Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate her Department has made of the number of specific licences granted by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation under the category of legal fees that permitted the use of frozen assets to (a) initiate and (b) pursue legal proceedings against UK (i) citizens and (ii) residents; and what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of its policies on licensed funds on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

Answered by Rachel Blake

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation does not hold data in a form that would allow it to identify how many legal fees licences have been granted permitting the use of frozen assets to fund legal action against UK citizens or residents.

Following an internal review commissioned by Treasury Ministers, the Government set out its position in a Written Ministerial Statement in January 2023, confirming that OFSI's legal fees licensing decisions must carefully balance the fundamental right to legal representation against the wider aims and purpose of sanctions. Whilst it remains for the Courts, not the Government, to decide whether legal claims should be permitted to succeed, the Government is clear that courts and the legal system must not be used by those seeking to silence investigations in the public interest.

As a result of the review, the Government committed to further targeted changes to the legal fees licensing process, introducing a presumption that applications for specific licences relating to defamation and similar cases will be rejected, and amending the Russian and Belarusian Legal Services General Licence so that it no longer authorises legal fees for such cases.

In parallel, the Government announced primary legislation tackling Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), including a statutory definition, an early dismissal process, and costs protection, and updated the delegation framework to make clear when Ministers, rather than officials, must take licensing decisions personally. That primary legislation has since been enacted. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, led by the Ministry of Justice, includes provisions specifically addressing SLAPPs, delivering on that commitment. The Act can be found here: Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to Recommendation 2 of the Police Accountability Rapid Review published by Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin, what progress his Department has made on launching a public consultation on the standard of proof for unlawful killing conclusions in coronial inquests; and what his planned timetable is for launching that consultation.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government accepted the recommendation by the independent Police Accountability Rapid Review that there should be a full public consultation on the issue of the standard of proof for the short-form conclusion of unlawful killing in inquests.

We are committed to launching the consultation as soon as practicable and will carefully consider all responses before deciding on any next steps.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to raise the standard of proof required for conclusions of unlawful killing at inquests from the civil standard back to the criminal standard.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government accepted the recommendation by the independent Police Accountability Rapid Review that there should be a full public consultation on the issue of the standard of proof for the short-form conclusion of unlawful killing in inquests.

We are committed to launching the consultation as soon as practicable and will carefully consider all responses before deciding on any next steps.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many passes to the parliamentary estate were active at the end of each calendar year between 2015 and 2025, broken down by (a) Members of the House of Commons, (b) Members' staff and interns, (c) political parties, (d) former Members of the House of Commons, (e) Members of the House of Lords, (f) Peers' staff and interns, (g) retired Peers, (h) Hereditary Peers, (i) direct employees of the House of Commons, (j) Member's spouses and partners, (k) direct employees of the House (Bicameral), (l) direct Employees of the House of Lords, (m) Peer's Spouses and partners, (n) specialist advisers employed by the House of Commons (o) specialist advisers employed by the House of Lords, (p) Civil Servants and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), (q) partners and contracting companies that do not require a Health & Safety Induction (r) partners and contracting companies that require a Health & Safety Induction, (s) media, (t) gymnasium members only and (u) R&R Management.

Answered by Nick Smith

The parliamentary pass system is a live database providing a current snapshot of data. It does not store historical information. Therefore, we are unable to extract the information as requested.

From 2020, the pass office kept some manual records of active pass numbers in groups. These are not grouped exactly as per the question, and the raw data was not retained to be able to retrospectively regroup this information. These numbers do not include day passes for MPs’ staff whose security clearance application indicated a requirement to attend Parliament on an occasional basis.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many passes to the parliamentary estate were granted in each calendar year between 2015 and 2025, broken down by (a) Members of the House of Commons, (b) Members' staff and interns, (c) political parties, (d) former Members of the House of Commons, (e) Members of the House of Lords, (f) Peers' Staff and Interns, (g) retired Peers, (h) Hereditary Peers, (i) direct employees of the House of Commons, (j) Member's Spouse/Partner, (k) direct employees of the House (Bicameral), (l) direct employees of the House of Lords, (m) Peer's spouses and partners, (n) specialist advisers employed by the House of Commons, (o) specialist advisers employed by the House of Lords, (p) Civil Servants and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), (q) partners and contracting companies that do not require a Health and Safety Induction (r) partners and contracting companies that require a Health and Safety Induction, (s) media, (t) gymnasium members only and (u) R&R Management.

Answered by Nick Smith

The parliamentary pass system does not hold data for the number of passes granted to new applicants each year. We do hold some data breaking down the number of new applications processed for the past two years, of which only a very small proportion are refused. The application numbers also include some who require security clearance but do not need a pass to enter the estate ('clearance only' applications). It is not possible to disaggregate 'clearance only' or rejected applications from the data.

These figures are not grouped exactly as per the request, and the raw data is not retained in this format. These figures do not include day passes, renewals or replacements.

Found: PRESENT Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [Chair] Rt Hon David Davis

Found: URLExtranet Resource1December 2, 2025 9:46:55 AM UTCjohnsmytheinvestigations.wordpress.com/2025/05/08/david-davis-his-parliamentary-speeches-regarding-the-alex-salmond-case-part