Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scott of Bybrook on 23 December 2020 (HL11501), what is the parent court for each Nightingale court; and what was (1) the number of days sat in each parent court from 1 January 2019 to the date on which its Nightingale court opened, and (2) the number of days sat in each parent court from the date on which its Nightingale court opened.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
We have now opened Nightingale courts at 21 locations bringing the total number of temporary court rooms set up nationwide to 40. These additional temporary courtrooms have allowed us to increase capacity, particularly for jury trials, in locations where there is an operational requirement and hold additional hearings within a safe environment.
A list of Nightingale parent courts and the number of days sat in each parent court is provided in the table below using the latest available validated data.
Table showing data on sitting days covering the period 1 January 2019 to 30 November 2020
Parent Court(s) | Associated Nightingale Court | Nightingale Court Open Date | Sitting Day1 Total in Parent Court Only before Nightingale Court (Jan 2019 - Nightingale Court Open Date) | Sitting Day 1Total in Parent Court Only after Nightingale Court (Nightingale Court Open Date - Nov 2020) |
Worthing Magistrates' and County Court | East Pallant House | 20/07/20 | 1743 | 421 |
Southwark Crown Court | Prospero House | 03/08/20 | 3540 | 628 |
Swansea Crown Court (St Helen's) | Swansea Civic Centre | 17/08/20 | 1308 | 214 |
Telford Justice Centre2 | Former County Court at Telford | 17/08/20 | 1967 | 315 |
Teesside Combined Court | Middlesbrough Town Hall | 18/08/20 | 5275 | 817 |
Blackpool County Court | Former Magistrates court Fleetwood | 24/08/20 | 1027 | 92 |
Blackpool Magistrates' Court | Former Magistrates court Fleetwood | 24/08/20 | 1748 | 253 |
East London Family Court | 102 Petty France | 24/08/20 | 3732 | 614 |
Leeds Combined Court | Cloth Hall Court | 28/08/20 | 8991 | 1130 |
Luton Crown Court | Knights' chamber and visitor centre Peterborough Cathedral | 28/08/20 | 1435 | 280 |
York County Court | York, Hilton hotel | 28/09/20 | 1736 | 195 |
Manchester Crown Court (Crown Square) | The Lowry theatre, Salford | 28/09/20 | 3927 | 357 |
Manchester Crown Court (Minshull street) | The Lowry theatre, Salford | 28/09/20 | 2691 | 235 |
Manchester tribunal3 | The Lowry theatre, Salford | 28/09/20 | 5299 | 443 |
Teesside Combined Court (Middlesbrough County Court) | Middlesbrough, Jury's Inn hotel | 28/09/20 | 5559 | 521 |
Chester Crown Court | Chester, Chester Town Hall | 19/10/20 | 1465 | 116 |
Bristol Crown Court | Bristol Law Society | 19/10/20 | 2881 | 145 |
Bristol Civil Justice Centre | Bristol Law Society | 19/10/20 | 5782 | 361 |
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts | Liverpool, St Georges Hall | 26/10/20 | 8317 | 548 |
Winchester Combined Court | Winchester Guild Hall | 26.10.20 | 1975 | 124 |
1. If a courtroom has been used at all on a given day, we count that as 1 ‘day sat’
2. Includes Telford Justice Centre Annex
3. Manchester Tribunals: Includes Alexandra House – Manchester Tribunal and Piccadilly Exchange – Manchester Tribunal
Data and management information can change over time and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.
