Skip to main content

1-20 of 15,949 results for subject:"Civil proceedings"

Type

-
Early day motions (18)
+ Legislation (560) + Acts (27)
-
Public acts (27)
+ Bills (47) + Public bills (47)
-
Consolidation bills (1)
-
Government bills (24)
+ Private members' bills (22)
-
Ballot bills (2)
-
Presentation bills (7)
-
Private members' bills (HL) (8)
-
Ten minute rule bills (5)
+ Delegated legislation (486) + Statutory instruments (486)
-
Remedial orders (1)
+ Members' contributions (11,573)
-
Business questions (23)
-
Maiden speeches (2)
-
Oral answers to questions (441)
-
Oral question time interventions (9)
+ Oral questions (462)
-
Prime Minister's questions (22)
-
Topical questions (37)
-
Points of order (2)
-
Proceeding contributions (10,660)
-
Speaker's rulings (1)
+ Parliamentary committees (398) + Committee proceedings (270)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (4)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (42)
-
Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings (68)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (101)
-
Second Reading Committee proceedings (4)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (36)
-
Select Committee reports (45)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (22)
-
Select Committee written evidence (70)
+ Parliamentary papers (533)
-
Annual reports (6)
-
Command papers (77)
-
Consultation papers (79)
-
Consultation papers (Government responses) (10)
-
Deposited papers (271)
-
House of Commons papers (119)
-
House of Lords papers (28)
-
Impact assessments (31)
-
Proposed negative statutory instruments (6)
-
Treaties (10)
-
Unprinted command papers (3)
-
Unprinted papers (21)
-
White papers (3)
+ Parliamentary proceedings (841) + Debates (538)
-
Adjournment debates (26)
-
Backbench debates (5)
+ Committee proceedings (270)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (4)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (42)
-
Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings (68)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (101)
-
Second Reading Committee proceedings (4)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (36)
-
Debates on select committee reports (6)
+ Legislative debates (440)
-
Debates on bills (279)
-
Debates on delegated legislation (158)
+ Monarch's speech debates (2)
-
Queen's speech debates (2)
-
Questions for short debate (8)
+ Formal proceedings (5)
-
Legislative formal proceedings (5)
-
Private notice questions (1)
+ Statements (281) + Oral statements (26)
-
Ministerial statements (25)
-
Select Committee statements (1)
-
Speaker's statements (1)
-
Written statements (255)
-
Urgent questions (5)
+ Written corrections (2)
-
Ministerial corrections (2)
+ Parliamentary questions (2,822)
-
Business questions (23)
+ Oral questions (462)
-
Prime Minister's questions (22)
-
Topical questions (37)
-
Private notice questions (1)
-
Urgent questions (5)
-
Written questions (2,331)
+ Research briefings (68) + Commons Briefing papers (53)
-
Briefing papers on bills (7)
-
Constituency casework (3)
-
Commons Debate packs (5)
+ Lords In Focus (2)
-
Lords In Focus - Bills (2)
+ Lords Library Briefings (7)
-
Lords Library Briefings - Bills (6)
-
Lords Library Briefings - Debates (1)
-
POSTbriefs (1)

House

Session

Year

Department

More

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

More

Legislative stage

Legislation

More

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask His Majesty's Government what is the appropriate forum for legal challenges brought by Chagossians about decisions affecting the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Asked by
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
Answering body
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
1 October 2026
Reference
HL3619
House
House of Lords

To ask His Majesty's Government whether British Overseas Territories citizens connected to the British Indian Ocean Territory are entitled to bring legal challenges before the courts on matters affecting their (1) citizenship status, (2) ancestral graves, and (3) place of birth, where those matters concern British sovereign territory

Asked by
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
Answering body
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
1 October 2026
Reference
HL3620
House
House of Lords

What progress he has made on bringing forward legislative proposals on litigation funding agreements.

Asked by
Julian Smith (Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
15 September 2026
Reference
901382
House
House of Commons
Member
David Davis (Conservative)
Type
Presentation bills
Date
7 September 2026
Reference
Bill 140 2026-27
House
House of Commons

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reverse the effect on opt-out collective court actions and connected litigation funding resulting from the Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others; and, if so, when it is intended that the necessary legislation will come into force.

Asked by
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 cc233-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare the interest of having some professional involvement in collective actions.

