Ministry of Justice

Probation practitioners follow robust safeguarding practices when considering the use of Electronic Monitoring (EM). Practitioners assess the suitability of an offender’s proposed address covering who resides there, any safeguarding concerns, and proximity to victims. They will not recommend EM where it could increase risk e.g. imposing a curfew to an address that puts the occupants in danger. Informed consent from the main occupier is required for a curfew requirement. Enquiries must be made with police and relevant safeguarding agencies to inform a risk assessment before an EM curfew condition is proposed.

We will continue to expand EM for perpetrators of violence against women and girls, ensuring that public protection and victim safety will remain at the heart of decision making when determining whether to impose EM.

We are rolling-out national trauma-informed training for HMCTS criminal court staff from spring 2026. Staff will be encouraged to undertake the training, particularly where their role involves regular interaction with witnesses and victims.

In May 2025, we announced that we would continue to enable victims of rape and other sexual offences, whose cases were heard in the Crown Court, to apply for free transcripts of the sentencing remarks in their case, on an on-going basis. This followed a one-year pilot which ran from May 2024.

We have taken the following steps to promote the provision:

• Providing the Witness Service, whose role is to support victims and witnesses at court, with an information sheet on the scheme to distribute to any eligible victims

• Publishing a dedicated webpage on Gov.uk

• Sharing information on the scheme at a forum with over 70 national and local stakeholders who work with or represent victims.

• And creating social media posts on X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and LinkedIn.

The information requested is routinely published in H M Prison & Probation Service’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publication. It is set out in the attached tables.

The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Calls from prison wing payphones and in-cell phones are charged at the same national rates.

Calls to UK landlines:

• 2.48 pence per minute during the week midnight Sunday to midday Friday

• 2.20 pence per minute during the weekend midday Friday to midnight Sunday

Calls to UK Mobiles

• 5.50 pence per minute during the week Sunday to midday Friday

• 3.60 pence per minute during the weekend midday Friday to midnight Sunday

The Ministry of Justice has reduced call rates in the public prison estate by negotiating a 20% reduction to all UK landline and UK mobile numbers. These rates have applied since 1 April 2025 and support the Department’s commitment to maintaining family contact.

Source: Ministry of Justice letter to the Justice Committee, July 2025: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48682/documents/255236/default

The information requested is set out in the table below. This table provides only a count of Basic Custody Screenings where care experience was disclosed and does not provide this as a proportion of all BCSs completed over the time period so caution should be applied when considering trends.

Note:

1. The figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the level of detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system.

Basic Custody Screening data does not provide a full picture of the number of prisoners disclosing care experience each year, as it does not include data for prisoners who choose to disclose care experience at later points during their time in custody.

We know that people taken into care as children are disproportionately likely to end up in the criminal justice system, with research estimating that 24-31 per cent of the adult prison population spent time in care as children.

We are committed to addressing this disproportionality in England and Wales, both by improving support for people with care experience while in the criminal justice system, and by working with colleagues across government to reduce the number of people with care experience who enter the criminal justice system. As part of this, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) plans to publish a new ‘Supporting Prisoners with Care Experience’ policy framework in spring 2026.

24,264 prisoner leavers released between April 2024 and March 2025 were assessed as posing high or very high risk of harm at the point of release between April 2024 and March 2025. This is 42% of all releases.

Public protection is this Government’s top priority.

Offenders on licence are subject to strict conditions – including exclusion zones, restriction zones and electronic monitoring – and they can be returned to prison if they breach any of these rules, in such a way as to demonstrate that their risk is no longer manageable in the community.

Notes

For information on the definition of ‘release’ in this context, please see the Notes page of the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Releases tables which can be found here: prison-releases-Jan-to-Mar-2025.ods.

Information on release has been drawn from the Prison National Offender Management Information System (P-NOMIS). This has been linked to risk of harm information on National Delius (nDelius), the probation case management system.

Where the release could be matched between the two systems, risk of harm is as assessed at release. In cases where the release could not be matched, the risk of harm is drawn from information on NDelius closest to the release date.

