Home Office and Ministry of Justice

The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee, Mr Speaker, and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting the debate, and the Minister for being here—I hope she will find it useful. We often speak in this Chamber about defence spending, and rightly so. Defence keeps our nation safe, but justice is what keeps the public safe, ensuring that victims receive justice and that offenders are removed from our streets. According to the National Audit Office, the Ministry of Justice’s total expenditure for 2024-25 was £15.5 billion, with an income of £1.9 billion, resulting in a net cost to the taxpayer of £13.6 billion. To put that into perspective, it is the equivalent of just two weeks of welfare spending. When I refer to one justice system, I mean the police, the courts, prison officers and the Probation Service working together as a single interdependent system. When one part underperforms, it creates a domino effect across the entire system. Since the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Public Accounts Committee has published a number of critical reports on the criminal justice system, covering Crown courts, police productivity, probation efficiency, violence against women and girls, MOJ reports and prison estate capacity. These are not separate issues; they are interconnected pressures within one system, and they must be analysed, funded and reformed accordingly, not in isolation. I suggest that the PAC is a very useful Committee for considering these types of cross-cutting issues. It is clear that the criminal justice system has considerable weaknesses. A central issue is the lack of usable integrated data. The police, courts and prisons operate on separate systems that do not effectively communicate with one another. This fragmentation makes it difficult for the system to function efficiently as a whole and increases the risk of serious administrative errors. That is reflected in the number of erroneous prisoner releases. In the last 12 months to March 2025, 262 prisoners were mistakenly released—an increase of 128% compared with the previous years. Let me turn first to the estimates themselves—after all, that is what the debate is about. It is striking that even identifying a clear, unified figure for the system is difficult because of the fragmented way in which the funding is structured and assessed. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that the Ministry of Justice 2026-27 main estimate for resource departmental expenditure limit—running expenditure—is £12.69 billion, and capital departmental expenditure limit is confirmed at £2.36 billion. That represents a 4.4% and 2.6% increase compared with last year respectively. By contrast, the Home Office main estimate for RDEL for 2026-27 was £19.5% billion, representing a 10.8% increase on last year. The Prime Minister has said that governing this country is about choices, so the question is: are these the right choices? Although the Government have committed to increasing the Ministry of Justice budget by more than 2% per year, the Department faces mounting pressures, as the Minister will know. Half its running costs are spent on staff, and it has experienced rising demand, inflationary pressures, and higher than expected costs. It has responded by transferring £695 million from underspent capital budgets into day-to-day expenditure, largely due to delays in the prison expansion programme. At the same time, it has committed to delivering at least 5% in savings, reducing administrative costs by 15% by 2029-30, and introducing AI to drive efficiencies. Those are all good things, but they do put pressure on the current budget. These ambitious targets must not come at the expense of frontline services, and they must come with the data to back up the ambition. Let me turn to some of the issues in more detail. Police officers are on the frontline, and too often they face criticism without proper recognition for the vital work they do to keep our communities up and down the country safe. Although their funding has increased, with a £535.8 million uplift in 2026-27, forces are dealing with the growing complexity of crime, sustained financial pressure and persistent productivity challenges. In Gloucestershire, the Government are not delivering sufficient funding through the police grant to invest in any new digital IT, which would enable the police to be more efficient, and such pressures inevitably feed into the courts, which are already under severe strain. The rising population in this country is bound to mean that more people will be going through our court system. Around 4 million new cases are now entering our courts and tribunals each year in England and Wales, and the average time to resolve a case has risen dramatically, from 481 days to 685. The backlog in the criminal courts remains exceptionally high, with an unprecedented 88,200 Crown court cases open as of December 2025—it might have come down a little since then. The median time from an offence being committed to the case being completed is 355 days, with some rape and other serious sexual offences—the so-called RASSO cases—taking three years or more, and some being postponed up to six times. Many victims simply give up before their cases come to court in order to try to put the trauma they have suffered behind them. Is the system any better in the magistrates courts, where there is a backlog in excess of 310,000 cases? Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government propose to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to 36 months. However, we have a huge problem with the recruitment of magistrates, meaning that the system is likely to be overwhelmed if more cases are diverted to them. It cannot be right that we have empty courtrooms and burgeoning waiting lists. The Government’s changes to legal aid have also led to inefficiency, with more people now representing themselves; I do not blame them at all, but it means that each case takes longer because people often need the court procedure explained to them. Crown court sitting days have not kept pace with demand, despite offers from the Lady Chief Justice to increase capacity, which have not been taken up fully by the Government. Around 11% of courts are inactive on any given day. Delays of that scale are unacceptable for victims, defendants and public confidence in the system. These delays have the direct impact on the prison population, with more people being held on remand due to the backlog, as well as increased time for preliminary hearings and the granting of bail. We are also seeing an increase in the number of people received into prison, driven by tougher sentencing and a rising remand population. Currently, between 16,600 and 18,000 people are held on remand in UK prisons, meaning they have been denied bail or are awaiting trial. Many of those people have been on remand for over six months, which is the target for maximum remand. That accounts for nearly 20% of the prison population. The increased flow of untried defendants and extended waiting times due to court backlogs is leading to that unacceptable increase in the prison population. If dealt with more efficiently, it would help with overcrowding in our prisons, but without sufficient capacity or staffing, the trend is unsustainable. The prison population reached a record high of 98% capacity, or 88,000, in August 2024—the highest ever. Overcrowding is driving violence, placing staff at risk, and undermining rehabilitation efforts. As we know, the Government have committed to creating 20,000 new prison places, yet progress has been slow, with repeated delays and underspending. In a recent accounting officer assessment, there were significant delays in awarding new contracts at both HMP Forest Bank and HMP Rye Hill. The AOA does not set out the cause for those delays or for the additional costs incurred. At the same time, retention of prison officers remains a serious challenge, affecting safety and stability across the prison estate. To give just one example of what is going on in the prison system, at our hearing on HMP Dartmoor the issue of radon was raised. The Ministry of Justice has signed a lease that cannot be broken until 2033, yet no sooner had that lease been signed, the prison was deemed unsafe because of radon. It is costing £4 million a year for an empty prison. HMP Dartmoor is an example of a Department making a decision under pressure and at speed, leading to a complete waste of public money. In March 2025, approximately 242,000 individuals were under probation supervision. Vacancy rates in the probation service have risen from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025. Staff are routinely working beyond capacity, estimated at 118%, although the figure is likely to be higher, particularly in London. That workload will be increased further with the Government’s early release scheme. We heard deeply concerning evidence describing a culture of emotional strain and trauma among probation staff. This is not just a workforce issue, but a public safety issue, because when probation fails, reoffending rises, placing additional burdens on the police, courts and prisons. The cost to this country of reoffending alone stands at a staggering £20.9 million, but the human cost to victims and communities is immeasurable. In part that is because our prisons are so overcrowded that prisoners are not being given meaningful activity, for example work training, so that when they are released they have developed skills that could help them to find work and reduce the reoffending rate.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when prisoners are engaged in retraining or rehabilitation, they can then return to the community they were brought up in, but that is often where their problems started? The report might be able to recommend things that can be done in prison, but when people get back to their community, that takes over and they start where they left off. Does he agree that such issues must be sorted out in the location, in the community, and in the place people come from, to ensure that they do not go back to their bad habits?

The hon. Member makes an interesting point, and the Government must consider in the round how they can give people useful training, work and leisure in prison, so that they come out with some skills. Where people go, how they are housed and what employment offers they get are issues that the Government need to consider seriously—it is a really big problem. The number of recalls to prison is now at an all-time high, demonstrating a system under severe stress. Planned reforms, including early-release schemes, risk placing even greater pressure on an already overstretched probation service. Well-run probation is not optional; it is essential. It is what enables people to reintegrate into society and prevents the cycle of crime from continuing. In conclusion, the criminal justice system must be treated as one system. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice need to work much more closely together to resolve some of the serious problems that I have outlined. Investment, reform and accountability must reflect that reality. Fixing one part in isolation will not solve the wider problem. As I have said, democracy is founded on an effective and properly functioning criminal justice system to keep its citizens safe. Serious criminals need to be removed from society by imprisonment, but the system must help itself by taking strenuous steps to reduce reoffending, which I repeat costs this country £20.9 billion a year. It is a well-thumbed maxim that, whatever the cause, justice delayed is justice denied.