Legal Aid Agency Cyber-security Incident: Temporary Operational Changes
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(5 days, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
In my statement to the House of 19 May 2025 on the cyber-security incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency’s digital platforms, I said that I would provide a written update to the House in due course.
I therefore want to inform the House that the Ministry of Justice has introduced secondary legislation to make temporary operational changes until these contingency arrangements are no longer needed.
Contingency to date
As I outlined in my statement on 19 May, we have already put in place a number of contingency measures following the incident. In particular, the LAA has set up an incident webpage, with contingencies guidance and frequently asked questions, this is updated daily. The LAA has also set up a telephone helpline for members of the public who are concerned they may have been affected by the data breach.
In terms of contingency measures, the LAA has:
set up an average payment scheme for legal aid providers for civil legal aid cases;
resumed payments to providers on criminal legal aid cases;
put in place processes for urgent civil legal aid application approvals;
resumed processing criminal legal aid applications for the Crown Court; and
confirmed that criminal legal aid applications made in this time will be backdated.
Why is this statutory instrument necessary?
We now need to go further by making some operational changes to ensure the LAA’s business continuity because some LAA digital services, especially those covering civil legal aid, remain offline. Therefore, earlier today, I laid before Parliament “The Criminal and Civil Legal Aid (Amendment) Regulations 2025” (the Statutory Instrument (SI) and accompanying explanatory memorandum are available at legislation.gov.uk). These regulations come into force on 27 June 2025. This SI makes amendments to ensure business continuity for a temporary period until these changes are no longer required.
The intention is to make operational changes to ensure LAA caseworkers can continue to process high-profile, and contentious matters. To enable this, delegations to providers will be extended to carry out certain functions. While this delegation does not require legislation, the SI makes necessary changes to regulations to enable providers to undertake certain work during this period.
These legislative amendments together with some delegation to providers, enables business continuity and ensures the Lord Chancellor is fulfilling her obligations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to make legal aid services available in accordance with the Act. It ensures continuity for both legal aid providers and clients, and maintains access to justice. The measures are designed to ensure these important obligations are met and maintain system stability until digital operations can be restored. In doing so, we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer: proportionate cost controls and assurance mechanisms are in place to manage financial and fraud risks.
The SI will, for a temporary period:
waive civil legal aid income and capital contributions for new and existing cases;
remove prohibitions on delegation of powers to enable the Director of Legal Aid Casework (DLAC) to delegate some additional decisions regarding civil legal aid determinations to legal aid providers; and
make some minor and consequential amendments relating to criminal legal aid determinations which supports other measures being taken as business continuity arrangements.
The above changes contained in the SI will be complemented by changes to the legal aid tables of delegated authorities, issued by the DLAC through a non-legislative process.
Criminal legal aid
For criminal legal aid, the practical effect of this package, that is, the SI and the consequential changes, will be to delegate to providers various DLAC functions, in particular:
the power to issue representation orders, and complete related means and merits assessments, for some criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court where the client is passported, unemployed or under 18; and
the power to withdraw representation orders for the magistrates’ court under certain circumstances.
In criminal legal aid, there is also a provision to ensure providers will be paid for any work conducted on behalf of new clients where they have not been able to properly submit an application to the LAA since some systems first went down on 7 May 2025.
Civil legal aid
For civil legal aid, the effect of the SI package will be to waive both income and capital contributions from clients, and remove the prohibition on delegation to providers of certain functions. The DLAC will then delegate to civil legal aid providers the ability to:
amend substantive determinations for Licensed Work up to a certain limit;
make determinations in respect of certain proceedings which are related to those for which a determination has already been made by the LAA; and
withdraw non-contentious determinations on legal aid funding where: the services made available by the determination have been provided; the proceedings to which the determination relates have been concluded; the individual consents; or the individual has died.
For licensed work, where legal representation in court is needed, the LAA, acting under delegated powers, usually determines eligibility and is also typically responsible for taking decisions in relation to the potential amendment of the determination as well as its possible withdrawal, subject to the circumstances of the case.
In relation to civil legal aid contributions, there is a transitional provision which will act as a deterrent to individuals who already have civil legal aid, from stopping instructions to their solicitors to seek a refund of any contributions already paid, then making a new application for the same case under the more favourable terms provided for under this SI.
The DLAC will also be required to withdraw, rather than revoke, any emergency representation determination where the individual does not subsequently pass the means test.
The distinction between revocation and withdrawal is broadly as follows: when the LAA revokes the funding certificate, any legal aid funds paid to the provider for work undertaken in the case would be reclaimed from the individual; in contrast, when the LAA withdraws the funding certificate, legal aid funding ceases from that point and the individual faces no liability to the LAA for the legal aid costs incurred in the case.
I want to reassure the House that we are continuing to work hard on stabilising the LAA’s systems, and we have put in place these contingency plans, and those set out in the LAA’s published guidance, which is regularly updated, to ensure that those most in need of legal aid can continue to access the help that they need. We have engaged with legal aid representative bodies on these contingency plans and will continue to do so.
[HCWS743]
Taking Control of Goods Procedure: Reforms
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Government are today announcing a balanced package of measures about the independent regulation of the enforcement sector and changes to the taking control of goods procedure. These measures aim to protect those facing enforcement action, enabling them to get debt support while ensuring that there is a fair system of enforcement so that public bodies and businesses can recover moneys owed to them.
Rights only exist if they can be enforced. That requires us to have an effective enforcement system—one that makes securing awards made by the courts straightforward and timely, while treating parties who owe money with dignity. A fair and stable enforcement system is one that can deliver better outcomes for all.
The private enforcement sector recovers a significant amount of debt each year, with a sizeable portion owed to local authorities and central Government, which is used to fund public services. There is, however, concern about the impact that some enforcement agencies are having on some vulnerable people in debt and those struggling to pay money owed. Many parties, including the Justice Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, have called for statutory independent regulation of the enforcement sector. The Civil Justice Council published a report in April 2025 which echoed that recommendation.
Although most enforcement agencies have already signed up to the Enforcement Conduct Board’s voluntary accreditation scheme and are funding its oversight activity, the Government believe that it is necessary to take action so that all enforcement agents, High Court enforcement officers and agencies are regulated to the same standards, overseen by the same independent body. The Government will today open a consultation about how to do so.
As set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s regulation action plan, when regulation is designed well it can be an essential tool to promote growth and investment and protect the public. We will introduce independent statutory regulation of the sector, in line with the objectives in the action plan and our work across Government to cut the administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. The consultation seeks views, among other things, on how to ensure that a regulator’s statutory objectives are targeted and proportionate, and to consider how it will be held to account for its performance.
The consultation will run for a six-week period. The Government welcome responses from everybody with an interest in this area. The responses will inform legislation to be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Alongside this, the Government have also published their response to a consultation that was held in 2023 about amending the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and intend to implement some interim reforms. These aim to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages of the enforcement process by, for example, extending the amount of notice that people must be given before an enforcement visit, giving them more time to access debt advice and/or set up a payment agreement.
We have also provided an update regarding the outcome of a 2023 review about the fees that the enforcement sector can recover from those facing enforcement, and plan to implement the following changes:
Uplifting the fixed fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover from judgment debtors by 5%. This will be the first uplift to the fees since 2014. We consider it is necessary to do so to ensure that enforcement firms are adequately remunerated for the work they do in order to ensure the sustainability of the sector.
Uplifting by 24% the thresholds above which enforcement agents and High Courtenforcement officers can recover a percentage fee. The taking control of goods regulations specify that debts over the prescribed thresholds, that reach the enforcement stage, will attract an additional percentage fee of 7.5% of the value of the debt that is above the threshold. Uplifting the value of the thresholds will, therefore, reduce the proportion of cases that will incur this additional percentage fee.
The Government intend to lay a statutory instrument in Parliament to implement the fee uplifts and interim reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Government recognise concerns around the impact that certain collection and enforcement processes—in particular, council tax—have on vulnerable people. That is why we have also committed to consulting on modernising the administration of the council tax system, including the processes for collecting and enforcing council tax. The consultation will be published later this year by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
[HCWS687]
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to support young adults who lack mental capacity in accessing their child trust fund. I know that he met my predecessor, and following work that I am carrying out with counterparts in other Departments, I will be very pleased to meet him.
