veterinary-services-market-for-pets-review)\n\nDefra accepts the CMA’s recommendations for what should be included in a new VSA as well as supporting the CMA’s proposed remedies. The response confirms Defra’s support for the CMA’s orders alongside the update of the VSA which will enable government to enact those outcomes of the CMA’s market investigation that require legislative change.\n\nAs part of wider VSA reform, the government proposes to introduce mandatory regulation of veterinary and animal healthcare businesses. This would strengthen the regulatory framework by enabling consumer protection and competition duties to be placed on the regulator, helping to ensure that businesses operate in ways that support transparency, fairness and informed choice. It would also provide more options for complaints and redress where pet owners have concerns about the service they have received.\n\nThe government will continue to consider the evidence from this work and any relevant recommendations as it develops its approach to veterinary sector reform.\n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-07-27T15:20:37.654Z","updated_at":"2026-07-27T15:21:30.598Z"},"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":760461,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760461.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund NHS access to Omaveloxolone for patients with Friedreich's Ataxia","background":"We call on the Government to fund NHS access to Omaveloxolone in the UK.  We believe the drug should also be considered under the HST programme, which we feel is the only appraisal route which reflects the realities of Friedreich's Ataxia. This is a degenerative disease & time is of the essence.","additional_details":"Friedreich's Ataxia patients need access to the drug Omaveloxolone, the only drug available for this disease. Without treatment, this degenerative disease can get worse. Patients & families may have to see their loved ones deteriorate when they are aware there is a drug available to stop the progression of this disease & in many cases, to improve the symptoms. The drug is available in EU countries & America. It passed the safety test in April 2025 and we believe it should be available on the NHS!","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":47548,"closing_date":"2026-09-24","created_at":"2026-02-08T19:10:08.662Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:40:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-24T09:52:54.305Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-08T19:34:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-15T22:02:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-04T12:12:45.037Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"MRS ANN MCGREGOR","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-04","summary":"The Government remains committed to improving access to effective and innovative medicines for patients. NICE cannot evaluate omaveloxolone unless the company re-engages with its appraisal.","details":"The Government recognises the concern and urgency felt by people affected by Friedreich’s ataxia and their families, particularly given the progressive nature of the condition.\n\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body responsible for developing evidence-based recommendations for the NHS on whether new, licensed medicines represent a clinically and cost-effective use of NHS resources. The NHS in England is legally required to fund medicines recommended by NICE.\n\nNICE initiated the appraisal of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich’s ataxia for people aged 16 and over in anticipation of a licence being granted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA is the independent body responsible for licensing medicines for use in the UK, based on an assessment of their safety, quality and efficacy.\n\nNICE’s appraisal process requires the manufacturer of the drug to make an evidence submission. NICE has unfortunately been unable to develop guidance for the NHS on the use of omaveloxolone for treating Friedreich's ataxia in people 16 years and over because the company, Biogen, withdrew its evidence submission. NICE will reopen the appraisal if the company decides to make a new evidence submission.\n\nThe Government understands that Biogen has not approached NHS England or NICE to suggest a resubmission or seek a commercial surgery. Before taking any further action, Biogen must confirm to NHS England that it is willing to reengage in the NICE appraisal process and commercial discussions.\n\nWhile the Government understands the desire for urgent access, to avoid the possibility of creating a way to circumvent the appraisal process, NHS England does not fund medicines in circumstances where companies have not engaged with NICE. Funding a medicine before a positive recommendation by NICE also risks creating temporary access to a treatment that could be withdrawn at a later date, if not recommended.\n\nDecisions on whether medicines should be evaluated through NICE’s highly specialised technologies (HST) programmes are taken by NICE itself against a set of published criteria that have been developed through public and stakeholder engagement. Omaveloxolone satisfied three out of four of the routing criteria to be considered for evaluation through NICE’s HST programme. It did not satisfy criterion 2 – “Normally no more than 300 people in England are eligible for the technology in its licensed indication and no more than 500 across all its indications” – and was therefore considered through NICE’s mainstream technology appraisal programme.\n\nThe vast majority of medicines are evaluated through NICE’s technology appraisal programme. NICE has a strong track record of recommending medicines for the treatment of rare diseases, and its standard technology appraisal process has been proven to be suitable for the evaluation of these medicines, where companies engage constructively in the appraisal and commercial discussions with NHS England. Since March 2024, NICE has recommended 89 per cent of the rare disease medicines, including advanced therapies, that it has appraised for some or all of the patients who would be eligible for the treatment under the marketing authorisation.\n\nThe Government has recently announced several pilots and projects, following the US/UK partnership on pharmaceuticals, that will shape a commercial environment that actively encourages innovation and improves patient access. As part of that work, NICE will look at the approach to valuing rare disease medicines through its Health Technology Assessment Innovation Laboratory. The research will assess a range of both radical and incremental options to improve the current framework.\n\nThe Government remains committed to improving access to effective and innovative medicines for patients, including those living with rare diseases, through a process that is fair, evidence-based and sustainable for the NHS.\n\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2026-09-04T12:12:45.035Z","updated_at":"2026-09-04T12:12:45.035Z"},"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":763721,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/763721.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ensure new sewage treatment infrastructure meets higher standards as in the EU","background":"We urge the government to review the regulations for new sewage treatment infrastructure and introduce new legislation to ensure high international standards are met; to safeguard people’s health, better protect all water bodies and reduce damaging long term impacts.","additional_details":"All new wastewater infrastructure must be built to well-established, higher international standards, in line with the revised EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) standards in force since 1 January 2025, to significantly reduce the pollution load on water bodies. Proposed new schemes built to outdated standards must be stopped as they will continue releasing biological and chemical contaminants, including forever chemicals, harming water bodies, wildlife, and public health. They also risk a dramatic increase in customer water bills to pay for expensive and avoidable upgrades.