Question follow-through · 11367
Insolvency: Domestic Abuse
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the safeguards in the Insolvency Rules 2016 against the misuse of insolvency proceedings as an instrument of economic abuse or coercive contro
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Business and Trade
- Tabled
- 18 Jun 2026
- Target answer date
- 22 Jun 2026
- Answer
- 26 Jun 2026 · 8 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
18 Jun 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the safeguards in the Insolvency Rules 2016 against the misuse of insolvency proceedings as an instrument of economic abuse or coercive contro
22 Jun 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
26 Jun 2026
Answer published
Insolvency proceedings are a regulated process designed to protect both debtors and creditors.An individual can only be declared bankrupt by a court order following the presentation of a bankruptcy petition. The process is overseen by the court through th...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.