Last week I visited Aldershot Justice Centre, which—while outside our constituency—is the local magistrates’ court and also serves as a County Court and Family Court for our area.

I was grateful to meet the district judge there, who gave me an insight into the day-to-day challenges faced by the justice system.

Visits like this are a reminder of the unique role Members of Parliament play in our constitutional set-up. Judges and magistrates are rightly independent, and politicians have no say in individual cases.

This separation of powers is one of the oldest safeguards in British democracy—dating back at least to the Act of Settlement 1701, which first secured judicial independence from political influence. But while MPs must never interfere with outcomes in the courtroom, we can—and should—raise concerns about how the system itself is working.

That means when judges or court staff tell me about inefficiencies or barriers, my job is to bring those issues to Westminster.

Through the Health and Social Care Select Committee I scrutinise the NHS; when it comes to justice, I can question the justice secretary and indeed the newly appointed deputy prime minister, David Lammy.

At Aldershot, the conversation highlighted just how far behind our civil and family courts have fallen compared with the criminal courts. Enormous sums were rightly channelled into tackling crime and backlog reduction, but reform for civil cases was delayed—and then Covid-19 hit. As a result, processes remain patchy and outdated.

One stark example is the continued reliance on paper files. Court bundles are still being couriered between Aldershot, Basingstoke and Winchester—with files sometimes lost or delayed, leaving participants ill-prepared for hearings.

In an age when the NHS, banking and even our passports can all be managed securely online, it is extraordinary that the justice system is so dependent on paper and couriers.

Family courts face similar difficulties. However, there are signs of modernisation. From January, a “Pathfinder” pilot will begin for new cases in our area.

The idea, introduced elsewhere by the last government, is to simplify proceedings by starting with a paper hearing involving all parties before assigning a dedicated case progression officer to manage the process. This should improve efficiency, avoid unnecessary hearings and keep cases moving forward. That said, any case that began before January will still proceed under the old system, leaving a legacy of inconsistency.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight. But by engaging directly with those on the front line, MPs can make sure the voices of judges, staff and, most importantly, the families who use the courts are heard in Parliament.

I will continue to press for overdue investment and reform so that justice is not only done, but done efficiently and fairly.