John Milne
My constituent has been through no fewer than eight Justice Secretaries, looking for a solution to the problem of locked child trust funds; he has had to start over again each time from scratch. Will the Minister give me and Mr Turner a clear understanding of what exactly the legal impediment is to a solution, and of what part of Government the objection is coming from, so that we can make a legal challenge to it, if necessary?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member will understand, as will Mr Turner, that we have to balance the desire to support young adults who lack capacity in accessing what is their property by right with the need to ensure that everybody who needs to access those child trust funds has the proper legal authority to do so. Safeguards need to be in place, not least to ensure that those vulnerable adults are protected from economic abuse. That is why we must work very carefully across Government to ensure that those protections are kept in place.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I was pleased to visit Telford justice centre with my hon. Friend, where we met magistrates and leaders of the Magistrates’ Association. I meet the Magistrates’ Association regularly. We have a system of certification, acknowledging the vital work that magistrates do, especially long-serving magistrates who serve more than 10, 20 or 30 years. I am happy to continue discussions with my hon. Friend on how we can acknowledge and recognise that brilliant service even more.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Sarah Sackman
This Government inherited record and rising backlogs. As my hon. Friend described, the human cost of that is victims waiting longer and longer for their day in court. We have acted swiftly, increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, but fundamental reform is needed, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his review. He will be reporting shortly and we will take his package of fundamental reforms forward, to ensure that we have reform of our Crown courts and swifter justice for victims.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
A family court judge who would have made decisions in relation to many abused children was recently found guilty by the High Court of abusing their own adopted children. Does the Minister agree that protecting the anonymity of members of the judiciary who have abused their children, particularly when it relates so intimately to their own work in court, risks undermining public trust in our legal system?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight an absolutely appalling case, and the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the children who were victims of that abuse. The independent judiciary has ruled on this. This Government believe in transparency in our family courts, and that is why we are working to expand the use of transparency orders, but we have to respect the independence of our judiciary, which has ruled in this particular case, not least for the reason of protecting the children in that case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
It is vital that those who need legal aid—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—can access it. We are funding provisions such as Advicenow, which is an online provision. We also ensure through our contracting process through the Legal Aid Agency that there is provision right across the country to ensure that no one, including those in rural areas, struggles to access legal aid.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Claire Ball was sexually abused as a child. As an adult, she faced her abuser in court. He was allowed to provide character references. Her good character was called into question, yet she was not allowed character references. Will my hon. Friend take steps to rectify this unfairness for victims such as Claire?
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady highlights an absolutely appalling case. If she is asking whether I think that is acceptable, the answer is no. As my hon. Friend the Victims Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied. It is for that reason that we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend bold and fundamental reform. The hon. Lady has just described the human consequence of the Crown court backlog that we inherited from the past Government, and we will fix the mess.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Last week I visited Meadow Road youth centre to see the fantastic work that Lloyd and other youth workers are doing to provide an outlet for young people. However, it could be closed down due to funding uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that sporting centres such as that reduce youth offending and are hubs for rehabilitation? Will my hon. Friend commit to Dudley getting its fair share of funding and to keeping the centre open?
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The Ministry of Justice currently provides free sentencing remarks for victims of murder and manslaughter. As of last month, we have made permanent our pilot to provide those sentencing remarks to victims of rape. The hon. Lady will understand that providing full transcriptions is a costly exercise, which is why we are undertaking testing of artificial intelligence to make transcripts available in future in a lower-cost and timely manner.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
At just 12 years old, my constituent was subjected to horrific abuse by a family member who was ultimately convicted of nine offences, including four counts of rape. The offender was sentenced in youth court to just a three-year referral order and a two-year restraining order. My constituent cannot appeal this sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme simply because of the court in which the case was heard. Will the Minister review this deeply troubling case and consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include youth court rape convictions?
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Sadly, some of my constituents have experienced a double blow, not only from having defective cavity wall insulation installed, but from being pursued for adverse legal costs by firms such as SSB Law. Ministers have previously confirmed that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has opened an investigation. Will the Minister provide an update on that investigation and meet me to discuss how those affected can get redress?
Sarah Sackman
Once again, I am sorry to hear about the impact that the collapse of SSB Law has had on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the many others affected. As she says, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is completing an investigation into the collapse. Disciplinary notices have been issued to several individuals and further decisions are expected before the summer. I am happy to provide her with a written update as that investigation is concluded.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Litigation finance plays a key role in the legal system in the UK and provides opportunities for postmasters and others to take cases to court. The Civil Justice Council has just published its report on the sector. When will the Government respond to that report?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I thank the Civil Justice Council for its work. He will understand that we have not yet had a chance to fully digest the report, but we anticipate acting on its recommendations in fairly short order.
Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
With permission, I will make a statement about an incident that has affected the Legal Aid Agency—an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The House will appreciate that while investigations are ongoing, there are limits to the amount of information that I can share publicly. However, the Government wish to be as transparent as possible with Parliament, and I will provide an update based on the information that we currently have.
On Wednesday 23 April, the Legal Aid Agency became aware of a cyber-attack on its online digital services. These are the services through which legal aid providers log their work and receive payment from the Government. The Government of course took immediate action to bolster the security of the system, working closely with experts at the National Crime Agency, the Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre and the National Cyber Security Centre. We alerted the Information Commissioner and, importantly, informed all legal aid providers that some of their details had been compromised. We also took some Legal Aid Agency systems offline between 7 and 11 May to carry out work to contain the breach. Officials have been working around the clock to stabilise the system and support a complex investigation.
I can now confirm that the cyber-attack was more extensive than originally thought. On Friday 16 May, we learned from the attackers behind it that they had accessed a large amount of information relating to legal aid applicants, and we assessed that threat to be credible. We believe they have accessed and downloaded a significant amount of personal data from those who applied for legal aid through our digital service some time since 2010. That data may include applicants’ contact details, addresses, date of birth, national ID numbers, criminal history, employment status and financial data, such as contribution amounts, debts and payments. I should stress that this does not mean that every individual involved will be impacted in the same way, but we needed to act to safeguard the service and its users. In line with advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, the Legal Aid Agency took its online services down on Friday. I urge all members of the public who have applied for legal aid since 2010 to be on high alert for any suspicious activity. That includes messages and phone calls from unknown numbers. If anyone is in any doubt at all, please take steps to verify a person’s identity before providing any information.
I understand the gravity of these events. At this stage, we believe that the breach is contained to the Legal Aid Agency’s systems; there are no indications that other parts of the justice system have been impacted. The Government are committed to making every effort to ensure that the vital operational delivery of legal aid continues. We have put in place contingency plans to ensure that those most in need of legal support can continue to access the help that they need.
The House should be in no doubt that the Legal Aid Agency has suffered an unacceptable attack on its systems at the hands of criminals. Sadly, that attack is not altogether surprising; the vulnerabilities in the Legal Aid Agency systems have been known for many years. The risk of such an attack was steadily growing during through the previous Government’s tenure, but they took no meaningful action to fix the systems, leaving them vulnerable to attack. The previous Government were repeatedly warned about the Legal Aid Agency systems being old, inflexible and unstable. In 2023, the Law Society called on the Government to urgently invest in the Legal Aid Agency digital system, saying that the system was “too fragile to cope.” In March 2024, the Law Society pointed to the agency’s “antiquated IT systems” as
“evidence of the long-term neglect of our justice system”.
In short, this data breach was made possible by the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. They knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but did not act. By contrast, since taking office, this Government have prioritised work to reverse the damage of over a decade of under-investment. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services. I am extremely grateful to legal aid providers across the country for their patience and co-operation, and to Ministry of Justice officials for their ongoing efforts to secure the system. The investigation is live, and the Government will do everything we can to seek justice.
Recent events have shown that every organisation, no matter how big or small, is at risk from this type of criminal behaviour. Sadly, the Government are not exempt. This incident has none the less demonstrated in stark terms that our legal aid digital systems are critically fragile and not fit for the 21st century. When I took up this ministerial role, I was frankly shocked to see just how fragile they were. This Government inherited a legal aid sector that has been neglected for far too long. We have invested in stabilising the current digital systems and have kick-started an ambitious reform programme to transform them. That means creating a modern, user-friendly and resilient service. The programme will also deliver a more flexible service, so that we can implement changes faster, and better respond to changing demands.
