Found: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 Date of commencement: some

Found: CTB0131 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales

Found: CTB0130 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SafeLives Written Evidence

Found: CTB0129 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Red Lion Chambers Written Evidence

Found: The Courts and Tribunals Bill aims to reform special measures, but without investment there will be

Found: CTB0090 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SOCIETY OF CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS Written Evidence

Found: CTB0002 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Ewing Written Evidence

Found: CTB0068 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Ms Karin Radicke Written Evidence

Found: CTB0064 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Theresa Millward Written Evidence

Found: CTB0053 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0128 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Dr Laura Janes KC (Hon) Written Evidence

Found: CTB0127 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Garden Court Chambers, and The University of

Found: CTB0126 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill London Victims' Commissioner Written Evidence

Found: CTB0125 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Bar Council Written Evidence

Found: CTB0123 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill UNSW Sydney, and University of Nottingham Written

Found: CTB0122 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Commission Written Evidence

Found: CTB0121 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Commission Written Evidence

Found: CTB0119 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill CALA, YPA, NAYJ and APPEAL, CALA, Claire Bostock

Found: CTB0118 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Free Speech Union Written Evidence

Found: CTB0117 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mountford Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0116 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0115 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill TRINITY HELIX AI Written Evidence

Found: CTB0114 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Oxford Written Evidence

Found: CTB0113 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Society of England and Wales Written

Found: CTB0112 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Criminal Law Solicitors' Association Written

Found: CTB0111 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0110 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Both Parents Matter Written Evidence

Found: CTB0109 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Support Not Separation Written Evidence

Found: CTB0107 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Miss Louisa Hollely Written Evidence

Found: CTB0106 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Miss Jill Griffin Written Evidence

Found: CTB0104 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr William Keyte Written Evidence

Found: CTB0103 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Transform Justice Written Evidence

Found: CTB0101 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Cambridge Written Evidence

Found: CTB0100 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Independent Written Evidence

Found: CTB0098 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Zac Fine Therapy Written Evidence

Found: CTB0097 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Justice Written Evidence

Found: CTB0096 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill City of London Law Society Written Evidence

Found: CTB0093 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Anne Robson Written Evidence

Found: CTB0092 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill No 5 Barristers' Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0089 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Matthew Slocombe Written Evidence

Found: CTB0088 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Dennis Silverwood Written Evidence

Found: CTB0087 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Victim Not Suspect Written Evidence

Found: CTB0086 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mrs Kelly Tweedie Written Evidence

Found: CTB0083 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Sue Cook Written Evidence

Found: CTB0082 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Ms Nell Pursey Written Evidence

Found: CTB0081 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Streetwise Law and Lartey and Co Written Evidence

Found: CTB0079 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Queen Mary, University of London Written Evidence

Found: CTB0078 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Self employed Written Evidence

Found: CTB0076 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys

Found: CTB0074 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill H H Christopher Kinch KC Written Evidence

Found: CTB0073 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Family Services Foundation Written Evidence

Found: CTB0070 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr. Chris Underhill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0066 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mrs Underhill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0065 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Alan Fellows Written Evidence

Found: CTB0065 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Alan Fellows Written Evidence

Found: CTB0063 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Family Solutions Group Written Evidence

Found: CTB0063 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Family Solutions Group Written Evidence

Found: CTB0058 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Head of Mountford Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0058 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Head of Mountford Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0055 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Birmingham Written Evidence

Found: CTB0055 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Birmingham Written Evidence

Found: CTB0054 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SHERA Research Group / CO University of Manchester

Found: CTB0054 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SHERA Research Group / CO University of Manchester

Found: CTB0052 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0048 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Vesselinov Written Evidence

Found: CTB0045 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Alex Adams Written Evidence

Found: CTB0044 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr William Davis Written Evidence

Found: CTB0043 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0042 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill None Written Evidence

Found: CTB0041 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of West London Written Evidence

Found: CTB0040 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Cambridge Written Evidence

Found: CTB0039 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Barnabas Baggs Written Evidence

Found: CTB0036 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Nottingham Written Evidence

Found: CTB0035 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Paul O'Callaghan Written Evidence

Found: CTB0028 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Faster Fairer Justice Written Evidence

Found: CTB0027 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr William Deasy Written Evidence

Found: CTB0025 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Joseph McGarry Written Evidence

Found: CTB0020 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Sussex Written Evidence

Found: CTB0014 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0011 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mediation Matters Midlands Ltd Written Evidence

Found: CTB0007 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Press Association Written Evidence

Found: CTB0003 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Katie Trust Written Evidence

Found: Justice Committee Oral evidence: Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill, HC 1754 Tuesday

Found: Correspondence from the Lord Chancellor relating to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, 25 February 2026 Correspondence

Found: I am writing further to the introduction of the Courts and Tribunals Bill (the Bill) and supporting

Found: Secretary of State for Justice, dated 25 February 2026 relating to the introduction of the Courts and Tribunals Bill

Found: to Lord Strathclyde, Chair of the Constitution Committee, regarding the introduction of Courts and Tribunals Bill

The Justice Committee has issued a call for evidence to inform its scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his answer of 18 March to question 120027, whether he will publish the results of his department's engagement with the judiciary about their personal safety and security associated with the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

We engage regularly with judicial leaders on all matters including security. It is standard practice not to publish or comment on the specifics of discussions between Ministers and the judiciary.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of extending existing rules on mediation in the civil courts to the tribunals system, in the context of proposed changes to the Office of the Senior President of Tribunals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government recognises the value of mediation and other forms of dispute resolution in helping parties resolve disputes more swiftly and consensually. We continue to explore and assess the potential merits of dispute resolution across different jurisdictions, including tribunals.

