Petitions

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I present this petition on behalf of my constituents on day 8 of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism.

Dangerous depictions of violence in offline pornography, such as in magazines, are rightly prohibited under UK law, yet no equivalent laws apply to online pornography, despite its scale and accessibility. The Internet Watch Foundation published over 290,000 reports, with 97% depicting violent child sexual abuse against girls.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003138]

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

No place is more inappropriate for a 25-hectare solar farm than the nature-rich farmland in Loxwood and Wisborough Green. One hundred and seventy-four residents and four separate parish councils have objected to the proposal. Solar on this scale is better off on supermarket roofs above car parks and on brownfield sites. I am sad to say that the local Liberal Democrats have failed to take a stand, demonstrating that no green field in Sussex is safe.

The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs,

Declares that the proposed site on land to the south, south-west and north-west of Malham Farm and north-west of Oakwood Farm, Wisborough Green is inappropriate for the construction of a 20MW solar farm by Renewable Connections, due to its scale, location, and associated impacts on the rural setting and residents; further declares that there are no exceptional circumstances that require a solar farm to be built there, and that the local harms far outweigh the merits of this proposal.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003140]