Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Family Court system, particularly in cases where one parent is legally represented and the other is not.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many litigants in person report that they were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation in each of the last five years; and what assessment he has made of the effect on judicial outcomes in family court proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of trends in the level of delays in the family courts caused by litigants in person on (a) one and (b) both sides of a case.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the reoffending outcomes for adults released from short custodial sentences; and what steps he is taking to improve those outcomes.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).
We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.
For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.
Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.
We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.
Asked by: Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the policy paper published on 9 November by the Bar Council, Tackling violence against women and girls – why family courts are key.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has read the Bar Council’s policy paper with interest and agrees that the family courts play a key role in our commitment to halve incidences of violence against women and girls over the next decade.
We agree with the Bar Council that proper data and analysis is an essential first step. The Government funded the recently published Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism pilot, led by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and will publish a response to the report by the end of the year.
This Government also recognises that legal aid is a vital part of the justice system, supporting the ability of individuals to access publicly funded legal assistance to uphold their legal rights. Legal aid is available for certain private family matters such as child arrangements if an individual is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused, subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. Last year we spent £854 million on the provision of family legal aid and we continue to keep the policy under review.
With our partners across the family justice system, we are committed to long-term reform of the family courts to better support and protect victims of domestic abuse and serious violence and their children. Central to this is our new Pathfinder model, which uses a more investigative and less adversarial approach for private law proceedings relating to children and is now operating in nine court areas, with expansion to a tenth in January 2026.
The Government will be publishing our new, cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy as soon as possible.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of increasing sentences for serial offenders on (a) public safety and (b) crime rates.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government takes prolific offending extremely seriously, which is why we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) to specifically consider the sentencing approach in cases involving prolific offenders alongside, more broadly, how the sentencing framework could be reformed to reduce reoffending, cut crime, and make our streets safer.
We know prolific offenders are one of the most challenging cohorts with high levels of criminogenic needs, that typically commit a multitude of low-harm but high-nuisance offences, such as shoplifting, which attract maximum sentences of up to 12 months. The ISR referenced robust Ministry of Justice evidence which shows that offenders released from short prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend at a higher rate than similar offenders given a community or suspended sentence. The ISR therefore recommended that the Government legislate to ensure that short custodial sentences are only used in exceptional circumstances. For prolific offenders specifically, the ISR recommended that the Government expand the availability of Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) to address prolific offending. The ISCs provide a robust alternative to custody, using enhanced community-based sentences to divert those at risk of facing custodial sentences of two years in the Crown Court, and twelve months in the Magistrates’ Court. International studies show that similar courts reduce arrests by 33% compared to standard sentences. We ran an Expression of Interest process to identify new sites which closed on 17 October 2025. We will announce successful new sites in the coming months.
The Sentencing Bill 2025 delivers many of the reforms recommended by the ISR. For instance, Clause 1 introduces a presumption for the courts to suspend short sentences of immediate custody of 12 months or less. We are not abolishing short sentences. They will continue to be available where an offender has committed an offence involving, or closely connected to, breach of a court order – including breaching the requirements of a previous suspended sentence order or committing a further offence. Short prison sentences will also be available where an individual is at significant risk of harm, and in exceptional circumstances.
Limiting the use of short sentences will not only help offenders to leave the merry-go-round of re-offending but reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of probation services in preventing reoffending.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Probation services play a vital role in reducing reoffending, with a range of evidence to support this including:
Probation supports rehabilitation through close monitoring and management of offenders’ risk, supporting access to treatment, education, and employment, and through specialised programmes and services, including:
Asked by: Ben Maguire (Liberal Democrat - North Cornwall)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of (a) missed or (b) partial child maintenance payments on (i) children and (ii) resident parents.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is estimated to keep around 120,000 children out of poverty each year. CMS acknowledges the significant impact that missed or partial child maintenance payments can have on both children and resident parents.
Changes have been implemented to systems to identify at-risk cases allowing caseworkers to intervene at the earliest opportunity where a partial payment is made and before payments stop.
The CMS has taken steps to strengthen enforcement against non-resident parents who repeatedly fail to meet their child maintenance obligations. These powers allow the CMS to instruct an employer to deduct maintenance directly from the paying parent's wages, take money directly from a paying parent’s bank or building society account. If the paying parent is on certain benefits, deductions can be made at source.
CMS can also apply to the courts for a Liability Order which legally means the debt is legally recognised, allowing CMS to take further enforcement actions such as:
As part of a broader strategy, to ensure consistent financial support for children, the government is reforming the system to eliminate Direct Pay and expand the Collect and Pay service to improve compliance and reduce financial hardship for resident parents and children.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the adequacy of the approach to custody decisions in cases where a parent breaches a court order.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.
Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of Child Arrangements Orders.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.
Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.