Written questions by Mierlo.

What his planned timetable is for the implementation of legislation to help tackle SLAPPs.

Awaiting answer.

With reference to the answer of 20 April 2026 to question 125954, which (a) organisations (b) government bodies and (c) academic partners are conducting the incremental, evidence led approach.

Awaiting answer.

Pursuant to WPQ 125951 submitted on the 30th March, what the new cost per minute of call is under the rates agreed for the period between 1 April 2025 to 31 May 2027.

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

What steps he is taking to ensure that coronial complaints procedures are independent and transparent; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest within that process.

Coroners are independent judges, but operational responsibility for coroner services lies with the lead local authorities which fund and administer of each of the 74 coroner areas in England and Wales. Whist the framework of accountability in the coronial jurisdiction is therefore complex, it is nevertheless robust and transparent. Complaints about the standard of service provided in the context of a coroner’s investigation should be raised in the first instance with the coroner’s office and/or with the funding local authority. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the matter can be reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint), which aims to provide a remedy to complaints through impartial and fair investigation. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a coroner’s decisions as an independent judge. However, these can be challenged through the judicial review process or, in some circumstances, by applying to the Attorney General for leave to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest. Complaints about the personal conduct of coroners should be made to the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/).

What assessment he has made of the quality and timeliness of services provided to victims of crime by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).CICA understands the importance of its role in giving recognition, redress and closure to its applicants. It works closely with a range of victims’ organisations including those that are members of its biannual Stakeholder Engagement Forum. This continues to provide valuable insights which help to inform how it can further improve its service.On 4 August 2025 I visited CICA staff at their offices in Glasgow to see for myself and better understand the work that they do, both to process applications and to make future improvements to their service. I hope it will reassure you that throughout my visit, it was very clear to me that staff are committed to making the compensation application process as straightforward as possible and to minimise its potential for re-traumatisation of victims. Clear and sensitive communication is a clear priority. I was struck on my visit by the organisation’s clear dedication to supporting victims through their application journey.

If he will include anti-SLAPP legislation in the King's Speech in May 2026.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have a chilling effect on public participation and freedom of expression, posing a threat to our legal system and democracy. The Government is committed to tackling SLAPPs and is considering all options for reform to address this issue.The legislative programme for the second session will be set out in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026.

If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of increasing funding for community based organisations which offer peer-to-peer support for fathers inside prisons and post-release and the effects on levels of reoffending.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

What assessment has she made of the affordability for incarcerated parents of current communication policies in prisons to speak with their families.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

If he will make an assessment of the affordability of the costs of call credit for incarcerated parents.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

Whether his department has assessed the extent to which water companies, as statutory undertakers with statutory monopolies, will fall within the scope of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

The legal framework for the provision of water and sewage services varies significantly across the UK. In England and Wales, services are delivered by private companies (including not-for-profit organisations), whilst in Scotland and Northern Ireland services are delivered by publicly owned companies. The Bill is drafted so that the duty of candour and offence of misleading the public apply to all water companies when they exercise public functions. The Code of Conduct provisions would apply to the publicly owned water companies in Scotland and Northern Ireland and their workers, but not private companies in England and Wales.In relation to the Misconduct in Public Office offences at Part 3 of the Bill, Schedule 4 sets out a definitive list of roles which make someone a “public office holder” for the purposes of these offences. Most roles are listed specifically in the Schedule, paragraph 22 is more general. It captures “Other public bodies and offices” who fulfil three criteria: (a) the body or office is established by statute, a Minister, government department, or under the Royal Prerogative; (b) appointments to the office are made by the Crown, a Minister, or government department, or (in the case of a body) appointments to the body are wholly or mainly made in that way; and (c) in that office or body they are exercising functions of a public nature.

What recent estimate he has made of the average length of time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to process applications; and if he will bring forward proposals to implement a time limit by which applications must be decided.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).In the financial year 2024-25, the average time to make a decision was 370 days.The figure does not include applications deferred under paragraph 98 of the 2012 Scheme.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of restricting access to trial by jury in England and Wales on public confidence in the judicial system.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2026. Alongside the Bill, an impact assessment of our proposed justice reforms was published: Courts and Tribunals Bill - GOV.UK. This includes an assessment of the proposed changes in the threshold for who can access a jury trial.

What plans his department has to address the potential misuse of legal proceedings for purposes associated with Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on Friday 13 February to Question 111038.

Whether he plans to reform powers in relation to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation cases.

The Government implemented the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this was a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the number of court sitting days on the Crown Court backlog.

