Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of available courtrooms currently sitting in the Crown Court estate, and whether additional courtrooms could be brought into use.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In January 2026 there were 508 Crown courtrooms available for use in the court estate.
In respect of whether additional courtrooms can be brought into use, Harrow Crown Court which has been closed since August 2023, will reopen in April following significant roof replacement works, bringing back into operation an eight-courtroom building. Two temporary Crown courtrooms at Willesden Magistrates’ Court, used as a contingency for Harrow, will revert back to magistrates’ courtrooms. Additionally, the City of London Law Courts is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in 2027, providing eight additional Crown courtrooms.
We continue to keep the court estate under regular review to ensure it aligns with operational priorities.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to expand the number of judges authorised to sit in the Crown Court to address the backlog in criminal cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We have ambitious but realistic recruitment plans for judges for the Crown Court. In January 2026, recruitment for Circuit Judges, including 45 in Crime, commenced. We are expecting a positive outcome from the 2024/25 Recorder recruitment exercise for 70 judges, most of whom work in Crime. More recruitment for both salaried and fee-paid Judges is planned for 2026/27.
The authorisation and deployment of judges is a matter for the judiciary. High Court Judges contribute sitting days in Crown, as do some District Judges (Magistrates Court), with the appropriate authorisation. Judges sitting in retirement are also used in Crown.
Asked by: Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative - Solihull West and Shirley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer to written question 118611, what the policy rationale is for defining a delay under the Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) contracts, for the purposes of the relevant Contract Delivery Indicator, as arising only "where a Court is prevented from commencing its planned business at the intended start time, and/or it has no other business that can reasonably be rescheduled to undertake instead"; and what assessment his Department has made as to whether that definition adequately captures delays in the transfer of prisoners to court in circumstances where the court is able to proceed with alternative business.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) contracts require Suppliers to deliver prisoners to court in time for their hearing to avoid loss of court time. Contract Delivery Indicator (CDI)15 therefore measures “Courtroom delay due to Supplier actions resulting in a Prisoner who is the responsibility of the Supplier not being available in the Courtroom at the required Courtroom appearance time and delay to court proceedings”.
CDI 15 is structured to take account of the fact that not all prisoners are scheduled to appear at the standard 10:00 commencement time used by the courts. Within the Magistrates’ courts, several prisoners may be listed for hearings at the same time, and courts then determine the running order of cases as required. PECS Suppliers are, therefore, required to transport prisoners in accordance with their individual hearing times and to ensure that they are available when their hearings are due to begin. Where a courtroom is unable to begin proceedings because a prisoner is not available at the required time, this is recorded as a delay. Where the court is able to progress other work in the interim, a contractual delay is not recorded; however, the incident will be logged to support assurance activity.
CDI 15 aligns with H M Court and Tribunal Service’s Court Exception Reporting process. Through this process, any delays to court proceedings as a result of late prisoner delivery, regardless of fault, are formally recorded and shared with the PECS Contract Management Team in H M Prison and Probation Service. In addition, suppliers are required to self-report any delays resulting from their actions, to ensure consistency and accuracy in reporting.
These contractual mechanisms ensure that performance issues are rigorously captured, transparently monitored, and proportionately addressed. They take account of situations where delays arise owing to factors outside the supplier’s reasonable control, supporting fair and accurate performance assessment, and promoting continuous improvement across the criminal justice system.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what analysis his Department has undertaken on the potential impact of the proposed Interest on Lawyers’ Client Accounts scheme on the financial viability of legal aid providers.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has engaged with a range of relevant stakeholders to help shape policy proposals. We have engaged with firms that undertake legal aid work, as well as representative bodies, through bilateral engagement, legal aid providers’ roundtables and our recent consultation.
We have also been working with relevant experts to consider the potential impacts of an ILCA scheme and the consultation collected evidence on the administration of the scheme and regulatory challenges.
We are currently considering all the evidence received through engagement as part of our ongoing policy development and consultation response.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential (a) administrative and (b) regulatory challenges that the ILCA scheme may place on SME law firms.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has engaged with a range of relevant stakeholders to help shape policy proposals. We have engaged with firms that undertake legal aid work, as well as representative bodies, through bilateral engagement, legal aid providers’ roundtables and our recent consultation.
We have also been working with relevant experts to consider the potential impacts of an ILCA scheme and the consultation collected evidence on the administration of the scheme and regulatory challenges.
We are currently considering all the evidence received through engagement as part of our ongoing policy development and consultation response.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy not to recognise overseas marriages that would be illegal under UK law.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no plans to change the law that an overseas marriage is normally recognised in England and Wales if it complied with the requirements for the form of the ceremony where it took place (meaning by whom, where, when and how it was conducted) and if both parties had capacity to marry according to the law of their domicile.
Asked by: Lord Lebedev (Crossbench - Life peer)
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.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps is he taking to help ensure there are sufficient a) prosecutors, b) defence barristers and c) court staff to increase the number of Crown Court trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the Crown Court in England and Wales will be funded to hear as many cases as possible next year to speed up justice for victims. We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that there are sufficient prosecutors, and funding has been provided for this.
We are taking significant action to support defence barristers and the wider criminal defence profession. In December 2025, we announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates, and a commitment to work with the profession to match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages to open a career at the Criminal Bar to even more young people from across society. The support for advocates is on top of up to £92 million per year in additional investment, announced in December 2024, we have implemented for criminal legal aid solicitors, which built on a £24 million per year investment in criminal solicitors earlier in the Parliament. This investment reflects the valuable role of criminal defence and will help them to continue to make sure justice is served.
An increase in Crown Court staff to support additional sitting days is funded and factored into HMCTS’ workforce planning, and recruitment for these roles is already progressing in each region.
Asked by: Alison Hume (Labour - Scarborough and Whitby)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department holds information on the number of children who have not been granted contact with their mothers on the basis of reports by unregulated psychological experts in private family law proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not hold data on the number of cases, or their outcomes, where allegations of “parental alienation” were made or where unregulated psychological experts were instructed in Family Court proceedings. This information is not held centrally. It may be held in court records but to obtain this data would require a review of individual case files at disproportionate costs.
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not believe it is capable of diagnosis.
The Family Justice Council’s guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour” provides a comprehensive overview of the reasons a child may reject a parent, including from witnessing domestic abuse and harmful parenting. The guidance also outlines the appropriate timing, scope, and nature of expert witness evidence.
The Government shares the concerns that unregulated experts, often using the title psychologist, have been instructed in Family Court proceedings to give evidence on “parental alienation”. We are working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make changes to the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Directions to prevent the instruction of these experts.
Asked by: Alison Hume (Labour - Scarborough and Whitby)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help ensure specialist domestic abuse training across the family courts.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to delivering long-term reform of the Family Courts to better support and protect both adults and children, including those who are victims of domestic abuse or serious violence.
All court staff within HM Courts and Tribunals Service undertake mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse awareness training as part of their induction and refresher training.
Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru each deliver mandatory domestic abuse practitioner training, which they design and maintain. This ensures Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru practitioners can effectively identify, assess and respond to domestic abuse in Family Court proceedings, and that they maintain up to date, trauma informed, evidence-based skills.
To preserve judicial independence, statutory responsibility for the training of the judiciary in England and Wales rests with the Lady Chief Justice and is conducted by the Judicial College. Domestic Abuse training forms part of both induction and continuation training for all judges, magistrates and legal representatives who sit in the Family Courts. This training is routinely evaluated and refreshed by the Judicial College.