Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the statement on Local Government Reorganisation of 7 September 2026, what factors, other than legal advice received as part of the judicial review process, contributed to the decision to withdraw the decision on local government reorganisation in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.
Answered by Jim McMahon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
On 7 September 2026, the Secretary of State announced that decisions taken for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk would be withdrawn and that implementation of other local government reorganisation decisions would be paused while the Government considers next steps.
It is a longstanding principle that the Government does not comment on or publish legal advice. The Government does not routinely publish correspondence relating to ministerial decision-making.
Asked by: Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many judicial reviews relating to local government reorganisation are currently in progress.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Prior to the Secretary of State's oral statement to Parliament on 7 September 2026 on local government reorganisation, six Judicial Review claims had been issued in relation to decisions. The decisions that were the subject of those proceedings have since been withdrawn.
The Department has also received pre-action correspondence in relation to a number of other local government reorganisation decisions.
Asked by: Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice - North Antrim)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with reference to paragraph 3.4 of the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland Framework Document, whether his Department raised concerns about the activities of the PCNI with its Secretary, requiring explanations and assurances that appropriate action has been taken.
Answered by Sarah Owen - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)
NIO officials maintain regular contact with the Parades Commission Secretariat as part of sponsorship arrangements, and regularly receives information from the Commission regarding corporate matters, such as budgeting and corporate risks. Corporate matters are discussed regularly with the Secretariat.
The Commission’s decision-making regarding parade notifications is independent. In response to recent judicial review proceedings, the Secretary of State commissioned a judge-led review. The review will examine the Commission's decision-making procedures to ensure decisions are evidence-based, transparent, robust and fair, and that procedural defects identified are addressed.
Asked by: Alex Easton (Independent - North Down)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of Professor Evelyn Collins CBE as Chair of the Parades Commission.
Answered by Sarah Owen - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)
The Parades Commission performs a vital and complex quasi-judicial role in what can often be sensitive and difficult circumstances. Over the past three decades, Northern Ireland has made significant progress in easing tensions surrounding parades.
However, the recent High Court ruling has highlighted clear procedural defects. The Secretary of State met with the Commissioners on 1 September to discuss their response. Having considered it, he is satisfied that the issues raised are being taken seriously and that progress is being made.
To provide public assurance, support the Commission and ensure its operational framework is legally sound and procedurally fair, the Secretary of State has ordered an independent judge-led review into the Commission’s decision-making procedures and organisational governance.
This will strengthen the Commission’s immediate and future work. In the meantime, the current commissioners have the full backing of the Secretary of States. It is in the public interest that they continue their critical functions as we work together to restore public trust in this vital institution.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government's press release entitled Crackdown on baseless legal claims to get Britain building, published on 16 July 2026, what estimate has been made of the number of judicial review claims relating to major housing, transport and energy developments that were ultimately found to be without merit in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on judicial review cases in England and Wales as part of the Civil Justice statistics quarterly bulletin (Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK). The consolidated figures for all judicial review cases since 2000 are available at the “Civil Justice and Judicial Review data (zip file)” link.
The existing dataset does not provide further breakdown of cases beyond significant planning court claims and other planning cases. It does not specifically identify major housing, transport and energy developments.
This is why the Ministry of Justice published the Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure consultation on 16 July 2026. The consultation sought evidence on the potential impact of legal challenges on the delivery of major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments to inform the Government’s decision on further judicial review reforms.
The consultation closed on 27 August 2026. The Government is considering the responses received and will set out its position in due course.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government's press release entitled Crackdown on baseless legal claims to get Britain building, published on 16 July 2026, what data the Department holds on the number of major housing developments delayed by judicial review proceedings in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on judicial review cases in England and Wales as part of the Civil Justice statistics quarterly bulletin (Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK). The consolidated figures for all judicial review cases since 2000 are available at the “Civil Justice and Judicial Review data (zip file)” link.
The existing dataset does not provide further breakdown of cases beyond significant planning court claims and other planning cases. It does not specifically identify major housing, transport and energy developments.
This is why the Ministry of Justice published the Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure consultation on 16 July 2026. The consultation sought evidence on the potential impact of legal challenges on the delivery of major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments to inform the Government’s decision on further judicial review reforms.
The consultation closed on 27 August 2026. The Government is considering the responses received and will set out its position in due course.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the average duration of judicial review proceedings relating to major planning decisions in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on judicial review cases in England and Wales as part of the Civil Justice statistics quarterly bulletin (Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK). The consolidated figures for all judicial review cases since 2000 are available at the “Civil Justice and Judicial Review data (zip file)” link.
The average duration of completed judicial review cases categorised as significant planning court claims in each of the last five years is as follows: 204 days in 2021, 233 days in 2022, 226 days in 2023, 244 days in 2024, and 205 days in 2025.
