Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will write to the hon. Member for Slough outlining (a) why the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court has been (i) writing to the hon. Member for Slough and (ii) sending him sealed court orders regarding a court case to which he is not a party, (b) why this has continued after correspondence from his office, (c) whether all parties for this case are aware of (A) this case and (B) the orders relating to it, (d) whether all parties for this case are aware that the hon. Member for Slough has been sent this information and (e) whether, if required, the Information Commissioner's Office will be informed.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.
HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.
HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.
Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.
This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the complaints system through the Legal Ombudsman in cases where large numbers of consumers are affected by the collapse of a single legal firm.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) is the independent body responsible for administering the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) scheme. The Legal Services Board (LSB), as the oversight regulator, has statutory duties to monitor the OLC.
The collapse of a law firm does not prevent complaints being investigated by the LeO or any remedies it might direct from being recovered. Although the LeO requires each affected consumer to raise a complaint about the law firm, it has procedures that can be put in place to manage situations where a large number of consumers may be affected. These include the ability to prioritise cases where it is appropriate to do so and to work with other bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to ensure consumers are supported and appropriately signposted.
While the OLC and LeO remain independent in their decision-making, the Ministry of Justice provides additional oversight and accountability to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest. For monitoring purposes, the OLC reports regularly to both the LSB and the Ministry of Justice on performance, including information on demand, backlogs and timeliness.
The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of LeO’s complaints system in cases involving the collapse of a single legal firm affecting large numbers of consumers. However, the Government recognises that the LeO has faced wider operational pressures in recent years and continues to monitor the performance and resilience of the complaints system by engaging the LSB and the OLC Board through existing oversight arrangements.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to reopen local magistrate courts that have been closed to help clear the court case backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
50% of magistrates’ courts were closed under previous Governments between 2010 and 2020.
Estate capacity is not a limiting factor to sitting the funded days in the magistrates courts. In other words, we are investing in more court staff, legal aid and judge time so that magistrates can hear more cases - up to £450 million in additional courts funding per year. There is therefore a difference between system capacity and physical capacity of courtrooms. Running courtrooms requires not just available courtrooms, but judicial time, and sufficient numbers of legal professionals.
We continue to keep the court estate under review to ensure it meets operational priorities. Projects to boost court capacity across the country include a new Magistrate’s Court in Blackpool and an additional 18 court rooms in the City of London.
Asked by: Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat - Torbay)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to (a) remove the cap on the number of days courts can sit, (b) help ensure prisoners are transported to court on time, (c) hold discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service on the removal of cases from the backlog, (d) help support the recruitment of more public sector barristers and (e) help ensure that court buildings are fit for purpose.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice.
In the Crown Court for this financial year (2025/26), we are funding 111,250 sitting days – the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year. The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2026-27, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise and his ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament. We will provide Parliament with an update on the sitting day allocations in the usual way at the conclusion of the Concordat process.
Prisoners should be produced on time and we are committed to making improvements where we can. Prisoner transport delivery is regularly reviewed and a significant number of contract changes have been made already to adapt to the changing operational requirement. But even if every prison van ran like clockwork tomorrow, we would still be left with a backlog edging towards 100,000 cases. Prisoner transport delays are a symptom of a stretched system, not a cure for it.
There is no quick fix to the criminal courts crisis, and no single lever that can be pulled. It is vital that all system partners work together to deliver swifter justice for victims. We continue to talk to system partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to consider options, including those in Sir Brian Leveson’s Part I report on criminal court reform. In June 2025, the Chancellor announced a landmark increase of £96 million (RDELex) in additional funding for the CPS over the spending review period 2026-2029. This will help CPS protect victims by tackling the backlog, speeding up justice, and delivering a justice system that services victims.
We are investing up to an additional £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We are also taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages, with a particular focus on opening a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society.
This Government has also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing £148.5 million in court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous Government funded last financial year.
But investment alone is not enough – that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why structural court reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to reduce the number of court phone numbers that, when called, tell you to call a different number.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is committed to improving the experience of users contacting us by telephone. We have migrated call handling for a number of services from local courts and tribunals to centrally managed National Service Centres. Since migration telephony wait times continue to improve, for example, average call waiting times in our digital service centres have fallen year on year, from 17 minutes in December 2023, to 15 minutes in December 2024, and to 13 minutes in December 2025, against our 15-minutes target.
A proportion of callers continue to use older phone numbers that appear on historic paperwork or in third‑party online sources retained by citizens and professionals. To avoid leaving these callers without guidance, HMCTS maintains recorded messages on such lines to signpost to the correct, active number or service.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, a) what steps the Government is taking to reduce delays within the civil justice system, and b) whether he has considered the use of mediation as a potential solution.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to improving performance of, and to reducing demands on, the civil courts. We have put in place measures such as the introduction of digital systems through the HMCTS Reform Programme to drive performance improvements and are focused on increasing capacity through more judicial recruitment.
The quarterly period covering July to September 2025, showed that the median time taken for small claims to go from issue to trial was 39 weeks, 5.9 weeks faster than the same period in 2024. For fast, intermediate and multi-track claims, it was 60 weeks, 5.1 weeks faster than a year earlier. This shows a positive trend regarding timeliness. Published statistics can be found in table 1_5 of the main tables here: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
We recognise the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly. Mandatory mediation for small money claims below £10,000 is now integrated into the county court process, saving time and costs. A formal evaluation will be published in the summer of this year, and findings will inform decisions on further expansions of mandatory mediation.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment has been made of the adequacy of support available to parents applying to the Court of Protection for an order authorising access to their child's (a) Child Trust Fund and (b) Junior ISA when their child lacks capacity to manage their financial assets.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Where a young adult lacks mental capacity, the law requires parents or a guardian to have legal authority to make decisions on their behalf about financial assets or property. This longstanding requirement is vital in ensuring that vulnerable people are safeguarded and protected from potential financial abuse. The requirement for legal authority extends to accessing funds held in a Child Trust Fund or a Junior ISA.
On 9 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice published the ‘Making Financial Decisions for young people: parent and carer toolkit’ explaining the process by which parents and guardians of disabled children who lack capacity can obtain legal authority if no other arrangements are in place to provide such authority. This can be done by making an application to the Court of Protection for an order authorising access to monies held in a Child Trust Fund or Junior ISA. The toolkit is available on Gov.UK. Information to assist parents or carers in the completion of one of the required court forms can be found here: How to apply to make property and finance decisions on someone’s behalf (including Child Trust Funds) - GOV.UK
Ministers are working closely to consider what further steps could be taken to ameliorate the process for supporting young people without capacity to access small value capital assets. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with key stakeholders to understand more about the difficulties and potential changes to address these while maintaining necessary safeguards.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and (b) the potential impact of those lawsuits on public-interest advocacy and journalism.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.
Jan. 22 2026
Source Page: Sentencing Act ensuring punishment cuts crime gets Royal AssentJan. 22 2026
Source Page: FOI releases for June 2025