Concorder Civic Lab
National civic lab focused on mobility, urban planning, and green transitions. We help public instit...
Proposals
Members
Tobacco and Vapes Bill: how should the UK regulate vaping?
What this decision is aboutThe Tobacco and Vapes Bill is moving through Parliament and would reshape how the UK regulates tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products. The Bill’s long title includes a “smoke-free generation” measure (prohibiting tobacco sales to people born on or after 1 January 2009), plus new powers on retail licensing/registration, advertising and promotion controls, and rules for smoke-free, vape-free and heated tobacco-free places.At the same time, the Government is consulting on where new smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free rules should apply in England — especially in outdoor places used by children or medically vulnerable people. In parallel, HMRC has set out the design for a new Vaping Products Duty (VPD) due to start on 1 October 2026, using a flat rate rather than a previously consulted tiered-rate approach.Why people disagreeSupporters say the Tobacco and Vapes Bill can reduce youth uptake and protect people from secondhand smoke and vapour in key settings. Critics in Parliament have warned that many practical effects will be set later through secondary legislation (for example on vape descriptors, flavours, advertising restrictions and vape-free zones). They argue rules should be evidence-based, avoid unnecessary burdens on small retailers and hospitality, and avoid making smoking cessation harder for former smokerWhat this proposal asks you to vote onBill approach: Should the UK proceed with the Bill’s framework as drafted, or tighten how key vaping rules are decided?Smoke/vape-free places: Which outdoor places in England should be included (and what should stay exempt)?Vaping Products Duty design: Should the duty remain a flat rate, or return to a tiered structure by nicotine strength?What you can doVote, comment with evidence, and suggest improvements that keep the Tobacco and Vapes Bill effective, workable for retailers and services, and aligned with public health goals.
London facial recognition checks: pause, pilot with limits, or expand?
London is moving into a new phase of facial recognition in policing: a pilot where officers can use handheld tools to check faces against watchlists during interactions. Supporters say this could reduce wrongful arrests, speed up identity checks, and help find people who are wanted or missing. Critics warn it may normalize face scanning in public spaces, expand stop-and-search in practice, and deepen trust issues if oversight, accuracy, and safeguards are not strong enough.The issue is not just “technology good or bad”. It’s about what is acceptable in day-to-day life, what rules constrain use, and who is accountable when mistakes happen. This proposal is a structured way to decide what London should ask for next: a pause, a tightly limited pilot, or a broader expansion tied to clear conditions.First, the policy direction for operator-initiated facial recognition checks. Then, the guardrails London should insist on, regardless of direction. The goal is a decision that is understandable, enforceable, and reviewable over time.When should face scanning be allowed, and when should it be off-limits?What level of independent oversight is needed, and with what powers?How should accuracy, bias, and error-handling be tested and reported?What happens to data for non-matches, and how is that audited?Use comments to suggest concrete limits, for example “only for violent crime watchlists”, “no use for low-level checks”, “public reporting every month”, or “independent approval before scaling”.
Ireland’s Defamation Act 2026: what should be prioritised now?