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":46577,"closing_date":"2026-11-01","created_at":"2026-03-09T10:16:27.934Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:17:10.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-01T08:09:30.628Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-09T10:58:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-27T12:09:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-04T14:25:29.128Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ian Theodore McNuff","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-04","summary":"The government is developing a package of reforms to improve drainage and wastewater systems efficiently, fairly and affordably, including to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations.","details":"The government is considering a range of reforms to fix our broken water system. Delivering better outcomes and a more sustainable approach to drainage and wastewater management is a key consideration.   \n\nWe want to better address the root causes of pollution head on. We will ensure legislation, funding streams and regulatory mechanisms support the delivery of better outcomes and shift the focus towards ‘pre-pipe’ solutions, such as rainwater management and tackling sewer misuse. These changes are more sustainable, deliver wider benefits like reducing flood risk and increasing biodiversity, and will deliver better value for money for customers.    \n\nIn England, we are already taking ambitious steps to strengthen environmental and performance standards in the water sector and our recent Water (Special Measures) Act will deliver on the government’s commitment to put water companies under special measures to clean up our water.     \n\nThrough that Act, we will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry. We will strengthen the power of our regulators, increase transparency around pollution incidents and expand the cost recovery powers of regulators.    \n\nBuilding on record investment to improve storm overflows and wastewater treatment, the government is developing a package of reforms to revolutionise the water industry, delivering a systematic approach to improving drainage and wastewater systems.   \n\nWe are also taking forward a programme of reforms to ensure that the water system better delivers outcomes for customers in a way that is efficient, fair and affordable. The Independent Water Commission’s final report in July 2025 recommended that government review the legislative landscape, including the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (UWWTR). The report’s recommendations are the basis for the ongoing development of new legislation, and this government intends to bring forward a water reform bill early this parliament to reform the water sector and ensure it delivers for customers and the environment.    \n\nThe government provided further detail in the Water Reform White Paper, published in January 2026, in which we set out that through an upcoming water bill we will progress an ambitious, coherent reset of the legislative framework. This includes elements of the UWWTR and exploring updates to the Water Framework Directive Regulations, where needed.   \n\nA central objective is to secure lasting improvements in service for customers while minimising impacts on customer bills and ensuring strong value for money. This includes strengthening support for vulnerable households through reforms. \n\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2026-08-04T14:25:29.125Z","updated_at":"2026-08-04T14:25:29.125Z"},"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":769319,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769319.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund £20,000 a year (term time) wage for Teaching Assistants","background":"Up Teaching Assistants' pay to a minimum of £20,000 a year (term time) to reflect the amount of work they do. It's not just displays and marking. It's challenging behaviour, teaching, marking, first aid, displays, emotional coaching and supporting children with SEN.","additional_details":"We believe that Teaching Assistants' job roles have changed massively over the years. It used to be that we were in to do photocopying, displays and some marking. We feel that now, many TAs must deal with a lot of children with SEN on a daily basis, without reflective pay for that. We mark, we teach, we problem solve, we deal with sick children, we work with small groups of children, we do multiple interventions, we read daily, we coach children on how to manage emotions.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":39054,"closing_date":"2026-12-08","created_at":"2026-05-08T16:12:17.970Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:16:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-08T12:19:58.475Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-08T17:09:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-13T20:18:20.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-27T14:16:13.831Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Bethany Young","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-27","summary":"The Government is establishing the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to negotiate minimum standards for pay and conditions for our vital school support staff, including Teaching Assistants.  ","details":"Teaching Assistants (TAs) play an important role in supporting children to achieve and thrive in schools.\n\nThat is why the Government is establishing the School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB). Establishing the SSSNB was a manifesto commitment and is an important part of delivering both the government’s Plan to Make Work Pay and Opportunity Mission. \n\nThe Employment Rights Act 2025 provides for the establishment of the SSSNB. The SSSNB will be a new statutory body specifically for school support staff. Its purpose is to bring employers and employee representatives together to negotiate minimum standards for pay and conditions for school support staff, including TAs, in all state-funded schools in England. It will also advise on training and career progression for school support staff.\n\nWhere new minimums are set, those currently below them will see their terms improved, while those already on more favourable terms will retain them. No member of support staff will therefore see a reduction in pay, terms or conditions as a result of these reforms. At the same time, employers will retain the flexibility to offer more than the statutory minimum, enabling them to respond to local needs and labour market conditions. The introduction of national minimum pay and conditions through the SSSNB represents a significant step forward, creating a baseline of consistency and protection across the workforce for the first time.\n\nSecondary legislation will be required to commence and constitute the Body, and the SSSNB is expected to be established in autumn 2026.\n\nSchool support staff will continue under their existing arrangements for the 2026-27 financial year. The first improvements to support staff contracts resulting from SSSNB negotiations are expected to come into effect from the 2027-28 financial year at the earliest.\n\nA dedicated webpage for the SSSNB can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/school-support-staff-negotiating-body-sssnb \n\nWe are providing schools with £700 million in additional funding in financial year 2026-27 to support them with both the costs of the schools teacher pay award and the local government services pay offer in respect of support staff in 2026-27.