Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
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 her Oral Statement of 7 September 2026 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report, columns 667-669, whether her Department substantively responded in court to the judicial reviews on local government restructuring, or whether she has decided to concede the case before the duty of candour on providing documents to the claimants commenced.
Answered by Jim McMahon - 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 The decisions that were the subject of those proceedings have since been withdrawn. It is a longstanding principle that the Government does not publish or comment on legal advice.
I set out the latest position on local government reorganisation to Parliament in my oral statement of 29 October.
Asked by: Siân Berry (Green Party - Brighton Pavilion)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many claims for judicial review were brought against (a) her Department and (b) National Highways regarding the Lower Thames Crossing.
Answered by Justin Madders - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
No claims for judicial review have been made against either the Department for Transport or National Highways regarding the Lower Thames Crossing.
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 his Department's press release entitled Thousands step forward in record magistrate recruitment drive, published on 23 October 2026, what assessment has been made of the potential impact of errors, missing recordings or technical failures on (a) appeals, (b) the accuracy of court records and (c) the ability of parties to challenge decisions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
As part of Government preparations for the implementation of the structural court reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, HMCTS piloted audio recording technology in seven magistrates’ courtrooms between 15 September and 23 October 2026. This measure is in line with Lord Leveson’s recommendation, in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, for mandatory recording to strengthen transparency and support the proposed reforms to the magistrates’ court appeals process.
The pilot tested the technology and the operational processes needed to introduce recording consistently, reliably, and securely. The pilot evaluation will assess whether hearings are successfully recorded and retrievable; whether audio and transcripts are intelligible, complete and correctly attributed; and whether they accurately capture key hearing events, judicial reasons, and legal advice. As this is a process evaluation, it will not assess impacts on appeal outcomes or parties' ability to challenge decisions. The evaluation will inform decisions on the detailed design and implementation of audio-recording in the magistrates’ courts, the final requirements for which remain dependent on the passage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
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 his Department's press release entitled Thousands step forward in record magistrate recruitment drive, published on 23 October 2026, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the courtroom audio-recording pilot on the time required to prepare appeal records and the associated administrative costs.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
As part of Government preparations for the implementation of the structural court reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, HMCTS piloted audio recording technology in seven magistrates’ courtrooms between 15 September and 23 October 2026. This measure is in line with Lord Leveson’s recommendation, in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, for mandatory recording to strengthen transparency and support the proposed reforms to the magistrates’ court appeals process.
The pilot tested the technology and the operational processes needed to introduce recording consistently, reliably, and securely. The pilot evaluation will assess whether hearings are successfully recorded and retrievable; whether audio and transcripts are intelligible, complete and correctly attributed; and whether they accurately capture key hearing events, judicial reasons, and legal advice. As this is a process evaluation, it will not assess impacts on appeal outcomes or parties' ability to challenge decisions. The evaluation will inform decisions on the detailed design and implementation of audio-recording in the magistrates’ courts, the final requirements for which remain dependent on the passage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
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 his Department's press release entitled Thousands step forward in record magistrate recruitment drive, published on 23 October 2026, what criteria will be used to assess the accuracy, reliability and completeness of audio recordings produced by the technology being piloted in magistrates’ courts.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
As part of Government preparations for the implementation of the structural court reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, HMCTS piloted audio recording technology in seven magistrates’ courtrooms between 15 September and 23 October 2026. This measure is in line with Lord Leveson’s recommendation, in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, for mandatory recording to strengthen transparency and support the proposed reforms to the magistrates’ court appeals process.
The pilot tested the technology and the operational processes needed to introduce recording consistently, reliably, and securely. The pilot evaluation will assess whether hearings are successfully recorded and retrievable; whether audio and transcripts are intelligible, complete and correctly attributed; and whether they accurately capture key hearing events, judicial reasons, and legal advice. As this is a process evaluation, it will not assess impacts on appeal outcomes or parties' ability to challenge decisions. The evaluation will inform decisions on the detailed design and implementation of audio-recording in the magistrates’ courts, the final requirements for which remain dependent on the passage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Asked by: Sarah Green (Liberal Democrat - Chesham and Amersham)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she plans to introduce a right of appeal against the revocation of sponsor licences held by care providers.
Answered by Jo White - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Government has no plans to introduce a right of appeal. Sponsorship is a privilege and subject to strict conditions.
Unless the circumstances demand immediate revocation, a sponsor is given the opportunity to make representations, including any mitigating circumstances, before a decision is made.
A sponsor can seek judicial review of the decision.
Asked by: Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of reforming the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects; and how much time they anticipate will be saved, on average, as a result of these measures.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Since 2025, the Government has introduced several reforms to judicial reviews of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to speed up the determination of such claims and prevent meritless claims from causing unnecessary delays. On 1 October 2025, amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions formally designated NSIP judicial reviews as Significant Planning Court Claims; removed the paper permission stage, encouraged the use of case management conferences; and introduced target timescales for NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal. In February 2026, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 also limited claims deemed totally without merit to a single permission hearing by removing the right to appeal to the higher courts. Further target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court came into force on 1 October 2026. These changes support faster and more consistent handling of NSIP judicial reviews, providing greater certainty for developers and supporting the Government's growth agenda.
There are no significant costs associated with these reforms.The reforms are instead expected to lower costs for developers and other parties.
The package of reforms is expected to make the judicial review process for NSIPs up to six months faster, compared with the average duration of approximately 16 months identified in Lord Banner's Independent Review.
Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure prosecutors check draft jury directions against existing case law on unlawful manslaughter; and if she will ask His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate to review the handling of the Aria Thorpe case.
Answered by Andy Slaughter - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The process for jury directions and consultation with advocates is clearly set out in the Crown Court Compendium. It stipulates that ‘All written directions for the jury must be discussed, and preferably agreed, with the advocates well before they are provided to the jury’. This requirement is reiterated in the CPS policy Instructions for Prosecution Advocates which is incorporated into every prosecution brief and states ‘Advocates must also ensure that appropriate judicial directions are given in accordance with the Crown Court Compendium.
Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
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 her Oral Statement of 7 September 2026 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report, columns 667-669, how much has been budgeted to pay costs and damages to the councils which initiated legal action; and how much her Department has spent on legal advice and representation to date.
Answered by Jim McMahon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
It is a longstanding principle that the government does not publish or comment on legal advice. Any costs resulting from the judicial review proceedings will be determined in the usual way.
Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
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 press release, Review of local government reorganisation launched, of 7 September 2026, if she will place in the Library a copy of all of the documentation from local authorities relating to the judicial reviews on local government reorganisation.
Answered by Jim McMahon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
It is a longstanding principle that the Government does not publish or comment on legal advice.