Context: Ireland’s defamation overhaul is now live (and still debated)In February 2026, Ireland enacted the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026, described in Irish reporting as the most significant change to defamation law since 2009. The reform was widely framed as an attempt to reduce the “chilling effect” of unpredictable, high-cost litigation on journalism and public participation, while still protecting a person’s good name and access to justice.From 1 March 2026, most provisions commenced. These include: moving High Court defamation actions to judge-only trials (rather than juries), simplifying the defence of fair publication in the public interest, encouraging alternative dispute resolution (including a revised offer-of-amends procedure), creating new statutory defences for retail defamation and live broadcasting, and introducing a “serious harm” test for corporate claimants. Another notable change is giving the Circuit Court statutorAt the same time, Ireland is also discussing how best to tackle SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). While the Act contains SLAPP-related provisions in the defamation context, the Government signalled that commencement of those measures is being aligned with a separate Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill intended to extend safeguards beyond defamation into other civil and commercial proceedings.What this proposal asks you to decideThis vote mirrors the public debate in Irish news coverage: should the priority be (1) making the new framework deliver real, practical protection for responsible public-interest journalism, (2) ensuring faster and more predictable access to justice for people whose reputations are unfairly harmed, or (3) focusing on enforcement tools such as unmasking anonymous posters? Your votes also indicate which specific reforms should be emphasised in implementation, guidance, and public communication in
Hamburg Olympics referendum 2026: venue clusters and safeguards
Hamburg will hold a binding referendum on 31 May 2026 about whether the city should pursue a bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games (for 2036, 2040, or 2044). In the past, Olympic bids have divided cities: some residents see a once-in-a-generation push for infrastructure and global visibility, while others worry about rising costs, pressure on rents, and environmental impacts. In Hamburg, the debate is active again, with the Senate campaigning for approval and opponents pushing for strongeFor many people, the question isn’t only “yes or no” on the bid. It’s also: what kind of bid is this, where would the main impacts land, and what safeguards should be non-negotiable before anything scales? This proposal is designed to make those choices concrete by focusing on venue clustering (which areas carry the heaviest footprint) and on timing for financial transparency, when public trust is easiest to lose.A preferred venue cluster approach, expressed through concrete anchor locationsA public timeline for publishing a full cost and funding picture before key milestonesA short list of safeguards that should be treated as deal-breakersA strong outcome doesn’t try to silence disagreement. It produces a clearer mandate: if residents lean toward “yes”, they also signal what kind of Olympics Hamburg should pursue and where protections must be stronger. If residents lean toward “no”, the results still surface the specific concerns that drove that position, rather than leaving leaders to guess.Vote on the venue cluster approach and the transparency timeline, then choose the safeguards you want tied to any next steps. Use comments to add missing impacts, especially housing pressure, waterfront access, or transit pinch points you think are underestimated.
UK under-16 social media ban debate: what should happen next?
Context: a high-profile Commons vote and an unresolved policy choiceIn early March 2026, the UK’s debate over a potential social media ban for under-16s surged after MPs voted down a proposed ban amendment linked to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The issue remains live: supporters argue a ban is needed to reduce online harms for children, while opponents (including some child-safety voices) warn a blanket ban could push young people into less regulated online spaces.Coverage of the vote also highlighted that, even without an outright ban, ministers may pursue a different route: stronger powers and a consultation-led approach that could introduce age restrictions, measures aimed at VPN use, and regulation of so-called addictive product features (for example autoplay). This proposal mirrors that public debate and asks your community to choose a direction that is both politically realistic and focused on child safety.What this proposal is trying to decideBig decision: Should the UK pursue an Australia-style under-16 ban, or a narrower framework built around age restrictions and feature-level controls?Policy package: If the UK avoids a blanket ban, which specific measures should be prioritized (age restrictions, VPN-related steps, addictive feature rules)?Timing and process: Should action be immediate (legislation now) or staged through consultation and subsequent regulation?How to use thisVote on the overall direction, then select the measures you think should be on the government’s shortlist. Use comments to cite additional reporting, explain trade-offs, and suggest safeguards (privacy, enforceability, unintended consequences) consistent with the public debate described in the sources.
Canada online harms bill: should Ottawa ban social media for kids?
Context: a renewed Canadian debate, with a global backdropIn early March 2026, Canada’s discussion about online harms and child exploitation re-ignited after Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada should have an open debate about a possible social media ban for children as part of upcoming online harms legislation. Carney did not commit to a ban, saying there are arguments on both sides, but argued Canada is “lagging” on legislation related to online harms and the exploitation of children. Reporting also noted that earlier online harms legislation intrThis Canadian debate is happening while multiple countries consider (or implement) age limits for social media. Commentary and policy tracking highlight the central trade-off: supporters frame age limits as child-safety protections, while critics warn that bans can be technically porous, may push teens toward less-regulated corners of the internet, and often rely on intrusive age-assurance systems that create privacy and surveillance risks.What this proposal asks you to decideDirection: Should Canada pursue a child social media ban, an “age of majority” threshold, or a non-ban approach within an Online Harms Bill?Package: If Ottawa brings back online harms legislation, which child-safety obligations on platforms should be emphasized publicly?Privacy line: How much age verification should be acceptable, given concerns that strict age-gating can drive data collection and surveillance?This proposal is designed to “ride the news” responsibly: the vote options and the pro/cons are limited to what is described in the sources below. Use comments to add additional reporting, explain enforceability concerns, and propose safeguards—always citing sources.