Ensuring that we can operate safely during the Covid-19 pandemic is our top priority. We have put in place measures in our court rooms so that they can hold Covid-19 secure trials, moved to virtual hearings where possible and opened additional court rooms in Nightingale courts as part of a package to increase available capacity.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scott of Bybrook on 4 January (HL11555), (1) how much funding has been made available from the budget of the Reform Programme, and (2) how much money has been allocated from Administrative Data Research UK, for implementing the recommendations of the report by Dr Natalie Byrom Making the most of HMCTS data: HMCTS’ full response and update to Dr Byrom’s recommendations, published on 9 October 2020.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Dr Byrom’s report makes a number of important recommendations which HMCTS is in the process of implementing. Because HMCTS’s response to the recommendations is integrated into the wider work on reviewing data use and management, spending is included in departmental and programme budgets. As such, it is not possible to disaggregate work on the recommendations from other work on data. In addition to spending from these departmental and programme budgets, HMCTS has allocated £4.92m of reform funding specifically to implementing our Data Strategy in 2020/2021.HMCTS budgets for future years have not yet been set.
ADR UK awarded MoJ a grant of £2.89m over three years for the data-linking programme Data First to facilitate and promote research in the area of justice. This work was commissioned for overall strategic aims of ADR UK and Data First and not specifically to address the recommendations from the Byrom report.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scott of Bybrook on 23 December 2020 (HL11500), how they assess the (1) effectiveness, and (2) value for money, of Nightingale courts; and on what basis the decision was taken in December 2020 to open nine more Nightingale courts.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Nightingale courts provide much needed additional capacity for face-to-face hearings in a Covid-safe environment and contribute greatly for our response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of our recovery plans, we are working towards establishing a total of 60 additional court rooms through Nightingale courts by the end of March 2021.
When considering Nightingale courts, we assess where the need is greatest and look for suitable venues based on hearing capacity, whether building alterations are required, safety and security and length of hire. We consider the cost of provision, using public buildings where these are available and suitable, and each venue is assessed for value for money before final decisions are made.
Cases are listed in Nightingale courts in the same way as our permanent estate, and at similar utilisation rates.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they collect data on people's experience of remote court hearings; and, if not, what plans they have to do so.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) are evaluating the use of remote hearings during the Covid-19 outbreak. This will include a large-scale survey of over 5000 public users, capturing their experiences of and attitudes to remote hearings. Survey findings will be supplemented by in-depth interviews with users on their experiences. HMCTS will publish the findings of the evaluation once it is complete and has been quality assured.
In addition, as part of HMCTS’s ongoing perceptions work, all users can complete a short feedback survey on how they found their remote hearing.
HMCTS are also continuing to develop the Video Hearings Service as part of Reform. The Video Hearings Service is being tested in a small number of courts, and HMCTS are conducting research with users on their experiences to inform development of the service.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many family law cases were outstanding in each month of this year.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service publishes management information on workload and timeliness within the family courts on a monthly basis. This includes the number of outstanding cases which have been receipted but not yet disposed of at the end of each month.
The following table details the number of private family law (children) cases and public family law cases outstanding at the end of each month of this year. This presents the most current data at the time of responding.
Month | Private Family Law – outstanding cases | Public Family Law – outstanding cases |
January 2020 | 51,906 | 18,841 |
February 2020 | 53,844 | 19,367 |
March 2020 | 56,378 | 19,958 |
April 2020 | 58,819 | 19,626 |
May 2020 | 62,528 | 20,478 |
June 2020 | 66,271 | 21,156 |
July 2020 | 69,993 | 21,915 |
August 2020 | 73,126 | 22,390 |
September 2020 | 72,812 | 22,881 |
This information is extracted from HMCTS case management systems and as management information, it is not subject to the same quality assurance process as official statistics. The latest HMCTS management information report (October 2020) can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-management-information-october-2020.
The information relating to outstanding private family law case excludes applications made under the Family Law Act 1996. This information is not published.
Information about the volume of outstanding divorce applications each month is not published. However, this HMCTS management information report does contain other data about the management of divorce applications.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many house repossession claims were outstanding in each month since March this year.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The requested information is not held by HMCTS. Some possession claims do not progress because they have concluded by other means without the court being notified (for example because the Defendant has left the property or paid any arrears) and for this reason outstanding volumes cannot be calculated.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what targets they have set, if any, for reducing the backlog of outstanding cases across courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
HMCTS has published an update on their response to Covid-19 in the criminal courts, Civil and Family Courts and Tribunals in England and Wales, please see attached.
