Written questions by Franklin.

What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of average waiting times for fact-finding hearings in the family courts; and what steps he is taking to reduce those waiting times.

This Government is committed to improving the performance of the Family Courts, and the Family Justice Board has agreed system-wide priorities and targets for reducing delay across England and Wales. While we do not have specific figures for the timeliness of fact-finding hearings, the latest published data shows a reduction in the national average case duration for both public and private law cases.The Government recently announced the national rollout of the Child Focused Model for private law over the next three years. It currently operates in 10 of 43 Family Court areas and seeks to enhance the experience of children and families. The model has additionally demonstrated a significant impact on timeliness and reductions in the number of average hearings per case. Cases are concluding between 11-30 weeks quicker and outstanding caseloads have been reduced by up to 50%.

What steps his Department is taking to address the funding anomaly whereby Legal Aid funding may be granted to alleged or confirmed perpetrators rather than judicially recognised victims.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

What steps he has taken to monitor and evaluate the adequacy of Legal Aid funding awarded under the Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) describes the civil services in scope of legal aid under s.9 LASPO.In January 2023, the Ministry of Justice launched a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA), to identify issues facing the system and improve its sustainability. The Review examined the civil legal aid system in its entirety, including how services are procured, how well the current system works for users and providers, and how civil legal aid impacts the wider justice system. The Review has now concluded, and all reports are available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review.The evidence from RoCLA indicated that the housing and immigration sectors face particularly acute challenges with service provision and high demand. In response, we are increasing fees for all housing and debt, and immigration and asylum legal aid work. This represents a significant investment – the first major increase in fees since 1996. Uplifts to fees for controlled immigration and housing work - generally early advice and some legal representation - came into effect on 22 December 2025, injecting an additional £18 million into the civil legal aid sector each year.We will monitor and evaluate the impact of this fee increase through engagement with the sector and through provider numbers. We are in regular dialogue with representative bodies and our provider base more broadly about the health of the market, and several new research and evidence projects are underway that aim to improve our understanding about market capacity and demand.RoCLA identified a range of issues – beyond fees – that make a difference to the profession. We are looking at other potential changes to support providers, for example contractual requirements that providers say are burdensome.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that Legal Aid awarded under the LASPO Schedule 1 pathway is provided solely to individuals who have been judicially recognised as victims.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

What steps his Department is taking to prevent individuals subject to active civil court orders from receiving Legal Aid.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

Whether national guidance permits (a) police forces and (b) local authority Children’s Services to facilitate a material change in a child’s place of residence without prior court authorisation where one parent with parental responsibility has refused consent.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

Whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

Whether the Department plans to consult directly with independent celebrants as part of the development of marriage law reform.

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.

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.

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.

Whether independent celebrants will be explicitly included within the scope of the forthcoming marriage law reform proposals.

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.

If he will make an assessment of the adequacy of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Civil Procedure Rules provide a framework for a fair, transparent, efficient and proportionate civil justice system. The Rules are regularly updated to support court services, to reflect wider changes in legislation and societal need, and in response to issues in practice and case law. Generally, there are at least two statutory instruments per year (April and October) which amend the Rules and ensure they remain up to date and relevant. These updates are made under the negative resolution SI process, which is subject to the related parliamentary scrutiny, having first been signed by Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) members, Master of the Rolls and Minister of State for Justice.In addition to the Government keeping the Rules under review in conjunction with the CPRC, the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls) keeps the civil justice system under review and makes recommendations on, how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient. The Council routinely refers proposed amendments to the Rules to the CPRC for consideration.

What assessment he has made, as part of his Department’s responsibilities for access to justice and the protection of victims of domestic abuse, of the risk that delays caused by a non-engaging spouse in divorce and financial remedy proceedings may facilitate ongoing coercive or controlling behaviour.

