Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that children who spend the majority of their schooling hours in religious education are enabled to take national examinations and apply for admission to higher education institutions.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

State‑funded schools with a religious character may teach religious education in line with their faith, but they are subject to the same requirements as other state‑funded schools to promote community cohesion and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Since 2014, all schools, including independent schools and those with a religious character or ethos, have been required to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

Independent schools with a religious character or ethos must be registered with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and meet the Independent School Standards, which set minimum requirements relating to safeguarding, the quality of education, and pupils’ welfare. The Standards include, among other things, a requirement to teach a broad curriculum.

The government assesses the sufficiency of education through the inspection and regulatory framework. All registered schools are inspected by Ofsted, and the Secretary of State has statutory powers to intervene where standards are not met.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to strengthen the regulation and oversight of independent schools and will bring additional full-time educational settings, including some which provide a religious education, within the same regulatory regime as independent schools.

The government does not routinely monitor examination entry or progression to higher education for pupils in independent schools, as responsibility rests with schools and parents.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that religious education offered to children who spend the majority of their schooling hours in religious schools does not promote hostility towards religions other than their own.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

State‑funded schools with a religious character may teach religious education in line with their faith, but they are subject to the same requirements as other state‑funded schools to promote community cohesion and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Since 2014, all schools, including independent schools and those with a religious character or ethos, have been required to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

Independent schools with a religious character or ethos must be registered with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and meet the Independent School Standards, which set minimum requirements relating to safeguarding, the quality of education, and pupils’ welfare. The Standards include, among other things, a requirement to teach a broad curriculum.

The government assesses the sufficiency of education through the inspection and regulatory framework. All registered schools are inspected by Ofsted, and the Secretary of State has statutory powers to intervene where standards are not met.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to strengthen the regulation and oversight of independent schools and will bring additional full-time educational settings, including some which provide a religious education, within the same regulatory regime as independent schools.

The government does not routinely monitor examination entry or progression to higher education for pupils in independent schools, as responsibility rests with schools and parents.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the sufficiency of secular education offered to schoolchildren who spend the majority of their schooling hours in religious schools.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

State‑funded schools with a religious character may teach religious education in line with their faith, but they are subject to the same requirements as other state‑funded schools to promote community cohesion and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Since 2014, all schools, including independent schools and those with a religious character or ethos, have been required to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

Independent schools with a religious character or ethos must be registered with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and meet the Independent School Standards, which set minimum requirements relating to safeguarding, the quality of education, and pupils’ welfare. The Standards include, among other things, a requirement to teach a broad curriculum.

The government assesses the sufficiency of education through the inspection and regulatory framework. All registered schools are inspected by Ofsted, and the Secretary of State has statutory powers to intervene where standards are not met.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to strengthen the regulation and oversight of independent schools and will bring additional full-time educational settings, including some which provide a religious education, within the same regulatory regime as independent schools.

The government does not routinely monitor examination entry or progression to higher education for pupils in independent schools, as responsibility rests with schools and parents.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 26 March (HL Deb col 1610) that "we are opposed to item 7 in the Human Rights Council", and the speech by the UK Human Rights Ambassador on 31 March in which she stated that there had been a change in the UK voting position, what is their current position on item 7; why they changed their voting position; and whether they have responded to the objections raised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The UK's longstanding and principled objection to Item 7 remains unchanged. Item 7 unfairly and uniquely singles out the State of Israel in comparison to other countries. The UK will continue to argue for the removal of Item 7 and to push for issues related to Israel-Palestine to be discussed under alternative agenda items.

We believe that engaging in negotiations, including abstaining where we judge appropriate, while making clear our principled opposition to Item 7, is more likely to secure UK influence over the texts. This is the approach that the UK maintained between 2006 and 2018 and is in line with the approach taken by many European partners.

UK Ministers regularly engage with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest and concern.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations arising from (1) the BBC Mid-Term Review 2024, and (2) the 2024–25 Ofcom review of the BBC's editorial complaints system.

Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

Amendments to the BBC’s Framework Agreement to implement specific, evidence-based recommendations from the previous government’s Mid-Term Review of the BBC were published on 16 December 2025 on the gov.uk website. This will help ensure regulation of the BBC works effectively for the remainder of this Charter Period.

The government is considering the recommendations arising from Ofcom’s 2024 research report ‘A Mystery Shopping Exercise of the BBC First Complaints Process’ as part of the BBC Charter Review and is examining whether any changes are required to the BBC’s complaints process to ensure audiences feel that their concerns are being addressed. Decisions on the BBC’s Charter will be set out in a White Paper, expected to be published later this year.

Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to bring forward proposals to ensure that community benefit commitments made by renewable energy developers are binding on successor owners, in order to prevent the loss or dilution of benefits when projects are sold.

Answered by Lord Whitehead - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)

In Great Britain, the provision of community benefits by renewable energy developers is currently voluntary.

As shown in the Community benefits guidance for onshore wind in England, the Government expects developers to consider their approach to community benefit provision at all stages of a project’s lifetime, including as ownership changes, to ensure communities continue to see benefits from hosting energy infrastructure.

Last year, the Government published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure, which sought views on the introduction of a mandatory community benefit scheme.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to commission a review of the effectiveness of the principle set out in the Guide to Judicial Conduct that tribunal judges should avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to refrain from sitting due to perceived or actual conflict of interest; and what assessment they have made of whether tribunal judges do recuse themselves in cases where there is a reasonable perception that they would be biased.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.

All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.

This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the advantages of ensuring that tribunal judges are subject to transparent and up-to-date declarations of interest comparable to those required of other public office holders and legislators.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.

All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.

This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have identified any risks to public confidence arising from the absence of a mandatory publicly accessible register of interests for tribunal judges.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.

All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.

This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what is the governance framework that governs conflicts of interest in the tribunal system.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.

All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.

This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what mechanisms exist to ensure (1) accountability, and (2) effectiveness, of redress for complainants when the investigation carried out by the Judicial Conduct and Ombudsman is significantly delayed or is otherwise regarded as unsatisfactory.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.

JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:

• Received 35% more correspondence, considered 53% more cases to determine whether a full investigation was necessary (447 compared to 292), concluded 66% more Preliminary Investigation Reports (424 compared to 256) but progressed 36% fewer cases to full investigation (23 compared to 36) and concluded 41% fewer full investigations (23 compared to 39).

• Exceeded its 90% target in relation to Preliminary Investigation reports completed within 6 weeks of receipt of full information; achieved its 98% target of keeping complainants updated; achieved its target of acknowledging receipt of 98% of new complaints and correspondence within 5 working days and exceeded its target of handling 90% of correspondence within 15 working days.

JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:

The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.

JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what recent discussions they have had with the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman regarding steps to improve the efficiency of the office; and what consideration they have given, if any, to introducing statutory performance standards for that office.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.

JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:

• Received 35% more correspondence, considered 53% more cases to determine whether a full investigation was necessary (447 compared to 292), concluded 66% more Preliminary Investigation Reports (424 compared to 256) but progressed 36% fewer cases to full investigation (23 compared to 36) and concluded 41% fewer full investigations (23 compared to 39).

• Exceeded its 90% target in relation to Preliminary Investigation reports completed within 6 weeks of receipt of full information; achieved its 98% target of keeping complainants updated; achieved its target of acknowledging receipt of 98% of new complaints and correspondence within 5 working days and exceeded its target of handling 90% of correspondence within 15 working days.

JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:

The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.

JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what recent assessment they have made of the performance of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, in particular the timeliness of investigations.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.

JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:

• Received 35% more correspondence, considered 53% more cases to determine whether a full investigation was necessary (447 compared to 292), concluded 66% more Preliminary Investigation Reports (424 compared to 256) but progressed 36% fewer cases to full investigation (23 compared to 36) and concluded 41% fewer full investigations (23 compared to 39).

• Exceeded its 90% target in relation to Preliminary Investigation reports completed within 6 weeks of receipt of full information; achieved its 98% target of keeping complainants updated; achieved its target of acknowledging receipt of 98% of new complaints and correspondence within 5 working days and exceeded its target of handling 90% of correspondence within 15 working days.

JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:

The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.

JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what was the average time taken to complete a Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman investigation in each of the past five years.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.

JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:

• Received 35% more correspondence, considered 53% more cases to determine whether a full investigation was necessary (447 compared to 292), concluded 66% more Preliminary Investigation Reports (424 compared to 256) but progressed 36% fewer cases to full investigation (23 compared to 36) and concluded 41% fewer full investigations (23 compared to 39).

• Exceeded its 90% target in relation to Preliminary Investigation reports completed within 6 weeks of receipt of full information; achieved its 98% target of keeping complainants updated; achieved its target of acknowledging receipt of 98% of new complaints and correspondence within 5 working days and exceeded its target of handling 90% of correspondence within 15 working days.

JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:

The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.

JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.

Found: This is not to dismiss it, but I am seven weeks in and I have had my first engagement with Baroness Deech

Found: ChalmersYesSir Laurie Magnus, Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests; Richard Lloyd, Chair, IPSA; Baroness Deech