\n\nWe are also investing £200 million in a new SEND training offer to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery - this will include training for teaching assistants and support them to feel confident supporting pupils with SEND. We will continue to work in collaboration with the sector over the coming months to design and develop an offer that works for staff and schools.\n\nThis Government values and recognises the vital contributions of TAs in supporting teaching and pupils.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-07-27T14:16:13.829Z","updated_at":"2026-07-27T14:16:13.829Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":764268,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/764268.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect legal right to support for children with SEND","background":"I believe that the Government’s proposed SEND reforms could limit EHCPs, weaken legal rights, replace individual plans with packages, reduce appeals, and remove school choice. In my view, children could be left without the support they need as a result.","additional_details":"I think the Government’s SEND reforms could limit EHCPs, weaken legal rights, raise thresholds, replace individual plans with generic packages, reduce appeal rights, remove school choice, and push children into inclusion zones without proper support. Many children rely on these rights to support every day, without them many could be left behind, struggling, unsupported, and unheard.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":38584,"closing_date":"2026-10-14","created_at":"2026-03-13T19:29:47.335Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:40:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-04-14T14:49:10.055Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-03-13T19:59:50.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-03T13:09:00.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-06-22T13:21:27.888Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tee-Jay Chetwynd","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-06-22","summary":"The government’s SEND reform proposal will strengthen legal duties, better support children with SEND in mainstream settings and ensure EHCPs secure statutory support for children with complex needs.","details":"The government’s proposed reforms strengthen the legal duties to support children with SEND in mainstream settings. The SEND consultation proposes a new legal requirement for schools to create individual support plans (ISPs) for all children with SEND, developed by their nursery, school or college in discussion with parents, children and any other professionals such as healthcare experts involved in that child’s care. ISPs would evolve with the child’s needs, enable information about their needs and support to transfer with them as a digital record throughout the education system ensuring support can be planned and parents aren’t having to retell stories or repeatedly fight for support, ultimately helping to transform the life chances of children with SEND. EHCPs will continue for children with complex needs, securing statutory right to education and healthcare support. \n\nUnder our proposed reforms, educational provision in a reformed EHCP would be underpinned by evidence-based specialist provision packages commissioned by local authorities (LAs) and delivered by settings. Because settings know the child or young person best, we propose they work with families before EHCPs are finalised to set out the provision aligned with the package(s) that the child needs. Settings will have a legal duty to deliver what is in the EHCP.\n\nEffective early identification and intervention is critical in improving the outcomes of children and young people with SEND. To support schools to meet this legal duty, we have appointed an Independent Expert Panel to  develop National Inclusion Standards. The Standards  should set out minimum standards that all settings must adhere to, and include a range of evidence-informed tools, strategies and approaches for educators to draw on to identify and support children and young people with additional needs. With earlier identification and a more inclusive mainstream, children and young people with SEND should get the support they need, as soon as they need it. This will be backed by investment of £1.6 billion over the next three years for early years settings, schools and colleges to deliver whole school approaches and individual support in line with the National Inclusion Standards.\n\nIn addition, we are investing £1.8 billion over the next three years for local area partnerships, including local authorities and Integrated Care Boards, to develop a new Experts at Hand offer. This offer is designed to strengthen the capability of mainstream education settings by providing access to support from health and specialist education practitioners, including speech and language therapists,  support workers or assistants, occupational therapists and support workers or assistants, educational psychologists and trainees, and specialist teachers, both local authority-based and those based in specialist or alternative provision settings. \n\nThis new offer is designed to meet children’s needs earlier and more effectively without needing to wait for a diagnosis or bureaucratic assessment processes. Expert health and education staff will work alongside nursery workers and school and college staff to embed effective interventions, provide training and upskilling and help to accurately identify and assess need.\n\nTo support delivery, over £40 million is being invested in the specialist workforce, including £26 million to train more educational psychologists and £15 million to support more speech and language therapists to work with education settings.\n\nThe package of proposed reforms aims to put an end to the postcode lottery in support ensuring there are clear national standards for the support every child with SEND should receive. We are reforming the statutory needs assessment, co-designing with families, education and healthcare experts to deliver high quality, fair assessments across the country. Alongside this both EHCPs and ISPs will have a new digital template meaning they can move easily with children and families and preventing the need for reassessments and new local processes if children move between local authority areas.\n\nUnder our proposed reforms, the SEND Tribunal would remain a legal backstop for the most important EHC decisions. We propose strengthening mediation services to encourage families to work closely with local authorities and settings to develop solutions to problems, without the need for a Tribunal appeal, in line with the best practice currently seen in some local authorities. However, if early resolution is not possible, under our proposed reforms, parents and young people would be able to appeal to the Tribunal about:\n\no   a local authority’s refusal to assess whether a child or young person needs an EHCP\no   whether a child or young person needs a Specialist Provision Package and therefore needs an EHCP\no   which Specialist Provision Package(s) the child or young person should have\no   the local authority’s decision about which school or setting should be named in the EHCP – although we propose to amend the Tribunal’s existing powers so that it can require the LA to retake the decision, rather than the Tribunal deciding which school or setting should be named in the EHCP.\no   a decision to amend, not amend or cease an EHCP following review.\n\nWe have recently welcomed feedback via the consultation on 'SEND reform: putting children and young people first’, which ran for 12 weeks closing on 18 May. We are reviewing responses alongside feedback from over 200 engagement events held over the 12 weeks.