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: 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: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of applications for legal aid in family proceedings have been granted to mothers in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for legal aid in family proceedings were granted to fathers in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.
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.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the number of people who will be sentenced to more than three years in prison by new swift courts within the Crown Court in each of the next five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court. Sentencing decisions remain a matter for the independent judiciary and the Ministry of Justice is unable to provide estimates.