Ministry of Justice

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. The Justice Committee and various organisations have considered a resentencing exercise but none have identified an approach that would not pose too great a risk to the public.

Whilst this Government does want to make progress in relation to IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk.

The Government recognises the vital role played by the legal profession in upholding access to justice and the rule of law, which is fundamental to a fair and democratic society. The Government is clear that intimidation, harassment or threats against legal professionals or their offices are wholly unacceptable. Where such behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, it is right that those responsible should face the full force of the law.

The Government works with partners across the justice system to promote respect for the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. Domestically, this is underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework designed to protect professional independence and integrity, consistent with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Internationally, the UK was proud to be among the first signatories to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer in May 2025, which sets clear international standards to ensure legal professionals can practise without harassment, intimidation, or improper interference.

In addition, there are robust security arrangements in place across courts and tribunals to protect all court users, including legal professionals. These include risk assessment measures to prevent, detect and respond to threats, such as security screening on entry, CCTV, and the powers of Court and Tribunal Security Officers to exclude, restrain or remove individuals threatening violence. The Government has also allocated over £20 million in additional funding in 2025/26 to further strengthen court and judicial security, including additional security officers and physical security systems.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Government, in conjunction with other bodies such as the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body), professional bodies and regulators, keeps the civil justice system and regulatory framework under review to ensure it is operating effectively, fairly and transparently.

Protections for consumers who seek compensation through collective action litigation are provided through the legal and regulatory framework governing legal services. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) independently regulates solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, including those advising consumers in collective action claims, and requires them to comply with professional standards to protect consumers. This includes duties to act in clients’ best interests, to provide clear and transparent information about costs and risks, and for firms to maintain effective complaints-handling procedures to allow consumers to seek redress. Where appropriate, consumers can also refer their complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, which considers complaints about the standard of legal services provided.

We are aware of concerns around fairness and transparency in cases funded by third-party litigation funders, many of which are collective action cases. In light of these concerns, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and wide-ranging review of litigation funding which has been critical in informing our policy development in this area. As recommended by the Council, we will introduce a new regulatory framework aimed at enhancing claimant protection, transparency, and the effectiveness of the litigation funding market. We recognise 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 has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.

Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).

During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.

Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).

During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

For the period from April 2022 to March 2023:

• Adults released from a custodial sentence had a proven reoffending rate of 37.5%. Men released from custody had a reoffending rate of 36.9% and women released from custody had a reoffending rate of 46.0%.

• The average number of reoffences per reoffender following release from custody was 5.18 for men and 6.78 for women.

• The total number of reoffences was 80,293 for men and 9,718 for women.

Proven reoffending rates, average number of reoffences per reoffender, and the total number of reoffences by sentence length for men and women can be found in the attached Excel table.

Public protection is our priority so offenders out on licence face strict conditions such as being tagged and can be hauled back to prison if they break these rules. Since 2018, recalled offenders have doubled — a symptom of the prison crisis this Government inherited. That’s why we're reforming sentencing and building 14,000 extra places, to make sure punishment cuts crime, reduces reoffending and keeps victims safe.

The information requested is set out in the attached table.

Please note that the figures in the table 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.

Where necessary, [c] has been used to suppress values of one or two to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Further disclosure control may be completed where this alone is not sufficient. This could include the secondary suppression of zero values.

The information requested is published and can be accessed at the following link: Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK.

The information requested is set out in the table below:

Offenders assessed as high to very high risk of serious harm, released homeless or rough sleeping on first night of release, England and Wales, April 2024 - March 2025.

All prisoners at risk of becoming homeless and who are supervised by probation can be offered up to 12 weeks of basic accommodation on release by HM Prison and Probation Service with support to move to settled accommodation. This programme has been gradually rolled out nationwide since July 2021 and since then has supported over 23,100 prison leavers who would otherwise have been homeless. For those prison leavers and people on probation who present the highest levels of risk of harm, placements can be provided through our CAS1 Approved Premises provision.

Data caveats:

• Data sourced from nDelius; while data has been assured as much as practical, as with any large administrative dataset, the possibility of errors cannot be eliminated.

• To protect the disclosure of personal information of any individual, all cases within the tables are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.

