Asked by: Lola McEvoy (Labour - Darlington)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to increase availability of legal aid to people who are victims of violence against women and girls, particularly in relation to people who wish to pursue judicial review.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government was elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the next decade. As part of delivering this mission, we are committed to ensuring that victims of VAWG can access justice, including through the legal aid system.
Civil legal aid remains available for eligible judicial review proceedings, subject to the statutory eligibility criteria being met. Legal aid is also available for private family matters such as child arrangements, financial remedy proceedings and divorce if an individual is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused. Funding is also subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests.
We have amended legislation to ensure that legal aid continues to be available for victims of domestic abuse. This includes making legal aid available for eligible domestic abuse victims whose immigration status depended on an abusive partner enabling them to apply to regularise their immigration status, as well as providing availability for Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders. The changes also permit the use of overseas medical evidence for legal aid applications, and we have updated legislation and guidance to reflect the changes in terminology and definitions. The Government is also reviewing domestic abuse evidence requirements to ensure they do not create barriers to accessing legal aid.
The civil legal aid equity disregard is available to all individuals, including victims of domestic abuse, applying for legal aid. This means that £100,000 of the value of a person’s interest in their main residence will not be considered [when assessing capital] within the legal aid means test.
This Government has extended the equity disregard so it can also apply to victims of domestic abuse who have temporarily left their home, though it is still in essence their main residence in which they have an interest. This change recognises that while victims may own property, they may be unable to benefit from the home due to the presence of an abuser. The equity disregard also applies to means testing for legal aid in relation to judicial review.
Asked by: Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the powers which they propose to confer on the Financial Conduct Authority through the insertion of new section 131Z12 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 are not subject to a right to a full merits-based appeal, such as to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Answered by Lord Livermore
The Financial Services and Markets Bill simplifies how payment systems are regulated by abolishing the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and transferring its responsibilities to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In doing so, it gives the FCA objectives and powers generally equivalent to those currently held by the PSR, including the ability to make rules or give directions for the purpose of regulating payment system fees and charges. This ensures there is continuity in regulation and that the FCA can carry out its new responsibilities effectively.
The FCA’s power to regulate payment system fees and charges would be subject to challenge on judicial review principles. A challenge to equivalent powers held by the PSR is determined by judicial review principles, and the Bill maintains the same test when those functions transfer to the FCA. This is also consistent with the existing approach taken elsewhere in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
The Government recognises that regulators’ powers should be subject to appropriate safeguards. Powers to regulate payment system fees and charges must advance payment systems objectives. The Bill ensures before exercising those powers, the FCA must comply with procedural requirements, such as undertaking a consultation, which help to ensure decisions are transparent, evidence-based and proportionate.
Asked by: John Glen (Conservative - Salisbury)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether she has made an assessment of whether the UK's tax treaty arbitration arrangements allow multinational companies to delay the collection of UK tax in transfer pricing and Diverted Profits Tax disputes; and whether the Government will review those arrangements to ensure that profits generated in the UK are taxed fairly in the UK and that UK tax revenues are protected.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with HM Treasury)
There is no special provision or allowance under the UK’s tax treaties for the suspension or deferral of tax payments by multinational companies.
For transfer pricing cases, HMRC may suspend collection of the disputed tax while a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) case is ongoing. MAP may include mandatory binding arbitration where provided for under the relevant treaty, however, there is no additional or separate right to delay payment of UK tax in relation to arbitration. Postponement of tax during MAP is only available under the same conditions that apply to domestic administrative or judicial remedies. Interest will continue to accrue, where appropriate, on any underpaid tax ultimately found to be due.
DPT charges cannot be postponed on any grounds. The Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) was repealed by the Finance Act 2026 and replaced by the Unassessed Transfer Pricing Profits (UTPP) rules, as part of a wider package of reforms to simplify and modernise the legislation relating to transfer pricing, diverted profits tax and permanent establishments. Charges under the UTPP rules also cannot be postponed on any grounds, except to the extent that tax has already been paid on the same profits.
Asked by: Ian Roome (Liberal Democrat - North Devon)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department is taking to implement the findings of the December 2024 Court of Appeal ruling on animal welfare practices that breach the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007.
Answered by Stephen Morgan - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The judicial review challenge relating to the legality of keeping fast-growing breeds of meat chickens was unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court made no declaration that the keeping of fast-growing breeds of meat chickens was unlawful and did not find Defra's policies or enforcement approach to be unlawful. The Government continues to keep animal welfare legislation and its implementation under review and remains committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare standards.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of criminal trials which will be vacated because of judicial, courtroom and prosecutorial capacity constraints during 2026; whether his Department maintains internal data on the principal causes of trial adjournments; and whether regional league tables are produced.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not model or estimate the number of future criminal trials that will be vacated due to judicial, courtroom or prosecutorial capacity restraints. However, the Ministry of Justice does hold information on past trial effectiveness, including vacated trials, which is published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly and can be accessed through the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts Tool’: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.
