Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether there are additional sitting hours for first tier tribunals after 1 May 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice confirmed in February 2026 the sitting day allocations and funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for the period 2025-26 to 2028-29, including high allocations for the First Tier Tribunals: Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations - Hansard - UK Parliament.
The Ministry of Justice has and continues to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has the capacity to manage demand following commencement of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026. This includes provision of sufficient sitting days to deal with increased case volumes.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of reducing the qualification time for people to sit on a first tier tribunal.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges of the First-Tier Tribunal are required by statute (the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) to have a specific legal qualification and appropriate legal experience. This must be five years’ post qualification experience (PQE), with a minimum of 20% of each year devoted to law-related activity. These statutory requirements help to safeguard judicial standards by ensuring that judges have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be able to apply the law fairly and effectively. Most candidates have significantly more than the minimum PQE when they apply.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether county courts will have additional sitting hours to deal with Section 8 possession orders following the commencement of the Renters Rights Act.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice (including its executive agency His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service) is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that the courts have sufficient capacity to manage the impact of the Renter’s Rights Act 2025 on the justice system. This includes ensuring sufficient provision of sitting days to deal with case volumes.
This year, there will be 80,200 sitting days in the civil jurisdiction. This is a record allocation, recognising the importance of the civil jurisdiction.
We continue to invest in annual judicial recruitment for c.1000 vacancies across all jurisdictions, including the county courts. The Judicial Appointments Commission reports how many District and Deputy District Judges it has recommended from annual District Judge and c.18-monthly Deputy District Judge recruitment.
The information can be found at - https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/completed-selection-exercises-for-the-2025-26-financial-year/#4-January2026March2026Quarter4. District Judge recruitment is underway for up to 70 candidates and further Deputy District Judge recruitment is planned for later this year.
Asked by: Bradley Thomas (Conservative - Bromsgrove)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of criminal court delays on civil proceedings awaiting those judgements.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a record and rising Crown Court backlog, with victims facing intolerable delays for justice. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. In response the Government is delivering record financial investment in the courts, implementing system efficiencies, and legislating for pragmatic structural reforms to how and where some criminal cases are heard.
Where there are related criminal proceedings, the civil courts already have established case management powers to take account of any resulting delay. Under Practice Direction 23A in the Civil Procedure Rules, parties may apply for a stay on civil proceedings where there are related criminal proceedings, and the common law allows the court to determine that application in light of the particular facts and the interests of justice. These mechanisms mitigate the potential detrimental impact of extended criminal proceedings, ensuring that parties have appropriate access to justice in the civil courts.
The Government keeps the performance of both the criminal and civil courts under continual review and closely monitors the impact of delays across the justice system.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of recommendations made by Local Advisory Panels to downgrade prisoners from Category A status were (a) agreed by the Category A Review Team, (b) approved by senior decision-makers within the High Security function and (c) not approved in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many requests were (a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused for Category A oral hearings in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 29 May 2026 to Question 3026 on Men, if he will list the key sector partners he plans to invite to the National Summit on Men and Boys.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Prime Minister committed to holding a National Summit on Men and Boys in 2026 to bring together key sector partners and Government, to raise awareness and develop plans to tackle issues facing Men and Boys. He asked the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this work.
By convening Departments and partners under the Deputy Prime Minister’s leadership, we can ensure a joined-up approach that delivers meaningful, measurable impact.
We have not yet set an invitation list for the Men and Boys Summit but will be seeking to convene a wide range of stakeholders – including from businesses, charities, and other relevant organisations.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, regarding the establishment of a Business and Property Division of the High Court, what consideration he has given to supporting the retention of the name Chancery Division.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
A Written Ministerial Statement was submitted to Parliament on 2 June, announcing the creation of a Business and Property Division of the High Court. This initiative is being led by the judiciary. The name provides greater clarity to court users and strengthens the international profile of this globally significant hub for litigation.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what comparative assessment he has made between prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection and those serving determinate sentences of levels of access to (a) education, (b) employment training programmes and (c) resettlement services.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government is committed to ensuring that all prisoners, including those serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, have access to appropriate rehabilitative support. Access to education, employment training and resettlement services is provided to all prisoners regardless of sentence type.
Prisoners serving IPP sentences are eligible to access the same educational offer as those serving determinate sentences, including literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Additional Languages, digital skills and library services, in line with Prison Rule 32. They may also participate in vocational training and work-related activity subject to operational availability. Each prison is responsible for determining an education offer that meets the needs of their cohort. The Department has not made a comparative assessment between IPP and determinate sentence prisoners in respect of access to these services and this could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
Resettlement services are likewise available to people serving IPP sentences, delivered according to individual need and sentence plans. The Government’s IPP Action Plan published in July 2025, places a strong emphasis on effective sentence planning, frontline delivery and ensures prisoners are located in establishments where they can access the services required to support progression towards a safe and sustainable release.
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 he is taking to increase the proportion of criminal trials that proceed as scheduled.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis - with a record and rising Crown Court caseload and victims facing intolerable delays for justice. That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and make recommendations for how to restore stability and confidence in the criminal courts.
Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that it is only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – that we can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to swifter justice for all. The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting the reform blueprint into law.
We are currently considering Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations and will publish our full response in the summer. In the meantime, the Deputy Prime Minister has also announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency, including supporting the judiciary to undertake ‘blitz courts’ (where courts list similar cases together over a short period of time – concentrating court resources and the expertise required), rolling out case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant.
Alongside structural reforms and inefficiencies, we are also delivering record financial investment. We have uncapped Crown Court sitting days for 2026/27, which means there is no longer a financial limit on the amount of work the Crown Court can undertake; and we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fee schemes.