We have funded 112,250 Crown Court sitting days this financial year – 5,000 more than the previous Government and a record number. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that sitting days will continue to increase in both the Crown and magistrates’ courts. As our latest published projections show, demand by 2030 is forecast to be 7% higher in the Crown Court than current levels. This means the courts would need to sit 139,000 days just to keep up with demand and even that would not enable us to reduce the backlog. The system is not able to deliver that number – there are insufficient prosecutors, defence barristers and judges to keep up with the demand. As a benchmark, the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum the judiciary could presently sit is around 113,000 sitting days. Therefore, even with record-breaking investment in sitting days, the Crown Court backlog will continue to grow, leaving people waiting for longer and longer for justice. That is why we are pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – to turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver justice for victims.

Which (a) professional bodies and (b) legal organisations his Department consulted prior to the publication of proposals to restrict jury trials; and what alternative measures his Department has considered to reduce the Crown Court backlog.

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with many external bodies and organisations 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 Part 1 of his report. When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to 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, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial. We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.

What assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and (b) the potential impact of those lawsuits on public-interest advocacy and journalism.

Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.

What steps he is taking to improve access to legal aid in short notice cases.

We recognise that in certain circumstances individuals may need to access legal aid services urgently and the Government provides specific support to facilitate this.In criminal legal aid, those who are to be interviewed under caution by the police are entitled to advice and assistance from a solicitor, which is arranged through the Defence Solicitor Call Centre on a 24/7 basis. Court duty solicitors are available to provide immediate advice to individuals on a first appearance in the magistrates’ court, except for certain minor offences such as summary motoring offences.We have committed up to £92 million per year additional investment for criminal legal aid solicitors. As part of that, we are harmonising the fixed fee for all police station schemes at £320 excluding VAT. This is above the current highest fee paid, meaning all police station attendance fee schemes will see an uplift. In addition, we are uplifting magistrates’ court fees by 10%. This significant investment will support duty solicitors who work on short notice cases, and the sustainability of the profession.In civil legal aid, providers can apply to the Legal Aid Agency for Emergency Legal Representation to cover emergency legal advice if individuals need urgent representation in court.In public family proceedings, legal aid is available means-free for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family law special Children Act 1989 cases, including for interim care orders and emergency protection orders. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered.An eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse applying for urgent protection. This means they can receive legal aid even if they would not otherwise pass the means test, though they may then have to pay a financial contribution towards their legal costs.For people facing the loss of their home, in-court advice and representation is available on the day of the possession hearing via the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service.Individuals held in Immigration Removal Centres and immigration detainees held in prisons are provided with a 30-minute triage appointment through the Detained Duy Advice Scheme. This initial appointment supports detained individuals to make contact with a legal provider that may provide further advice (subject to merits and eligibility).We are uplifting legal aid fees for immigration and housing work, injecting an additional £20 million per year, which will support swift access to legal aid in these areas, including for short notice cases.

What steps his Department is taking to (a) reduce the time taken for and costs associated with Court of Protection applications for care decisions and (b) ensure families have access to clear, publicly available guidance on those processes.

HMCTS is working to increase overall system capacity to decrease processing times across all types of applications. Measures taken include a targeted action plan to allocate additional administrative resources in response to higher demand, as well as training and upskilling new staff. Additional judicial sitting days have been added to support performance improvement. HMCTS is also working on improvements to the new case management system, to help reduce overall end-to-end processing times.Guidance on the court process is publicly available on GOV.UK. In addition, online application forms which assist users with ‘in application’ guidance and prompts are also available for some types of applications.

What assessment he has made of the contribution of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives fellows to improving equality, diversity and social mobility in the legal profession; and what steps he taking to further these aims.

The Ministry of Justice recognises the contribution of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) and its Fellows in improving equality, diversity and social mobility in the legal profession. I reflected this when I delivered a welcome address at the CILEX annual conference this month in Birmingham, noting that CILEX is a valuable engine of social mobility in the profession. Data showing the diversity of CILEX members is published by CILEX Regulation (CRL) in its biennial Diversity Data Survey. The most recent published survey is available here: https://cilexregulation.org.uk/diversity-data/. The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. Under the Legal Services Act (LSA) 2007, the responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). CRL is the independent regulatory body of CILEX. Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession is one of nine regulatory objectives under the LSA 2007, which the LSB, approved regulators, and the Office for Legal Complaints, have a duty to promote. Recent action by CRL includes publishing its first Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy, issuing its next biennial Diversity Data Survey, expanding diversity reporting in enforcement, and revising qualifying employment and experience requirements to remove barriers. CRL is refreshing its EDI Strategy this year. Steps taken by CILEX include establishing the CILEX Foundation in 2021 to remove financial and social mobility barriers and launching the CILEX Judicial Academy in 2024 to help increase diversity within the judiciary by supporting lawyers – including CILEX professionals – aspiring to judicial careers. While respecting independence, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal services representative bodies and regulators on a range of issues including improving equality, diversity, and social mobility in the profession.