That transformation will take time. In the light of this incredibly serious incident, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are exploring options to expedite the programme and put our systems on a more secure footing. The Government will not hesitate to act to protect our vital public services, because without legal aid, our justice system would grind to a halt. This is an ongoing and sensitive issue, and our investigation and mitigating action continue. To ensure that Members are informed and updated, I will provide a written update in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call shadow Minister Dr Kieran Mullan.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although it was pretty disappointing to hear her deliver it as written. Before I had seen her statement, I drafted one of my own. In it, I was clear that I would limit my party political remarks, and thinking that the Minister would devote a significant part of her statement to condemning the immoral, malicious, criminal actors who are responsible for this attack, I intended to begin with strong words of support for what she said. However, if Members listened closely, they would have heard that she devoted most of her time to party political attacks, and managed barely one sentence of condemnation. I suggest that she looks at her statement when she leaves the Chamber, and reflects on that.
I will say what the Minister should have said to all those worried by what has happened, including those who may be victims of fraud as a result, and taxpayers who will pick up the bill: we should never lose sight of the fact that whatever the role of any Government, past or present, in unsuccessfully defending against such attacks, the primary responsibility for this lies with the despicable criminals who carried it out. This was not just an attack on a digital system; it was an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. Their data is deeply personal in some cases, given that sensitive medical records have been exposed. It is utterly appalling. We welcome the fact that the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre are involved, and I hope that the Minister will agree that those behind this breach must be brought to justice. Nothing should stand in the way of full accountability for this crime.
Addressing the actions of those behind the attack is paramount. The Minister may seek to focus blame on a previous Government, but I have questions about this Government’s response. First, why was the decision taken not to inform the House and the public about the breach when it was first discovered on 23 April? We now learn that the impact may extend to those who made applications as far back as 2010, and that more than 2 million pieces of information have been accessed. The delay of nearly a month in notifying the public and/or understanding the nature of the attack could have hindered individuals from taking necessary steps to protect themselves from potential harm, such as fraud or harassment.
Secondly, the Minister mentioned taking systems offline that are crucial for legal professional payments. Can she provide a clear update on the operational status of those systems? If they are not yet fully functional, what is the estimated timeline for their restoration? She mentioned contingency plans; could she tell us more about their nature? Thirdly, can she share any information about the origin of this attack? Is it believed to be a state-linked criminal enterprise? Fourthly, has the Ministry of Justice initiated a thorough risk assessment of its other digital systems, and digital systems across Government more widely? She says that the Government believe that the attack is contained, but on what basis has she reached that conclusion?
Fifthly, the Minister talked about the £20 million set aside for delivering improved systems. She will know the challenges that previous Governments faced in attempting to upgrade those systems. What specific improvements will be achieved by this funding, and when? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to full transparency for the House, through regular updates as the investigations progress? She mentioned seeking to make the public more aware of the issue, so that people know if they might be affected. Will she ensure that those affected by this breach are directly contacted and offered appropriate support? Will she reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice? The security of our justice system, public confidence and the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals depend on a robust and transparent response to this serious incident.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right to say that those responsible for this attack on our justice system are criminals—no ifs, no buts. What they have perpetrated on our legal aid systems is not only dangerous; it exposes the data of legal aid providers and applicants. The threats made to the Government are entirely unacceptable and malicious, and the Government will be robust in their response and in pursuing justice; I think I made that clear in my statement.
It is important that we are honest and frank about the vulnerability of the legacy IT systems that support our legal aid system. The vulnerability of that system exposed both legal aid providers and end users—as the hon. Member says, some of the most vulnerable people in our society—to unacceptable risk. I am focused on the short term and eliminating the threat, but also on the long term, on investing in resilience, and on the rescue and transformation of the platforms, so that we who are responsible for the legal aid system and our wider justice system do not expose people to that risk again.
The hon. Member asks why the House was not informed when Ministers were informed, in late April. The reason for that is simple: when Ministers were first informed about the exposure of the Legal Aid Agency’s digital platforms to this risk, the full extent of the risk, and the nature and extent of the data put at risk, were not fully understood. As a Minister, I have competing responsibilities. I have a responsibility to keep the legal aid system going—to ensure that those who need to access legal support can do so, and that those providing legal aid to vulnerable clients are paid. At that point, given the understood risk, the responsibility to keep the system going outweighed any need to inform the House of the exposure of the system. However, the most important people in the system—the legal aid providers and, by extension, their clients—were informed, as was the Information Commissioner, whom we are legally obliged to inform. When the greater extent of the risk became known, we promptly and transparently informed the House of the position. That was a transparent and proportionate response to our understanding of the evolving criminal theat.
The shadow Minister asked about the restoration of the system. The system has been closed down to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We will not reopen the system until we are satisfied that it is safe to do so. As he will understand, I cannot comment further on this live and sensitive situation. However, I can assure him that we have put in place contingency plans to ensure that those who need to apply for legal support in the coming days and weeks, and those who are currently accessing legal aid, can provide information to the legal aid agencies through alternative means, so that we can keep the show on the road.
The shadow Minister asks about wider Government exposure to any risks. As I have mentioned, regrettably, Government Departments, local authorities, universities and our best-known businesses are exposed to the sort of criminal activity that the Legal Aid Agency has experienced, but from what we know, this attack is confined to the Legal Aid Agency, and goes no wider than that. He asks about our long-term plans. As I have said, our long-term plans involve a significant investment of £20 million to stabilise and transform the service. Indeed, we know about today’s threat partly because of the investment that we have made since we came into government. We discovered the threat and became alive to the fact that hackers were infiltrating the system partly because of the work that we were doing to stabilise and transform the system. That work has to continue. The Lord Chancellor and I will look at whether we can expedite some of that work to bake resilience into the system.
The shadow Minister asked about full transparency and keeping the House up to date. As I said, I will provide a written update in due course, and today I can undertake to provide full transparency. Legal aid providers have been kept fully informed along the way, as have our professional bodies, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, many of which are legal aid providers. That is because we need all of them, working in a robust system, to deliver the justice and legal aid that people so sorely need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The loss of very sensitive data relating to so many vulnerable people over such a long time makes this one of the most serious data breaches of recent years. It is also a wake-up call, alerting us to the poor state of the Legal Aid Agency IT systems, and perhaps Government IT systems more generally. I appreciate that the Minister has inherited this debacle, but it is on her desk now. Will she confirm the numbers affected, whether the leaks have been stemmed, and what steps are being taken to recover the data from the thieves who have taken it? I have more questions that there is not time to deal with here. She said that she will provide a written statement, but will she also brief the Select Committee and the opposition parties, if necessary in confidence, on the steps being taken to rectify the situation?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent question. He will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any great detail while the investigation is ongoing. As he and the rest of the House can imagine, if we are talking about those who have applied for or been in receipt of legal aid since 2010 and all the legal providers in this country that have had legal aid contracts with the Government, one gets a sense of the scale of the exposure. It is a very serious breach indeed.
The malign criminals who are responsible for the hack have given a figure for the amounts of data that they have, which has been trailed in some of the newspapers. Those who have read the papers will know that it is in the region of 2 million items of data, so one can see that the scale of the problem is very serious indeed. I should say that that figure cannot be verified, and I will not comment in further detail.
With respect to my hon. Friend’s request that the JSC and Opposition parties are kept up to date as the investigation develops and as we take steps to eliminate this risk from our systems, I am very happy to give that update.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country, including many in my patch of Eastbourne, will be hugely concerned that their information is in the hands of deplorable criminals whose identities we do not know and whose further intentions are unclear, and who should face the full force of the law. The damage is especially profound, because the state’s inability to steward the public’s data undermines people’s trust in our justice system. More than that, given that legal aid applicants are the victims, the data breach risks disproportionately undermining the trust of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The previous Government should hang their heads in shame for ignoring the Law Society’s 2023 calls to address those vulnerabilities when they had the chance.
This Government must urgently restore trust, and I have a few questions in pursuit of that. First, how will the Minister proactively communicate with all those affected about this breach to provide guidance and support? Secondly, will she consider launching a dedicated advice line, for example, for anyone who is worried about what it means for them? Thirdly, the Legal Aid Agency’s services were taken offline last Friday, as the Minister confirmed, so how will she ensure that that does not compromise people’s access to legal aid in the meantime? Finally, will the Government conduct a cyber-security review of all the systems they use across their remit to identify and address further vulnerabilities before they are exploited at the expense of our constituents?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that incidents such as this perpetrated by cyber-criminals represent an attack on our justice system and are corrosive of trust. He is also absolutely right that, in so doing, they are hitting some of the most vulnerable in our society. That angers me, frankly, and the response needs to be commensurate to the damage that they have done not just in stealing people’s private data, but to the wider system in undermining trust.
