Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to bring into force 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.
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: Mike Martin (Liberal Democrat - Tunbridge Wells)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make an assessment of the impact of 53 week rent-years on rent payment schedules for Universal Credit claimants; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that payments adequately match claimants’ renting costs.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Universal Credit always converts weekly amounts to monthly sums using 52 weeks. The legitimacy of this approach was confirmed by the High Court having been tested via a judicial review.
Every five or six years, weekly tenants may have a rent charging year containing 53 charging days. This will not apply in all cases and some claimants will not have a 53-week charging year during the life of their benefit claim.
Most people in work are paid monthly, as is Universal Credit, and they budget for their outgoings on a monthly basis. Weekly rental liabilities do not map directly onto a monthly cycle and this creates budgeting complexities for tenants. They will be required to make only four payments of rent in some months but five payments in others even though their monthly income remains constant. This problem exists in all rent charging years for those with a weekly liability, not just those with 53 Mondays.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to R (Denny De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin), how much his Department has paid Mr Denny De SIlva in (a) damages, (b) other compensation, (c) ex gratia or out-of-court payments and (d) legal costs.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
With reference to R (Denny De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin):
(a), (b), (c) The damages claim is ongoing and therefore we cannot comment on compensation, ex-gratia or out-of-court payments.
(d) Legal costs for the Judicial Review were settled at £255,000, inclusive of interest and assessment costs.
HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) successfully defends around two-thirds of all litigation cases brought by prisoners. Where damages are awarded to prisoners, we seek to ensure that payments are offset against any outstanding debts owed to victims and the courts.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to R (Awale) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin), how much his Department has paid Mr Fuad Awale in (a) damages, (b) other compensation, (c) any ex gratia or out-of-court payments and (d) legal costs.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
With reference to R (Awale) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin):
(a), (b), (c) The damages claim is ongoing and therefore we cannot comment on compensation, ex-gratia or out-of-court payments.
(d) Legal costs for the Judicial Review were settled at £234,250, inclusive of interest and assessment costs.
HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) successfully defends around two-thirds of all litigation cases brought by prisoners. Where damages are awarded to prisoners, we seek to ensure that payments are offset against any outstanding debts owed to victims and the courts.
Asked by: Helen Maguire (Liberal Democrat - Epsom and Ewell)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will undertake a full review of the (a) technical, (b) legal and (c) regulatory failures that led to the Chinook ZD576 crash.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
The Mull of Kintyre crash of 1994 has been extensively investigated, including in two independent, judge-led processes, and in independent inquiries by House of Commons and House of Lords select committees, as well as the original Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry, including a report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The Department has received a formal claim for a Judicial Review of our decision to reject the demand for a further Judge-led inquiry into the circumstances of the crash from the Chinook Justice Campaign and we are committed to engaging fully with this process.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will establish a judge-led inquiry into the RAF Chinook ZD576 crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.
The Department has received a formal claim for a Judicial Review of our decision to reject the demand for a Judge-led inquiry into the circumstances of the crash from the Chinook Justice Campaign. We are committed to engaging fully with this process, and you will understand that I am unable to provide further comment while this work is ongoing.
Asked by: Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Foyle)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of (a) legal costs and (b) other support provided to Soldier F relating to the case of the alleged murders of James Wray and William McKinney.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
The Ministry of Defence is committed to supporting veterans and their families. As part of this, Soldier F has received legal and welfare support throughout his legal proceedings at public expense.
The legal fees associated with these proceedings (including associated judicial reviews) amount to £4.3 million, which may rise marginally once final bills are received. These costs cover the period from when Soldier F was initially charged in March 2019. This includes costs associated with the Judicial Review leading to the PPS recommencing proceedings in 2022. Legal representation has been provided by the same experienced legal team since the Saville Inquiry, supplemented by leading solicitors and barristers, including King's Counsel, based in Northern Ireland.
Other costs associated with the support of Soldier F, such as pastoral care, arrangement and payment of travel and accommodation, etc, are met from a central budget and involve the time of various employees for which a specific cost cannot be calculated.