Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he will review the adequacy of safeguards to ensure the accuracy of arrears and appropriate court oversight in the enforcement of child maintenance liabilities.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is committed to ensuring that parents meet their financial responsibilities in full and on time with payments calculated so they are reasonable and affordable for the paying parent.
When arrears are identified, parents are given a clear explanation of how the amount has been calculated. Where a parent believes the arrears to be incorrect, they have opportunity to dispute the decision and provide evidence within set timescales.
The CMS has a structured dispute resolution process, including Mandatory Reconsideration and the right of appeal to an independent tribunal, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service.
Where a dispute is raised, the case is reviewed before court‑based enforcement proceeds, as a Liability Order may only be granted where a magistrate is satisfied the debt is legally due and unpaid. This safeguards both parents and ensures enforcement is taken only on resolved debt.
The Department keeps these safeguards under regular review to ensure the accuracy of arrears and that enforcement action continues to be subject to appropriate judicial oversight.
Asked by: James Cleverly (Conservative - Braintree)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the answer of 4 March 2026, to Question 113730, on MHCLG: Administration of Justice, how many judicial review cases relating to his department have been determined since 4 July 2024, excluding planning cases.
Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The Department deals with a large variety of legal cases including judicial reviews, Information Tribunal cases and private law litigation. As explained in answer to Question UIN 113730 on 4 March 2026, the number and outcome of legal challenges and judicial reviews since July 2024 is not held centrally in the format requested.
Asked by: James Cleverly (Conservative - Braintree)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, further to his oral statement of 23 February 2026, Official Report, Col.80, on Local Government Reorganisation, if he will place in the Library a copy of the bundle of evidence that would have been released to the claimant under the duty of candour had the judicial review hearing gone ahead.
Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 113744 on 26 February 2026.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government following the ruling of the High Court on 24 February in relation to Oak National Academy, whether the Minister will meet the unions, publishers and educational suppliers to understand their concerns.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Ministers regularly meet and engage with a range of stakeholders to discuss and seek views on the curriculum and how best to support schools, teachers and pupils.
We will set out Oak National Academy’s remit and funding for the coming year in a published letter to the Chair of the Oak Board in due course. I cannot comment on the Judicial Review of Oak, which is ongoing.
Asked by: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government following the ruling of the High Court on 24 February in relation to Oak National Academy, whether the Government will commit to greater transparency about Oak’s future funding and scope.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Ministers regularly meet and engage with a range of stakeholders to discuss and seek views on the curriculum and how best to support schools, teachers and pupils.
We will set out Oak National Academy’s remit and funding for the coming year in a published letter to the Chair of the Oak Board in due course. I cannot comment on the Judicial Review of Oak, which is ongoing.
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, pursuant to the answer of 20 January 2026, to Question 105396, on Eden Project: Morecambe, what assessment has his department made for the reasons to the scaling back of the Eden Project since July 2024.
Answered by Miatta Fahnbulleh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Since July 2024 the Eden Project Morecambe team has continued design work. An update on potential options for the development, including their size and scale, was presented to MHCLG in March 2025. These options were subject to ongoing community conversations. In September 2025, the department launched the Local Regeneration Fund which provided certainty of funding and flexibility to Local Authorities, including Lancaster City Council as sponsors of the Eden Project Morecambe. The Eden Project Morecambe team submitted a planning application for their preferred option on the 15th of October 2025. The planning application proposal has been approved, subject to S106 approval and 6 week judicial review period.