Justice Committee

The Committee’s pre-appointment hearing scrutinised Professor Lynne Berry’s suitability to chair the Judicial Appointments Commission, focusing on her leadership style, independence, handling of commissioners, and relationship with the chief executive. The substantive policy discussion centred on the Government’s expectation that the JAC should move faster, review its processes, and help widen the judicial pool while preserving merit. Berry backed a more outcomes-focused and less bureaucratic selection system, supported clearer pathways into the judiciary, and questioned whether targets are the best tool for improving diversity, while emphasising the need to maintain public confidence, independence and integrity.

The Committee scrutinised the Ministry of Justice’s response to access-to-justice failures across legal aid, civil and criminal representation, legal support funding, tribunal backlogs and the Legal Aid Agency cyber-attack. Ministers said the Government’s first priority has been to stabilise a “managed decline” system through fee uplifts, targeted investment and IT transformation, while promising to publish its means-test review approach in the summer. The panel also signalled interest in a national legal service, remote and AI-assisted access, and wider funding ideas such as ILCA, but stressed that implementation must be robust and secure. The sharpest exchanges concerned the scale of unrepresented defendants, legal aid deserts, the long-term sustainability of duty solicitors and the delayed notification/compensation implications of the LAA data breach.

This evidence session scrutinised the Ministry of Justice’s reform programme across courts, sentencing, prisons and probation. Key government commitments emerged on responding to the Leveson inquiries (Part 2) later this year; funding to enable unlimited sitting days; substantial recruitment drives for magistrates and legal advisers; ongoing digitalisation including AI listing tools and a national listing framework; establishment of a second permanent secretary to improve cross-system coordination; and capital and estate investment to stabilise and modernise court buildings. Witnesses also set out plans to deliver 14,000 prison places (with 20,000 total programme), manage contractor risk from ISG insolvency, reform probation through Our Future Probation Service and expanded electronic monitoring, and accelerate reforms via the Courts and Tribunals Bill. In parallel, challenges were highlighted around Dartmoor’s viability due to radon, delays in vetting affecting magistrate intake, and the need to balance efficiency with safety and fairness in a rapidly expanding and digitalising system.

This session examined the provision of youth custody across four types of establishment (YOIs, secure training centres, secure children's homes) with a focus on education, health, trauma-informed care, remand pressures, family contact, and transition to adulthood. Witnesses argued for smaller, higher-support regimes and a common framework across settings, highlighted the need for better data-sharing and community placements, and pressed for modernisation of the youth-estate regime and investment in facilities.

The Justice Committee probes how the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulate the legal sector to improve access to justice, safeguard consumers, and adapt to rapid market change, including AI and new business models. Key issues include: the LSB’s role as regulator of regulators; move to intelligence-led, risk-based oversight; enforcement actions and directions to the SRA; attempts to reform regulatory oversight (directorate for regulatory oversight) and potential reform of the 2007 Legal Services Act; progress on price transparency and access-to-justice indicators; exploration of regulatory sandboxes for innovation; concerns over high-profile regulator failures (Axiom Ince, SSB Law, PM Law) and the need for better data/risk capabilities; debates about whether a single regulator is desirable; and the SRA’s evolving stance on AI, technology, and consumer protection within an outcomes-based regulatory framework.

The Justice Committee held a pre-appointment hearing for Monisha Shah, the Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of the Legal Services Board (LSB). Shah outlined her background in media regulation and governance, addressed potential conflicts with her role as chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, and explained how she would balance multiple roles if appointed. She set out time commitments, noting she could allocate the necessary time and would step down from certain roles by specified dates to enable the LSB role. The session explored the LSB’s mandate to regulate regulators, its enforcement actions (including past failures), and the ongoing public bodies review of the LSB and the broader framework for legal regulation. Shah discussed the LSB’s current challenges (unmet legal need, court backlogs, legal aid funding), the need for a more proactive, intelligence-led regulatory approach, and the importance of resourcing a small regulator (~45 staff) to meet its objectives. Diversity and culture within the legal professions, and the LSB’s outreach and governance with the CEO and board, were also addressed. The hearing signals continued scrutiny of the LSB and a government preference for a chair who can navigate regulatory reform, public scrutiny, and evolving technology and data use in regulation.