Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of the implementation of fixed release dates by the Parole Board.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Prisoners serving a determinate sentence are usually released automatically at a point fixed by legislation relating to their sentence. In contrast, indeterminate sentenced prisoners can only be released by the Parole Board after the expiry of their tariff. They must serve a minimum term, in full, in prison, at the end of which they can only be released if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined. Therefore, introducing release dates fixed by the Parole Board would primarily affect indeterminate sentences.

In accordance with legislation, an indeterminate sentenced prisoner must have a parole review to consider whether the release test is met and if not, to confirm further detention. Reviews take place just prior to tariff expiry and then at least every two years thereafter. The setting of fixed release dates would not be compatible with the need for release to be based on the current risk posed by offenders and whether they could be managed safely if released into the community on licence.

During the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026, the House of Lords voted against an amendment to legislate for the Parole Board to fix a future release date for IPP prisoners.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted for theft of a motor vehicle excluding aggravated vehicle taking for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft of a motor vehicle excluding aggravated vehicle taking, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted for theft from a vehicle other than a motor vehicle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft from a vehicle other than a motor vehicle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted for aggravated taking of a vehicle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for aggravated taking of a vehicle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft from a motor vehicle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted of theft from a motor vehicle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft of a pedal cycle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft of a pedal cycle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people who received a sentence of unpaid work failed to (a) start and (b) complete their sentence in each of the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested can be found in the following table:

Periods marked with an asterisk (*) indicate incomplete performance years. The data provided is from July 2021, the month following the reunification of the Probation Service.

All data has been sourced from nDelius on 13/04/2026. While this data has been assured as much as practical, as with any large administrative dataset, the data should not be assumed to be accurate to the last value presented.

Please note, data relating to those sentenced in 2025/26 has not been provided as recording of this period is still ongoing and it would therefore not portray a true reflection of current performance.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of individuals sentenced to an unpaid work requirement last year were given a (a) community order, (b) suspended sentence order, (c) youth rehabilitation order, (d) enforcement order and (e) supervision default order.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many community sentences were passed in each of the last ten years; and what proportion of these included an unpaid work requirement.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of sentences given in each of the last five years included an unpaid work requirement.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether their Department has used artificial intelligence to assist with drafting (a) legislation and (b) policy in the past 12 months.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice has rolled out general purpose artificial intelligence tools like Microsoft Copilot across the Department to enhance productivity and support the work of all staff, including policy professionals. AI is being used to assist the policy-making process with tasks like brainstorming ideas, clarifying drafting, and searching for publicly available information. The Department encourages officials to always cross-validate the outputs of AI rather than blindly trusting them, applying human judgement and oversight as appropriate.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 4 September 2025 to Question 70519 on Public Inquiries, what estimate she has made of the cost to the public purse of the Nottingham Inquiry.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

In fulfilment of the PM’s commitment, this Government established a statutory Inquiry into the horrific attacks that took place in Nottingham in 2023. The Inquiry was formally announced by the previous Lord Chancellor to Parliament on 22 April.

The total cost of the Nottingham Inquiry from its commencement up to 31/03/26 is £10.9 million.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has taken steps to implement the Law Commission’s July 2022 recommendations on weddings law reform in England and Wales; and whether his Department has published any progress reports.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government announced on 2 October 2025 that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows, taking forward the two key elements from the Law Commission report. We will move to a more flexible system that gives couples greater choice over where and how they marry and simplify the legal framework so that it is fairer, more consistent and reflects modern society, while continuing to protect the dignity of marriage.

Ahead of these reforms, we will be undertaking a public consultation early this year. This consultation will seek views from wide range of stakeholders, including members of the public, couples, celebrants, and others to ensure broad engagement by those affected by and interested in weddings law.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the consultation on the Marriage Act 1949 reforms will be launched; how long it will run; and what steps will be taken to ensure the broad engagement with all stakeholders including couples and celebrants.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government announced on 2 October 2025 that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows, taking forward the two key elements from the Law Commission report. We will move to a more flexible system that gives couples greater choice over where and how they marry and simplify the legal framework so that it is fairer, more consistent and reflects modern society, while continuing to protect the dignity of marriage.

Ahead of these reforms, we will be undertaking a public consultation early this year. This consultation will seek views from wide range of stakeholders, including members of the public, couples, celebrants, and others to ensure broad engagement by those affected by and interested in weddings law.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average processing time was for applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme by people resident in Glasgow in each of the last five years.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The table below shows the average time for decisions to be made on applications* for criminal injuries compensation by people resident in Glasgow**.

*  The table does not include archived bereavement applications because the address of the applicant is not retained. In most cases, applications are archived three years after the case has been closed.

