Written questions by Lowe.

How many family court cases the mother acted as a litigant in person due to lack of access to (a) legal aid and (b) representation in each of the last five years.

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

What was the average cost per case to the public purse of providing legal aid in family proceedings for which the latest data is available.

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

What was the average amount repaid by people who had received legal aid in family court cases in each of the last five years.

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

What was the average financial cost for people meeting their own legal fees in family court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold records on the average financial cost for people meeting their own legal fees in family court proceedings. These are private arrangements and there is no statutory requirement for them to be reported.

What assessment his Department has made of the financial equitableness when only one parent receives legal aid in family court proceedings.

The eligibility for family legal aid does not discriminate as between Mothers and Fathers. In any case, the eligibility criteria apply equally to both.The legal aid framework was reformed by previous governments through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). In 2019, the then Government published a post-implementation review of LASPO; the outcome of that review, including in relation to legal aid in family proceedings, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo. Furthermore, between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA); all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.Non means tested legal aid is available for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family special Children Act 1989 cases, including care proceedings as well as related proceedings. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered. As a result, more than one parent may be eligible for legal aid.Legal aid is available in some private family matters for individuals experiencing, or at risk of, domestic abuse; for individuals (for example, parents) where the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse; for people under the age of 18; in certain cases of international or domestic abduction; for family mediation where there is a family dispute; and for certain urgent protection applications – for example, non-molestation orders. To be eligible for legal aid in these cases, means and merits tests usually need to be met, and evidence of domestic abuse also needs to be provided.It is possible for both parties to receive legal aid in private family proceedings, if the case is in scope of LASPO and both parties meet the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements, where applicable. It is however also possible under LASPO for only one party to receive legal aid. This is due to the overall intention of LASPO which is to target legal aid to particularly vulnerable cohorts and those most in need.Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.

How many family court cases the father acted as a litigant in person due to lack of access to (a) legal aid and (b) representation in each of the last five years.

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

How many and what proportion of applications for legal aid in family proceedings have been granted to mothers in each of the last five years.

The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.

For the total spend on (i) LinkedIn membership fees (ii) other subscriptions by his Department in the last financial year.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold a specific membership with LinkedIn. However, our spend on LinkedIn for the financial year 2024/2025 was £155,247.65.Please note this cost covers multiple recruitment services and advertising that span across all our operationally critical frontline roles. For example, those in HMPPS and HMCTS. All our campaign activity is data driven to maximise our reach to our target audiences.The Department’s spend for other subscriptions in 2024/2025 is £628,213.00. These subscriptions/memberships cover things such as The Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Bar Council, and the Office for National Statistics and ensure we are able to operate compliantly and effectively.

How many super-injunctions relating to the Government are in place.

The Government does not publish or hold centralised data on the number of super-injunctions currently in place, due to the sensitive and often confidential nature of such orders.Where such orders are made, they are typically issued by the High Court under strict judicial oversight and may include provisions that prevent disclosure of their very existence.

How much from the public purse has been spent by the Legal Aid Agency on (a) legal representation and (b) pre-action work challenging removals under the one-in, one-out migrant returns policy since 1 July 2025.

Information relating to legal aid expenditure challenging removals under the one-in one-out pilot is not centrally held. Although legal aid expenditure broken down by category is published on a quarterly basis as part of the Legal Aid Agency’s Official Statistics. In order to obtain information relating to the number of legal aid certificates granted for cases which make specific reference to either the one-in one-out migrant returns policy or removals to France, it would be necessary to manually review every single application for legal representation in connection with judicial review proceedings in the immigration context. That could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

How many legal aid certificates have been granted for cases referencing (a) the one-in, one-out migrant returns policy and (b) removals to France since July 2025.

Information relating to legal aid expenditure challenging removals under the one-in one-out pilot is not centrally held. Although legal aid expenditure broken down by category is published on a quarterly basis as part of the Legal Aid Agency’s Official Statistics. In order to obtain information relating to the number of legal aid certificates granted for cases which make specific reference to either the one-in one-out migrant returns policy or removals to France, it would be necessary to manually review every single application for legal representation in connection with judicial review proceedings in the immigration context. That could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Pursuant to the Answer of 6 November 2025 to Question 86469 Ministry of Justice: Social Media, if he will publish a breakdown of all non-commercially sensitive information on (a) influencers paid and (b) amount paid to each influencer in the last five financial years.

Given the nature of working with influencers, there are sensitivities surrounding all aspects of this expenditure. Sharing any information could compromise commercial interests, as the Department has engaged with only 10 influencers where it has enhanced our communications. All influencer activity is subject to strict Cabinet Office spending controls to ensure that we achieve an appropriate balance between effectiveness and value for money for taxpayers. The Ministry of Justice uses social media influencers to help deliver its communications and operational priorities. This includes activity to support recruitment campaigns for prison officers, probation officers and magistrates, ensuring that frontline services are effectively staffed to maintain public safety and deliver swift access to justice. Our digital comms team are also increasingly collaborating with content creators/influencers to help reach new audiences with justice content on a no-cost basis.

What proportion of foreign national offenders released in error were awaiting deportation at the time of release in each of the last five years.

We regularly publish information on releases in error but this does not show how many of these releases relate to foreign nationals or the proportion of such offenders who were awaiting deportation at the time of release.The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected. We are also rightly deporting foreign national offenders faster than ever.Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced. Where appropriate, the Ministry of Justice will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. Between 5 July 2024 and 4 July 2025, over 5,000 FNOs were removed. This is an increase of 14% compared to the 4,532 FNO returns in the same period 12 months prior.

