Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of Crown Court sitting day allocations on the ability to reduce the backlog of criminal cases.

The Government remains committed to bearing down on the Crown Court backlog and is increasing sitting days to record levels to achieve this aim. The Lord Chancellor regularly considers the impacts of additional sitting days on the outstanding caseloads, including through the Concordat process of allocating HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) funding.For this financial year (2025/26), this Government is funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims – 110,000 sitting days, 4,000 higher than the last Government funded. The total allocation of sitting days for the last financial year was up to 108,500, the highest level in almost a decade [since 2015/16].However, the scale of cases entering the courts is now so great that, even with the Crown Court sitting at a historically high level, this would not be enough to make meaningful progress on reducing the outstanding caseload and bring down waiting times. It is clear that we must go further and do things differently if we are to deliver swifter justice and long-lasting change for victims.This is why the Government has asked Sir Brian Leveson to chair an Independent Review of Criminal Courts, to propose once-in-a-generation reform that will improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims. The first part of the Review now been published. We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s proposals before setting out the Government’s full response this autumn.

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.

If her Department will establish an independent body to review and make recommendations on barristers’ fees for publicly funded criminal work.

This Government recognises that legal aid is a vital part of the justice system. It enables those individuals who need it most to have access to publicly funded legal assistance, in order to uphold their legal rights. This Government has made a significant investment towards criminal legal aid, as part of which we continue to consider the amount and nature of that funding. In December 2024, we announced that criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92 million more a year, subject to consultation, to help support the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector. The consultation has now closed, and we will publish the response in due course. This is in addition to our response to the Crime Lower consultation, confirming an uplift to the lowest police station fees, introducing a new Youth Court fee scheme, and paying for travel in certain circumstances. Together, these changes provided a £24 million investment for criminal legal aid providers. Since the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR), funding for defence advocates has increased by 17%. The Ministry of Justice engages closely with representatives from the legal profession through the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board (CLAAB). Its purpose is to provide independent advice on the operation and structure of the existing and future criminal legal aid schemes, and to assess how these schemes can support the overall sustainability, diversity, and efficiency of the system.

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.

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.

Which Commonwealth countries continue to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their final court of appeal.

The Commonwealth countries which continue to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as their final court of appeal are Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Brunei, Cook Islands and Niue, Grenada, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mauritius, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu. The Department has not had discussions with Commonwealth partners on future arrangements for JCPC jurisdiction. The JCPC relies on the continuing consent of independent countries for its jurisdiction in those countries. These independent states, which have a historical connection with the United Kingdom, are free to make a pragmatic judgement on whether they derive benefit from what the JCPC has to offer. The JCPC is funded from the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) budget. The Lord Chancellor has an obligation under section 50 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to ensure the UKSC is provided with the resources appropriate to carry on its business, but under the Department’s concordat with the UKSC, the court’s chief executive, as accounting officer, negotiates with HM Treasury directly. The court’s bid for funding is shared with the Lord Chancellor, who may comment on it without altering it. The Lord Chancellor then submits it to HM Treasury for consideration.

What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of criminal legal aid fees in ensuring sufficient numbers of publicly funded barristers are available to meet demand.

This Government recognises the vital importance of legal aid and the need to ensure an adequate supply of suitably qualified criminal barristers and solicitors. Since 2022, funding for defence advocates has increased by 17%. In December 2024, we also announced that criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92m more a year, subject to consultation, to help support the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector. The consultation has now closed, and we will publish the response in due course. This is in addition to our response to the earlier Crime Lower consultation on solicitor fees, confirming an uplift to the lowest police station fees, introducing a new Youth Court fee scheme, and paying for travel in certain circumstances. Together, these changes provided a £24m investment for criminal legal aid providers .This is a significant investment to reflect the valuable and tough work undertaken by advocates criminal legal aid practitioners, helping to make sure that justice is served. The Ministry of Justice runs a Data Sharing Project with the Law Society, Bar Council, Legal Aid Agency, and Crown Prosecution Service to monitor the criminal legal services provider base. Latest data shows that overall criminal barrister numbers appear to be stabilising. The number of “self-declared full practise barristers”, those whose workload is at least 80% criminal work, was 2,726 in 23/24 compared to 2,424 in 20/21. Recruitment and retention remain crucial to maintain a sustainable, diverse workforce, and a pipeline through to the judiciary. The Government is committed to working with the Bar leadership through the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board to understand the market, priorities and opportunities for reform, to support the sustainability of the barrister profession.

If she will review restrictions on the number of sitting days available to retired judges under the age of 75.

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.

Whether her Department has had discussions with Commonwealth partners on future arrangements for appellate jurisdiction currently exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Commonwealth countries which continue to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as their final court of appeal are Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Brunei, Cook Islands and Niue, Grenada, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mauritius, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu. The Department has not had discussions with Commonwealth partners on future arrangements for JCPC jurisdiction. The JCPC relies on the continuing consent of independent countries for its jurisdiction in those countries. These independent states, which have a historical connection with the United Kingdom, are free to make a pragmatic judgement on whether they derive benefit from what the JCPC has to offer. The JCPC is funded from the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) budget. The Lord Chancellor has an obligation under section 50 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to ensure the UKSC is provided with the resources appropriate to carry on its business, but under the Department’s concordat with the UKSC, the court’s chief executive, as accounting officer, negotiates with HM Treasury directly. The court’s bid for funding is shared with the Lord Chancellor, who may comment on it without altering it. The Lord Chancellor then submits it to HM Treasury for consideration.

