Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department plans to (a) allow fast-track approval routes, (b) introduce parliamentary sign-off and (c) implement other reforms to the judicial review process to help ensure nationally significant road projects do not have prolonged legal delays.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), including major road schemes, are delivered efficiently and without unnecessary delay.
The Department is actively exploring options to streamline the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) includes provisions to remove mandatory pre-application consultations and revise acceptance tests to accelerate decision-making and reduce potential bottlenecks.
We are also legislating to tighten the judicial review process. Key reforms include removing the paper permission stage; limiting appeals for cases deemed “Totally Without Merit” at oral hearings; exploring target timescales for judicial reviews in collaboration with the judiciary. These reforms aim to prevent meritless claims from delaying critical infrastructure while ensuring legitimate challenges are heard promptly.
In parallel, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also launched a public consultation on streamlining infrastructure planning. Proposals being consulted on include reforms to pre-application services, enhanced guidance for statutory bodies, and improvements to the fast-track process administered by the Planning Inspectorate.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of judicial review challenges on the construction (a) timelines and (b) costs of nationally significant road infrastructure projects.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Judicial review is an important legal process that allows democratic challenge to the lawfulness of a decision. While it plays a vital role in upholding accountability and transparency, the Department has assessed that in some cases judicial reviews can have an impact on the delivery of nationally significant road infrastructure projects.
Asked by: Lord Godson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to review sentencing guidelines or judicial training for the sentencing of repeat knife carriers.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives. That is why, as part of the Safer Streets mission, we are working to halve knife crime within a decade. To date, we have taken action to ban zombie knives, and the ban on ninja swords came into force on 1 August 2025 – it is now illegal to sell or own these weapons. We have also implemented “Ronan’s Law”, a range of measures which will include stricter rules for online sellers of knives.
The maximum penalty for carrying a knife or threatening with an offensive weapon is 4 years’ imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, Parliament has provided for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Where someone is physically harmed by a knife or offensive weapon, there are a range of offences that they may be charged with, such as causing grievous bodily harm. These can result in lengthy sentences, up to life imprisonment.
Sentencing guidelines are produced by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. In 2018, the Council issued a package of guidelines on offences involving possession of and threatening with bladed articles and offensive weapons. These are available on its website at: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/. The Council published an evaluation last year which found that the package of guidelines are working as intended.
To preserve judicial independence, statutory responsibility for judicial training is held by the Lady Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and Chief Coroner. The responsibilities are fulfilled by the Judicial College. The training programme is published online in an annual prospectus.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre disclosed in court which reportedly stated that Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government does not routinely comment on intelligence and security matters and it would be inappropriate for the Government to provide a running commentary on documentation before the High Court in the Palestine Action judicial review proceedings
Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving not just sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, but also intimidation and, more recently, alleged violence, including the use of weapons resulting in serious injuries to individuals. That kind of activity puts the safety and security of the public at risk.
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for attacks which have seen those allegedly involved charged with criminal damage, violent disorder, aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, and actual bodily harm. The gravity of these incidents is demonstrated by the Crown Prosecution Service’s independent decision to submit to the court that the offences allegedly committed by individuals in certain attacks had a terrorism connection.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many unexplained wealth orders have been made since July 2024.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022 requires that the Home Office publish an annual report that sets out the number of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) both applied for and obtained in a given period. The Act also sought to strengthen UWOs by enabling UWOs to be sought against property held in trust and other complex ownership structures, increasing the time available to law enforcement to review material provided in response to a UWO and reforming cost rules.
The previous report for the period May 2023-2024 can be found here. It states that two UWOs were applied for with one UWO obtained whilst the other had not received a judicial decision during the reporting period. A UWO applied for in the 2022-2023 reporting period was also obtained. The next report, covering May 2024 to May 2025 will be published shortly and, as per the Act, will set out the number of UWOs applied for in the period by relevant law enforcement agencies, as well as the number of orders made by the High Court.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will make an assessment of the effectiveness of Trial Blitz style listing schemes in reducing backlogs in other Crown Court centres beyond Greater Manchester.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Listing is a judicial responsibility. The judiciary deploy measures, including the concentration of judicial and court resources to hear a specific cohort of cases over a defined period, as part of ongoing efforts to maximise throughput. HMCTS officials support the operation of such activity and ensure appropriate and effective coordination across wider criminal justice partner agencies – such interventions, where appropriate, can be effective short-term measures.
