Written questions by Slaughter.

Whether he has set a timeline for publication of legislation to reverse the effects of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal.

We intend to introduce legislation to clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) are not Damages-Based Agreements when Parliamentary time allows. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. We intend to make this change with prospective effect.The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

If he will take legislative steps to reverse the effects of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and provide for the changes to apply retrospectively.

We intend to introduce legislation to clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) are not Damages-Based Agreements when Parliamentary time allows. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. We intend to make this change with prospective effect.The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

Whether he plans to implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements in this parliament.

We have carefully considered the recommendations from the Civil Justice Council's review and, as well as seeking to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment, we wanted to tighten up regulation of third-party litigation funding.We intend to introduce legislation to implement proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements when Parliamentary time allows. The new regulatory framework will aim to enhance claimant protection, transparency and the effectiveness of the litigation funding market. The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

What steps he is taking to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed expansion of electronic monitoring of offenders in helping to (a) reduce reoffending and (b) support rehabilitation.

In support of the Sentencing Bill, the Ministry of Justice will significantly expand the use of electronic monitoring as a vital tool for probation to ensure offenders are managed safely in the community.This expansion builds on the Department’s long-standing commitment to building the evidence base for electronic monitoring. Our evaluations, alongside external research commissioned by the Department, have provided clear evidence that targeted electronic monitoring conditions can reduce reoffending and support reintegration by providing an effective alternative to custody. A recent study has found that curfew tags reduce reoffending by 20% when used as part of a community sentence. Further to this, our Acquisitive Crime pilot evaluation shows that burglars, robbers, and thieves given a constant whereabouts monitoring condition with a GPS tag were around 20% less likely to reoffend while on the tag.

Whether his department is taking steps to deliver the recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review of increased funding for the voluntary sector to support the Probation Service.

I recognise the valuable role of the thousands of Voluntary Sector organisations that work in partnership with Prisons and Probation to provide vital support to people serving their sentence in prison and returning to the community. We welcome the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendation to explore how we can better harness the value of the Third Sector and build even stronger partnerships to enable better targeting of probation resource and improve outcomes for offenders. We are currently in the process of re-procuring our commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) contracts. 76% of current CRS contracts are led by the Third Sector. Our new contracts will improve on our current offering with expanded and improved consistency of service available in both custody and community. We will continue to work with the Voluntary Sector as implementation of the Independent Sentencing Review progresses.

On the basis of what evidence was the estimate of a 20 per cent time saving for judge only trials made, including the following evidence referred to in the Leveson report (i) the quantitative analyses, (ii) the quantitative estimate of impact from the workshop with HMCTS operational staff and (iii) a summary of judicial expectations of time saving; and what is the confidence interval for the 20 per cent estimate.

Hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, judges explaining legal concepts to jurors, and jury deliberation. There is no denying that these add to the time it takes to hear a case.The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court.In Part I of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, Sir Brian Leveson, one of the foremost judges of his generation, and his Expert Advisers have estimated a new Crown Court bench division would speed up cases by at least 20%. Sir Brian himself has indicated that he believes this was a conservative estimate and could be significantly more in practice.Further details of the work undertaken to arrive at this assumption can be found below:Quantitative analyses explored potential proxies for jury trial savings by drawing comparisons within the current system. Whilst there is no directly comparable proxy for judge only trials within our own systems, this provided a framework for elicitation workshops and judicial engagement.A structured elicitation workshop with expert operational staff from HMCTS. The quantitative analysis was shared with participants, and the workshop generated a suggested estimated range of 10-30% for lower to upper end plausible time savings, with 20% given as a median value.Engagement session with judges to understand their personal expectations of potential time-savings, intended to provide an anecdotal indication of where and how the judiciary thought time savings may or may not become apparent in a CCBD. Their views were in keeping with wider estimates.The 20% assumption is also broadly in line with international evidence from New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research who compared quantitative data from judge only and jury trials. Whilst time savings varied by offence type, for all offences it found a 16% reduction in trial length for judge only trials, and a 29% time saving for complex and prejudicial offences.A full Impact Assessment of the policy measures announced will be published alongside legislation as is usual.We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

How many and what proportion of prisoners were (a) released into homelessness and (b) homeless three months after release in each quarter since January 2022.