What steps she is taking to ensure that the Privy Council remains adequately resourced to deal with cases from Commonwealth jurisdictions in a timely manner.

The Commonwealth countries which continue to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as their final court of appeal are Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Brunei, Cook Islands and Niue, Grenada, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mauritius, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu. The Department has not had discussions with Commonwealth partners on future arrangements for JCPC jurisdiction. The JCPC relies on the continuing consent of independent countries for its jurisdiction in those countries. These independent states, which have a historical connection with the United Kingdom, are free to make a pragmatic judgement on whether they derive benefit from what the JCPC has to offer. The JCPC is funded from the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) budget. The Lord Chancellor has an obligation under section 50 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to ensure the UKSC is provided with the resources appropriate to carry on its business, but under the Department’s concordat with the UKSC, the court’s chief executive, as accounting officer, negotiates with HM Treasury directly. The court’s bid for funding is shared with the Lord Chancellor, who may comment on it without altering it. The Lord Chancellor then submits it to HM Treasury for consideration.

What steps her Department is taking to expand the use of virtual hearings for short matters.

We recognise the importance of utilising technology to improve the efficiency of criminal and civil court proceedings. That is why, in May 2025, HM Courts & Tribunals Service published its Remote Participation Approach, setting out its principles for enabling remote attendance at hearings where appropriate: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-remote-participation-approach/hmcts-remote-participation-approach. Additionally, as part of the second phase of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts, Sir Brian Leveson is reviewing court processes to consider how both new and established technologies could be used to enhance productivity and efficiency in the criminal courts. We expect Sir Brian to finalise his report later this year. Virtual hearings are extensively used in civil courts as well. For example, as part of the Virtual Region initiative judges with spare capacity from outside of the London and Southeast remotely hear cases from London and Southeast helping reduce pressure on judiciary in those regions and enable cases to be determined quicker.

How Allied Universal (G4S) performed against the key performance indicators at the most recent performance review on their electronic monitoring contact.

AUEM performance against the two contracts they deliver for Electronic Monitoring is published quarterly. The most recent reported performance can be found here: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for government’s most important contracts - GOV.UK.

Whether departments have raised concerns about Allied Universal (G4S) compliance with contractual obligations relating to the (a) timeliness and (b) accuracy of electronic monitoring installations.

No concerns about Allied Universal’s performance against Electronic Monitoring contractual obligations about timeliness and accuracy of installation have been escalated from the Ministry of Justice to the Cabinet Office. Nor have the Cabinet Office raised any escalations from other Departments with the Ministry of Justice.

Pursuant to the Answer of 25 April 2025 to Question 46820 on Electronic Tagging: Standards, what assessment has she made of the adequacy of the capacity of Serco to deliver on its contract.

The current contracts for the delivery of the electronic monitoring service have the capacity to manage the proposed increase in demand.The Procurement of Electronic Monitoring was conducted by the previous Government in 2023. It was conducted in line with Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook (version May 2021) where all bids were fully and appropriately evaluated, including capacity, resulting in Serco being confirmed as the winning bid for the Field and Monitoring Service contract.The Public Contracts Regulations allow suppliers to be excluded from bidding for new contracts in certain circumstances, such as certain criminal offences and previous poor performance. Serco and Allied Universal (G4S) complied with all of the requirements and standards set out in legislation and on that basis, they were entitled to bid for this contract.

What due diligence was undertaken before reappointing Serco and G4S for electronic monitoring services.

The current contracts for the delivery of the electronic monitoring service have the capacity to manage the proposed increase in demand.The Procurement of Electronic Monitoring was conducted by the previous Government in 2023. It was conducted in line with Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook (version May 2021) where all bids were fully and appropriately evaluated, including capacity, resulting in Serco being confirmed as the winning bid for the Field and Monitoring Service contract.The Public Contracts Regulations allow suppliers to be excluded from bidding for new contracts in certain circumstances, such as certain criminal offences and previous poor performance. Serco and Allied Universal (G4S) complied with all of the requirements and standards set out in legislation and on that basis, they were entitled to bid for this contract.

Whether her planned expansion of tagging capabilities will be managed under the current tagging contract.

The current contracts for the delivery of the electronic monitoring service have the capacity to manage the proposed increase in demand.The Procurement of Electronic Monitoring was conducted by the previous Government in 2023. It was conducted in line with Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook (version May 2021) where all bids were fully and appropriately evaluated, including capacity, resulting in Serco being confirmed as the winning bid for the Field and Monitoring Service contract.The Public Contracts Regulations allow suppliers to be excluded from bidding for new contracts in certain circumstances, such as certain criminal offences and previous poor performance. Serco and Allied Universal (G4S) complied with all of the requirements and standards set out in legislation and on that basis, they were entitled to bid for this contract.

Pursuant to the Answer of 14 May 2025 to Question 46823 on Electronic Tagging: Standards, what reason was given for the 10,438 untagged cases audited by probation between January and March 2025.

The 10,438 offenders reported as untagged is misleading. It includes duplicates and errors that have not been corrected through our audit and quality assurance processes which are currently underway.The information requested through the PQ could only be obtained at disproportionate cost due to data quality issues.

How Serco performed against key performance indicators at the most recent performance review on the HMP Ashfield (South Gloucestershire) contract.

HM Prison & Probation Service’s Annual Prison Performance Ratings are based on a range of indicators. The latest ratings cover the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. As a newly opened prison (June 2023), HMP Fosse Way did not form part of the latest ratings but will be included in future publications. HMP Ashfield was rated at level 3 (‘Good performance’).