Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

What assessment he has made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the cost to the public purse of prosecutions brought under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to members and supporters of Palestine Action, broken down by the costs to (a) the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) the HM Courts and Tribunal Service including (i) the costs of sittings and (ii) ancillary costs including training additional magistrates to hear terrorism cases and (c) counter terrorism police to attend court; and how many court sessions have been held to hear these cases.

Between 5 July 2025 and 20 February 2026 a total of 629 defendants were received at magistrates’ courts in cases flagged as related to the Palestine Action Group. Of these, 562 have had a first hearing at a magistrates’ court, with those hearings taking place over 23 calendar days. It is not possible to identify the exact number of court sittings or to calculate the court sitting costs associated with these specific cases because multiple hearings for other offences and defendants may take place within the same court session or sitting day.It is not possible to identify the ancillary costs to HM Courts and Tribunals Service that specifically relate to these cases. Information on costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service and by police forces is not held by the Ministry of Justice.

What plans his Department has to introduce Jade's Law.

The Government is committed to implementing Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which introduces an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent has been convicted and sentenced for the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other. The provision will come into force on a day appointed via regulations made by the Secretary of State, following the development of the necessary procedural and legislative frameworks to support its effective delivery. Officials are working with key delivery partners including Local Authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Police Chiefs Council and HMCTS across the criminal and family justice systems, to ensure effective implementation. This includes considering potential consequential amendments to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, as well as supporting Practice Directions and statutory guidance.

Pursuant to the answer received to question 87406 on the 11th November 2025 on Legal Aid Scheme: Housing and Immigration, whether the uplift will be backdated, once the system is back up and running, to a date when the uplift would otherwise have been implemented.

As stated in our consultation response ‘Civil legal aid: Towards a sustainable future’, published in July 2025, we will implement the fee uplifts as soon as operationally possible. We will not backdate the fee uplifts.

Whether his Department plans to compensate providers for additional work created by the cyber security incident at the Legal Aid Agency.

We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.Time spent on communication with the LAA on specific cases is generally claimable at hourly rates, subject to the provisions of the relevant Contract and the LAA’s published Cost Assessment Guidance.There is a pre-existing route for making claims for compensation, details of which are on gov.uk. We do not plan to put in place a separate compensation route specific to this incident. Providers will be paid for the work undertaken on legal aid cases in the relevant period.

What his planned timeline is for the implementation of the uplift of (a) housing and (b) immigration legal aid.

The Government announced in July this year that legal aid fees for housing and immigration legal aid will be uplifted.Following the criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems, the Government’s priority has been to maintain access to justice through the rapid implementation of contingency measures and the restoration of critical systems.We remain fully committed to introducing the fee uplifts as soon as it is operationally feasible.

Whether she has had discussions with her Indian counterpart on fly-in fly-out provisions for UK barristers in that country.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

If she will publish a summary of her recent discussions with her Indian counterpart on the regulation of UK lawyers in India.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

Whether she has had discussions with her Indian counterpart on the impact of (a) registration and (b) processing fees on the ability of barristers to participate in arbitration proceedings in India.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

Whether she has had discussions with (a) her Indian counterpart and (b) the Bar Council of India on ensuring that disclosure requirements for foreign lawyers are consistent with barristers’ obligations of confidentiality and legal professional privilege under UK law.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

What recent representations she has received from the Bar Council of England and Wales on access to the Indian legal services market.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

How many Crown Court sitting days were lost due to a shortage of (a) judges and (b) recorders in the last 12 months.

Data on timeliness and ineffective trials (including judge/magistrate availability) at the criminal courts is available here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK. There is no evidence to suggest that judicial vacancies have a significant impact on the timeliness of hearings in the Crown Court. The Ministry of Justice, working in partnership with HMCTS and the judiciary, continuously monitor judicial capacity across the justice system. We are continuing to invest in regular judicial recruitment of around 1,000 judges and tribunal members each year across all jurisdictions. There is no evidence that sitting days were lost due to judicial or recorder shortage in the last 12 months.

