Asked by: Ellie Chowns (Green Party - North Herefordshire)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment his Department has made of whether UK (a) company and (b) public sector supply chains are involved in (i) environmental harms and (ii) human rights abuses (A) in the UK and (B) overseas.
Answered by Douglas Alexander - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
In the Trade Strategy, the Government launched a review into the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct, focused on tackling human rights and labour abuses, modern slavery, and environmental harms in global supply chains.
The review will be a neutral, objective appraisal of policy, led by officials in my department. It will consider the effectiveness of the UK’s current regime and alternative means of supporting responsible business practices. It will have due regard to costs on business and the approaches taken by our trading partners. Throughout the review, we will harness the insights and expertise of businesses, investors, trade unions, academia and civil society.
We have also established the Office for Responsible Business Conduct (RBC), to replace the UK's National Contact Point. This enhanced office will support industry to integrate responsible business practices and help victims of corporate malpractice through continuing to operate a non-judicial complaints mechanism for alleged violations of the OECD Guidelines on RBC.
Asked by: Euan Stainbank (Labour - Falkirk)
Question to the Scotland Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the Court of Session’s judgment on the Petition of the Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, published on 8 December 2023.
Answered by Ian Murray - Secretary of State for Scotland
The Scottish Government confirmed in a statement to the Scottish Parliament on 22 April 2025 that it has no plans to bring back the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Asked by: Martin Rhodes (Labour - Glasgow North)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to the United Nations' framework entitled Protect, respect and remedy and the United Nations document entitled Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, published in June 2011, what steps his Department is taking to fulfil the UK’s duty to (a) protect against business-related human rights abuses in supply chains and (b) provide access to remedy for victims of such abuses.
Answered by Douglas Alexander - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The UK has a range of measures in place to promote responsible business conduct (RBC) across the economy. The Government expects all UK companies to respect human rights, workers’ rights and the environment throughout their operations and supply chains in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for RBC.
In the Trade Strategy, the Government launched a review into the UK’s approach to RBC, focused on tackling human rights and labour abuses, modern slavery, and environmental harms in global supply chains. The FCDO will also be carrying out a National Baseline Assessment (NBA) on the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to inform this review.
We have also established the Office for RBC, to replace the UK's National Contact Point. This enhanced office will support industry to integrate responsible business practices and help victims of corporate malpractice through continuing to operate a non-judicial complaints mechanism for alleged violations of the OECD Guidelines.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions she has had with (a) judicial and (b) safeguarding bodies on improvements to child protection in private law family proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Family Justice Board, which is co-chaired by ministers from the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education and is regularly attended by the President of the Family Division, the Chief Executives of Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru, the Chief Social Worker, and Ofsted, monitors performance across the family justice system and considers relevant strategic issues, including safeguarding of children in family proceedings. At the March meeting, the Board discussed findings from the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s report on intra-familial child sexual abuse.
The Board also plays a role in the delivery of key priorities aimed at improving outcomes for children and families such as the Pathfinder private law model, now operating in six court areas. Pathfinder was designed in collaboration with the judiciary and safeguarding partners and aims to improve the experience and outcomes for children and parents involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse.
Asked by: Mark Francois (Conservative - Rayleigh and Wickford)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether a judicial review of a Minister's actions in relation to the use of Diego Garcia would be allowed under Article 4 of the UK/Mauritius: Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia [CS Mauritius No.1/2025].
Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The Treaty between the UK and Mauritius regarding sovereignty is not capable of being a source of domestic rights or obligations save to the extent that in due course Parliament enacts provision for them.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps she is taking to reduce the backlog of crown court cases in the West Midlands.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. For this financial year (2025/26), this Government is funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims – 110,000 sitting days this year, 4,000 higher than the last Government funded. However, the scale of the challenge is beyond what increasing sitting days can achieve. That is why we have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of efficiency that will propose once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.
In the West Midlands:
Asked by: Chris Law (Scottish National Party - Dundee Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims from Scottish applicants remain unresolved more than (a) 12, (b) 24 and (c) 36 months after a judicial‑review judgment quashing the original decision.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The table below shows the number of applications for criminal injuries compensation which are unresolved more than (a) 12 months, (b) 24 months, and (c) 36 months after the Court of Session quashed the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in judicial review proceedings.
Time | Number unresolved |
12 months to 24 months | 5 or fewer |
Over 24 months to 36 months | 5 or fewer |
Over 36 months | 5 or fewer |
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 contains safeguards where an applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their application. All applicants have the right to request that their initial decision is reviewed by a different claims officer. If the applicant remains dissatisfied following review, they have the right to appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal. Thereafter, an applicant can apply for ‘judicial review’ of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. In Scotland, judicial review claims are heard by the Court of Session. In England & Wales, judicial review claims are heard by the Upper Tribunal.
We have answered ‘5 or fewer’ to mitigate the risk of individuals being identifiable from our response.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the government has altered its risk assessment criteria for foreign-state linked acquisition companies under the National Security and Investment Act since 5 July 2024.
Answered by Abena Oppong-Asare - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
Decisions made under the Act may be subject to judicial review. The Government currently has no plans to change this.
All acquisitions considered under the NSI Act are assessed on a case by case basis, taking account of all relevant considerations.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether his Department plans to take steps to expand the method by which UK companies can appeal decisions made by the government under the powers of the National Security and Investment Act.
Answered by Abena Oppong-Asare - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
Decisions made under the Act may be subject to judicial review. The Government currently has no plans to change this.
All acquisitions considered under the NSI Act are assessed on a case by case basis, taking account of all relevant considerations.
Asked by: Rachael Maskell (Labour (Co-op) - York Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will review the Guide to Judicial Conduct.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice have a joint responsibility for judicial discipline. However, to preserve judicial independence, the statutory responsibility for the guidance of the judiciary, including for setting the conduct standards for the judiciary, is held by the Lady Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and Chief Coroner, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and Coroners and Justice Act 2009 respectively.
The Lord Chancellor has no role in this respect, and it is not constitutionally appropriate for the Government to review the judiciary’s guidance.