Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has plans to review documentation made public following the expiry of the 20-year confidentiality period relating to gurkha pensions and their alignment to British military standards.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
This Government holds the Gurkhas in the utmost esteem and greatly values their exceptional and lasting contribution to the United Kingdom. Their courage, loyalty, and commitment have been an integral part of the British Armed Forces for more than 200 years. The Government remains dedicated to honouring their service and ensuring they are treated with fairness and respect.
Defence has no current plans to review documentation made public following the expiry of the 20-year confidentiality period relating to Gurkha pensions and their alignment to British military standards. Defence considers the Gurkha Pension Scheme (GPS) to be a fair scheme, tailored to the historical circumstances during which it was open. The terms of the GPS have been challenged in a number of judicial reviews, including a case which went to the European Court of Human Rights and, at all levels, the courts have upheld the Government’s position that the scheme is lawful.
Gurkha service in the British Armed Forces was established under the 1947 Tripartite Agreement between Nepal, the UK, and India. The 1948 GPS was designed to support veterans retiring to Nepal, where their families lived. The Brigade of Gurkhas has been based in the United Kingdom since July 1997 and terms and conditions changed over time to reflect this new reality: Since 2006, Gurkhas have served on the same terms and conditions of service as the rest of the British Army, with certain provisions preserving the Brigade’s unique identity.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any offenders currently detained in (a) separation and (b) close supervision centres are challenging their detention.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.
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 assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the right to jury trial on the number of appeals and judicial review applications.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Following reforms to the criminal courts, appellants will continue to have the right to appeal convictions and sentences received in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Permission to appeal will be granted by the judiciary where the appeal has a real prospect of success.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on the basis of what evidence was the estimate of a 20 per cent time saving for judge only trials made, including the following evidence referred to in the Leveson report (i) the quantitative analyses, (ii) the quantitative estimate of impact from the workshop with HMCTS operational staff and (iii) a summary of judicial expectations of time saving; and what is the confidence interval for the 20 per cent estimate.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, judges explaining legal concepts to jurors, and jury deliberation. There is no denying that these add to the time it takes to hear a case.
The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court.
In Part I of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, Sir Brian Leveson, one of the foremost judges of his generation, and his Expert Advisers have estimated a new Crown Court bench division would speed up cases by at least 20%. Sir Brian himself has indicated that he believes this was a conservative estimate and could be significantly more in practice.
Further details of the work undertaken to arrive at this assumption can be found below:
Quantitative analyses explored potential proxies for jury trial savings by drawing comparisons within the current system. Whilst there is no directly comparable proxy for judge only trials within our own systems, this provided a framework for elicitation workshops and judicial engagement.
A structured elicitation workshop with expert operational staff from HMCTS. The quantitative analysis was shared with participants, and the workshop generated a suggested estimated range of 10-30% for lower to upper end plausible time savings, with 20% given as a median value.
Engagement session with judges to understand their personal expectations of potential time-savings, intended to provide an anecdotal indication of where and how the judiciary thought time savings may or may not become apparent in a CCBD. Their views were in keeping with wider estimates.
The 20% assumption is also broadly in line with international evidence from New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research who compared quantitative data from judge only and jury trials. Whilst time savings varied by offence type, for all offences it found a 16% reduction in trial length for judge only trials, and a 29% time saving for complex and prejudicial offences.
A full Impact Assessment of the policy measures announced will be published alongside legislation as is usual.
We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.
Asked by: Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the statutory basis of Operation Denton.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
In 2019, the Barnard Judgment at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal [2019] (NICA 38) set out the requirement for an independent review of the activities of the so-called ‘Glenanne Gang’. In discharge of the Judicial instruction, the then Chief Constable of the PSNI requested that the enquiries were conducted by Jon Boutcher, who at the time was the Officer in Overall Command of Operation Kenova. Operation Denton commenced in February 2020.
Asked by: Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will confirm what statutory basis Operation Denton operates upon when it publishes its report.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
In 2019, the Barnard Judgment at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal [2019] (NICA 38) set out the requirement for an independent review of the activities of the so-called ‘Glenanne Gang’. In discharge of the Judicial instruction, the then Chief Constable of the PSNI requested that the enquiries were conducted by Jon Boutcher, who at the time was the Officer in Overall Command of Operation Kenova. Operation Denton commenced in February 2020.