This provides a comprehensive update on recovery plans and the work being undertaken to restore capacity. This includes installing plexiglass screens to make the estate COVID-secure, recruiting additional staff and establishing Nightingale courts.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is a timetable for implementing the recommendations they accepted in their response to the report by Dr Natalie Byrom Making the most of HMCTS data: HMCTS’ full response and update to Dr Byrom’s recommendations, published on 9 October.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
HMCTS published a full response and progress update in October 2020 to Dr Byrom’s report Digital Justice: HMCTS data strategy and delivering access to justice. The response is attached and is also available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmcts-response-and-progress-update-on-dr-natalie-byrom-report and details HMCTS response and progress made to date on each of the 29 recommendations.
The response confirms timelines for the collection of protected characteristics data; for starting to share data with academic researchers and others as part of the Data First project, and for the development of our approach to open and shared data.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what funding they will make available to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to implement those recommendations they accepted in their response to the report by Dr Natalie Byrom Making the most of HMCTS data: HMCTS’ full response and update to Dr Byrom’s recommendations, published on 9 October.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
HMCTS published a full response and progress update in October 2020 to Dr Byrom’s report Digital Justice: HMCTS data strategy and delivering access to justice. The response is attached and details HMCTS response and progress made to date on each of the 29 recommendations.
Delivery of HMCTS response is funded in part through existing budgets including the Reform programme, and in part through funding from Administrative Data Research UK.
Asked by: Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the data collected by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on the outcomes of cases across courts and tribunals since March this year can be disaggregated by (1) case type, (2) whether the hearing was conducted remotely or in person, and (3) the protected characteristic of the parties to the case; and, if not, what plans they have to collect such data.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
HMCTS continue to work to improve the data it collects, including following the recommendations in Dr Natalie Byrom’s report Digital Justice: HMCTS data strategy and delivering access to justice. The full response to the report is attached.
HMCTS’ legacy technology systems are limited in the data they collect – as new systems and services are introduced, HMCTS is able to improve the position, in order to support its core purpose to provide an efficient and effective courts and tribunals system, which supports an independent judiciary in the administration of justice - enabling the rule of law to be upheld, and providing access to justice for all.
To summarise the current position
(1) Case type
In the Crown Court HMCTS can disaggregate whether a case is triable either way, indictable only, for sentencing or an appeal. In the Magistrates Court HMCTS can report case type by Criminal, Enforcement and Civil, which can be further split by Offence type (ie Indictable, Either-way, Summary Non-Motoring, Summary Motoring, Breaches). In Family courts HMCTS can disaggregate public law and private law cases. Tribunal jurisdictions collect data which allows disaggregation into case type.
(2) Hearing conducted remotely or in person
HMCTS rapidly increased capacity for video and audio hearings as part of the response to Covid-19. At present for most jurisdictions the only information is a manual data collection via a ‘situation report’ (to provide overall picture of use of audio/video) and is not attached to cases. In the Magistrates’ Court there is a case marker to show if defendant appears via audio/video.
(3) Protected characteristics
Legacy systems collect some limited data on protected characteristics. As recommended by Dr Natalie Byrom, work has begun to collect data on users’ protected characteristics. This is data that we have been able to collect for Probate (digital) since 2 June, for Online Civil Money Claims (specified claims) since 21 July, for Divorce (digital) since 29 September and for Probate (paper) since 11 November. HMCTS will introduce this for new digital services entering public beta in 2021. HMCTS recognise that data about individuals’ protected characteristics is sensitive personal information – it is collected on a voluntary basis, held securely and with strict controls. It will only be possible to disaggregate outcomes by protected characteristics if the response rate to the voluntary survey is high enough to ensure individuals cannot be identified.