• Releases from custody include: releases following recall, releases following committal to custody for breach of post sentence supervision and releases at sentence expiry or post sentence supervision expiry.

• Release on temporary licence (RoTL), releases where the individual is subject to same-day recall to custody, releases from unsupervised short sentences and releases both to and from Immigration Removal Centres are not included.

• Where an offender has been released from custody more than once in the period, they will be counted once for each release, with the accommodation circumstance relevant at the time of that release.

• In instances where an individual has had multiple releases on the same day, only one of the records is assessed. All other instances of the records are excluded.

• Due to use of different inclusion criteria and data cleansing, the total volume of releases in this dataset will not necessarily match official statistics for total offender releases.

Paid advertising on X was suspended in April 2023 following a SAFE Framework assessment. X is currently used only for organic (non-paid) content to communicate policies and public services.

No expenditure has been made by the Ministry of Justice with X since July 2024.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.

Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.

While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.

The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.

Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.

While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.

The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.

Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.

While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.

The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold information on how many civil servants are employed to work in roles primarily focused on (a) transgender policy, (b) diversity, (c) equity and (d) inclusion; and at what annual salary cost.

It is estimated that locating and extracting this information would result in disproportionate costs.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice.

1. In the Crown Court for this financial year (2025/26), we are funding 111,250 sitting days – the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year. The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2026-27, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise and his ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament. We will provide Parliament with an update on the sitting day allocations in the usual way at the conclusion of the Concordat process.

2. Prisoners should be produced on time and we are committed to making improvements where we can. Prisoner transport delivery is regularly reviewed and a significant number of contract changes have been made already to adapt to the changing operational requirement. But even if every prison van ran like clockwork tomorrow, we would still be left with a backlog edging towards 100,000 cases. Prisoner transport delays are a symptom of a stretched system, not a cure for it.

3. There is no quick fix to the criminal courts crisis, and no single lever that can be pulled. It is vital that all system partners work together to deliver swifter justice for victims. We continue to talk to system partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to consider options, including those in Sir Brian Leveson’s Part I report on criminal court reform. In June 2025, the Chancellor announced a landmark increase of £96 million (RDELex) in additional funding for the CPS over the spending review period 2026-2029. This will help CPS protect victims by tackling the backlog, speeding up justice, and delivering a justice system that services victims.

4. We are investing up to an additional £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We are also taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages, with a particular focus on opening a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society.

5. This Government has also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing £148.5 million in court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous Government funded last financial year.

But investment alone is not enough – that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why structural court reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is committed to improving the experience of users contacting us by telephone. We have migrated call handling for a number of services from local courts and tribunals to centrally managed National Service Centres. Since migration telephony wait times continue to improve, for example, average call waiting times in our digital service centres have fallen year on year, from 17 minutes in December 2023, to 15 minutes in December 2024, and to 13 minutes in December 2025, against our 15-minutes target.

A proportion of callers continue to use older phone numbers that appear on historic paperwork or in third‑party online sources retained by citizens and professionals. To avoid leaving these callers without guidance, HMCTS maintains recorded messages on such lines to signpost to the correct, active number or service.

50% of magistrates’ courts were closed under previous Governments between 2010 and 2020.

Estate capacity is not a limiting factor to sitting the funded days in the magistrates courts. In other words, we are investing in more court staff, legal aid and judge time so that magistrates can hear more cases - up to £450 million in additional courts funding per year. There is therefore a difference between system capacity and physical capacity of courtrooms. Running courtrooms requires not just available courtrooms, but judicial time, and sufficient numbers of legal professionals.

We continue to keep the court estate under review to ensure it meets operational priorities. Projects to boost court capacity across the country include a new Magistrate’s Court in Blackpool and an additional 18 court rooms in the City of London.

Where a young adult lacks mental capacity, the law requires parents or a guardian to have legal authority to make decisions on their behalf about financial assets or property. This longstanding requirement is vital in ensuring that vulnerable people are safeguarded and protected from potential financial abuse. The requirement for legal authority extends to accessing funds held in a Child Trust Fund or a Junior ISA.

