Written questions by Entwistle.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what recent steps his Department has taken to secure an end to the violence in Gaza.

In recent weeks, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher.On 15 April, the Foreign Secretary met with his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa'ar in London. During the conversation, he pressed Israel to restore humanitarian access, raised serious concerns about the deaths of aid workers, and made clear the urgent need of returning to a ceasefire and a negotiated path forward. The Foreign Secretary plans to speak to Palestinian PM Mustafa shortly. The UK made statements in the UN Security Council on Tuesday 18 March and Friday 21 March and joined a G7 Foreign Ministers' statement the week before. An E3 Foreign Ministers statement issued on Friday 21 March calling on all parties to re-engage with negotiations to ensure the ceasefire is implemented in full and becomes permanent.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of abolishing NHS England on the ongoing programme of work on accessible health and care information.

We understand how vital it is to ensure that the communication needs of patients and carers with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss are met by health services.Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new executive team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to jointly lead this transformation. As we work to bring the two organisations together, we will ensure that we continue to evaluate impacts of all kinds and will work collaboratively to put plans in place to ensure continuity of care and that there are no risks to patient safety.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet Colleagues and (b) his Israeli counterpart on ending hostilities in Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary has raised the Israeli operations in Gaza with his Israeli counterparts. On 15 April, the Foreign Secretary met with his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa'ar in London. During the conversation, he pressed Israel to restore humanitarian access, raised serious concerns about the deaths of aid workers, and made clear the urgent need of returning to a ceasefire and a negotiated path forward.As he has made clear in Parliament, the UK is seriously concerned by the expansion of Israel's operations in Gaza and the displacement of Palestinians. Palestinians must be allowed home. Civilians must be protected and the destruction of civilian infrastructure minimised. We urge Israel to immediately re-start a rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza in order to meet the needs of all civilians.

Innovation and Technology, what steps he is taking to ensure that small but high-risk platforms promoting (a) suicide encouragement and (b) misogyny are subject to the fullest range of duties under the Online Safety Act.

The Online Safety Act requires such services to risk assess for illegal content and have measures in place to tackle it. Ofcom have already launched an enforcement programme which includes asking small but high-risk services for their risk assessments by 31 March. Such services will also, where relevant, need to protect children from harmful content.

Innovation and Technology, whether he plans to review platform categorisation regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023.

Under the Online Safety Act, all user-to-user services – including small but high-risk services – must have measures in place to proactively tackle certain types of illegal content, including content which assists suicide and several offences which disproportionately affect women, such as intimate image abuse and harassment. These duties are now in force which means Ofcom can take enforcement action against non-compliant services.The Secretary of State keeps all legislation under review and will act where necessary to keep people safe online.

Innovation and Technology, if he will review the criteria used to determine platform categorisation under the Online Safety Act to ensure that small but high-risk platforms hosting (a) suicide-related and (b) misogynistic content are subject to the fullest range of duties.

Under the Online Safety Act, all user-to-user services – including small but high-risk services – must have measures in place to proactively tackle certain types of illegal content, including content which assists suicide and several offences which disproportionately affect women, such as intimate image abuse and harassment. These duties are now in force which means Ofcom can take enforcement action against non-compliant services.The Secretary of State keeps all legislation under review and will act where necessary to keep people safe online.

Innovation and Technology, whether he plans to equalise the importance of (a) the nature of the content and (b) the size of the platform when determining platform categorisation under the Online Safety Act.

Under the Online Safety Act, all user-to-user services – including small but high-risk services – must have measures in place to proactively tackle certain types of illegal content, including content which assists suicide and several offences which disproportionately affect women, such as intimate image abuse and harassment. These duties are now in force which means Ofcom can take enforcement action against non-compliant services.The Secretary of State keeps all legislation under review and will act where necessary to keep people safe online.

Innovation and Technology, if he will commission a report into real-world harms associated with smaller online forums that encourage (a) self-harm, (b) suicide and (c) misogyny.

The Online Safety Act requires such services to risk assess for illegal content and have measures in place to tackle it. Ofcom have already launched an enforcement programme which includes asking small but high-risk services for their risk assessments by 31 March. Such services will also, where relevant, need to protect children from harmful content.

Whether she plans to equalise the statutory limitation periods for prosecution in (a) section 66B(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) clause 141 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill and (c) section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.

We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.

What assessment she has made of the potential merits of harmonising the time within which an offence can be tried in court after it has been committed for (a) taking and (b) creating intimate images without consent.

We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending time limits for prosecuting summary-only offences involving the taking of intimate images without consent to be brought into line with those for prosecuting the creation and solicitation of intimate images.

We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.

What steps she is taking to provide support to small businesses to offset increases to employer National Insurance contributions.

The Government has taken difficult but necessary decisions to deliver long-term growth. Fixing the public finances is critical to creating long-term stability in which businesses can invest and thrive. The Government decided to protect the smallest businesses from the changes to employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by increasing the Employment Allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no NICs at all, and more than half of all employers will either gain or will see no change. It means employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the National Living Wage without paying employer NICs.

What steps he is taking to prevent energy companies profiting from price increases.

Under the default tariff cap, Ofgem has capped the profits of energy suppliers in the retail market to ensure they do not make excessive profits. Since August 2023, the Earnings Before Interest and Tax allowance means that the percentage that energy suppliers can make in profits is capped at 2.4%. The Government and Ofgem expect suppliers to act responsibly and pass on any reductions in energy prices to consumers. Ofgem has been clear that as prices fall and more consistent profits return, suppliers must act responsibly and pass these reductions on to customers.

When she plans to respond to (a) Question 34399 on Legal Costs: Low Incomes and (b) Question 34403 on Sentencing: Legal Costs, tabled on 27 February 2025.

I refer the Honourable Member to the answers given to PQs 34399 and 34403 on 7 March 2025 by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of the level of the cap on legal aid rates on defendants on a low income.

Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation. The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court. At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets. If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates. There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case. Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.

What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the lower tier of the evidence provision fee in covering the legal costs of defendants on a low income.

Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation. The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court. At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets. If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates. There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case. Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.

What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of costs recovery available to people found not guilty after a criminal trial.

Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation. The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court. At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets. If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates. There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case. Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.

What recent assessment she has made of the availability of costs recovery to defendants when the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws a case on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation. The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court. At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets. If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates. There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case. Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.

What recent assessment she has made of the number of defendants pleading guilty because of unaffordable legal costs.

Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation. The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court. At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets. If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates. There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case. Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.

What steps her Department is taking to help tackle domestic abuse.

This Government is committed to tackling domestic abuse in all its forms. We have unveiled a series of bold measures designed to strengthen the police response to domestic abuse, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account.From early 2025, under a new approach named ‘Raneem’s Law’, domestic abuse specialists will be embedded in 999 control rooms to ensure that victims are referred to appropriate support services swiftly.To further strengthen protections for victims, in November we launched the new Domestic Abuse Protection Orders in selected police forces and courts. These will go further than existing orders, making it a legal requirement for perpetrators to inform the police of any change in name or address and imposing electronic monitoring. We will be onboarding two additional sites in early 2025 – offering access to these new orders to a greater number of victims.We have provided an increase of £30 million, in domestic abuse safe accommodation services in 2025-26, meaning a total investment of £160m. This is part of wider work to empower local commissioners to identify needs and commission appropriate support for victims.