We are taking a proactive approach to communicating with people and with the sector. As soon as the risk and the exposure of the system to these hackers was identified, legal aid providers were updated on their exposure and told to take proactive security steps. That communication has been updated, and, as well as today’s public statement, we are in constant communication with those legal aid providers. They are really the most important point of contact, because they have a relationship of trust with their clients, and they will be invited to pass on the warnings and messages coming from the Government. Where we know of particular individuals whose data may have been exposed and who may be particularly vulnerable, we are communicating directly with them. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an advice line, but for now what I have described will be the most important and effective way of disseminating the warnings and keeping people up to date as the situation evolves.
Turning to the wider security threat to Government and other vulnerabilities, before this attack we had indicated in any event that we would have a new national cyber strategy across Government by the end of the year. Obviously, we also intend to introduce the cyber-security and resilience Bill, which aims to improve and strengthen Government cyber-defences and Government responses to attacks just like this one. All of that is going to be important to improving the resilience not just of the Legal Aid Agency but of cyber-systems right across Government.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
A recent Public Accounts Committee inquiry found that the Government still have substantial gaps in their understanding of how resilient their IT estate is to cyber-attack. It was really helpful to hear from the Minister about the work that is ongoing, but in the light of this very serious incident, will she and all Departments urgently assess the robustness of cyber-defences, not only in arm’s length bodies such as the Legal Aid Agency but in legacy IT systems and the supply chain—which the Committee found to be known areas of weakness—to ensure that our cyber-defences in Whitehall are as strong as possible?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether in Government, local authorities or other bodies such as universities and businesses big and small—as we know, some of the most famous businesses in this country have recently been exposed to these sorts of risks—and whether the cyber-attacks come from state actors or from organised crime, as appears to be the case in this instance, legacy IT systems are one of the most serious vulnerabilities. That is precisely what today’s incident highlights, and it is why that national cyber strategy is going to be so important. It will identify how we build up our resilience at pace and protect against these vulnerabilities, which are system-wide and affect public and private actors alike.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
In recent months, the UK has experienced a number of very high-profile cyber-attacks right across the public and private sectors. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to enhance cyber-resilience through strengthened legal protections for cyber-security researchers? If her answer is yes, which Department is responsible for bringing about that change?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that the cyber-security and resilience Bill will be introduced in this Session. The focus of that Bill is to improve the cyber-defences of this country by bolstering regulator support and the regulatory framework and setting out how our national security agencies can provide a strengthened and emboldened response to just such attacks. It seems to me that that Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle for delivering what I think we all wish to see, which is a more robust defence of our cyber-systems.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. What shocks me most about this attack is that it is an attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. What can be done by residents in Harlow who are concerned that their data has been taken by these criminals, and how can they get legal aid if they need it?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. People can do two things: first, be in touch with their legal aid provider, because that will be the source of the data sharing and would have been the source of the application for legal aid. Secondly, if they are concerned that their data may have been affected, they can get in touch directly with the Legal Aid Agency. Legal aid providers have been informed of how those who need to apply for legal aid can continue to do so, because it is vital that we do not allow the justice system to grind to a halt and that those who need emergency legal aid can continue to access it. We have put in place business contingency plans to ensure that no one in this country, whether in Harlow or anywhere else, will be prevented from—or delayed in—accessing legal aid while we work to resolve this issue.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the rising number of cyber-attacks by criminals and by hostile state actors. May I also express my disappointment that she has chosen to try to make party political points on this issue? Instead, can she say whether those responsible are UK-based, such as the DragonForce group or the Scattered Spider group who claim responsibility for the attacks on the Co-op and Marks & Spencer? Can she also say whether checks are being made across Government to identify any security breaches that may not yet have been acted on by those who are responsible?
Sarah Sackman
I will not disclose the name of the perpetrators of this malign attack. I do not think it would be responsible for me to do so while the investigation is live and while they are being pursued, not least through legal avenues. I am not able to share that information at the moment, but when I can share it, I will of course update the House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In her zeal to have a pop at the previous Government, the Minister implied that this country was peculiarly vulnerable to cyber-attack. There will be people listening to her out there who may be encouraged by that, so will she correct the record and reflect upon the International Telecommunication Union’s global cyber-security index, which found Britain to be right at the very top of the league table for cyber-security, along with countries known to be experts, such as Estonia and Germany? Does she agree that while we must not be complacent, it is important to tell the whole truth?
Sarah Sackman
As I said, those responsible are the baddies here, but let me be clear: I was absolutely shocked when I came into the Department to find the state of the Legal Aid Agency’s legacy IT systems. They were fragile, vulnerable, at risk and, frankly, not fit for purpose. That is not my view; that is the view of the Law Society and lots of users. They have to use an arcane system that is not only slow but, as we have now found, is so fragile that it has exposed many of its users to an unconscionable risk. That is not good enough. It is not talking down the system; it is the state of the system. That vulnerability has been exposed by these malign actors. The fact is that the previous Government knew about it and failed to fix it. We will not make the same mistake.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for her statement. She is absolutely right. I join the Opposition in condemning the criminals who perpetrated this attack. She has already explained what constituents who may be impacted should do, and I will not ask her to repeat that, but can she assure this House that the learnings from this cyber-attack are already being applied across Government and the public sector? If extra steps are required to access legal aid or process payments by legal aid providers, will the providers be compensated accordingly?
Sarah Sackman
Once we have resolved this investigation, once we can be assured that the hackers are no longer in the system and that people’s data is safe and once we can be assured that our legal aid platform is operating properly and is handling people’s data in a safe way, there will need to be a stocktake and an effort to learn lessons, not least as we embark—we are already in the process of doing this—on stabilising and transforming this system so that it is fit for the future. No doubt, there will be lessons from this particular attack for other public and Government bodies. The question of compensation must wait for another day. My priority is removing the hackers from the system, making sure that they feel the full force of the law and ensuring that, in the meantime, no person who needs legal aid cannot get it and the system continues to operate.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Recent cyber-attacks on retail targets have highlighted the cost to businesses and individuals of an organisation’s failure to take cyber-security sufficiently seriously. This attack on the Legal Aid Agency, resulting in the theft of millions of pieces of deeply sensitive personal data, is perhaps the most egregious yet. Why has it taken a newspaper article to bring the Minister to the Chamber? What else is she not telling us?
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got her chronology the wrong way round. There was a newspaper article because the Ministry of Justice had published a public statement as soon as it became aware of the full extent of the threat. It did that to protect legal aid providers and their clients, the end users. We have been utterly transparent. It is not following the newspaper article; the hon. Lady has her facts exactly the wrong way round.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her detailed answers and reassurances. The legal aid system is an imperative cog in the wheels of justice, and this attack on it must be seen as an attack on justice as well. Can the Minister say whether the attack encompasses legal aid details from the entirety of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What discussions have taken place with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, where people will have justified fears about their addresses being leaked to those who may harm them? What support is available to those who are now in fear, such as domestic abuse victims?
Sarah Sackman
My understanding is that the entirety of the Legal Aid Agency’s system has been exposed. We do not know the full extent of that exposure and the theft that has taken place, and we will not know until investigations have been completed, but it is for that reason that we have taken the precaution of shutting the system down.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be in contact with all the devolved nations and regions to ensure that legal aid providers throughout the United Kingdom are kept informed. He is right: some of the most vulnerable people in society who are in receipt of legal aid will be feeling that much more vulnerable today. I deeply regret that, and it is what makes me so furious about what has happened. I urge them to be super-vigilant and to be in touch with their providers, and I urge those providers to contact the Legal Aid Agency, and contact us, about any particular vulnerabilities and about cases in which they need to continue to provide those clients with legal aid.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft order makes a number of important changes to ensure that legal aid continues to support victims of domestic abuse. It is an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those most in need and continues to serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need our support. It also ensures that our legal aid legislation is aligned with wider Government legislation on domestic abuse and immigration law.
Principally, this statutory instrument does four things. First, it will make changes to enhance the scope of immigration legal aid. It will make legal aid available for those eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom as a victim of domestic abuse under the immigration rules. This change will ensure that all eligible domestic abuse victims can access legal aid for applications under this immigration route.
