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Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor.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 When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account.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 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: Joe Robertson (Conservative - Isle of Wight East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the reference in the answer of 14 January 2026 to question 103614 to “all other cases” in which common law perpetuity rules apply is intended to include commercial land instruments, including commercial options, rights of pre-emption, and easements; and, if so, which perpetuity regime the Department considers applicable to such instruments.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The reference in the Government’s response to Question 103614 “in all other cases, only the common law rules apply” refers to all instruments not captured by the regimes established by the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 and the Law of Property Act 1925.
As set out in the answer to Question 103614 this is a complex and technical area of law, and there will be a lot of fact specific issues in each case. Individuals should seek independent legal advice on what regime applies to their circumstances.
Asked by: Allison Gardner (Labour - Stoke-on-Trent South)
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 the proposed change to standard recall length, from the current 28 days to 56 days, on pregnant women and mothers of dependent children.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Recall is a last resort for cases where risk in the community becomes unmanageable.
The Department published an Equalities Impact Statement alongside the Sentencing Act, which can be found here: Sentencing Bill equalities statement.
It was assessed that the Act’s recall measures will not disproportionately impact those with protected characteristics.
Asked by: Lord Berkeley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government for how long HMP Dartmoor has been empty of prisoners; what the estimated cost is of rectifying the buildings to make them safe and habitable; who the freeholder of the prison site is; and what obligations the freeholder has to fund the rectifying works.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMP Dartmoor has been temporarily closed since August 2024 following the detection of radon gas. We have been working with specialist radon experts to investigate and assess options to allow us to reopen the prison safely.
The decision on reopening will be made based on the viability of the site, the effectiveness of works to reduce levels of radon, and value for money. We need to be satisfied that reopening the prison is justified in the light of a range of considerations, including compliance with legislative requirements, operational viability, and the cost of mitigation measures. To date, approximately £1.2 million has been spent on radon mitigation.
The freehold of the site on which HMP Dartmoor is built is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Ministry of Justice has a full repairing and insuring lease. Any costs to maintain the buildings and make them safe and habitable therefore fall to the Department for the duration of its lease.
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who the members of the pool of Independent Panel Members for public appointments in his Department are.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The members of the Ministry of Justice’s pool of Independent Panel Members for public appointments are:
- Mohamed Ali
- Lambert Allman
- Nicolina Andall
- Delroy Beverley
- Lord Bew
- Charlotte Black
- Baroness Bull
- Jayne Butler
- Cindy Butts
- Jody Chatterjee
- Jacqui Francis
- Keith Fraser
- Graham Gee
- Rory Geoghegan
- Malcolm John
- Carly Jones
- William Kennedy
- Grant Lamond
- Alison Lyon
- Paula McDonald
- Jacob Meagher
- Caterina Milo
- Oliver Mosely
- Camilla Poulton
- Grace Quantock
- Dale Simon
- Rohan Sivanandan
- Graeme Spencer
- John Tasioulas
- Bernadette Thompson
- Rachel Tranter
- Mark Trafford
- Joanne Vance
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2025 to Question 98098 on Ministry of Justice: Public Appointments, what the annual remuneration of those appointments is.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Due to data protection requirements, this information cannot be disclosed. The Ministry of Justice notes the Cabinet Office’s new guidance on Direct Ministerial Appointments (DMAs), including the information to be published when such appointments are announced, and the creation of a new portal for these announcements.
All DMAs enclosed in PQ 98098, with the exception of the English Law Promotion Panel (which is unremunerated), were made before the guidance was published. Going forward, the Ministry of Justice will ensure that announcements of DMAs are made in accordance with this guidance.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of Parole Board recommendations on moving (a) prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence and (b) other prisoners to open conditions were rejected by his Department in each of the last 12 months.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
For many years, the Secretary of State has asked the independent Parole Board for advice on whether a prisoner serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) or a life sentence is suitable for transfer to open conditions. Where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is suitable, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the recommendation, and it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for determining whether a life or IPP prisoner is safe to be managed in an open prison. In making that decision, the Secretary of State takes account of the Parole Board’s recommendation and needs evidence to justify rejecting the recommendation.
The following tables provide the number and proportion of recommendations made by the Parole Board which were rejected in each month between 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 for prisoners serving (a) an IPP sentence and (b) a life sentence.
Number and proportion of rejected open condition recommendations involving IPP prisoners, 1 April 2024-31 March 2025
Table 1: Year | Month | Accepted | Rejected | % Rejected |
2024 | April | 8 | 1 | 11% |
2024 | May | 9 | 4 | 31% |
2024 | June | 10 | 5 | 33% |
2024 | July | 17 | 9 | 35% |
2024 | August | 8 | 4 | 33% |
2024 | September | 19 | 5 | 21% |
2024 | October | 17 | 9 | 35% |
2024 | November | 14 | 8 | 36% |
2024 | December | 12 | 7 | 37% |
2025 | January | 10 | 2 | 17% |
2025 | February | 7 | 7 | 50% |
2025 | March | 6 | 2 | 25% |
Number and proportion of rejected open condition recommendations involving life prisoners, 1 April 2024-31 March 2025
Table 2:
Year | Month | Accepted | Rejected | % Rejected |
2024 | April | 14 | 7 | 33% |
2024 | May | 15 | 3 | 17% |
2024 | June | 10 | 1 | 9% |
2024 | July | 48 | 3 | 6% |
2024 | August | 34 | 7 | 17% |
2024 | September | 25 | 3 | 11% |
2024 | October | 20 | 8 | 29% |
2024 | November | 17 | 8 | 32% |
2024 | December | 27 | 6 | 18% |
2025 | January | 19 | 7 | 27% |
2025 | February | 23 | 3 | 12% |
2025 | March | 23 | 3 | 12% |
Data has been provided for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 to align with the publication of the Parole Board’s data on recommendations for open conditions.
Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be approved for a move to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of requiring disclosure of offences committed by children once they reach adulthood.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We are committed to supporting children to turn their lives around and recognise that having a criminal record can have a significant impact on children and adults who offended as a child. Sir Brian Leveson, in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, noted the importance of ensuring that the impact of a criminal record is proportionate to the offending.
In response, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to exploring opportunities to reform the criminal records regime, particularly in relation to childhood offences, so that it is clear and proportionate, while continuing to prioritise public safety. We will set out our plans for doing so in due course.