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. The debate follows a joint application by the Chairs of the Justice, Public Accounts and Home Affairs Committees. There is cross-Committee concern for our criminal justice system, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), has just said. I thank my fellow Chairs for their focus on the issue in its widest sense. As Chair of the Justice Committee, I will focus my remarks on the estimates for the Ministry of Justice. A year ago, the Justice Committee was granted a similar debate on the spending of the Ministry of Justice. I noted at that point the positive settlement that the MOJ had received as part of the spending review, including a £7 billion investment aimed at delivering 14,000 new prison places by 2031 and £700 million a year for the Probation Service by 2028-29, in the light of the Sentencing Act 2026 reforms. Although I welcome many of the actions that the Government have taken over the past year to reform our criminal justice system, there is still a great deal of progress to be made, as those targets indicate. The Ministry of Justice suffered years of budget cuts during the years of Tory austerity, meaning that when this Government were elected in 2024, MOJ expenditure was 11% less in real terms than it was in 2010. The main estimates for 2026-27 confirm that the MOJ’s day-to-day spending is set to increase by £757 million, or 6.5%, which includes further investment in the Prison and Probation Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Legal Aid Agency. I will come to each of those areas in turn shortly. The MOJ’s capital spending is also set to increase by almost £60 million, or 2.6%. I note that the MOJ anticipates drawing down further funding at the supplementary estimates to support its prison capacity programme, and that must be right. This year’s main estimates allocate over half its day-to-day spending to the Prison and Probation Service. This is aimed at investment in staffing, opening of additional prison places and paying for prison contract costs. The prison population stands at over 87,000 and it is predicted to increase, with the most recent set of projections forecasting 91,400 by September 2026, and between 97,400 and 102,100 by September 2029. These are the highest numbers we will ever have seen in UK prisons. Already, 25% of prisoners live in overcrowded conditions. As we have heard, overcrowding reduces safety, increases the likelihood of self-harm and violence, and impairs the rehabilitative programme that prisons are able to offer. The Justice Committee has focused much of its work over the past year on the endemic drugs crisis in our prisons and the poor rehabilitative offer available for prisoners. The Government’s continued investment in creating new prison places is necessary, but alongside the provisions of the Sentencing Act, some of which have now come into force, I hope that we can begin to see a stabilisation and eventual reduction of the prison population and an improvement in conditions there. I note that deaths in prison custody decreased by 12% from the previous 12 months up to March this year, but any non-natural death in prison is a tragedy. I direct Members to our reports on drugs in prisons and rehabilitation in prisons, which have been tagged on the Order Paper as relevant documents for this debate. As I mentioned earlier, by 2028-29, the Probation Service will receive an additional £700 million per year to support reforms resulting from the Sentencing Act, including a significant increase in the use of electronic monitoring or tagging. That investment is a substantial and welcome increase for a service that has been under strain for many years. I have raised repeatedly my concerns about the performance of Serco in its provision of the tagging service, and the Justice Committee will closely monitor Serco’s performance moving forward. I commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee in looking at the probation service and the report it published in February this year. The PAC report stated that the vacancy rate for probation officers increased from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025, with probation officers working above capacity for several years. The system has been running hot for an unsustainable period, which impacts on the hard-working probation staff. That cannot be underplayed and I hope to see improvements in this area soon. The additional funding for the Courts and Tribunals Service is driven by pay increases and an increase in the uncapped sitting days in the Crown courts, which are necessary to recruit and retain staff and to address the backlog. The Crown court backlog continues to sit at around 80,000 cases. The uncapping of sitting days for 2026-27 is a welcome step and has already had a positive impact, but it is widely recognised that it is not enough on its own. It is against that backdrop of an ever-increasing backlog that the Government introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill earlier this year. Among other measures, the Bill would shift more cases to the magistrates courts and reduce the use of jury trials. The Justice Committee recently published an extensive report on the Bill, in which we warned that capacity in magistrates courts is unlikely to expand quickly enough to meet this increased level of demand. Our report highlighted the long-standing reductions in the number of magistrates and legal advisers, and described the recruitment target of having 21,000 magistrates in place by 2029 as unrealistic. The Courts and Tribunals Bill has been carried over to this Session, but a date for its consideration on Report has not yet been set. I would encourage the incoming Prime Minister—whosoever that may be—to consider carefully the Committee’s critique of the Bill, but also to be conscious that reform is desperately needed and cannot simply be kicked down the road to avoid difficult decisions.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for giving way. What contribution to reducing the Crown court backlog does he believe curtailing the right to jury trials will make?

