Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current notification procedures for County Court Judgments; and whether he will make an assessment of the potential merits of requiring that all notifications of impending County Court Judgments be sent by recorded and tracked delivery to ensure defendants receive proper notice of court proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is responsible for the rules that govern the procedure for notifying people of court proceedings, known as the rules of service. In July 2025 it consulted on changes to the service rules including to permit electronic service on parties with whom there has already been electronic communication pre-action. The work to review responses to the consultation and any subsequent Civil Procedure Rules amendments is ongoing. The consultation can be found at - Civil Procedure Rule Committee - service consultation
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of requiring organisations to contribute to legal fees when (a) an unfair dismissal and (b) a discriminatory employment practice has occurred.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Organisations can already be asked to contribute to the cost of legal fees where vexatious or unreasonable behaviour has occurred. The Employment Tribunals (ET) can issue cost orders where one side is ordered to pay the other’s legal costs. For unfair dismissal cases, if the tribunal decides a claimant has been unfairly dismissed, they can receive compensation. Compensation awards can be ‘basic’ (based on age, length of service and average weekly wage) and ‘compensatory’ (based on loss of earnings).
The Ministry of Justice has not carried out an assessment of the merits of introducing more widespread use of cost orders. This is because the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) is responsible for making procedure rules in the ET that includes the rules regarding cost orders. The Lord Chancellor can consider impacts of the changes the TPC recommend before deciding whether to implement them.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an estimate of the cost savings from expanding DNA testing in criminal trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not collect or hold data which would link the use of DNA testing, or any other type of evidence produced by the prosecution, with the overall efficiency of criminal trials. Therefore, it is not possible to make an estimate of any cost savings.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of increasing funding for specialist advice services.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We recognise the importance of access to justice and the key role that legal advice and support services play in helping people resolve their legal issues.
This year we have invested over £6 million of grant funding to 60 organisations in 2025-26, via the Improving Outcomes Through Legal Support Grant and the Online Support and Advice Grant, to support the delivery of essential advice and support services.
We are also working with the advice sector to co-develop and implement a long-term strategy to make the legal support system more sustainable, effective and efficient. We have established the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group, comprised of key stakeholders from across the advice sector, to support this work. The workplan focuses on three key themes: service delivery, data and evidence, and funding. The funding theme is exploring options for unlocking more sustainable and consistent funding streams for advice services, as well as how to drive more collaborative and joined-up funding of the advice sector across funders.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps she is taking to promote the Advance into Justice scheme; and whether she plans to take steps to establish continuity of service between the armed forces and civil service pension schemes.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Vice Chamberlain (HM Household) (Whip, House of Commons)
‘Advance into Justice’ is a Ministry of Justice recruitment initiative aimed at providing a direct recruitment channel for Armed Forces Service Leavers, Veterans and Veterans Spouses into key operational roles across HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).
The Ministry of Justice recognises that Armed forces personnel have a wide range of transferable skills that are aligned with many HMPPS roles, allowing them to form a second career whilst continuing to protect the public.
Ahead of the launch of the next Advance into Justice campaign in May 2025, the Ministry of Justice is working on a marketing and communication strategy to promote the scheme externally using various media approaches.
The Ministry of Justice attends regular Armed Forces Recruitment events across the country managed by the Career Transition Partnership, the official resettlement provider for the Ministry of Defence and British Forces Resettlement Services.
The Department does not hold information on any plans to establish continuity of service between the armed forces and the Civil Service pension schemes as this is the remit of Cabinet Office.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she is taking steps to improve the (a) quality and (b) performance of court language service providers: and whether she has had discussions with relevant stakeholders on the future insourcing of those services.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring the justice system is supported by a suite of high-quality language services that meet the needs of all those that require them.
Ministry of Justice language service contracts, which began on 31 October 2016, are subject to robust governance arrangements.
These include monthly meetings with suppliers and stakeholders to review the quality of the services being provided and performance against contractual performance indicators. The contracts also provide for the Ministry of Justice to audit the suppliers to verify the accuracy of contractual payments, management information, and compliance with contractual obligations.
In 2016, the Ministry of Justice also awarded a contract to an independent quality assurance provider. They review the Ministry of Justice’s register of interpreters, conduct an annual audit of supplier processes for introducing new linguists, and conduct 'spot checks' of interpreters undertaking assignments.
The Ministry of Justice has regular conversations with stakeholders about the Department’s approach to language service provision. The decision to continue with outsourcing beyond the current contracts was given careful consideration, based on service requirements and value for money for the taxpayer.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she will take steps to restrict the ability for psychologists not accredited by the Health and Care Professions Council to act as expert witnesses in all court settings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is aware of concerns regarding unregulated experts, often using the title psychologist, being instructed in the family courts. We are working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee on this issue to make changes to the Family Procedure Rules and their associated Practice Directions to restrict the instruction of these experts.
In the criminal courts, the evidence of expert witnesses is governed by the law on admissibility. Expert evidence is only admissible if the witness is competent to give that opinion and the expert opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. When determining the reliability of expert opinion, the court may take into account the validity of the methodology employed by the expert, the extent to which the opinion is based on material falling outside the expert’s own field of expertise, and lack of an accreditation or other commitment to prescribed standards where that might be expected. The factors that courts should consider are clearly set out in Practice Directions.
In civil proceedings the role of experts is governed by Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court’s permission is required for expert evidence to be used. Before permission is granted the relevant party must confirm the field in which expert evidence is required, the issues which the expert will address and, where practicable, the name of the expert. Their report must state the expert’s qualifications and confirm any question or issue which falls outside their expertise. While experts always owe a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care to those instructing them and to comply with any relevant professional code, they have an overriding duty to the court to help the court on matters within their experience and their evidence must be independent of the party instructing them. It is open to parties in civil disputes to challenge the qualifications or suitability of an expert witness if they have any concerns. The adversarial nature of civil litigation enables challenges and cross-examination to expert evidence.