We are taking a number of steps to reduce numbers of those being released from prison homeless, including measures to improve joint processes and guidance across prisons, probation and local authorities. Overall statutory responsibility for housing and homelessness lies with local authorities in both England and Wales.We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments through the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping to develop a new long-term cross-government strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.We deliver our Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) to support prison leavers who are subject to probation supervision and at risk of homelessness, by offering up to 12 weeks of basic transitional accommodation to provide a stable base on release.We employ 50 prison-based Strategic Housing Specialists, including nine across the female estate, to support prisons to reduce homelessness on release by working in partnership with probation teams and Local Authorities.Published figures relating to offender accommodation outcomes can be found here: Offender Accommodation Outcome Statistics - GOV.UK.

What steps he is taking to reduce the number of people needing homelessness relief from local authorities on release from prison.

We are taking a number of steps to reduce numbers of those being released from prison homeless, including measures to improve joint processes and guidance across prisons, probation and local authorities. Overall statutory responsibility for housing and homelessness lies with local authorities in both England and Wales.We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments through the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping to develop a new long-term cross-government strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.We deliver our Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) to support prison leavers who are subject to probation supervision and at risk of homelessness, by offering up to 12 weeks of basic transitional accommodation to provide a stable base on release.We employ 50 prison-based Strategic Housing Specialists, including nine across the female estate, to support prisons to reduce homelessness on release by working in partnership with probation teams and Local Authorities.Published figures relating to offender accommodation outcomes can be found here: Offender Accommodation Outcome Statistics - GOV.UK.

How many outstanding cases there have been in the Employment (a) Tribunal and (b) Appeal Tribunal in each of the last five years.

Data on open caseload for the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeals Tribunal is published in Tribunals Statistics Quarterly and data to March 2025 can be found in table S_4 of the main tables here: Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.Figures for ET single claims, ET multiple claims and EAT claims are in columns H, J and K respectively.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill on backlogs in the employment tribunals.

The Employment Rights Bill is part of the Government’s commitment to Make Work Pay. The Bill includes measures that strengthens the rights of workers, which we expect will increase demand in the Employment Tribunal.To address rising demand in the Employment Tribunal, we are working to invest in tribunal productivity measures through the recruitment of additional judges, the deployment of legal officers, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. This has delivered over 1,500 additional sitting days. The Lord Chancellor allocated 33,900 sitting days for the Employment Tribunals in the financial year 2025/26, the maximum allocation they are able to sit.We do recognise that there are significant demand pressures on the Employment Tribunals and are therefore working with the judiciary, HMCTS and the Department for Business and Trade on any further actions needed to alleviate pressures on the Employment Tribunals, improve efficiency and reduce waiting times to ensure the Employment Tribunal is able to absorb the impact of the Employment Rights Bill whilst ensuring timely access to justice for claimants and respondents.

When she plans for the Legal Aid Agency’s case management system to be fully operational, following the recent data breach.

This has been an unprecedented event and every effort is being made to restore services following the criminal attack on our systems. The Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital services have been taken offline to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We have been able to return some systems to internal use, enabling an improved ability to support criminal legal aid applications and payments.We cannot confirm a specific timescale for full service restoration. In the interim, the LAA will continue to provide updates as soon as they are available and will work closely with representative bodies to ensure any extended or refined contingency measures support providers and their clients to the maximum extent. All updates, including contingency arrangements, are published on the LAA’s dedicated cyber security incident webpage Legal Aid Agency cyber security incident - GOV.UK.Contingency measures have been implemented to ensure that access to legal aid remains available and that providers are receiving payments. This included the implementation of emergency legislation on 27 June. The new legislation provides for increased delegation of powers to providers and removes civil client contributions. The average payment scheme already operating in civil legal aid will continue.The LAA retains all data impacted by this incident. There is no evidence of data being permanently lost or destroyed. However, while systems are offline some data is not accessible. Access will be restored as part of service restoration.The recent data breach is the result of serious criminal activity, but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of underinvestment under the last Conservative Government. By contrast, since taking power this Government has prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. This investment will make the system more robust and resilient in the face of similar cyber-attacks in future.

Whether her Department retains access to all data held in the case management systems impacted by the Legal Aid Agency data breach.

