1-20 of 3,695 results for subject:"Legal representation"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.364 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.01 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Legal representation"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Legal representation" OR subject_ses:91820
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps are being taken to improve legal representation for individuals with mental health conditions.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps are being taken to improve legal representation for individuals with mental health conditions.
The Government supports people with mental health conditions to solve their legal problems in a variety of ways, through legal aid and legal support.
We are committed to ensuring that individuals with mental health conditions have equal opportunity to access legally aided advice and representation as the wider population. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) Contracts ensure providers comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including prohibiting firms from declining to take a case because of any additional expense arising from the need to make reasonable adjustments. The Government recognises the vital work of legal aid mental health providers in supporting people with a legal issue relating to their mental health condition, and we are taking steps to support the civil legal aid sector through investment and digital transformation.
The Government is also funding legal support services to support access to justice for vulnerable people with social welfare problems, through nearly £20 million of multi-year funding for 58 frontline organisations that directly support people to access legal advice. Our legal support strategy also involves working across government to promote the co-location of social welfare advice services to make links between health and justice in a range of settings, including mental health settings. This will help scale effective models, such as health justice partnerships, and ensure that vulnerable groups can access holistic support as early as possible.
On representation more broadly for people with mental health conditions, the regulation of legal professionals in England and Wales operates independently of Government. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, responsibility for regulating solicitors rests with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), while the Legal Services Board provides independent oversight of the approved regulators.
Solicitors, like all service providers, are subject to duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled clients. In addition, the SRA requires solicitors to provide services in a way that meets clients' needs and to take appropriate account of vulnerability.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of artificial intelligence legal services on access to legal representation in lower-value civil claims.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of artificial intelligence legal services on access to legal representation in lower-value civil claims.
The Government has not made a formal assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence legal services on access to legal representation in lower-value civil claims. However, we recognise the potential for AI-enabled tools to improve access to legal information and support, including by helping individuals better understand legal processes and prepare documents.
The Ministry of Justice supports responsible innovation. In February we announced a further £4.5 million funding for the next 3 years for LawtechUK and the Government has also set up the new AI Growth Lab for legal services. These initiatives are designed to help legal technology develop in a way that supports affordable, accessible and high-quality services.
A programme for financially compensating victims of the Windrush scandal has been running for seven years and has paid out £127 million so far.
A programme for financially compensating victims of the Windrush scandal has been running for seven years and has paid out £127 million so far.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the three-month time limit for applying for Judicial Review in cases where applicants are unable to secure legal representation within that period.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the three-month time limit for applying for Judicial Review in cases where applicants are unable to secure legal representation within that period.
Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 54, judicial review claims must be filed promptly and no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose, subject to shorter statutory time limits in particular areas such as planning cases.
Claimants can apply to the Court for an extension of time when filing their claim form if they are unable to meet the three-month deadline, for example if they are having difficulties securing legal representation in that time. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court will consider all the circumstances, including whether an adequate explanation has been given for the delay and whether an extension will cause substantial hardship or prejudice to other parties or be detrimental to good administration. Further information can be found in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide.
It is the Government’s view that the three-month time limit, with the possibility of extension at the Court’s discretion, provides the right balance between ensuring individuals have adequate opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of public decisions and providing legal certainty for those public decisions.
The scope of legal aid is set out under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Legal aid is available for legal services provided in relation to judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission subject to the application of an assessment of the merits of the case and an assessment of financial eligibility. Not all cases will qualify for legal aid.
Legal aid services for judicial reviews can be undertaken by providers holding a Public Law contract or a contract in the relevant underlying area of law e.g. housing or immigration. This means that the available supply of legal aid solicitors able to assist with a judicial review is not limited to those holding a Public Law contract.
Individuals can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ search tool on GOV.UK to locate legal aid solicitors nearby using the following link: Find a Legal Aid Adviser or Family Mediator.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people who appeal against sentence and conviction from the magistrates court are unrepresented.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people who appeal against sentence and conviction from the magistrates court are unrepresented.
The Ministry of Justice does not hold, and does not have access to, centrally collated data identifying whether people who appeal against conviction or sentence from the magistrates’ courts are legally represented. As a result, we are unable to provide figures for the proportion of such appellants who are unrepresented. We are working towards a more robust evidence base so that we can track issues transparently and support future improvements.
