Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

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 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.

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 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.

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 the key performance indicators at the most recent performance review on their HMP & YOI Fosse Way (Leicester) 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’).

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’).

Pursuant to the Answer of 8 May 2025 to Question 49785 on Electronic Tagging: Standards; which of the key performance indicators Serco failed to meet; and how Serco performed against the remaining key performance indicators.

Serco failed to meet the expected requirement for the following key performance indicators: KPIs 1-7, 9-11 and KPI 14. KPI 8 is N/AFor KPIs 12 and 13, Serco performed at 100%.

Pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2025 to Question 46823, on Electronic Tagging: Standards, what estimate she has made of the number of offenders who were not tagged because the Probation Service held an incorrect address for them in the last two years.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost due to data quality issues.