It is a top priority for this Government to tackle violence against women and girls, including economic abuse and coercive control. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce considered the issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases. The Government is carefully considering this report as it prepares to consult on issues identified by the Law Commission. We will issue our consultation by Spring next year.It is a matter of concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse may fail to engage with divorce proceedings. The courts have powers to deal with parties who fail to engage, including to make orders confirming a perpetrator has received a divorce application when they have refused to acknowledge it. In September this year, the process of asking the court to make orders about sending applications became easier, when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service extended the online application system for litigants-in-person.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not required to bear additional financial or procedural burdens in order to progress divorce proceedings when the other party fails to engage.

It is a matter of concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse may fail to engage with divorce proceedings. The courts have powers to deal with parties who fail to engage, including to make orders confirming a perpetrator has received a divorce application when they have refused to acknowledge it. In September this year, the process of asking the court to make orders about sending applications became easier, when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service extended the online application system for litigants-in-person.

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of using scanning machines in probation offices to detect weapons; and what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of probation officers in the workplace.

The safety of probation staff is our priority, and we are committed to taking action to protect them. Following a comprehensive review of health, safety, and security across all probation premises, we are urgently implementing measures to strengthen protection for staff and improve overall safety.We have completed a comprehensive nationwide review of local safety arrangements and are currently installing visitor lockers outside all probation contact areas with the aim of preventing the ingress of weapons and rolling out bleed control kits and defibrillators in every office to provide critical emergency support.We are also planning to pilot enhanced security measures in seven probation offices. The proposed pilots include archway scanners, handheld wands, body-worn cameras, and advanced safety training focused on de-escalation and aggression management. The aim is to prevent weapon ingress, improve staff safety, and assess the effectiveness of the proposed interventions.

What steps he is taking to ensure that families affected by Primodos are not prevented from pursuing legal redress due to the potential risk of high legal costs.

The Government cannot comment on individual legal cases, but we are committed to access to justice at proportionate cost. There are several mechanisms that can reduce the legal costs involved in pursuing a civil claim. Whether any are available to a claimant would depend on the specifics of the claim.Claimants may be able enter into an agreement with a lawyer using a Conditional Fee Agreement or Damages Based Agreement, or with a third party funder using a Litigation Funding Agreement. Such agreements usually mean that a claimant will not have to pay all or part of their own legal costs unless they win their case.Claimants may be able to take out Legal Expenses Insurance and After the Event insurance to mitigate some of the financial risks associated with litigation. Such insurance would usually cover adverse legal costs, where the losing party in a claim is ordered to pay the legal costs of the other side.Fixed Recoverable Costs are also applicable to most civil cases in the Fast and Intermediate Tracks. These allow parties to know in advance what adverse costs they would be liable for if they lose a case. This can help claimants make an informed decision about whether or not to pursue litigation.

Whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of the judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 on Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the judgment 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 judgment’s implications and the action being taken in response. On 27 October, I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgment, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgment’s impact and attended their recent conference to hear from CILEX members what the impact has been.While I am satisfied that appropriate steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgment, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to ensure clarity and consider whether further steps are required.

What safeguards exist for beneficiaries when executors are (a) incapable of fulfilling their duties and (b) abusing their position.