Data are drawn from large administrative IT systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the information collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system due to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are considered by the Gender Recognition Panel, which is a judicial tribunal. There are stringent criteria and a high threshold of evidence required for obtaining a GRC and not everyone who applies is granted one.

The allocation of transgender prisoners is based on a careful assessment of risk. Regardless of whether an individual holds a Gender Recognition Certificate, transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of violent or sexual offending cannot be placed in the general women's estate except in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

The Government is committed to open justice which means criminal justice should be administered in public and subject to public scrutiny including media reporting. However, there are exceptions in statute or common law which: exclude the press/public from court for all/part of proceedings; permit information to be withheld from open court; or impose temporary/permanent bans on reporting of proceedings or part of proceedings (e.g. identity of those appearing).

Automatic reporting restrictions are applied to complainants in rape cases and all other sexual offences. There is a ban on reporting any matter that would identify a child or young person (under 18) in the Youth Court, whether that is a victim, witness or defendant. Victims of Female Genital Mutilation, Human Trafficking, and Forced Marriage are also granted automatic anonymity for life.

Lifetime anonymity can be granted to an adult witness or victim in any offence if the quality of the witness’s evidence or their co-operation is likely to be diminished by reason of fear/distress in testifying.

Reporting restrictions are a matter for judicial discretion - decisions on whether to impose these are made on a case by case basis by judges taking into account the circumstances of the case, the parties involved and the interests of justice.

In addition, the Victims’ Code is a practical and useful guide for all victims of crime to understand what they can expect from the criminal justice system. This includes victims of fatal or serious accidents where they constitute a criminal offence. We will consult on a new Victims’ Code in due course to ensure that we get the foundations for victims right.

We recognise the benefits of mediation to individuals and businesses in resolving disputes in a less adversarial manner. Where mediation is successful, both businesses and their customers will be spared the time and stress of litigation.

The impact assessment for the introduction of mandatory mediation for small claims estimated a 15-55% reduction in hearings, freeing up 1,400 – 5,200 sitting days per year.

The impact assessment for the introduction of mandatory mediation found that businesses make up 58% of all parties to small claims, and that the potential benefit to businesses of earlier settlement through mandatory mediation could be £25 million - £92 million per annum, based on a 15-55% settlement rate.

Between August 2024 and August 2025, a total of 81,206 cases were referred to mediation, 56,268 mediations took place, and 19,536 were successfully settled through mediation, representing an overall settlement rate of approximately 35%.

A formal evaluation will be published in the summer of this year and findings will inform decisions on further expansion of mandatory mediation.

We will consult with organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, and other relevant partners before making any final decisions on the further expansion of mandatory mediation.

We recognise the benefits of mediation to individuals and businesses in resolving disputes in a less adversarial manner. Where mediation is successful, both businesses and their customers will be spared the time and stress of litigation.

The impact assessment for the introduction of mandatory mediation for small claims estimated a 15-55% reduction in hearings, freeing up 1,400 – 5,200 sitting days per year.

The impact assessment for the introduction of mandatory mediation found that businesses make up 58% of all parties to small claims, and that the potential benefit to businesses of earlier settlement through mandatory mediation could be £25 million - £92 million per annum, based on a 15-55% settlement rate.

Between August 2024 and August 2025, a total of 81,206 cases were referred to mediation, 56,268 mediations took place, and 19,536 were successfully settled through mediation, representing an overall settlement rate of approximately 35%.

A formal evaluation will be published in the summer of this year and findings will inform decisions on further expansion of mandatory mediation.

We will consult with organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, and other relevant partners before making any final decisions on the further expansion of mandatory mediation.

The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the Government's relationship with the judiciary. As would be expected, he and other Departmental Ministers have regular engagement with the senior judiciary, including the Master of the Rolls, on a whole host of matters including legislation that affects the justice system.

It is standard practice not to comment on the specifics of discussions between Ministers and the judiciary. In line with constitutional conventions, discussions with the judiciary do not cover the merits of policy proposals and are limited to technical matters relating to the operation of the courts and the wider administration of justice.

