Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of reviewing the mandatory retirement age for magistrates.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders, including magistrates, was increased from 70 to 75 in March 2022. 797 magistrates aged 70 or over were reinstated as a result of the policy change, and as of 1 April 2026 1,933 magistrates in post were aged 70 or over. Some internal analysis of the impacts of raising the retirement age has been carried out and found that the policy had met its main aim of retaining experienced judicial office holders and supporting court capacity in the short term. The Government has no current plans to review the mandatory retirement age for magistrates. A fixed retirement age supports judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary by avoiding the need for individual assessments of the health or competency of judicial office holders.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what redress is available to victims where repeated administrative errors by the Crown Prosecution Service result in a criminal trial being postponed on multiple occasions; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact of such delays on access to justice for elderly and seriously ill victims.
Answered by Andy Slaughter - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
Where victims feel dissatisfied with the service provided by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), they can submit a complaint through the CPS complaints procedure. The CPS operates a three stage complaints procedure where complaints relate to the standard of service provided by the CPS. In these cases, the final stage of the complaints process is referral to the Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC). If the complaint is upheld, the CPS will apologise, and attempt to put the matter right wherever possible, as well as take steps to ensure that it does not happen again. In exceptional cases, where there has been an error on their part and there is clear evidence of uninsured material loss or severe distress caused by maladministration or poor service, a modest consolatory payment may be offered. Following an IAC review, victims who believe the CPS has failed to meet its obligations under the Victims’ Code may ask their MP to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which can consider whether any further investigation or redress is required.
Tackling delays in the criminal justice system is an important part of delivering the swift justice that victims and witnesses deserve and improving confidence in the criminal justice system. The CPS is working with criminal justice system partners to reduce inefficiency and avoidable delay in case preparation. On 1 October 2026, a new Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts came into effect. This requires courts to convene a Case Progression meeting in the third week before a trial is listed, of which the CPS will attend. This aims to ensure issues requiring operational and judicial resolution are addressed early. The CPS is also taking action to improve its service to victims through its Victims Programme.
Asked by: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the grounds of the judicial review regarding the establishment of the Oak National Academy as an Arm’s Length Body.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
In establishing Oak National Academy as an arm's length body, the department is helping to tackle teacher workload, strengthen curriculum expertise and improve education. As legal proceedings are ongoing, the department cannot comment further on the judicial review or speculate on its outcome.
Monitoring the academy’s impact on the curriculum resources market remains a priority. A market impact assessment published on 26 September 2025 found that the academy had a modest impact on the domestic curriculum resources market and was unlikely to have had any significant impact on the international market. The department will continue to keep the academy’s impact under review, and the corporate report is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/oak-national-academy-independent-review-and-market-impact-assessment.
Asked by: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of freely available resources by Oak National Academy on the commercial education publishing market.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
In establishing Oak National Academy as an arm's length body, the department is helping to tackle teacher workload, strengthen curriculum expertise and improve education. As legal proceedings are ongoing, the department cannot comment further on the judicial review or speculate on its outcome.
Monitoring the academy’s impact on the curriculum resources market remains a priority. A market impact assessment published on 26 September 2025 found that the academy had a modest impact on the domestic curriculum resources market and was unlikely to have had any significant impact on the international market. The department will continue to keep the academy’s impact under review, and the corporate report is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/oak-national-academy-independent-review-and-market-impact-assessment.
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.