1-20 of 9,160 results for subject:"Supreme Court"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 1.186 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.012 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Supreme Court"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Supreme Court" OR subject_t:"UK Supreme Court" OR subject_ses:93171
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2026 to Question 9023 on ICF Consulting Services: Equality, whether she plans to amend the KPI requirement on allowing biological men who self-identify as women to be counted as female representation...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2026 to Question 9023 on ICF Consulting Services: Equality, whether she plans to amend the KPI requirement on allowing biological men who self-identify as women to be counted as female representation...
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to the answer of 8 July 2026 to Question 14625, whether she has issued guidance to departments on how the Supreme Court judgement of For Women Scotland Ltd on biological sex affects the production and content of the department’s Equality Objectives.
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to the answer of 8 July 2026 to Question 14625, whether she has issued guidance to departments on how the Supreme Court judgement of For Women Scotland Ltd on biological sex affects the production and content of the department’s Equality Objectives.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether regulatory changes have been implemented following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether regulatory changes have been implemented following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
The Government commissioned the independent Wheatley Review in July 2012 to identify and recommend changes to the regulatory framework in light of the LIBOR scandal. The Government accepted the Review’s recommendations and implemented associated reforms to the regulation and oversight of benchmarks.
Since then, LIBOR has been wound down, reflecting concerns about its reliability. This has been supported by coordinated action across government and regulators, alongside the transition to alternative benchmarks. The Treasury engaged closely with regulators throughout the programme to support the transition away from LIBOR. The transition was successfully completed, with all LIBOR settings having now ceased and no significant market disruption arising as a result.
The investigations and subsequent prosecutions relating to the LIBOR scandal were led by the operationally independent Serious Fraud Office. The Government is not able to comment on the specifics of any individual case, but the Government’s position on financial market abuse is clear: it undermines the integrity of public markets, impairs the effectiveness of financial markets, and reduces public confidence in them.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the implications for the rights of disabled people of the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the assessment of deprivation of liberty.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the implications for the rights of disabled people of the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the assessment of deprivation of liberty.
The Department’s priority is to safeguard vulnerable people and ensure their rights are protected. We are considering the Supreme Court’s judgment carefully, which sets out the factors to be applied when determining whether a person is deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We remain committed to protecting the rights of disabled people. The judgment does not remove the need for robust safeguards where Article 5 is engaged, and existing legal frameworks, including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Care Act 2014, continue to provide protections.
The Department published an update to the health and care sector on the implications of the judgment on 15 June 2026 and will publish additional interim guidance shortly. We are working with a range of stakeholder partners and charities to develop this guidance. It will include practical case studies to help people understand how they should apply the judgment to their work.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of people who will lose access to independent reviews and advocacy as a result of the Supreme Court ruling removing the Cheshire West Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards framework; and what assessment they have made of the risk...
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of people who will lose access to independent reviews and advocacy as a result of the Supreme Court ruling removing the Cheshire West Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards framework; and what assessment they have made of the risk...
The Government remains firmly committed to safeguarding and protecting the rights of people lacking capacity. The deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) will continue to apply in line with changes required by the Supreme Court judgment. This includes the right to independent reviews and advocacy where appropriate.
The Department published an update on GOV.UK on 15 June in response to the judgement, a copy of which is attached. The update includes initial steers on what the judgment means, including for valid consent, for practitioners and all those involved in supporting individuals where is a deprivation of liberty. We are working with a range of stakeholder partners and charities to develop follow-up guidance as quickly as possible. The update is attached below.
Individuals receiving care and support who are not subject to DoLS can also access independent reviews and advocacy where appropriate under a range of other safeguards available, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Care Act 2014.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) undertakes independent oversight of these safeguards, including DoLS, and will continue to do so in light of the Supreme Court judgment. As part of their inspection regime, CQC checks that care settings and providers have effective systems to help keep adults safe from abuse and neglect, including those subject to DoLS and those not subject to DoLS.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the Supreme Court's reversal of the Cheshire West judgment ([2014] UKSC 19), including whether existing checks and independent inspections of facilities will continue; and whether the right to a legal advocate will be maintained.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the Supreme Court's reversal of the Cheshire West judgment ([2014] UKSC 19), including whether existing checks and independent inspections of facilities will continue; and whether the right to a legal advocate will be maintained.
The Government remains firmly committed to safeguarding and protecting the rights of people lacking capacity.
The deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) system will continue to apply in line with changes required by the Supreme Court judgment. This includes the right to a legal advocate where appropriate. DoLS are only one of several protections in place. Additional safeguards include the Mental Capacity Act, local authority safeguarding duties required by the Care Act 2014, and common law duties of care, some of which also include the right to an advocate.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) undertakes independent oversight of these safeguards, including DoLS, and will continue to do so in light of the Supreme Court judgment. As part of their inspection regime, the CQC checks that care providers, including for-profit settings and providers, have effective systems to help keep adults safe from abuse and neglect.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to issue interim guidance to local authorities and health and care providers following the Supreme Court ruling that removes the Cheshire West framework for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards; and what timeline they have set, if any, for bringing forward new legislation...
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to issue interim guidance to local authorities and health and care providers following the Supreme Court ruling that removes the Cheshire West framework for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards; and what timeline they have set, if any, for bringing forward new legislation...
The Department will produce guidance to assist with the implications of this ruling. We are working with a range of stakeholder partners and charities to develop the guidance as quickly as possible. Public bodies, including the National Health Service and local authorities, should be alert to emerging guidance and be prepared to update local practice promptly.
There are currently no plans to bring forward new legislation to restore independent oversight of care arrangements for people who lack mental capacity. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are one of several ways that United Kingdom legislation protects people’s rights. The Care Act 2014 provides explicit safeguards for adults with care and support needs. Section 5 of the Care Act 2014 states that local authorities must ensure that the services they commission are safe, effective, and of high quality.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take to protect the rights of people with disabilities following the Supreme Court ruling that overruled the Cheshire West framework for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take to protect the rights of people with disabilities following the Supreme Court ruling that overruled the Cheshire West framework for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The Government remains firmly committed to safeguarding and protecting the rights of people with disabilities. The recent Supreme Court judgment clarifies the factors to consider when determining whether someone is deprived of their liberty for the purposes of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that valid consent can be given.
The deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) system will continue to apply in line with changes informed by the Supreme Court judgement. DoLS are one of several safeguarding protections in place. Adults with care and support needs are safeguarded through the Care Act 2014, which requires local authorities to ensure that commissioned services are safe, effective and high quality. Additional safeguards include the Mental Capacity Act, local authority safeguarding duties through the Care Act 2014, oversight by the Care Quality Commission, and common law duties of care.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to consult publicly on the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment on deprivation of liberty; whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of that judgment on access to independent scrutiny, advocacy...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to consult publicly on the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment on deprivation of liberty; whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of that judgment on access to independent scrutiny, advocacy...
The Government remains firmly committed to safeguarding and protecting the rights of people lacking capacity. The Department published an update on GOV.UK on 15 June 2026 in response to the judgement.
We are working with a range of stakeholder partners and charities to develop follow-up guidance as quickly as possible. There are currently no plans to consult publicly on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment.
There has been no assessment of the potential impact of that judgment on access to independent scrutiny, advocacy and legal remedies for people who lack mental capacity. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are one of several ways that United Kingdom legislation protects people’s rights. The Care Act 2014 provides explicit safeguards for adults with care and support needs.
As recommended by Baroness Casey, we are working at pace to set up a new National Adult Safeguarding Board to strengthen national oversight and accountability of the safeguarding system and to and to undertake a review of adult safeguarding statutory duties and powers.
A general debate on Pride Month will be held on 4 June 2026.
A general debate on Pride Month will be held on 4 June 2026.
Lords statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
Lords statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice. The publication of the draft code is welcome, and I was pleased to see greater protections for breast-feeding women, and greater clarity for people with disabilities. Those are important improvements.
The...
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice. The publication of the draft code is welcome, and I was pleased to see greater protections for breast-feeding women, and greater clarity for people with disabilities. Those are important improvements.
The...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement on a profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue are fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by the code are...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement on a profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue are fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by the code are...
I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions.
I start by picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and addressing the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the general principle. We forget what the Supreme Court itself said in its judgment,...
I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions.
I start by picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and addressing the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the general principle. We forget what the Supreme Court itself said in its judgment,...
I very much welcome the last part of my noble friend’s answer. I would like clarification on two points, because the word “sensitivity” has been used, and indeed is used in the guidance. I would like my noble friend to confirm that it is discriminatory to involuntarily out a trans...
I very much welcome the last part of my noble friend’s answer. I would like clarification on two points, because the word “sensitivity” has been used, and indeed is used in the guidance. I would like my noble friend to confirm that it is discriminatory to involuntarily out a trans...
We have to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. It has interpreted the Equality Act, and I know that my noble friend—and I think everyone on this side of the House—is proud of the Equality Act and what it has achieved. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the...
We have to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. It has interpreted the Equality Act, and I know that my noble friend—and I think everyone on this side of the House—is proud of the Equality Act and what it has achieved. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the...