Key measures of criminal court workload and performance have not recovered to their pre-pandemic levels. In December 2025 outstanding caseloads in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts reached record levels. At the same time HM Courts and Tribunals Service spending on all courts and tribunals has increased.
Key measures of criminal court workload and performance have not recovered to their pre-pandemic levels. In December 2025 outstanding caseloads in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts reached record levels. At the same time HM Courts and Tribunals Service spending on all courts and tribunals has increased.
My Lords, individual inquiries report their own costs. The Covid inquiry, for example, spent approximately £31 million in the first two quarters of the 2025-26 financial year, whereas the Post Office/Horizon inquiry reported spending of approximately £26 million in the 2024-25 financial year. The Cabinet Office also published Covid-19 inquiry legal response costs of £25 million for the 2024-25 financial year. Public inquiries remain vital for investigating serious concerns, shedding light on injustices and spurring change, as well as getting answers for victims and their loved ones.
My Lords, individual inquiries report their own costs. The Covid inquiry, for example, spent approximately £31 million in the first two quarters of the 2025-26 financial year, whereas the Post Office/Horizon inquiry reported spending of approximately £26 million in the 2024-25 financial year. The Cabinet Office also published Covid-19 inquiry legal response costs of £25 million for the 2024-25 financial year. Public inquiries remain vital for investigating serious concerns, shedding light on injustices and spurring change, as well as getting answers for victims and their loved ones.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what was the cost of public inquiries in 2025, and what were the Government’s legal costs for representation in public inquiries.
I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?
I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?
My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is
so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.
My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is
so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.
My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is
so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.
I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?
My Lords, I hesitate to go too far back in the past, but the key to the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane inquiry, which I commissioned, was appointing a judge with experience and having terms of reference that were clear and precise. In that way, one can get an inquiry that produces important results and which is conducted in time and well within reasonable expenditure.
My Lords, I hesitate to go too far back in the past, but the key to the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane inquiry, which I commissioned, was appointing a judge with experience and having terms of reference that were clear and precise. In that way, one can get an inquiry that produces important results and which is conducted in time and well within reasonable expenditure.
The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, in remembering that this is also about value for money. But I remind all noble Lords that this is truly about getting answers for people who have been victims of potentially horrendous and heartbreaking experiences, and about rebuilding trust in the state. He is absolutely right that it is key to make sure that we have learned best practice; however, I gently say to your Lordships’ House that it is also key to ensure that we implement the recommendations from each inquiry, to make sure that they are not books that sit on shelves, as has happened historically in some cases.
The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, in remembering that this is also about value for money. But I remind all noble Lords that this is truly about getting answers for people who have been victims of potentially horrendous and heartbreaking experiences, and about rebuilding trust in the state. He is absolutely right that it is key to make sure that we have learned best practice; however, I gently say to your Lordships’ House that it is also key to ensure that we implement the recommendations from each inquiry, to make sure that they are not books that sit on shelves, as has happened historically in some cases.
The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, in remembering that this is also about value for money. But I remind all noble Lords that this is truly about getting answers for people who have been victims of potentially horrendous and heartbreaking experiences, and about rebuilding trust in the state. He is absolutely right that it is key to make sure that we have learned best practice; however, I gently say to your Lordships’ House that it is also key to ensure that we implement the recommendations from each inquiry, to make sure that they are not books that sit on shelves, as has happened historically in some cases.
My Lords, I hesitate to go too far back in the past, but the key to the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane inquiry, which I commissioned, was appointing a judge with experience and having terms of reference that were clear and precise. In that way, one can get an inquiry that produces important results and which is conducted in time and well within reasonable expenditure.
Could the Minister tell us how many public inquiries are on at the moment? Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the cost is not just to judges, but to the number of public servants who have to be removed from their current work to service the inquiries.
Could the Minister tell us how many public inquiries are on at the moment? Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the cost is not just to judges, but to the number of public servants who have to be removed from their current work to service the inquiries.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The responsibilities on everybody to truly participate to provide evidence is key. To answer her specific question, there are currently 21 public inquiries on the statute book, of which 16 are active, 12 are statutory and eight have been initiated by this Government.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The responsibilities on everybody to truly participate to provide evidence is key. To answer her specific question, there are currently 21 public inquiries on the statute book, of which 16 are active, 12 are statutory and eight have been initiated by this Government.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The responsibilities on everybody to truly participate to provide evidence is key. To answer her specific question, there are currently 21 public inquiries on the statute book, of which 16 are active, 12 are statutory and eight have been initiated by this Government.