Whether the public is notified when a foreign national offender is mistakenly released from custody.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.We are focused on fixing release and discharge processes and have already brought in the strongest ever release checks with more direct senior accountability. Going further, we have established a new Justice Performance Board to provide a comprehensive view of prison and criminal court performance including releases in error. Dame Lynne Owens is conducting an independent review to identify what further action we can take.A team of data scientists are reviewing releases in error to gain a clear picture of what is going wrong and as part of crucial improvements to court processes, an Urgent Warrant Query Unit is being set up, staffed by court experts, so prisons can get urgent answers on what sentences have been imposed. A digital rapid response unit has already been in HMP Wandsworth to use cutting-edge technology in place of manual systems and reduce the potential for human error. These are our initial steps and we will continue to take action to stop these errors and continue the existing close co-operation that exists between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the police.On the issue of public notification when a foreign national offender is released from custody, decisions about public statements rest with the police.

Whether his Department tracks the locations of foreign national offenders following release.

Foreign national offenders (FNOs), if not detained under immigration powers, are released on licence at the conclusion of the custodial element of their sentence, under the supervision of the Probation Service.They are subject to licence conditions to protect the public, reduce re-offending, and enable them to be supervised effectively in the community. These conditions can be varied during the licence period, if necessary, to reflect any change in level of risk.The licence conditions include a requirement for FNOs to inform the Probation Service of their address and obtain prior approval for any change. The Probation Service liaises with the police during the address approval process, to ensure the address is suitable, and to safeguard the public. Any unauthorised change of address would constitute a breach of licence. Enforcement action may include recall to custody.Where standard conditions are insufficient to manage risk, additional licence conditions may be imposed, such as restrictions on movement, contact, or residence, and the use of GPS tagging. GPS tagging is applied only where it is assessed as necessary and proportionate to the individual’s level of risk.The Probation Service’s supervision of FNOs runs in parallel with any action on deportation being undertaken by the Home Office.

What communications protocols exist between his Department and the Home Office to prevent the erroneous release of asylum-seeker prisoners.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.We are focused on fixing release and discharge processes and have already brought in the strongest ever release checks with more direct senior accountability. Going further, we have established a new Justice Performance Board to provide a comprehensive view of prison and criminal court performance including releases in error. Dame Lynne Owens is conducting an independent review to identify what further action we can take.A team of data scientists are reviewing releases in error to gain a clear picture of what is going wrong and as part of crucial improvements to court processes, an Urgent Warrant Query Unit is being set up, staffed by court experts, so prisons can get urgent answers on what sentences have been imposed. A digital rapid response unit has already been in HMP Wandsworth to use cutting-edge technology in place of manual systems and reduce the potential for human error. These are our initial steps and we will continue to take action to stop these errors and continue the existing close co-operation that exists between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the police.On the issue of public notification when a foreign national offender is released from custody, decisions about public statements rest with the police.

How many foreign nationals have been released from prison in error in each of the last five years.

We regularly publish information on releases in error but this does not show how many of these releases relate to foreign nationals or the proportion of such offenders who were awaiting deportation at the time of release.The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected. We are also rightly deporting foreign national offenders faster than ever.Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced. Where appropriate, the Ministry of Justice will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. Between 5 July 2024 and 4 July 2025, over 5,000 FNOs were removed. This is an increase of 14% compared to the 4,532 FNO returns in the same period 12 months prior.

How many officials in his Department have faced disciplinary action following the mistaken release of asylum seekers convicted of criminal offences in each of the last five years.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

What processes are in place to prevent the accidental release of foreign national offenders from prisons.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.We are focused on fixing release and discharge processes and have already brought in the strongest ever release checks with more direct senior accountability. Going further, we have established a new Justice Performance Board to provide a comprehensive view of prison and criminal court performance including releases in error. Dame Lynne Owens is conducting an independent review to identify what further action we can take.A team of data scientists are reviewing releases in error to gain a clear picture of what is going wrong and as part of crucial improvements to court processes, an Urgent Warrant Query Unit is being set up, staffed by court experts, so prisons can get urgent answers on what sentences have been imposed. A digital rapid response unit has already been in HMP Wandsworth to use cutting-edge technology in place of manual systems and reduce the potential for human error. These are our initial steps and we will continue to take action to stop these errors and continue the existing close co-operation that exists between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the police.On the issue of public notification when a foreign national offender is released from custody, decisions about public statements rest with the police.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the the mistaken release of asylum seekers convicted of criminal offences on public safety.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.We are focused on fixing release and discharge processes and have already brought in the strongest ever release checks with more direct senior accountability. Going further, we have established a new Justice Performance Board to provide a comprehensive view of prison and criminal court performance including releases in error. Dame Lynne Owens is conducting an independent review to identify what further action we can take.A team of data scientists are reviewing releases in error to gain a clear picture of what is going wrong and as part of crucial improvements to court processes, an Urgent Warrant Query Unit is being set up, staffed by court experts, so prisons can get urgent answers on what sentences have been imposed. A digital rapid response unit has already been in HMP Wandsworth to use cutting-edge technology in place of manual systems and reduce the potential for human error. These are our initial steps and we will continue to take action to stop these errors and continue the existing close co-operation that exists between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the police.On the issue of public notification when a foreign national offender is released from custody, decisions about public statements rest with the police.