\n\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2026-06-22T13:21:27.883Z","updated_at":"2026-06-22T13:22:17.875Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":761186,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761186.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Add gynaecological conditions e.g. Endometriosis to Equality Act 2010 Guidance","background":"We call on the UK government to include gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, PCOS, PMDD, menopause & menstrual disorders as “impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects” in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance on the definition of disability (published in May 2011)","additional_details":"We think gynaecological conditions must be listed as impairments in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance on Disability. We believe this will ensure employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as Endometriosis are supported with reasonable adjustments and protected against disability discrimination in the workplace by law.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":32909,"closing_date":"2026-09-27","created_at":"2026-02-15T17:01:38.003Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:41:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-27T10:09:53.151Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-15T19:45:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-04-01T21:13:30.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-07-15T15:44:35.999Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sanju Pal","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-15","summary":"While we do not plan to amend the statutory guidance, the Government is taking action to improve the support available to women experiencing symptoms from gynaecological conditions.","details":"This Government recognises the difficulty and pain that some girls and women face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. We understand that menstrual or reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on some women’s physical and mental wellbeing, including their participation in the workforce. \n\nThe Government is taking action to improve the support available. This includes helping employers to take effective steps to support the health and wellbeing of their female employees, strengthening rights relating to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses gynaecological conditions. \n\nThe Equality Act 2010 (the Act)\n\nSymptoms related to gynaecological conditions can be serious and have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a woman’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities. These symptoms can fall under the definition of disability in the Act. Women experiencing discrimination or harassment related to a gynaecological condition may be able to bring a claim on the grounds of sex and/or age.\n\nWhere an employee’s symptoms meet the definition of a disability, employers must take reasonable steps to avoid putting that employee at a substantial disadvantage compared to those who are not disabled.\n\nGuidance on the Act’s definition of disability does not provide a comprehensive list of impairments that would meet its tests. Protection is not generally limited to specific conditions but instead depends on their effect. For the purposes of the Act, an impairment is the effect of any physical or mental condition and it is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness.  Any person that falls within this definition will be protected as having a disability. We therefore do not plan to amend the statutory guidance. However, the guidance is clear that a disability can arise from a wide range of impairments and the Act’s protections will apply wherever its tests are met. \n\nThe Equality and Human Rights Commission (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/menopause-workplace-guidance-employers) and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (https://www.acas.org.uk/menopause-at-work/menopause-and-the-law) have produced guidance on menopause which sets out existing protections.\n\nThe Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA)\n\nThe Government strongly supports inclusive, health-promoting workplaces and practical, evidence-based approaches to reasonable adjustments. Through the ERA, we are taking steps towards requiring large employers to publish an action plan covering how they support employees experiencing the menopause, and how they are narrowing their gender pay gap, which we anticipate will open up discussions on women’s health more broadly.\n\nOffice for Equality and Opportunity guidance includes advice on measures such as: flexible working; line manager training; networks and support groups. This highlights where actions to improve menopause support may also benefit employees experiencing health conditions related to menstrual health. \n\nThe ERA also includes measures which could benefit women with gynaecological conditions, including strengthening Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and extending flexible working. \n\nWe have removed the Lower Earnings Limit to widen eligibility to up to 1.3 million employees previously not entitled to SSP and removed the three-day waiting period so employees receive SSP from the first day of sickness absence.\n\nEmployees now have a day one legal right to request flexible working. This can help people to manage symptoms, attend medical appointments, and reduce formal sickness absence. We continue to encourage businesses to offer compassionate or flexible working arrangements to help employees balance work and personal responsibilities.  \n\nWomen’s Health Strategy \n\nIn April we published the renewed Women’s Health Strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewed-womens-health-strategy-for-england), which puts the 10 Year Health Plan’s care model into action to deliver faster, tangible improvements that matter most to women across England and sets out how the Government will:\n● make women’s voices and choices central in healthcare\n● transform NHS performance in services that matter most to women \n● tackle the biggest causes of death and poor health in women\n● create an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women\n\nConclusion\n\nThank you for calling on the government to include gynaecological conditions as “impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects” to the statutory guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability.\n\nThe Government is taking action to improve the support available by helping employers to take effective steps to support the health and wellbeing of their female employees, strengthening rights relating to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses gynaecological conditions. The Government recognises the significant impact of menstrual and reproductive health issues and will continue engaging with organisations to ensure policy reflects lived experience.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-07-15T15:44:35.997Z","updated_at":"2026-07-15T15:44:59.504Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"CO","name":"Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":776833,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/776833.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require public bodies to achieve unqualified audit opinion before raising taxes","background":"Require public bodies whose accounts cannot be certified with an unqualified opinion by auditors to be banned from increasing taxes or receiving a larger budget the following year. ","additional_details":"If this happens for two consecutive years, all elected representatives for that authority should be unable to stand for re-election.