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.
Asked by: Nadia Whittome (Labour - Nottingham East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to require public authority respondents in Judicial Review hearings to confirm compliance with the duty of candour at Permission Stage.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The duty of candour is a well-established principle in judicial review, and its application is clearly set out in the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide.
The duty of candour applies at all stages of judicial review proceedings. This duty requires all parties to ensure that relevant information is put before the Court, whether it supports or undermines their case. There is a particular obligation on public authorities to ensure that this duty is fulfilled given they are engaged in a common enterprise with the Court to fulfil the public interest in upholding the rule of law.
At the permission stage, public authorities are required to identify any material facts, highlight any matters of factual dispute and provide a summary of the reasoning underlying the measures in question. The Court can take into account a lack of candour in deciding whether to grant permission.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what redress is available to any academic whose university has failed in its free speech duties in the absence of the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 not being in force on academics seeking redress when universities fail to meet their statutory free speech duties, in particular in the case of Professor Laura Murphy at Sheffield Hallam University.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of a report by the Committee for Academic Freedom on 31 October that the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 may not operate until 2030; and whether such a delay would be acceptable to them.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.