Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many additional (a) judges and (b) valuers have been recruited in advance of the implementation of the rent review provisions in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges, salaried regional surveyors (valuers), and fee paid valuers assigned to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) Property Chamber can hear any case type in the Chamber, including rent determinations.
The number of judges in post as of 1 April 2025 assigned to the Property Chamber is published in the 2025 Judicial Diversity Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics.
2 regional surveyors and 77 valuers in post as of 1 April 2025 are assigned to the Property Chamber as their primary appointment.
We continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess the impact of the Renters’ Rights Act on the Chamber, including on judicial capacity. Recruitment was completed in 2025 for salaried and fee-paid judges of the FTT, including for the Property Chamber, and further recruitment in 2026 is planned. The independent Judicial Appointments Commission publishes data on the outcomes of these exercises once recruitment is completed: https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/completed-exercises/.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) judges and (b) specialist valuers are assigned to residential rent determination cases in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges, salaried regional surveyors (valuers), and fee paid valuers assigned to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) Property Chamber can hear any case type in the Chamber, including rent determinations.
The number of judges in post as of 1 April 2025 assigned to the Property Chamber is published in the 2025 Judicial Diversity Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics.
2 regional surveyors and 77 valuers in post as of 1 April 2025 are assigned to the Property Chamber as their primary appointment.
We continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess the impact of the Renters’ Rights Act on the Chamber, including on judicial capacity. Recruitment was completed in 2025 for salaried and fee-paid judges of the FTT, including for the Property Chamber, and further recruitment in 2026 is planned. The independent Judicial Appointments Commission publishes data on the outcomes of these exercises once recruitment is completed: https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/completed-exercises/.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the withdrawal of legal aid certificates in litigation cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate; and whether people involved in such cases were aware of the availability of Exceptional Case Funding.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test.
Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening.
At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999.
In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test.
The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF.
The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice.
All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
Asked by: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of making Exceptional Case Funding available to women and families on their legal cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test.
Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening.
At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999.
In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test.
The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF.
The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice.
All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether independent celebrants will be explicitly included within the scope of the forthcoming marriage law reform proposals.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.
Asked by: Lord Berkeley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government for how long HMP Dartmoor has been empty of prisoners; what the estimated cost is of rectifying the buildings to make them safe and habitable; who the freeholder of the prison site is; and what obligations the freeholder has to fund the rectifying works.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMP Dartmoor has been temporarily closed since August 2024 following the detection of radon gas. We have been working with specialist radon experts to investigate and assess options to allow us to reopen the prison safely.
The decision on reopening will be made based on the viability of the site, the effectiveness of works to reduce levels of radon, and value for money. We need to be satisfied that reopening the prison is justified in the light of a range of considerations, including compliance with legislative requirements, operational viability, and the cost of mitigation measures. To date, approximately £1.2 million has been spent on radon mitigation.
The freehold of the site on which HMP Dartmoor is built is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Ministry of Justice has a full repairing and insuring lease. Any costs to maintain the buildings and make them safe and habitable therefore fall to the Department for the duration of its lease.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress has been made in considering the Law Commission’s 2022 recommendation to regulate officiants rather than venues, and how independent celebrants are being considered within that approach.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Department plans to consult directly with independent celebrants as part of the development of marriage law reform.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry and will be seeking their views amongst a range of others to inform the consultation paper.
As part of the consultation, we will invite views on the introduction of independent officiants and the potential consequences of this. We will encourage everyone to engage with the consultation when published, to help to inform our next steps.
Asked by: Allison Gardner (Labour - Stoke-on-Trent South)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the proposed change to standard recall length, from the current 28 days to 56 days, on pregnant women and mothers of dependent children.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Recall is a last resort for cases where risk in the community becomes unmanageable.
The Department published an Equalities Impact Statement alongside the Sentencing Act, which can be found here: Sentencing Bill equalities statement.
It was assessed that the Act’s recall measures will not disproportionately impact those with protected characteristics.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of long-term potential impacts of the mandatory disclosure of criminal records on access to (a) employment and (b) education for offenders.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We recognise the importance of removing barriers to employment for ex-offenders. Employment reduces the chance of reoffending significantly, by up to nine percentage points in the year following release, and a similar percentage point reduction for prisoners who take any form of learning activity. The criminal record regime has a role in this process, striking a balance between providing employers with the information they need to make safer recruitment decisions, while enabling ex-offenders to rebuild their lives.
We recognise that disclosure requirements and the approach of employers and learning institutions can have a significant impact on an individual’s employment opportunities and access to education. This is also an area that Sir Brian Levenson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts highlighted. The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 2 December 2025 that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.