Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the length of time medical malpractice legal proceedings take to complete on (a) families and (b) staff.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS Resolution handles claims for compensation against National Health Service providers of healthcare and has a strategic priority to keep patients and healthcare staff out of litigation to minimise distress. To achieve this, NHS Resolution deploys a range of dispute resolution techniques including mediation, resolution meetings, and early neutral evaluation, and aims to resolve claims promptly and fairly. As a result, the percentage of cases resolving without litigation has continued to increase, reaching 83% of clinical claims in 2024/25. Each case must be, however, considered on its own merits in line with the prevailing law with appropriate investigation into legal liability and the amount of compensation due. Court involvement remains necessary for those who lack capacity and may also be required to determine points of law or where there is conflicting evidence.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the number of court sitting days on the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to reform powers in relation to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how much funding was allocated to dementia research by (a) the National Institute for Health and Care Research and (b) UK Research and Innovation in each of the last five years.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Government responsibility for delivering dementia research is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered via the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
The table in the document attached shows the NIHR and UKRI’s spend data for dementia research across the five financial years from 2020/21 to 2024/25
Spend for dementia research is calculated retrospectively, with a time lag due to annual reporting cycles, therefore 2024/25 is the most recent year we have data for. The Department does not centrally hold data on dementia research funding from other public bodies, and 2024/25 data from UKRI is still being confirmed.
The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including dementia. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on dementia to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility both in terms of the amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the role of play‑based pedagogy in levels of attainment and supporting pupil wellbeing across the primary curriculum.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The ‘Early years foundation stage’ statutory framework is clear that play is essential for children’s development, health and wellbeing. Play builds confidence and enthusiasm for learning, helps children to learn to set goals and solve problems, and develop key self-awareness, self-regulation and social skills.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review considered whether the curriculum met the needs of pupils. No assessment has been made of the role of play-based pedagogy in levels of attainment and supporting pupil wellbeing across the primary curriculum. The national curriculum provides a broad framework which gives schools flexibility to organise the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils.
The department is working to make sure that all children and young people have access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school, as an important part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. For some schools, these opportunities may be used to encourage play. We recognise the value of these experiences in supporting children’s wellbeing and development, helping to build their confidence and communication skills.
A new Enrichment Framework will be published in the coming months. The framework will support schools in developing their enrichment offer by identifying and reflecting effective practice, and will provide advice on how to plan a high quality enrichment offer more intentionally and strategically.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to her Department's White Paper entitled A New Vision for Water, published on 20 January 2026, what assessments he has made of the potential impact of the proposed joined‑up local planning measures on the prevention of surface‑to‑foul water misconnections in new housing developments.
Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
In the White Paper Defra has committed to delivering an enhanced, better joined up regional water planning function.
This will enable a more holistic, coordinated approach to water environment and supply planning which supports delivery of national strategic objectives such as the economic growth mission, housing building targets and nature recovery, whilst enabling regional and local priorities to be realised.
Defra is engaging a range of stakeholders to understand what works well, and where there are challenges with water sector planning, within the current river basin planning system. This engagement is helping us test emerging thinking, identifying opportunities to strengthen planning and delivery and ensure policy development is informed by practical experience as well as evidence and analysis.
Property owners are legally responsible for resolving misconnected pipework on their property; public misconnections are the responsibility of water companies.
Should misconnections not be resolved, the responsible party can be prosecuted; in some cases, local authorities and water companies can access private property to fix misconnections and then recover their costs from the owner.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to cover housing associations in England.
Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
This government is committed to increasing transparency and accountability in the social rented sector.
In September 2025, we directed the Regulator of Social Housing to introduce new Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) for private registered providers (PRPs) of social housing, including housing associations, to enable residents to request information about their housing management. From October 2026, PRPs will be required to proactively publish information relating to the management of their social housing. From April 2027, they will also be required to respond to information requests from tenants.
We carefully considered the case for bringing PRPs of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 but ultimately decided that a bespoke scheme would be the most effective and proportionate way of ensuring that all social tenants can access information about the management of their homes.
The divergences from FOI, such as specifying that only tenants and their representatives can access information and that information requests must relate to issues relevant to the management of social housing, are proportionate for PRPs in their capacity as private businesses.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the proposed international student levy on the financial sustainability of UK universities; and what estimate her Department has made of the number of universities at risk of closure as a result of the combined effect of frozen tuition fees, inflationary pressures, and the proposed levy on international students.
Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
Higher education (HE) providers are independent from government and as such are responsible for managing their own finances. Tuition fees are not frozen - the department has announced increases to tuition fee limits in line with forecast inflation for 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28. We will also legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase tuition fee caps automatically for future academic years.
Over the next five years, tuition fee limit uplifts could generate an additional £6 billion for HE providers, significantly outweighing the currently projected less than £1 billion cost of the International Student Levy. This approach ensures the sector benefits from compounding annual increases, delivering growing resources to support quality education and innovation.
The Office for Students (OfS) is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the financial sustainability of registered HE providers. The department will continue to work closely with the OfS to understand the financial implications of policy changes on HE providers.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce protections for (a) whistleblowing patients and (b) patient safety advocates.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
There are no plans to bring forward legislation to strengthen protections for patients who raise concerns and patient safety advocates.
National Health Service patients should not experience negative consequences if they raise concerns. The NHS Constitution pledges that patient complaints will not adversely impact future treatment. Patients can raise concerns or provide feedback through channels such as the NHS complaints process, Patient Advice and Liaison Service, and the Friends and Family Test, and can also share experiences of care with the Care Quality Commission. Independent advice and support are available for them from the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service.
Through implementation of the Government’s 10-Year Health Plan, we will reform the NHS complaints process and strengthen the patient voice by setting clear standards for the quality of responses to complaints and ensure the NHS listens carefully and compassionately, taking forward learnings to ensure high quality care.
Patient safety advocates in the NHS may include Patient Safety Specialists and Freedom to Speak Up Guardians who as workers in the NHS are protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). They may also include Patient Safety Partners (PSPs) who are usually lay people and include patients, carers, or members of the public who work with NHS organisations to improve patient safety by contributing directly to governance, decision making, and safety improvement activity. As lay people, PSPs are not covered by PIDA.