Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what information his Department holds on the number of homicide incidents in each of the last 12 months which involved a suspect who had been a patient of an NHS mental health trust within the preceding six months.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England commissions the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicides and Homicides (NCISH) which has two functions in relation to homicides. First, it reports a count of homicides by people in the care of mental health services. Second, it does research into suicides and homicides, with the aim of helping to identify opportunities for improvements to clinical care in order to improve safety.
The ‘count’ of patient homicides by people under the care of mental health services, is not real-time, and there is a delay between the incident occurring and the incident being included in this national data. This is because an incident can only be confirmed as a mental health homicide when a judicial process has determined whether a homicide has been committed and by whom, as well as the nature of the crime.
In line with the national Patient Safety Incident Response Framework, in addition to local provider led safety reviews, any reported homicides/suspected homicides involving mental health patients are shared for review by regional NHS England teams, to establish whether an independent investigation is also required. Those requiring independent investigation are commissioned by regional teams.
Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, how many (1) legal representatives and (2) officials her Department sent to the Judicial Review in the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory on Friday 13 March 2026.
Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I refer the Rt Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 13 April, and the answers I provided to questions raised in response, except for matters of ongoing litigation, where I am unable to comment at this time.
Asked by: Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the government of Northern Ireland has ended legal against the UK over the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act 2023.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
I have answered this question on the assumption that the Noble Lord is referring to the Government of Ireland.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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.