This has been an unprecedented event and every effort is being made to restore services following the criminal attack on our systems. The Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital services have been taken offline to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We have been able to return some systems to internal use, enabling an improved ability to support criminal legal aid applications and payments.We cannot confirm a specific timescale for full service restoration. In the interim, the LAA will continue to provide updates as soon as they are available and will work closely with representative bodies to ensure any extended or refined contingency measures support providers and their clients to the maximum extent. All updates, including contingency arrangements, are published on the LAA’s dedicated cyber security incident webpage Legal Aid Agency cyber security incident - GOV.UK.Contingency measures have been implemented to ensure that access to legal aid remains available and that providers are receiving payments. This included the implementation of emergency legislation on 27 June. The new legislation provides for increased delegation of powers to providers and removes civil client contributions. The average payment scheme already operating in civil legal aid will continue.The LAA retains all data impacted by this incident. There is no evidence of data being permanently lost or destroyed. However, while systems are offline some data is not accessible. Access will be restored as part of service restoration.The recent data breach is the result of serious criminal activity, but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of underinvestment under the last Conservative Government. By contrast, since taking power this Government has prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. This investment will make the system more robust and resilient in the face of similar cyber-attacks in future.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the response to the Legal Aid Agency data breach on the implementation of the means test review proposals.

This is an unprecedented event and an evolving situation, and every effort is being made to restore systems following the criminal attack on our services. The impact on the system has affected implementation and delivery of intended legal aid fee uplifts in both crime and civil – we are working at pace to operationalise those commitments. More generally, the Government continues to give consideration to the financial criteria that governs legal aid eligibility.

What steps her Department is taking to develop a new case management system following the Legal Aid Agency data breach.

This has been an unprecedented event and every effort is being made to restore services following the criminal attack on our systems. The Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital services have been taken offline to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We have been able to return some systems to internal use, enabling an improved ability to support criminal legal aid applications and payments.We cannot confirm a specific timescale for full service restoration. In the interim, the LAA will continue to provide updates as soon as they are available and will work closely with representative bodies to ensure any extended or refined contingency measures support providers and their clients to the maximum extent. All updates, including contingency arrangements, are published on the LAA’s dedicated cyber security incident webpage Legal Aid Agency cyber security incident - GOV.UK.Contingency measures have been implemented to ensure that access to legal aid remains available and that providers are receiving payments. This included the implementation of emergency legislation on 27 June. The new legislation provides for increased delegation of powers to providers and removes civil client contributions. The average payment scheme already operating in civil legal aid will continue.The LAA retains all data impacted by this incident. There is no evidence of data being permanently lost or destroyed. However, while systems are offline some data is not accessible. Access will be restored as part of service restoration.The recent data breach is the result of serious criminal activity, but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of underinvestment under the last Conservative Government. By contrast, since taking power this Government has prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. This investment will make the system more robust and resilient in the face of similar cyber-attacks in future.

Whether her Department plans to rebuild the existing case management system or develop a new system, following the Legal Aid Agency data breach.

This has been an unprecedented event and every effort is being made to restore services following the criminal attack on our systems. The Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital services have been taken offline to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We have been able to return some systems to internal use, enabling an improved ability to support criminal legal aid applications and payments.We cannot confirm a specific timescale for full service restoration. In the interim, the LAA will continue to provide updates as soon as they are available and will work closely with representative bodies to ensure any extended or refined contingency measures support providers and their clients to the maximum extent. All updates, including contingency arrangements, are published on the LAA’s dedicated cyber security incident webpage Legal Aid Agency cyber security incident - GOV.UK.Contingency measures have been implemented to ensure that access to legal aid remains available and that providers are receiving payments. This included the implementation of emergency legislation on 27 June. The new legislation provides for increased delegation of powers to providers and removes civil client contributions. The average payment scheme already operating in civil legal aid will continue.The LAA retains all data impacted by this incident. There is no evidence of data being permanently lost or destroyed. However, while systems are offline some data is not accessible. Access will be restored as part of service restoration.The recent data breach is the result of serious criminal activity, but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of underinvestment under the last Conservative Government. By contrast, since taking power this Government has prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. This investment will make the system more robust and resilient in the face of similar cyber-attacks in future.

When will legal aid providers be able to submit (a) bills and (b) claims for payments on account following the Legal Aid Agency data breach.

This is an unprecedented event and an evolving situation, and every effort is being made to restore services following the criminal attack on our systems. The Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital services have been taken offline to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We will not reopen the system until the appropriate steps have been taken to enable us to do so. We have been able to return some systems to internal use, enabling an improved ability to support criminal legal aid applications and payments.In the interim, a number of contingency measures have been implemented to ensure that access to legal aid remains available and that providers are receiving payments. Contingency measures for billing, including an average payment scheme for civil cases, were implemented week commencing 27 May. For crime providers, processing of bills for graduated fee schemes resumed on 28 May, with payments resuming the following week.On 27 June, emergency legislation came into force enabling the LAA to implement enhanced business continuity arrangements. The new legislation provides for increased delegation of powers to providers and removes civil client contributions. The average payment scheme already operating in civil legal aid will continue.Our priority remains to maintain access to justice and to ensure legal aid providers can continue to be paid in a timely manner. These enhanced measures are designed to support legal aid providers and their clients and to prevent a significant case backlog while contingency measures are in place.The recent data breach is the result of serious criminal activity, but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of underinvestment under the last Conservative Government. By contrast, since taking power this Government has prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. This investment will make the system more robust and resilient in the face of similar cyber-attacks in future.

