Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider (1) the European Court of Human Rights, and (2) the International Criminal Court, to be foreign courts.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) are international courts based respectively in France and the Netherlands. The UK is a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rome Statute, the international treaties which established the ECtHR and ICC respectively. It is also a founding member of both instruments.
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICC Act 2001 give effect to the UK's obligations under the ECHR and Rome Statute. We respect the independence of both courts.
Asked by: Marie Rimmer (Labour - St Helens South and Whiston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to compensate legal aid providers for disruption caused by the cyberattack on the Legal Aid Agency in April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 10 November to Question 87407.
Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on reducing the backlog of criminal cases in Lincolnshire.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Lincoln Crown Court has continued to reduce outstanding workloads through the creation of a fourth Crown Court room in May 2021, utilising all Crown Court sitting day allocations for this financial year. To mitigate delays in setting trial dates, Lincoln actively identifies cases that are too large to be heard within Lincoln, moving these within the East Midlands in agreement with relevant parties.
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. 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 reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people in prison or a Young Offender Institution self-describe their ethnicity as (1) black, (2) mixed-race, (3) Asian, and (4) white; and for each of these groups how many are aged (a) 15-17, (b) 18-20, (c) 21-24, (d) 25-29, (e) 30-39, (f) 40-49, (g) 50-59, (h) 60-69, and (i) 70 and over.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The answer to this question has been provided as an Excel document alongside this response.
The table provided was published as part of the Offender Management chapter of the 2024 ‘Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System’ publication. (This series is published every other year.)
The figures presented are based on the total prison population and therefore include those held on remand, those sentenced and non-criminals.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his planned timetable is for Crown Court judges to produce written judgments in cases tried by a single judge sitting alone.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the costs incurred by Department as a result of the Legal Aid Agency data breach on 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) barristers, and (b) solicitors have not been paid by the Legal Aid Agency since the data breach of 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many legal aid cases have been dropped since 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many firms have ceased being legal aid providers since 23 April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.
All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.
Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.
We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.
Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ascertain the position of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners who qualified through work-based routes, following the judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.
Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.