Secondly, it will amend the evidence requirements for domestic abuse victims applying for legal aid. It will do this by enabling victims to present evidence of abuse from appropriate medical practitioners overseas. Thirdly, it will make changes to terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, replacing the term “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse,” and the term “financial abuse” with “economic abuse.” It will also recognise that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, for example at the victim’s child. These changes will ensure consistency with wider legislation.
Finally, the statutory instrument will make changes to complement instruments made in 2023 and 2024 on the scope of legal aid in relation to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. If enacted, it will ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders.
Before turning to each of the amendments and provisions in detail, I will take a moment to outline how the legal aid scheme works as a matter of generality. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, otherwise known as LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test—a check on their financial eligibility—and a merits test, which ensures that the taxpayer is not funding unmeritorious cases. In certain cases, most notably those involving victims of domestic abuse or child abuse, evidence requirements also need to be satisfied.
I will now turn to each of the four topics covered in this draft order. First, amendments will be made to the availability of immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK. Currently, legal aid is available for some victims of domestic abuse who are eligible to apply for leave to remain in the UK under Home Office immigration rules, subject to means and merits tests. The immigration rules set out the rules for entering and remaining in the UK.
The immigration rules include “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse,” which I will henceforth refer to as “the appendix.” The appendix concerns victims whose leave to remain in the UK was based on their partner or spouse’s immigration status, and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic abuse. It is the route by which victims can apply for settlement in the UK independent of their partner’s status, ensuring that they can escape the abusive relationship without having to leave or be removed from the UK as a result. The eligibility requirements in the appendix are amended from time to time, and that is what we are doing here.
The draft order amends LASPO to ensure that legal aid provision for victims applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK is aligned with the latest requirements set out in the appendix. The changes will ensure that this alignment will continue in the event that amendments are made to the appendix in future. This will mean that all victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid to assist with an application under the appendix for leave to enter or remain, subject to means and merits tests.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Although this is a slightly different situation, I want to clarify what the Home Office’s response would be to the case of one of my constituents. She came into the UK with her partner and sought leave to remain. He was arrested four times for domestic abuse, and she alerted the Home Office to the fact that it had happened on two different occasions by literally sending in the film. Can the Minister elucidate a little how my constituent registered that information with the Home Office and it still granted that man leave to remain in the UK? He has now of course vanished off the face of the earth.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. The circumstances that she describes are appalling, although obviously I cannot comment on the specifics of the case. How to deal with that would ultimately have been a matter for the Home Office. However, where there is evidence of domestic abuse that results in a criminal conviction, that is exactly what these proposed amendments are designed to protect against. We are extending legal aid to victims of domestic abuse where the perpetrator’s immigration status bears on theirs.
The hon. Lady is right that the circumstances she describes come at the issue from a different angle. Either way, what she describes is clearly appalling, and we should not be rewarding such behaviour by granting leave to remain in this country. Indeed, where someone is convicted of an offence, we should be looking to take all steps to remove them from this country.
Tessa Munt
I welcome the broad outline of what the Minister is describing in this draft order. I just wanted to highlight that particular case, which is very distressing for the constituent concerned.
Sarah Sackman
Indeed, and the hon. Lady is very welcome to write to me about that specific case, if the Ministry of Justice is the appropriate place to deal with it. Of course, I will respond to her, but it may well be a question for the relevant Home Office Minister.
Secondly, this draft order will make changes to the evidence requirements that victims of domestic abuse must satisfy to receive legal aid. Acceptable forms of evidence are set out in schedule 1 to the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. Currently, certain forms of overseas evidence are accepted as evidence of domestic abuse. For example, legal aid applications may include supporting documentation concerning an arrest or a police caution abroad. However, evidence of domestic abuse from overseas medical practitioners is not currently accepted. The Government wish to change regulations to enable evidence from appropriate health professionals who are licensed and registered overseas to be accepted for legal aid applications. That will enhance the ability of victims to take action against perpetrators.
Thirdly, the draft order will amend the terminology within LASPO and associated regulations to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Since its enactment, terminology across Government has moved away from “domestic violence” towards “domestic abuse” to recognise explicitly that perpetrators can often use more than just physical violence to harm an individual. Within its definition of “domestic abuse,” the 2021 Act describes such behaviour as including “physical or sexual abuse,” “violent or threatening behaviour,” “controlling or coercive behaviour”, “economic abuse” and
“psychological, emotional or other abuse”.
The inclusion of the term “economic abuse” in this definition rather than “financial abuse,” which is currently used within LASPO, also reflects a shift in recent years to acknowledge explicitly that abuse often goes beyond interfering with money and finances to include broader economic resources, such as housing, possessions and clothing.
Further, the Domestic Abuse Act expressly states that domestic abuse of an individual includes
“conduct directed at another person”.
For example, an abuser may direct behaviour towards a child in the household to facilitate or perpetuate the abuse of their partner. The definition of “domestic violence” in LASPO recognises that abuse extends beyond physical violence and therefore implicitly includes abuse directed at third parties. By updating the LASPO terminology to align with wording used in the Domestic Abuse Act, we aim to reduce the risk of victims perceiving that the abuse they are experiencing is out of scope for legal aid funding.
Finally, the draft order complements previous statutory instruments that made provision for bringing legal aid into scope for victims, third parties and those subject to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. DAPOs and DAPNs, as they are known, are new orders that are now available in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs—Bromley, Croydon and Sutton—and Cleveland, and are used by the British Transport police in those areas. We will shortly be extending DAPOs and DAPNs to north Wales.
The draft order makes further changes to LASPO and the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 to bring other aspects of the Domestic Abuse Act in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs within scope of civil and criminal legal aid. These changes will help to ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders. These technical changes are designed to address unintended gaps in provision.
To conclude, the draft order will make legal aid available to some of society’s most vulnerable people, furthering this Government’s ambition to support victims of domestic abuse.
Sarah Sackman
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to a debate on a really important topic. The consensus that has been expressed is truly welcome. Though these are perhaps technical changes, they affect, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly pointed out, some of the most vulnerable people, who need to navigate a complex legal and justice system. Legal aid, and the accessibility of that system, is critical to their ability both to know their rights and to enforce them.
I truly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for changes that, as he rightly says, are not just semantic but meaningful, and that we hope will capture wider types of behaviour within the scope of legal aid, while supporting the accessibility of legal aid in the context of the immigration system and in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for her intervention and, as I said, we may be able to follow up on that case.
The Ministry of Justice is piloting DAPOs because we believe that they can work. Our aspiration is to roll them out, but obviously we will do that in an evidence-based way. I can report to the Committee that the early signs are good. Both the police and the courts are finding that the orders are working. DAPOs are resulting in perpetrators being put behind bars for breaching them, and in those perpetrators being required to attend behaviour change programmes to alter their behaviour towards partners and others impacted by what are, ultimately, heinous types of coercion. The early signs are good, but we will be guided by the evidence, and we will of course keep the House updated on how it is bearing out. I welcome Members’ support for these technical but truly important changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
Wherever they are in England and Wales, people should benefit from equal access to legal support and legal aid. Remote technology and provision of online advice present the opportunity both to democratise legal advice and to deliver it to all who need to access it. We are investing an additional £92 million to support the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector, and we are consulting on fee increases totalling £20 million for housing and immigration to increase access to civil legal aid. All of this will support legal aid across the country, including in rural areas.
Steff Aquarone
North Norfolk is a legal aid desert. My residents have precious little access to family, criminal and housing legal assistance, despite the best efforts of local organisations such as the Norfolk Community Law Service. We face huge barriers to recruitment and retention in rural areas, such as the cost of housing, poor public transport and fees that, despite the uprating, are still too low. Things need to change. Will the Minister meet me and those working in the legal aid sector in North Norfolk to discuss what we can do to support those in need in areas such as mine?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of legal aid deserts, and I welcome his suggestion that he write to me about these things. I regularly meet legal aid providers, and that is why we are investing an additional £6 million in legal support, which provides that early advice that can make a real difference in areas such as his.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall is a big rural legal aid desert. We have many volunteers who would be prepared to help and Citizens Advice could act as an umbrella organisation. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can get some of that funding for access to legal aid in rural areas into Cornwall?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of early legal support and legal aid. That is why we are investing in online provision. As I have said, remote technology can make a real difference in areas such as hers. Before I came to this place, I volunteered in a free legal advice centre, so I know just how much of a difference such institutions can make.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a record rise in court backlogs. The last Conservative Government let down victims of crime, businesses, workers and families, all through their neglect and under-investment. This Government are gripping the crisis: to date we have funded a record high allocation of 110,000 Crown court sitting days for next year, and we are, and intend to be, at or close to the maximum in every jurisdiction. We are fixing the last Government’s mess.
