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 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 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 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.
Asked by: Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to establishing an ombudsman to oversee the aviation sector, in particular the work of the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The work of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is subject to the oversight of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
The Government has ensured that the CAA have a robust set of internal and external remedies for those who are dissatisfied with the CAA’s customer service.
The remedies are, successively: internal review by the CAA; consideration by the Independent Complaints Assessor; and referral via their Member of Parliament to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
These remedies cannot address dissatisfaction with a regulatory decision which the CAA has taken (such as an aviation safety decision) but regulatory decisions are subject to bespoke internal review procedures and subsequently in most cases, challenge by way of judicial review. There are some exceptions such as economic regulation decisions may be appealed to the Competition and Markets Authority and airline operating licence decisions may be appealed to the Secretary of State. Additionally, some airspace design decisions can be called-in to be made by the Secretary of State rather than the CAA.
These pathways are prominently set out on the CAA’s website and we wish to see that they are used wherever appropriate.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of gender on (a) custodial sentence length and (b) rates of reoffending.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.
The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.
The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what comparative assessment he has made of custodial sentencing rates between male and female offenders for comparable offences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.
The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.
The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.