However, any changes to the Tribunal Procedure Rules will be made by the Tribunal Procedure Committee, an independent statutory body, who are responsible for the making of rules that govern tribunal practice and procedure. The provisions in the Courts and Tribunals Bill relating to the office of the Senior President of Tribunals concern judicial leadership and do not alter day-to-day decision-making in tribunals cases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what data and statistics they hold that shows that removing the right to jury trial for cases with sentences of less than three years will reduce waiting times and pressure on the jury system.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice has published the data and analysis underpinning these measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment (the IRCC Impact Assessment (IA)). The IA sets out the relevant assumptions, evidence base and methodology used, drawing on the best available data, operational insight and engagement with the judiciary.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether judges have been consulted about possible increased personal risks of replacing some jury trials with named judge trials as proposed in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.

When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.

Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the level of risk to named judges who replace juries in trials.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.

When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.

Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the decision to allow pending cases to be tried by a judge alone on (a) the number of pre-trial hearings and (b) the number of appeals to these hearings.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division or judge-alone for technical and lengthy cases. Re-allocation of these cases may be done on the papers, ie without a hearing.

The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.

There will be no right to appeal against an allocation decision or order made to hear a trial by judge alone. Parliament has long held that decisions about mode of trial (e.g., allocation decisions in the magistrates’ court) are not normally subject to appeal given the need for procedural finality and avoiding delay in cases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what modelling his department has used to establish that allowing pending cases to be tried by a judge alone will deliver swifter justice as referenced in the Minister for Courts and Legal Services’ letter to the Justice Select Committee dated 17 February 2026.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC) measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases to cases.

Sir Brian’s Review gave a ‘conservative’ estimate that trials without a jury will make hearings at least 20% faster. This assumption was reached through quantitative analysis and workshops with HMCTS operational experts and engagement with judges. The Impact Assessment details the methodology used to reach this estimate. The assumption is also consistent with international evidence: data from New South Wales shows an average 16% reduction in trial length for judge-only trials, rising to around 29% for complex cases.

The package of reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are designed to free up Crown Court capacity so that the most serious cases can be put before a jury more quickly, reducing delays for victims and witnesses.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of cases due to be affected by the decision to allow pending cases to be tried by a judge alone.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases.

The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of Crown Court backlogs on the length of time defendants are held on remand prior to trial.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Crown Court backlogs can cause defendants to spend longer time on remand. This Government is committed to pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – so can we turn the tide on the backlog. The Government has invested significantly in the system, including funding unlimited sitting days so that the Crown Court can hear as many cases as possible next year. We have also introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill to enable much-needed reform of the criminal courts, and are leading a major efficiency drive, including the introduction of ‘blitz courts’ to get through the backlog.

The use of remand is a judicial matter, and there are well established processes for extending Custody Time Limits if needed. Applications must be approved by independent judges and defendants have the right to oppose any application.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will have the right to elect restricted by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Bill removes a defendants’ right to elect Crown Court trial for all triable either-way offences. The venue will be determined by the magistrates’ courts, which will send cases they consider outside of their jurisdiction to the Crown Court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be reclassified by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Courts and Tribunals Bill does not reclassify offences - it changes allocation and mode of trial arrangements within the existing classification framework.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be eligible for trial without jury by the Crown Court Bench Division proposal in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Courts and Tribunals Bill introduces judge-only trials for triable either-way offences where the courts assess that the likely custodial sentence, applying the relevant sentencing guidelines to the alleged facts and any appropriate representations, is three years imprisonment or less. Indictable-only offences are excluded and will not be eligible for this mode of trial, described as the Crown Court Bench Division.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of restricting access to trial by jury in England and Wales on public confidence in the judicial system.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2026. Alongside the Bill, an impact assessment of our proposed justice reforms was published: Courts and Tribunals Bill - GOV.UK. This includes an assessment of the proposed changes in the threshold for who can access a jury trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what conversations has she had with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the potential impact of court delays on the a) financial health and b) kennel capacity of i) local authorities and ii) dog homes in England and Wales due to requirements to seize animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps is he taking to accelerate the scheduling of Section 20 hearings for animals seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average waiting time was for a Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help support female victims within the courts system.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with victims waiting years for justice. On 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for victims. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts, reduce uncertainty, and increase transparency for victims and witnesses by ensuring more effective triage across the system. We will also implement crucial reforms, recommended by the Law Commission, to ensure that victims are no longer unfairly undermined by evidence in the court room.

This Government is committed to ensuring female victims have the information and support they need to navigate the criminal justice system. We have recently launched a consultation on a new Victims’ Code to ensure we get the foundations for victims right. The Victims and Courts Bill will additionally provide a new route for victims to request information via a dedicated helpline, which will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

We have made the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support services over the next three years. The 42 Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales receive annual grant funding from the Ministry of Justice’s victim and witness budget to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. This includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services. Local assessments will incorporate considerations of the volume and needs of female victims of crime.

In addition, we continue to fund the long-standing Witness Service. This provides on-the-day emotional and practical support to witnesses (including those who are victims) to help them give their best evidence. This may include providing information about the court and its processes, facilitating explanations around any delays and accompanying the witness (if allowed by the court) into the court room when they give evidence.

Found: Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26

Found: Alongside our reforms of the Courts system through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we are rebalancing

Found: Government moves to protect children from abusive parents through new Courts and Tribunals Bill