Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to monitor and evaluate the adequacy of Legal Aid funding awarded under the Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) describes the civil services in scope of legal aid under s.9 LASPO.
In January 2023, the Ministry of Justice launched a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA), to identify issues facing the system and improve its sustainability. The Review examined the civil legal aid system in its entirety, including how services are procured, how well the current system works for users and providers, and how civil legal aid impacts the wider justice system. The Review has now concluded, and all reports are available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review.
The evidence from RoCLA indicated that the housing and immigration sectors face particularly acute challenges with service provision and high demand. In response, we are increasing fees for all housing and debt, and immigration and asylum legal aid work. This represents a significant investment – the first major increase in fees since 1996. Uplifts to fees for controlled immigration and housing work - generally early advice and some legal representation - came into effect on 22 December 2025, injecting an additional £18 million into the civil legal aid sector each year.
We will monitor and evaluate the impact of this fee increase through engagement with the sector and through provider numbers. We are in regular dialogue with representative bodies and our provider base more broadly about the health of the market, and several new research and evidence projects are underway that aim to improve our understanding about market capacity and demand.
RoCLA identified a range of issues – beyond fees – that make a difference to the profession. We are looking at other potential changes to support providers, for example contractual requirements that providers say are burdensome.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to prevent individuals subject to active civil court orders from receiving Legal Aid.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.
Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.
It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to address the funding anomaly whereby Legal Aid funding may be granted to alleged or confirmed perpetrators rather than judicially recognised victims.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.
Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.
It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what safeguards are in place to ensure that Legal Aid awarded under the LASPO Schedule 1 pathway is provided solely to individuals who have been judicially recognised as victims.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.
Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.
It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether national guidance permits (a) police forces and (b) local authority Children’s Services to facilitate a material change in a child’s place of residence without prior court authorisation where one parent with parental responsibility has refused consent.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress has been made in considering the Law Commission’s 2022 recommendation to regulate officiants rather than venues, and how independent celebrants are being considered within that approach.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether independent celebrants will be explicitly included within the scope of the forthcoming marriage law reform proposals.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Department plans to consult directly with independent celebrants as part of the development of marriage law reform.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.