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: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have consulted non-governmental organisations, immigration lawyers and legal aid experts about whether people facing removal under the 'one in, one out' scheme have sufficient time to access legal representation or challenge removal decisions.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The pilot was agreed with both France and the European Commission in order to ensure it is compliant with domestic, European and International law. Eligibility criteria are set out in the Agreement.
The pilot operates within existing legal frameworks and policies. All individuals will have their cases reviewed regularly in line with standard policies and guidance, and this includes both while detained and if any claims of being a victim of torture or of human trafficking and modern slavery are raised.
Decisions on continuing suitability for detention are made on a case-by-case basis.
Detained individuals are advised of their right to legal representation, and how they can obtain such representation, within 24 hours of their arrival at an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC). Ahead of pilot launch and throughout its duration, the Home Office has engaged with officials from the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary to ensure individuals have access to justice. The Home Office continues to engage with a wide range of NGOs and other external stakeholders.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what level of legal aid they envisage being made available for each individual bereaved person and family at inquests in England and Wales for (1) legal help, and (2) advocacy, under the provisions of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill will provide non-means tested legal aid to bereaved family members at any inquests where a public authority is named as an interested person.
Under the Bill, an “individual” is defined as being a member of another individual’s family if they are relatives (whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership), they are cohabitants (as defined in Part 4 25 of the Family Law Act 1996), or one has parental responsibility for the other.
Legal aid consists of legal help and advocacy.
a. Legal help covers advice, assistance and preparation for an inquest but not advocacy at the hearing. Under the Bill’s expansion, multiple bereaved family members will be able to receive non-means tested legal help services where a public authority is named as an interested person.
b. Advocacy covers the instruction of an advocate (usually a barrister) to prepare for and attend the inquest hearing(s) to make submissions. The Bill limits advocacy funding to one member of each family – in practice, this level of service will be granted to the first family member to apply. We believe that one legally aided advocate should in most cases be sufficient to support each family through the inquest hearing and that it is reasonable to ask members of the same family to collaborate in the instruction of a single advocate.
Asked by: Bambos Charalambous (Labour - Southgate and Wood Green)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of mass legal claims against publicly funded bodies, such as the Legal Aid Agency, on (a) vulnerable consumers and (b) levels of resource available for frontline services.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Public bodies are expected to identify material risks to vulnerable consumers or levels of resource available for frontline services, including due to any mass legal claims, and are responsible for managing their impact.
The Ministry of Justice has a partnership relationship with each of its funded public bodies that enables the body to escalate new risks as appropriate. The Department carries out an annual risk assessment of each of its public bodies, where significant upcoming risks can be identified and an assessment of the impact made.
Additionally, public bodies that receive funding from the Ministry of Justice are responsible for working collaboratively with the Department as it determines the level of funding that will be provided to them annually. Any pressures that can be predicted due to mass legal claims would be expected to be raised with the Ministry of Justice and levels of resource would be discussed with those bodies on an individual basis through existing financial allocation processes.
Other Government Departments are responsible for the assessment of risks to public bodies sponsored by them.
Asked by: Baroness Berger (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Merron on 5 December (HL Deb col 2044), what distinction exists under Articles 2, 8 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which means that a legal challenge would not arise for a person under 18 years old compared to those who are (1) under 21 years old, and (2) under 25 years old.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
At the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill committee debate on 5 December 2025, the comments referred to were made in relation to the amendments that had been tabled for consideration in the Lords. There would need to be a reasonable, necessary and proportionate justification to underpin restricting access to assisted dying to any age on the face of the Bill. Although the reasons to support an age limit of 18 years old, as opposed to an age limit of 21 or 25 years old, may well be different. This matter was debated at some length on 5 December 2025, and as I stated in that debate, it is rightly for Parliament to decide on any age-related restrictions and to consider the proportionality of the reasons which underpin them. As the Government is neutral, it is not for the Government to comment on the likelihood of a court upholding any particular case brought to challenge the age on the face of the Bill but it was important to note the general risk to aid the debate in the Chamber.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Crown Court courtrooms are not sitting on average in each month, and what steps he is taking to address the issue of Crown Courts not sitting.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Last year we sat 107,771 Crown court sitting days, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year. While I acknowledge existing challenges in relation to the maintenance of the court estate, this Government is increasing investment to address this - £148.5 million was allocated to court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous government funded last financial year.
Estate capacity is not the limiting factor when it comes to making full use of the available sitting days. Whether we can make full use of the physical space available depends on “system capacity” i.e. the sufficiency of judges, magistrates, legal advisors, advocates and wider system partners available to support them.
In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 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. That is on top of an additional investment of up to £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees and up to £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We have also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing almost £150 million to modernise the court estate.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26, 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.
The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.
Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that available Crown Court courtrooms are utilised on every sitting day.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Last year we sat 107,771 Crown court sitting days, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year. While I acknowledge existing challenges in relation to the maintenance of the court estate, this Government is increasing investment to address this - £148.5 million was allocated to court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous government funded last financial year.
Estate capacity is not the limiting factor when it comes to making full use of the available sitting days. Whether we can make full use of the physical space available depends on “system capacity” i.e. the sufficiency of judges, magistrates, legal advisors, advocates and wider system partners available to support them.
In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 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. That is on top of an additional investment of up to £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees and up to £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We have also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing almost £150 million to modernise the court estate.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26, 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.
The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.
Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.
Asked by: Richard Tice (Reform UK - Boston and Skegness)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many migrants who arrived illegally have been given legal aid funded from the public purse in the last five years; and what the cost is of that legal aid.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The requested information is not centrally held. Where proceedings are before a court or tribunal in England or Wales, legal aid is available to individuals who qualify for services irrespective of their immigration status or method of entry into England and Wales. Method of entry to England or Wales is not relevant to eligibility for legal aid under the current rules.
Generally, applications for legal aid will be subject to an assessment of the merits of the case and the financial circumstances of the applicant.
Asked by: Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how they plan to hold public bodies to account in the light of the findings of the report Hillsborough Disaster: The report of the IOPC and Operation Resolve investigations, published on 2 December.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The unlawful killing of 97 people at Hillsborough 36 years ago remains a stain on our nation’s history, and publication of the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) report serves as a stark reminder of one of the most significant failings in policing the country has ever seen.
The IOPC’s report is clear there was a lack of candour from the police officers involved. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of the families and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster, this Government is introducing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, otherwise known as the Hillsborough Law. This landmark legislation will place a new legal duty of candour on all public servants and authorities, requiring them to act truthfully and to fully support inquests, investigations and inquiries. It will also bring clarity to the offence of Misconduct in Public Office by placing it on a statutory footing, introduce a new criminal offence of misleading the public, and provide legal aid for victims of disasters and state-related deaths.
Whilst it is extremely frustrating that none of the police officers named in the IOPC’s report will face disciplinary action, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 now ensures that police officers cannot evade misconduct proceedings by retiring or resigning, meaning this failing can never be repeated.
These measures directly respond to the failings identified by the IOPC and ensure that, if a similar situation were to arise today, those responsible would be held to account.