Part two of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts will consider how the criminal courts can operate as efficiently as possible. We have asked Sir Brian to consider the end-to-end process, from charge to acquittal. We expect Sir Brian to finalise his report later this year.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will review restrictions on the number of sitting days available to retired judges under the age of 75.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The number of days that a retired judge can sit is governed by HM Treasury’s abatement policy which ensures that pension benefits and ongoing income do not exceed a judge’s pre-retirement income. Abatement applies to pension benefits from the final salary legacy schemes. The newer judicial pension schemes are career-average revalued earnings schemes, and abatement and sitting day limits do not apply to those schemes.
Asked by: Lord Godson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to prevent high-volume offenders from reoffending, and whether they will consider introducing minimal sentencing provisions for reoffenders.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We know that prolific offenders represent nearly 10% of offenders but account for just over 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue, which is why David Gauke was asked to look at this issue in the independent sentencing review, to ensure we have fewer crimes committed by prolific criminals.
Prolific offenders often have a complex set of needs, and to tackle the underlying causes of offending community sentences may also have rehabilitative requirements attached, including drug, alcohol and mental health difficulties. The Independent Sentencing Review made a clear recommendation to expand the use of Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) - we have acted on that and have published an Expression of Interest process to identify future areas, with plans to begin implementation within the next year. These courts impose orders with tough conditions, including regular judicial reviews and rehabilitative requirements, along with strict consequences for non-compliance to tackle the root causes of prolific offending. There is strong international evidence showing that these approaches can break the cycle of re-offending, and early results from the ISCs are promising.
Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders – including prolific offenders – and this includes discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences, and custodial sentences.
Minimum sentences are rare in England and Wales, and are only provided in legislation for certain offences where there is a particular concern. It is the function of the court to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant Sentencing Guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must also be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.
Asked by: Lord Godson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to reduce reoffending among hyper-prolific offenders.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We know that prolific offenders represent nearly 10% of offenders but account for just over 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue, which is why David Gauke was asked to look at this issue in the independent sentencing review, to ensure we have fewer crimes committed by prolific criminals.
Prolific offenders often have a complex set of needs, and to tackle the underlying causes of offending community sentences may also have rehabilitative requirements attached, including drug, alcohol and mental health difficulties. The Independent Sentencing Review made a clear recommendation to expand the use of Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) - we have acted on that and have published an Expression of Interest process to identify future areas, with plans to begin implementation within the next year. These courts impose orders with tough conditions, including regular judicial reviews and rehabilitative requirements, along with strict consequences for non-compliance to tackle the root causes of prolific offending. There is strong international evidence showing that these approaches can break the cycle of re-offending, and early results from the ISCs are promising.
Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders – including prolific offenders – and this includes discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences, and custodial sentences.
Minimum sentences are rare in England and Wales, and are only provided in legislation for certain offences where there is a particular concern. It is the function of the court to decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided, and any relevant Sentencing Guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must also be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to help ensure that all available courtrooms are utilised to full capacity in order to reduce waiting times for trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. Incoming demand is so high that even sitting at record levels will not on its own reduce the outstanding caseload. For this financial year (2025/26), this Government is funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims – up to 110,000 sitting days this year, 4,000 higher than the last Government funded.
That is on top of up to an additional £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees and boosting magistrates’ courts sentencing powers from 6 months to 12 months’ imprisonment for a single triable-either way offence. We are also continuing to invest in judicial recruitment of around 1000 judges and tribunals members each year across all jurisdictions.
But it is clear that fundamental reform is necessary to bear down on the backlog. That is why the Government has asked Sir Brian Leveson to chair an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims. Part one of the Review has been published. Part two will consider efficiencies and productivity across the criminal justice system including how we ensure the additional investments being made in judicial and advocate capacity is deployed effectively. We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s proposals before setting out the Government’s full response to part one in the autumn.