Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department plans to conduct analysis of the potential impact of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 on divorce rates.
Answered by Jake Richards - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 was implemented in April 2022. Published divorce statistics provide an indication of trends in divorce rates since the reforms were introduced.
In 2025, there were 105,002 divorces, with a divorce rate of 8.5 per 1000 of the married population. This is broadly consistent with the figures for 2024 and 2023, when there were 104,762 and 102,678 (and divorce rates of 8.5 and 8.4) respectively. Divorce rates have also remained broadly in line with those recorded before the implementation of reform. In 2021, there were 113,505 divorces, with a rate of 9.5. In 2020, there were 103,592 divorces, with a rate of 8.5. In 2019 there were 108,421 divorces, with a rate of 9. Current figures are lower than peak levels in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, when there were around 150,000 divorces per year.
Marriage is one of our most important social institutions, providing stability for families, strengthening communities and contributing to higher levels of satisfaction in life. The Government recognises the important role marriage can play in supporting stable family relationships, including for children. That is why the Government wants to support more couples to get married. In its consultation ‘Tying the Knot: Reforming weddings law in England and Wales’, which closed last month, the Government proposed a new system that will make it easier for couples to get married in way that is right for them.
The Department values the research and evidence provided by organisations such as the Marriage Foundation, including its work on family stability. The Department engages with the Marriage Foundation, and will continue to do so.
Asked by: Cameron Thomas (Independent - Tewkesbury)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of mandating that a person granted Lasting Power of Attorney must submit a detailed financial statement of themselves to an oversight body upon appointment.
Answered by Jake Richards - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is improving public awareness of its role and responsibilities by working with organisations that support its customers and can help extend the reach of its information. Through webinars, meetings and targeted engagement with legal, finance, charity, health and social care sectors, OPG provides timely information about its services, including Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA), and helps stakeholders support the public's understanding more effectively.
In addition, OPG continues to raise awareness of LPAs through its Your Voice, Your Decision campaign, which is delivered in locations across England and Wales. OPG also uses its digital channels and GOV.UK content to provide information about its role and services, and how customers can access support and guidance.
OPG does not have current plans to introduce mandatory safeguarding training. There are several ways throughout the LPA process where OPG supports attorneys to manage a donor’s welfare, property or financial affairs once a donor loses capacity. Following registration, OPG outlines their legal responsibilities and signposts them to further guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and GOV.UK guidance on being an attorney, for example ‘Getting started as an attorney’ and ‘How to be an attorney’. OPG’s Contact Centre also provides support to attorneys when handling calls, signposting to online guidance or forwarding to a separate team to give specialised advice and signposting when there are potential safeguarding concerns. This guidance is currently being updated to ensure it continues to support attorneys in understanding and carrying out their responsibilities effectively.
OPG does not consider that mandating personal financial statements by all attorneys would be proportionate, as LPAs are private legal arrangements which allow a person to choose who they trust to make decisions on their behalf should they lose capacity. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a donor must have capacity when making an LPA and is entitled to make their own decisions about who they trust to act on their behalf. The LPA framework therefore reflects the importance of donor choice and autonomy. There are statutory eligibility requirements and safeguards which mean some people cannot be appointed as attorneys for property and financial affairs, including individuals who are bankrupt or subject to a Debt Relief Order.
OPG can investigate concerns raised about an attorney's conduct and, where appropriate, apply to the Court of Protection to remove attorneys who are not meeting their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. OPG works closely with the financial services sector, including through its engagement with UK Finance, to ensure financial institutions understand when and how to report suspected fraud, financial abuse and other safeguarding concerns involving attorneys and deputies. Financial institutions can and do raise concerns with OPG through established reporting routes, enabling concerns about an attorney's conduct to be investigated.
Asked by: Cameron Thomas (Independent - Tewkesbury)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department plans to introduce mandatory safeguarding training for individuals granted Lasting Power of Attorney.
Answered by Jake Richards - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is improving public awareness of its role and responsibilities by working with organisations that support its customers and can help extend the reach of its information. Through webinars, meetings and targeted engagement with legal, finance, charity, health and social care sectors, OPG provides timely information about its services, including Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA), and helps stakeholders support the public's understanding more effectively.
