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Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor.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 When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account.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.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average time has been for county courts to (a) accept, (b) consider, (c) process and (d) enforce possession cases brought by residential private landlords via Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 in the last 12 months.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
Statistics on the timeliness of possession claims are published here: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: April to June 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Data is published covering the period to June 2024.
The Government has announced its intention to legislate to abolish Section 21 repossessions. Once Section 21 repossessions are no longer available for landlords to use, the County Court will continue to work to the procedures and timelines set out in the Civil Procedure Rules for the management of possession claims including enforcement brought under other grounds.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the average time it would take for county courts to (a) accept, (b) consider, (c) process and (d) enforce possession cases brought by residential private landlords once Section 21 repossessions end.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
Statistics on the timeliness of possession claims are published here: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: April to June 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Data is published covering the period to June 2024.
The Government has announced its intention to legislate to abolish Section 21 repossessions. Once Section 21 repossessions are no longer available for landlords to use, the County Court will continue to work to the procedures and timelines set out in the Civil Procedure Rules for the management of possession claims including enforcement brought under other grounds.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that offenders are prepared for life outside prison.
Answered by Edward Argar
Effective resettlement is a core part of our efforts to reduce reoffending.
We are introducing resettlement passports, bringing together key information and services in one place, to address individual drivers of repeat offending and enable continuity of support on release.
We have introduced ID and Banking Administrators in 93 prisons to ensure prisoners leave custody with the basics required to start work, find accommodation and claim Universal Credit, with over 26,000 IDs arranged since April 2022.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason his Department has not appointed a Chair to the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board as recommended in the Independent Review into Criminal Legal Aid; and what his Department's timetable is for making that appointment.
Answered by Mike Freer
The Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board (CLAAB) was established following Lord Bellamy’s Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR) recommendation that an Advisory Board be established to take a wider view and encourage a more joined-up approach to criminal legal aid within the criminal justice system.
Board meetings take place quarterly and there have been two meetings to date - the first on 28 October 2022 and the second on 24 January 2023.
The CLAAB’s membership currently includes representatives from the Bar Council, the Law Society, Criminal Bar Association, London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) and Ministry of Justice officials.
We are currently considering the issue of the Chair of the Board and will make an announcement in due course.
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 commencing Section 151 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow courts to deal more appropriately with low-level offences by repeat offenders through the use of community orders rather than fines.
Answered by Rory Stewart
There are no current plans to commence Section 151 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows courts, in certain circumstances, to use community orders for repeat offenders who might otherwise expect to receive fines.
Section 143(2) of that Act requires courts to treat previous convictions as an aggravating factor when sentencing. For shop theft offences, the Sentencing Council’s guideline on theft offences came into force in 2016. This guideline allows for the imposition of community sentences for shop theft in a wide range of circumstances. In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custodial thresholds may be crossed even though the offence otherwise warrants a lesser sentence.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) Jewish and (b) Muslim deaths have been processed in each coroner area in the last 12 months.
Answered by Rory Stewart
The Ministry of Justice does not have operational responsibility for coroner services and therefore only holds information that it has decided to collect from coroners on the basis that it would be useful in policy making. We collect annual data on deaths reported to coroners, including inquests and post-mortem examinations held. The figures for the number of post mortems held in 2017 which involved less invasive techniques are available at:
The Ministry of Justice does not currently collect from coroners information on the number of less invasive post-mortem examinations which have been requested, Jewish or Muslim deaths investigated by coroners, and release of bodies or out of hours services.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many non-invasive autopsies have been (a) requested and (b) provided in each coroner area in the last 12 months.
Answered by Rory Stewart
The Ministry of Justice does not have operational responsibility for coroner services and therefore only holds information that it has decided to collect from coroners on the basis that it would be useful in policy making. We collect annual data on deaths reported to coroners, including inquests and post-mortem examinations held. The figures for the number of post mortems held in 2017 which involved less invasive techniques are available at:
The Ministry of Justice does not currently collect from coroners information on the number of less invasive post-mortem examinations which have been requested, Jewish or Muslim deaths investigated by coroners, and release of bodies or out of hours services.