Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the policy recommendations made by the University of Warwick in their report, Supporting disabled Ukrainians in the UK, published in June, particularly recommendations relating to (1) access to healthcare, housing, and employment for displaced Ukrainians in the UK, and (2) ensuring the needs of disabled Ukrainians are taken into account in decisions about arrangements for longer-term immigration.
Answered by Lord Collins of Highbury - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Government is aware of the University of Warwick’s research and is considering its findings and recommendations alongside other relevant evidence.
Ukrainians in the UK with the relevant immigration status can access a range of public services and support, including healthcare and benefits to help with housing and other essential needs. The Government works in partnership with local authorities to support positive integration outcomes, including access to education and employment. Guidance is available on GOV.UK covering employment, benefits, healthcare and social care.
The Government recognises the impact that uncertainty around longer-term arrangements can have on Ukrainian individuals and families who have built their lives in the UK. No decisions have yet been taken on future arrangements. This work is informed by a range of evidence, including from academia, civil society and stakeholder engagement, and the experiences of different groups of Ukrainians in the UK.
The Government also understands the importance of providing sufficient notice so that individuals and families can plan appropriately and will provide further information in due course.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they agree with the approach to “Development which would address an evidenced unmet need” for the purpose of Policy S5(1)(j) of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework taken by the Planning Inspectorate in its appeal decision 6005809 at paragraphs 55-60 and 80.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (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.
The government intends to publish revised Planning Practice Guidance for Housing and Economic Needs Assessment in due course.
I otherwise refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided on 16 October 2026 in response to Question HL3809.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take, if any, in response to Meta promoting posts on Facebook in the last fortnight from verified accounts of Russian embassies, including threats to harm the UK in response to its support for Ukraine.
Answered by Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
My Department has asked Meta to investigate these allegations. Under the Online Safety Act, regulated services must assess and mitigate the risk of illegal content and activity, including content related to the Foreign Interference Offence. Ofcom is responsible for enforcing those duties. Meta's policies prohibit direct and credible threats of physical harm, violence and incitement to violence. Decisions on whether content breaches a platform's rules are currently a matter for the platform. We expect companies to take robust action where content breaches either their legal duties or platform policies. From 2027, the largest platforms will be required to apply and enforce their published terms of service consistently and transparently.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish a list of the “well-connected stations” within the meaning of Policy S5(1)(h) and Annex B of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework; and, if not, why not.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The new National Planning Policy Framework, published in August 2026, provides a “default yes” to suitable planning applications for residential and mixed-use development within a reasonable walking distance of ‘well-connected’ stations. This development will also have to meet minimum density requirements.
The definition of ‘well-connected’ station, as set out in the NPPF glossary, includes those within the top 80 Travel to Work Areas by Gross Value Added and are served by at least four trains per hour (or at least two in any one direction). Stations may also fall into scope where they have a reasonable prospect of reaching this train frequency, due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator.
It is for decision-makers to determine whether these criteria apply to any given station. As such, any published list could not be definitive. For that reason, my Department has not published a list of stations which can be defined as ‘well-connected’.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the current timescales for private rental sector landlords to obtain and enforce possession orders where justified; and what steps they are making to speed up the process.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly Mortgage and landlord possession statistics - Mortgage and landlord possession statistics - GOV.UK - which details the number of claims and the average time (mean/median) from claim to possession.
In 2025, the median average wait between claim and repossession by County Court bailiffs was 27 weeks and approximately 31% of the claims submitted required enforcement by County Court bailiffs.
Most possession claims do not require bailiff enforcement, as tenants vacate the property at various stages of the process and only a minority lead on to bailiff enforcement.
The timeliness of the enforcement of an order, where this is required, can be influenced by the actions of users and court. HMCTS is taking forward work to explore further improvements to bailiff recruitment and retention practices and to reduce administrative tasks for bailiffs to improve communications and efficiency.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they will publish up-to-date Housing Delivery Test results for local planning authorities in England; and what are the reasons for the ongoing delay in their publication.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Following delays to the publication of the 2023 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results under the previous government, this government is committed to re-establishing a regular publication cycle. We therefore combined the data collections for the 2024 and 2025 HDTs and intend to publish both sets of results as soon as possible.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Levitt on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912), what assessment they have made of the article “Are judicial reviews in the Planning Court taking too long?”, published by the UK Constitutional Law Association on 23 March, having regard to that article being based upon statistical analysis unlike the Written Answers.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The Written Answers on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912) were based on the professional knowledge and experience of the Planning Liaison Judge, rather than statistical data, drawing on his role managing claims in the Planning Court. The Planning Court Users Group provides a mechanism for users to raise any specific concerns regarding the timely progress of cases. The Court has confirmed that there is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court relating to challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Significant Planning Court claims are managed in line with the targets set out in the relevant Practice Direction, while other cases follow the arrangements applicable to the Administrative Court. Overall oversight by the Planning Liaison Judge ensures that claims are progressed efficiently.
HMCTS is committed to improving efficiency, responsiveness and overall quality of service provided. Through collaborative working with the well-established Planning Court Users Group, HMCTS will discuss and consider any further administrative improvements.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 26 February (HL14912), whether their answer was informed by statistical data relating to the duration taken to determine cases concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in 2025 and 2026; and if so, what patterns this data showed, (1) compared to the target timescales set out in the Practice Direction, and (2) compared to performance in previous years.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The Written Answer of 26 February 2026 (HL14912) was informed, not by statistical data, but by the knowledge of the Planning Liaison Judge, based on his work as judge in charge managing claims in the Planning Court.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the backlog of cases in the Planning Court concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and what solutions they are considering to address the backlog.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
There is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This position has been confirmed by the Court.
Significant claims in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the targets set out in the Practice Direction. Other cases in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the arrangements which apply to claims in the Administrative Court. The Planning Liaison Judge oversees claims in the Planning Court and ensures these are progressed efficiently.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to exercise their right under Article 16 of the Aarhus Convention to contest the interpretation given by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee to Articles 3(1) and 8 of the Aarhus Convention in its findings of 3 October in Case ACCC/C/2017/150 concerning compliance by the United Kingdom.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The UK recognises the important role played by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in making recommendations to promote compliance with the Aarhus Convention. However, we strongly disagree with the interpretation of Convention obligations which the Committee has recommended in the draft findings referred to in the question. We look forward to working within the mechanisms of the Convention to address this issue.