Queensland hate speech laws: tighten, pause, or expand safeguards?
Context: Queensland passed sweeping hate speech changes amid a national debateQueensland has passed new hate speech laws that broaden what can be prosecuted when certain expressions are used in a way that makes a member of the public feel menaced, harassed, or offended. Coverage also highlights last-minute amendments that specifically ban particular phrases when used in that way, alongside related changes to gun laws. The reforms landed in an environment where Australian federal and state governments have been debating how to respond to hate crimes and political extremismAcross Australian reporting, the public disagreement is not only about whether hate speech should be tackled (most agree it should), but how. Some voices emphasize the need for strong deterrence and faster action after high-profile incidents. Others argue that laws using broad concepts can create uncertainty for public debate, activism, and artistic expression; critics also worry about selective enforcement or mission creep.This proposal mirrors that live debate and turns it into three decisions: what direction Queensland should take next, when the community should hold structured public forums to capture feedback, and where those forums should take place for maximum access and transparency.What this proposal asks you to vote onPolicy direction: keep the current framework, amend it with tighter definitions and safeguards, or pause and commission an independent review.Public process: select feasible dates for community forums and evidence submissions.Access: select accessible civic venues for those forums.Use comments to add additional Queensland and national reporting, legal analysis, and community statements—always citing sources and separating facts from opinions.
Canada pharmacare next step: expand now or renegotiate first?
Context: pharmacare is moving, but the next step is disputedCanada’s national pharmacare effort is at a decision point. Federal material explains the current direction and the first-phase focus on covered categories (including contraception and diabetes medications, with coverage delivered through agreements with provinces and territories). In parallel, recent Canadian political coverage highlights a public disagreement about what should happen next: critics say the federal government has not been clear about whether it intends to keep expanding pharmacaThis proposal is designed to capture that live debate and convert it into a structured civic decision: should Canada push for faster expansion, pause to renegotiate how deals are funded and structured, or keep pharmacare limited until provinces sign on under current terms?What this proposal asks you to decidePolicy direction: what should Ottawa prioritize next on pharmacare expansion and deal-making?Public process: when should public forums be held to gather evidence and views?Access: where should forums be hosted to maximize participation across regions?Use comments to add additional recent reporting, provincial statements, and documented stakeholder positions. Keep claims tied to sources and distinguish evidence from personal experience.
Urban 30 km/h in Europe: where should we pilot it next in 2026?
Across Europe, city leaders are revisiting urban speed limits as a practical way to reduce deaths and serious injuries—especially for vulnerable road users. In February 2026, the European Commission published a mid-point progress report on the EU Road Safety Policy Framework (2021–2030), noting that current progress is not fast enough to hit the 2030 targets. The same policy package highlights urban measures such as 30 km/h as high-impact actions for safety.This proposal is international by design: it helps a community or city network choose how to run a 30 km/h pilot (enforcement-first, infrastructure-first, or data-led phased rollout), and which specific corridors or districts should be prioritised. Because locations are part of the decision, the options use map-ready coordinates to make comparisons concrete.Which implementation approach we should adopt for a 12-month pilotWhich cities/corridors should be the first candidates for the pilotWhich success metrics must be reported publicly (speed compliance, injuries, perception)Rank the implementation approaches. Then select all priority pilot locations you support (multi-select). In comments: suggest additional candidate corridors, and propose the minimum “public dashboard” indicators you want to see each month.
DSA 2026: election integrity and platform risk responses in the EU
Across the EU, the Digital Services Act (DSA) is reshaping how very large online platforms and search engines manage systemic risks, including risks linked to electoral processes and information integrity. In February 2026, the European Commission marked two years of DSA application (for most platforms since February 2024) and reiterated the shared enforcement model between national Digital Services Coordinators and the Commission for the largest services.This proposal is designed for a cross-border civic coalition (NGOs, journalists, election observers, digital rights groups) that wants to coordinate a practical 2026 “election integrity playbook” aligned with the DSA’s risk-management logic: define what to monitor, how to escalate, what transparency to demand, and how to communicate findings responsibly.Which coordination model to adopt (rapid monitoring, structured escalation, or transparency-first)Which deliverables to publish and whenWhich minimum evidence standards and safeguards we requireOptions include attachments to authoritative references and date ranges because timing is explicitly part of the decision.