In addition, OPG continues to raise awareness of LPAs through its Your Voice, Your Decision campaign, which is delivered in locations across England and Wales. OPG also uses its digital channels and GOV.UK content to provide information about its role and services, and how customers can access support and guidance.
OPG does not have current plans to introduce mandatory safeguarding training. There are several ways throughout the LPA process where OPG supports attorneys to manage a donor’s welfare, property or financial affairs once a donor loses capacity. Following registration, OPG outlines their legal responsibilities and signposts them to further guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and GOV.UK guidance on being an attorney, for example ‘Getting started as an attorney’ and ‘How to be an attorney’. OPG’s Contact Centre also provides support to attorneys when handling calls, signposting to online guidance or forwarding to a separate team to give specialised advice and signposting when there are potential safeguarding concerns. This guidance is currently being updated to ensure it continues to support attorneys in understanding and carrying out their responsibilities effectively.
OPG does not consider that mandating personal financial statements by all attorneys would be proportionate, as LPAs are private legal arrangements which allow a person to choose who they trust to make decisions on their behalf should they lose capacity. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a donor must have capacity when making an LPA and is entitled to make their own decisions about who they trust to act on their behalf. The LPA framework therefore reflects the importance of donor choice and autonomy. There are statutory eligibility requirements and safeguards which mean some people cannot be appointed as attorneys for property and financial affairs, including individuals who are bankrupt or subject to a Debt Relief Order.
OPG can investigate concerns raised about an attorney's conduct and, where appropriate, apply to the Court of Protection to remove attorneys who are not meeting their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. OPG works closely with the financial services sector, including through its engagement with UK Finance, to ensure financial institutions understand when and how to report suspected fraud, financial abuse and other safeguarding concerns involving attorneys and deputies. Financial institutions can and do raise concerns with OPG through established reporting routes, enabling concerns about an attorney's conduct to be investigated.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will undertake a review of whether serious child sexual abuse prosecutions should be given priority listing where there is evidence that a defendant may become medically unfit to stand trial before proceedings are concluded.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, listing is a judicial responsibility. The judiciary have introduced a new National Listing Framework, implemented through their Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts which came into effect on 1 October. This framework puts the human impact of delays at the heart of the decisions that the court makes regarding listing. In assessing this impact, the court must have regard to:
The changes mean that all cases involving sexual offending will be prioritised across England and Wales.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has considered introducing guidance for family courts on distinguishing between (a) a child who has never had an established relationship with a parent and (b) a child whose previously established relationship with a parent has been disrupted during proceedings.
Answered by Jake Richards - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Children Act 1989, in particular the “welfare checklist” in section 1(3), already provides courts with the flexibility needed to make decisions for children in these sorts of different situations. The checklist remains an effective and enduring piece of legislation. It requires courts to pay particular regard to a list of factors that affect a child’s welfare, including the harm that they have suffered or are at risk of suffering, how capable a parent is of meeting the child’s needs, the wishes and feelings of the child and the likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances.
This allows the courts to assess individual circumstances, however they may vary from case to case, while still considering specified factors. The checklist is already well equipped to reflect modern understandings of child welfare whether children have an established relationship with a parent, or not.