** The above table includes all applications where the applicant named Glasgow as the city in their home address in their application.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people in Glasgow received awards under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in each of the last five years; and what the value of those awards was.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The table below provides the number of compensation awards paid in each of the last five financial years to applicants living in Glasgow.

Number of compensation awards paid to applicants living in Glasgow* ** 

* The above table includes all awards where the applicant named Glasgow as the city in their home address in their application.

**The table does not include archived bereavement applications because the address of the applicant is not retained. In most cases, applications are archived three years after the case has been closed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to improve standards in relation to bailiffs.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government is committed to strengthening the regulation of the private enforcement (bailiff) sector and establishing an independent regulatory framework as soon as parliamentary time allows. Last year, we consulted on how to do so in a way that ensures that regulation is targeted, proportionate, as well as ensuring fair treatment for everyone, including people in vulnerable circumstances. This will build on the excellent work that the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) is already doing on a voluntary basis to improve standards in the sector. This includes the recent publication in March 2026 of Vulnerability and Ability to Pay Standards, strengthening expectations on the identification of vulnerability, affordability assessments and the use of sustainable repayment arrangements.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will include anti-SLAPP legislation in the King's Speech in May 2026.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have a chilling effect on public participation and freedom of expression, posing a threat to our legal system and democracy. The Government is committed to tackling SLAPPs and is considering all options for reform to address this issue.

The legislative programme for the second session will be set out in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what criteria HMCTS applies when determining whether to approve or refuse bulk or systematic access to court transcripts following notification by a transcription provider; and who within HMCTS is responsible for making such decisions.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

HMCTS applies clear contractual and governance criteria when considering whether to approve or refuse bulk or systematic access to court transcripts.

Under HMCTS transcription contracts, suppliers must not provide transcripts or grant access to transcripts to third parties on a bulk or standing or systematic basis without the prior approval of HMCTS.

Responsibility for these decisions lies with HMCTS, acting through its designated contract management and operational teams with specialist advice sought as necessary. Approval of requests are based on the following:

• Legal compliance

• Security and information assurance requirements

• Operational and reputational risk

• Lawful, proportionate and consistent with the original purpose

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will consider the potential merits of introducing a national duty of care for bailiffs.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government is committed to strengthening the regulation of the private enforcement (bailiff) sector and establishing an independent regulatory framework as soon as parliamentary time allows. Last year, we consulted on how to do so in a way that ensures that regulation is targeted, proportionate, as well as ensuring fair treatment for everyone, including people in vulnerable circumstances. This will build on the excellent work that the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) is already doing on a voluntary basis to improve standards in the sector. This includes the recent publication in March 2026 of Vulnerability and Ability to Pay Standards, strengthening expectations on the identification of vulnerability, affordability assessments and the use of sustainable repayment arrangements.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by breakdowns in infrastructure including a) power cuts, b) lack of water supply for drinking and flushing toilets, c) broken lifts and d) water ingress from the roof in each of the last 3 years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The questions have been interpreted as asking for data for all Magistrates’ and Crown Courts in the last 3 full calendar years (2023, 2024 and 2025).

The specific information requested is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective or vacated due to Accommodation / equipment failure generally, is published quarterly in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by technical problems with the a) Crown Court Digital Case System and b) Common Platform in each of the last 3 years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The questions have been interpreted as asking for data for all Magistrates’ and Crown Courts in the last 3 full calendar years (2023, 2024 and 2025).

The specific information requested is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective or vacated due to Accommodation / equipment failure generally, is published quarterly in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by the defendant not being produced from prison as required in each of the last three years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The figures below show the total number of reported delays to hearings and trials over the last three years where the defendant was not produced from prison as required on time. The figures reflect overall reported incidents rather than being attributed solely to the PECS supplier.

2023 = 1072

2024 = 1272

2025 = 1297

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent sustained levels of PECS supplier delivery to court, with supplier-attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.

We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and I have launched a new oversight body established to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by the court having failed to book an interpreter in each of the last three years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

An ineffective trial is defined as a trial that does not proceed on the scheduled trial date and therefore requires a further listing. This may arise due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence, the court, or a combination of these factors.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of delayed hearings or trials specifically attributable to the court failing to book an interpreter. While published data includes ineffective trials recorded under the reason “no interpreter available”, this category covers a range of circumstances. These include situations where the supplier was unable to fulfil a booking, or where a booked interpreter cancelled at short notice and there was insufficient time to secure a replacement, as well as the court having failed to book an interpreter. The data cannot be disaggregated further to distinguish between a failure to make a booking and other interpreter related issues that may have caused the delay.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the quality and timeliness of services provided to victims of crime by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

CICA understands the importance of its role in giving recognition, redress and closure to its applicants. It works closely with a range of victims’ organisations including those that are members of its biannual Stakeholder Engagement Forum. This continues to provide valuable insights which help to inform how it can further improve its service.