The English Law Promotion Panel has been established to support the growth of the legal sector and to strengthen the global competitiveness of English and Welsh law. This initiative forms part of the Government’s mission to drive economic growth, as outlined in the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy. The Panel’s focus is on the international promotion of English and Welsh law, rather than operational or policy matters relating to the domestic justice system. In so doing, the Panel will also explore the extent to which arbitration and mediation can enhance our competitive position.

The proven reoffending rate for women released from custody between April 2022 and March 2023 was 46.0%.

The proven reoffending rate for women released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months between April 2022 and March 2023 was 64.1%.

The Government recognises the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and consensually.

Mandatory mediation for small money claims below £10,000 is now integrated into the county court process, saving time and costs. A formal evaluation will be published in the summer of this year and will inform decisions on further expansion of mandatory mediation.

The Civil Procedure Rules were amended in October 2024 to give judges power to order mediation at their discretion in higher value claims over £10,000.

We intend to introduce legislation to mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment when parliamentary time allows. The new legislation will clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements. The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government recognises the importance of protecting vulnerable and elderly consumers from harm when purchasing complex legal products. This includes Family Protection Trusts, also known as Asset Protection Trusts, which are a form of Discretionary Trust or Interest in Possession Trust.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The SRA’s standards and guidance require solicitors to act in clients’ best interests and to take particular care where clients may be vulnerable, including considering capacity and the appropriateness of taking instructions.

Since 2021, the SRA has continued to strengthen its risk-based, proactive approach to identifying and addressing consumer harm, including where clients may be vulnerable. For example, alongside work to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly, it has:

• published research on consumer vulnerability in the legal market, including how vulnerability might be measured and monitored, which is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/consumer-vulnerability-legal-market/;
• provided tailored information and support for vulnerable consumers on engaging with legal services and raising concerns, which is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/vulnerable-consumers/; and
• launched a consumer protection review, which includes consideration of vulnerability, further details of which are here: https://www.sra.org.uk/home/hot-topics/consumer-protection-review/.

The Financial Conduct Authority also issued a warning about Asset Protection Trust Schemes in April 2023 specifically advising anyone considering entering such a scheme to seek independent legal advice to ensure that the Trust will actually work to deliver the intended protection of assets, as well as independent financial advice to validate any proposed strategy for investing assets before agreeing to put any money, property or assets into such a Trust scheme.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the magistrates’ court for triable either way offences and indictable offences (i.e., trials without a jury), in the Magistrates’ Court data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

The volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the Crown Court is available in the Crown Court data tool by offence type. This includes the number of cases which are convicted and acquitted.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the magistrates’ court for triable either way offences and indictable offences (i.e., trials without a jury), in the Magistrates’ Court data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

The volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the Crown Court is available in the Crown Court data tool by offence type. This includes the number of cases which are convicted and acquitted.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 6 January to question 100312.

The Government recognises the financial loss, distress and uncertainty experienced by former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), particularly in relation to family protection trusts and wider estate planning arrangements.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. This includes McClure, as well as Jones Whyte which took on the work in progress and certain assets of McClure when it went into administration in April 2021. The SRA regulates the firms’ activities in England and Wales, with matters relating to their Scottish offices falling under the Law Society of Scotland. Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

With regards to asking the SRA to meet representatives of former clients of McClure, given regulatory independence, the Ministry of Justice does not direct the SRA’s stakeholder engagement. However, I have discussed the impact of the firm’s collapse with the SRA and know that the SRA is continuing to meet with various stakeholders, including those representing former clients.

Any warning signs relating to McClure prior to the firm’s collapse, and when these were identified by legal services regulators, are similarly operational matters for the independent SRA. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.

In relation to successor firm requirements, SRA guidance for firms is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/closing-down-your-practice/. Under the SRA’s framework, its assessment is that Jones Whyte is not a successor practice. However, the firm must make sure it complies with a range of obligations, including those which have been set out in a compliance plan which the firm has agreed and on which the SRA is monitoring progress. This includes secure handling and storage of client papers and documents, and appropriate arrangements for file distribution and advice to impacted clients on their options.

