Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
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 introduction of new swift courts within the Crown Court on the number of wrongful convictions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the average amount repaid by people who had received legal aid in family court cases in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.
Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.
Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.
(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the average cost per case to the public purse of providing legal aid in family proceedings for which the latest data is available.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.
Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.
Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.
(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has assessed the potential implications for open justice of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to bar the press and public from recent proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is an independent statutory tribunal that hears cases of alleged misconduct by solicitors, registered European Lawyers, registered foreign lawyers, and employees of solicitors’ firms.
The SDT is committed to upholding the principles of open justice. Its default position is that hearings should be held in public and that any departure from this principle must be justified as an exception. Rule 35 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 governs the SDT's power to hold a private hearing and stipulates the specific exceptions where hearings may be private. The primary ground for holding a private hearing is exceptional hardship or prejudice to a party, witness, or affected person. In addition, a private hearing may be necessary where a public hearing would prejudice the interests of justice. Details of the SDT’s approach to conducting hearings, or parts of a hearing, in private are available here: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/resource/policy-public-private-hearings/.
Whilst the Ministry of Justice does not intervene in individual cases or decisions of the SDT, we keep the underlying legislative framework under review to ensure it continues to provide an effective and transparent disciplinary system.
Asked by: Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op) - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of financial restrictions on the ability of victims of civil online defamation and harassment to take action.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Individuals who believe they have been defamed online can bring a claim under the tort of defamation, provided it meets the statutory requirements in the Defamation Act 2013, including demonstrating that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
Victims of harassment can seek civil remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which allows applications for injunctions to prevent further harassment and, in some cases, claims for damages.
As with any civil claim there are costs involved which may involve seeking professional advice. The general principle in England and Wales is, however, that legal costs are recoverable; usually the losing party pays the costs, as well as their own, following the event.
To help manage the costs of litigation, individuals may wish to consider a range of funding options, including conditional fee agreements, damages-based agreements, and insurance products such as after-the-event cover. Third-party litigation funding may also be available in some circumstances.
Civil legal aid may be available for injunctions to protect people against harassment. Eligibility depends on both the nature and merits of the case and the applicant’s financial circumstances.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
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 cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems on the finances of legal aid firms; how many providers have received (a) partial and (b) emergency contingency payments since that incident; and what additional financial support he plans to provide to firms undertaking legal aid work without payment.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.
From the outset the LAA has consulted with providers and provider representative bodies to understand their concerns. These consultations confirmed that maintaining cash flow was a key priority and we immediately took steps to ensure that providers had the cash flow that they needed.
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. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the preceding 3-month period. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment, but it is there should they need it.
As of 30 November, 2,045 advocates, and 1,206 legal aid provider offices have received payment through the Average Payment Scheme. As payments are calculated as a weekly average there is no scope or need to make a ‘partial’ or ‘emergency’ payment. However, there is, in addition, a simple escalation process in place to enable providers to request a payment in excess of the average amount offered to meet specific expenditure.
We are satisfied that providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
Asked by: Damien Egan (Labour - Bristol North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to reduce delays in County Court proceedings relating to possession or enforcement actions against individuals living in vehicles.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55, 55.1 (a) states a possession claim means a claim for the recovery of possession of land (including buildings or parts of buildings), on which a vehicle might be parked.
The CPR stipulate that possession claims should be listed within 4-8 weeks. The most recent published statistics, covering the period July to September 2025 show that the median time from claim to order is 7.6 weeks. The timeliness of the subsequent enforcement of an order, where this is required, can be influenced by the actions of users as well as the court. For 2024 only 26% of possession claims required enforcement.
The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on possession claims at: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in what proportion of family court cases did only one party receiving legal aid in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The requested information is not centrally held.
Asked by: Rebecca Paul (Conservative - Reigate)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance his Department provides to county courts on (a) the verification of documents submitted in support of Mental Health Breathing Space applications and (b) instances in which concerns have been raised that such documents may be forged or fraudulent.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.
The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.
If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.
Asked by: Rebecca Paul (Conservative - Reigate)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he plans to take to help ensure that county courts update their records to reflect the cancellation of Breathing Space certifications.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.
The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.
If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.