\r\n\r\nThe UK Government's accounts have not been certified with an unqualified opinion by auditors for three consecutive years. The DWP, HMRC and Ministry of Defence have repeatedly failed to achieve entirely unqualified audits, while hundreds of councils each year cannot get their accounts signed off. The National Audit Office estimates up to £81 billion is lost annually to fraud and error. Yet politicians continue raising our taxes while claiming they need more money. We believe it's time to restore financial accountability.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":30452,"closing_date":"2027-02-12","created_at":"2026-07-12T13:10:17.651Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T12:57:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-08-12T08:52:25.238Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-12T13:38:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-14T14:55:50.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-09-03T10:13:08.728Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Lee Nallalingham","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-09-03","summary":"The Government is committed to strong financial management and transparency but does not believe it is appropriate for decisions on taxation or public spending to be subject to an unqualified audit.","details":"The authority to set rates of taxation ultimately rests with Parliament, which scrutinises and approves the Finance Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Similarly, departmental budgets are set through the established Spending Review process and formally approved by Parliament each year through Supply and Appropriation Bills introduced by Treasury minsters. This allows funding decisions to be considered in the round, taking account of the Government's priorities, public service needs, and the wider fiscal position.\n\nThe Government recognises that strong financial management and transparency are vital to maintaining confidence in how public money is spent. The National Audit Office supports Parliament in holding government to account by auditing central government accounts and reporting on whether public money has been used efficiently, effectively, and economically.\n\nWhile audit opinions provide important information, a qualified audit opinion can arise for a variety of reasons, and does not mean that public services are not being delivered effectively. Across government, departments work closely with auditors to address issues that have led to qualifications.\n\nThe Government also recognises the importance of high-quality local services and believes in empowering local decision-makers, including by ensuring that local authorities have the flexibility to generate their own income through council tax. It is for local authorities to balance the need for additional revenue from increases in council tax against the additional burden on their residents.\n\nThe Government has taken action to clear the backlog of audits for local authorities, and is reforming the local audit system, including through the establishment of the Local Audit Office to provide stronger oversight and a more streamlined framework for local authority audits. Local audit opinions can be affected by a range of factors and must be considered in their specific context.\n\nThe Government remains committed to transparency and accountability across the public sector, while ensuring that decisions on taxation and public spending are taken through the appropriate democratic and statutory processes.\n\nHM Treasury","created_at":"2026-09-03T10:13:08.714Z","updated_at":"2026-09-03T10:13:08.714Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"HMT","name":"HM Treasury","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":777710,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/777710.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make catapult attacks against animals a standalone criminal offence","background":"Introduce legislation in England to make it a specific, standalone criminal offence to intentionally or recklessly use, discharge or attempt to discharge a catapult or slingshot at or towards any animal.","additional_details":"Animals including swans, ducks, gulls, pigeons and squirrels have been deliberately targeted with catapults firing stones, ball bearings and other projectiles. Those struck can suffer broken bones, blindness, internal injuries and death.\r\n \r\nExisting protections are spread across different laws and may depend on the species and circumstances. We believe the law should be clear and consistent: catapults should never be used as weapons against animals.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":30354,"closing_date":"2027-02-20","created_at":"2026-07-20T20:56:52.894Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:41:30.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-08-20T14:23:12.880Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-21T08:48:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-24T20:29:40.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert Pownall","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DEFRA","name":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760061,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760061.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban foreign media ownership, enact a social media levy & new regulatory reform","background":"Pass law to ban foreign & offshore ownership of UK media, enact a social-media levy to distribute media ownership across society & fund independent, local & cooperative-owned media. We believe democracy is failing as the media & political power are owned by a tiny rich elite.","additional_details":"We also call the Government to introduce new regulatory reforms, including requiring all media in the UK to be members of a statutory regulator and requiring media-covered think-tanks to report donations in real time. We believe we need to take back control of media ownership for the British people and that media should be free from offshore ownership and think tanks who accept dark money. Media ownership should reflect ALL of society not just the rich.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":30062,"closing_date":"2026-09-18","created_at":"2026-02-05T09:23:48.466Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:06:50.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-18T16:44:26.729Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-05T15:47:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-11T16:58:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-05-26T10:47:11.787Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Donnachadh McCarthy","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-05-26","summary":"The Government is committed to supporting a free and fair press. The media mergers regime bans foreign state influence and ownership. There are no current plans for a statutory press regulator.","details":"The Foreign State Influence (FSI) media merger regime prevents foreign powers controlling, influencing or owning UK newspapers. It includes a mechanism for the DCMS Secretary of State to block or unwind transactions which would enable a foreign power to influence or control a UK newspaper.\n\nThe regime is not intended to prevent any and all inward investment in the sector from overseas, which would be disproportionate. However, it is proportionate to have specific protections for newspapers, due to the unique role they play in our democracy and society. The accurate provision of news is essential to inform debate and opinion and support social cohesion. \n\nThe Government recognises challenges to the sustainability of the local news sector, including smaller independent publishers, and is taking steps to support it through the Local Media Action Plan. A key pillar of the Plan is a Local News Fund, worth up to £12million in the next 2 years, which will help local media outlets digitally innovate and revive a local news presence in local news deserts. \n\nA social media levy is not currently under consideration as a mechanism for funding distribution of media ownership. The existing Digital Services Tax (DST) is a 2 percent tax to ensure that providers of search engines, social media platforms, and online marketplaces pay UK tax on digital services that reflects the value they derive from UK user-related activities. DST was introduced as an interim solution to the challenges posed by the digitalisation of the economy to the international corporate tax framework.