With regard to changes to legal services regulation since the collapse of McClure, there has been continued work to strengthen how risks to consumers are identified and addressed. The SRA’s Corporate Strategy 2023-26 includes strengthening risk based and proactive regulation as a strategic priority and it has pursued action in this area. For example, in its recent Business Plan, the SRA sets out the steps it has taken to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly and take action to manage them effectively. The SRA has also indicated that it is accelerating this work, including through further investment in people and technology. In addition, the SRA is implementing changes in response to the LSB’s independent reviews of its regulation of Axiom Ince Ltd and SSB Group Ltd.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the statutory framework set by the Legal Services Act 2007 under review to ensure that it is operating effectively and protects consumers. The Government has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices. The Department's focus is on improving the enforcement of existing rules.

The Government recognises the financial loss, distress and uncertainty experienced by former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), particularly in relation to family protection trusts and wider estate planning arrangements.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. This includes McClure, as well as Jones Whyte which took on the work in progress and certain assets of McClure when it went into administration in April 2021. The SRA regulates the firms’ activities in England and Wales, with matters relating to their Scottish offices falling under the Law Society of Scotland. Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

With regards to asking the SRA to meet representatives of former clients of McClure, given regulatory independence, the Ministry of Justice does not direct the SRA’s stakeholder engagement. However, I have discussed the impact of the firm’s collapse with the SRA and know that the SRA is continuing to meet with various stakeholders, including those representing former clients.

Any warning signs relating to McClure prior to the firm’s collapse, and when these were identified by legal services regulators, are similarly operational matters for the independent SRA. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.

In relation to successor firm requirements, SRA guidance for firms is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/closing-down-your-practice/. Under the SRA’s framework, its assessment is that Jones Whyte is not a successor practice. However, the firm must make sure it complies with a range of obligations, including those which have been set out in a compliance plan which the firm has agreed and on which the SRA is monitoring progress. This includes secure handling and storage of client papers and documents, and appropriate arrangements for file distribution and advice to impacted clients on their options.

With regard to changes to legal services regulation since the collapse of McClure, there has been continued work to strengthen how risks to consumers are identified and addressed. The SRA’s Corporate Strategy 2023-26 includes strengthening risk based and proactive regulation as a strategic priority and it has pursued action in this area. For example, in its recent Business Plan, the SRA sets out the steps it has taken to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly and take action to manage them effectively. The SRA has also indicated that it is accelerating this work, including through further investment in people and technology. In addition, the SRA is implementing changes in response to the LSB’s independent reviews of its regulation of Axiom Ince Ltd and SSB Group Ltd.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the statutory framework set by the Legal Services Act 2007 under review to ensure that it is operating effectively and protects consumers. The Government has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices. The Department's focus is on improving the enforcement of existing rules.

The Government recognises the financial loss, distress and uncertainty experienced by former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), particularly in relation to family protection trusts and wider estate planning arrangements.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. This includes McClure, as well as Jones Whyte which took on the work in progress and certain assets of McClure when it went into administration in April 2021. The SRA regulates the firms’ activities in England and Wales, with matters relating to their Scottish offices falling under the Law Society of Scotland. Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

With regards to asking the SRA to meet representatives of former clients of McClure, given regulatory independence, the Ministry of Justice does not direct the SRA’s stakeholder engagement. However, I have discussed the impact of the firm’s collapse with the SRA and know that the SRA is continuing to meet with various stakeholders, including those representing former clients.

Any warning signs relating to McClure prior to the firm’s collapse, and when these were identified by legal services regulators, are similarly operational matters for the independent SRA. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.

In relation to successor firm requirements, SRA guidance for firms is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/closing-down-your-practice/. Under the SRA’s framework, its assessment is that Jones Whyte is not a successor practice. However, the firm must make sure it complies with a range of obligations, including those which have been set out in a compliance plan which the firm has agreed and on which the SRA is monitoring progress. This includes secure handling and storage of client papers and documents, and appropriate arrangements for file distribution and advice to impacted clients on their options.