Plastics Treaty 2026: city commitments after INC-5.3
In February 2026, the UN plastics treaty process held the third part of its fifth session (INC-5.3). The UNEP session documentation notes that the resumed session focused on organizational matters, including leadership, rather than substantive negotiations. Even so, the treaty’s direction and the policy debate around production caps, product design, and waste responsibilities remain highly relevant for cities—where packaging rules, procurement, and collection systems translate global goals into This proposal is for an international city/community coalition that wants to make 2026 commitments aligned with the emerging treaty direction: reduce single-use plastics in public procurement, accelerate reuse/refill, and publish measurable leakage metrics. The decision includes a real timeline and a choice of in-person workshop hubs.Which commitment package to adopt for 2026–2027Which workshop hub(s) to convene in-person sessionsWhich minimum measurement/reporting requirements must be includedOptions include attachments to primary sources, date ranges, and locations because those elements are genuinely being decided.
Rye gas leaf blower ban: set the start date and focus areas
Rye has adopted a year-round ban on gas-powered leaf blowers after years of debate about noise, health, and neighborhood quality of life. Many residents want the quiet back as soon as possible. Landscapers and some homeowners argue that changing equipment and workflows takes time, and that a rushed transition could create cost spikes and inconsistent compliance.Instead of reopening the question of whether there should be a ban, this proposal focuses on the two decisions that will make or break it in daily life: when it truly starts, and where enforcement should be most consistent so the city doesn’t end up with a rule that exists on paper but not on streets.The effective start date for full enforcementThe zones Rye should treat as enforcement priorities in the first seasonUse comments for practical detail. If you know specific blocks where noise is constant, or times of day when it’s worst, that’s valuable.
London handheld facial recognition pilot: choose limits, places, and review dates
London is preparing a six-month pilot where officers can use handheld facial recognition to verify identity during encounters. City Hall argues quick verification can prevent unnecessary arrests when someone can’t easily prove who they are. Critics argue it could normalize face scanning in everyday policing and widen the impact of stop-and-check, especially if oversight and reporting are weak.People often talk past each other on this topic. Some want an outright pause. Others want a tightly limited pilot that either proves itself under strict scrutiny or stops. Another group wants expansion sooner. The details that matter most are concrete: where it can be used, when the public sees results, and what triggers a stop.This proposal sets three linked choices. First, the overall stance on the pilot. Second, where it is allowed to operate. Third, when the first public review must happen, so governance is not pushed to the end after habits form.
Low-Emission Zones 2026: exemptions, enforcement, and public support
Across Europe (and increasingly worldwide), Low-Emission Zones (LEZs) and Clean Air Zones are being expanded or tightened to cut traffic pollution and protect health. Evidence and toolkits for cities emphasize that outcomes depend on practical design choices: how exemptions are handled, how enforcement is communicated, and how support is provided to residents and small businesses during the transition.This proposal is intentionally international (not tied to one city): it helps a community or city network choose a 2026 operational package that balances air-quality impact with fairness and public trust. It also showcases Concorder’s mixed options: attachments to credible guidance, date ranges for campaign timing, and map-ready locations for physical info points.Which operational package to run in 2026 (clarity, enforcement, or equity-first transition)When to concentrate communication and support activities (timeline)Where to place physical information/help points (map)Rank the packages, then select all timing windows and info-point locations you support. In comments: add common “confusion cases” (exemptions, occasional access, caregivers, tradespeople) and the top information that must be on the first page of any public guidance.
Barcelona tourism tax 2026: pick priority areas and a spending plan
Barcelona’s tourism tax is rising sharply from 1 April 2026, and public debate is already split. Some residents want the extra money to visibly relieve pressure on housing and daily services. Parts of the tourism industry argue the increase is too steep and should have been phased in. Whatever position someone takes on the tax itself, the next question is unavoidable: where should the additional revenue go first, and in which parts of the city should people feel it?This proposal makes that choice explicit. It asks residents to rank spending approaches and to choose priority zones where interventions should be concentrated in 2026, rather than spreading funds too thinly to be noticed.A ranked spending approach for the additional tourism tax revenueThe specific areas where the city should prioritize action in 2026Comments are welcome, especially if you can point to daily pain points: overcrowded streets, waste, noise at night, or housing stress signals.