First, one has to look at the Leveson package—the two volumes that Sir Brian Leveson has put together over 1,000 pages. That has 180 recommendations, a very small number of which deal with this issue. It is undeniable that it will be one factor that has an effect. Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is very difficult to calculate at this stage what effect it will have. The changes to jury trials—not the abolition of jury trials—are moving the line so that some more cases will be dealt with at a summary level. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I prefer to look at the practical problems there may be in replacing some jury trials, with the additional pressures on the magistrates court. As a matter of principle, we can differ; as a matter of practice, I suspect he would agree with me. I ask him to agree with me that there will be some benefit, but I agree that it has not been calculated as yet. Let me pick up what I was saying. A malfunctioning courts system is bad for victims, bad for defendants and bad for faith in our justice system, which has ramifications for our democracy. I will conclude by touching on the Legal Aid Agency, which affects civil and criminal legal aid. Legal Aid Agency spending will rise by 10% year on year. That is driven by Government reforms that will result in higher billing in civil representation schemes, fee uplifts in crime lower schemes and additional operating costs. As I said last year, I was surprised to see that the spending review did not include a specific funding allocation for the Legal Aid Agency, with the only reference to it being in the context of potential efficiency savings that the MOJ will make in the review period. Continuing investment in legal aid is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system and efforts to tackle the Crown court backlog. Access to justice for those who rely on legal aid is reliant on a well-funded and properly functioning Legal Aid Agency, and we are all aware of the difficulties it has had over the past year. The Justice Committee will soon publish a report focused on legal aid as part of a wider access to justice inquiry. Let me emphasise how important it is that we have a properly functioning criminal justice system if the public are to continue to have faith in our institutions and political system. I implore the incoming Administration not to lose the focus on reforming the criminal justice system. The current system is not fit for purpose, and we cannot afford not to act.

The Crown court backlog is the most significant challenge facing the Ministry of Justice. Long delays in cases reaching trial undermine confidence in the whole justice system. I welcome the extra money that the Government have made available to increase the number of sitting days of the Crown court. I also welcome the additional funding to improve the physical condition of our courts and to invest in improved IT systems to make our courts run more efficiently. While the Government are right to take those steps, I am concerned that they are wasting time, effort and money in curtailing the rights of British citizens to a jury trial. This reform has been presented as a necessary step to improve the efficiency of the courts. However, evidence suggests the contrary. The Government are aware of analysis by criminal justice researchers that indicates that the entire package of Government reforms will save no more than 8% of Crown court time. More striking still, the introduction of judge-only trials is likely to deliver a saving of just 1.5% to 2.5%. That is a marginal efficiency gain compared with the curtailing of our citizens’ rights to a jury trial, and it does not take into account the potential wasted time in determining whether a trial is to be held in a magistrates court or the new Crown court bench division. I have previously asked the Lord Chancellor to set out the evidence to show how much of the backlog will be cut by his reduction of jury trials, but I have not received a meaningful reply, so I must conclude that he is either unwilling or unable to provide a response. The Labour party has proven of late that it is willing to dispense with the unpopular and the ineffectual, so I hope it will take the same approach to unpopular and ineffectual policy as it does to personnel. I hope that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and his new Lord Chancellor will drop this dreadful policy. If the Government are serious about reducing delays, perhaps their focus should be on addressing why workers in the Ministry of Justice take more days off sick than workers in any other Whitehall Department. The average MOJ employee took 10.7 days’ sickness in 2024-25; that is 30% higher than the civil service average, and double the average in the private sector. The Minister needs to get her Department in order.

Does the hon. Member have any figures disaggregating prison officers from the remainder of MOJ staff? Obviously, their working lives are very different.

