Asked by: Shivani Raja (Conservative - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many individuals convicted of sexual offences have been sentenced to immediate custody during the current Parliament; and what percentage of all individuals convicted of sexual offences received an immediate custodial sentence during that same period.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentences for a variety of offences, including sexual offences, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool. The tool can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK. The data can be filtered by ‘month’ and ‘year’.
Asked by: Gareth Thomas (Labour (Co-op) - Harrow West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether they will require their department and agencies to offer payroll deductions to all employees to enable them to join a credit union.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice does not currently offer or promote credit union offerings through payroll deductions. However, the Department offers financial wellbeing support and advice through the employee benefits package.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to improve the quality of (a) court buildings and (b) technology used in courts.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Historical underfunding has resulted in challenges across the court estate, with an estimated £1.3 billion building maintenance backlog.
It is vital that court infrastructure does not prevent hearings from taking place, that is why we announced a boost in court capital maintenance and project funding from £120 million last year, to £148.5 million for 2025/26.
We are committed to enhancing the condition of our existing estate while also delivering new facilities. Examples include a purpose‑built modern court building under construction in the City of London, with further new facilities in Reading and Blackpool. A state-of-the-art Tribunals Centre in London, providing 30 hearings rooms, is scheduled to open in early March.
We also continue to invest in technology in courts as part of a providing a modern justice system. In 2025/26 HMCTS is investing over £20 million of capital funding in IT hardware to provide the courts with modern audio-visual capability - to improve digital evidence presentation and remote participation, replaced over a quarter of staff laptops and improved Wi-Fi coverage and capacity. In 2025, HMCTS replaced the contact centre solution used by the Courts and Tribunals Service Centres and modernised significant digital applications used in courts, moving old technology out of legacy data centres. As part of continual improvement, HMCTS is progressing with the adoption of Artificial Intelligence, to improve systems and services throughout the Justice system.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the publication of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts was published on 9 July 2025, which contained a number of recommendations for structural reform of the criminal courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister set out the reforms Government intends to pursue, alongside investment and modernisation.
On 4 February 2026 Sir Brian Leveson published Part 2 of his report, where he makes 135 recommendations to improve efficiency and modernise the criminal courts. The report is thorough and I welcome his ambition to see real improvements in the system.
We will urgently consider the latest recommendations, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in the coming months.
Asked by: Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat - Torbay)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to reform the family court system to ensure children's best interests are prioritised.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration when making decisions in relation to a child's upbringing.
This Government is committed to reform of the family court to improve the experience and outcomes for children and families. Central to this is the expansion of the private law Pathfinder model, which amplifies the voice of the child through a Child Impact Report and ensures a higher proportion of children are directly engaged by social workers during proceedings. The model is supporting the court in making safe decisions which prioritise the best interests of the child, without delay.
The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and is now operating across 10 court in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of relevant private law proceedings. Plans for further expansion will be announced 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 discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the effectiveness of introducing a statutory duty of candour on the military.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the military.
Appropriate safeguards for sensitive information will be in place and we are clear that nothing should undermine our national security.
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.