Zöe Franklin
I recently met representatives of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in my constituency. They support hundreds of survivors every year through counselling, advice, and carrying out vital prevention work in schools and the wider community, but, as they explained to me, their work is being undermined by a justice system that is in crisis. Trials are routinely delayed, sometimes for up to four years, owing to a chronic shortage of judges, and as a result some victims are considering dropping their cases—not because they do not want justice, but because they cannot cope with such a traumatic experience. That is a gross injustice. I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, but will she expand specifically on how the Government will help to prevent re-traumatisation in the court backlog process, and on how they will continue to fund organisations such as RASASC?
Sarah Sackman
We recognise the traumatic impact of delays in our Crown courts on victims of violence against women and girls and, indeed, victims of all crimes. The best thing we can do for those victims is deliver swifter justice. We will do that not just by spending extra money—which we have done—but through reform, so we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious measures to deliver the swifter justice for which the hon. Member has asked.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I recently met, in my constituency, two people whose son and daughter-in-law had been brutally killed in June 2023. Nearly two years on, the case has yet to come to court. It has been delayed five times, and a date in October has now been set. On each occasion, the delays have caused huge anguish to the family. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this matter, and can she tell me what steps the Government are taking to ensure that trials are conducted promptly so that justice can be received by such families?
Sarah Sackman
I am desperately sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend describes. Once again, the best thing that we can do for those families, to ensure that they get swifter justice and get their day in court in a timely fashion, is bear down on the Crown court backlog. That is why we are waiting for Sir Brian Leveson to report in the spring, and why we will act promptly on his recommendations.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
On prisons, the inheritance was dire; on Crown court backlogs, the inheritance was dire; and on legal aid services, once again the inheritance has been absolutely dire. This Government are rebuilding the legal aid system for those it serves and those who serve in it. That is why, in December, we announced up to £92 million more a year for criminal legal aid solicitors, on top of £24 million already announced for duty solicitors in police stations. We are also consulting on uplifts, as I said, in housing and immigration legal aid fees, worth an additional £20 million a year—the first increase in civil legal aid fees since 1996.
Dr Huq
The Conservatives left legal aid in a mess, like so many other things, so I welcome the sums the Minister is announcing, but can she assure me that the money will reach Ealing? We have never even had a citizens advice bureau—not in the 10 years I have been the MP, and not in the 50 years I have been on the planet—to refer constituents to. Can she assure us that my constituents can get the access to justice they deserve?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The Legal Aid Agency keeps contracts under review to ensure that there is provision right across the country, including in Ealing. As I said earlier, the additional money going into legal support, which includes advice services, such as citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other advice providers, will reach constituents just like hers, both remotely and face to face.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
At a time when victims are waiting far too long for their day in court, it is right that we look at all options. We have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider all options in his review, including the reclassification of some offences to summary only.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Although the extra sitting days to reduce court delays announced by the Secretary of State are welcome, does the Minister agree that the state of the court estate needs some attention, as some courts are out of action due to disrepair issues?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The other day I visited the Telford justice centre, where one of the courtrooms was out of use because of mould and a leaky roof. The Government are making an additional capital investment of £20 million this year to maintain and restore our buildings so that they can be full and active for use. We are also investing in new court buildings; from Blackpool to the City of London there will be new courts, and they will serve the public well.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The passing of Pope Francis was a profound loss. Throughout his life, he was a passionate advocate for a justice system that put reconciliation at its heart. With the publication of the independent sentencing review expected imminently, will the Government take this opportunity to move our justice system towards one that contains, in the words of Pope Francis, a “horizon of hope” and reintegration, and will they commit to restorative justice being placed at the heart of our justice system?
Court Waiting Times: Kent
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for securing this important debate. Our ability to provide justice to the public and restore confidence in our criminal justice system, so bruised after the last 14 years, is of the utmost importance. I am grateful to be able to debate these issues today.
I will start by touching on the profound challenges that the Government face in the Crown court. When we came into power, we inherited a record and rising backlog. As others have pointed out, today it stands at 74,000 cases, which is around double what it was five years ago. I heard the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) outline his somewhat fairytale account of how we got here. His Government neglected their responsibilities both in the context of prisons, which were at breaking point when we entered government, and the dire inheritance in our Crown courts. He seeks to blame it purely on external factors, such as the covid pandemic. Who does he think was responsible for the industrial strike and the failure to broker with the professions? Under whose watch was that Crown court backlog allowed to rise? The failure to invest and reform are failures that this Government are intent on reversing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, the backlog involves real people. Real people lie behind these statistics. As we heard, countless lives of both victims and accused people have been put on hold as they wait for cases to come to trial. It simply represents an affront to the concept of swift justice, and I am afraid it represents the failure of the previous Government to take decisive and significant action—action that we will not shirk taking. The issue is more complex than simply rising numbers. Receipts are increasingly high and rising. The nature of the case load is different than before the pandemic; it is now made up of a greater proportion of more serious and complex offences, which take up more court time and tend to have a lower guilty plea rate. We acknowledge that has real-life consequences for victims and witnesses and that we are letting people down, both those who serve in the system and those served by it.
Addressing the Crown court backlog is a priority for this Department and this Government. We are not dithering and delaying—far from it. We have actually gripped the crisis. Last year, the Lord Chancellor funded an additional 2,500 court sitting days on top of the allocation agreed by the previous Government, contrary again to what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said. His Government agreed one settlement; we looked to fund over and above that, with 2,500 additional court sitting days and additional sentencing powers given to magistrates to free up vital capacity within the Crown court.
We did not stop there. To deliver swifter justice for victims, we announced funding that will enable 110,000 crime court sitting days in this financial year. That is an additional 4,000 more days than the previous Government funded and the highest allocation in recorded history. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle says, “Well, that’s not as many as the Lady Chief Justice could offer up.” The fact is there is a difference between sitting days and the capacity of the system. It is not simply a matter of judicial sitting days; it is about the capacity of our prosecutors, defence lawyers, legal aid and the entirety of the system to operate. We have allocated a record number of sitting days within that context.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is specifically concerned with the situation in Kent, and I am thankful for his efforts and those of fellow Members of Parliament within the Kent area for raising this issue. I am sincerely sorry to hear about the experiences he describes and how they are impacting his constituents. With this record Crown court sitting day allocation, Kent can sit all its courts for the full year at capacity. That will include an additional courtroom at Canterbury, which we have equipped for Crown court use. To his question about flexibility, of course listing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but that additional capacity at Canterbury will enable some of the cases at Maidstone to be transferred there. There is also flexibility in the system to deal with additional capacity and pressures. In addition to the sixth courtroom at Canterbury, we are working closely with circuit-presiding judges to enable additional Kent cases to be heard in London. Some of that has already begun, with cases emanating from north-west Kent being dealt with at Woolwich Crown court. I hope that will alleviate some of the pressures faced by his constituents.
Just yesterday, I spoke to Lisa Killham, the delivery director for court services in the south-east region, to ask what additional steps she and her team can offer to provide additional capacity and flexibility within the system. I know they are working hard to alleviate some of the particular pressures felt at Maidstone. Some of that is a system design problem. The role of case co-ordinators, which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised, is really important, as is the use of case progression meetings to strive to improve the effective trial rate. All those measures will be vital in bearing down on the Crown court backlog in the Kent area.
We know the backlog is serious and rising. Doing nothing is not an option. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts and propose radical, once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims. That is not outsourcing policy thinking; it is bringing the very best expertise and experience within our system to assist the Government in what needs to be a once-in-a-generation level of reform—and nothing is off the table. As Members will know, Sir Brian is looking at things such as re-classification of offences and what sorts of cases are appropriate for a jury trial.