I do not believe that information was provided, certainly not when it was presented to me, but if the hon. Lady has it, no doubt she will send it to me. Jury trials and staff absence are not the only areas where the Government are focusing on the wrong issue; a similar problem emerges in the management of our prisons. The Government seem to believe that recklessly releasing many thousands of criminals early will address the crisis of overcrowding, instead of investing in measures to ensure that they do not reoffend. I fear that releasing so many criminals so early in their sentences risks a wave of reoffending in the future. It is well established that when prisoners engage in meaningful educational or vocational courses, there are sizeable reductions in reoffending. More than 50% of adult prisoners have the literacy skills of an 11-year-old or lower; knowing this, one might think that the Government would seek to address the problem. The earned progression model should surely ensure that participation in education and training is compulsory to secure the very early releases that the Government are proposing. Instead, this Government are choosing to reduce the provision of prison education, astonishing though that might seem. That is of huge concern, because investment in prison education is cost-effective. Research in 2018 showed that the economic benefits of lower reoffending and higher levels of employment after release outweighed the costs of prisoner education by a ratio of 5:1. In this instance, the problem is not that the budget has been cut, but that the cost of supplying that education has risen so significantly that the volume of core education delivered this year will be cut by 20% to 25%. Instead of addressing why those costs have increased or exploring more competitive and flexible commissioning models to incorporate smaller providers, the Government’s response has been to cut provision. That is short-sighted. If the MOJ is so poor at entering into contracts, may I recommend to the Minister that that budget is entirely devolved to prison governors? I believe they would be better at bringing together local businesses to provide the education they need for the prisoners in their care. It would certainly be better than paying Serco, Capita or whoever £100 million a year to deliver less education each year.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the ability of prison governors to spend money. I was speaking to a prison governor recently, who said that because of the amount he is allowed to spend, when the washing machine breaks, he cannot purchase a commercial one. He keeps buying ones from the high street, which naturally break after a week or so because of the level of washing his prison has to do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that giving prison governors some more flexibility so that they can make decisions for the prisons they know best would actually save the MOJ money in the long run?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with her. Members of the Justice Committee hear that all the time when we visit prisons. For example, broken security netting cannot be repaired or replaced until some very long and convoluted process goes through Whitehall and comes back six months later, no doubt after many drones have flown in with however many packages of contraband goods. It is absolutely hopeless. We have to devolve proper responsibility and financial management to prison governors. Sitting on the Justice Committee, I have seen and heard at first hand the reality of how reduced educational opportunities are putting rehabilitation at risk, yet despite awareness of these dangers, the Government only partially accepted our formal recommendation to prioritise the delivery of core education provision. Estimates day debates allow the House to hold the Government to account, not just for how much they spend, but for how well they spend it. Curtailing jury trials for marginal gain and cutting back on prison education are not the reforms of a system focused on long-term effectiveness. If we are serious about delivering timely, fair and sustainable justice, we must prioritise the right kinds of investment that will deliver the reforms the justice system needs to protect victims as its No. 1 priority, to deliver justice and to get good value for money for the taxpayer.

I thank the Government for the considerable progress that has been made on criminal legal aid and other matters within the estimates since we have taken office. The courts system, as we have heard, was in the most dilapidated and decrepit state, and we had a dearth of judge recruitment between 2010 and 2018. The net result was that the entire justice system was on its knees. In that context, the 10% uplift in legal aid expenditure over two years was long overdue. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. There have been significant problems with the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems. Those problems are increasingly in hand, but it appears from House of Commons Library papers that there is a 75% reduction in capital spend at the Legal Aid Agency over the coming period. It is not clear to me whether that reporting is accurate or perhaps not right, because there is a proposal to spend significant money on the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems, and I do not see how that would not fit within the capital estimates. It would be helpful if the Minister could report back, either today or to the Justice Committee subsequently, on how that has come about. The disparity seems extremely large. The entire system is still creaking heavily. In an environment in which we know that there may have to be further cuts to other Departments to fund the defence investment that is required, we must remember that the Ministry of Justice has experienced cuts not just since 2010, but since 1997. Legal aid rates have gone up by £1 an hour since 1997, with the exception of the areas that the Government have put up—it is only some of them—since we took office. The result is that legal aid in general is in hugely difficult circumstances, and we see the net effect of that in the number of people representing themselves in the courts. I have asked in Justice Committee sittings whether there has been an evaluation of the impact on court backlogs of unrepresented litigants in person. I have asked what assessment has been made of the difference they make to trial times in the criminal and civil courts, and therefore the potential implications for the backlogs in those courts. At the moment, the backlog stands at 350,000 in the magistrates court, and the figure is commonly reported to be 80,000 for the Crown court. The MOJ has not been able to give us those figures, and it cannot say that that assessment has been done. It is speculative to suggest that people not having a lawyer—and large numbers of them do not—is increasing the courts backlog, because we just do not have the figures. In an environment in which every penny counts, and in which spending that money extremely efficiently is vital, it seems a significant omission not to have at least reviewed whether moving up the criteria for entitlement to legal aid significantly might change the dimensions of the court backlog, as all of us want to see. The nature of the current entitlement is that someone with a total household income of £37,000 or more in the Crown court—they could be facing trial for rape or all kinds of serious offences—would not be entitled to legal aid. I think most members of the public would be shocked that if they were accused of a crime of that gravity, they would get no legal aid if their household income—potentially from two adults—came to more than that. In 1970, about 28 million people in this country were eligible for legal aid. The figure today would be infinitely smaller. I completely accept that we cannot simply flood money into a system when we do not have that money and when it would not be responsible. There is also the risk that we create waste if we suddenly flush money into a system not set up to accommodate it.