Asked by: Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru - Ceredigion Preseli)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 July 2026 to Question 16046 on Probate: Applications, what was the average time taken to issue a grant of probate to applications submitted in a) English and b) Welsh in each year since 2021.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Grants of representation1 time taken from application submission to grant issued by language submitted in, England and Wales | |||||||||
Annually 2021 to 2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Source: HMCTS Core Case Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Grants Issued2 |
| Language submitted in | ||||||
|
| English (or not specified) |
| Welsh | |||||
Year3 |
| Grants issued | Mean weeks | Median weeks |
| Grants issued | Mean weeks | Median weeks | |
2021 | 273,428 |
| 272,481 | 8.5 | 5.4 |
| 947 | 6.2 | 2.9 |
2022 | 269,812 |
| 269,029 | 8.8 | 6.1 |
| 783 | 6.0 | 2.9 |
2023 | 277,735 |
| 276,562 | 14.0 | 11.0 |
| 1,173 | 8.4 | 5.3 |
2024 | 328,446 |
| 326,762 | 10.0 | 5.0 |
| 1,684 | 11.0 | 8.7 |
2025 | 295,415 |
| 293,312 | 6.2 | 2.0 |
| 2,103 | 4.7 | 1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) All grant types including letters of administration with/without a Will. |
|
|
|
| |||||
2) Total grants issued do not include where the grant type is not specified / missing. |
|
| |||||||
3) Year refers to the date that grants were issued rather than application submission date. |
|
| |||||||
Due to revisions these figures may differ slightly to those published in Family Court Statistics Quarterly. |
| ||||||||
Asked by: Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative - Solihull West and Shirley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of changing the name of the Chancery Division to the Business & Property Division.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Business and Property Division was launched on 1 October 2026, bringing together the current Business and Property Courts into a single division, replacing the Chancery Division.
The Government was pleased to support this judiciary-led initiative to modernise the structure of the High Court. This historic modernisation will help ensure the UK remains attractive as a global hub for corporate litigation.
The officials of the Ministry of Justice (including legal advisers), Judicial Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service undertook this work as part of their normal duties in creating the Business and Property Division.
The Ministry of Justice paid £518 excluding VAT for the publication of the Order in Council titled “Senior Courts Order 2026”.
HMCTS incurred additional costs of approximately £98,000. This comprised approximately £97,000 for IT and reporting changes delivered through Thomson Reuters and approximately £1,000 in staff overtime costs (28 hours) required to support implementation activity.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what requirement or guidance exists under the Victim’s Code to notify victims of child sexual abuse, or their guardians, when a defendant’s statutory two-year Supervision Order is due to lapse; and what reassurances are provided regarding ongoing public protection measures.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Victims’ Code sets out the minimum standards of information and support that criminal justice agencies must provide to victims. This includes rights to information about the investigation and prosecution, the outcome of the case and, in specified circumstances, information about an offender following conviction.
A Supervision Order is imposed by the court for a fixed period and expires automatically when that period ends. The Victim’s code does not provide a separate right to notification when a Supervision Order is due to expire.
The expiry of a Supervision Order is the automatic conclusion of an order already set by the court, rather than a new decision or change in the offender’s custodial status, no separate right exists under the Victims’ Code to notify victims, or their family members or guardians, when a defendant’s Supervision Order is due to lapse. It should be distinguished from other protection measures which may be in place and would continue to apply independently of the supervision order.
Any ongoing arrangements to manage risk and protect the public are considered by those responsible for overseeing the Order.
More widely, the Government recognises that unfitness to plead cases may be difficult to understand as they do not follow the normal trial and sentencing route and we are considering how the court procedure can be made clearer and more supportive for victims and their families.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has considered introducing additional forms of judicial recognition, formal findings, or symbolic accountability measures in cases where a court has determined that a defendant committed the acts alleged, but a conventional criminal sentence cannot lawfully be imposed.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government agrees that this area of law needs to be updated. The Law Commission reviewed the law on unfitness to plead and the Government has accepted the majority of its recommendations including a modernised legal test, changes to the fact-finding process and wider disposals.
The Government is actively considering how best to take these forward, alongside the defence of insanity, which is also being considered by the Law Commission. This is a complex area of law and it is important that any future reforms are considered carefully to ensure that the legislation is coherent, workable and provides protections for defendants, victims and the public.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an assessment of the adequacy of the legal framework governing Trials of Fact in recognising proven wrongdoing in cases where a defendant is found unfit to plead.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government agrees that this area of law needs to be updated. The Law Commission reviewed the law on unfitness to plead and the Government has accepted the majority of its recommendations including a modernised legal test, changes to the fact-finding process and wider disposals.
The Government is actively considering how best to take these forward, alongside the defence of insanity, which is also being considered by the Law Commission. This is a complex area of law and it is important that any future reforms are considered carefully to ensure that the legislation is coherent, workable and provides protections for defendants, victims and the public.