On 4 August 2025 I visited CICA staff at their offices in Glasgow to see for myself and better understand the work that they do, both to process applications and to make future improvements to their service. I hope it will reassure you that throughout my visit, it was very clear to me that staff are committed to making the compensation application process as straightforward as possible and to minimise its potential for re-traumatisation of victims. Clear and sensitive communication is a clear priority. I was struck on my visit by the organisation’s clear dedication to supporting victims through their application journey.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department will publish the details and allocations of its £550 million investment over the next three years in victim support services as part of the Government's violence against women and girls strategy.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

This Government is committed to halving Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this mission. The Ministry of Justice has committed £550 million in funding for victim and witness support services over the next three years, including year-on-year increases. This includes funding for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, and national services such as the Witness Service and the Homicide Service.

We do not routinely publish the full Ministry of Justice budget for victim and witness support services. The budgets for individual PCC areas are published on each area’s website. A breakdown of grant funding for the previous financial year is published on an annual basis on the Government Grants Information System. The latest data, released in March 2026, covers the 2024-2025 financial year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 22 January 2026 to Question 106177, on Rents: Appeals, whether any programmes of works detailed in that Answer are estimated not to be completed before the implementation of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 on 1 May 2026.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

All the programmes of work detailed in the answer to Question 106177 are expected to be completed by implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 on 1 May 2026. This includes recruitment exercises for additional administrative staff, establishment of a centralised operational hub, updates to operational processes, availability of suitable estates capacity for hearings and enhancements to technology systems.

Recruitment of judges and members for the Property Chamber is ongoing, with further recruitment exercises planned throughout 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department holds data on the outstanding caseload in the County Court in England and Wales.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

No data is held regarding outstanding caseloads in the County Court in England and Wales. Civil cases do not progress through the court system in a linear way. The vast majority of civil cases settle, are resolved by default judgment, or conclude outside of a final court hearing. Only about 3% of cases are disposed of at a final hearing. Given this, and the fact that civil claims are often driven by party behaviour, an outstanding caseload figure would not provide a fair or meaningful reflection of County Court demand or performance.

I can confirm County Court performance is improving, with the median time taken from claim issue to hearing falling for all tracks. The median time taken for small claims to go to trial was 36.1 weeks in October to December 2025, 6.4 weeks faster than the same period in 2024. The median time taken for fast/intermediate/multi track claims to go to trial was 9.3 weeks faster than the same period last year, at 57.4 weeks in the current quarter.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department collects data on document handling errors or lost filings in County Court civil cases.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The information requested is not held centrally. The terms “document handling errors” and “lost filings” are broad and may encompass a wide range of issues, making it difficult to provide a specific or reliable answer. HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims through work to digitalise processes.

The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of civil justice with £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court.

Found: England) Regulations 2026 Instruments not reported 4 Annex 4 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Ministry of Justice

Found: from the Government’s Actuary Department, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Ministry of Justice

Found: of Jury, Berggruen Institute for ‘Transformative Ideas’, California24 2010: Member of the Ministry of Justice

Found: Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice

Found: unequivocal in stating that, while some organisations will be asked for their input, ‘this does not include MoJ

Found: than all other young people to be NEET - with recent figures indicating a NEET rate of 38%;7 • Ministry of Justice

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th Ministry of Justice

Found: Given that courts come directly under the oversight of the Ministry of Justice, do you think that that

Found: This will be supported cross- government working between the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to ensure

Found: defendant records in England and Wales between 2013 and 2020 (McSweeney, 2023; 2024), using Ministry of Justice

Found: T 020 3334 3555 F 0870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj 102

Found: Letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee

Found: Letter from the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee

Found: Lord Timpson Minister of State for Justice MoJ ref: SUB132831 Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Chair

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: introducing-the-ai-safety-institute 59 See: AI Security Institute, https://www.aisi.gov.uk/ 60 Ministry of Justice

Found: As the Ministry of Justice is one of a small number of government departments with published plans for

Found: As the Ministry of Justice is one of a small number of government departments with published plans for

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: On concerns around judicial cooperation in civil matters, a Ministry of Justice Minister will be in

Found: The Ministry of Justice and Preparedness has also issued a White Paper on Total Preparedness, and is

Found: Government (OTJ0015) the UK’s relations with the Crown Dependencies, which lies with the Ministry of Justice

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2025 to Question 92754, on Rents: Appeals, whether (a) suitable arrangements for monitoring data relating to rent increase challenges in the Residential Property Tribunal and (b) all other necessary work to prepare the justice system has been or will be completed prior to implementation of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 on 1 May 2026.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department continues to work closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service to ensure that the justice system is well prepared for the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act, including the potential impact of the Act on the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

This includes ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place for monitoring data relating to rent increase challenges in the Residential Property Tribunal.