What estimate she has made of the number of hearings that were adjourned due to a shortage of court (a) clerks, (b) ushers and (c) administrative staff in the last 12 months.

Data on trial effectiveness at the criminal courts is available here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UKWhile HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice records and publishes data on reasons for ineffective hearings, including reasons where the court is responsible, there is no data on staff shortages (clerks, ushers, or administrative staff) contributing to trial ineffectiveness.

What steps her Department is taking to (a) recruit and (b) retain court staff.

To support HM Courts & Tribunals Service's (HMCTS) ability to recruit, we have invested in programmes to reach a diverse demographic and increase our ability to fill critical roles. We use marketing platforms to help reach more candidates for harder to fill positions, this h has had positive results against critical roles such as Legal Advisors. We have taken a strategic approach to legal recruitment, running annual campaigns to target trainee Legal Advisors with career pathways to improve retention of talent.We have established a dedicated HMCTS jobs microsite, with focused content designed to reach more wider audiences. This compliments our centralised recruitment model, which aids our ability to successfully recruit by placing resourcing experts at the centre, leading and developing recruitment strategy, and resourced to enable us to run recruitment at pace. This has had a direct positive impact on average time to hire (ATTH). HMCTS’ ATTH is currently amongst the lowest in government, with a 12-month average of 50 working days.Regarding HMCTS’ ability to retain staff, the HMCTS Strategic Plan for 2025-2030 sets out our commitment to our people to invest in them to perform at their best.Our retention strategies will look to develop and continuously improve management and leadership training programmes and continuously improve our training offer for colleagues to ensure organisational capability can meet business needs, developing career pathways for our roles, with opportunities for continuous professional development.We know that pay is a constraint on retention. As an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS has the same terms and conditions as Ministry of Justice staff. The 2025 Pay Offer provided uplifts to all pay range minima and maxima, enabling the majority of employees (98%) to receive an award equivalent to 3.75% or more of their salary; targeting the offer at Admin Assistant to Admin Officer grades to ensure a higher than headline award for staff in these grades and improving the position of the lowest paid of between 4% and 6.1%.This award continues to improve the competitiveness of the department’s pay ranges with other government departments. The 2025 Pay Offer recognised the unique challenges associated with Bailiff and Bailiff Manager roles, with an allowance increase that doubled to £2,000 for Bailiffs and an increase to £1,000 for Bailiff Managers.Our future pay strategy will continue to address pay and reward, and will seek to establish a modern, sustainable and competitive pay and benefits offer to attract and retain the best people that improves colleague satisfaction, underpinned by a higher retention rate for our skilled workforce.All this work is having a positive impact on our attrition rates. HMCTS overall attrition has decreased steadily over the past 12 months. September 2024 saw overall attrition at 12.6%, since then there has been a month-on-month reduction to 10.5% in July 2025. Across core operational grades AA/AO we have also seen a steady reduction in attrition over the last year, 15% in September 2024 down to 12.2% in July 2025.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of judicial vacancies on the timeliness of hearings in the Crown Court.

Data on timeliness and ineffective trials (including judge/magistrate availability) at the criminal courts is available here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK. There is no evidence to suggest that judicial vacancies have a significant impact on the timeliness of hearings in the Crown Court. The Ministry of Justice, working in partnership with HMCTS and the judiciary, continuously monitor judicial capacity across the justice system. We are continuing to invest in regular judicial recruitment of around 1,000 judges and tribunal members each year across all jurisdictions. There is no evidence that sitting days were lost due to judicial or recorder shortage in the last 12 months.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of staffing levels in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

All courts and tribunals budgets are set as a consequence of the annual Concordat process through which Ministers and the independent judiciary agree key decisions on funding and operational capacity of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. This process is supported by analysis that aims to ensure that funding is used efficiently and that all areas of resourcing, including for staffing, are sufficient to support operational capacity at the agreed level.