Member
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
Type
Oral question time interventions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c233
House
House of Lords

The Government recognise the critical role litigation funding plays in supporting access to justice and the need for such arrangements to be fair, transparent and commercially viable for funders. To support these aims, the Government have accepted the Civil Justice Council’s two key recommendations. First, we will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. We will implement these changes when parliamentary time allows.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c233
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He is aware, and the House will be aware, that collective actions give consumers the power to pursue legal actions for which they

cannot obtain legal aid, however egregious the wrongs that have been committed against them. Why is it that the Government have broken a promise made before the last election, in 2024, that a Bill of about two or three pages would be produced to reverse the unintended effects of the PACCAR case, so that such actions can be brought and the legal funding industry, which is making a great contribution to the British legal world, can proceed with such cases?

Asked by
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c233
House
House of Lords

We are committed to legislating. I hear the noble Lord’s concern about that, but I want to reassure the House that we are committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows. We are working urgently to identify a new legislative vehicle to take this forward. Legislation will clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, and this will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c234
House
House of Lords

Does the Minister accept that without litigation funding, Alan Bates would never have been able to bring his fantastic legal action against the Post Office, and does he recognise that this is an urgent matter?

Asked by
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c234
House
House of Lords

I do recognise that, and I know the history of Sir Alan Bates’ involvement in this. Sir Alan Bates has spoken openly about how, without a litigation funding agreement, he and the sub-postmasters would not have had their day in court. We agree with Sir Alan that third-party funding is crucial for enabling ordinary people to access justice. The access to justice point is the centre of why we think this is important, and I know that is what noble Lords feel too. With group and consumer claims, third-party funding under a litigation funding agreement is often the only option people have to bring a claim. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about access to legal aid as well. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that we understand the importance of it in relation to the sub-postmasters and to Sir Alan Bates.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c234
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, said in her Written Statement in December last year that legislation would be an absolute priority, and she quoted Sir Alan Bates earlier in the Statement. It is vital that any regulation ensures that claimants and victims, especially of the Post Office Horizon scandal, are given full information before they make decisions about whether it is worth continuing with the scheme. Can the Minister say whether there will be such help for claimants and victims?

Asked by
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c234
House
House of Lords

That is why we think light-touch regulation is important here. Transparency is important for consumers in these situations. I see the noble Baroness smile. I know the phrase “light touch” receives a hollow laugh—I used to be a financial services regulator myself. The Government do feel that there is a need to get this on to a proper regulatory footing. I can say a lot more about this; I promise not to be boring. I suspect a lot of the questions I am going to be asked are about urgency and getting on with it. As well as what I have said about finding the appropriate

legislative vehicle, I will go back to Minister Sackman to have a discussion about this. As the noble Baroness knows, I have had rather a busy week. It is above my pay grade to give a commitment, but I will press the case. If I get anywhere, I will buy the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a cup of tea, and if he likes the answer, he can buy me a glass of champagne.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c234
House
House of Lords

My Lords everyone agrees that the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR should be reversed by legislation. Until it is, satellite litigation will proliferate. The last Conservative Government introduced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in 2024, so the necessary legislation is ready and waiting. The Starmer Government were notorious for doing nothing very slowly. I ask the Minister: will the present Government deal with one simple and uncontroversial matter very quickly and thus avoid the bottomless quicksands of parliamentary time?

Asked by
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

Bottomless quicksands are best avoided. I know the history of all this and the legislation the previous Government proposed. As I have made clear, we will legislate. The noble and learned Lord knows I cannot give him a date, but I will do my best to move this forward with Minister Sackman.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

May I ask the Minister: does he know what is holding this up?

Asked by
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

Yes, I do. I can tell the noble and learned Baroness what is holding this up: it is people like me and other Ministers competing for legislative time. I am sorry to say I am going to be arguing with myself, but I promise to take noble Lords’ side on this. I understand the issues about access to justice. I take them very seriously and I will do my best.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

The Minister has made it quite clear that he wants to see this on the statute book. Is it being blocked by the Treasury?

Asked by
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

No, it is not being blocked by the Treasury. Sorry, I must not be too bold and assertive—I appreciate that that is not my role. But no, it is not blocked by the Treasury. The Treasury has no say in this. We are looking for an appropriate legislative vehicle. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, told me last night at dinner that it is more fun if I am rambunctious at the Dispatch Box.

Answered by
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords

My Lords, does not everyone have their own favourite piece of legislation that they want introduced, and as quickly as possible? It is for the Government to set the agenda, and once they have promised to do something, they will do it within the timeframe of that Government. As far as the Starmer argument goes, we had very little legislation coming from the Opposition when they were in government, and the legislation we did have did a lot of damage to the country.

Asked by
Lord Watts (Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 September 2026
Reference
859 c235
House
House of Lords