\n\nThere are currently no plans to introduce a statutory regulator for the UK press. In the UK there is a self-regulatory system for the press, which is independent from Government. Having a free and fair press is vital to ensure the public has access to accurate and trustworthy information from a range of different sources. To protect this freedom, the Government does not intervene in or oversee the work of the press or the independent press regulators.\n\nWe are also clear that with this freedom comes responsibility, and publishers must operate within the bounds of the law and set and uphold high professional and ethical standards. This includes ensuring access to clear, timely and effective routes to redress.\n\nRegarding think tanks, it is for each individual think tank to determine whether to declare its sources of funding. Think tanks with charitable status must follow Charity Commission guidance, ensuring political activity remains subsidiary and exclusively furthers their charitable purposes. Electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods.\n\nThe Government welcomes Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and thoughtful report on foreign financial interference in our democracy. The review sets out 17 wide-ranging recommendations to tackle foreign financial interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems, and the Government will reflect swiftly on how best to take these forward, given their technical nature. A full written response will be provided in due course. \n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2026-05-26T10:47:11.784Z","updated_at":"2026-05-26T10:47:11.784Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DCMS","name":"Department for Culture, Media and Sport","url":""}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760382,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760382.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review anti-discrimination laws to strengthen trans women & LGBTQ+ protections","background":"Launch a review into strengthening legal protections and clearer enforcement against discrimination, harassment and exclusion of trans women and LGBTQ+ people in employment, education, healthcare, housing and public services, and requiring public bodies to follow consistent guidance.","additional_details":"Trans women and LGBTQ+ people still face discrimination, harassment and barriers to services across the UK. We feel current protections are not applied consistently and people often struggle to challenge unfair treatment. Clearer law and stronger enforcement could help prevent harm, improve safety, and ensure equal treatment and dignity in everyday life.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":28023,"closing_date":"2026-09-30","created_at":"2026-02-07T23:23:46.358Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:06:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T07:52:10.943Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-09T00:25:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-29T06:49:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-18T16:45:50.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Yousef Elzidani","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-18","summary":"All LGBT+ individuals deserve dignity and protection. We are supporting the community through banning conversion practices, reviewing LGBT+ health services, and strengthening hate crime laws.","details":"This Government is committed to ensuring that every individual is protected from unlawful discrimination and harassment. We acknowledge the concerns raised by this petition regarding the strength and consistency of protections.\n\nThe Equality Act 2010 provides a robust framework to outlaw unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in public services, employment, and housing on the basis of gender reassignment and sexual orientation. We are dedicated to ensuring that these protections are experienced in practice across the UK.\n\nThis means ensuring that current laws are clearly explained to duty bearers. Most recently, this Government laid the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations in Parliament, in draft form for Parliament to scrutinise. Parliament did not disapprove the Code. The Code, which came into force on 5th August, includes practical advice to support service providers’ compliance with the law. It also clarifies when it may be necessary and proportionate to provide separate and single-sex services, as well as how providers can adapt their services to meet trans people’s needs. We have always been clear that duty bearers should follow the law as clarified by the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment, and seek specialist advice where necessary. \n\nWe are also bringing in new protections to target abuse and discrimination in the UK. For example, on 25 June 2026 we introduced a trans-inclusive bill proposing to ban criminal conversion practices. For too long people have been subjected to attempts to change who they are. These practices have no place in modern Britain.\n\nFurther, under the recent Crime and Policing Act, the Government has brought in stronger penalties against those who commit crimes against someone based on their disability, sex, sexual orientation, or transgender identity. Such crimes are now considered aggravated offences, and will receive a higher sentence. \n\nThrough the Equality Act 2010, public bodies - including the police - are under a duty to have due regard to eliminating discrimination. If individuals feel any reports of hate crime have not been handled appropriately, they are encouraged to escalate a complaint through the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) via their website. \n\nIn employment, we regularly engage with employers to promote best practice when it comes to inclusive hiring and retention. The Employment Rights Act 2025 requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment, and creates an obligation for them to protect employees from third-party harassment.\n\nIn education, we have delivered inclusive, age appropriate Relationship, Health and Sex Education statutory guidance. The new guidance strongly encourages primary schools to teach about healthy loving relationships, including same-sex parents. At secondary school, healthy same-sex relationships should be covered. It is only right that our diverse society, with families and people of many identities and backgrounds, is reflected to our children.\n\nWe recognise that LGBT+ people experience significant health inequalities. Last year, the Government commissioned NHS England to undertake an LGBT+ health evidence review, led by the NHS’ National Advisor on LGBT+ health, Dr Michael Brady. This review will provide evidence-based recommendations for how we can improve LGBT+ health outcomes. The review will be published later this year. \n\nIn housing, local authorities must be mindful of the Equality Act 2010 and their Public Sector Equality Duty towards people who have a protected characteristic. We also know that LGBT+ people are at higher risk than the general population to experience homelessness. Our National Plan to End Homelessness sets out a credible plan to get back on track to ending homelessness, with the strategy driving long-term sustainable change to address the root causes of homelessness, providing support to councils and public services to shift from crisis to prevention, and short-term immediate actions to tackle the worst forms of homelessness, including halving long-term rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. We are also investing £3.6 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services from 2026-2029. Local authorities can use this money to respond to local needs and determine the most effective services to support LGBT+ individuals in their area.