Jury trial will always be a cornerstone of British justice, appropriate for the most serious cases, but the right to jury trial is not absolutely sacrosanct; what we need to ensure is the right to a fair trial. At the moment, victims of rape or serious sexual violence are having to wait one, two or even three years for their date in court, and that is not fairness at all. That is not a fair trial for any of the participants. That is why Sir Brian is looking at every single option. We inherited a justice system on its knees, and we steadfastly refuse to let it fall over entirely. Restoring swift justice in this country will require the courage to take decisions—big decisions that could and should have been taken by the last Government.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for raising the situation for victims who are badly let down by the current system. Court backlogs have an undeniable impact on victims. The disruption to victims’ lives affects their ability to function, work and maintain relationships and the Government take it very seriously indeed.
The Victims’ Commissioner recently published a report highlighting the profound effect of the delays on victims, including the particularly adverse effect on victims of rape and serious sexual offences. To ensure ongoing communication with victims in the pre-trial period, the Government will ensure that every Crown Prosecution Service area now has at least one dedicated victim liaison officer in its rape and serious sexual offences unit, and that pre-trial meetings with a prosecutor are offered to all adult victims of those crimes. That singular point of contact can make a real difference.
As part of our landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls, the Government have committed to introducing free, independent legal advice for victims and survivors of adult rape across England and Wales, to help them to understand and uphold their legal rights. We aim to begin a phased roll-out of the service later this year.
In the upcoming financial year, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly pointed out, we have protected dedicated victim spending in the Department by maintaining this year’s funding level for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support. The hon. Member challenged us to go further and is right to do so. We have ensured that the funding for victim support is spent in the most effective way. That is why we have victim liaison officers and why we are introducing independent legal advice for victims and survivors of rape. It is right that we target resource on the most vulnerable victims in our system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right to raise the issue of backlogs not just in the Crown court jurisdiction, which is our focus today, but right across all jurisdictions. The Crown court is of course a significant priority for the Government, but as courts Minister I am focusing on managing demand across all our jurisdictions, including our magistrates and our civil jurisdictions.
The truth—the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle seems to have forgotten this as part of his party’s collective amnesia—is that the Conservatives left us with a mess in every single part of our justice system. On the civil justice side, whether someone was an employee, a tenant, a landlord, or an individual with a claim and a desire for redress, they were left with a mess. In our criminal justice system it was the same, whether in the magistrates or the Crown court.
More than 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with at the level of the magistrates court, where cases continue to be completed swiftly. That is a good news story. Although the open caseload rose by just under 14% in the year up until December 2024, timeliness in getting through cases has remained stable. We expect demand to continue to rise and, to keep pace, we will continue to invest in the recruitment of more magistrates. We are aiming to recruit 2,000 new and diverse magistrates this year. The diversity of our magistracy is highly important.
Whether it is the civil jurisdiction or our tribunal system, we are at capacity, sitting at the maximum, or close to the maximum, number of sitting days across all jurisdictions. That reflects the Government’s commitment to bear down on backlogs in every single part of our justice system.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked when Sir Brian is due to report; that will be later in the spring. When will the Government legislate? We want to get on with it, so we will legislate as soon as possible, either later this year or early in the new year. We are not hanging around; we have to get on top of this issue. Do we see a continued role for case co-ordinators? We absolutely do: effective case management is vital. Reducing delays in the criminal courts, maintaining our progress across all jurisdictions—including in the family court and in the civil justice space—and of course improving the experience of victims continue to be priorities for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford raised the issue of digitisation. I hot-footed it here from the Justice Committee, where we were talking about digitisation in the civil justice space. The Government are ambitious about what we can do, the efficiencies and the greater access to justice we can realise by end-to-end digitisation. A small example of that is the Government’s commitment, as part of our renters’ rights reform, to have fully digitised processes in the possession claims space—end-to-end digitisation vindicating the rights of renters. That is just one example. We can import the same learnings into our criminal justice space, as well as make greater use of remote hearings and alleviate the particular pressures that exist in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, and in the rest of Kent, which this debate is all about. We know of the particular pressures not just in the criminal jurisdiction but in the civil jurisdiction in London and the south-east. The Government are working hard to alleviate pressures in both places.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne was right to talk about prevention, not just cure. It is right that when we look at demand coming into the system, we look at the whole of the societal pressures that lead to the increasing demand. That is why the Government have a policy, in relation to youth hubs, that is introducing exactly the sorts of services to which the hon. Member once contributed so much.
Reducing delays in all areas is vital. We will deliver once-in-a-generation reform of our courts, to deliver swifter justice for all and adequately tackle the Crown court backlog not just in Kent but right across the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford again for raising this important issue for debate.
Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that I am laying the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025 by way of affirmative procedure.
Subject to approval by both Houses, the regulations will increase the fixed tariff for compensation for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years which occur on or after 31 May 2025. The regulations will implement the recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor in her report of the statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, published on 21 November 2024.
The whiplash tariff compensation figures will be around 15% higher than the original tariff, which was brought into force in 2021 by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. This is both to account for the effects of inflation since 2021 (by measure of the consumer prices index) and to include a buffer for expected inflation until 2027. The uplift will ensure that claimants can continue to receive appropriate compensation for whiplash injuries that occur before the next statutory review of the tariff. The original whiplash tariff from 2021 will continue to apply to relevant whiplash injuries from road traffic accidents that occur before 31 May 2025.
[HCWS534]
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsWednesday 19th March 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2025 - (19 Mar 2025)
Danny Kruger
I am grateful. With great respect to other members of the Committee, I think the hon. Gentleman is the most honest advocate of assisted dying among us, because he genuinely recognises that autonomy demands the widest possible range of eligibility. It might be that other Members feel that we have the balance exactly right. I recognise the force of his argument that if we are going to introduce a new human right, it is very difficult to circumscribe its boundaries. He himself thinks that there should be some boundaries: he proposed an amendment that specified 12 months, and he thinks that only certain people should be able to ask someone else to perform assisted death to them. Nevertheless, he is acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy, the Bill would not satisfy some people.
I think it would be intellectually coherent and more logical for proponents of the Bill to want to repeal section 2 of the Suicide Act, and I do not understand why they are not doing so. We could certainly continue to insist on prohibitions against any form of coercion, persuasion or inducement to take one’s own life, but if somebody is clearly in their right mind and wants to receive assistance to kill themselves, that is the principle of the Bill. It would be neater if we amended the Suicide Act accordingly.
The fact that proponents do not want to do so suggests that they see some value in the law and that they consider that that value trumps concerns about autonomy and the impact of the law on family members of someone who wishes to travel to Switzerland to end their life. I agree that there are such principles—namely, the intrinsic value of life and the protection of the vulnerable—but I do not see why proponents of the Bill consider that such principles trump autonomy when it comes to terminally ill adults in England.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My remarks, as ever, will focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny. In exercising our duties to ensure that legislation that is passed is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to reflect her intent.
Clause 24, as amended by amendments 504 and 505, will mean that individuals who assist a person to end their life in accordance with the terms of the Bill are not subject to criminal prosecution. Currently, it is a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 for a person to do an act that is
“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”
and intended
“to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”
That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Amendment 504 would amend clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence—[Interruption.]
Sarah Sackman
I was introducing amendment 504, which amends clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of providing assistance in accordance with, or performing a function under, the Bill—for example, by undertaking the first or second assessment or providing the approved substance. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with the Bill. The phrase “in accordance with” the Bill is key. For example, where someone accompanies a person to the appointment at which they will self-administer the substance, the amendment would carve out any criminal liability for the accompanying person.
As originally drafted, the wording would have limited the protection offered by subsection (1) to the far narrower situation of the medical professionals providing assistance under clause 18. The amendment will give effect to the policy intent of the hon. Member for Spen Valley of applying that protection to all those who provide assistance in accordance with, or by performing a function under, the Bill. Subsection (2) clarifies that the clause does not override other ways in which a court may find that a person is not guilty of an offence.
Clause 24(3) inserts proposed new section 2AA into the Suicide Act 1961. As amended by amendment 505, that new section ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life by doing anything under the Bill. That is for the same reasons that I set out in relation to subsection (1). The new section also provides a defence to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, where a person reasonably believes that they were acting in accordance with the Bill, and that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
Taken as a package, the effect of these amendments is to make the Bill legally workable. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that those who assist a person to use the lawful route are not then subject to criminal liability for doing so. Clause 24 clause, taken together with amendments 504 and 505, gives effect to that.
