Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what the current status is of the report of the UK-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)
In line with the commitment made between our Prime Ministers in June 2025, the UK-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group met over the course of last year in order to identify ways in which the UK and Canada can deepen cooperation, tackle market access barriers and grow our bilateral trading relationship, which was worth £30bn in the 12 months to June 2025 .
The Working Group has identified a number of priority bilateral workstreams for 2026, including updating the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement’s Rules of Origin, and deepening cooperation on critical minerals, carbon border measures, economic security, and defence procurement and trade.
The joint report for Prime Ministers itself is subject to ongoing discussions with the Government of Canada, and will be finalised in due course.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, pursuant to the British Embassy in Brussels' press release entitled Diplomat for a Day 2026 in Brussels: enter our competition' published on 9 January 2026, what estimate her Department has made of the cost to UK taxpayers of this initiative.
Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The work experience competition referred to by the Hon Member is in its fourth year in Belgium, run by the UK embassy alongside their counterparts from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands, and not only provides an outstanding opportunity for the young women selected to take part, but an important means for the embassies involved to engage with high schools across their host country, and cement our strong relationships in that country for the future. The competition is delivered at minimal cost, shared across the four embassies, and while the Hon Member may take a different view, we believe in increasing the opportunities available to young women all over the world to play their full part in public life.
Asked by: Tom Tugendhat (Conservative - Tonbridge)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which international child maintenance systems his Department has reviewed in the last five years as comparators for reform of the Child Maintenance Service; and what key lessons were identified.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service keeps international practice under review and draws on lessons from other systems where appropriate. In recent years, we have looked at approaches in countries including Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United States.
While international approaches differ and direct comparisons are challenging, our review indicates that the UK Child Maintenance system is effective at tackling child poverty. In the UK, child maintenance payments do not reduce benefit entitlements, which boosts household income and strengthens efforts to reduce child poverty. By separating child maintenance from benefits, the UK approach strengthens its impact on reducing poverty and may improve incentives to pay, ensuring the support is meaningful for both parents.
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the financial contributions made by a) Australia, b) New Zealand, c) Canada and d) India to the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Answered by Chris Elmore - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The UK is the largest donor to Commonwealth institutions and their programmes. We support reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat to help place the organisation on a more sustainable financial footing and encourage member states to contribute as appropriate to support Commonwealth activity.
Asked by: Stuart Andrew (Conservative - Daventry)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93697, whether he has made an estimate of the differences in the number of conditions screened for in newborns between the UK and other countries such as Norway, Australia, Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands; and how those differences relate to the internationally recognised criteria used by the UK National Screening Committee.
Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Screening programmes in the United Kingdom have a more rigorous approach towards evaluating the benefits and harms of screening compared to many other countries such as the United States of America and Italy.
The independent UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), which is made up of leading medical and screening experts, advises Ministers in all four nations of the UK on the evidence on screening. Where the Committee is confident that screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.
Some countries often cited as screening more conditions than the UK are not always running national programmes. Some countries or regions screen for a condition when it is only at the pilot or research stage. Some ‘screening programmes’ just test for a condition rather than being end-to-end quality-assured programmes that include diagnosis, treatment and care. And screening in some countries is delivered regionally, or even just by individual hospitals, rather than nationally. They are therefore not directly comparable to the national screening programmes offered in the UK.
Asked by: Peter Bedford (Conservative - Mid Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what public consultation his Department has undertaken on planned changes to jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, consulted with many external bodies involved in the Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary.
The Review conducted a call for evidence on GOV.UK, to ensure it heard as many perspectives as possible. A full list of those who engaged with the Review is at Annex C of Sir Brian’s report.
In addition, when considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including meeting regularly representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their official policy to omit mention of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai when ministers discuss the UK-Hong Kong bilateral relationship in the press.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
On the contrary, ministers and officials regularly raise the continued detention of Jimmy Lai, and China's obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in interviews with the media, statements to Parliament, public speeches, the government's Six-monthly Reports to Parliament on Hong Kong, and discussions we have with our Chinese counterparts. For example, the Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai's case both in her working dinner with G7 foreign ministers in Canada on 11 November, and a phone call with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, on 6 November.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent topics has he discussed with external bodies when considering the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which external bodies has he recently spoken to about the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to introduce asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities directly involved in planning or implementing the construction of the Shdema settlement near Bethlehem.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 3 July 2025 in response to Question 62975, which - for ease of reference - is reproduced below:
We are deeply concerned by the levels of settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank and continue to urge the Government of Israel to stop settlement expansion and take action to hold violence to account. Settlements are illegal under international law. On 20 May the UK imposed sanctions on three individuals, two illegal settler outposts and two organisations supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. On 10 June the UK, acting alongside partners Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, imposed sanctions on Israeli government ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in their personal capacity, in response to their repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank.
The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Israeli settlements, as part of Israel. Goods imported from the settlements are therefore not entitled to benefit from trade preferences under the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement. The UK also supports accurate labelling of settlement goods, so as not to mislead the consumer.
Sanctions can be used to achieve a range of foreign and security policy objectives. We use sanctions when they complement other tools as part of a wider strategy. It would not be appropriate to speculate about future sanctions designations as to do so could reduce their impact. We have been clear that we keep these issues under close review.