\n\nIf anyone feels that they have been treated unfairly by public services, we encourage them to utilise established complaint mechanisms on the official website of the relevant government department, local council, or NHS trust in question. They may also contact the Equality Advisory Service, whose helpline advises and assists individuals on issues relating to equality and human rights, across England, Scotland and Wales. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-08-18T16:45:50.493Z","updated_at":"2026-08-18T16:45:50.493Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MoJ","name":"Ministry of Justice","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":770527,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770527.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Disapprove the draft Equality Act 2010 guidance laid on 21 May 2026","background":"I want the House of Commons to disapprove the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, 2026 laid on 21 May 2026.","additional_details":"We are concerned that the guidance published on 21 May 2016 could lead to women being excluded from women's spaces based on their appearance. We think that the guidance will make it harder for trans people to participate in sport as either gender, and that it can limit trans people from accessing toilets and other facilities that match their acquired gender. I therefore think the House of Commons should disapprove this draft guidance.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":27527,"closing_date":"2026-12-19","created_at":"2026-05-22T06:04:46.142Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:09:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-06-19T14:37:04.922Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-22T10:11:10.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-24T08:30:40.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-18T16:40:09.072Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rebecca Bennett","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-18","summary":"Disapproving the Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations would leave duty bearers having to comply with the Equality Act 2010 without updated guidance on how to do so. ","details":"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (“EHRC”) has developed a revised Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations (“the Code”). This Code provides guidance for duty bearers on how to comply with the 2010 Act. If a service provider is still unsure, they should seek legal advice.\nThe Code covers discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services, public functions and associations across all protected characteristics. \n\nThe Code was laid before Parliament on 21st May, to allow for a period of Parliamentary scrutiny. That period ended on 9th July, as laid out in the Equality Act 2006. As Parliament did not disapprove the draft Code, the new Code was brought in through the process required by the Equality Act 2006 from 5 August.\n\nWith regards to women being excluded from spaces based on appearance; the Code explains that it’s not always possible to be sure of someone's sex based on their appearance. Whether it is necessary and proportionate for providers to ask someone about their sex will depend on the specific circumstances. \nAs for trans people accessing toilets and facilities, the Code is clear that trans people should not be left without access to services or facilities. Whilst the Code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that sex, for trans people who don’t feel comfortable using toilets in line with their sex, providers may have other facilities open to them, such as accessible toilets or self-contained lockable toilets - which anyone can use. In places, like cafes, where there are just one or two toilets for both men and women, anyone can use them. The Code is clear that there should be toilet provision for everyone.\n\nWith regards to sport, everyone should be able to enjoy the physical and mental health benefits of sport, and to participate in a way that ensures they feel safe. The Code allows for restrictions in sports in \"gender-affected activities\". Gender-affected activities apply to any sport where the physical strength, stamina, or physique of an average person of one sex would put them at a disadvantage against the other. Organisers should consider if there are other ways to include trans people, such as \"Open\" or \"Mixed-Sex\" categories, rather than total exclusion from the sport entirely.\nBeyond the Code, this Government wants to ensure that all LGBT+ people are safe, included, and protected from discrimination. We have published a draft bill to ban conversion practices, offering protection from these abusive practices. The NHS has commissioned its first ever review to tackle health inequalities experienced by LGBT+ people led by Dr Michael Brady, including access to mental health care, cancer screening and primary care services. The review will be published later this year. Additionally, we have recently enacted stronger legislation to tackle hate crimes based on transgender identity, sexual orientation, and sex, making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. \n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-08-18T16:40:09.070Z","updated_at":"2026-08-18T16:40:09.070Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":760231,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/760231.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Launch a public inquiry into the impact of Section 28 on LGBTQ people","background":"We call on the Government to launch a public inquiry into the impact of Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) which specified that Local Authorities could not intentionally promote, through material or teaching, homosexuality or same-sex relationships as a 'pretended family relationship’","additional_details":"Section 28 created a very hostile environment for young people and staff in secondary schools from its introduction in 1988 until it was finally repealed in 2003. Students were unable to get support at school and staff were forced to hide their identity, fearing they would be sacked. This hostile culture continued after repeal and impacts LGBTQ people throughout their life. \r\n\r\nA public inquiry is needed to assess the impact this had and to what extent the culture it created still exists today.","committee_note":null,"state":"open","signature_count":26656,"closing_date":"2026-09-24","created_at":"2026-02-06T14:32:27.678Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T12:19:20.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-24T14:09:26.370Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-16T13:38:00.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-06-12T11:15:10.000Z","government_response_at":"2026-08-18T16:30:47.613Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Steven Jones","rejection":null,"government_response":{"responded_on":"2026-08-18","summary":"The government recognises the harm done by Section 28. A previous Labour government repealed it, and this government is focused on advancing LGBT+ equality rather than a public inquiry.","details":"The government recognises the devastating impact of Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) on LGBT+ people in the UK. There is no place for discriminatory legislation in the UK, where all people, no matter their background or LGBT+ identity, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to enjoy full inclusion in society. \n\nSection 28 was a discriminatory clause introduced by the Conservative government in the Local Government Act (1988) that prohibited local authorities from promoting homosexuality itself, as well as the promotion of any form of LGBT+ family unit. In practice, it created a culture of fear, whereby LGBT+ people faced higher levels of abuse and could not live freely as themselves. Young people who were questioning their sexuality were isolated and unable to get the support they needed. It discouraged professionals from sharing clear information about sexuality, relationships and sexual health and led to local authorities withdrawing funding from LGBT+ organisations providing education and sport.