What discussions her Department has had with the (a) government and (b) Bar Council of India on regulatory barriers facing barristers from England and Wales.

The Ministry of Justice has regularly engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and Bar Council of India (BCI) at Ministerial and official level in recent years to advocate for the interests of UK barristers and advocates, often in conjunction with the Bar Council of England and Wales.The previous Lord Chancellor met her counterpart during the Indian Minister of Law and Justice's visit to London in October 2024, where the BCI regulations were discussed. Additionally, the previous Lord Chancellor wrote to the Indian Minister of Law and Justice to reemphasise her support for UK legal sector access to the Indian market.The previous Lord Chancellor discussed access to India’s legal services market with the previous Chair of the Bar in October 2024. In addition, Ministry of Justice and British High Commission officials work closely with the Bar Council of England and Wales on India engagement. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the Bar Council’s concerns on the 2025 BCI rules, particularly the provisions on ‘fly-in-fly-out’ (FIFO) practice.The Ministry of Justice and British High Commission have engaged the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice and BCI to discuss FIFO practice challenges facing UK barristers, advocates and solicitors under the BCI rules. Issues discussed have included registration; fee structures; and the issue of breaches of confidentiality associated with the BCI's disclosure requirements.

What consideration her Department has given to the potential merits of increasing the use of (a) diversion schemes based on (i) deferred prosecution agreements and (ii) referral orders and (b) other diversion schemes to reduce the Crown Court backlog.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of December 2024, the Crown Court outstanding caseload was over 74,000. As of March 2025, the caseload continued to increase, with a new series peak of 76,957. It is clear that fundamental reform is necessary to bear down on the court backlog. That’s why the then Lord Chancellor asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform that will improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.Sir Brian Leveson published part one of his report on 9 July. The first ten recommendations relate to diversion, and in particular to the use of out of court resolutions (OOCRs) and deferred prosecution schemes. As OOCRs rightly target low-level and generally first-time offending, these are more likely to divert cases from the magistrates’ court than from the Crown Court.The Government is grateful to Sir Brian for his proposals and we are considering these in detail before providing a full response in the autumn.

What recent estimate she has made of the number of outstanding Crown Court cases; and whether this estimate takes into account (a) case complexity and (b) the number of defendants involved.

The number of open Crown Court cases can be found in Table_C1 of the Criminal Court Statistics quarterly release, with data currently published up to the end of March 2025. Additional breakdowns of the open caseload published here include the offences of the open caseload, but not the number of defendants involved.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of resources available to ensure that increases in police officer numbers do not contribute to an increase in the Crown Court backlog.

We are working closely with the Home Office to monitor and assess the impact of increased police recruitment on the Crown Court, as well as on the prison and probation services.Additionally, the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to propose once-in-a-generation reforms and efficiency savings to improve timeliness and deliver swifter justice for victims.Sir Brian Leveson published part one of his report on 9 July and the Government will publish a response in due course. We are considering the implications of the reforms to ensure implementation is coordinated with other system partners, including the police and Crown Prosecution Service, and is consistent with system-wide capacity.

If she will make an assessment of the potential savings to the public purse of a diversion model that redirects (a) low-level and (b) first-time offenders from Crown Court proceedings.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of December 2024, the Crown Court outstanding caseload was over 74,000. As of March 2025, the caseload continued to increase, with a new series peak of 76,957. It is clear that fundamental reform is necessary to bear down on the court backlog. That’s why the then Lord Chancellor asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform that will improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.Sir Brian Leveson published part one of his report on 9 July. The first ten recommendations relate to diversion, and in particular to the use of out of court resolutions (OOCRs) and deferred prosecution schemes. As OOCRs rightly target low-level and generally first-time offending, these are more likely to divert cases from the magistrates’ court than from the Crown Court.The Government is grateful to Sir Brian for his proposals and we are considering these in detail before providing a full response in the autumn.