With regard to changes to legal services regulation since the collapse of McClure, there has been continued work to strengthen how risks to consumers are identified and addressed. The SRA’s Corporate Strategy 2023-26 includes strengthening risk based and proactive regulation as a strategic priority and it has pursued action in this area. For example, in its recent Business Plan, the SRA sets out the steps it has taken to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly and take action to manage them effectively. The SRA has also indicated that it is accelerating this work, including through further investment in people and technology. In addition, the SRA is implementing changes in response to the LSB’s independent reviews of its regulation of Axiom Ince Ltd and SSB Group Ltd.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the statutory framework set by the Legal Services Act 2007 under review to ensure that it is operating effectively and protects consumers. The Government has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices. The Department's focus is on improving the enforcement of existing rules.

The Government recognises the financial loss, distress and uncertainty experienced by former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), particularly in relation to family protection trusts and wider estate planning arrangements.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. This includes McClure, as well as Jones Whyte which took on the work in progress and certain assets of McClure when it went into administration in April 2021. The SRA regulates the firms’ activities in England and Wales, with matters relating to their Scottish offices falling under the Law Society of Scotland. Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

With regards to asking the SRA to meet representatives of former clients of McClure, given regulatory independence, the Ministry of Justice does not direct the SRA’s stakeholder engagement. However, I have discussed the impact of the firm’s collapse with the SRA and know that the SRA is continuing to meet with various stakeholders, including those representing former clients.

Any warning signs relating to McClure prior to the firm’s collapse, and when these were identified by legal services regulators, are similarly operational matters for the independent SRA. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.

In relation to successor firm requirements, SRA guidance for firms is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/closing-down-your-practice/. Under the SRA’s framework, its assessment is that Jones Whyte is not a successor practice. However, the firm must make sure it complies with a range of obligations, including those which have been set out in a compliance plan which the firm has agreed and on which the SRA is monitoring progress. This includes secure handling and storage of client papers and documents, and appropriate arrangements for file distribution and advice to impacted clients on their options.

With regard to changes to legal services regulation since the collapse of McClure, there has been continued work to strengthen how risks to consumers are identified and addressed. The SRA’s Corporate Strategy 2023-26 includes strengthening risk based and proactive regulation as a strategic priority and it has pursued action in this area. For example, in its recent Business Plan, the SRA sets out the steps it has taken to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly and take action to manage them effectively. The SRA has also indicated that it is accelerating this work, including through further investment in people and technology. In addition, the SRA is implementing changes in response to the LSB’s independent reviews of its regulation of Axiom Ince Ltd and SSB Group Ltd.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the statutory framework set by the Legal Services Act 2007 under review to ensure that it is operating effectively and protects consumers. The Government has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices. The Department's focus is on improving the enforcement of existing rules.

The Government recognises the financial loss, distress and uncertainty experienced by former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), particularly in relation to family protection trusts and wider estate planning arrangements.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. This includes McClure, as well as Jones Whyte which took on the work in progress and certain assets of McClure when it went into administration in April 2021. The SRA regulates the firms’ activities in England and Wales, with matters relating to their Scottish offices falling under the Law Society of Scotland. Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

With regards to asking the SRA to meet representatives of former clients of McClure, given regulatory independence, the Ministry of Justice does not direct the SRA’s stakeholder engagement. However, I have discussed the impact of the firm’s collapse with the SRA and know that the SRA is continuing to meet with various stakeholders, including those representing former clients.

Any warning signs relating to McClure prior to the firm’s collapse, and when these were identified by legal services regulators, are similarly operational matters for the independent SRA. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.

In relation to successor firm requirements, SRA guidance for firms is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/closing-down-your-practice/. Under the SRA’s framework, its assessment is that Jones Whyte is not a successor practice. However, the firm must make sure it complies with a range of obligations, including those which have been set out in a compliance plan which the firm has agreed and on which the SRA is monitoring progress. This includes secure handling and storage of client papers and documents, and appropriate arrangements for file distribution and advice to impacted clients on their options.

With regard to changes to legal services regulation since the collapse of McClure, there has been continued work to strengthen how risks to consumers are identified and addressed. The SRA’s Corporate Strategy 2023-26 includes strengthening risk based and proactive regulation as a strategic priority and it has pursued action in this area. For example, in its recent Business Plan, the SRA sets out the steps it has taken to improve how it uses data and intelligence to spot risks more swiftly and take action to manage them effectively. The SRA has also indicated that it is accelerating this work, including through further investment in people and technology. In addition, the SRA is implementing changes in response to the LSB’s independent reviews of its regulation of Axiom Ince Ltd and SSB Group Ltd.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the statutory framework set by the Legal Services Act 2007 under review to ensure that it is operating effectively and protects consumers. The Government has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices. The Department's focus is on improving the enforcement of existing rules.