Asked by: Joe Robertson (Conservative - Isle of Wight East)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the policy rationale is for clause 31(7) of the Railways Bill, which provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of designated railway passenger services does not give rise to civil liability; and whether she has assessed how this limitation of liability aligns with (a) accountability within the new rail system and (b) the protection of passenger rights.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Clause 31(7) of the Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers cannot be found liable for breach of statutory duty (which allows a person to claim damages in tort) when they provide or secure designated railway passenger services. This mirrors section 50 of the Railways Act 1993 so that the same approach to civil liability is carried over to the new passenger services provisions. There are other examples of this in legislation, such as section 44 of the Railways Act 2005. If Ministers act unlawfully then judicial review is available.
Responsibility for providing designated passenger services will rest largely with Great British Railways (GBR), or, in Scotland or Wales, with another public sector company. GBR will be governed by a cohesive accountability framework. Passenger rights will be protected in that framework with the GBR licence setting minimum consumer standards. The Passenger Watchdog, established to champion passenger interests, will set and monitor these standards, with the Office for Rail and Road able to take enforcement action should these standards not be met.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will take steps to increase the accountability of the Financial Conduct Authority with the finance industry.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is fully accountable to Parliament and the Government for how it discharges its statutory functions. Legislation places a range of statutory requirements on the FCA designed to support accountability and enhance transparency.
For example, the FCA is held to account through regular appearances at Parliamentary committees, including the Treasury Select Committee and the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee.
Ministers regularly engage with the FCA to ensure it continues to improve its operational efficiency.
In addition, the FCA regularly engages with industry, consumers and other stakeholders via consultations, publications and statutory panels.
The statutory framework also includes a requirement for the FCA to establish a Complaints Scheme, which allows anyone directly affected by the way in which the FCA has exercised, or failed to exercise, its functions (other than its legislative functions) under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to make a complaint. The Complaints Scheme is overseen by the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner, who is an independent person appointed by HM Treasury and has powers to recommend the payment of compensation and to require the FCA to publish its response to any recommendations. The FCA’s decisions can also be challenged in the courts under judicial review procedures. There is an appeals process for supervisory and disciplinary decisions made by the FCA.
The Government will continue to hold the FCA to account for its performance against its statutory duties, its work to reduce administrative costs, and alignment with government priorities.
The government has recently consulted on proposals to require the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to publish long-term strategies setting out how they will advance their objectives, including their secondary objective to facilitate growth and international competitiveness. This would ensure that stakeholders, including regulated firms in the sector, are able to fully understand the FCA and PRA’s strategy towards the sector. The government is currently considering the responses to that consultation and will set out next steps in due course.
Asked by: Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer given by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 5 November (HL11229), what advice they have received from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the current status of the Republic of Ireland's interstate case against the United Kingdom; and what plans they have to propose that the government of Ireland withdraw the case at the 1545th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies at the Council of Europe in December.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Ireland v. the United Kingdom (III) at the European Court of Human Rights has not progressed beyond preliminary stages since it was lodged by Ireland in January 2024. On 2 July 2025, the United Kingdom received correspondence from the Court to confirm that it had adjourned its proceedings pending the final outcome of the ongoing domestic proceedings for judicial review in the case Dillon and Others, which is currently awaiting judgment by the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
The withdrawal of the case is a matter for the Irish Government. The UK Government is clear that the implementation of the Troubles Bill, which seeks to fulfil long standing commitments made by this Government, will mean that the basis for any interstate case will fall away.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) pre-action protocol letters, (b) judicial review applications and (c) injunction requests have been received relating to the one-in, one-out migrant returns scheme agreed with France since 1 July 2025.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
The UK-France Treaty is an innovative pilot designed to deter illegal migration across the Channel. Litigation related to this pilot was anticipated and we are concentrating resources on robustly defending this so that removals can continue as planned. As of 7 November, 94 individuals have been returned to France through this agreement.
The Home Office maintains records on legal challenges. Operational details on the pilot are sensitive, and we will not be disclosing such information as it could inadvertently assist the organised immigration crime gangs that are behind small boats crossings.