Let me address some of the issues raised by Opposition Members. There was a question as to whether there is any overlap between offences under the Bill—we will come to some of those offences in due course with clauses 26 and 27—and offences that remain on the statute book under the Suicide Act. The short answer to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate, although I know she has written to my Department, and I will ensure that she receives a full written answer, is that it would remain an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to encourage suicide, including an assisted death under this Bill.
To the extent that any overlapping offences remain, that is not an unusual approach to drafting in the criminal law. However, the effect of the clause is that it would remain an offence under the 1961 Act to encourage someone to commit suicide. Where a person’s “encouragement”—the hon. Member focused on that term—is such that it amounts to what the courts would understand to be pressure or coercion, that could be an offence under clause 26, which we will come to. As I said, it is not unusual to have a degree of overlap in criminal offences. Again, what someone is charged and prosecuted with falls to the prosecutor, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and what would be most appropriate in that scenario.
I also want to address the scenario that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire posited, about whether a pharmacist who acted in a way that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter would benefit from immunity under clause 24(1) as amended. Again, with the important caveat that it will depend on the particular facts of the case, the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is committed where a death is the result of gross negligence in what would otherwise be a lawful act or omission on the part of the defendant, and where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim—there are a number of actors within the Bill’s process who owe a duty of care to the person applying for assisted dying.
Let us assume for a moment that, in the hon. Member’s scenario, we do have gross negligence manslaughter on the particular facts; in those circumstances, the Government are content that the pharmacist could not be properly said to be performing a function under the Bill, or in accordance with the Bill, so clause 24(1)—the carve-out from criminal liability—would not apply. I think that that covers most of the questions that were posited earlier.
Danny Kruger
It may well be that the Minister has clarified the case sufficiently, but will she explain something for my sake? She is suggesting that the pharmacist inadvertently but negligently caused the death of a patient, having performed the duties under the Bill and believing that they were doing so. Surely, they were performing duties under the Bill, so they would potentially be captured by the carve-out.
Sarah Sackman
Again, it would depend on the actual facts. However, if they were attempting to perform duties under the Bill, it is highly unlikely that, in circumstances where the facts establish and meet the threshold of gross negligence manslaughter, they could be said to have carried out those duties in accordance with the Bill. They might have been carrying out duties that they thought were what the Bill prescribed, but if they have done that in such a way that it amounts to gross negligence manslaughter, then clause 24(1) would not apply.
The hon. Gentleman makes the point about what the pharmacist in that scenario believes they are doing; that belief has to be reasonable, and that is a test that our courts are well used to applying. That is why the amendments introduce the belief that someone is acting in accordance with the Bill. It is not enough that they think they are doing it; it has to be a reasonable belief. That is an objective standard.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for those helpful clarifications. Was any consideration given to also exempting encouragement as an offence under the Suicide Act? I am interested in why it was not exempted in the same way as assistance, particularly given that if it did fall within coercion and pressure—based on what the Minister said—it would get picked up as a criminal offence anyway under the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will write to me on some of this, but the issue comes back to what is encouragement. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley set out—
Rebecca Paul
My apologies, Mr Dowd, but it is a technical point. I think the Minister understands what I am asking.
Sarah Sackman
Helpfully, the hon. Member has also set out her questions fully and precisely in a letter to me, so I think I know what she is asking and I will try and answer it as best I can. I reiterate, as I and the Minister for Care have said throughout, that the policy choices have been for the promoter—the Government remain neutral. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide in section 2 of the Suicide Act is well established. Encouraging someone to go through the assisted dying process under the Bill with the intention of encouraging suicide or an attempt at suicide would therefore remain a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act. That is what I made clear earlier.
What we are talking about will always depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It is the Government’s view that in a scenario—I think this is what the hon. Member for Reigate is getting at—where a family member or friend simply suggests to a person with a terminal condition that the option of assisted death under the Bill is something they may wish to consider, and nothing more, it is unlikely—dare I say, inconceivable—that that would amount to an offence under the 1961 Act.
However, if someone encourages a person in a more tangible way, such as encouraging or pressuring them to make the first declaration, that could well amount to an offence under the 1961 Act. Where that encouragement crosses the threshold into what, interpreted in line with their natural meaning, the courts would understand as pressure or coercion, that could amount to an offence under clause 26 of the Bill, which we will come to in due course. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s question. I will set that out to her in writing, and she is welcome to write back if there is any ambiguity.
I hope that that assists the Committee. I am going to sit down before anybody else intervenes.
The Chair
May I make an observation? I understand where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but if letters have gone back and forth to the Department and other Committee members are not privy to what they say, the debate gets a little abstract. That is all I am trying to get to—we should not get too abstract, so that everybody knows what is being said.
Sarah Sackman
I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—
The Chair
Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.
Draft Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The purpose of the draft regulations is to specify proceedings for which the Online Procedure Rule Committee can make rules. The aim of the OPRC is to improve access to justice for all. It was established under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and it aims to modernise the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions by developing rules governing the practice and procedure for specific types of online court and tribunal proceedings. These rules are intended to be simple, accessible and fair. They will streamline online processes and enhance the overall efficiency of the system.
I will outline the proceedings for which the draft regulations will enable the OPRC to develop rules. In the civil jurisdiction, the OPRC will be able to make online procedure rules for property proceedings. The Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the justice system is fully prepared for the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill. As part of this, HMCTS will digitise the court process for landlords to regain possession of their property, introducing a digital service for both landlords and tenants. Procedure rules will be required to allow use of this service, and parliamentary approval of the draft regulations will enable the OPRC to make those rules. The digital possession service and the rules will reflect the law as it stands at the point that the service is deployed. However, the introduction of the digital possession service and the rules that underpin it is not tied to the timelines for bringing into force the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill.
The OPRC will also be able to make online procedure rules for property proceedings in the first-tier and upper tribunals. That will allow certain cases currently dealt with by the property chamber or the lands chamber to be included in online procedure rules as and when HMCTS introduces digital systems to manage those cases online.
In the family jurisdiction, the OPRC will be able to make rules for financial remedies, including contested financial remedies and financial consent orders, for example following a divorce. Online procedure rules for these proceedings will be designed to support the existing online services provided by HMCTS, which are currently governed by practice directions made by the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
The OPRC is unable to make any online procedure rules until the proceedings are defined in regulations. The extent of the draft regulations is intended to be UK-wide. Their territorial application is England and Wales in respect of civil and family proceedings, and UK-wide in respect of tribunal proceedings.
The Government believe that the digitisation of court and tribunal processes requires the development of procedure rules that are suitable for the digital age. They must be concise and straightforward to understand. They must support His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary to deliver online processes and to keep adapting to advances in technology. Those aims will be met by the transfer of these specified proceedings to the OPRC—a cross-jurisdictional rule committee whose members include experts in the law and in the development of digital services focused ultimately on the user.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, and for the break-out of consensus on this progressive measure. He is absolutely right that access to justice, which lies at the heart of these reforms, is something we should be mindful of. I assure him that that is the guiding principle behind the reforms.
On the application of the OPRC rules in connection with the Renters’ Rights Bill, as I said, the timelines for the implementation of the Bill and the implementation of the rules are not pegged together. Of course, it will be proper to await the development of the rules and their implementation in order for them to become operable. I am happy to update the shadow Minister and other Members as to when those rules are ready.
On the potential for duplication, the shadow Minister will know that the rules will be developed in consultation with the judiciary, which is represented on the OPRC. The operation of the draft regulations does not prevent existing rule committees from making rules in their relevant areas, but clarity on which rules apply to particular types of proceedings is vital. It will become very clear that the online procedure rules apply to online proceedings where regulations have made provision for them to be the applicable rules, and that where they are not the applicable rules, other rules will apply. We cannot have different rules applying to the same proceedings, and that will of course be made clear.
Finally, on access to justice, the shadow Minister is absolutely right that nobody should be left behind by the digitisation of our courts. We need to ensure an equal service, particularly for those who are digitally disadvantaged and will not be able to access online processes, for whatever reason. That is why, even in the areas where we want to move to an almost entirely digital world, there will always be provision for people to engage in proceedings through a paper-based service. The Government are also ensuring that there is a digital support service so that access to justice really does what it says, and that all users, but particularly those who are vulnerable or digitally disadvantaged, are able to access our online proceedings. As I said, I am happy to update the shadow Minister and the rest of the House on the timeline for the implementation of the OPRC rules in respect of possession proceedings, and indeed the other areas, when they come into force.
Question put and agreed to.