The proportion of completed judicial review claims relating to planning decisions which have been successful in each of the last years is as follows;
| Cases eligible for a final hearing  |
| Cases found in favour of the claimant | |||
Year | Cases  | Actual to  | % of all cases  | Actual cases  | Actual to  | % of all cases  |
2021 | 238 | 105 | 44% | 47 | 9 | 4% |
2022 | 193 | 88 | 46% | 47 | 10 | 5% |
2023 | 201 | 61 | 30% | 41 | 17 | 8% |
2024 | 198 | 59 | 30% | 22 | 4 | 2% |
2025 | 209 | 49 | 23% | 14 | 1 | 0% |
These estimates take into account those cases categorised as significant planning court claims and other planning cases.
It is worth noting that the 2025 figures are unlikely to be the final figures, since more recent cases will need time to work their way through the judicial review process.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the press release entitled Crackdown on baseless legal claims to get Britain building, published on 16 July 2026, whether his Department plans to publish an evaluation of the impact of judicial review reforms within two years of their implementation.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review, published on 16 March 2026, the Government committed to consulting on extending recent judicial review reforms for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to other planning regimes. As part of that commitment, the Ministry of Justice published the consultation Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure on 16 July 2026.
The consultation sought evidence on the potential benefits, risks and practical implications of further reform. The consultation closed on 27 August 2026, and the Government is currently considering the responses received, including any evidence provided on the potential impacts for resourcing and access to justice. It has not yet taken any decisions on the further reforms consulted upon, including any associated monitoring and evaluation arrangements. It will set out its position in due course.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government's press release entitled Crackdown on baseless legal claims to get Britain building, published on 16 July 2026, what evidence the Department has relied upon in concluding that meritless legal challenges are causing significant delays to major developments.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In 2024, Lord Banner KC published an independent review into legal challenges against Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). This review examined available case data and drew on extensive engagement with stakeholders across the NSIP regime, including government departments, developers, environmental organisations, representative bodies, legal practitioners and members of the judiciary.
Lord Banner's review examined concerns that unmeritorious legal challenges to Development Consent Orders were causing significant undue delay to the delivery of NSIPs. It found that, whilst relatively few legal challenges to NSIPs were successful in overturning development consent decisions, claims took around 16 months on average to reach a conclusion. The review concluded that this created a significant period of uncertainty for projects, with associated cost implications and delivery risks.
As a result of this review, in 2025, the Government issued a call for evidence on Lord Banner’s findings and recommendations to gather a broader evidence base before taking decisions on reform. Following consideration of the responses received, the Government implemented a package of legislative and procedural reforms for NSIP judicial reviews through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and associated changes to the Civil Procedure Rules.
Separately, the 2025 Nuclear Regulatory Review identified concerns that repetitive or unmeritorious legal challenges can delay nuclear developments and found that repeated challenges across planning, licensing and permitting stages can create uncertainty, increase costs and risk undermining timely project delivery. As part of its response to the Review, the Government committed to extending the NSIP judicial review reforms to nuclear site licensing and environmental permitting decisions, and also to consulting on whether these reforms should be extended to other planning regimes.
On 16 July 2026, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation which sought evidence on the potential benefits, risks and practical implications of reform in other planning regimes. The consultation closed on 27 August 2026 and the Department is currently considering the responses received, including evidence on whether delays associated with legal challenges are occurring in other planning regimes.
Asked by: Shivani Raja (Conservative - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential implications for coronial inquiries of the 150 suspected domestic abuse-related suicides recorded by the NPCC Domestic Homicide Project; and what plans he has to ensure inquests routinely consider histories of coercive control.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
By law, coroners must open an investigation and conduct an inquest into any death which they suspect to have been unnatural or violent. This will include cases where the death may have been the result of self-harm.
However, coroners are independent judges and, as such, their decisions on the issues and evidence they need to consider in an individual case (i.e. its scope) are a matter for them. In individual cases, the findings of any Domestic Homicide Review will be provided to the coroner and may form part of the evidence considered in the inquest.
The Chief Coroner of England and Wales has provided extensive guidance for coroners to support them in those decisions. Chapter 7 of the Guidance for Coroners on the Bench addresses the issue of scope (Scope of the inquest - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary). As judges, coroners are also guided and bound by statute and the significant case law on the matter of scope.
Coroners are trained by the Judicial College, which trains all judges and is independent of government. As set out in the action plan accompanying volume 2 of the Government’s VAWG Strategy Freedom from violence and abuse (Freedom from violence and abuse volume 2: action plan (accessible) - GOV.UK), published in December 2025, the 2025/26 training programme for coroners included the sharing of experience and best practice in investigating deaths where domestic abuse is believed to be a factor.