Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to provide emergency day-to-day funding to hospices; and whether he will commit to releasing (a) £100 million in emergency funding now and (b) a further £100 million in April 2026 to stabilise hospice services and protect patient care.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Children and young people’s hospices have received £26 million of revenue funding for 2025/26 and we are also providing approximately £80 million of revenue funding for children and young people’s hospices over the next three financial years, 2026/27 to 2028/29, giving them stability to plan ahead and focus on what matters most, caring for their patients.
In December 2024, we announced that we were providing £100 million of capital funding for eligible adult and children’s hospices in England. This was split across two financial years, with hospices receiving £25 million to spend in 2024/25 and £75 million to spend in 2025/26.
We are pleased to say that we can now confirm we are providing a further £25 million in capital funding for hospices to spend in 2025/26.
We are in a challenging fiscal position across the board. At this time, we are not in a position to offer any additional funding beyond that outlined above. However, we are supporting the hospice sector in other ways.
The Government is developing a Palliative Care and End of Life Care Modern Service Framework (MSF) for England. As part of the MSF, we will consider contracting and commissioning arrangements. We recognise that there is currently a mix of contracting models in the hospice sector. By supporting integrated care boards to commission more strategically, we can move away from grant and block contract models. In the long term, this will aid sustainability and help hospices’ ability to plan ahead.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether medicine-induced harm from sodium valproate is systematically captured within NHS patient safety, incident and mortality data.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Health Service in England operates a comprehensive central database, the Learn From Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) service, which is a national NHS system for the recording and analysis of patient safety events that occur in healthcare. It collates all records of patient safety incidents made by healthcare providers. Where local healthcare providers identify and record incidents related to sodium valproate, that information will be collated by the LFPSE.
On mortality data, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects and publishes mortality statistics for deaths registered in England and Wales. Deaths in which harm caused by sodium valproate exposure is a contributing factor are not captured as a distinct, searchable category in ONS mortality statistics. Further information on mortality statistics is available on the ONS website, at the following link:
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether disabled young carers in families affected by sodium valproate-related harm are being (a) identified and (b) supported within the education system.
Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
We know that families with children with disabilities, including those affected by sodium valproate harm and where the children may be caring for other family members, are crying out for change.
The department’s upcoming full Schools White Paper will build on the work we have already done to create a system that is rooted in inclusion, where children receive high-quality support early on and can thrive at their local school. This work includes the new standards on inclusion introduced by Ofsted in their new education inspection framework last November, and we are pleased to note that the needs of pupils with disabilities and those who are young carers are fully recognised in the inspection toolkit for the new framework.
Schools are also required to identify and record all pupils who are young carers on the school census regardless of the reason they may be providing care for family members.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the withdrawal of legal aid in cases involving sodium valproate on the long-term care needs on people who have brought such cases forward.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test.
Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening.
At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999.
In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test.
The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF.
The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice.
All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the withdrawal of legal aid certificates in litigation cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate; and whether people involved in such cases were aware of the availability of Exceptional Case Funding.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test.
Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening.
At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999.
In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test.
The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF.
The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice.
All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of making Exceptional Case Funding available to women and families on their legal cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test.
Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening.
At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999.
In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test.
The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF.
The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice.
All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.