The Government recognisessthat the PACCAR judgment introduced significant uncertainty about whether Litigation Funding Agreements remain valid and brought to light concerns about the regulatory regime that applies to them.

That is why, on 17 December 2025, we announced our intention to introduce legislation to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and bring in proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. Third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in access to justice and in maintaining the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction and we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government recognisessthat the PACCAR judgment introduced significant uncertainty about whether Litigation Funding Agreements remain valid and brought to light concerns about the regulatory regime that applies to them.

That is why, on 17 December 2025, we announced our intention to introduce legislation to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and bring in proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. Third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in access to justice and in maintaining the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction and we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

I am pleased to say there are currently no undue delays in listing trials in the commercial court. However, we are constantly seeking improvements in timeliness.

Listing and case management in the Commercial Court are matters for the judiciary. HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) supports the court to progress cases efficiently by:

• Maintaining robust listing and case progression processes and working closely with the senior judiciary to identify and resolve operational pinch points.
• Proactively monitoring the courts waiting times and making use of available deputy judges to ensure cases are heard without delays.
• Maximising the effective use of hearing capacity, including through flexible deployment across the Royal Courts of Justice estate and the continued use of remote hearings where appropriate.
• Making use of digital systems to streamline filing, case administration and communication with court users.
• Recent operational measures to manage pressure on the court system, including the transfer of lower value and less complex claims from the London Circuit Commercial Court to the Central London County Court. The London Circuit Commercial Court is also looking to increase judicial capacity which will assist the Commercial Court and its workload.
• In July 2025 the Commercial Court also increased the level at which new cases could commence to £7 million.

We continue to monitor performance with HMCTS and the judiciary and will support further operational improvements to help ensure cases are heard in a timely manner.

The most recent published statistics show that claim to possession order median timeliness is currently 7.6 weeks, an improvement from the same period in 2024, and within the 8 weeks set out in the Civil Procedure Rules: (Mortgage and landlord possession statistics - GOV.UK). As the Renters’ Rights Act is implemented, HMCTS will put in place measures including additional sitting days and administrative resource to ensure sufficient capacity is in place for the county court to handle the anticipated change to the possession caseload.

The digital service will offer an online route for making and responding to possession claims, filing documents, and receiving updates and outcomes, offering an improved user experience through guided journeys. It will reduce the time taken to deal with printing, posting and administrative handling of paper forms.

As with many criminal law provisions, section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 is brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State, to ensure sufficient time to take into account and manage impacts on the criminal justice system and operational preparedness.

We have now laid the regulations to bring section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 into force; they were signed by Minister Davies-Jones last week. The offences will come into force on 6 February (21 days after being signed) as is standard practice for new criminal offences.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill will provide non-means tested legal aid to bereaved family members at any inquests where a public authority is named as an interested person.

Under the Bill, an “individual” is defined as being a member of another individual’s family if they are relatives (whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership), they are cohabitants (as defined in Part 4 25 of the Family Law Act 1996), or one has parental responsibility for the other.

Legal aid consists of legal help and advocacy.

a. Legal help covers advice, assistance and preparation for an inquest but not advocacy at the hearing. Under the Bill’s expansion, multiple bereaved family members will be able to receive non-means tested legal help services where a public authority is named as an interested person.

b. Advocacy covers the instruction of an advocate (usually a barrister) to prepare for and attend the inquest hearing(s) to make submissions. The Bill limits advocacy funding to one member of each family – in practice, this level of service will be granted to the first family member to apply. We believe that one legally aided advocate should in most cases be sufficient to support each family through the inquest hearing and that it is reasonable to ask members of the same family to collaborate in the instruction of a single advocate.

