Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

What steps her Department is taking to prioritise visa applications from overseas parties required to appear before UK courts.

UKVI will always seek to ensure those who need to attend court are able to do so in line with the Immigration Rules and wider court instructions.All short term visit visas are governed by our published service standards. These can be found here: Visitors and transit: customer service standards - GOV.UKCustomers are advised to allow enough time to receive their visa before applying. Customers in certain locations have the option to apply for a premium paid service to allow them to receive a decision quicker than the advertised times. Information on premium paid services can be found here: Get a faster decision on your visa or settlement application: Applying for a faster decision - GOV.UKVisa processing times are constantly monitored to ensure that visas are being delivered within our published service standards. Where an application will not be processed within service standards due to the complex nature of the application, the applicant is informed their application will take longer.

What recent estimate she has made of average waiting times for visa applications from Commonwealth citizens required to attend court proceedings in the UK.

UKVI will always seek to ensure those who need to attend court are able to do so in line with the Immigration Rules and wider court instructions.All short term visit visas are governed by our published service standards. These can be found here: Visitors and transit: customer service standards - GOV.UKCustomers are advised to allow enough time to receive their visa before applying. Customers in certain locations have the option to apply for a premium paid service to allow them to receive a decision quicker than the advertised times. Information on premium paid services can be found here: Get a faster decision on your visa or settlement application: Applying for a faster decision - GOV.UKVisa processing times are constantly monitored to ensure that visas are being delivered within our published service standards. Where an application will not be processed within service standards due to the complex nature of the application, the applicant is informed their application will take longer.

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.