What steps her Department is taking to ensure the timely ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, signed by the UK in May 2025; and what assessment she has made of the legislative or regulatory measures required to ensure full domestic compliance with its provisions.

I am delighted that the UK was an early signatory to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which was signed in Luxembourg on 14 May 2025. Throughout the Convention’s development, the Ministry of Justice worked closely with the profession and the UK representative appointed to the drafting panel, to ensure the UK’s interests were effectively represented on key issues. The Department is conducting the necessary due diligence ahead of ratification including an assessment of whether any legislative or regulatory measures are required.Once this is complete, the Convention and its accompanying Explanatory Memorandum will be laid before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Convention enters into force on the expiry of a period of 3 months after the date on which eight signatories, including at least six member States of the Council of Europe, have expressed their consent to be bound by it.

Whether she has made an assessment of the merits of a national older offender strategy to address the health needs of the ageing prison population.

The Independent Sentencing Review considered issues relating to older cohorts including older prisoners as part of its remit. We have accepted in principle the vast majority of the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendations and we will work with partners and the sector as we develop our approach.

Pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2025 to Question 28899 on Grenfell Tower Inquiry, what (a) criteria and (b) evidence her Department plans to use in prioritising its work on preventing future deaths; and with reference to the Justice Committee's (i) First Report of Session 2021–22 entitled The Coroner Service, HC 68 and (ii) Third Special Report of Session 2021–22 entitled The Coroner Service: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report, HC 675, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of the coronial reforms recommended by that Committee.

The Government is clear that Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports are vital in contributing to public safety through learning from death investigation. We expect recipients to have a framework in place for considering any reports they receive, and to take their responses – and related actions - very seriously.However, we recognise that more needs to be done to improve accessibility to information from PFD reports; and to ensure, particularly across government, that lessons are learned; that this learning is disseminated as quickly and widely as possible; and that it is effectively monitored and evaluated.We are addressing this issue as part of the reformed, forward-looking framework for coroner services which we intend to deliver in light of the Justice Committee’s recent Inquiries into the Coroner Service, working closely with the Chief Coroner, local authorities and other key partners. The Government’s formal responses to the Committee were provided on 10 September 2021 and 10 December 2024 respectively.

Whether trials in the Crown Court starting on day two or later are classified as ineffective.

If the trial does not go ahead on the scheduled day of listing due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence or the court (see list of reasons in table below), and a further listing for trial is required, it is termed ‘ineffective.’ CourtW1 - Another case over-ran W2 - Judge / magistrate availability due to illness etc. W3 - Case not reached / insufficient cases drop out / floater not reached W4 - Equipment / accommodation failure X - Insufficient jurors availableDefenceQ1 - Defence not ready: disclosure problems (inc. late alibi notice) Q2 - Defence not ready: specify in comments (inc. no instructions) Q3 - Defence asked for additional prosecution witness to attend R - Defence witness absent S1 - Defendant absent - did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion) S2 - Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed S4 - Defendant absent - unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing T - Defence increased time estimate, insufficient time for trial to start U1 - Defence advocate engaged in other trial U2 - Defence advocate failed to attend V - Defendant dismissed advocateOtherS3 - Defendant not produced by PECS W5 - No interpreter available Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centreProsecutionM1 - Prosecution not ready: served late notice of additional evidence on defence M2 - Prosecution not ready: specify in comments M3 - Prosecution failed to disclose unused evidence N1 - Prosecution witness absent: police N2 - Prosecution witness absent: professional / expert N3 - Prosecution witness absent: other O1 - Prosecution advocate engaged in another trial O2 - Prosecution advocate failed to attend P - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time for trial to startWhere a trial is not ready to go ahead, it is recorded as ineffective and listed again, either for the following day, or if not possible, for some future date agreed by the court. If the trial starts on the second day, it will then be marked as effective. However, if it is still unable to proceed on the second day, it will be marked as ineffective again.