A wide range of safeguards are available in legislation to hold executors accountable for the performance of their duties in administering the estate of a deceased person. Protections for beneficiaries if executors are incapable of fulfilling their duties or abuse their positions include:Renunciation – an executor is able to renounce their office if they find the role too difficult or their health is too poor, work commitments too great or it is impractical (for example they live abroad).Capacity – a person who lacks mental capacity to act as an executor cannot do so while such incapacity lasts.Passing over – Section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 empowers courts to pass over an executor where it is considered necessary or expedient and appoint an administrator.Citation to accept or renounce a grant – the courts can summon an executor where they have failed to act to apply for probate or renounce their office and if they do not appear their rights as an executor cease.Citation to take probate – an application to court where an executor has taken some steps without formalising their role.Inventory and Accounts – an application can be made by a beneficiary to the court to require an executor to provide an inventory and account of their administration of an estate.Removal – applications can be made under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove and replace an executor after probate where there are grounds to do so.Fraud – allegations of executors committing criminal offences such as fraud can be investigated by the police.Given the wide range of safeguards, and the checks and balances the legislation provides (given the challenges faced by and onerous duty imposed on executors) the Government has no plans to reform the current mechanisms for holding executors and other personal representatives to account.Attorneys appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) are chosen by the donor themselves, reflecting their trust and personal decision about who should act on their behalf. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) ensures the LPA is valid before registering it and can investigate concerns raised with them about an attorney’s conduct. However, the OPG does not have statutory powers to proactively monitor attorneys where no concerns have been reported.There are also important safeguards built into the LPA process, such as the certificate provider who plays a key role in confirming that the donor understands the arrangement and is not under undue pressure. There is also a statutory waiting period prior to registration, to allow for objections against registration to be raised. These measures, alongside the donor’s choice of attorney, provide a level of security within the current framework.Looking forward, the OPG and the Ministry of Justice are progressing a modernisation project that aims to increase safeguards and improve access to LPAs, which will be achieved by introducing a digital channel to make and register an LPA, while improving the existing paper channel. This will make LPAs easier to understand, and break down barriers to starting an LPA.

Whether he plans to improve oversight mechanisms for (a) executors and (b) attorneys under Lasting Powers of Attorney.

A wide range of safeguards are available in legislation to hold executors accountable for the performance of their duties in administering the estate of a deceased person. Protections for beneficiaries if executors are incapable of fulfilling their duties or abuse their positions include:Renunciation – an executor is able to renounce their office if they find the role too difficult or their health is too poor, work commitments too great or it is impractical (for example they live abroad).Capacity – a person who lacks mental capacity to act as an executor cannot do so while such incapacity lasts.Passing over – Section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 empowers courts to pass over an executor where it is considered necessary or expedient and appoint an administrator.Citation to accept or renounce a grant – the courts can summon an executor where they have failed to act to apply for probate or renounce their office and if they do not appear their rights as an executor cease.Citation to take probate – an application to court where an executor has taken some steps without formalising their role.Inventory and Accounts – an application can be made by a beneficiary to the court to require an executor to provide an inventory and account of their administration of an estate.Removal – applications can be made under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove and replace an executor after probate where there are grounds to do so.Fraud – allegations of executors committing criminal offences such as fraud can be investigated by the police.Given the wide range of safeguards, and the checks and balances the legislation provides (given the challenges faced by and onerous duty imposed on executors) the Government has no plans to reform the current mechanisms for holding executors and other personal representatives to account.Attorneys appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) are chosen by the donor themselves, reflecting their trust and personal decision about who should act on their behalf. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) ensures the LPA is valid before registering it and can investigate concerns raised with them about an attorney’s conduct. However, the OPG does not have statutory powers to proactively monitor attorneys where no concerns have been reported.There are also important safeguards built into the LPA process, such as the certificate provider who plays a key role in confirming that the donor understands the arrangement and is not under undue pressure. There is also a statutory waiting period prior to registration, to allow for objections against registration to be raised. These measures, alongside the donor’s choice of attorney, provide a level of security within the current framework.Looking forward, the OPG and the Ministry of Justice are progressing a modernisation project that aims to increase safeguards and improve access to LPAs, which will be achieved by introducing a digital channel to make and register an LPA, while improving the existing paper channel. This will make LPAs easier to understand, and break down barriers to starting an LPA.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that Personal Independence Payment appeals for claimants awarded under the Special Rules for terminal illness are prioritised (a) when a PIP award has been removed despite no improvement in prognosis and the claimant has been waiting over a year for a tribunal hearing and (b) in general.

The listing of appeals is a matter for the Tribunal’s independent judiciary. Appeals are usually listed in chronological order based on the date of receipt.If an expedited hearing is sought, or where the Tribunal identifies a case which might benefit from an expedited hearing, a judge or tribunal caseworker will make a decision on the issue, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.