\n\nSection 28 was repealed in Scotland through the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 and in England and Wales through the Local Government Act 2003. \n\nThe repeal of Section 28 was one of many legislative changes made to promote LGBT+ equality under the 1997-2010 government. On 30 November 2000, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16, bringing parity with heterosexual acts. The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003) were the first time LGB workplace protections were enshrined in UK law. These regulations made it illegal to discriminate against LGB people in the workplace or vocational training. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 established a legal framework for the legal recognition of same sex couples, and gave access to rights previously only afforded to heterosexual married couples. The UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 pioneered legal gender recognition without requiring sterilisation or surgery. The Adoption and Children Act came into force in 2005, allowing same-sex couples to adopt. The Equality Act 2010 brought together over 116 separate pieces of legislation into one single act, simplifying equality law and helping Britain become a fairer society.\n\nWith the protections these offer, we have seen greater acceptance of LGBT+ people in public life and acknowledgement of the harmful impact of discriminatory policies such as Section 28. David Cameron, the former leader of the opposition, publicly apologised for Section 28 in 2009, and during a Westminster Hall Debate in 2023, held on the 20th anniversary of the repeal of Section 28, MPs from all parties came together to reflect on its historic impact and the chilling effect it had. \n\nThis does not mean that the work is over. This government continues to work to fulfil the commitments set out in our 2024 manifesto, rather than focusing on an inquiry into the past. This government has published inclusive, age-appropriate Relationship, Health and Sex Education statutory guidance for schools, encouraging schools to teach about healthy relationships, including same-sex relationships. This government has delivered on the commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, successfully making them aggravated offences through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. This government is working to improve LGBT+ people’s access to healthcare, including commissioning a review by Dr Brady, the National LGBT+ Healthcare Advisor, to provide expert insight and recommendations to reduce health inequalities. This government has also published a draft Bill to deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.\n\nIn light of the above we do not believe that establishing a public inquiry into the impact of Section 28 is the right approach, but we do recognise the significant impact it has had on those who lived through it, including following its repeal. Public inquiries are typically used to establish facts about what happened and why, and to learn from events in order to reduce the likelihood of something similar happening in future. Since the law was passed in Parliament, its origins and motivations are already on the public record. A public inquiry would not establish any new facts. The Act and its impacts continue to be a relevant topic during discussions on LGBT+ equality policy, so the mistakes of the past are never repeated.\n\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2026-08-18T16:30:47.611Z","updated_at":"2026-08-18T16:30:47.611Z"},"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"DfE","name":"Department for Education","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":762149,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/762149.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Set up a National Commission on Electoral Reform to review the electoral system","background":"I ask the Government to set up a National Commission on Electoral Reform, as advocated by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections. It should be an independent, time limited, expert led review to build consensus for changing the electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.","additional_details":"Along with 60% of the British public, according to some data, I believe it is time to change the voting system for the Westminster Parliament and review alternatives. I believe that too many people feel their votes do not count, and that under the First Past the Post system millions of votes are wasted and representation bears little resemblance to votes cast. In my view, a more proportional voting system would help ensure that representation reflected votes cast and that voters would be treated with respect.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":26432,"closing_date":"2026-09-30","created_at":"2026-02-22T16:43:35.676Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T11:22:40.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-03-30T08:05:13.154Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-02-25T10:59:40.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-03T13:07:50.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Joan Ruddock","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"MHCLG","name":"Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-local-government"}],"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","id":776949,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/776949.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce urgent moratorium on AI Data Centres and BESS outside AI Growth Zones","background":"Introduce: (1) an immediate moratorium on planning approvals for BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) and Data Centres outside designated AI Growth Zones; (2) mandatory Rural Impact Assessments conducted at local level; and (3) mandatory comprehensive investigation into financing of all proposals.","additional_details":"We believe robust evaluation is needed as to: (i) the cost-benefit analysis of each BESS/Data Centre; and (ii) all financing, including non-UK-based funds. Proposals outside AI Growth Zones can be highly problematic, because they may seek to evade regulation and Government scrutiny. Rural areas are especially vulnerable. There are reports of farmers being threatened with compulsory purchase. Loss of farmland could endanger UK food security. Irreparable harm may be caused to heritage, landscapes, ecology, public health and wellbeing.","committee_note":"","state":"open","signature_count":26161,"closing_date":"2027-02-17","created_at":"2026-07-13T16:08:22.844Z","updated_at":"2026-09-09T13:39:00.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-08-17T15:35:51.602Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-07-13T17:06:30.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-08-24T17:48:30.000Z","government_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"debate_scheduled_on":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin","rejection":null,"government_response":null,"debate":null,"departments":[{"acronym":"ESNZ","name":"Department for Energy Security and Net Zero","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero"}],"topics":[]}}]}