Found: CTB0001 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill UniSALESIANO Written Evidence

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

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: 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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether there has been an impact assessment of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on fathers in prison who are trying to retain parental responsibility.

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

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is better to protect children from harm, including harm which might result from contact with abusive parents or resulting from decisions made by abusive parents.

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at fathers who are prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of a parent being involved in their child’s life – through contact or through holding or exercising parental responsibility - where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts, when making decisions, including applications related to parental responsibility, will adopt an openminded enquiry as to what is in a child’s best interests rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989. In making decisions about the exercise of parental responsibility, the court will continue to be guided by the welfare checklist in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the impact of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the ongoing implementation of the 2017 and 2019 Farmer Reviews on the importance of maintaining male prisoners' and female offenders' family ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crime.

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

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is to better to protect children from harm, including from harm which might be caused by contact with abusive parents

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of parental involvement and contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts will adopt an openminded inquiry enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989 when making decisions, guided by the welfare checklist, in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

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.

Found: carry-over motions have been agreed so far for five public bills: • Armed Forces Bill • Courts and Tribunals Bill

Found: The announcement comes as the Courts and Tribunals Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons

Found: This announcement comes as both the Victims and Courts Bill and Courts and Tribunals Bill progress through