We have a record and rising backlog, and as a result rape cases are waiting too long to be heard. We are therefore taking decisive action to address this backlog through bold court reforms, which we announced following Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. These reforms will speed up justice for all victims, including those of rape.

Alongside these reforms we are committed to improving the experience of attending court for victims of rape across all Crown Courts. We will be introducing a package of legislative measures to improve victims’ experience of giving evidence and to end reliance on so-called rape myths in the courtroom; we are rolling-out trauma-informed training for all HMCTS criminal court staff; and we have also committed to ensuring that the Operation Soteria model, which focuses investigations on the suspect and away from the victim, is continued in the courtroom post-charge.

We have interpreted this question as relating to successful appeals against verdicts, heard at the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on successful appeals against magistrates’ courts verdicts heard at the Crown Court in the Criminal Courts Statistics release. Data started being published from 2016. As a result, the dataset covers the past nine years. This can be found in column E of Table_C11 in the statistical tables: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

Figures for the number of successful appeals against convictions in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) are published annually in the Royal Courts of Justice tables within Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly. This can be found in column B of table 2.2: Royal_Courts_of_Justice_Annual_Tables_2024.ods.

Public bodies are expected to identify material risks to vulnerable consumers or levels of resource available for frontline services, including due to any mass legal claims, and are responsible for managing their impact.

The Ministry of Justice has a partnership relationship with each of its funded public bodies that enables the body to escalate new risks as appropriate. The Department carries out an annual risk assessment of each of its public bodies, where significant upcoming risks can be identified and an assessment of the impact made.

Additionally, public bodies that receive funding from the Ministry of Justice are responsible for working collaboratively with the Department as it determines the level of funding that will be provided to them annually. Any pressures that can be predicted due to mass legal claims would be expected to be raised with the Ministry of Justice and levels of resource would be discussed with those bodies on an individual basis through existing financial allocation processes.

Other Government Departments are responsible for the assessment of risks to public bodies sponsored by them.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the number of former clients affected by the collapse of WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure) and is therefore not in a position to publish those figures.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. Responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. Information about the impact of an individual firm’s closure on its former clients, including any estimates of affected client numbers, is a matter for the relevant regulator and those responsible for the firm’s former files.

Details of the SRA’s ongoing work in relation to McClure is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mcclure/.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operate independently of government. The responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales.

The SRA can publish information for clients following the collapse of a regulated firm, including guidance on their rights, options and routes to redress. This includes information on accessing client files, the role of the SRA’s intervention process, compensation arrangements where applicable, and signposting to complaints and redress bodies such as the Legal Ombudsman. For example, the SRA has published specific guidance for clients affected by WW&J McClure Ltd entering into administration in 2021, which is available here: SRA | WW&J McClure and Jones Whyte | Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The Government keeps the overall framework for legal services regulation under review and engages regularly with regulators. While the independent regulators publish information for clients affected by law firm collapses, the Government may seek to support access to this information for consumers where appropriate.

The Government is committed to ensuring access to justice, and we welcomed the Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into the Work of the County Court. As the Government acknowledged in its response, the County Court faces substantial challenges. However, performance is beginning to turn a corner with good progress being made towards a more efficient, timely and digitised service; and we expect this to continue.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) is a statutory body that advises the Lord Chancellor, the judiciary, and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Amongst its statutory functions, the CJC keeps the civil justice system under review and makes recommendations on, how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient. The CJC’s recent report into litigation funding has been critical in helping shape Government policy on improving the civil justice system.

Claimants may be able enter into a private agreement with a lawyer using a Conditional Fee Agreement or a Damages Based Agreement, or with a third-party funder using a Litigation Funding Agreement. Such agreements usually mean that a claimant will not have to pay all or part of their own legal costs unless they win their case. This payment would usually be deducted from the compensation awarded, though it could be defined as a percentage of compensation or a multiple of legal base costs, depending on the type of agreement used. Solicitors should inform their clients of any fees, and the circumstances in which their fees, or part of their fees, are payable.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the average percentage of a claimant’s compensation award that is taken up by legal and third-party costs.