On 9 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice published the ‘Making Financial Decisions for young people: parent and carer toolkit’ explaining the process by which parents and guardians of disabled children who lack capacity can obtain legal authority if no other arrangements are in place to provide such authority. This can be done by making an application to the Court of Protection for an order authorising access to monies held in a Child Trust Fund or Junior ISA. The toolkit is available on Gov.UK. Information to assist parents or carers in the completion of one of the required court forms can be found here: How to apply to make property and finance decisions on someone’s behalf (including Child Trust Funds) - GOV.UK

Ministers are working closely to consider what further steps could be taken to ameliorate the process for supporting young people without capacity to access small value capital assets. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with key stakeholders to understand more about the difficulties and potential changes to address these while maintaining necessary safeguards.

The Government is committed to improving performance of, and to reducing demands on, the civil courts. We have put in place measures such as the introduction of digital systems through the HMCTS Reform Programme to drive performance improvements and are focused on increasing capacity through more judicial recruitment.

The quarterly period covering July to September 2025, showed that the median time taken for small claims to go from issue to trial was 39 weeks, 5.9 weeks faster than the same period in 2024. For fast, intermediate and multi-track claims, it was 60 weeks, 5.1 weeks faster than a year earlier. This shows a positive trend regarding timeliness. Published statistics can be found in table 1_5 of the main tables here: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

We recognise the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly. 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 findings will inform decisions on further expansions of mandatory mediation.

The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) is the independent body responsible for administering the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) scheme. The Legal Services Board (LSB), as the oversight regulator, has statutory duties to monitor the OLC.

The collapse of a law firm does not prevent complaints being investigated by the LeO or any remedies it might direct from being recovered. Although the LeO requires each affected consumer to raise a complaint about the law firm, it has procedures that can be put in place to manage situations where a large number of consumers may be affected. These include the ability to prioritise cases where it is appropriate to do so and to work with other bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to ensure consumers are supported and appropriately signposted.

While the OLC and LeO remain independent in their decision-making, the Ministry of Justice provides additional oversight and accountability to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest. For monitoring purposes, the OLC reports regularly to both the LSB and the Ministry of Justice on performance, including information on demand, backlogs and timeliness.

The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of LeO’s complaints system in cases involving the collapse of a single legal firm affecting large numbers of consumers. However, the Government recognises that the LeO has faced wider operational pressures in recent years and continues to monitor the performance and resilience of the complaints system by engaging the LSB and the OLC Board through existing oversight arrangements.

Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is taking steps to improve the service it provides Court and Tribunal users, for example, through the delivery of the Service Improvement Framework which focuses on written communications, telephone call handling, complaint handling and public facing information. This will be in place from April 2026.

HMCTS has developed an Accessibility Strategy following a Government Internal Audit Agency recommendation in September 2024 and is building an action plan to support delivery of the strategy.

HMCTS’ new digital services are designed and built to be simple, accessible, and easy to use. HMCTS has a digital support service to help those who are digitally excluded (based on access, skills or confidence) to complete digital forms.  HMCTS digital services are required to comply with The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018, under the Equality Act 2018. Our digital services are tested against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 AA Standard to make sure they comply with the regulations.

To improve call handling within HMCTS, some services, including Crime Magistrates, Civil and Family, have migrated call handling from local Courts into National Service centres. This change was made in recognition that a more efficient and consistent service can be delivered through modern technology and centrally managed, dedicated contact centre teams.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) HR does not hold information relating to people employed to answer phone enquiries for the High Court. This is because answering telephone enquiries is a responsibility spanning multiple different role profiles.

No HMCTS role has the sole responsibility of answering telephone enquiries in its entirety, and so the word “telephone” or “phone” does not feature in any job titles.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The Department is the data controller for HMCTS data, and the Ministry of Justice Data Protection Officer (DPO) covers HMCTS.

HMCTS has a Data Protection Governance team which works closely with the Ministry of Justice DPO, to maintain a Data Protection Framework. The framework supports HMCTS staff to discharge their duties in compliance with data protection laws. HMCTS publishes Personal Information Charters for court and tribunal users, to help them understand how HMCTS uses and protects personal data. The HMCTS Personal Information Charters can be found here.

