Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the financial and emotional impact of delays related to the Probate Portal following results from a survey conducted by The Law Society and published in their October 2023 report, Online court services: Delivering a more efficient digital justice system, which found that 62 per cent of respondents experienced delays in court proceedings.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
HMCTS recognises that average waiting times for a grant of probate increased during 2023 following on from a sustained increase in receipts.
HMCTS remains focused on improving the service and doing all we can do to make it as effective and speedy as possible. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.
Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate from receipt of documentation reduced by three weeks in March 2024 to nine weeks.
The increase in the probate application fee to £300 was implemented on 1 May 2024. This was one of 172 court and tribunal fees that were increased by 10% to partially reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 2021, the last time that court and tribunal fees were increased. Given the short period of time the higher fee has been in place, an assessment on the impact of the probate fee increase has not been completed at this time. The increases are estimated to raise additional income of £30m-37m per annum, which will provide funding to support the effective delivery of court and tribunal services.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the publication of the Law Society’s report Online court services: Delivering a more efficient digital justice system in October 2023, what assessment they have made of the increase in fees for probate applications at a time when those using the probate online portal are experiencing increased delays and errors.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
HMCTS recognises that average waiting times for a grant of probate increased during 2023 following on from a sustained increase in receipts.
HMCTS remains focused on improving the service and doing all we can do to make it as effective and speedy as possible. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.
Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate from receipt of documentation reduced by three weeks in March 2024 to nine weeks.
The increase in the probate application fee to £300 was implemented on 1 May 2024. This was one of 172 court and tribunal fees that were increased by 10% to partially reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 2021, the last time that court and tribunal fees were increased. Given the short period of time the higher fee has been in place, an assessment on the impact of the probate fee increase has not been completed at this time. The increases are estimated to raise additional income of £30m-37m per annum, which will provide funding to support the effective delivery of court and tribunal services.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of changes to the probate system on the average length of time taken to complete probate.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Since the launch of the new digital service in 2019, over 1.2 million probate applications have been processed on the new platform and around 80% of applications are made digitally. HMCTS is committed to continually improving the system, using feedback from our users to help shape future improvements. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.
Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate, from receipt of documentation, reduced by 3 weeks in March 2024 to 9 weeks. Overall output has also increased, the first quarter of 2024 (January to March 2024) saw the highest quarterly number of grants issued since the statistics have been published, with 83,060 grants issued. This is a 32% increase on the same period in 2023.
Average waiting times for probate grants are routinely published on gov.uk via Family Court Statistics Quarterly and HMCTS Management information and currently cover the period up to December 2023 and March 2023 respectively.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on access to justice for vulnerable people of local authorities, charities and advice agencies being unable to apply for a Court of Protection panel deputy for those whose assets are so low that professional private sector deputies consider that their estate is insufficient to meet their costs.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.
Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.
The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.
Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to providing legal aid to people who require a Court of Protection deputy but whose assets are so low that professional private sector deputies consider that their estate is insufficient to meet their costs.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.
Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.
The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.
Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the difficulty of appointing a Court of Protection deputy for those people whose assets are so low that professional private sector deputies consider that their estate is insufficient to meet their costs.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.
Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.
The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.
Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any requirement for a coroner functus officio to provide on request the list of court evidence to an interested person.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Coroners are independent judicial officers and the way in which they conduct their investigations is entirely a matter for them. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Government to comment on, or intervene in, the coroner’s decisions in relation to an individual case.
There is no specific statutory requirement for a coroner to respond to an email from an interested person. However, the Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013 and the Coroner (Investigations) Regulations 2013 provide a framework for managing disclosure, including after inquest, to Interested Persons and others. In addition, the Chief Coroner has issued guidance to coroners on disclosure to interested persons (Chief Coroner’s Guidance No.25 on Coroners and the Media).
If a family has concerns about a decision made by the coroner, they may want to seek to discuss this with the coroner. Judicial decisions by coroners are capable of being challenged by making an application to the High Court for judicial review. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner can be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any requirement for a coroner functus officio to respond to emails of an interested person.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Coroners are independent judicial officers and the way in which they conduct their investigations is entirely a matter for them. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Government to comment on, or intervene in, the coroner’s decisions in relation to an individual case.
