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: 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: 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.
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: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what level of tuition has been provided in each young offender institution in England and Wales since August.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.
Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.
The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.
HMP/YOI Feltham | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 15.78 | 6.34 |
September | 15.81 | 6.71 |
October | 16.32 | 4.87 |
HMP/YOI Wetherby | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 19.97 | 10.2 |
September | 18.46 | 10.96 |
October | 20.29 | 11.1 |
HMP/YOI Werrington | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 15.09 | 8.17 |
September | 15.55 | 7.64 |
October | 15.94 | 9.18 |
HMP/YOI Parc | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 23.60 | 19.20 |
September | 23.40 | 14.50 |
October | 25.00 | 20.00 |
Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.
The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.
Asked by: Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the agreed level of tuition to be provided by Shaw Trust in the contract they signed with the trust for young offender institutions.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.
Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.
The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.
HMP/YOI Feltham | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 15.78 | 6.34 |
September | 15.81 | 6.71 |
October | 16.32 | 4.87 |
HMP/YOI Wetherby | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 19.97 | 10.2 |
September | 18.46 | 10.96 |
October | 20.29 | 11.1 |
HMP/YOI Werrington | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 15.09 | 8.17 |
September | 15.55 | 7.64 |
October | 15.94 | 9.18 |
HMP/YOI Parc | Average planned weekly hours | Average hours delivered |
August | 23.60 | 19.20 |
September | 23.40 | 14.50 |
October | 25.00 | 20.00 |
Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.
The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the financial equitableness when only one parent receives legal aid in family court proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The eligibility for family legal aid does not discriminate as between Mothers and Fathers. In any case, the eligibility criteria apply equally to both.
The legal aid framework was reformed by previous governments through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). In 2019, the then Government published a post-implementation review of LASPO; the outcome of that review, including in relation to legal aid in family proceedings, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo. Furthermore, between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA); all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.
Non means tested legal aid is available for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family special Children Act 1989 cases, including care proceedings as well as related proceedings. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered. As a result, more than one parent may be eligible for legal aid.
Legal aid is available in some private family matters for individuals experiencing, or at risk of, domestic abuse; for individuals (for example, parents) where the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse; for people under the age of 18; in certain cases of international or domestic abduction; for family mediation where there is a family dispute; and for certain urgent protection applications – for example, non-molestation orders. To be eligible for legal aid in these cases, means and merits tests usually need to be met, and evidence of domestic abuse also needs to be provided.
It is possible for both parties to receive legal aid in private family proceedings, if the case is in scope of LASPO and both parties meet the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements, where applicable. It is however also possible under LASPO for only one party to receive legal aid. This is due to the overall intention of LASPO which is to target legal aid to particularly vulnerable cohorts and those most in need.
Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.
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 potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to choose trial by jury for certain offences on the constitution.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.