Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to reduce the number of delays to court hearings caused by the late arrival of prisoners.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
In 2025, the overall Criminal Justice System timely delivery to court performance was 98.19%, Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers met the contractual requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court in 99.91% of cases. The impact of recent reform policies on delivery times is under review.
In addition to its regular oversight meetings with the contractors, the PECS contract management team continues to work collaboratively with criminal justice partners to address any performance issues. Strategic Partnership Boards convene quarterly to review performance and agree strategies to drive and sustain improvement.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take legislative steps through the Sentencing Bill to toughen fines and sentences for people convicted of the assault of retail workers.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Sentencing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026 and is therefore not open to further amendment. However, the Government is taking additional steps to strengthen protections for retail workers through the Crime and Policing Bill. It is unacceptable that violence and abuse towards retail workers continues to rise. That is why, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are bringing a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hardworking and dedicated staff that work in stores. This bespoke offence will send a clear signal to perpetrators that assaults on retail workers are unacceptable and won’t go unpunished.
The Crime and Policing Bill also ensures that all shop theft is treated with the seriousness it deserves by repealing section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, so low value shop theft (of £200 or less) is no longer treated separately as a summary-only offence, but can instead be prosecuted as general theft, which carries a higher maximum penalty. Together, these measures further reinforce the Government’s commitment to tackling violence, abuse and criminality affecting retail staff.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the a) operation and b) alignment of Local Criminal Justice Boards within future policing structures.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the important role Local Criminal Justice Boards play as the forum where local criminal justice system partners collaborate, and the Ministry of Justice remain committed to supporting them. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Home Office to ensure they collectively understand how local criminal justice governance, including the operation of Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs), will operate under any new policing model.
In tandem, the Government is considering the recommendations in Part II of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts relating to the operation and governance of LCJBs and will respond to them in the coming months.
Asked by: Dan Norris (Independent - North East Somerset and Hanham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of data collected on intestacy for the purposes of understanding regional differences in access to will-making and estate planning.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Will-making and estate planning services are largely offered by private providers and, in some instances, charities may offer similar free services.
The Government is not aware of any concerns regarding the availability of will-making and estate planning services. There are no plans to review the provision of these services.
The latest published government statistics on probate applications can be found here: Family Court Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to apply trial by a single judge sitting alone retrospectively to defendants who have already entered a plea and elected trial by jury.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is focused on bringing down the backlog as soon as possible. Once the criminal court reforms come into force, they will apply to existing cases, provided the trial has not yet commenced. This will mean that cases which are past the point of initial mode of trial determination, but have not yet commenced trial, will be able to be changed from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on the grounds of technical complexity or length). Cases which are in the Crown Court will be retained within that jurisdiction.
Cases already part-way through a jury trial will proceed with a jury trial. Similarly, cases already assigned to one court jurisdiction (magistrates’ court or Crown Court) will not be reallocated to another jurisdiction.
The reason for taking this approach is so that the time savings and benefits of the reforms can be felt as soon as possible. Allowing pending cases to be tried by judge alone will enable us to start tackling the open caseload as soon as the new legislation is enacted, delivering swifter justice for victims without compromising defendants’ rights or fairness. It will also avoid two different procedures running in parallel in the Crown Court as a result of arbitrary cut-off dates. The application of procedural changes to existing cases is consistent with longstanding legal practice.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of requiring organisations to contribute to legal fees when (a) an unfair dismissal and (b) a discriminatory employment practice has occurred.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Organisations can already be asked to contribute to the cost of legal fees where vexatious or unreasonable behaviour has occurred. The Employment Tribunals (ET) can issue cost orders where one side is ordered to pay the other’s legal costs. For unfair dismissal cases, if the tribunal decides a claimant has been unfairly dismissed, they can receive compensation. Compensation awards can be ‘basic’ (based on age, length of service and average weekly wage) and ‘compensatory’ (based on loss of earnings).
The Ministry of Justice has not carried out an assessment of the merits of introducing more widespread use of cost orders. This is because the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) is responsible for making procedure rules in the ET that includes the rules regarding cost orders. The Lord Chancellor can consider impacts of the changes the TPC recommend before deciding whether to implement them.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) professional bodies and (b) legal organisations his Department consulted prior to the publication of proposals to restrict jury trials; and what alternative measures his Department has considered to reduce the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with many external bodies and organisations with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of Part 1 of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress has been made by law enforcement on apprehending those responsible for the Legal Aid Agency cyber attack.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Since April 2025 there has been a net increase to the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) publishes data about provider numbers as part of its official statistics (table 9.6). Data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.
The LAA also routinely publishes data about the volume and value of legal aid cases across all legal aid schemes as part of its official statistics. As above, data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.
As set out in my response to PQ 98862, since the serious criminal attack on the LAA’s digital services was identified we have worked closely with relevant law enforcement agencies and Police. As sensitive investigations remain ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on the nature or detail of this engagement.
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 the potential impact of trends in the number of court sitting days on the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We have funded 112,250 Crown Court sitting days this financial year – 5,000 more than the previous Government and a record number. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that sitting days will continue to increase in both the Crown and magistrates’ courts.
As our latest published projections show, demand by 2030 is forecast to be 7% higher in the Crown Court than current levels. This means the courts would need to sit 139,000 days just to keep up with demand and even that would not enable us to reduce the backlog. The system is not able to deliver that number – there are insufficient prosecutors, defence barristers and judges to keep up with the demand. As a benchmark, the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum the judiciary could presently sit is around 113,000 sitting days.
Therefore, even with record-breaking investment in sitting days, the Crown Court backlog will continue to grow, leaving people waiting for longer and longer for justice. That is why we are pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – to turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver justice for victims.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to reform powers in relation to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government implemented the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this was a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.