Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of court mandated mediation for larger businesses.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and consensually. We are piloting mandatory mediation for small money claims (under £10,000) as part of the county court process. This pilot runs until May 2026 and will be evaluated before decisions on further mandatory use across civil law.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Employment Tribunal awards remain unpaid in each of the last three years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not collect or publish data on the outcomes of employment tribunal enforcement actions; however we do publish data on the value of awards from the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
The Department of Business and Trade will collect additional updated data on payment outcomes through the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications in 2026.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of administering Employment Tribunal cases in which awards are subsequently not paid.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The information requested is not held centrally by HM Courts and Tribunals service.
Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ascertain the position of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners who qualified through work-based routes, following the judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.
Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current mechanisms for enforcing Employment Tribunal awards where employers refuse to pay compensation.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.
We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to monitor data on (a) conviction rates, (b) sentencing patterns and (c) appeals arising from cases affected by the removal of the right to elect a jury trial; and whether that data will be published.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We will continue to monitor conviction rates, sentencing outcomes and appeals volumes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences and by defendant characteristics, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. The Department will continue to publish this data quarterly.
The Ministry of Justice also publishes data on appeals but does not have access to the reasons for appeal, beyond whether a sentence or verdict has been appealed. Data on appeals volumes can be found as part of the Criminal Courts Statistics release: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Mohammad Yasin (Labour - Bedford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has received representations concerning allegations of misleading or inaccurate citation of case law in a recent Employment Tribunal judgment; and what processes exist for referring such allegations to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In the event that the Ministry of Justice receives a complaint about the handling or outcome of a particular case the correspondent would be advised to seek advice regarding any right of appeal and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a member of the judiciary, provided with information about the relevant complaints process. This is because the judiciary are entirely independent and must be free to decide the outcome of cases without fear of interference from Government or its administration.
Decisions of the Employment Tribunal can be appealed on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Complaints about the conduct of an Employment Judge sitting in England must be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/
For an Employment Judge sitting wholly or mainly in Scotland, complaints must be made to the President of the Employment Tribunal (Scotland): https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information he holds on the number of British-qualified judges sit on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal publishes the names of its non-permanent judges on its website.
The list is available at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/judges/npjs/index.html.
Asked by: Marie Rimmer (Labour - St Helens South and Whiston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason the Legal Aid Agency's Sign in to Legal Aid Services implementation has been delayed; what specific security issues have arisen; and when updates on its postponed launch will be made available.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has worked around the clock to ensure that digital services were restored as swiftly and safely as possible. There has been no delay to implementation of the new secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS), which went live on 11 August following a period of testing with providers
Since then, we have worked closely with providers to test functionality before bringing providers back onto our systems in a careful, phased approach. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many firms have ceased being legal aid providers since 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.