The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the principal causes of trial adjournments. However, the Ministry does publish information on ineffective trials, which are trials that do not proceed on the scheduled trial date and require a new listing to be scheduled. This can be due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court.
Data on ineffective trials is published in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’, including the reasons for postponement and geographical breakdowns: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.
Following from Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the Government is taking action to modernise the criminal court system, reduce the Crown Court caseload and deliver swifter justice for all.
The reforms introduced in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are intended to modernise and improve the system, to build a criminal courts system that is resilient, flexible, better equipped to manage the types and characteristics of today’s crimes and to enable a more proportionate allocation of resources across the criminal courts.
Alongside structural reform, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced several measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency – including rolling out case coordinators in every Crown Court centre, exploring the use of new AI technologies and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to set up the first ever National Listing Framework, which has now been published. Sir Brian’s conclusion was clear that structural reform, efficiencies, and investment are all critical to turn the tide on the Crown Court backlog and deliver swifter justice for all. That is why we are also delivering record financial investment, including uncapped Crown Court sitting days, additional funding for criminal legal aid, and £287 million to improve court buildings and digital infrastructure. We are considering the remainder of Sir Brian’s recommendations and will publish our full response in due course.
Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many criminal trials listed at Harrow Crown Court were recorded as ineffective in each month of a) 2023 and b) 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
An ineffective trial is one that does not go ahead on the scheduled trial date, so a further listing is required. This can be due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence, or the court.
The Ministry of Justice collates and publishes data on the volume of trials that were ineffective at the Crown Court including reasons in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’ on a quarterly basis. The latest period included covers January to March 2026. Data is available at a Crown Court level using the filter ‘crown_court_and_magistrates_lja’.Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK
We asked Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to make recommendations to tackle inefficiencies within the criminal courts, including the causes of ineffective trials. We will publish our full response to Sir Brian’s review in due course, but we have already taken steps to deliver swifter justice through significant investment in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has already announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency and reduce ineffective trials.
This includes the introduction of case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant. We are also working with the Department for Transport and local authorities to expand the number of areas where prison transport vans can use bus lanes to reduce traffic delays - reducing wasted court time.
Asked by: Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of legislating for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to have the power to investigate sentencing patterns of Judges.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Secretary of State for Justice has made no assessment of the merits of this proposal.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office considers complaints about judicial misconduct. It does not review judicial decisions or case management.
The proper route for reviewing judicial decisions, including sentencing, is via the relevant appeals process through the courts. This is an important principle of judicial independence, which shields judges from external pressures and gives the public confidence that cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.
Asked by: Mark Sewards (Labour - Leeds South West and Morley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of decision making in family court proceedings relating to child arrangements.
Answered by Catherine Atkinson
Judicial decisions in family court proceedings relating to child arrangements are a matter for the independent judiciary.
The Government is, however, committed to ensuring that outcomes in the family justice system prioritise the welfare of children. That is why in October 2025, we published the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement. The Review considered how decisions were made within private law children proceedings and the impact these decisions had upon child welfare. The published review can be found at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf.
We are delivering reforms to address identified challenges in the system. These include the national rollout of Child Focused Courts, and the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if he will review the relationship between licensing permissions and planning controls for hospitality venues during nationally significant sporting events.
Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Due to the quasi-judicial role of MHCLG Ministers in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of specific planning applications or proposals.
It is for individual local planning authorities to take enforcement action depending on the particular circumstances of each case.
Between 16 December 2025 and 10 March 2026, we consulted on a new National Planning Policy Framework. That consultation, which can be found on gov.uk here, included proposals relating to the relationship between planning and other regulatory regimes, including licencing.
The draft Framework sets out that planning decisions should not seek to duplicate or extend controls imposed by separate regulatory regimes, but matters which are controlled by separate regulatory regimes may, in the context of a particular development proposal, be a material consideration where they have land-use implications. It also encourages the parallel processing of planning and other regulatory consents where this can help to align and expedite the consenting of development.
We are currently analysing the feedback received to the consultation and will publish our response in due course.
Asked by: Neil Duncan-Jordan (Labour - Poole)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much the Department has spent on legal fees and associated costs defending judicial review proceedings brought by the WASPI Campaign since December 2024.
Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
Based on the information held, since December 2024, the recorded legal costs on litigation brought by WASPI including disbursements and VAT and costs paid to WASPI are £348,566.14.