Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2025 to question 93149, if she will publish the Programme-level Key Performance Indicators for RISE advisors.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The department is committed to transparency and accountability. To that end, we will publish the aggregated information on programme-level performance measures and key performance indicators so stakeholders can see how the programme is delivering against its objectives.
Advisers, whether working with targeted schools or through the universal offer, play a vital role in achieving these programme-level outcomes. Their work is aligned to the overarching measures that define success for the programme.
The department does not intend to publish individual adviser objectives. These are part of personal performance management and may constitute personal data, that cannot be disclosed under data protection requirements.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she plans to announce the (a) membership of and (b) terms of reference for the regional improvement for standards and excellence stakeholder group.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
Regional improvement for standards excellence (RISE) teams have already paired over 350 schools with RISE advisers and supporting organisations, including some of our strongest trusts with a record of turning around struggling schools, to share expertise and boost standards. The department intends to publish the terms of reference, which include membership of the regional improvement for standards and excellence Operations Working Group on GOV.UK following its first meeting in December 2025.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which funding source is being used to provide the (a) daily stipend and (b) other expenses for regional improvement for standards and excellence advisors.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
Regional improvement for standards excellence (RISE) teams have already paired over 350 schools with RISE advisers and supporting organisations, including some of our strongest trusts with a record of turning around struggling schools, to share expertise and boost standards. The RISE Adviser budget forms part of Regions Group's resource departmental expenditure limit programme budget.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what has been the market share of (a) private equity firms, and (b) sovereign wealth funds in the additional needs sector in each year since 2020.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
Based on publicly available information, we understand that approximately 300 independent special schools (34% of the sector), educating around 14,000 pupils, are owned by fifteen private equity funds, including sovereign wealth funds (SWF). Within these 300 schools, two sovereign wealth funds, Abu Dhabi and Qatar, own 42 schools (5% of the total market). The Qatar Investment Authority acquired Senad Group in 2008, while Mubadala Capital (part of the Abu Dhabi SWF) acquired Witherslack Group from a UK private equity firm in 2021. SWF owned six independent special schools in 2020, increasing to the current level in 2021.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of government guidance regarding the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.
Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.
The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.
The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will review the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.
Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.
The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.
The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93135, to provide a list of meetings between Departmental officials and each (a) trust chief (b) stakeholder group, (c) representative body, and (d) union regarding RISE advisors.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many overseas investors have been involved in the additional needs sector in each year since 2020.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
Based on publicly available information, we understand that, of the fifteen private equity funds who own independent special schools (ISS), five are based outside the UK (Jersey, Guernsey, USA, Qatar and Abu Dhabi), together owning 170 units (19%) with nine thousand pupils (27%). We cannot say how many individual investors these five funds represent, nor can we say how many overseas investors have invested in the remaining ten UK-based private equity funds who own ISS units.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the costs incurred by Department as a result of the Legal Aid Agency data breach on 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was 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 neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) barristers, and (b) solicitors have not been paid by the Legal Aid Agency since the data breach of 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was 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 neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.