Could the Minister tell us how many public inquiries are on at the moment? Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the cost is not just to judges, but to the number of public servants who have to be removed from their current work to service the inquiries.
My Lords, there is a danger that public inquiries end up like the royal commissions of old: taking minutes, lasting years and losing public confidence. Is there not now a case for looking at the way that public inquiries are handled and at how one can make sure that at least some of them conclude more quickly, so that we do not have to wait several years, as well as looking at the questions of overall cost and time spent?
My Lords, there is a danger that public inquiries end up like the royal commissions of old: taking minutes, lasting years and losing public confidence. Is there not now a case for looking at the way that public inquiries are handled and at how one can make sure that at least some of them conclude more quickly, so that we do not have to wait several years, as well as looking at the questions of overall cost and time spent?
I absolutely agree. We have seen, whether in the infected blood scandal or the Horizon scandal, that people who genuinely wanted answers had to wait years before we even got to the point of a public inquiry. The Government have an opportunity to help rebuild trust in the institutions that should matter to people. At a time when there are significant threats to our democracy, it is incredibly important that people have trust in them. So, expediting this is key.
One of the things we have also done brought forward the dashboard where people can see what recommendations have been made by some of these public inquiries, to make sure that the recommendations are being implemented. There is a balance here. We must listen to people and ensure that they have their day and have their issues heard, and we must also act on the recommendations of the inquiries.
I absolutely agree. We have seen, whether in the infected blood scandal or the Horizon scandal, that people who genuinely wanted answers had to wait years before we even got to the point of a public inquiry. The Government have an opportunity to help rebuild trust in the institutions that should matter to people. At a time when there are significant threats to our democracy, it is incredibly important that people have trust in them. So, expediting this is key.
One of the things we have also done brought forward the dashboard where people can see what recommendations have been made by some of these public inquiries, to make sure that the recommendations are being implemented. There is a balance here. We must listen to people and ensure that they have their day and have their issues heard, and we must also act on the recommendations of the inquiries.
I absolutely agree. We have seen, whether in the infected blood scandal or the Horizon scandal, that people who genuinely wanted answers had to wait years before we even got to the point of a public inquiry. The Government have an opportunity to help rebuild trust in the institutions that should matter to people. At a time when there are significant threats to our democracy, it is incredibly important that people have trust in them. So, expediting this is key.
One of the things we have also done brought forward the dashboard where people can see what recommendations have been made by some of these public inquiries, to make sure that the recommendations are being implemented. There is a balance here. We must listen to people and ensure that they have their day and have their issues heard, and we must also act on the recommendations of the inquiries.
My Lords, there is a danger that public inquiries end up like the royal commissions of old: taking minutes, lasting years and losing public confidence. Is there not now a case for looking at the way that public inquiries are handled and at how one can make sure that at least some of them conclude more quickly, so that we do not have to wait several years, as well as looking at the questions of overall cost and time spent?
My Lords, some of the most serious matters considered by public inquiries inevitably touch on the actions or knowledge of the intelligence and security agencies. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensure that bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are able to participate fully and properly in public inquiries by providing relevant evidence and assistance while also preserving their essential national security duties and statutory obligations? In particular, how do the Government ensure that national security considerations do not unduly limit an inquiry’s ability to establish the facts and command public confidence in its conclusions?
My Lords, some of the most serious matters considered by public inquiries inevitably touch on the actions or knowledge of the intelligence and security agencies. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensure that bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are able to participate fully and properly in public inquiries by providing relevant evidence and assistance while also preserving their essential national security duties and statutory obligations? In particular, how do the Government ensure that national security considerations do not unduly limit an inquiry’s ability to establish the facts and command public confidence in its conclusions?
The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.
The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.
The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.
My Lords, some of the most serious matters considered by public inquiries inevitably touch on the actions or knowledge of the intelligence and security agencies. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensure that bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are able to participate fully and properly in public inquiries by providing relevant evidence and assistance while also preserving their essential national security duties and statutory obligations? In particular, how do the Government ensure that national security considerations do not unduly limit an inquiry’s ability to establish the facts and command public confidence in its conclusions?
My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?
My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?
I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.
I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.
I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.
My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?