Data on appeals to the Crown Court from magistrates’ courts are published as part of the Criminal Court Statistics quarterly release in table C11. Data is split into appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence with breakdowns provided for those ‘Allowed’ (the same definition as successful) / ‘Dismissed’ and ‘Abandoned or otherwise disposed’. There is no breakdown specifically available for ‘Withdrawn’.

Figures are also provided for the proportion of appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence that were successful (“Allowed”): ccsq_accessible_publication_tables_2025Q3.ods.

Appeals by way of case stated and Judicial reviews are heard in the High Court with some of these originating from the Crown and magistrates’ courts. Published statistics on the annual volume of judicial reviews can be found in Table 2.5: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

Data on appeals to the Crown Court from magistrates’ courts are published as part of the Criminal Court Statistics quarterly release in table C11. Data is split into appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence with breakdowns provided for those ‘Allowed’ (the same definition as successful) / ‘Dismissed’ and ‘Abandoned or otherwise disposed’. There is no breakdown specifically available for ‘Withdrawn’.

Figures are also provided for the proportion of appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence that were successful (“Allowed”): ccsq_accessible_publication_tables_2025Q3.ods.

Appeals by way of case stated and Judicial reviews are heard in the High Court with some of these originating from the Crown and magistrates’ courts. Published statistics on the annual volume of judicial reviews can be found in Table 2.5: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

Data on appeals to the Crown Court from magistrates’ courts are published as part of the Criminal Court Statistics quarterly release in table C11. Data is split into appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence with breakdowns provided for those ‘Allowed’ (the same definition as successful) / ‘Dismissed’ and ‘Abandoned or otherwise disposed’. There is no breakdown specifically available for ‘Withdrawn’.

Figures are also provided for the proportion of appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence that were successful (“Allowed”): ccsq_accessible_publication_tables_2025Q3.ods.

Appeals by way of case stated and Judicial reviews are heard in the High Court with some of these originating from the Crown and magistrates’ courts. Published statistics on the annual volume of judicial reviews can be found in Table 2.5: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the information required to calculate the proportion of Crown Court convictions and sentences that were appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

We intend to legislate to introduce proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements when parliamentary time allows. The new regulatory framework will aim to enhance claimant protection, transparency, and the effectiveness of the litigation funding market.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice. That is why we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government is aware of concerns that misleading "no win, no fee" advertising can expose consumers to unexpected financial risk, including through unclear information about fees, deductions, and related funding or insurance arrangements. Whether entering into a “no win, no fee” arrangement through a legal services provider or claims management company (CMC), consumers should receive clear and timely information about what they are agreeing to.

The legal and claims management sectors are regulated independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, including claims management activities they undertake. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates specified claims management activities carried out by CMCs.

The Ministry of Justice has been working closely with relevant regulators and partners across the system, including engagement with the SRA and FCA, to understand and support action to address risks to consumers in the high-volume consumer claims market. I met with both organisations recently and impressed upon the regulators the need for tougher, more consistent regulation of conditional fee agreements.

The SRA has, and is, undertaking a range of work in this area, including ongoing investigations, a thematic review and discussion paper, requiring mandatory compliance declarations from firms operating in the high-volume consumer claims sector, consumer research, and guidance and Warning Notices for law firms. This includes action to improve how “no win, no fee” arrangements are explained, including exploring standardised wording and templates to support clearer consumer communications. The SRA will also shortly be reminding firms of their current obligations by publishing a Warning Notice relating to “no win, no fee” claims. Further information on the SRA’s work in relation to high-volume consumer claims is available at: https://www.sra.org.uk/home/hot-topics/high-volume-consumer-claims/.

The FCA has set out clear expectations for CMC marketing and customer communications, including that promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading and that “no win, no fee” advertising must include prominent information about relevant fees and termination charges. The FCA has also intervened to require misleading CMC promotions to be amended or withdrawn, and has recently written to CMCs active in motor finance claims to remind them to review their promotions and ensure compliance with FCA rules and the Consumer Duty.

Data on the number of decisions made in the county courts and the proportion appealed to the Court of Appeal can be found in the following official publications: Royal_Courts_of_Justice_Annual_Tables_2024.ods.

High Court data is not broken down by source court, therefore the number of appeals originating from county courts cannot be determined.