Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to amend the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to reflect public comments about trials on social media platforms.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Rules and restrictions on what can be said during ongoing court proceedings are vital to ensure that trials are fair and justice is delivered. The Government recognises that social media is putting these long-established rules under strain, especially in cases where partial and inaccurate information appears online. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of contempt law which considers whether existing legal frameworks allow us to respond effectively to publications and communications that seriously impede or prejudice the course of justice.
At the Government’s request, the Commission expedited parts of the review relating to our ability to counter misinformation. That report was published in November covering liability and contempt and the role of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings.
We are carefully considering the recommendations and will issue a formal response once both reports have been published.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question
To ask the hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Commissioners will hold discussions with the (i) Dean and (ii) Bishop of Hereford to discuss spiritual and community events and celebrations planned for 2026 to recognise 1,350 years since the founding of the Bishopric of Hereford in 676.
Answered by Marsha De Cordova
The Church Commissioners are in regular discussion with the Bishop of Hereford and the Dean of Hereford.
The Diocese of Hereford has planned an extensive range of activities to mark the 1350th anniversary of its foundation.
The full events list and resources for schools and community groups is available on the Diocese’s website.
The National Church Institutions continue to give thanks for the ongoing missional work of the clergy, lay staff, and volunteers of the Diocese, and congratulate them on all their efforts to support the spiritual and community life across the Hereford Diocese.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question
To ask the hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations she has received on the reduction in the budget for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme from (i) the Bishop of Hereford and (ii) the Bishop of Lichfield and (iii) any other senior clergy within the Diocese of Hereford or the Diocese of Lichfield.
Answered by Marsha De Cordova
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport announced the replacement scheme to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme on the 21st January.
The National Church Institutions welcomed the new Places of Worship Renewal Fund and await details of how it will operate with interest. The operational details are yet to be published, and the current scheme ends on the 31st March 2026. The full press release from the National Church Institutions can be found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/media/news-and-press-releases/national-treasures-common-good-new-repairs-fund-announced
The Diocese of Hereford and the Diocese of Lichfield are still examining the implications of the new scheme. They continue to work closely with the National Church Institutions on the best strategy to maximise the help available to local parishes.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford asked a question in the House of Lords about the operation of the new scheme on Monday, 26th January, 2026. In response, the Rt. Hon. Lord Livermore, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said “the details of the new scheme would be published soon”. In subsequent correspondence with the Minister, the Bishop of Hereford has sought assurance that the new grant scheme would keep to a minimum the administrative burdens on parishes. We welcome the Government’s indication that it will work with the Church of England to ensure the scheme is fair and transparent.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to (a) increase the availability of aspirin and (b) normalise aspirin supply chains.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department is aware of a recent disruption to the supply of aspirin dispersible tablets and are working with suppliers to understand the causes and aid a return to normal supply as soon as possible. Supply issues have been addressed, and stock is regularly being made available for pharmacies to order.
We are working with all partners in the supply chain, including manufacturers and United Kingdom distributors, to ensure maximum accessibility to pharmacies and hospitals irrespective of where they are in the country.
The Department will continue to monitor the situation and expects supplies to return to normal over the coming weeks.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether any (i) UK and (ii) Commonwealth armed forces personnel have had their Armed Forces Pension revoked as a consequence of fighting with the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
Pension forfeiture for public service pension schemes, including the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, is governed by primary and secondary legislation, notably the Pensions Act 1995 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Assignment, Forfeiture, Bankruptcy etc.) Regulations 1997. Under this legislative framework, an Armed Forces pension may only be forfeited following certain serious criminal convictions, except in cases involving a monetary obligation.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no recorded instances of an Armed Forces pension being forfeited as a result of an individual fighting for Russia in Ukraine. Neither is the MOD aware of any successful convictions of active or former Service personnel for fighting on behalf of Russia in Ukraine.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to defend the UK from (a) ballistic and (b) hypersonic missile attack.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
The Ministry of Defence does not comment on specific capabilities, as doing so could provide an operational advantage to those who may seek to harm the UK.
The UK has a suite of capabilities to tackle the missile threat which is advancing, proliferating and converging. The Government has announced an investment of up to £1 billion this Parliament to enhance our integrated air and missile defence with a focus on homeland defence. The UK's nuclear deterrent exists to deter the most extreme threats to the UK and our Allies. Its purpose is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will update the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Prime Minister values the independent and robust oversight which the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) provides. Following discussions with the Committee, the Cabinet Office is conducting a review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Prime Minister and the Committee. Any changes made to the MOU would need to be agreed by both the Prime Minister and the ISC.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what steps she is taking to support the prosecution of (a) individuals who post comments online about defendants prior to trial which could prejudice legal proceedings, and (b) the tech platforms on which those comments are published.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is clear that publishing information that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to any active proceedings can be contempt of court. These rules and restrictions are in place to ensure that trials are fair and justice is delivered.
The Government recognises that social media is putting these long-established rules under strain especially in cases where partial or inaccurate information appears online. This is why we asked the Law Commission to expedite part of their review on contempt of court. In November 2025, the Law Commission published part 1 of their report setting out recommendations for a new framework of contempt liability. The Government is considering their recommendations.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what advice and support his Department is providing to people in Shropshire who claim they have contracted, or might develop, serious illnesses as a result of using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Individuals in Shropshire who believe they may have been affected by use of talcum products should seek medical advice from their general practitioner. They may also wish to consider contacting specialist organisations for support and information on legal action.
The Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the Government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. Additives in medicines, termed excipients, are required to comply with the standards laid down in pharmacopeial monographs and can only be included in medicinal products at levels that are considered to be safe.
The MHRA is aware of general concerns in relation to the presence of asbestos in commercial talcum powder. However, pharmaceutical grade talcum powder has strict controls on the presence of asbestos. The British Pharmacopeia monograph for Purified Talc states that “Talc derived from deposits that are known to contain associated asbestos is not suitable for pharmaceutical use”. Furthermore, testing is required to confirm the absence of asbestos.
Oversight of commercial talc powder, including advice and support, falls within the remit of the Department for Business and Trade and specifically the Office of Product Safety and Standards (OPSS). The OPSS is the regulator of product safety and seeks to ensure that manufacturers, importers, and all those in the supply chain take steps to ensure that consumer products are safe, and they take any reports of negative health outcomes related to products incredibly seriously. Any serious undesirable effects related to cosmetic products should be directly reported to OPSS, to ensure that they can take the correct action. If a consumer wishes to report a serious undesirable effect, OPSS recommend contacting Trading Standards who can support with the process.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps he is able to take to encourage Ofcom to sanction Royal Mail if it fails to fulfil its Universal Service Obligation.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
It is for Ofcom, as the independent regulator of postal services, to decide how to use its powers to investigate and take enforcement action should Royal Mail fail to achieve its obligations without good justification.
In October last year, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for failing to meet its quality of service targets and has told Royal Mail it must urgently publish and implement a credible plan that delivers major and continuous improvement. This is the third consecutive fine issued by the regulator after Royal Mail failed to meet service levels in the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years.