HMCTS maintains Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) for processing activities and produces data sharing agreements where HMCTS data is shared with partners across the justice system.

All HMCTS staff must complete annual mandatory data security training which covers handling and protecting personal data. These measures ensure that courts uphold high standards in the handling and protection of personal data in accordance with data protection legislation.

We are unable to provide data on calls made to local Court and Tribunal venues. However, HM Courts & Tribunals Service regularly publishes data on calls made to service centres which can be found through the following link: HMCTS management information – modernised services - GOV.UK.

The Civil Procedure Rules provide a framework for a fair, transparent, efficient and proportionate civil justice system. The Rules are regularly updated to support court services, to reflect wider changes in legislation and societal need, and in response to issues in practice and case law. Generally, there are at least two statutory instruments per year (April and October) which amend the Rules and ensure they remain up to date and relevant. These updates are made under the negative resolution SI process, which is subject to the related parliamentary scrutiny, having first been signed by Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) members, Master of the Rolls and Minister of State for Justice.

In addition to the Government keeping the Rules under review in conjunction with the CPRC, the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls) keeps the civil justice system under review and makes recommendations on, how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient. The Council routinely refers proposed amendments to the Rules to the CPRC for consideration.

The Government understands the importance of timely and effective civil justice to England and Wales’ position as an international centre of dispute resolution. We are working towards our goal of a civil justice system in which people and businesses can resolve their disputes and exercise their rights quickly and efficiently at the earliest opportunity.

We acknowledge that the slow processing of claims can have a detrimental effect on business, and that lengthy civil disputes are a drag on economic growth. The quarterly period covering July to September 2025 showed the median time taken for small claims to go from issue to trial 5.9 weeks faster than the year before. For fast, intermediate and multi-track claims, it was 5.1 weeks faster than the year before. It is worth noting, however, this metric only captures the claims which go to full hearing: less than 5% of County Court claims issued. Timeliness is not the only factor which makes our justice system competitive; the high quality of our legal services and judiciary, the international appeal of English Law and our clear procedural rules all contribute to our status as jurisdiction of choice for international litigation.

Data on compensation and costs awarded for Employment Tribunal on age discrimination is published within the official statistics: Employment_and_EAT_2023_24.ods.

We intend to introduce legislation to deliver structural reforms to the criminal courts, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 December 2025 in response to Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The UK legal sector is a national asset and an engine of economic growth. As highlighted in the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy, in 2024 alone, the UK legal sector contributed £42.6 billion to the economy and posted a trade surplus of £7.4 billion. The UK is the largest legal services market in Europe and is second only to the US globally. English law is vital to global trade and investment and governs 40% of cross-border business transactions, £11.5 billion in mediation cases and £80 billion in insurance contracts annually. The Ministry of Justice is committed to supporting the sector’s growth and to maintaining the UK’s position at the forefront of global legal services.

As a catalyst for economic growth, legal services play an important role in the UK’s growth agenda. The Ministry of Justice works to support UK legal services across the globe, including in the European Union. My Department is working closely across government, with our EU counterparts and with the legal sector, to support the implementation of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The Agreement includes a specific provision on legal services that entitles UK lawyers to practise home and international law across the EU without further qualification. This is helping to maintain the UK’s strong cross-border legal capability and ensuring continued access to European markets.

To maintain the UK’s position at the forefront of global legal services, as part of the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Justice has designed bespoke interventions to support growth across key areas of the sector. They focus on enhancing our court system and the attractiveness of the jurisdiction, supporting lawtech growth, demonstrating our commitment to the Rule of Law and maintaining the strength of English and Welsh law. As a major step in delivering our commitments, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the English Law Promotion Panel on 8 December 2025. Bringing together academics, and key legal, business and marketing experts, the Panel will focus on how to reinforce English and Welsh law’s status as a leading choice for international business. My Department also leads the GREAT legal services campaign, a long-standing initiative showcasing the strengths of English and Welsh law, promoting the UK as a leading hub for international dispute resolution and facilitating international engagement with overseas partners. I have joined GREAT trade missions including visits to Toronto in November 2025 and Chicago in April 2025 to personally champion UK legal services to a global audience.