The justice system will be supported with appropriate funding to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the workload that implementation of the Act will generate.

All other necessary work to prepare the justice system is expected to be completed by 1 May 2026.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what additional resources have been allocated to Norfolk Constabulary specifically for the prevention of violence against women and girls in the Great Yarmouth area over the last five years.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

The Home Office funded police forces who were yet to undertake the Domestic Abuse Matters training which provides specialist domestic abuse training to police. In 2024/ 2025 we provided £83,056 funding to Norfolk to deliver this training.

Support for victims and survivors of VAWG crimes at a local level is funded through local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) rather than the Home Office. The Home Office invested over £20 million in 2025/26 to support victims of VAWG and raise awareness of these horrific crimes, including over £6 million for VAWG Helplines and over £2.6 million for the Flexible Fund, which offers direct cash payments for victims fleeing domestic abuse. These schemes are available for all victims across England and Wales.

Through the Domestic Abuse and Stalking Perpetrator Intervention Fund, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk has been allocated £1,082,500 across the financial years 2023-24 to 2026-27. This funding aims to improve the safety, and feeling of safety, of victims and their children, by reducing the risk posed by perpetrators through locally commissioned perpetrator interventions.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk of pre-emptive evictions of private rented sector tenants prior to the full commencement of the abolition of no-fault evictions; and what is their policy on ministerial engagement with individuals or companies undertaking such activity.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The Government is clear that there is no need for landlords to evict tenants ahead of the ban on no fault evictions on 1 May and landlords should give tenants the housing security they deserve. We will continue to engage across the sector ahead of 1 May to prevent unnecessary evictions and ensure smooth implementation of the new tenancy system.

Landlords will have robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. As such, my Department does not expect a spike in section 21 evictions ahead of implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026. The latest Ministry of Justice official possession statistics (attached) show that there was a 17% decrease in section 21 accelerated possession claims in England in October to December 2025 when compared to the same quarter in the previous year.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she will issue guidance to local authorities and other public bodies on the retention of historic records that may be relevant to investigations into group-based child sexual exploitation.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.

Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.

This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.

Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.

The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.

We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the risk that relevant records may have been destroyed before formal retention notices were issued; and what steps she has taken to ensure no loss of material occurs.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.

Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.

This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.

Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.

The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.

We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of whether all relevant public bodies have taken the necessary steps to preserve records that may be required by the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.

Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.

This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.

Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.

The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.

We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what systems her department has put in place to ensure that local authorities, police forces and other agencies cannot delete or destroy records that may be relevant to the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.

Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.

This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.

Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.

The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.

We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what estimate her Department has made of the number of Section 21 eviction notices issued in (a) West Dorset constituency and (b) the South West in the 12 months prior to the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department does not expect a spike in Section 21 notices ahead of implementation Phase 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026.

The latest Ministry of Justice official possession statistics, which can be found on gov.uk here, show that there was a 17% decrease in Section 21 accelerated possession claims in England between October and December 2025 when compared to the same quarter in the previous year.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment her Department has made of the number of landlords issuing Section 21 eviction notices in advance of the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Act.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department does not expect a spike in Section 21 notices ahead of implementation Phase 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026.

The latest Ministry of Justice official possession statistics, which can be found on gov.uk here, show that there was a 17% decrease in Section 21 accelerated possession claims in England between October and December 2025 when compared to the same quarter in the previous year.

Found: (MoJ) is responsible for assessing whether individuals have had their convictions quashed

Found: DBT DBT HMT , HMRC, Ministry of Justice and DWP July 2024 No set end date No LGBT Financial Recognition

Found: funded directly by a department (for example, the prisons and probation estate managed by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Government Legal Department 2025-11-06 00:00:00 Accommodation: Rent Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found: Department 2025-08-26 00:00:00 Accommodation: Service Charges Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found: Government Legal Department 2025-09-09 00:00:00 Ext Serv: HR Casework Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found: condition Where a person is subject to an EM condition imposed as part of their management by the Ministry of Justice

Found: direction as part of the appeal hearing, reimbursement of appeal fees falls under the remit of Ministry of Justice

Found: personally to do work, or at the very least, a person having the same protection ( Gilham v Ministry of Justice

Found: Department 2025-08-26 00:00:00 Accommodation: Service Charges Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found: Government Legal Department 2025-11-06 00:00:00 Accommodation: Rent Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found: Government Legal Department 2025-09-09 00:00:00 Ext Serv: HR Casework Chief Operating Officer Group Ministry Of Justice

Found:

Found: , Communities & Local Government PINS 02/02/2026 Steady State Service Provision People Unit MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Found: Analysis by the Ministry of Justice found that the case prompted widespread outrage online.

Found: FROMTHELORDLEMOSGOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE GOVERNMENTWHIPFCDO,MOJ,HO,TIOUSEOFLORDS 020.72196802LONDONSW1AOPW