There is no specific statutory requirement for a coroner to respond to an email from an interested person. However, the Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013 and the Coroner (Investigations) Regulations 2013 provide a framework for managing disclosure, including after inquest, to Interested Persons and others. In addition, the Chief Coroner has issued guidance to coroners on disclosure to interested persons (Chief Coroner’s Guidance No.25 on Coroners and the Media).
If a family has concerns about a decision made by the coroner, they may want to seek to discuss this with the coroner. Judicial decisions by coroners are capable of being challenged by making an application to the High Court for judicial review. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner can be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are concerned by any antemortem indication given by a coroner in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 26 Organ Donation resulting in the non-retrieval for donation of a healthy organ for which there is no good medical reason.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Coroners are independent judicial officers and the way in which they conduct their investigations is entirely a matter for them.
Whilst the Chief Coroner provides leadership to all coroners and issues non-statutory guidance to promote consistency of practice, it would be inappropriate for him or the Government to comment on, or intervene in, the coroner’s decisions in an individual case.
As set out in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No 26 on organ donation, the coroner’s jurisdiction only arises once death has taken place, so the coroner has no power to make a decision about organ donation until the donor has died. Once death has taken place, the coroner has legal control of the body of the deceased person until such time as the body is released for burial or cremation and, during that time, all decisions made by the coroner in relation to the body are judicial decisions.
However, for the coroner to wait until death has occurred before indicating their decision on organ donation would frustrate almost all donations because of the time needed to make the necessary preparations for organ retrieval. Therefore, where a death is likely, the coroner should be fully engaged with those treating the person and with the family, to ensure that any donation decisions can be made. As paragraph 21 of the Guidance sets out, once the coroner has been provided with the necessary information about an imminent death, they should give an indication as to whether they will object to organ donation. This can be taken as the coroner’s decision as at the moment of death unless, in the meantime, new, relevant information has come to light about the circumstances of the death, in which case the coroner should be contacted again. The reasons for which a coroner may object to organ donation are dependent on the circumstances of the individual case.
If a family has concerns about a decision made by the coroner, they may want to discuss this with the coroner or make a complaint to the local authority which funds the relevant coroner service. It may, in some circumstances, be possible to challenge a decision made by a coroner by making an application to the High Court for judicial review. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner can be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any requirement exists for a coroner to explain an antemortem indication given in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 26 Organ Donation that results in organs not being donated.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Coroners are independent judicial officers and the way in which they conduct their investigations is entirely a matter for them.
Whilst the Chief Coroner provides leadership to all coroners and issues non-statutory guidance to promote consistency of practice, it would be inappropriate for him or the Government to comment on, or intervene in, the coroner’s decisions in an individual case.
As set out in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No 26 on organ donation, the coroner’s jurisdiction only arises once death has taken place, so the coroner has no power to make a decision about organ donation until the donor has died. Once death has taken place, the coroner has legal control of the body of the deceased person until such time as the body is released for burial or cremation and, during that time, all decisions made by the coroner in relation to the body are judicial decisions.
However, for the coroner to wait until death has occurred before indicating their decision on organ donation would frustrate almost all donations because of the time needed to make the necessary preparations for organ retrieval. Therefore, where a death is likely, the coroner should be fully engaged with those treating the person and with the family, to ensure that any donation decisions can be made. As paragraph 21 of the Guidance sets out, once the coroner has been provided with the necessary information about an imminent death, they should give an indication as to whether they will object to organ donation. This can be taken as the coroner’s decision as at the moment of death unless, in the meantime, new, relevant information has come to light about the circumstances of the death, in which case the coroner should be contacted again. The reasons for which a coroner may object to organ donation are dependent on the circumstances of the individual case.
If a family has concerns about a decision made by the coroner, they may want to discuss this with the coroner or make a complaint to the local authority which funds the relevant coroner service. It may, in some circumstances, be possible to challenge a decision made by a coroner by making an application to the High Court for judicial review. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner can be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.