Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what steps the Government is taking to return all future surplus investment returns in the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to beneficiaries.

Answered by Chris McDonald - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)

The Government and the Trustees have discussed the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme Trustees’ proposals for the future of the Scheme. DESNZ will now work with the Treasury to seek to reach an agreement that can be implemented at the next Scheme valuation in September 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it a statutory duty for judges to comply with guidance in the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

In line with the principle of judicial independence, it is the senior judiciary and not the Government who have statutory responsibility for judicial guidance and training.

It would therefore not be constitutionally appropriate for the Government to seek to prescribe how this responsibility should be discharged.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure safe, transparent and non-discriminatory judicial use of artificial intelligence.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The judiciary are constitutionally independent and have established their own procedures and policies governing the use of artificial intelligence. Guidance for judicial office holders on the appropriate and responsible use of AI has been issued by the judiciary and is publicly available on the judiciary’s website.

Judicial office holders, like civil servants within the Ministry of Justice, have been provided with secure versions of Microsoft Copilot. The deployment of this tool for judicial use has been subject to a data protection impact assessment to ensure compliance with data protection legislation and principles.

The judiciary’s approach to AI is designed to ensure that any use of AI by judicial office holders is safe, transparent, and consistent with the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, while preserving judicial independence.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to require public authority respondents in Judicial Review hearings to confirm compliance with the duty of candour at Permission Stage.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The duty of candour is a well-established principle in judicial review, and its application is clearly set out in the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide.

The duty of candour applies at all stages of judicial review proceedings. This duty requires all parties to ensure that relevant information is put before the Court, whether it supports or undermines their case. There is a particular obligation on public authorities to ensure that this duty is fulfilled given they are engaged in a common enterprise with the Court to fulfil the public interest in upholding the rule of law.

At the permission stage, public authorities are required to identify any material facts, highlight any matters of factual dispute and provide a summary of the reasoning underlying the measures in question. The Court can take into account a lack of candour in deciding whether to grant permission.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to amend the Civil Procedure Rules to make explicit that litigants-in-person are not to be denied procedural safeguards normally afforded to represented parties, including circulation of draft reserved judgments.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Civil court rules governing judgments and orders are set out in Part 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and are supplemented by Practice Directions (PD). PD40E provides additional directions in relation to reserved judgments before they are handed down. Paragraph 2.3 of PD40E states that the court will provide a copy of the draft judgment to the parties’ legal representatives, however, paragraph 2.4 goes on to state that a copy of the draft judgment may be supplied to the parties provided that they: 1) do not disclose it or its substance to anyone else; and 2) do not take any action in relation to the judgment until it is handed down. This, therefore, provides for litigants in person to be given an embargoed/draft judgment and to engage with the steps taken before such a judgment is handed down.

It is also important to recognise that Part 1 of the CPR sets out the overriding objective of the rules. These overriding objectives include ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings. This is the principal safeguard under pinning how the rules operate in practice.

Palestine Action hunger strike

Independent Office for Police Conduct findings on Norman Bettison

Israel’s use of cluster munitions

50th anniversary of Franco’s death

Buying community energy locally

Safe and legal routes for Sudanese people to the UK

New private capital in the NHS in the Autumn Budget

Budget 2025 and living standards

50 years of service to the RMT by John Stewart, Leeds RMT Branch Secretary

Independence of Healthwatch England

Local Healthwatch

Found: Rebecca Paul (Conservative; Reigate) Rachel Taylor (Labour; North Warwickshire and Bedworth) Nadia Whittome

Found: Nia Griffith; Christine Jardine; Kim Leadbeater; Kevin McKenna; Rebecca Paul; Rachel Taylor; Nadia Whittome

This inquiry examines why and how Black people face disproportionate risks of homelessness. It will also consider what measures the Government should include in its upcoming cross-departmental homelessness and rough sleeping strategy.